Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Jean Monnet Chair of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

Defying expectations, the United States and China have announced an important agreement to de-escalate bilateral trade tensions after talks in Geneva, Switzerland.

The good, the bad and the ugly

The good news is their recent tariff increases will be slashed. The US has cut tariffs on Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, while China has reduced levies on US imports from 125% to 10%. This greatly eases major bilateral trade tensions, and explains why financial markets rallied.

The bad news is twofold. First, the remaining tariffs are still high by modern standards. The US average trade-weighted tariff rate was 2.2% on January 1 2025, while it is now estimated to be up to 17.8%. This makes it the highest tariff wall since the 1930s.

Overall, it is very likely a new baseline has been set. Bilateral tariff-free trade belongs to a bygone era.

Second, these tariff reductions will be in place for 90 days, while negotiations continue. Talks will likely include a long list of difficult-to-resolve issues. China’s currency management policy and industrial subsidies system dominated by state-owned enterprises will be on the table. So will the many non-tariff barriers Beijing can turn on and off like a tap.

China is offering to purchase unspecified quantities of US goods – in a repeat of a US-China “Phase 1 deal” from Trump’s first presidency that was not implemented. On his first day in office in January, amid a blizzard of executive orders, Trump ordered a review of that deal’s implementation. The review found China didn’t follow through on the agriculture, finance and intellectual property protection commitments it had made.

Unless the US has now decided to capitulate to Beijing’s retaliatory actions, it is difficult to see the US being duped again.

Failure to agree on these points would reveal the ugly truth that both countries continue to impose bilateral export controls on goods deemed sensitive, such as semiconductors (from the US to China) and processed critical minerals (from China to the US).

Moreover, in its so-called “reciprocal” negotiations with other countries, the US is pressing trading partners to cut certain sensitive China-sourced goods from their exports destined for US markets. China is deeply unhappy about these US demands and has threatened to retaliate against trading partners that adopt them.

A temporary truce

Overall, the announcement is best viewed as a truce that does not shift the underlying structural reality that the US and China are locked into a long-term cycle of escalating strategic competition.

Read more:
Why Trump fails to understand China’s trade war tactics, and what his negotiators should be reading

That cycle will have its ups (the latest announcement) and downs (the tariff wars that preceded it). For now, both sides have agreed to announce victory and focus on other matters.

For the US, this means ensuring there will be consumer goods on the shelves in time for Halloween and Christmas, albeit at inflated prices. For China, it means restoring some export market access to take pressure off its increasingly ailing economy.

As neither side can vanquish the other, the likely long-term result is a frozen conflict. This will be punctuated by attempts to achieve “escalation dominance”, as that will determine who emerges with better terms. Observers’ opinions on where the balance currently lies are divided.

Along the way, and to use a quote widely attributed to Winston Churchill, to “jaw-jaw is better than to war-war”. Fasten your seat belts, there is more turbulence to come.

Where does this leave the rest of us?

Significantly, the US has not (so far) changed its basic goals for all its bilateral trade deals.

Its overarching aim is to cut the goods trade deficit by reducing goods imports and eliminating non-tariff barriers it says are “unfairly” prohibiting US exports. The US also wants to remove barriers to digital trade and investments by tech giants and “derisk” certain imports that it deems sensitive for national security reasons.

The agreement between the US and UK last week clearly reflects these goals in operation. While the UK received some concessions, the remaining tariffs are higher, at 10% overall, than on April 2 and subject to US-imposed import quotas. Furthermore, the UK must open its market for certain goods while removing China-originating content from steel and pharmaceutical products destined for the US.

For Washington’s Pacific defence treaty allies, including Australia, nothing has changed. Potentially difficult negotiations with the Trump administration lie ahead, particularly if the US decides to use our security dependencies as leverage to wring concessions in trade. Japan has already disavowed linking security and trade, and their progress should be closely watched.

The US has previously paused high tariffs on manufacturing nations in South-East Asia, particularly those used by other nations as export platforms to avoid China tariffs. Vietnam, Cambodia and others will face sustained uncertainty and increasingly difficult balancing acts. The economic stakes are higher for them.

They, like the Japanese, are long-practised in the subtle arts of balancing the two giants. Still, juggling ties with both Washington and Beijing will become the act of an increasingly high-wire trapeze artist.

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. The US and China have reached a temporary truce in the trade wars, but more turbulence lies ahead – https://theconversation.com/the-us-and-china-have-reached-a-temporary-truce-in-the-trade-wars-but-more-turbulence-lies-ahead-256448

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ulrik Egede, Professor of Physics, Monash University

Medieval alchemists dreamed of transmuting lead into gold. Today, we know that lead and gold are different elements, and no amount of chemistry can turn one into the other.

But our modern knowledge tells us the basic difference between an atom of lead and an atom of gold: the lead atom contains exactly three more protons. So can we create a gold atom by simply pulling three protons out of a lead atom?

As it turns out, we can. But it’s not easy.

While smashing lead atoms into each other at extremely high speeds in an effort to mimic the state of the universe just after the Big Bang, physicists working on the ALICE experiment at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland incidentally produced small amounts of gold. Extremely small amounts, in fact: a total of some 29 trillionths of a gram.

How to steal a proton

Protons are found in the nucleus of an atom. How can they be pulled out?

Well, protons have an electric charge, which means an electric field can pull or push them around. Placing an atomic nucleus in an electric field could do it.

However, nuclei are held together by a very strong force with a very short range, imaginatively known as the strong nuclear force. This means an extremely powerful electric field is required to pull out protons – about a million times stronger than the electric fields that create lightning bolts in the atmosphere.

The way the scientists created this field was to fire beams of lead nuclei at each other at incredibly high speeds – almost the speed of light.

The magic of a near-miss

When the lead nuclei have a head-on collision, the strong nuclear force comes into play and they end up getting completely destroyed. But more commonly the nuclei have a near miss, and only affect each other via the electromagnetic force.

The strength of an electric field drops off very quickly as you move away from an object with an electric charge (such as a proton). But at very short distances, even a tiny charge can create a very strong field.

So when one lead nucleus just grazes past another, the electric field between them is huge. The rapidly changing field between the nuclei makes them vibrate and occasionally spit out some protons. If one of them spits out exactly three protons, the lead nucleus has turned into gold.

Counting protons

So if you have turned a lead atom into gold, how do you know? In the ALICE experiment, they use special detectors called zero-degree calorimeters to count the protons stripped out of the lead nuclei.

They can’t observe the gold nuclei themselves, so they only know about them indirectly.

The ALICE scientists calculate that, while they are colliding beams of lead nuclei, they produce about 89,000 gold nuclei per second. They also observed the production of other elements: thallium, which is what you get when you take one proton from lead, as well as mercury (two protons).

An alchemical nuisance

Once a lead nucleus has transformed by losing protons, it is no longer on the perfect orbit that keeps it circulating inside the vacuum beam pipe of the Large Hadron Collider. In a matter of microseconds it will collide with the walls.

This effect makes the beam less intense over time. So for scientists, the production of gold at the collider is in fact more of a nuisance than a blessing.

However, understanding this accidental alchemy is essential for making sense of experiments – and for designing the even bigger experiments of the future.

Ulrik Egede 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. Physicists at the Large Hadron Collider turned lead into gold – by accident – https://theconversation.com/physicists-at-the-large-hadron-collider-turned-lead-into-gold-by-accident-256478

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justine Bell-James, Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland

Sussan Ley has been elected Liberal leader after defeating rival Angus Taylor in a party room vote on Tuesday. Now the leadership question is settled, the hard work of rebuilding the party can begin.

In the wake of its election loss, the Coalition has foreshadowed a sweeping policy review. Where the Coalition lands on the contentious nuclear energy policy will be keenly watched.

The majority Labor government is likely to easily push legislation through the lower house. However, the Senate numbers mean Labor needs backing from either the Greens or the Coalition to pass bills into law.

So where does Ley stand on nuclear energy and other pressure points across the environment and energy portfolios? Ley’s stance on four key issues, including during her time as environment minister in the Morrison government, provides important insights.

1. Nuclear power and gas

The resounding Coalition election defeat suggest the prospects for nuclear power in Australia are now poor. But the Coalition’s nuclear policy may yet resurface, given the Nationals still support it.

During the election campaign, Ley backed the Liberals’ call for nuclear power in Australia, arguing nuclear can provide a zero-emissions option that’s needed in the shift to renewables.

In a 2023 speech, Ley suggested nuclear power had a big future in Australia, saying:

The fact is the latest technology reactors in nuclear-powered submarines in operation today don’t need to be refuelled for 30 years. And the money being invested into research and development is only going to make these new nuclear technologies even better.

Ley has also argued Australia needs to keep gas in the system for longer, rather than “trying to do everything with renewables”.

2. The energy transition

A second-term Labor government will further progress its existing energy policies, including measures to reach its target of 82% renewable energy in the the National Electricity Market by 2030.

Ley has accepted the need for a renewable energy transition, but says it should be led by nuclear power and gas.

She has suggested enormous wind turbines and large-scale solar farms are dominating the landscape in rural areas. She also claims renewable energy projects generate insurance risks because battery storage increases fire risks.

Ley has consistently voted against increasing investment in renewable energy, and is likely to seek to ensure policy addresses rising energy prices and reliability.

3. Nature law reform

The Albanese government intends to complete reform of Australia’s federal environment laws, known collectively as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (or EPBC Act). Labor’s proposed reforms stalled in the Senate last term.

The independent review that preceded the reform, led by Graeme Samuel, was initiated by the Morrison government under Ley, who served as environment minister from 2019 to 2022.

An interim report from the Samuel review was released in July 2020. Ley seized on recommendations that suited her government’s agenda – notably, streamlining the environmental approvals process to speed up decisions on proposed developments. She vowed to start working on them even before the review was finalised, and before public comment on the draft was received.

Ley put bills to parliament in August 2020 and February 2021 seeking to amend the laws. The first sought to hand powers for environmental approvals to the states. The proposal was criticised for lacking environmental safeguards.

This prompted Ley to introduce a second bill which sought to ensure state agreements were monitored and audited. It also provided for new “national environmental standards” to guide approval decisions.

But both bills lapsed before the 2022 election after failing to secure Senate support.

National environmental standards were a key recommendation from the Samuel review, and also a centrepiece of Labor’s proposed reforms. However, Labor’s proposed standards were more robust and focused on outcomes.

The bills Labor introduced to parliament in 2024 also sought establish Australia’s first national environment protection agency to carry out compliance and enforcement. This body would have had more power than Ley’s proposed commissioner.

So while Labor’s proposed reform package was bolder, both Ley and her then Labor counterpart Tanya Plibersek’s proposals were comprised of similar ingredients. Given Ley has shown support for some elements of Labor’s reform package before, namely devolving powers to states and implementing standards, there may be some grounds for negotiation.

4. Coal and climate change

As environment minister, Ley welcomed the Coalition’s approval of the huge Adani coalmine in central Queensland. She also gave the green light to other coal projects. Plibersek took a similar approach to coal projects in her time as minister.

In 2021, the Federal Court found Ley, as environment minister, owed a duty of care to future generations to avoid causing climate harm through her decisions. Ley successfully appealed the ruling.

Separately, Ley has also claimed climate change is not part of the environment portfolio.

When the Coalition reflects on the resounding defeat at the election, Ley’s hard stance on climate may soften.

Finding common ground

Ley brings a deeper understanding of nature law reform to the position of Liberal leader than her predecessor Peter Dutton. This raises the prospects for overhauling the EPBC Act this term.

However, Ley’s priority is likely to be streamlining the environmental approval process rather than increasing protections afforded to threatened species and ecosystems.

On the topic of gas playing a significant ongoing role in Australia’s energy mix, Ley will find many like minds in the Labor government.

When it comes to the energy transition, much rests on the party room decision on whether to persist with a nuclear power policy. Nevertheless, with or without nuclear, Ley’s previous statements suggest she will continue to argue against wind and solar generation energy on cost and reliability grounds.

Justine Bell-James receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Queensland Government, and the National Environmental Science Program. She is a Director of the National Environmental Law Association and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

Samantha Hepburn 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. From nuclear to nature laws, here’s where new Liberal leader Sussan Ley stands on 4 energy and environment flashpoints – https://theconversation.com/from-nuclear-to-nature-laws-heres-where-new-liberal-leader-sussan-ley-stands-on-4-energy-and-environment-flashpoints-256106

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mahsa Khanpoor Siahdarka, PhD Candidate in Built Environment, RMIT University

The architecture of northern Iran exhibits an extroverted quality. Buildings are designed to let in the sounds of rain, birds and rustling trees, as well as scents of nature.

Architecture in this region is characterised by open structures, deep eaves, elevated wooden houses and interconnected communal spaces that resemble traditional Japanese and Far Eastern designs.

The built environment in the south is introverted. Central Iran, particularly cities like Yazd and Isfahan, is characterised by a harsh arid climate, where architecture has evolved to minimise exposure to extreme heat and sunlight.

Buildings are oriented inward, centred around enclosed courtyards and largely closed off from the street. This prioritises privacy and thermal regulation.

Throughout the country, the intricate relationship between climate and culture has shaped architectural forms in ways that make it difficult to delineate where one influence ends and the other begins.

The houses don’t only reflect their environment – they also reflect the role of women in these communities.

The extroverted north

The north of Iran, between the the Alborz Mountain range and the Caspian Sea, enjoys a humid subtropical micro-climate with dense forests and abundant greenery.

The mountains have historically served as both a climatic and cultural barrier, moderating external influences, including Arab conquests. This allowed the region to maintain unique social and architectural characteristics for centuries.

In the north, nature has always been seen more as a friend than a threat.

The architecture opens itself up with wide verandas, open corridors and spaces that blur the line between inside and out.

With humid climates and communal living traditions, there are strong architectural similarities between northern Iran and East Asia. Both regions incorporate elevated wooden structures, deep eaves and open layouts to enhance airflow and prevent moisture-related decay.

The integration of nature into built spaces, seen in Iranian veranda-like ayvans and Japanese engawa, reflects a philosophical alignment that prioritises harmony between architecture and the environment.

These similarities suggest a convergent evolution. Distinct cultures independently arrived at comparable architectural solutions in response to similar climates and societies.

The emphasis on community-based living and social interaction also reflects the role of women in agricultural, economic and social activities in northern Iran.

The openness of homes, markets and farms contributed to women being active participants in public life.

In more conservative or arid regions, architectural boundaries enforce stricter gender divisions. But here, the architecture facilitated organic interactions across gender and age groups.

Northern Iran’s humid climate, abundant rainfall and fertile land allowed for greater agricultural and pastoral productivity. With easier access to food, water and materials, the domestic burden was reduced. This enabled women to participate more actively in public and economic life, including market trade, rice farming and animal husbandry.

The introverted south

The harsh desert conditions in southern and central Iran were more like an opposing force or army. The climate was something to defend against, unlike the friendlier climate of the north.

In response, the architecture became sheltered and self-contained. Architecture in southern and central Iran relies almost entirely on earth-based materials such as mud brick (khesht), adobe and fired brick.

Building materials are drawn directly from the surrounding soil. The architecture is deeply rooted – both literally and culturally – in its environment.

Domed roofs are not only structurally efficient but also thermally responsive. At any given time, one side of the dome is shaded by its own curve, creating a cooler surface that encourages air movement and passive cooling.

Houses are centred around courtyards that create microclimates within enclosed spaces (Bagh-e-Khaneh). High walls, minimal external windows and windcatchers (badgirs) regulate airflow while limiting solar radiation.

The inward-facing design of these buildings historically reinforced social norms that confined women to private domestic spheres, limiting their visibility in urban life.

The harsh desert climate, combined with cultural norms around modest clothing, often confined women to the interior spaces of the home. Architectural features which were essential for passive cooling and privacy shaped a lifestyle centred around the domestic sphere.

The demanding nature of desert life meant basic tasks like securing water, preserving food and producing textiles required significant domestic labour.

In many desert cities like Yazd or Kashan, domestic architecture was designed to protect not just from heat, but also from public view. This meant women’s daily lives were largely contained within high-walled courtyards, internal corridors, and roofscapes. Here, women could move freely but invisibly.

Architecture built gender segregation into the physical fabric of the city, shaping women’s roles, routines and social interactions for generations.

Climate and culture

The way climate and culture shape Iranian architecture is complex.

In both northern and central Iran, buildings adapt to the environment. The humid north features open, outward-facing structures. The arid central regions rely on enclosed courtyards to manage extreme heat.

However, climate alone does not fully explain these differences.

Architect Amos Rapoport argues that, while climate sets limits, culture, social structures and history play a bigger role in shaping architecture.

In Iran, architecture does not just reflect the climate. It also shapes social spaces and gender roles.

Buildings are more than just shelters. They influence how people live, interact, and define their communities. Understanding this relationship can help us see architecture as an evolving part of society, shaped by both nature and human choices.

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

– ref. The ‘extroverted’ north and ‘introverted’ south: how climate and culture influence Iranian architecture – https://theconversation.com/the-extroverted-north-and-introverted-south-how-climate-and-culture-influence-iranian-architecture-251357

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

The federal Liberal party has elected its first female leader, with Sussan Ley narrowly defeating Angus Taylor, 29-25.

Ley, 63, who was deputy leader to Peter Dutton during the last term, had the support of the moderates in the party.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who defected last week from the Nationals to join a ticket with Taylor, pulled out of the deputy race after Taylor’s defeat. Taylor was supported by the conservatives in the party.

While Price has strong appeal in Liberal branches, the bold move backfired.

The new deputy is Queenslander Ted O’Brien, 51, key architect of the opposition’s controversial nuclear policy, which many considered a serious drag on the Coalition’s election vote. O’Brien defeated Phil Thompson, a fellow Queenslander, 38-16.

The closeness of the leadership vote is a recipe for instability dogging Ley’s leadership. Two of her supporters, Linda Reynolds and Hollie hughes, are leaving the Senate on June 30.

In the Coalition government, Ley variously held the portfolios of health, sport, aged care and environment.

An immediate challenge for Ley will be reshuffling the frontbench, especially what roles Taylor and Price will have.

Ley has held the southern NSW regional seat of Farrer since 2001.

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. Liberals elect first woman leader, with Ley defeating Taylor 29-25 – https://theconversation.com/liberals-elect-first-woman-leader-with-ley-defeating-taylor-29-25-256459

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ilan Noy, Chair in the Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The number of climate change-related extreme weather events) is on the rise, making it harder for many people to buy affordable home insurance.

The industry has already signalled it is pulling out of some places in Aotearoa New Zealand, leaving the government and homeowners to question what happens next. This is not something that should be ignored, or met with ad-hoc, unplanned responses.

Since insurance is required for residential mortgages, the retreat of insurance companies will have significant consequences for property prices and local economies.

With the retreat of insurance companies a future certainty in some communities, the government must decide how to respond. In our new research), we developed the “trilemma” framework, outlining the policy trade-offs governments face in adapting to climate change.

Deciding between trade-offs

We found effective adaptation policy needs to achieve three goals:

• incentivise risk reduction
• be fiscally affordable
• increase equity and wellbeing and reduce hardship.

But any policy can satisfy only two of these three goals. The government has to make trade-offs.

When it comes to responding to the retreat of private insurance, the options include:

• doing nothing and letting “the market” adjust (with sharp price declines for affected properties)
• replacing private insurance with a publicly-funded alternative
• offering government-funded defences (for example, stopbanks) or buyouts to properties that can no longer be insured.

Each one of these options involves giving up on at least one of the three policy goals.

A world without private insurance

Let us consider “Macondo”, a hypothetical community in a flood-prone area where insurance has “retreated”.

Do nothing

The “do nothing” option is when the government does not take a policy position on flood or storm insurance. This option has little to no cost for the government and, as long as people don’t expect buyouts, would incentivise risk reduction. But it leaves homeowners completely exposed to the increasing risk.

In “Macondo”, some homeowners will have reduced the risk for their own properties (raising their houses, for example). Others won’t be able to do so and remain completely at the mercy of the elements.

Those whose houses have been deemed uninsurable would have their mortgages automatically put into default. Some may have to sell their home at a much lower price and may remain indebted even after the sale.

Local councils might offer to invest in defences for the community by building stopbanks, but that is less likely for poorer and smaller local councils.

When an extreme weather event does happen, causing significant losses, the uninsured who own their homes may be unable to repair or rebuild and will be left destitute.

Public replacement insurance

In 1945, New Zealand’s government introduced public insurance for some natural hazards with the Earthquake and War Damage Commission. This later became the Earthquake Commission (EQC), and more recently, the Natural Hazards Commission (NHC). The commission was established as private insurers withdrew earthquake cover in the 1940s and landslip cover in the 1980s.

The government could choose to extend NHC policies to fully cover weather events such as floods and storms (NHC now provides only partial cover for damage to land from these hazards). Or it could establish a different public insurance scheme to cover these hazards.

When designed well, this option makes fiscal sense. For example, after 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes EQC cover for residential properties didn’t carry extra costs for the government.

Public replacement insurance could also make recovery fairer for everyone. But providing a blanket safety net through a public insurance scheme would discourage risk reduction. With the greater sense of financial safety may come a higher appetite to build on more risky sites, and spend less to defend existing homes. This would result in even more exposure and more damage.

Publicly-funded defences and buyouts

Successive governments across a range of disasters have opted for the ad-hoc approach. This inevitably turns out to be a combination of publicly-funded defences with generously provisioned buyouts.

This combination of defences and buyouts may be the most politically appealing in the short term, but it is also the least affordable and the least efficient option. This option leads to reduced risk (especially if buyouts are used) and can lessen hardship and even inequities.

This policy was used in Westport after its damaging floods in 2021 and 2022. Similarly, the Auckland Anniversary Flood and Cyclone Gabrielle triggered large investments in buyouts and in new flood defences that will end up costing billions.

Unfortunately for the affected residents in both cases, the process was not done preemptively following a carefully designed process. Instead, the response to each event was designed on the fly, was lengthy, and full of frustrating uncertainties, missteps, and missed opportunities.

Proactive response needed

Currently, every successive government in New Zealand chooses to do nothing and then switches to a defence and buyout choice when disaster strikes. This is the worst of all the trilemma policy options.

A more proactive policy, even if well-conceived, cannot achieve all three of the goals we listed. But at least the choice between these trade-offs would be clear and transparent. It would also avoid all the inefficiencies created by the reactive policy choices our elected governments make now.

We are grateful for the contribution of science writer Jo-Anne Hazel to this analysis.

Ilan Noy has received research funding from the New Zealand Natural Hazards Commission (formerly the EQC).

Belinda Storey has received research funding from the New Zealand Natural Hazards Commission (formerly the EQC).

– ref. As insurance gets harder to buy, NZ has 3 choices for disaster recovery – and we keep choosing the worst one – https://theconversation.com/as-insurance-gets-harder-to-buy-nz-has-3-choices-for-disaster-recovery-and-we-keep-choosing-the-worst-one-255713

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olivier Oren, Associate lecturer, hospitality management, Griffith University

For cafe and restaurant workers, getting a free drink or meal at the end of a long shift might feel like a well-deserved reward. But could such perks – common across the industry – be masking deeper issues?

Informal workplace perks have long been a big part of Australian hospitality’s culture. It’s common for restaurants and cafes to provide a free on-shift meal or heavily discounted menu items for their employees. In some bars and pubs, an end-of-shift alcoholic drink is a well-appreciated tradition.

Less well understood is the question of how these widespread perks are interacting with workers’ legal rights.

To investigate, we surveyed 383 Australian hospitality workers. Participants worked across cafes, bars, and hotels (both in large franchises and small businesses) across Australia, with roles such as chefs, bartenders, guest experience attendants, waiting staff, managers and baristas.

We asked them about their employment contracts, their access to legal entitlements like breaks and overtime, and any extra perks they received. We also invited them to share, in their own words, what would make work fairer. The results paint a troubling picture.

Precarious work

More than one in three survey respondents (34%) said they had no written terms of employment, despite this being a legal requirement in Australia.

As one participant explained:

I have only received a written contract and legally required breaks from one employer in my entire career.

Nearly half reported missing out on their rest breaks, an entitlement designed to protect health and safety.

About 12% were being paid less than the minimum wage, and close to half said they did not receive overtime or penalty payments when required. Non-compliance with legal entitlements was widespread across the sector, although more pronounced in smaller venues.

‘Perks’ of the job

At the same time, informal perks remain deeply woven into hospitality work cultures.

Nearly one in two respondents (44.1%) said they received some kind of benefit in addition to their basic pay. The most common types were free or discounted meals (57%) and access to alcoholic drinks (28%).

Some workers described other benefits such as laundry services, transportation, or even Christmas gifts. These freebies were rarely formalised and often dependent on the goodwill of managers.

Such perks can blur the line between appreciation and obligation, which are offered as moral licenses to sidestep legal entitlements. We argue this widespread culture of perks is a distraction from unfair work practices, especially for younger workers who make up most of the hospitality and service workforce.

For inexperienced staff, these “gifts” may indeed feel like part of the job, making it harder to identify when legal rights are being overlooked.

What workers really want

When asked what would make their jobs fairer, respondents overwhelmingly called for written contracts, enforceable pay rates and protection from abuse – not more freebies.

As one chef put it:

Free steak dinners don’t pay my rent or stop my boss docking pay for smoke breaks.

Our data also show that workers with formal agreements were significantly more likely to receive their legal entitlements, including proper rest breaks and overtime pay, compared to those without.

Why does this matter? Because protecting rights is not just about fairness. It is about safeguarding the sustainability of an industry we all rely on.

Research shows when businesses rely on unpaid labour or ignore basic entitlements, they undercut fair competition, contribute to worker burnout and drive talent out of the sector.

This affects service quality, workforce stability and ultimately the experiences of everyone who dines out, travels or enjoys Australia’s tourism offerings.

How we could fix it

Fixing the problem starts with clear, written employment contracts, especially in smaller venues where informal practices are most common. For workers and their families, this means refusing to accept a cold beer in place of job security.

For business owners, many of whom are not acting in bad faith, it means getting support to implement fair practices through accessible tools, templates and clear guidance, such as the Fair Work Ombudsman’s Pay and Conditions Tool and employment contract templates tailored to the industry.

For policymakers, it means strengthening oversight while improving education, ensuring that compliance is not just a box to tick, but a culture shift that makes fair, secure work the industry standard.

Let perks remain perks – and not distractions from rights.

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. Free food and beer are common perks for hospitality workers – but are they masking unfairness? – https://theconversation.com/free-food-and-beer-are-common-perks-for-hospitality-workers-but-are-they-masking-unfairness-256330

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Brien, Associate Professor, Department of Global Value Chains and Trade, Lincoln University, New Zealand

Last week’s big tourism conference in Rotorua saw plenty of optimism about the industry’s potential, but also warnings that airline capacity is hampering post-COVID growth.

The focus on bringing more foreign tourists to New Zealand is understandable, given the sector accounts for 7.5% of GDP and is our second highest export earner. But there is deeper problem, too. We already struggle to serve current visitor numbers – how will we handle more?

International tourism injected NZ$16.9 billion into the economy in the year to March 2024. Total tourism expenditure (domestic and international) hit a record $44.4 billion, up nearly 15% from the previous year.

The government has responded with a $13.5 million global marketing boost, and business leaders are celebrating. The big question is whether we will have the workforce to match the ambition.

Because right now, the pipeline of skilled, engaged people willing to work, grow and lead in tourism and hospitality isn’t flowing.

Without an industry-led, well-funded campaign to rebuild the perception of tourism and hospitality as credible, rewarding and sustainable career options, New Zealand has a crisis in the making.

Who wants to work in tourism and hospo?

Fewer New Zealanders are choosing tourism and hospitality as a career. With the number of locals studying tourism and hospitality collapsing, both sectors are increasingly dependent on foreign workers.

Tourism education numbers for the past decade show:

• 1,355 equivalent full-time students were enrolled in tourism-related courses in 2024, down from 3,750 in 2015 – a 63% drop

• enrolments in bachelor’s degrees in tourism management fell from 45 in 2015 to 25 in 2024 – a 44% drop

• postgraduate enrolments in tourism management are down 75%, with only 20 in 2024.

The figures for hospitality education paint an even grimmer picture:

• enrolments in hospitality courses fell from from 915 in 2015 to just 250 in 2024 – a 73% drop

• cookery course enrolments fell from 4,125 to 1,140 – a 72% drop

• food and beverage service training fell from 1,445 in 2015 to just 340 in 2024 – a 76% drop

• hospitality management degree enrolments fell from 380 in 2015 to 210 in 2024 – a 45% drop.

These figures do not include actual workplace training, but they still illustrate a clear trend.

The looming workforce shortage

Minister of Tourism and Hospitality Louise Upston recently said, “We need to grow tourism businesses. We need to grow the value from the tourism visitors we have.” She’s right. But without a viable workforce, none of this is possible.

As to why more New Zealanders aren’t keen to work in the sector, Upston said, “I just don’t think the sector’s promoted it well enough.” This is despite many years of industry exhortations to “grow the domestic workforce”, “attract more young people” and “build career pathways”.

COVID-19 certainly hurt the industry’s image as a place to work. But the challenges around neglected workforce development, career promotion and long-term planning predate the pandemic.

Other industries and professions – including construction, agriculture and accounting – have invested heavily in scholarships, internships, mentoring and reputation building. Tourism and hospitality haven’t matched this and now risk losing young people to global demand.

If the pattern continues, there will be a national shortage of qualified staff and competent managers, and greater reliance on short-term and migrant labour. That leads in turn to overworked staff, poorer service, and businesses forced to reduce hours or close altogether.

Investment in the future

In the 1970s and 80s, New Zealand had to import tourism and hospitality talent to grow the industries. Without real change, those days may return.

Apart from what is offered by two major hotel chains, few formal internships exist. Such programmes are not simply part-time jobs, they’re investments in future talent, involving professional guidance and meaningful experience. They take effort, but they work.

Meanwhile, degree-level programmes are already being dropped. If lower-level course enrolments continue to fall, these programmes may close too. The burden then falls on businesses to train and educate staff. But those same businesses say they can’t find enough staff today.

This is more than a workforce problem, it’s a national economic risk. Spending millions on attracting visitors only to deliver a substandard experience is not a good use of taxpayer money.

Without people, there is no hospitality. Without hospitality, there is no tourism. And without a sustainable tourism industry, New Zealand’s economy will suffer.

Anthony Brien is a member of Tourism Industry Aotearoa.

– ref. A looming workforce crisis in NZ tourism and hospitality threatens industry growth plans – https://theconversation.com/a-looming-workforce-crisis-in-nz-tourism-and-hospitality-threatens-industry-growth-plans-256212

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Neil J. Gostling, Associate Professor in Evolution and Palaeobiology, University of Southampton

Over the course of seven decades, Sir David Attenborough’s documentaries have reshaped how we see the natural world, shifting from colonial-era collecting trips to urgent calls for environmental action.

His storytelling has inspired generations, but has only recently begun to confront the scale of the ecological crisis. To understand how far nature broadcasting has come, it helps to return to where it started.

When Attenborough’s broadcasting career began in the 1950s, Austrian filmmakers Hans and Lotte Hass were already pushing the boundaries of what was possible by taking cameras below the sea and touring the world aboard their schooner, the Xafira.

In one of their 1953 Galapagos films, a crewman handled a sealion pup, having crawled across the volcanic rock of Fernandina honking at sealions to attract them. A penguin and giant tortoise were brought on board Xafira. And as Lotte Hass took photographs, she’d beseech some poor creature to “not be frightened” and “look pleasant”.

This is a world away from today’s expectations, where both research scientists and amateur naturalists are taught to observe without touching or disturbing wildlife. When the Hasses visited the Galápagos, it was still five years before the creation of the national park and the founding of the island’s conservation organisation Charles Darwin Foundation. Now, visitors must stay at least two metres from all animals – and never approach them.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Join The Conversation for free today.

At the same time, television was beginning to shape public perceptions of the natural world. In 1954, Attenborough was working as a young producer on Zoo Quest. By chance, he became its presenter when zoologist Jack Lester became ill.

The programme followed zoologists collecting animals from around the world for London Zoo. Zoo Quest was filmed in exotic locations around the world and then in the studio where the animals found on the expedition were shown “up close”.

Attenborough has since acknowledged that Zoo Quest reflected attitudes that would not be acceptable today. The series showed animals being captured from the wild and transported to London Zoo – practices which mirrored extractive, colonial-era approaches to science.

Yet, Zoo Quest was also groundbreaking. The series brought viewers face-to-face with animals they might never have seen before and pioneered a visual style that made natural history television both entertaining and educational. It helped establish Attenborough’s reputation as a compelling communicator and laid the foundations for a new genre of science broadcasting – one that has evolved, like its presenter, over time.

After a decade in production, Attenborough returned to presenting with Life on Earth (1979), a landmark series that traced the evolution of life from single-celled organisms to birds and apes. Drawing on his long-standing interest in fossils, the series combined zoology, palaeobiology and natural history to create an ambitious new template for science broadcasting.

Life on Earth helped cement Attenborough’s reputation as a trusted communicator and became the foundation of the BBC’s “blue-chip” natural history format – big-budget, internationally produced films that put high-quality cinematic wildlife footage at the forefront of the story. The series did not simply document the natural world. It reframed it, using presenter-led storytelling and global spectacle to shape how audiences understood evolutionary processes.

For much of his career, Attenborough has been celebrated for showcasing the beauty of the natural world. Yet, he has also faced criticism for sidestepping the environmental crises threatening it. Commentators such as the environmental journalist George Monbiot argued that his earlier documentaries, while visually stunning, often avoided addressing the human role in climate change, presenting nature as untouched and avoiding difficult truths about ecological decline.

Building on the legacy of Life on Earth, Attenborough’s later series began to respond to these critiques. Blue Planet (2001) expanded the scope of nature storytelling, revealing the mysteries of the ocean’s most remote and uncharted ecosystems. Its 2017 sequel, Blue Planet II, introduced a more urgent tone, highlighting the scale of plastic pollution and the need for marine conservation.

Although Blue Planet II significantly increased viewers’ environmental knowledge, it did not lead to measurable changes in plastic consumption behaviour – a reminder that awareness alone does not guarantee action. The subsequent Wild Isles (2023) continued the shift towards conservation messaging. While the main series aired in five parts, a sixth episode – Saving Our Wild Isles – was released separately and drew controversy amid claims the BBC had sidelined it for being too political. In reality, the episode delivered a clear call to action.

Attenborough’s latest film, Ocean, continues in this more urgent register, pairing breathtaking imagery with an unflinching assessment of ocean health. After decades of gentle narration, he now speaks with sharpened clarity about the scale of the crisis and the need to act.

A voice for action

In recent years, Attenborough has taken on a new role – not just as a broadcaster, but as a powerful voice in environmental diplomacy. He has addressed world leaders at major summits such as the UN climate conference Cop24 and the World Economic Forum, calling for urgent action on climate change. He was also appointed ambassador for the UK government’s review on the economics of biodiversity.

On the subject of environmemtal diplomacy, Monbiot recently wrote: “A few years ago, I was sharply critical of Sir David for downplaying the environmental crisis on his TV programmes. Most people would have reacted badly but remarkably, at 92, he took this and similar critiques on board and radically changed his approach.”

Attenborough not only speaks. He listens. This is part of his charm and popularity. He is learning and evolving as much as his audience.

What makes Attenborough stand out is the way he speaks. While official climate treaties often rely on technical or legal language, he communicates in emotional, accessible terms – speaking plainly about responsibility, urgency and the moral imperative to protect life on Earth. His calm authority and familiar voice make complex issues easier to grasp and harder to dismiss.

Frequently named Britain’s most trusted public figure, Attenborough has become something of an unofficial diplomat for the planet – apolitical, measured, and often seen as a voice of reason amid populist noise. Despite his criticisms, Attenborough’s documentaries walk a careful line between fragility and resilience, using emotionally ambivalent imagery to prompt reflection. He shares his wonder with the natural world and brings people along with him

Ocean shows our blue planet in more spectacular fashion than Lotte and Hans Hass could ever have imagined. But it is also Attenborough’s most direct reckoning with environmental collapse. With clarity and urgency, it confronts the damage wrought by industrial trawling and habitat destruction.

After 70 years of gently guiding viewers through the natural world, Attenborough’s voice has sharpened. If he once opened our eyes to nature’s wonders, he now challenges us not to look away. As he puts it: “If we save the sea, we save our world. After a lifetime filming our planet, I’m sure that nothing is more important.”

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

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. From Zoo Quest to Ocean: The evolution of David Attenborough’s voice for the planet – https://theconversation.com/from-zoo-quest-to-ocean-the-evolution-of-david-attenboroughs-voice-for-the-planet-251727

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Asher Kaufman, Professor of History and Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

President Donald Trump will sit down with the Saudi crown prince and Emirati and Qatari leaders on May 14, 2025, in what is being heavily touted as a high-stakes summit. Not invited, and watching warily, will be Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Like many other members of his right-wing coalition, Netanyahu appeared delighted at the election of Trump as U.S. president in November, believing that the Republican’s Middle East policies would undoubtedly favor Israeli interests and be coordinated closely with Netanyahu himself.

But it hasn’t quite played out that way. Of course, Washington remains – certainly in official communications – Israel’s strongest global ally and chief supplier of arms. But Trump is promoting a Middle East policy that is, at times, distinctly at odds with the interests of Netanyahu and his government.

In fact, in pushing for an Iran nuclear deal – a surprise reversal from Trump’s first administration – Trump is undermining long-held Netanyahu positions. Such is the level of alarm in Israeli right-wing circles that rumors have been circulating of Trump announcing unilateral U.S. support for a Palestinian state ahead of the Riyadh visit – something that would represent a clear departure for Washington.

As a historian of Israel and the broader Middle East, I recognize that in key ways Trump’s agenda in Riyadh represents a continuation of the U.S. policies, notably in pursuing security relationships with Arab Gulf monarchies – something Israel has long accepted if not openly supported. But in the process, the trip could also put significant daylight between Trump and Netanyahu.

Trump’s official agenda

The four-day trip to the Gulf, Trump’s first policy-driven foreign visit since being elected president, is on the surface more about developing economic and security ties between the U.S. and traditional allies in the Persian Gulf.

Trump is expected to cement trade deals worth tens of billions of dollars between the U.S. and Arab Gulf States, including unprecedented arms purchases, Gulf investments in the U.S. and even the floated Qatari gift of a palatial 747 intended for use as Air Force One.

There is also the possibility of a security alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

So far, so good for Israel’s government. Prior to the Oct. 7 attacks, Israel was already in the process of forging closer ties to the Gulf states, with deals and diplomatic relations established with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain through the Abraham Accords that the Trump administration itself facilitated in September 2020. A potential normalization of ties with Saudi Arabia was also in the offing.

Dealing with Tehran

But central to the agenda this week in Riyadh will be issues where Trump and Netanyahu are increasingly not on the same page. And that starts with Iran.

While the country won’t be represented, Iran will feature heavily at Trump’s summit, as it coincides with the U.S. administration’s ongoing diplomatic talks with Tehran over its nuclear program. Those negotiations have now concluded four rounds. And despite clear challenges, American and Iranian delegations continue to project optimism about the possibility of reaching a deal.

The approach marks a change of course for Trump, who in 2018 abandoned a similar deal to the one he is now largely looking to forge. It also suggests the U.S. is currently opposed to the idea of direct armed confrontation with Iran, against Netanayhu’s clear preference.

Diplomacy with Tehran is also favored by Gulf states as a way of containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Even Saudi Arabia – Tehran’s long-term regional rival that, like Israel, opposed the Obama-era Iran nuclear diplomacy – is increasingly looking for a more cautious engagement with Iran. In April, the Saudi defense minister visited Tehran ahead of the recent U.S.-Iranian negotiations.

Netanyahu has built his political career on the looming threat from a nuclearized Iran and the necessity to nip this threat in the bud. He unsuccessfully tried to undermine President Barack Obama’s initial efforts to reach an agreement with Iran – resulting in 2015’s Iran nuclear deal. But Netanyahu had more luck with Obama’s successor, helping convince Trump to withdraw from the agreement in 2018.

So Trump’s about-turn on Iran talks has irked Netanyahu – not only because it happened, but because it happened so publicly. In April, the U.S. president called Netanyahu to the White House and openly embarrassed him by stating that Washington is pursuing diplomatic negotiations with Tehran.

Split over Yemen

A clear indication of the potential tension between the Trump administration and the Israeli government can be seen in the ongoing skirmishes involving the U.S., Israel and the Houthis in Yemen.

After the Houthis fired a missile at the Tel Aviv airport on May 4 – leading to its closure and the cancellation of multiple international flights – Israel struck back, devastating an airport and other facilities in Yemen’s capital.

But just a few hours after the Israeli attack, Trump announced that the U.S. would not strike the Houthis anymore, as they had “surrendered” to his demands and agreed not to block passage of U.S. ships in the Red Sea.

It became clear that Israel was not involved in this new understanding between the U.S. and the Houthis. Trump’s statement was also notable in its timing, and could be taken as an effort to calm the region in preparation of his trip to Saudi Arabia. The fact that it might help smooth talks with Iran too – Tehran being the Houthis’ main sponsor – was likely a factor as well.

Timing is also relevant in Israel’s latest attack on Yemeni ports. They took place on May 11 – the eve of Trump setting off for his visit to Saudi Arabia. In so doing, Netanyahu may be sending a signal not only to the Houthis but also to the U.S. and Iran. Continuing to attack the Houthis might make nuclear talks more difficult.

Bibi’s political survival-first approach

Critical observers of Netanyahu have long argued that he prioritizes continued war in Gaza over regional calm for the sake of holding together his far-right coalition, members of which desire full control of the Gaza Strip and de-facto annexation of the West Bank.

This, many political commentators have argued, is the main reason why Netanyahu backed off from the last stage of the ceasefire agreement with Hamas in March – something which would have required the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Gaza Strip.

Since the collapse of the ceasefire, Israel’s army has mobilized in preparation for a renewed Gaza assault, scheduled to start after the end of Trump’s trip to the Gulf.

With members of the Netanayhu government openly supporting the permanent occupation of the strip and declaring that bringing back the remaining Israeli hostages is no longer a top priority, it seems clear to me that deescalation is not on Netanyahu’s agenda.

Trump himself has noted recently both the alarming state of the hostages and the grave humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Now, in addition to the release of Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander, the U.S. is also engaged in negotiations with Hamas over ceasefire and aid – ignoring Netanyahu in the process.

The bottom dollar

Current U.S. policy in the region may all be serving a greater aim for Trump: to secure billions of dollars of Gulf money for the American economy and, some have said, himself. But to achieve that requires a stable Middle East, and continued war in Gaza and Iran inching closer to nuclear capabilities might disrupt that goal.

Of course, a diplomatic agreement over Tehran’s nuclear plans is still some way off. And Trump’s foreign policy is notably prone to abrupt turns. But whether guided by a dealmaker’s instincts to pursue trade and economic deals with wealthy Gulf states, or by a genuine – and related – desire to stabilize the region, his administration is increasingly pursuing policies that go against the interests of the current Israeli government.

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

– ref. Trump heads to the Gulf aiming to bolster trade ties – but side talks on Tehran, Gaza could drive a wedge between US and Israel – https://theconversation.com/trump-heads-to-the-gulf-aiming-to-bolster-trade-ties-but-side-talks-on-tehran-gaza-could-drive-a-wedge-between-us-and-israel-256371

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Oates, PhD Candidate, School of Social Sciences, Monash University

TikTok emerged as a key battleground in an election where young voters comprised a dominant share of the electorate. All the prominent political parties used the platform – especially after tactics by Labor contributed to its electoral success in 2022.

With 60% of Gen Z now getting their news primarily from social media, this shift reflects a welcome effort to meet young voters where they are.

But on these platforms, visibility alone isn’t enough. What you say, and how you say it, matters just as much.

Collecting the data

We collected and manually analysed more than 500 TikTok posts from the official accounts of Labor, the Liberals, the Greens and One Nation during the federal election campaign period (March 28 to May 2).

Data was collected using web-scraping software, and included captions, sounds, hashtags and engagement metrics.

Our analysis focused on both the discursive content (what was said) and performative use of the platform (how it was said).

We manually categorised posts by their focus, whether political, apolitical, or blending politics and entertainment (“politainment”). We also grouped them according to their primary purpose:

• promoting the party’s own policies

• attacking opponents

• or shaping their public image to appeal to a TikTok audience.

We also coded posts by topic, including key campaign issues, such as the economy, health, housing and climate.

What we found

Labor had the highest total number of posts, which correlated to the highest views and a fairly strong engagement rate (10.5%). Engagement rates are calculated by the total number of user interactions with a post (comments, likes, shares) relative to how many people viewed the post.

Labor also had a relatively balanced gender reach, skewing young.

The Liberals posted frequently, as well, with an ever so slightly lower engagement rate (10.1%) and a more male-leaning audience.

One Nation, though with far fewer posts, still achieved notable reach.

Despite a smaller post volume than major parties, the Greens stood out for having the highest engagement rate by far (14.4%), along with the highest share of female and young audience followers.

Focus, tone and messaging

Clear differences emerge in how parties used TikTok to communicate.

The Liberals leaned heavily into politainment (75%) and attack ads (nearly 90%). They rarely promoted their own policies, with only 12% of posts being solely focused on their campaign promises.

Their content was strongly centred around the economy (60%) and energy (26%). Three-quarters of their posts were designed to target and appeal primarily to young audiences through the inclusion of informal language, youth-focused policies and youth slang and trends.

One Nation, in contrast, was the most overtly political (94%) and traditional in tone (88% professional language). It directed its messaging to a general audience with a strong focus on attack content (82%).

On the whole, One Nation’s content consisted of long formal news interviews and speeches, and was not well-adapted to suit the TikTok medium.

Labor blended politainment (58%) with substantive political messaging (42%). About 35% of the videos were promoting party policy, while 53% were attack ads. It focused most on Medicare (44%), education, and housing – all issues particularly resonant with younger people (68% of their audience).

The Greens had the highest share of policy-focused content (60%). These posts were strongly youth-oriented (77%), and covered climate change (27%), taxes (27%), and education (23%). Their posts were the most informal, with Greens leaders often using the platform to speak directly to TikTok users in a “selfie” style.

Follow the money

A closer look at the policy messaging on TikTok reveals a strong focus on the economy and health. These are two of the most decisive issues for voters across generations, according to the Australian Election Study.

Given the rising cost of living, it’s no surprise this election played out around hip-pocket concerns. Yet, it’s notable that Labor didn’t lean heavily into economic messaging on TikTok, despite cost of living being the top concern for young people.

The Liberals, by contrast, stuck to their traditional strength, making the economy a central theme of their content.

Did it translate to electoral victory?

Our analysis reveals a highly coordinated Labor campaign on TikTok, backed by serious resourcing and a keen understanding of platform dynamics. From short-form videos to youth-oriented podcasts and influencer briefings, Labor went all-in.

While it’s hard to draw a straight line from TikTok posts to ballots cast, their dominant presence online mirrored their dominant result at the polls.

The Greens, however, present a puzzle. They’ve traditionally performed well with young voters and achieved enviable engagement rates on TikTok: about 14% during the campaign, the kind most influencers dream of.

Their content resonated, especially when it featured positive messaging or direct, informal engagement from party leaders. They didn’t rely on minimising political issues with memes and trends.

But they posted far less than Labor and didn’t invest as heavily in trend-based posting. That likely reflects a smaller budget rather than a flawed strategy, but the result was fewer overall views and reach.

Read more:
Greens’ election hubris – how the minor party lost its way and now its leader

Ultimately, this isn’t a story about young voters being swayed by viral videos. They’re politically engaged, issue-aware, and looking for credibility.

Labor’s full-spectrum campaign was slick, and while they also backed that style with substance, they relied heavily on trends and mass-posting, prioritising quantity over quality.

The Greens’ more quality-focused approach connected with their audience, but led to them being out-performed and far less visible.

Hannah Oates receives funding from the Australian Government in the form of a PhD stipend.

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. What did the parties say on TikTok in the election, and how? Here’s the campaign broken down in 5 charts – https://theconversation.com/what-did-the-parties-say-on-tiktok-in-the-election-and-how-heres-the-campaign-broken-down-in-5-charts-254793

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joyce Siette, Associate Professor | Deputy Director, The MARCS Institute, Western Sydney University

As public awareness of dementia grows, so too does the appetite for prevention. Global headlines tout the benefits of exercise, diet, brain training and social activity in reducing dementia risk.

In recent years, medical journals have amplified this message to encourage people to take control of their cognitive futures through lifestyle change. Last year, The Lancet estimated up to 45% of dementia cases worldwide could theoretically be delayed or prevented by addressing modifiable risk factors.

These messages are undeniably hopeful. They suggest personal effort, combined with emerging scientific evidence, can help to overcome a disease long seen as inevitable.

But public health messaging that focuses too narrowly on behaviour may be misleading and potentially harmful, as we argue in The Lancet.

This can lead to a two-tiered system, where affluent people are praised for their proactive brain health, while marginalised groups face barriers to participation and are blamed for their perceived inaction.

What is dementia and what causes it?

Dementia is a neurocognitive disorder and describes conditions that affect memory, thinking and the ability to do everyday tasks. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common type, but there are others such as vascular and Lewy body dementia.

It happens when brain cells become damaged and stop communicating properly. This can cause confusion, forgetfulness and changes in behaviour or mood.

Dementia is linked to some of our deepest cultural fears: the limits of autonomy, dependency on others, the stigma of being diagnosed and the unknown.

So, what increases your risk of dementia? Some risk factors can’t be changed. Age is the biggest one. Family history and certain genes, such as APOE-e4, also raise risk.

But many risk factors are modifiable, which means we can do something about them. Obesity, high cholesterol and high blood pressure raise your risk.
Low levels of exercise or education can also increase the chances of developing dementia.

Read more:
These 12 things can reduce your dementia risk – but many Australians don’t know them all

The science behind prevention

The science of dementia prevention has evolved significantly over the past decade. Lifestyle trials, from Finland, France, Australia and the United States are exploring whether combinations of diet, physical activity, cognitive training and managing cardiovascular risk (high blood pressure, cholesterol, obesity and smoking) can reduce dementia risk.

The Finnish study, the most widely cited of these, demonstrated modest but meaningful cognitive benefits in older adults at risk for dementia after a two-year lifestyle intervention.

Its success has spurred a wave of similar studies globally (to date, more than 40 trials). Collectively, these trials provide a scientific foundation for an increasingly popular public health message: brain health tomorrow is linked to healthy behaviours today.

New possibilities for preventing dementia are certainly promising. However, the translation of these findings into broad public campaigns is where complexity, and ethical tension, emerges.

Dementia risk is related to socioeconomic disadvantage

Dementia risk is also determined by a complex array of extrinsic factors – conditions outside our control – that are unevenly distributed across society: air quality, ethnicity, gender, occupation, the built environment.

These factors influence not just if, but when, dementia might develop.

Dementia prevalence is disproportionately higher in communities facing social disadvantage partly because modifiable risk factors such as diabetes, obesity and low education are also more common in these areas.

But there’s another layer: access. The same communities at greater risk often lack access to the very interventions meant to reduce that risk.

Low-income neighbourhoods may have fewer green spaces, safe walking paths, or affordable, healthy food. They also face higher levels of pollution, noise and chronic stress. All of which can damage brain health.

Not everyone can access the kinds of healthy lifestyles to counteract dementia risks. Telling people to eat a Mediterranean diet or join a gym may be a cold comfort for those without the money, time, services or mobility to do so.

Positioning dementia as something people can avoid also risks implying dementia is something individuals can fail to prevent. This could reinforce existing narratives which equate disease in later life to poor lifestyle choices rather than social inequity.

So how do we do better?

First, prevention messaging must be framed within a social and cultural context.

This means acknowledging and addressing barriers such as food insecurity, lack of green space, caregiver stress and health system distrust.

Messages must be co-created with communities, not imposed on them, and have a visual, motivating appeal.

Second, we must shift from individualistic narratives to collective responsibility. Brain health should be supported through public infrastructure, equitable access to care, and culturally sensitive health promotion.

Prevention doesn’t just happen in the home. It also happens in preschools, schools, shopping centres, clinics, parks and policy rooms.

Finally, we need to reframe success. Preventing dementia is a worthy goal, but so is ensuring dignity, inclusion and care for people who live with it. A just approach to brain health must do both.

The next generation of dementia messaging must be not only evidence-based, but also equity-focused. It should strive to educate without shaming, to empower without excluding, and to promote brain health in ways that honour the realities of ageing.

Joyce Siette receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council on a Targeted Call for Research on cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity in dementia research.

Gilbert Knaggs 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. Dementia risk depends on more than lifestyle factors. Overstating this can cause stigma and blame – https://theconversation.com/dementia-risk-depends-on-more-than-lifestyle-factors-overstating-this-can-cause-stigma-and-blame-256108

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ganna Pogrebna, Executive Director, AI and Cyber Futures Institute, Charles Sturt University

Range anxiety has long been seen as the main obstacle stopping drivers from going electric.

But range isn’t the real issue. The average range of a new electric vehicle (EV) is more than 450 kilometres, and top models offer more than 700km per charge. By contrast, the average car is driven about 33km per day in Australia as of 2020.

What’s really going on is charger anxiety – the question of whether you can find somewhere reliable to recharge when you’re away from home. Australia’s public chargers are not common enough or reliable enough to give motorists certainty they can find a place to recharge.

This is why many drivers are hedging their bets. Rather than embracing battery-electric vehicles, many Australian drivers are opting for hybrids as well as plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), which couple a smaller battery with an internal combustion engine. Hybrids and PHEVs accounted for almost 20% of new car sales from July–September last year, compared to 6.5% for fully electric vehicles.

Labor’s reelection could lead to better charging infrastructure. Last term, the federal government set a goal of a fast charging station every 150km along major highways, while state governments are also building more. But so far, these efforts aren’t enough to ensure Australia has reliable chargers in the right locations. Until then, cautious drivers will buy hybrids.

Public chargers matter

EV owners charge their cars at home an estimated 70–85% of the time. They use public chargers just 10–20% of the time and workplace charging 6–10% of the time.

This makes sense – home charging is reliable and cheap. But these figures also point to a problem: EV drivers don’t trust public chargers.

At present, Australia has about 3,700 public chargers nationwide. Each charging station typically supports one or two EVs, often offering different charging speeds. By contrast, there are around 6,600 service stations, with the ability to fuel multiple vehicles at once.

Other countries have much larger charger networks. The United Kingdom has more than 40,000 and Canada 16,000. China, the world leader, has almost 10 million.

Outside major Australian cities, chargers are harder to find and are often broken or in use. Chargers are usually not staffed, meaning there’s no one watching to prevent vandalism or organise maintenance.

EV plugs are not yet standardised. Some plugs may not be available, and using chargers isn’t always easy. By contrast, petrol cars use standard nozzles, payment is simpler and staff and CCTV presence discourages vandalism and ensures the pumps work.

If a petrol car runs out of fuel, the problem can be solved with a lift and a jerry can. But if your EV runs flat in a rural area because you can’t find a charger, you may have to get it towed.

This lack of reliability is more than just a logistical hurdle — it’s a psychological barrier.

Psychological roadblocks

A recent study found the fear of running out of charge was a major psychological barrier to buying an EV – particularly for rural and regional Australians, who drive longer distances. As long as chargers remain unreliable or located too far apart, this anxiety will persist.

In Australia, it’s easy to find reports of broken chargers, long queues at charging stations, gaps in the rural network and personal anecdotes of EV owners struggling to find a way to charge.

A 2023 survey found almost 70% of EV owners had come across an inoperable charger at least once over the previous six months.

What can Australia take from overseas experience?

Australia’s government wants to increase EV uptake. While EVs are getting cheaper, the supporting infrastructure isn’t good enough yet to make them the norm.

Across the European Union, chargers are being installed every 60km along major highways and efforts are being made to tackle psychological barriers to uptake.

Federal and state governments in the United States have invested heavily in filling gaps in the charger network and working with consumers to encourage more sustainable commuting.

Choosing a hybrid is rational but not ideal

It should be no surprise more Australians are buying hybrids as a safety net, given there are plenty of service stations and not as many EV chargers. City driving can allow near-total use of the electric motor, while longer trips still require petrol.

The choice is rational. But it’s not ideal from an environmental point of view. Traditional hybrids are still largely powered by an internal combustion engine, while PHEVs can run as electric for longer but still use their combustion engines.

While plug-ins have lower emissions than traditional vehicles, they often fail to deliver the full emissions savings drivers and regulators might hope for. Many drivers don’t charge regularly and rely instead on petrol.

Chargers aren’t the only factor, of course. A tax break for PHEVs boosted their popularity for several years before ending in April, while sales of Tesla EVs have fallen off a cliff due to the unpopularity of owner Elon Musk.

What needs to change?

The solutions are straightforward: expand the charger network, especially in regional and rural areas. Improve maintenance schedules and ensure existing chargers are reliable. Make sure data on their availability is accessible in real time so drivers can avoid anxiety and frustration. Counter EV misinformation and anecdotal biases with information campaigns.

When EV ownership and charging in Australia is practical and low risk, the sluggish EV transition will accelerate. But until then, many drivers will keep buying hybrids as a compromise.

Ganna Pogrebna 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. Range anxiety – or charger drama? Australians are buying hybrid cars because they don’t trust public chargers – https://theconversation.com/range-anxiety-or-charger-drama-australians-are-buying-hybrid-cars-because-they-dont-trust-public-chargers-250281

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amitrajeet A. Batabyal, Distinguished Professor, Arthur J. Gosnell Professor of Economics, & Interim Head, Department of Sustainability, Rochester Institute of Technology

President Donald Trump has long been preoccupied by the trade deficit — the gap between what the U.S. sells to the rest of the world and what it buys from it. He recently declared the issue a national emergency and used trade deficit data to calculate so-called “reciprocal tariffs” targeting nearly 100 countries. Although those specific tariffs are now on pause, Trump’s concern with the trade deficit persists.

As an economist, I know there are two basic ways for a country to reduce a trade deficit: import less or export more. While Trump has focused on the former strategy, a more productive path may lie in the latter – especially by looking at untapped opportunities in rural America.

Economists have long studied the differences between rural and urban regions. But while research shows that urban areas tend to be more technologically advanced, fast-growing and economically dynamic, economists have historically paid less attention to how regional differences affect export performance.

New research is starting to fill that gap. Economists recently found that urban businesses export significantly more than rural ones – a difference with significant implications for national trade.

The urban-rural export gap

Looking at data from the Census Bureau’s Annual Business Survey as well as trade statistics from 2017 to 2020, researchers used econometric techniques to measure the urban-rural export gap. They also examined two categories of potential causes – “explained” and “unexplained.”

The first is due to differences in what economists call “endowments” – for example, a region’s digital infrastructure, its access to renewable energy and its opportunities for high-tech employment. These endowments can be observed and therefore explained.

The second is due to what economists call “structural advantage.” This refers to attributes of a region that matter for export performance but can’t be observed and, as a result, remain unexplained.

They found that most of the urban-rural export gap is due to explained differences. That means rural businesses could close the export gap if they were provided with similar endowments – meaning comparable access to renewable energy, similar digital infrastructure and analogous opportunities for high-tech employment – to their urban counterparts.

Even more strikingly, the unexplained component was negative – which means rural businesses outperform expectations given their characteristics. That suggests rural regions have significant untapped export potential.

Several factors collectively account for the urban export advantage. First, urban regions have a greater concentration of highly educated science and technology workers. Urban businesses also tend to be larger and more tech-savvy, and because they have better access to broadband, they use cloud technology more frequently. Urban areas also have more foreign-born business owners who may leverage their international networks.

However, many of these differences suggest possible policy solutions. For instance, since cloud adoption depends on broadband availability, it follows that investing in digital infrastructure could boost rural exports. Also, rural manufacturers, especially in sectors like metals manufacturing, show comparable or higher export intensity per worker than their urban counterparts. So encouraging rural manufacturing would be one way to reduce the urban-rural export gap.

Rethinking trade and rural development

I think this research has important policy implications.

First, it shifts some of the focus away from other countries as the root cause of the trade deficit. And second, it bolsters the case for what economists call “place-based policies” targeting specific geographic areas – as opposed to “people-based policies,” which provide support directly to individuals.

Even though many economists dislike place-based policies, they are increasingly attracting both academic and governmental attention.

During the Biden administration, three major laws – the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act – directed significant federal funds to rural areas. About 43% of funds from those laws – or US$440 billion – was designated as either “rural relevant” or as “rural stipulated,” meaning the funds were either geographically targeted or designed to address disproportionately rural challenges.

Such massive investments in rural regions have led researchers and policymakers to question whether rural export underperformance stems from differences in observable endowments – in other words, things like access to broadband – or from inherent disadvantages that are much harder to deal with.

In my view, this research provides compelling evidence that much of the urban-rural export gap is due to unequal distribution of productive assets, rather than inherent rural disadvantages. With appropriate investments in digital infrastructure, human capital and support for export-capable industries, America’s rural regions could play a much larger role in global trade. These findings also suggest the value of continued federal support for rural development efforts.

In other words, if the U.S. wants to shrink its trade deficit, one answer could be more innovation in rural manufacturing.

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

– ref. If you really want to close the US trade deficit, try boosting innovation in rural manufacturing – https://theconversation.com/if-you-really-want-to-close-the-us-trade-deficit-try-boosting-innovation-in-rural-manufacturing-255851

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

The reshuffle announced by Anthony Albanese is a mix of continuity and change, with those in the government’s top rank staying in their previous ministries, as the prime minister had earlier flagged, but some big movements down the line.

Tanya Plibersek, in the past a left factional rival to Albanese, has received what many see as another hospital pass, moving from environment and water to social services.

But her new portfolio does include domestic violence, a policy passion of hers, and is less tricky in terms of her left-leaning electorate than her previous post.

Plibersek’s former portfolio is taken by Murray Watt, a can-do Queenslander who is likely to speed up development approvals.

His appointment will be welcomed by the development-oriented Western Australian Labor government, which played a key role in frustrating Plibersek’s attempt to get a deal with the crossbench on the “nature positive” legislation.

Watt’s previous post of employment and workplace relations – which he held for less than a year – goes to Amanda Rishworth, formerly in social services.

After the sensational factional removal of Mark Dreyfus, the prized attorney-general position goes to Michelle Rowland, who was communications minister. Rowland was a senior telecommunications lawyer with Gilbert + Tobin, but lacks Dreyfus’ distinguished legal background.

Ed Husic, also the victim of the factional power play in the right, is replaced by Tim Ayres, from the left, in both cabinet and the industry portfolio. Ayres, formerly an assistant minister, is a close confidant of Albanese.

On another front, the Muslim Husic is replaced in cabinet by another Muslim, Anne Aly, promoted from the outer ministry, and taking a grab bag of responsibilities: small business, international development and multicultural affairs.

Aly’s promotion may partially soothe the Muslim voices who have reacted sharply to Husic’s treatment. The Jewish community will be less placated: with the demise of Dreyfus there is no Jew in the ministry. Josh Burns, who is Jewish, has been made a special envoy for social housing and homelessness.

The post of special envoy for social cohesion has been scrapped – Albanese said “we will continue to work as a whole government of social cohesion”.

Sam Rae, a numbers man for Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, whom Marles shoehorned into the ministry, becomes minister for aged care and seniors, a testing job for a man who made his reputation in running Labor campaigning.

One of the most potentially significant moves is the shift of the National Disability Insurance Scheme to come under Health Minister Mark Butler.

In the last term Bill Shorten, father of the scheme, who was responsible for the NDIS and government services, undertook significant reform of the NDIS, which had become a sink for money.

Albanese told his news conference the NDIS belonged with health. The question is whether Butler will continue to drive the reform process, which still has a significant way to go. The junior minister for the NDIS will be Jenny McAllister, praised by Albanese for her grasp of detail.

Anika Wells, who was put in cabinet in January, continues up the escalator, moving from aged care to communications.

She will still hold sport. She comes from Queensland, which is preparing for the 2032 Brisbane Olympics, and Albanese is anxious for continuity in the role. Responsibility for sport is being moved from the Department of Health to the Department of Infrastructure.

Some sources question the linkage of communications and sport as presenting potential conflicts of interest, given the communications portfolio deals with gambling advertising and broadcast rights.

Tony Burke remains in home affairs but will get responsibility for the Australian Federal Police and ASIO, which came under Dreyfus (originally both were in home affairs under the Liberals).

But the attorney-general will be “cross sworn” into both agencies. Albanese said there had been issues about information-sharing during the so-called caravan incident. This was a reference to the criminal hoax involving a caravan found in Sydney filled with explosives, when there were problems in communications between various state and federal agencies.

Newcomer to the ministry Daniel Mulino, from the Victorian right, who has a PhD in economics from Yale, was an obvious choice for assistant treasurer, in the outer ministry. Andrew Charlton, former economic adviser to Kevin Rudd, has been appointed cabinet secretary and an assistant minister.

Another new minister, Jess Walsh, takes early childhood education and youth, in the outer ministry.

The highly qualified Andrew Leigh continues as an assistant minister. His failure to be promoted is the price for not being in a faction. He will be assistant minister for productivity, competition, charities and treasury – dropping employment but adding productivity.

Given treasurer Chalmers’ current emphasis on productivity, this should give some more scope to Leigh.

One notable new special envoy post is for men’s health, which goes to Dan Repacholi, a champion sporting shooter.

Nationals re-elect leader David Littleproud

Nationals leader David Littleproud has retained the leadership, holding off a challenge from Senator Matt Canavan, who called for a drastic realignment of policy including ditching the 2050 net zero emissions commitment.

Kevin Hogan was elected deputy. A supporter of Littleproud, he replaces Perin Davey, who lost her Senate seat at the election.

The Nationals do not release vote numbers.

Bridget McKenzie remains Senate leader of the party.

Littleproud said the party would review “all our policies”.

A major issue is whether it will hold to the 2050 commitment, about which there is considerable internal scepticism.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Albanese shifts Tanya Plibersek from environment, in favour of ‘can-do’ Murray Watt – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-shifts-tanya-plibersek-from-environment-in-favour-of-can-do-murray-watt-255963

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeffrey Craig, Professor in Medical Sciences, Deakin University

An interview with Paula and Bridgette Powers – identical twins who witnessed their mother’s carjacking – recently went viral. The way they spoke and gestured in unison has captivated global audiences.

Genetically, identical twins are clones. They result from the splitting of an early embryo, meaning they share the same genes.

In contrast, fraternal twins are the result of two eggs being fertilised by two different sperm. On average they share 50% of their genes – the same as any siblings who share both their biological mother and father.

So, when identical twins talk and gesture in unison (known as synchrony), is it down to genes? The answer can be complicated.

Genes aren’t the only influence on looks, language and like-minded thinking. Let’s break down the factors that might lead some twins to speak – and apparently think – in unison.

A close bond in a shared environment

Almost all twins, even “identical” ones, show some differences in physical, mental and emotional traits. They also regard themselves as distinct individuals and typically don’t like being referred to as “the twins”.

Yet we know most people naturally mimic the way those close to them speak and move, even without realising it. This phenomenon is called automatic mimicry and may be part of healthy social development, helping people synchronise behaviours and share emotions.

For identical twins who grow up in the same home, school and community, the effect of a shared environment and close bond may be particularly intense.

Paula and Bridgette Powers, for example, have shared an environment: not only the same parents, home and upbringing, but also the same job, running a bird rescue charity.

Twins may know each other so well they can intuitively sense what the other twin is about to say — and may feel like their brains are in sync. The Powers sisters have explained:

our brains must think alike at the same time.

In contrast, twins who grow up apart share many personality traits, but without years of shared interaction they are less likely to develop synchronised speech or mirrored behaviours. However, they do display many of the same unusual habits and idiosyncrasies.

What about genetics?

Studying identical and fraternal twins separated at birth can help us unravel how much of our behaviours – intelligence, personality and temperament – are influenced by genes and environment.

Even when identical twins grow up apart, they tend to closely resemble one another – not only physically, but in their personality, interests and behaviours. Fraternal twins, in general, are much less alike. This tells us genes matter.

One of us (Nancy) was a researcher with the Minnesota Study of Twins Raised Apart, which lasted from 1979 to 1999 and looked at more than 100 sets of twins (and triplets) separated at birth and raised apart. Twins were separated for various reasons, such as the stigma of single motherhood, inadequate family resources and maternal death.

The study comprehensively examined factors affecting a wide range of psychological, physical and medical traits. Researchers wanted to understand the impact of differences in their life histories on both identical and fraternal twins, reared apart and how they affected the current similarities and differences between them.

A striking finding was identical twins raised apart are as similar in personality as identical twins raised together. For example, the Minnesota researchers found little difference in traits such as wellbeing and aggression, whether identical twins were raised together or apart.

This shows genes play an important role in shaping our personality. Genes also affect the way we process speech and language.

Sharing identical genes may mean identical twins also respond to situations in similar ways. This is because their brains lead them to behave in comparable ways. This genetic closeness, which underlies their behavioural resemblance, explains why they may independently say or do the same thing, without any need for a mystical explanation.

The Minnesota study also found when identical twins were reunited they formed closer relationships with each other than reunited fraternal twins did. This suggests perceptions of similarity in behaviour might draw people together and help keep them connected.

We now know genes and environment each account for half the person-to-person differences in personality. However, the life events we individually experience remain the most important factor shaping how our unique traits are expressed and who we ultimately become.

What about a secret ‘twin language’?

Parents of identical twins may be left baffled as their children, even as toddlers, seem to communicate through babbles and gestures that no one else can understand.

Each twin pair has their own way of communicating. Twins’ private speech, also called idioglossia, cryptophasia or a “secret language”, refers to verbal and nonverbal exchanges most other people don’t understand. This is different to synchronised speech.

Private speech is displayed by about 40% of twins. However, estimates vary wildly – ranging from as low as 2% to as high as 47%. That’s mainly because researchers define and measure it differently.

Private speech usually fades as children age, at about three years of age. But some twins continue to use it into early childhood.

Why are we so fascinated by twins?

Twins continue to fascinate us. That is clear in the wealth of media attention they receive, their popularity in scientific studies, and their presence in myths and legends across all continents.

Perhaps it is because when we see identical twins who look and act so much alike, it challenges our belief that we are all unique.

But even identical twins are not exact replicas of one another. Genetic changes, events in the womb, and/or life experiences can conspire to create differences between them.

Nevertheless, most identical twins are more alike and socially closer than any other pair of people on the planet.

Bridgette and Paula Powers appear in an episode of Australian Story airing on Monday on ABCTV and ABC iview.

Jeffrey Craig has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. He is the Patron of the Australian Multiple Birth Organisation, and a Member of the International Society of Twin Studies.

Nancy Segal 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. Genes, environment or a special bond? Why some twins talk and think in unison – https://theconversation.com/genes-environment-or-a-special-bond-why-some-twins-talk-and-think-in-unison-256099

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niro Kandasamy, Lecturer in History, University of Sydney

S. Shakthidharan is one of Australian theatre’s most prominent writers and directors. His Counting and Cracking (2019) and The Jungle and the Sea (2022) received critical acclaim and toured internationally.

These plays focused on armed conflict and displacement in Tamil Eelam, Sri Lanka. Shakthidharan’s new play shifts settings across the Palk Strait to the contemporary struggles of a remote Indian village fending off the ravages of modernity.

The Wrong Gods, directed by Shakthidharan with Hannah Goodwin, is an ambitious play with an all-female and brown cast. It traces the triumphs and tribulations of single mother Nirmala (Nadie Kammallaweera), fighting to protect her family and valley from the “new” world built on the promise of progress.

In an era of multiple crises, the play draws attention to global Indigenous connections to the natural world – in striking contrast to the extractive and capitalist logics of most modern development.

The ‘old’ and the ‘new’

Nirmala is worried as her daughter, Isha (Radhika Mudaliyar), is loosing interest and confidence in Indigenous practices. Nirmala is determined to ensure Isha not only remembers what to do in the valley but understands why.

Isha is a curious girl with a soaring imagination. Her dreams appear wild: she wants to finish school and become a scientist. A few school lessons in the city open Isha to a new world, to “new gods”, unlike the gods she’s used to of the river and her natural surroundings.

When Lakshmi (Vaishnavi Suryaprakash) arrives uninvited, Nirmala and Isha are cautious and weary. But Lakshmi has big plans for the valley. She introduces Nirmala to new farming methods and crop varieties. To sweeten the deal, Lakshmi offers to pay for Isha’s university education.

Nirmala and Isha are both initially doubtful about Lakshmi’s intentions. To mark their differences, Isha points out to Lakshmi she is an upper caste woman from the city whose entire world view is different to hers.

This is the only reference to caste in the play, and its introduction here feels tokenistic. The reference points to longstanding social inequalities in which lower caste groups have been denied greater access to employment, education and cultural capital, but Shakthidharan passes over it too quickly. This aspect of the plot warranted further attention.

Nirmala accepts Lakshmi’s offer. Isha is overwhelmed with joy at the thought of pursuing an education. Armed with enthusiasm and a thirst for “new” knowledge, she immediately departs for the city.

Personal and political battles

The Wrong Gods speaks to the harms of “saviours” whose actions are masked under the guise of progress and empowerment.

Nirmala and her village are viewed by Lakshmi as backward, vulnerable and in need of protection. Lakshmi is cast in a paternalist role: she sees her intervention not only as justified economically, but as the morally correct thing to do.

Lakshmi’s words – however promising and life changing they sound – reproduce elite and exclusionary ideas that ignore ways of living that have survived thousands of years.

After several years, Isha returns to the valley as the scientist for the organisation her mother has been mobilising against. With Lakshmi by her side, Isha tells her mother the dam project will flood the valley and displace the farmers. Nirmala is devastated and furious.

After a few tense moments that see Nirmala and Isha locked in an aruval (machete variety) battle, they realise Lakshmi had known about this outcome from the beginning. This realisation is far too late.

Nirmala decides to stay in the valley and fight – even if it means dying. She tells her daughter to return to the city to inform people about their plight and prevent the further depletion of native lands and waterways.

‘Development’ for whom?

The Wrong Gods is a critique of progress and modernity, and Shakthidharan carefully strikes the right balance between the personal, structural and political.

As Nirmala’s protest actions grow stronger, she must face the reality her daughter is trying to negotiate the needs of two worlds. The interactions between characters and their competing views moves seamlessly across the unfolding scenes, while the audience gets a clearer sense of the entanglements of the challenges playing out in Nirmala and Isha’s lives.

Costumes by Keerthi Subramanyam, who also designed the set, contribute to the play’s critique of progress. Nirmala wears a saree and carries a small purse for food. While Lakshmi wears a churidar set during her first meeting when she is trying to woo favour, she wears a suit on her second visit. Like Lakshmi, Isha returns to the valley wearing a power suit, evoking a sense of authority and upward economic mobility.

The Wrong Gods grapples with the more-than-human worlds at stake amid multiple crises. Through his play, Shakthidharan suggests we should begin addressing the growing needs of our planet by overcoming structural challenges. Doing so may prevent us from reaching solutions which do not displace people or deplete natural resources. Brilliant acting by the cast makes clear the profound emotions of bearing witness to an environmental destruction that is entirely preventable.

We must prioritise and embed local knowledges to address some of the biggest challenges facing us today. Failure to do so will only worsen both man-made and natural crises – and there will be no gods, right or wrong, to save us.

The Wrong Gods is at Belvior Theatre, Sydney, until May 31, then Melbourne Theatre Company from June 6 to July 12.

Niro Kandasamy 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. S. Shakthidharan’s ambitious play The Wrong Gods is a profound critique of progress and modernity – https://theconversation.com/s-shakthidharans-ambitious-play-the-wrong-gods-is-a-profound-critique-of-progress-and-modernity-255512

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Howard, Senior Lecturer, Discipline of English and Writing, University of Sydney

Samuel Beckett is justly regarded as one of the greatest playwrights of the 20th century – and unquestionably one of the most demanding. Few of his works illustrate this more clearly than Happy Days, first performed in 1961, and currently playing at the Sydney Theatre Company.

The premise of this visually arresting two-act play – notable as Beckett’s first play to feature a central female character – is simple and simultaneously astonishing.

A middle-aged woman, Winnie, is buried in a low mound of scorched earth in a barren, sun-blasted landscape. She is buried up to her waist in the first act, and up to her neck in the second.

Her near-silent and largely unseen husband, Willie, isn’t buried himself but appears to lack the means (and possibly the desire) to dig her out. No explanation is ever given for Winnie’s predicament.

Each day starts and ends with the piercing ring of a bell. These are Winnie’s only markers of time. She fills the interminable hours with relentless chatter: an increasingly hopeless attempt to hold despair at bay, while clinging desperately to a sense of routine.

She rations out her dwindling resources and ritually inspects her few remaining possessions: a toothbrush, a lipstick, a mirror, a parasol, a magnifying glass, a comb and, more disturbingly, a small revolver.

Tackling a psychologically complex character

Beckett’s authorised biographer, James Knowlson, points out that when Happy Days premiered, its “starkness and boldness” surprised and bewildered audiences more accustomed to naturalistic forms of theatre.

Critics were initially divided on the play. But with its existential exploration of universal themes such as isolation, time and endurance, it has since become regarded as not only one of the most significant works in Beckett’s oeuvre, but one of the greatest achievements in theatre history.

Indeed, the esteem in which Happy Days is now held can be seen in comparisons made between Winnie and Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

This parallel isn’t nearly as far-fetched as it might seem at first. For one thing, Winnie directly quotes from Shakespeare’s famous tragedy early in the first act.

Also, much like Hamlet, she is a character of great psychological complexity, prone to lengthy reflections on the nature of existence, the passage of time and mortality. Her monologues, like Hamlet’s, are freighted with irony, melancholy and flashes of mordant humour.

That such a link can be made speaks not only to the strength of Beckett’s writing, but also to the extraordinary challenge – and opportunity – presented by the role of Winnie, for any actor brave enough to take it on.

Pamela Rabe delivers a truly mesmeric performance as Winnie in the Sydney Theatre Company’s outstanding rendition of Happy Days. She seems highly aware of the role’s magnitude:

People talk about it being the kind of female Hamlet. I think, well, Jesus, in Hamlet there’s at least another 12 people on the stage.

Initially approached by former artistic director Kip Williams, Rabe was hesitant to take on the part. She admits playing Winnie was “definitely not on my bucket list”. However, the challenge ultimately proved irresistible.

Rabe described the process of getting to grips with Beckett’s “meticulous” dramatic prescriptions and constructing Winnie’s world as

part maths, part archaeology, part slapstick, and very much a privilege. She’s endearing, mercurial, resourceful, wilful, occasionally a bit silly but always full of life.

A contemporary spin with wit and pathos

The production, conceived and directed by Rabe and renowned lighting designer Nick Schlieper, does justice to Beckett’s original vision, while offering a new spin on this most canonical of plays.

Consider, for instance, the creative team’s striking decisions when it came to set design and staging. While their choices honour Beckett’s stated demand for “maximum simplicity”, they also depart in key visual respects. Gone are the “scorched earth” and “blazing sun” Beckett called for in his original stage directions.

Instead, Schlieper offers us something approximating a post-apocalyptic tableau: the stage is framed by a narrow proscenium-like window, behind which Winnie, and occasionally Willie (played excellently by Markus Hamilton) appear. This window is set against a monochromatic and featureless void.

The ash-coloured mound, which brings to mind Mark Rothko’s desolate final abstract expressionist canvases, is amorphous and otherworldly – a monstrous fusion of congealed lava and nuclear slag. Everything is beautifully rendered and deeply unsettling.

These eerie abstractions heighten the play’s existential stakes, forcing the audience to reckon with the sheer horror of Winnie’s situation, while showcasing the talents of an actor capable of infusing the bleakest of scenarios with wit and pathos.

They also ensure the production feels contemporary and resonant – particularly in an age haunted by environmental catastrophe and ecological collapse – without retroactively imposing present day values and concerns onto the past.

Something tells me Beckett, who consistently eschewed easy and all too often reductive interpretations of his work, would have approved.

Alexander Howard 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. Pamela Rabe shines in this hypnotic revival of Samuel Beckett’s classic play Happy Days – https://theconversation.com/pamela-rabe-shines-in-this-hypnotic-revival-of-samuel-becketts-classic-play-happy-days-254068

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lynda Goldsworthy, Research Associate, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania

President Donald Trump has begun eroding the United States presence in Antarctica by announcing deep funding cuts to his nation’s science and logistics on the icy continent.

The Trump administration has significantly reduced funding for both Antarctica’s largest research and logistics station, McMurdo, and the National Science Foundation which funds US research in Antarctica.

More cuts are foreshadowed. If carried through, US science and overall presence in Antarctica will be seriously diminished – at a time when China is significantly expanding its presence there.

Since 1958, the US has been a leader in both Antarctic diplomacy and science. Shrinking its Antarctic presence will diminish US capacity to influence the region’s future.

Why the US matters in Antarctica

The US has historically focused its Antarctic influence in three key areas:

1. Keeping Antarctica free from military conflict

The US has built considerable Antarctic geopolitical influence since the late 1950s. Under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, it initiated (and later hosted) negotiations that led to the development of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty.

It was also key to establishing the fundamental principles of the treaty, such as using the Antarctic region only for peaceful purposes, and prohibiting military activities and nuclear weapons testing.

2. Governing Antarctica together

The US was influential in developing the international legal system that governs human activities in the Antarctic region.

In the 1970s, expanding unregulated fishing in the Southern Ocean led to serious concerns about the effects on krill-eating species – especially the recovery of severely depleted whale populations.

The US joined other Antarctic Treaty nations to champion the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CAMLR), signed in 1980. It prioritises conservation of Southern Ocean ecosystems and all species, over maximum fish harvesting.

The US also contributed to the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection. Among other measures it prohibits mining and designates Antarctica as “a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science”.

3. Scientific research and collaboration

The US operates three year‑round Antarctic research stations: Palmer, Amundsen-Scott and McMurdo.

McMurdo is Antarctica’s largest research station. Amundsen-Scott is located at the South Pole, the geographic centre of Antarctica, and the point at which all Antarctic territorial claims meet. The South Pole station is thus important symbolically and strategically, as well as for science.

The US has the largest number of Antarctic scientists of any nation in the continent.

US scientific work has been at the forefront of understanding Antarctica’s role in the global climate system, and how climate change will shape the future of the planet. It has also played a major role in Southern Ocean ecosystem and fisheries research.

This research has underpinned important policies. For example, US input into models to predict and manage sustainable krill yields has been pivotal in regulating the krill fishery, and ensuring it doesn’t harm penguin, seal and whale populations.

The US has also been a staunch supporter of a comprehensive network of marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean. The Ross Sea Region Marine Protected Area proposed by the US and New Zealand is the largest in the world.

A broad ripple effect

The US influence in Antarctica extends beyond the list above. For example, the US has a significant Antarctic-based space program. And US citizens make up most Antarctic tourists, and the US plays a significant role in regulating tourism there.

The full extent of the Trump administration’s cuts is still to play out. But clearly, if they proceed as signalled, the cuts will be a major blow not to just US interests in Antarctica, but those of many other countries.

The US has the best-resourced logistics network in Antarctica. Its air transport, shipping and scientific field support has traditionally been shared by other countries. New Zealand, for instance, is closely tied with the US in resupply of food and fuel, and uses US air and sea logistics for many operations to the Ross Sea region.

And joint research programs with the US will be affected by reduced funding in Antarctica directly, and elsewhere.

For example, reported cuts to the climate programs of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may hamper satellite coverage of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean. This would affect Australian scientists collecting data on ocean temperature, sea-ice state and other metrics used in climate research and weather forecasting.

Worrying times ahead

China has signalled its intention to be a key geopolitical player in Antarctica and has greatly expanded its Antarctic presence in recent years.

China has five Antarctic research stations. Its sixth summer station is due for completion in 2027. China also operates two icebreaker ships, helicopters and a fixed-wing aircraft in Antarctica and is building new, large krill trawlers.

Both China and Russia, are increasingly active in their opposition to environmental initiatives such as marine protected areas.

A smaller US presence creates greater opportunities for others to shape Antarctica’s geopolitics. This includes pressure to erode decades-long protection of the Antarctic environment, a push for more intensive fish and krill harvesting, and potentially reopening debate on mining in the region.

Lynda Goldsworthy and Tony Press co-authored the chapter Power at the Bottom of the World in the new book Antarctica and the Earth System.

Lynda Goldsworthy, research associate with IMAS, UTAS, undertakes occasional contract work with the Deep Sea Conservation, is a member of AFMA’s SouthMac advisory group ) and of CSIRO National Benefit Advisory Committee.

Tony Press receives funding from the Australia-Japan Foundation (Department of .Foreign Affairs and Trade)

– ref. As Donald Trump cuts funding to Antarctica, will the US be forced off the icy continent? – https://theconversation.com/as-donald-trump-cuts-funding-to-antarctica-will-the-us-be-forced-off-the-icy-continent-254786

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael J. I. Brown, Associate Professor in Astronomy, Monash University

There’s a blaze of light across the sky! A fireball is seen by thousands, and mobile phone and dashcam footage soon appears on social media.

But what have people just seen? A mix of social media hashtags suggests confusion about what has streaked overhead. Was it a Soviet Venus probe? Was it one of Elon Musk’s satellites or rockets? Was it a meteor? Was it a comet?

While these objects have some similarities, there are crucial differences that can help us work out what just passed over our heads.

Shooting stars, meteors and comets

Shooting stars can often be seen on dark, clear nights in the countryside as brief flashes of light travelling across the sky. Usually, they are gone in just a second or two.

Shooting “stars” are not stars, of course. They are produced by dust and pebbles burning up high in the atmosphere, typically above 50km in altitude. Comets are often a source of this dust, and regular showers of shooting stars happen when Earth travels through comets’ orbits.

Sometimes shooting stars burn with colours that reflect their composition – including iron, magnesium and calcium.

Meteors and shooting stars are actually the same thing. But when people talk about meteors, they often mean bigger and brighter events – bolides. Bolides result from rocks and boulders plunging into Earth’s atmosphere, resulting in bright flashes of light that can outshine all the stars and planets in the night sky.

Bolides can reach the lower atmosphere and sometimes produce audible sonic booms. Occasionally pieces of the bolide – meteorites – even make it to Earth’s surface.

While bolides can survive longer than shooting stars, they also don’t last for long. As they are initially travelling at tens of kilometres per second, they don’t take long to traverse the atmosphere.

The Chelyabinsk meteor, the largest bolide known to impact Earth in over a century, shone brightly for only 20 seconds or so.

If you see something blaze across the sky, it almost certainly isn’t a comet. Comets are so far away from us that their vast speeds are imperceptible to the human eye. Furthermore, while comets are sometimes depicted as fiery, their glow is more subtle.

Space junk

Maybe the bright flash you just saw was space junk? Perhaps. The number of orbital rocket launches and satellites has increased rapidly in recent years, and this has resulted in some spectacular reentries, which are often discarded rocket stages.

Like meteors, space junk travels at vast speeds as it travels through the atmosphere and it begins burning up spectacularly. Also like meteors, you can see colours indicative of the materials burning up, such as steel and aluminium. However, there are a few things that distinguish space junk from meteors.

When rockets and satellites are launched into orbit, they typically travel along paths that roughly follow Earth’s curvature. So when space junk begins to enter the atmosphere, it’s often travelling almost horizontally.

Space junk also travels at slower speeds than shooting stars and meteorites, entering Earth’s atmosphere at roughly 8km/s rather than tens of kilometres per second.

Because of these factors, space junk can take minutes to enter the atmosphere and travels hundreds of kilometres in the process. Over this time, the space junk will slow down and break up into pieces, and the more solidly constructed parts might make it down to Earth.

The slower pace of space junk fireballs gives people time to grab phones, take footage and post on social media, perhaps with a little colourful commentary added for good measure.

Rockets

While space junk can produce a light show, rockets can also put on amazing displays. If you happen to be near Cape Canaveral or Vandenberg Space Force Base in the United States, or Wairoa in Aotearoa New Zealand, then it’s not unexpected to see a rocket launch. You get smoke, flames and thundering noise.

But in other parts of the world you may get a different view of rockets.

Rockets that bring satellites into our orbit accelerate to 8km/s. As they do, they travel many hundreds of kilometres at over 100km altitude. American satellite launches often travel near the coast, passing major cities including Los Angeles.

As rockets approach orbit, they are more subtle than the flames and noise of liftoff. Rockets produce plumes of exhaust gases that rapidly and silently expand in the vacuum of space.

While these plumes are typically seen near launch sites, they can be visible elsewhere, too.

Sometimes rocket engines are ignited after reaching an initial orbit to boost satellites to higher orbits, send probes into the Solar System or slow rockets down for reentry. Rockets may also vent excess fuel into space, again producing plumes or spirals of gases. While not necessarily a common occurrence, these have been seen all over the world.

Do look up

There’s a lot to see in the night sky – the familiar Moon, stars and planets. But there’s the unexpected, too – something blazing across the sky in minutes or even mere seconds. While fireballs may be puzzling at first, they are often recognisable and we can figure out what we’ve just witnessed.

Have you had the good fortune to see a fireball for yourself? If not, pop outside on a clear dark night. Perhaps you will see something unexpected.

Michael J. I. Brown receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and Monash University.

– ref. Comet, rocket, space junk or meteor? Here’s how to tell your fireballs apart – https://theconversation.com/comet-rocket-space-junk-or-meteor-heres-how-to-tell-your-fireballs-apart-213083

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Coates, Program Director, Housing and Economic Security, Grattan Institute

The federal election campaign was dominated by the housing crisis. But the real power to solve it rests with the states.

In Victoria, reforms are underway that promise a bigger boost to the housing aspirations of younger generations than anything that occurs in the federal parliament.

Yet these reforms are now under threat of being killed off in the Victorian parliament. If that happens, Victoria will have fewer homes and they will be more expensive, and many more younger Melburnians will be locked out of home ownership.

We need to build more homes

At the heart of our housing problem is the fact we just haven’t built enough homes.

Australia has among the least housing stock per person in the developed world. This is especially true in places where people most want to live: close to jobs, transport, schools and parks.

The reason is simple: we’ve made it hard to build more townhouses and apartments in the most desirable parts of our biggest cities.

Like in other states, Victorian state and local governments have long restricted medium- and high-density developments to appease local opposition. The Neighbourhood Residential Zone – the most restrictive residential zone in Victoria – covers more than 42% of residential land within ten kilometres of the Melbourne CBD.

And the politics of land-use planning – what gets built and where – favour those who oppose change. The people who might live in new housing in established suburbs – if it were to be built – don’t get a say.

The result is a vast “missing middle”: prime inner-city land, close to jobs and transport, with housing rising only one or two storeys. Melbourne, like Sydney, is one of the least-dense cities of its size in the world, despite the city’s population having risen by 875,000 in the past decade alone. That is the equivalent of almost two Canberras.

It’s a myth that most Victorians want a quarter-acre block if that means living a long way from jobs, transport, shops and parks. Research by both Grattan Institute and Infrastructure Victoria shows there is substantial demand for townhouses and apartments in established suburbs, if only we built more of them.

If Melbourne’s middle suburbs – those between two and 20 kilometres from the CBD – were as dense as those of Toronto, that increase in density alone could accommodate all of the 800,000 extra homes the state government plans to build over the next decade.

The flow-on effect is high prices and rents, a stagnating economy because fewer people can live close to jobs, and further expensive and environmentally damaging sprawl into farmland and floodplains.

Recent research showed that 8,000 completed apartments in Melbourne remain unsold. Yet this is less than 3% of all apartments in Melbourne, and is unsurprising given past sharp rises in interest rates and increased barriers in selling to foreign buyers.

That some newly built homes have taken longer to sell is not a reason to prevent the building of those extra homes that so many future Melburnians want to live in.

Victoria’s planning reforms are our best chance

Housing can become more affordable if we allow more homes to be built where residents most want to live.

The Victorian government’s recent reforms, like those in NSW, do just this. Its “activity centre” program will allow more apartments around 60 rail stations and other transport hubs.

Victoria’s new Townhouse and Low-Rise Code will streamline development approval processes for developments of three storeys or less in residential zones across the state. Where developments meet the code, those new homes will no longer need a planning permit and will be exempt from third-party appeals. This is already the case for knock-down rebuilds.

These reforms have the potential to unlock hundreds of thousands of extra homes in the coming decades in areas with some of the best infrastructure, amenities and public spaces.

Similar reforms in Auckland, starting in 2016, contributed to a home building boom that reduced rents by at least 14%. Most of this new stock was townhouses and small apartment buildings, rather than high rises.

Urban density, if done well, can add to neighbourhood amenity while preserving local green space. Several cities with similar populations but higher densities – such as Toronto and Berlin – match or outrank Melbourne on quality-of-life measures.

These reforms are now under threat

These changes do not dictate where housing must be built in Melbourne: they simply permit more housing where demand is highest.

Yet these reforms are now under threat. The Victorian Liberals and the Greens have teamed up to launch an inquiry into the state Labor government’s reforms. The inquiry is scheduled to report on Tuesday, just one day before the deadline for disallowing the reforms lapses.

Together, the Liberals and the Greens have the power to revoke the changes in the upper house of the Victorian parliament. That would be a disaster for housing affordability in Victoria.

The Victorian parliament shouldn’t stand in the way of young families who want to buy a townhouse in the suburb they grew up in, or seniors downsizing to an apartment in their local neighbourhood.

These reforms are about allowing more homes, and creating a better, healthier, and more vibrant Melbourne.

Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the federal and Victorian governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities, as disclosed on its website.

Joey Moloney and Matthew Bowes 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. Victoria’s planning reforms could help solve the housing crisis. But they are under threat – https://theconversation.com/victorias-planning-reforms-could-help-solve-the-housing-crisis-but-they-are-under-threat-255967

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Harcourt, Industry Professor and Chief Economist, University of Technology Sydney

Every now and then, so-called “code wars” erupt between the major Australia winter football codes: the National Rugby League (NRL) and the Australian Football League (AFL).

This animosity likely stems from a phenomenon known as “the Barassi Line”, a cultural and geographical divide based on football preference which runs from Eden, NSW, through Canberra and up to Arnhem Land.

Read more:
The Barassi Line: a globally unique divider splitting Australia’s footy fans

Recently, NRL chair Peter V’Landys claimed victory over the AFL in a strongly worded salvo:

Rugby league has reaffirmed its standing as the No. 1 sporting code in Australia and the Pacific after the Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) announced record-breaking attendances, TV audiences, participation, revenue and assets.

But is he right to state the NRL as Australia’s No. 1 sport?

A uniquely Australian battle

The battleground in Australia is unique: most nations have only one major football code, soccer. Australia though has four – Australian rules football (AFL), rugby league (NRL), soccer and rugby union.

More competition is good for the consumer and, in this case, the consumer is the Aussie sports fan.

The way these fans watch, play and pour money into each sport is closely tracked by each league. And the competition for talent, fans, sponsors and eyeballs via TV, digital media and streaming grows every year.

Thanks to Australian sports media experts SportsIndustryAU, we can now make a direct comparison between the codes.

What the numbers say

It’s important to note the NRL’s recent chest-beating refers to audiences in Australia and the Pacific, explaining the code’s push into Papua New Guinea (PNG) and potentially further expansion in New Zealand.

Read more:
Sports diplomacy: why the Australian government is spending $600 million on a new NRL team in PNG

In terms of revenue, the AFL earned 39% more than the NRL in 2024: $1.04 billion compared to the NRL’s $744.8 million.

In terms of profit, the NRL’s was 51% higher than the AFL in 2024. This was in large part due to the NRL having only half the operational expenses of the AFL.

However, if we look at operating profit (gross profit minus operating expenses), the AFL was 13% higher than the NRL before it made its annual distributions to clubs. The AFL distributes its profits among its 18 clubs, with smaller clubs receiving more than the more powerful teams.

In terms of net assets (the value of an organisation’s assets minus its liabilities), the AFL is also richer: it has net assets of $482.3 million compared to $322.4 million for the NRL. The AFL owns Marvel Stadium and a share in the sports data and analytics company Champion Data. By comparison, the NRL has shares in many hotels.

In terms of TV audience, the NRL was 10% larger in terms of average aggregated audiences for free-to-air and paid subscription services in 2024: 153.7 million to the AFL’s 140.3 million. However, AFL matches go longer and the season features more games than the NRL. Also, these figures do not include streaming numbers, which will be part of future broadcast deals.

In terms of attendance and membership, the AFL is a clear winner.

The AFL welcomed 8.4 million fans through the gate in 2024, compared to 4.3 million for the NRL.

For membership, the AFL’s clubs boasted 1.32 million collectively in 2024. In the NRL, there are slightly more than 400,000 club members (based on club data – the NRL does not release membership data).

In terms of participation, Ausplay – a national tracking survey led by the Australian Sports Commission – estimates 641,390 Aussie rules players, compared to 531,323 for rugby league (which includes touch football and Oztag).

No clear-cut answer

While more of the numbers point to an AFL advantage, this heavyweight battle will never be completely settled, and both codes’ future expansion plans will further muddy the waters.

The NRL has just announced the Perth Bears will join in 2027 or 2028. This team revives the old North Sydney Bears with a new Western Australia base. This will bring the number of NRL clubs to 19.

A possible 20th team is slated for New Zealand, or Ipswich in the western Brisbane corridor.

Similarly, the AFL is expanding, first to Tasmania, which is set to become its 19th club in 2028.

Beyond that, it’s possible the league will look to the Northern Territory, Canberra or another team in Western Australia or South Australia to join as the 20th team.

One key advantage for the NRL is its international appeal.

For two years, it has hosted games in Las Vegas. And after the NRL’s successful Magic Round in Brisbane, CEO Andrew Abdo floated the possibility of taking the event overseas, with Hong Kong and Dubai reportedly expressing interest.

Of course, as a domestic game, Australian rules football cannot logically expand beyond our shores.

But whether beyond our boundaries or within, the NRL vs AFL rivalry will continue, and an unequivocal winner will never really be settled on.

Tim Harcourt 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. Footy’s ‘code wars’ are back, but which is actually the No. 1 Australian sport: the NRL or AFL? – https://theconversation.com/footys-code-wars-are-back-but-which-is-actually-the-no-1-australian-sport-the-nrl-or-afl-256088

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Winter, Associate Professor in Political Theory, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s recent announcement that the government would reinstate a total ban on prisoners voting was in keeping with the coalition’s overall tough-on-crime approach.

The move was called “ridiculous” and “stupid” by opposition spokespeople, largely because it contradicted findings by the Supreme Court and the Waitangi Tribunal.

But behind those concerns about the ban placing an “unreasonable limit on the electoral rights guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act” lies a broader constitutional question to do with parliament’s relationship with the courts.

In short, removing prisoner voting rights will damage a critical but fragile check on government power – what is known as the “judicial declaration of inconsistency”.

An ‘executive paradise’

New Zealand has been described as an “executive paradise” by constitutional lawyer and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer. There is no upper house, no federal structure, and the courts lack the power to strike down unconstitutional legislation.

The constitution itself is a collection of statutes and conventions that, for the most part, can be changed by a simple parliamentary majority. The 1990 Bill of Rights Act is a cornerstone of that constitution, but is an ineffectual check on government power.

When parliament considers a bill that is potentially inconsistent with “the human rights and fundamental freedoms” set out in the Bill of Rights, the attorney-general delivers a report explaining the inconsistencies.

This is supposed to be a deterrent, and one might think it would be the end of the matter. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Adverse attorney-general reports have appeared regularly (there have been 15 since 2021) without blocking legislation.

Parliament’s habit of passing legislation that does not comply with the Bill of Rights is why the recently developed judicial declaration of inconsistency is constitutionally important.

The declaration is a “soft” legal power. It doesn’t strike down laws or rewrite them. Rather, it is a “weak form” of review that enables affected citizens to petition the court to declare a law inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. This should then spur parliament to fix the problem.

The declaration aims to start a constitutional dialogue between the two branches of government. Enabling citizens to hold parliament accountable, it is a vital instrument in a system otherwise heavily dominated by the executive branch.

Constitutional dialogue in action

The High Court issued the first such declaration in the case of Taylor vs Attorney-General in 2015, declaring a total ban on prisoners voting was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The government appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the declaration in a landmark 2018 decision.

What happened next, however, was just as important. If the declaration was to initiate a constitutional dialogue, it was up to parliament to respond – which it did. In 2020, it rescinded the ban on voting for prisoners incarcerated for less than three years.

Then, in 2022, it amended the Bill of Rights to require the attorney-general to notify parliament when a superior court issues a declaration of inconsistency. And it required a ministerial report to parliament on the government’s response within six months.

Those measures put in place a framework for constitutional dialogues. And this process played out in the next (and to date only) declaration of inconsistency. This was in 2022, when the Supreme Court declared prohibiting 16-year-olds from voting was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

In 2023, the government tabled its response and introduced a bill to enable 16-year-olds to vote in local elections. The government initially announced it would do the same for parliamentary elections. But that idea was dropped when it became clear this wouldn’t get the necessary super-majority support of 75% of MPs.

An over-powered parliament

Although modest, parliament’s responses were constitutionally important because they modelled a new framework for accountability. Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann suggested the process illustrated how courts and parliament could work together in the “gradual and collaborative elaboration” of New Zealand’s constitution.

An evolving constitutional dialogue would enable the courts to pose a modest check on New Zealand’s over-powered parliament. So, those who hoped they were seeing the dawn of a new constitutional convention will be disheartened by the move to ban all prisoners from voting.

The current government has already terminated the bill enabling 16-year-olds to vote, without mentioning this contradicted the Supreme Court’s declaration of inconsistency.

Should parliament now ban prisoner voting, it will have nullified all substantial responses to declarations of inconsistency. That would be a profound constitutional setback.

Parliament regularly flouts the Bill of Rights. We are now seeing it double down by rolling back its previous responses to judicial declarations.

New Zealanders already have comparatively little constitutional protection from parliament. Reinstating a total ban on prisoner voting will undermine the practice of constitutional dialogue between the two branches of government. And it will weaken a fragile check on government power.

Stephen Winter 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 prisoner voting ban shows again how few checks there are on parliamentary power – https://theconversation.com/a-prisoner-voting-ban-shows-again-how-few-checks-there-are-on-parliamentary-power-256226