Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maurizio Valsania, Professor of American History, Università di Torino

The day after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University, commentators repeated a familiar refrain: “This isn’t who we are as Americans.”

Others similarly weighed in. Whoopi Goldberg on “The View” declared that Americans solve political disagreements peacefully: “This is not the way we do it.”

Yet other awful episodes come immediately to mind: President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed on Nov. 22, 1963. More recently, on June 14, 2025, Melissa Hortman, speaker emerita of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was shot and killed at her home, along with her husband and their golden retriever.

As a historian of the early republic, I believe that seeing this violence in America as distinct “episodes” is wrong.

Instead, they reflect a recurrent pattern.

American politics has long personalized its violence. Time and again, history’s advance has been imagined to depend on silencing or destroying a single figure – the rival who becomes the ultimate, despicable foe.

Hence, to claim that such shootings betray “who we are” is to forget that the U.S. was founded upon – and has long been sustained by – this very form of political violence.

Revolutionary violence as political theater

The years of the American Revolution were incubated in violence. One abominable practice used on political adversaries was tarring and feathering. It was a punishment imported from Europe and popularized by the Sons of Liberty in the late 1760s, Colonial activists who resisted British rule.

In seaport towns such as Boston and New York, mobs stripped political enemies, usually suspected loyalists – supporters of British rule – or officials representing the king, smeared them with hot tar, rolled them in feathers, and paraded them through the streets.

The effects on bodies were devastating. As the tar was peeled away, flesh came off in strips. People would survive the punishment, but they would carry the scars for the rest of their life.

By the late 1770s, the Revolution in what is known as the Middle Colonies had become a brutal civil war. In New York and New Jersey, patriot militias, loyalist partisans and British regulars raided across county lines, targeting farms and neighbors. When patriot forces captured loyalist irregulars – often called “Tories” or “refugees” – they frequently treated them not as prisoners of war but as traitors, executing them swiftly, usually by hanging.

In September 1779, six loyalists were caught near Hackensack, New Jersey. They were hanged without trial by patriot militia. Similarly, in October 1779, two suspected Tory spies captured in the Hudson Highlands were shot on the spot, their execution justified as punishment for treason.

To patriots, these killings were deterrence; to loyalists, they were murder. Either way, they were unmistakably political, eliminating enemies whose “crime” was allegiance to the wrong side.

Pistols at dawn: Dueling as politics

Even after independence, the workings of American politics remained grounded in a logic of violence toward adversaries.

For national leaders, the pistol duel was not just about honor. It normalized a political culture where gunfire itself was treated as part of the debate.

The most famous duel, of course, was Aaron Burr’s killing of Alexander Hamilton in 1804. But scores of lesser-known confrontations dotted the decade before it.

In 1798, Henry Brockholst Livingston – later a U.S. Supreme Court justice – killed James Jones in a duel. Far from discredited, he was deemed to have acted honorably. In the early republic, even homicide could be absorbed into politics when cloaked in ritual. Ironically, Livingston had survived an assassination attempt in 1785.

In 1802, another shameful spectacle unfolded: New York Democratic-Republicans DeWitt Clinton and John Swartwout faced off in Weehawken, New Jersey. They fired at least five rounds before their seconds intervened, leaving both men wounded. In this case, the clash had nothing to do with political principle; Clinton and Swartwout were Republicans. It was a patronage squabble that still erupted into gunfire, showing how normalized armed violence was in settling disputes.

Gun culture and its expansion

It is tempting to dismiss political violence as a leftover from some “primitive” or “frontier” stage of American history, when politicians and their supporters supposedly lacked restraint or higher moral standards. But that is not the case.

From before the Revolution onward, physical punishment or even killing were ways to enforce belonging, to mark the boundary between insiders and outsiders, and to decide who had the right to govern.

Violence has never been a distortion in American politics. It has been one of its recurring features, not an aberration but a persistent force, destructive and yet oddly creative, producing new boundaries and new regimes.

The dynamic only deepened as gun ownership expanded. In the 19th century, industrial arms production and aggressive federal contracts put more weapons into circulation. The rituals of punishing those with the wrong allegiance now found expression in the mass-produced revolver and later in the automatic rifle.

These more modern firearms became not only practical tools of war, crime or self-defense but symbolic objects in their own right. They embodied authority, carried cultural meaning and gave their holders the sense that legitimacy itself could be claimed at the barrel of a gun.

That’s why the phrase “This isn’t who we are” rings false. Political violence has always been part of America’s story, not a passing anomaly, and not an episode.

To deny it is to leave Americans defenseless against it. Only by facing this history head-on can Americans begin to imagine a politics not defined by the gun.

Maurizio Valsania 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. Yes, this is who we are: America’s 250-year history of political violence – https://theconversation.com/yes-this-is-who-we-are-americas-250-year-history-of-political-violence-265171

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

The line between pulling off a diplomatic masterstroke and setting up an accident waiting to happen can be a fine one. In the seven-month fable of Peter Mandelson’s UK ambassadorship to the US, the crossing of that line has created a political polycrisis for which it is hard to think of a parallel.

In the week after the prime minister, despite his efforts, lost his deputy, and the week before the American president arrives in the UK for an unprecedented – and unpopular – second state visit, Keir Starmer, despite his efforts, has lost the person he controversially personally appointed to the UK’s highest diplomatic post. Worse, over a matter that also happens to implicate Donald Trump – a matter journalists could conceivably raise at the president’s and prime minister’s press conference during the forthcoming state visit.

The risk in the main was in the ambassadorship itself. The US is the UK’s closest and most important international ally and the Washington ambassador is the lynchpin of that relationship. They are the UK’s eyes and ears, permanently operating at the centre of the political and social life of the US capital in the way that no other country’s ambassador has been, is, or could be.

But the risk was also in the man. Prince of Darkness, Third Man, (only last week: “my familiar role as professional villain”), possessed of a public career already involving two high-profile reputation-wracking resignations, Mandelson has always been weapons-grade Marmite.

It was a reflection of post-Brexit British weakness, rather than strength – the desperate need for a trade deal – that Starmer turned to him. Yet personal relations being so important with this president, it can now be seen to have made less sense to have replaced a scandal-free ambassador – Karen Pierce – who was on the best possible terms with Trump and his people. She may return.

Its prominence is why, perhaps, DC is usually the only British ambassadorship that is ever “political” – that is, that a prime minister personally chooses someone who isn’t a diplomat. And even then, it’s rare. One may now see now why. The previous political appointment – in the 1970s – also ended inauspiciously, in a welter of recriminations over nepotism and extra-marital affairs resulting in best-selling novelisation and a hit movie.

The main grounds for Mandelson’s appointment were his public prominence (his “weight”), his experience as an EU trade commissioner, and his almost preternatural networking skills. The latter has been his undoing, given that for years he networked with the man who was to become the world’s most infamous sexual abuser of children.

To describe the appointment as high risk and high reward matters because of the supreme importance of the office and the singular character of the officer. If one can screen the Epstein stain momentarily, the widespread frustration in government was that Mandelson had been justifying that risk.

He was clearly an effective ambassador. Only the week before he delivered a trenchant statement of the contemporary special relationship; the day before he was sacked he had spent an hour with Trump. Ambassadors tend not to have meetings with presidents.

Fundamentally this falls on the fallen. Mandelson knew of the Epstein material that has come to be made public, knowing that it might be made public. He admitted only this week that even more was likely to come after the initial, highly embarrassing, disclosure.

Mandelson took the UK’s most important diplomatic post knowing he was sitting on a ticking bomb. Given the precise nature of the explosive, the political obituary can certainly now be written about one of the most vivid public figures of the past 30 years.

But the more consequential damage will be to the man who appointed him. Downing Street’s statement that security vetting took place without its involvement is not credible.

Much may hinge on what the vetting files reveal – if they are revealed. The decision on whether to release them is a matter for MPs, and how Labour backbenchers choose to vote will be a significant indicator as to the mood in the party.

A crisis from Hades, replete with shadowy associations of global elites and paedophile rings; a hot buffet for online conspiracists, who may be more numerous and prominent in the US, but are far from reticent in the UK. And so the political class undergoes another detention.

The political damage to the government in general and to the prime minister in particular is hard to overstate. That is in part a matter of misfortune: that this particular major crisis comes a week after the previous one. But it has nevertheless provided the leader of the opposition with the most palpable success of her own benighted tenure. Seldom can a relaunch have relapsed so quickly.

However hapless he may increasingly appear, it’s too early to write Starmer’s political obituary. The election may be over three years away, his parliamentary majority is unassailable, and his party – unlike that of the leader of the opposition – has no culture of regicide (although mayor Andy Burnham, observing and pronouncing from Manchester, seems increasingly prepared to test that). Yet the very size of that majority, and the near certainty that many Labour MPs will be one-term, makes public expressions of discontent consequence-free, and consequently freer.

It’s more than curious that so innately risk-averse a person as Keir Starmer appointed so risk-taking a person as Mandelson to his country’s highest-profile international office. That misgivings were aired at the time, including in these very pages, is the least of it.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

Martin Farr 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. Peter Mandelson was always a high-risk appointment – his departure will not end the matter for Keir Starmer – https://theconversation.com/peter-mandelson-was-always-a-high-risk-appointment-his-departure-will-not-end-the-matter-for-keir-starmer-265159

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rafeef Ziadah, Senior Lecturer in Politics and Public Policy (Emerging Economies), King’s College London

Entire neighbourhoods in Gaza lie in ruins. Hundreds of thousands are crammed into tents, struggling for food, water and power. Despite this devastation, a leaked 38-page document from Donald Trump’s administration – the Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation (Great) Trust – proposes to “fundamentally transform Gaza” folding it into the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (Imec).

While framed as a reconstruction plan, it outlines “massive US gains,” Imec’s acceleration, and consolidation of an “Abrahamic regional architecture” – a term that refers back to the 2020 Abraham Accords, US-brokered agreements that normalised relations between Israel, the UAE and Bahrain.

In many respects, the document echoes the “Gaza 2035” plan promoted by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This was the 2024 proposal that envisioned Gaza as a sanitised logistics hub linked to Saudi Arabia’s Neom mega-project and stripped of meaningful Palestinian presence.

As my co-authors and I trace in a recent book Resisting Erasure: Capital, Imperialism and Race in Palestine, this continues a pattern of policies that deny Palestinians political agency and reduce Gaza to an investment opportunity.

Imec was launched at the 2023 G20 summit in New Delhi. Signed by the US, EU, India, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, it was billed as a transformative infrastructure project. It comprised a chain of railways, ports, pipelines and digital cables linking South Asia to Europe via the Arabian Peninsula.

Israel was not formally a signatory, but its role was implicit. The corridor runs from Indian ports to the UAE, overland through Saudi Arabia and Jordan to the Haifa Port in Israel, then across the Mediterranean to Greece and Europe.

Like many such mega-projects, Imec is marketed in the language of efficiency – faster trade times, lower costs, new energy and data corridors. But its deeper significance is political. For Washington it serves as a counterweight to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) while binding India into a US-led system. Europe views it as a hedge against the Suez Canal and Russian pipelines.

The Gulf monarchies see a chance to position themselves as the region’s main centre for trade and transport. Israel promotes Haifa as a gateway for Euro-Asian trade. India, meanwhile, gains quicker access to Europe while tightening its ties with both Washington and the Gulf.

Gaza as obstacle and gateway

The plan casts Gaza both as an Iranian outpost undermining Imec and as a historic crossroads of trade routes linking Egypt, Arabia, India and Europe.

By invoking Gaza’s history as a trading route, the plan presents the territory as a natural logistics gateway poised to “thrive once again” at the centre of a “pro-American regional order”. The blueprint proposes extending Gaza’s port from Egypt’s al-Arish, integrating its industries into regional supply chains, and reorganising its land into “planned cities” and digital economies.

What is being imagined is not recovery for its residents, but the conversion of Gaza into a logistics centre serving Imec.

Perhaps the most radical element of the Great Trust is its model of direct trusteeship. The plan envisions a US-led custodianship, beginning with a bilateral US–Israel agreement and eventually expanding into a multilateral trust. This body would govern Gaza, oversee security, manage aid and control redevelopment. After a “Palestinian polity” is established, the trust would still retain powers through a Compact of Free Association.

Even the most ill-fated US occupation plans in Iraq and Afghanistan did not so openly imagine territory as a corporatised trusteeship for global capital.

‘Voluntary’ relocation

Another striking feature of the plan is its provision for “voluntary relocation.” Palestinians who leave their homes in Gaza would receive relocation packages, rent subsidies and food stipends. The document assumes a quarter of the population will depart permanently, with financial models showing how the scheme becomes more profitable the more people leave.

In reality, the notion of voluntary departure under siege and famine is not voluntary at all. Israel’s blockade has produced what UN officials describe as engineered mass starvation. To frame out-migration as a choice is to sanction ethnic cleansing.

The plan also shows how the language of the Abraham Accords has been grafted onto Gaza’s imagined future. Nearly every element is dressed in “Abrahamic” branding: an Abraham gateway logistics hub in Rafah, an Abrahamic infrastructure corridor of railways, even new highways renamed after Saudi and Emirati leaders.

Techno-futurist gloss is added through smart manufacturing zones, AI-regulated data centres, luxury resorts and new digital-ID cities, planned “smart cities” where daily life, from housing and healthcare to commerce and employment, would be mediated through ID-based digital systems.

Saudi Arabia and the fig leaf of Palestinian statehood

A central ambition of the Great Trust is to channel Gulf capital into Gaza’s redevelopment under its trusteeship. The plan forecasts US$70–100 billion (£50-£74 billion) in public investment and another $35–65 billion from private investors, with public–private partnerships financing ports, rail, hospitals and data centres.

Saudi Arabia, though not formally part of the Abraham accords, signalled its acceptance of the overall framework when it backed Imec. For Washington, Gaza’s reconstruction is imagined as the final step in persuading Riyadh to make normalisation official – a prize that would anchor the “Abrahamic order”.

The Trump plan is designed to smooth this path, offering Saudi Arabia a custodial role in Gaza’s redevelopment and lucrative stakes in Imec. To make the deal more palatable, it even floats the idea of a Palestinian “polity” – a limited governance entity under trusteeship.

While such an arrangement may be billed as a step towards Palestinian statehood recognition by Saudi Arabia, this is precisely why any future gestures of recognition must be treated with caution. The real question is what, exactly, is being recognised, and in whose interest.

The Great Trust is, at its core, an investment prospectus. The document values Gaza today at “practically $0” – but projects it could be worth $324 billion within a decade.

Gaza is described less as a society than as a distressed asset to be flipped. This is disaster capitalism at its sharpest. It is devastation reframed as the precondition for speculative profit.

Yet visions of free-trade zones and futuristic cities quickly collide with reality. Palestinians have consistently rejected such schemes. What this leaked document makes clear however, is that Gaza’s future is being framed within this broader US effort to reshape the region.

Rafeef Ziadah 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. Donald Trump’s vision for Gaza’s future: what a leaked plan tells us about US regional strategy – https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-vision-for-gazas-future-what-a-leaked-plan-tells-us-about-us-regional-strategy-264899

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claire Richards, Lecturer in Biotechnology, University of Technology Sydney

The placenta is a unique organ which exists only during pregnancy, growing at tumour-like speed to the size of a small dinner plate. The placenta is essential to the growth of every baby, but we’re missing key details about how it develops.

Studying the placenta during pregnancy is difficult, as taking samples risks introducing infection or triggering miscarriage. And placental tissue after birth is very different from its early form.

Animal placentas are often distinct from human ones, so studying them is of limited use. Pregnancy researchers have been left in the dark on the critical early stages of placental development.

In new research published today in Nature Communications, we report the first 3D-printed artificial mini-placentas. These “placental organoids” are an advance over earlier efforts, and will give scientists new ways to study pregnancy and shed light on complications like preeclampsia.

Tiny organs in the lab

First described in 2009, organoids were a breakthrough in medical research.

Since then, scientists have grown organoids from a wide range of human organs by taking stem cells and setting them in a gel, like sprinkles suspended in jelly. This gel mimics the tissue that cells are supported in and allows them to form clusters as they grow and divide.

In 2018, the first placental organoids were grown from trophoblasts – a type of cell found only in the placenta. Researchers have been using placental organoids to uncover hidden processes of early pregnancy by copying them in a dish.

However, most of this research relies on animal-derived gels which cannot be modified to reflect the growing environment of the real placenta. Also, manually suspending cells in gels makes it difficult to create many organoids.

3D printing placentas

Bioprinting is a type of 3D printing technology that uses living cells and cell-friendly materials to create 3D structures. We mixed trophoblast cells from the placenta with a synthetic, controllable gel and 3D printed them into a culture dish in precise droplets, much like an ink-jet office printer.

Our printed cells grew into placental organoids and we compared them to organoids made with existing manual methods.

The organoids we grew in the bioprinted gel developed differently to those grown in an animal-derived gel, and formed different numbers of cell sub-types. This highlighted that the environment organoids are grown in can control how they mature.

These organoids were very similar to human placental tissue, providing an accurate model of the early placenta. We could change how the cells organised themselves by taking young organoids out of the gel and letting them float in their liquid food.

Growing placental organoids creates a new way for researchers to study crucial processes in early pregnancy, unveil the causes of serious conditions like preeclampsia and find new treatments.

Why understanding the placenta is so important

In 2023, pregnancy complications led to over 260,000 maternal deaths and millions of infant losses globally.

One serious complication in pregnancy linked to placental dysfunction is preeclampsia, which affects 5–8% of pregnancies. It causes high blood pressure and can damage organs, often with little warning.

Preeclampsia can lead to early delivery and serious health risks for both mother and baby. It also increases the mother’s risk of long-term health problems like heart disease, diabetes, and kidney disease.

Right now, there’s no cure besides delivery because we still don’t fully understand what causes it.

Risk factors such as race, age, obesity, existing high blood pressure, diabetes, autoimmune disorders and use of assisted reproductive therapy can identify women who are more likely to develop preeclampsia. Women can sometimes prevent this by taking low doses of aspirin from early in pregnancy, but researchers haven’t yet found an effective way to prevent all cases.

If preeclampsia develops, a few drug options are available to treat blood pressure changes but the only cure is delivery of the baby. This often leads to premature birth and the challenges that come with being born early.

How better mini-placentas can help

With placental organoids, we can start piecing together the puzzle of pregnancy complications and test new drugs safely. For example, we exposed our bioprinted organoids to an immune signal found at high levels in women with preeclampsia, then tested potential treatments to see how the organoids grew and responded.

Building on this, bioprinted organoids could be expanded to better understand pregnancy by using tools like CRISPR to edit genes in cells and uncover important players in this tightly choreographed process. They could be used to study infections, and test drugs for their safety and effectiveness at scale.

Bioprinting improves accuracy, repeatability and reduces the need for animals in research – both for sourcing materials and for drug testing. While some animal research is still used for testing in a whole living body, this is an important step towards animal-free research.

As we refine these models, we move closer to a future where pregnancy complications can be predicted, prevented and treated before they put lives at risk.

Claire Richards received funding from The Australian Government in the form of a Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Lana McClements receives funding from National Heart Foundation of Australia.

– ref. 3D printed mini-placentas offer a new way to study pregnancy complications – https://theconversation.com/3d-printed-mini-placentas-offer-a-new-way-to-study-pregnancy-complications-261571

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cymbeline Buhler King, Research Officer, School of Social Sciences, Western Sydney University

The production opens on skates. We are flung into an Elizabethan world articulated with the beautiful simplicity of a circle motif. A circle is dusted on the stage, the queen is dressed with an enormous circular petticoat reminiscent of crocheted toilet roll holders from the 1970s. Courtiers fly through on roller skates.

When Orlando (played by Shannen Alyce Quan, the first of four actors to take on the role), is presented to Queen Elizabeth I (Amber McMahon), she names him Lord Orlando, decreeing his life be filled with opportunity and abundance.

The opening scenes lift us up into a dream, full of possibility. When Orlando falls in love with Princess Sasha (Emily Havea), the terrible tension arises between keeping the magic of a perfect romance fixed, and the need for change – the only way for social norms to evolve.

Belvoir’s Orlando is a new adaptation of Virginia Woolf’s 1928 novel of the same name. In the show notes, co-writer (with Elsie Yager) and director Carissa Licciardello describes Woolf’s novel as a “love letter to the queer community”.

Pulling the play on gender politics from the 1920s into the present day, Licciardello conscientiously casts Orlando with non-binary actors, making this production into a love letter to the contemporary queer community.

Shifting genders

First published in 1928, Orlando throws gender politics into the air, employing a form of magic realism to explore gender through the centuries, from the stately Elizabethan era, to the decadent restoration, the bleak Victorian era, and into the 1920s.

In the novel, Orlando is a nobleman, born during Elizabeth I’s reign over England. In an epic adventure, Orlando journeys through the centuries as a poet, working for various rulers and pursuing numerous lovers.

At the turn of the 19th century, Orlando finds they have switched from male to female, and must face the magnitude of what it means to be a woman.

The play riffs on this plot, simplifying it to a sparse core of key elements, but expanding on the gender evolution. This adaptation introduces two further changes in gender identity, first from male to female, but then to an ambiguous gender that is socially unacceptable, and finally to a non-binary gender reflected in the contemporary society.

A drifting production

Licciardello establishes tensions that drive the piece: orthodoxies and science as forces of erasure; imposing notions of perfection over the peculiarities of unique identities.

However, the principle of binary genders erasing all other possibilities is missing.

Without clearly establishing this central tenet of gender politics, the production lacks a firm problem for its protagonists to push back against.

This leaves it drifting. Where is the grand promise of Orlando’s destiny? Having sailed with aplomb in part one, it takes a sharply enticing turn in part two, where Lady Orlando (played by Janet Anderson) is faced with the ridiculous games of flirtation and romance. It slumps somewhat in part three, where we are asked to adjust to a third Orlando (now played by Zarif).

The transitions from one Orlando to another work perfectly well, but the character development built for us in previous sections falls away. We are faced with the experience of a new character, who we haven’t invested in. Without a strong connection to the main character, the second half of the production drifts, at times even drags.

When new Orlando insists they have adventures and greatness yet to enjoy, we have no visceral experience of what they might yearn for. Our connection to Orlando has been lost in the beautifully constructed mist.

The creatively interesting decision to cast four Orlandos cuts too deeply into the audience’s opportunity to engage effectively with an embodiment of androgyny.

The roaring 20s

The design elements are sumptuous throughout. The monochromatic scheme in the Elizabethan era provides the perfect backdrop for the shocking blaze of orange flames when the Great Fire of London pulls us forwards in time.

The ensemble performances are consistently strong, with a poetic flow of stage pictures and an infectious pleasure in their performances.

Emily Havea is a stand out, both as the princess Sasha and in her minor roles.

The production beautifully balances simplicity of images with complexity of ideas. A fleeting moment in the final scene brings our fourth Orlando (played by Nic Prior) back in contact with their first love, the princess Sasha.

It is moving, ghostly and full of mystery. Much of the production rises to this delicate level of magnetism.

Almost 100 years after Woolf’s book, our own 20s are also roaring. The production ends in the London tube, where we are presented with a stream of queer identities, normalised such that no one is met by a stigmatising gaze.

Free to express apparently endless variations of gender identity, Orlando’s journey across the centuries arrives at this wondrous time when gender ambiguity roams free.

Orlando is at Belvoir, Sydney, until September 25.

Cymbeline Buhler King 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. Belvoir’s Orlando is a love letter to the contemporary queer community that doesn’t quite come together – https://theconversation.com/belvoirs-orlando-is-a-love-letter-to-the-contemporary-queer-community-that-doesnt-quite-come-together-264793

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mehmet Ozalp, Professor of Islamic Studies, Head of School, The Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilisation, Charles Sturt University

Australian Muslim communities have been calling for official recognition of Islamophobia as a serious social problem for many years.

Now, for the first time, the long-awaited report from Australia’s first Islamophobia envoy has given the federal government a comprehensive set of 54 recommendations for addressing it.

The role of the special envoy

The Albanese government created two special envoys in early 2024, one for Islamophobia and another for antisemitism. This was in response to escalation of hate incidents, particularly after the start of the Gaza war in October 2023.

Aftab Malik was appointed Islamophobia envoy in September 2024. Malik is a respected British-Australian Muslim scholar and community leader.

In late 2024 and early 2015, Malik travelled widely across Australia to hear directly from Muslim communities. His report reflects those consultations and sets out a national plan for change.

What the report recommends

There can be no doubting the seriousness of the Islamophobia situation in Australia. The Islamophobia Register has recorded a 530% increase in reports since October 7 2023.

Malik’s 54 recommendations propose a whole-of-society response, spanning government, law, health, education, media, sport and political culture.

At the political level, Malik recommends government:

confront Islamophobia with equivalent urgency to other discriminatory practices, and provide it with the same rights, protections, and legal recourse.

He also urges Australia to:

formally recognise the International Day to Combat Islamophobia on 15 March, as established by the United Nations General Assembly.

In terms of political culture, Malik recommends parliament should:

• develop behavioural codes of conduct for all Australian parliamentarians and staff
• implement a zero-tolerance approach to racism, with appropriate sanctions
• make training programs on Islamophobia mandatory for all parliamentarians and staff.

Legal reform is another key area. Malik calls on government to establish a commission of inquiry into Islamophobia. He recommends a similar commission to investigate anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism. And like parliamentarians, police should receive sensitivity training about Islamophobia.

He also suggests the Racial Discrimination Act should be clarified to specifically include Muslims, as it does Jews and Sikhs.

Education receives special attention. Malik proposes an overarching anti-racism framework for the sector, and for the national curriculum to include “Muslim contributions to Australia, Western civilisation and the development of universal values”. Further, there should be programs designed to better understand the links and commonalities between Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

On community safety and support, Malik recommends funding for the safety of Muslim not-for-profit institutions, particularly mosques.

Media and digital platforms are another area of concern. Malik recommends the government “strengthen […] online safety laws to more effectively challenge online hate”.

The message of these recommendations is clear: Islamophobia should be treated with the same seriousness as antisemitism or racism against Indigenous Australians.

Shortcomings and potential controversies

While Malik’s report is groundbreaking, it is not beyond critique. The recommendations rely heavily on government goodwill. A cross-agency taskforce is proposed, but without an independent authority to enforce them, implementation could easily stall.

Some recommendations may prove controversial. Strengthening online safety laws and holding media accountable could be criticised as limiting free speech.

Anticipating this criticism, Malik stresses his recommendations are not about silencing criticism of Islam. Rather, “they are intended to address the serious issue of prejudice, racism and hate that incite discrimination, hostility or violence”.

Parliamentary codes of conduct and mandatory training for MPs may be dismissed as excessive political correctness.

An independent review of counter-terrorism laws could face resistance from security agencies. Visa bans for hate preachers raises questions about who defines hate speech.

The report also overlaps with the Human Rights Commission’s National Anti-Racism Framework. It gives government a central role, but devotes less attention to empowering Muslim communities themselves to lead initiatives.

Possible responses

There are three possible responses to Malik’s report.

The first is to downplay it, treating Islamophobia as the unfortunate by-product of international conflict. This shifts blame back to the victims.

The second response is to whitewash the report. Some may fear that recognising Islamophobia implies something is inherently wrong with Australian society. Muslims have raised the issue for decades, but are often told it is a temporary phase that will fade away.

The third response is the democratic one: to take the findings seriously and act on them. The report is an opportunity to openly acknowledge Islamophobia as a national problem and implement strategies to address it. Protecting minorities is a core function of democracy.

Malik’s report is a landmark work. For the first time, the experiences of Muslim Australians have been systematically documented and addressed in a national framework.

The government must now act decisively. Filing the report away would betray the trust of more than a million Australians. Acting on it would protect Muslims and strengthen the social fabric for all.

Mehmet is the founder and Executive Director of Islamic Sciences and Research Academy (ISRA).

– ref. Landmark report makes 54 recommendations to combat Islamophobia in Australia. Now government must act – https://theconversation.com/landmark-report-makes-54-recommendations-to-combat-islamophobia-in-australia-now-government-must-act-264489

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese sought to strengthen security ties with Pacific island nations and counter China’s growing influence during a trip to the region this week. If he walks away with one lesson, it’s that Australia’s climate policy remains a significant sticking point.

The main purpose of Albanese’s visit was to attend annual leaders’ talks known as the Pacific Islands Forum. On the way, Albanese stopped in Vanuatu hoping to sign a security agreement – but he couldn’t ink the deal.

I am in the Solomon Islands this week to observe the talks. I saw firsthand that Australia clearly has its work cut out in its quest to lead regional security – and our climate credibility is key.

Pacific countries say unequivocally that climate change – which is bringing stronger cyclones, coastal inundation and bleached coral reefs – is their single greatest threat. If Australia’s geo-strategic jostling is to work, we must show serious commitment to curbing the dangers of a warming planet.

Australia’s strategy tested in the Solomons

The location of this year’s talks – Solomon Islands’ capital, Honiara – is a stark reminder of Australia’s geopolitical stakes amid rising Chinese influence in the region.

The Solomon Islands signed a security deal with China in 2022, which set alarm bells ringing in Canberra. Penny Wong – then opposition foreign minister – described it as the worst failure of Australian foreign policy in the Pacific since World War II.

Since then, the Albanese government has sought to firm up Australia’s place as security partner for Pacific countries by pursuing bilateral security agreements with island nations. So far, it has completed deals with Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

On his way to the Solomon Islands, Albanese stopped in Vanuatu hoping to sign a security agreement which reportedly included A$500 million over ten years to address worsening climate impacts. But that deal was postponed. Members of Vanuatu’s coalition government were reportedly concerned about wording that could limit infrastructure funding from other countries, including China.

Albanese had more success in Honiara, where he advanced talks with Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka for a new bilateral security pact.

Working with island nations to tackle climate change has become key to Australian strategy in the region. This week Albanese also joined Pacific leaders to ratify a regional fund intended to help island communities access international finance to help adapt to climate impacts. Australia has already pledged $100 million for the project, known as the Pacific Resilience Facility.

Australia is bidding to host the COP31 United Nations climate talks in partnership with Pacific countries in 2026. Pacific leaders formally restated support for Australia’s bid this week.

Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr said an Australia-Pacific COP had broad support from the rest of the world:

We deserve to host COP31, and given the breadth and depth of support, it would be seen as an act of good faith if others would clear the way. We don’t want to let this major international opportunity slip by us.

Whipps also championed an initiative for the Pacific to become the world’s first region to be powered 100% by renewable energy.

Pacific Island countries spend up to 25% of their GDP on importing fossil fuels for power generation and transport. As the costs of renewable energy and battery storage quickly fall, Pacific countries could save billions of dollars by making the clean energy shift.

Albanese this week appeared to acknowledge regional concerns about climate change, saying taking action was “the entry fee, if you like, to credibility in the Pacific”.

But the real test is whether Albanese can follow words with meaningful action.

The work starts at home

Albanese’s Pacific visit comes amid heightened scrutiny of Australia’s efforts to curb emissions.

The government must set Australia’s 2035 emissions reduction target this month. The latest reports suggest the commitment may be less ambitious than Pacific leaders, and many others, would like.

Pacific leaders also expect Albanese to curb fossil fuel production for export. Australia’s biggest contribution to climate change comes from coal and gas exports, which add more than double the climate pollution of Australia’s entire national economy.

However, in coming days the federal government is expected to approve Woodside’s extension of gas production at the Northwest Shelf facility off Western Australia, out to 2070. The decision could lock in more than 4 billion tonnes of climate pollution – equivalent to a decade of Australia’s annual emissions.

All this comes in the wake of a landmark legal ruling in July this year, when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion confirming countries have legal responsibilities for climate harms caused by fossil fuel exports.

Vanuatu led the legal campaign. In Honiara this week, Vanuatu’s climate minister Ralph Regenvanu reiterated that Australia must heed the ruling, saying:

The advisory opinion of the ICJ made it clear that going down the path of fossil fuel production expansion is an internationally wrongful act under international law. The argument Australia has been making that the domestic transition is sufficient under the Paris Agreement is untenable. You’ve got to deal with fossil fuel exports as well.

Albanese may have taken on board some of the Pacific’s concern about climate – and made a little progress at this week’s Pacific Islands Forum. But there is work to do if Australia is to be seen as a credible security partner in the Pacific – and that work starts at home.

Wesley Morgan is a Climate Council fellow

– ref. Fossil fuel expansion or Pacific security? Albanese is learning Australia can’t have both – https://theconversation.com/fossil-fuel-expansion-or-pacific-security-albanese-is-learning-australia-cant-have-both-265066

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rose Cairns, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy, NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow, University of Sydney

The ABC this week revealed more than 600 side effects have been reported in three years to the medicines regulator after Australians took unapproved medicinal cannabis.

After a Freedom of Information request, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) told the ABC there had been reports of 615 side effects (known officially as adverse events) in three years to June 2025. These included more than 50 reports of psychosis, and 14 of suicidal thoughts and behaviour.

Most people don’t report adverse events to the TGA, so these numbers are likely a gross underestimate.

Earlier this year, we published research charting the rise in calls to Australia’s largest poisons information centre about cannabis poisoning in the years after medicinal cannabis was legalised. This included a rise in accidental poisoning in children.

Here’s what we know about the risks linked to these unapproved products.

Why medicinal cannabis is unique

All medicines come with a risk of adverse events. Cannabis medicines are no different.

What is unique is that the vast majority of medicinal cannabis use in Australia involves unapproved products. These are ones the TGA has not assessed for quality, safety or effectiveness – but are still legally available.

More than 1,000 unapproved medicinal cannabis products are available in Australia. People often take these for conditions where we have no strong evidence they work.

This is in contrast to the two “approved” medicinal cannabis products, whose manufacturers or suppliers have to provide such evidence.

Read more:
Medicinal cannabis is most often prescribed for pain, anxiety and sleep. Here’s what the evidence says

The rise of medicinal cannabis

Medicinal cannabis was legalised in Australia in 2016. But use really took off in 2021, when the TGA changed how people could access the unapproved products.

Use in young men has been increasing the fastest. Generally, about one-third of use is for anxiety.

This is despite TGA guidance stating medicinal cannabis containing THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) is generally not appropriate for patients who “have a previous psychotic or concurrent active mood or anxiety disorder”.

What are the risks?

Concerns about cannabis (both recreational and medicinal) and mental illness are not new. And liberalisation of cannabis policy worldwide is renewing these concerns.

For instance, a large Canadian study found schizophrenia associated with cannabis use almost tripled following cannabis legalisation reforms.

Cases of first-time psychosis associated with medicinal cannabis have also been reported in Australia.

There have been large increases in emergency department presentations for anxiety disorder involving cannabis in Canada. However, it is unclear whether this reflects more people using cannabis to manage anxiety, or whether cannabis use played a role in developing anxiety disorders. And not all of these presentations involved medicinal cannabis.

The potential for drug interactions with medicinal cannabis is often under-appreciated. For example, one common component, cannabidiol, interacts with a range of commonly used medicines. These include epilepsy medicines, antidepressants, opioids and blood thinners.

How about in Australia?

Reports of adverse events after taking a medicine have their limitations. Just because someone reports an adverse event this doesn’t necessarily mean the medicine caused it.

Existing reporting mechanisms are also not designed to monitor broader drug-related harms. These include illicit use, misuse and accidental child poisonings.

But other datasets can fill these gaps. For example, earlier this year we published a paper about trends in calls about cannabis (medicinal and recreational) to Australia’s largest poisons centre.

We showed calls about cannabis poisoning have been increasing. Poisonings after taking concentrated products (for instance, cannabis oils) and edibles have become much more common.

Unintentional poisonings have increased the most rapidly. This category includes dosing errors from medicinal cannabis, unwanted side effects, and accidental exposures in children.

This risk to children is often ignored in conversations about cannabis safety. Children exposed to cannabis can end up in a coma or having seizures, and often need intensive care.

Confectionary and foods containing cannabis pose an unacceptable risk to children. They are tasty, look like regular foods, and often contain high concentrations of cannabis. These have been implicated in rapidly rising numbers of poisonings in children in many countries, especially since cannabis has become more widely available.

Calls for more oversight

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency has put practitioners on notice over questionable prescribing of medicinal cannabis.

There has been a surge in “single-purpose dispensaries” whose whole business model relies on supplying medicinal cannabis via telehealth. Some consultations last mere seconds.

Prescribing data reveals eight practitioners wrote more than 10,000 medicinal cannabis scripts in a six-month period.

Best practice would involve new cannabis medicines being prescribed only by a person’s usual GP or specialist. This would typically require considerable time to advise on risks and benefits, and assess for drug interactions, or contraindications (where use is advised against), such as if someone has a history of psychiatric illness or substance use.

The TGA is currently consulting on whether the current regulatory processes around access to unapproved medicinal cannabis products is appropriate. This review may signal future changes to this blockbuster industry.

What are some practical things I can do?

For now, anyone considering medicinal cannabis should talk to their regular GP or specialist. This should involve a thorough assessment, including considering your medical history and current medications.

Ask about the risks and benefits of medicinal cannabis, and whether there is evidence it works for your condition.

If you are prescribed medicinal cannabis, keep it out of reach and out of sight of young children.

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

Rose Cairns receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC Investigator Grant). She has previously been a recipient of an untied educational grant from Reckitt to study over-the-counter medicines poisoning, unrelated to this article.

Nicholas Buckley 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. Medicinal cannabis concerns include psychosis and child poisonings. We’re not the only ones worried – https://theconversation.com/medicinal-cannabis-concerns-include-psychosis-and-child-poisonings-were-not-the-only-ones-worried-264974

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fahad Hanna, Associate Professor in Public Health, Torrens University Australia

You may have lived in Australia for most of your adult life, speaking English every day. But if you acquired the language later in life and then develop dementia – a brain condition that affects thinking, memory and everyday function – you may lose fluency and find the language you spoke as a child takes over again.

For many migrants, this is the confronting reality. Language loss affects not only how they communicate with doctors and carers, but also how they connect with family, friends and the world around them.

More than one in four (28%) people living with dementia in Australia is from a culturally and linguistically diverse background.

This means language changes in dementia aren’t a niche issue – they affect thousands of families. It is estimated that 411,100 Australians were living with dementia in 2023.

How does dementia affect language?

Dementia can cause changes to speech and language, and these are often early symptoms. People may repeat themselves, have trouble finding the right word, switch topics unexpectedly or use words in unusual ways.

But these language changes can affect bi- or multilingual people differently.

Dementia usually affects the parts of the brain that store more recently acquired skills, including languages.

Languages learned during childhood are more deeply embedded in long-term memory than recently acquired skills.

This means someone who moved to Australia in their 20s and then learned English may lose their ability to speak it when they develop dementia later in life. But they may retain the ability to communicate in a first language – such as Italian, Arabic, Greek or Vietnamese – and revert to using only this.

Losing a second language means more than losing a skill. Migrants with dementia may be losing part of the life they’ve built, returning to a version of themselves from decades ago, which family and carers might not recognise.

The language gap in dementia care

While interpreters are widely available in aged care and to assist people with dementia, most lack specialised training.

Without this knowledge of dementia-specific communication, even skilled interpreters can struggle to communicate tone and meaning and recognise dementia symptoms.

Trained health interpreters are scarce outside major cities, and in regional areas family members are often heavily relied on.

But interpreting for a loved one with dementia is no easy task. Research shows family carers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds face added stress thanks to language and cultural barriers. Many provide unpaid care and feel isolated.

For instance, a daughter caring for her mother with dementia might struggle to understand medical terms, while at the same time dealing with her own grief and exhaustion.

Some elderly people may also not want to discuss personal health details in front of their children or other relatives.

Burnout is a huge issue for family members and can sometimes lead to errors in care.

Read more:
‘Cold violence’ – a hidden form of elder abuse in New Zealand’s Chinese community

So, what works?

Evidence shows dementia-aware language services and culturally responsive care can help reduce stress for carers and improve quality of life for people living with dementia.

In a 2023 clinical trial, Australian researchers co-designed and evaluated specialist online training for interpreters. These included modules on dementia, aged care and cross-cultural communication.

The study found the training significantly improved the quality of interpreters’ communication during cognitive assessments of people with dementia, which are used to work out what supports someone might need.

This training has since been made available for free to all interpreters in Australia. At least 13% of the active interpreter workforce has completed it so far.

Dementia Support Australia also provides language support for people with dementia and their carers, arranging interpreters, translated materials, and Auslan services when needed.

There are also various initiatives in different states and territories, such as the “language buddies” program in Victoria which help people with dementia reconnect with community.

But we still need to do more

Despite these positive developments, there is still more to do to ensure diagnosis and support for people with dementia are not delayed due to cultural and language barriers.

We need to continue expanding supports, including:

1. Specialist dementia training for interpreters: to handle repetitive speech, non-linear conversation and culturally specific expressions.

2. Language and dementia awareness training for health workers: to understand why language loss happens and how to adapt care to address cognitive decline and also consider overall wellbeing.

3. Better matching of interpreters: including age, dialect and cultural familiarity, especially in dementia-related contexts.

4. Expanding the bilingual workforce: hiring more health-care workers who share the languages and cultures of local communities, particularly in rural, regional and remote areas.

5. Culturally tailored dementia resources: booklets, videos, and support groups in multiple languages, co-designed with community members.

Fahad Hanna 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. For migrants, dementia can mean losing a language – and a whole world – https://theconversation.com/for-migrants-dementia-can-mean-losing-a-language-and-a-whole-world-263185

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Donald Stewart, Freshwater Scientist, Cawthron Institute

The 19th-century American naturalist Henry David Thoreau described the small freshwater lake at Walden as “Earth’s eye” – a measure of the complexity of ecological interactions.

Our new research at Lake Taupō, New Zealand’s largest body of freshwater renowned for its clearity, reiterates this notion of lake ecology.

We examined the links between nutrient cycles and biodiversity and found that a strong breeze blowing across the lake can result in more food for native freshwater mussels up to a year later.

In lakes, ecological effects can often be obscured by multiple interactions. In this case, the effect of the wind on the mussels had five degrees of separation.

1. The wind blowing across the lake pushed warm, buoyant surface water to the down-wind shore.

2. The down-wind movement of all the warm water displaced cool bottom water, squeezing it upwind where it was pushed up to the surface.

3. Because nutrients accumulate in bottom water, this cool water brings fresh nutrients with it as it is pushed up.

4. These nutrients are quickly absorbed by plants growing on the lake bed. Even though the water brought up from the depths is rapidly mixed across the lake, the nutrients it carries remain where they first arrived along the shore.

5. Once absorbed by the plants and algae on the lake bed, these nutrients support healthy growth and provide a long-term food supply for kākahi, a threatened species of freshwater mussel.

The mussels and other organisms living along Lake Taupō’s shorelines absorb and recycle the nutrients received from the upwelling.

Because the prevailing south-westerly winds across the lake result in more upwelling along the lee shore, kākahi in the south-western bays retain the signature of a diet supplemented by deep-water nutrients throughout the year. They turn a sporadic event into a hotspot for biodiversity.

We have known for some time that the shallow margins around lakes (the littoral zones) punch well above their weight when it comes to supporting fish and native biodiversity.

Our study adds to this knowledge by showing how these littoral zones are able to support biodiversity. It helps us identify areas that may be disproportionately important for freshwater conservation – including regions of local upwelling.

Our work also provides a framework for considering how climate change will affect threatened taonga species in lake habitats.

One of the most important physical characteristics in lakes is stratification – the seasonal layering of water into distinct temperature and density bands as the sun warms the surface.

Climate change is making lake stratification longer and stronger, which could result in fewer and weaker upwelling events. We know that even subtle variations in the timing of stratification onset and break-up can have major ecological effects, mainly by changing the availability of light, nutrients, carbon and oxygen to organisms.

Sensitive lake margins

Climate change is also making deep water in lakes more prone to low dissolved oxygen levels as prolonged stratification prevents the remixing of oxygen from the air and warmer water holds less oxygen.

There is a risk these upwelling events, which currently provide nutrients to support organisms, could in the future inject water that suffocates these biodiversity hotspots.

Littoral zones appear to be far more sensitive to climate change than offshore habitats. While we are good at monitoring lake water quality in the centre of lakes, we need more tools to enable littoral monitoring at the same scale.

The Our Lakes Our Future research team is currently working on tools to better monitor important littoral habitats to enable better protection and restoration. It has traditionally been time consuming and expensive to count biodiversity in lakes but new molecular tools such as environmental DNA allow us to see what lives there, and even what organisms are doing.

You may ask why it is important to have data to understand how the margins of lakes work. Effective protection of biodiversity at risk is only possible if we have a robust understanding of cause and effect – from the catchment to the species living along the shoreline – even if ecological interactions go through multiple steps and take a long time to play out.

Simon Donald Stewart works for the Cawthron Institute. He receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Grant No CAWX2305 and C01X2205).

– ref. Lakeshore shallows can be biodiversity hotspots – but warming is changing their complex ecology – https://theconversation.com/lakeshore-shallows-can-be-biodiversity-hotspots-but-warming-is-changing-their-complex-ecology-264762

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hussein Dia, Professor of Transport Technology and Sustainability, Swinburne University of Technology

Tesla is expected to soon turn on its “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” (FSD) mode in Australia and New Zealand.

Is a future of driverless cars upon us? Not exactly – it’s essentially more advanced driver assistance. Legally, Tesla drivers using this mode must be ready to take control and pay attention at all times. Calling it “full self-driving” is questionable.

The move comes amid scrutiny. This week, a video showed a Tesla navigating roads in Melbourne’s CBD without the driver’s hands on the wheel. Authorities warned these trials had not been approved.

It’s a reminder of how contested “self-driving” remains. While the technology is advancing rapidly, there are still real concerns over regulations, technological readiness, safety and public trust.

Is it legal?

Tesla’s FSD mode is not truly driverless. Technically, it’s classified as an advanced driver assistance system. On the recognised five-level list of increasingly automated cars, where 5 is fully automated, FSD is a Level 2.

At this level, the driver has to remain attentive and ready to take proper control. Legally, this means Tesla’s FSD would be treated the same way as other vehicles with advanced driver-assist systems. Tesla cars with FSD running would be compliant with Australian regulations and legal to use with human oversight.

At higher levels of automation (Levels 3-5), the car takes on the whole driving task without constant supervision, which would be considered “automated driving”. Level 3 cars exist in limited markets overseas. Level 4 cars are being used in fleet-based robotaxi trials but not sold to consumers. Level 5 cars offering true autonomy, anywhere, anytime don’t yet exist.

At present, cars with Level 3 automation and above are not compliant with Australian regulations and can’t operate without special permits for trials and testing. They have strict conditions on safety, insurance, data sharing and geographic restrictions.

This is why the Tesla video in Melbourne video triggered pushback – it gave the impression of a higher level of automation than legally permitted without a trial permit.

What can FSD actually do?

Tesla is taking a phased approach to enable FSD for eligible vehicles in Australia.

In this mode, the car can change lanes, navigate interchanges, recognise stop signs and automatically bring the car to a stop. It can even handle Melbourne’s famous hook turns.

But the system has hard limits. The driver must be ready to step in at any moment. The system can make errors in complex or unpredictable settings.

Overseas, Tesla is promoting a new supervised feature – autosteer on city streets – which would go beyond automated highway driving into more complex residential and city roads with roundabouts, traffic lights and pedestrians. But this feature remains “upcoming” in Australia.

Tesla’s approach to self-driving remains controversial. To sense their surroundings, the vehicles rely mainly on cameras and artificial intelligence. Critics argue this leaves the system more vulnerable to errors. Other self-driving car developers such as Waymo have added LiDAR and radar sensors to boost safety in case other sensors fail.

Tesla’s branding of FSD as a step towards full autonomy is misleading. In reality, it’s closer to a diligent learner driver than a professional chauffeur. It can read the road, but still needs close supervision.

The long road to autonomy

Tesla’s push into autonomy is partly about capturing market share in the fast-emerging robotaxi industry.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has promised Tesla cars will one day be able to be monetised in a shared robotaxi fleet.

In June, the first Tesla Robotaxi went live in limited areas of Austin, Texas. But these vehicles are not truly driverless – a human safety monitor must be on board.

Globally, Tesla is one of many companies vying for a share of the robotaxi market. Trials are expanding quickly. Waymo is leading the race with paid driverless rides in several cities in the United States. Its Jaguar cars are Level 4 autonomous, able to drive unsupervised but only in a set area.

Meanwhile, Baidu, WeRide and Pony.ai are scaling up in China, their domestic market, as well as the Gulf region, including Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh.

True self-driving cars are a way off

What if a self-driving consumer car causes a crash? For a Level 2 car, supervising human drivers remain responsible.

But if a true self-driving car caused a crash, liability could fall on the manufacturer or even the software developer. Regulators are working to resolve this legal grey area.

Even as Tesla pushes towards self-driving, the company faces a class action from thousands of Australian drivers over alleged “phantom braking” where the cars suddenly brake for no apparent reason, risking rear-end crashes.

Tesla says its system can be affected by obstructed cameras and drivers are always responsible for maintaining control.

This echoes a wider debate: how safe must autonomous systems be before they can replace human drivers? Human error is a major cause of road crashes. But glitches such as phantom braking undermine confidence and public trust, especially when lives are at stake.

In the US, federal authorities are investigating crashes linked to Tesla’s driver-assist systems. California’s regulator has accused Tesla of misleading advertising, and senators have pressed for tougher oversight of Tesla’s marketing.

Despite progress, fundamental breakthroughs are still required to handle rare but high-risk scenarios, such as pedestrians behaving unexpectedly.

The road ahead

Cars with advanced driver-assist can recognise objects and follow rules. But unexpected things can happen.

True autonomy demands the ability to interpret complex and ambiguous human behaviour.

Until then, the driver must remain firmly in charge.

Hussein Dia receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre, Transport for New South Wales, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, and Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts.

– ref. Tesla’s self-driving mode is coming to Australia amid controversy – but it won’t create true driverless cars – https://theconversation.com/teslas-self-driving-mode-is-coming-to-australia-amid-controversy-but-it-wont-create-true-driverless-cars-264971

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Art Cotterell, Research Associate, School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University

At an internal staff briefing last week, acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy declared the United States has a “manifest destiny to the stars”, linking this to the need to win the “space race”.

This rhetoric is not new – it directly echoes US President Donald Trump’s inaugural address from earlier this year.

The phrasing invokes US nationalism that’s historically been used to justify colonial expansion and empire-building.

Language matters. How we talk about space exploration shapes the futures we imagine and build. As two space governance specialists working together – one non-Indigenous, one Indigenous – we see an urgent need for a different way to view space.

An Indigenous-inspired lens can help us envision and build a future with stewardship and shared responsibility, not competition and conquest.

We’re still talking about the ‘space race’

That space is a “race” has become a common, and sometimes contested, refrain. The US and China are leading missions to the Moon’s south pole, each looking to land on prime sites where they could establish bases and access scarce resources such as water ice and light, essential for staying on the lunar surface for longer periods of time.

The first arrival could influence space governance and a future lunar economy for private companies. This has prompted talk of an “infrastructure arms race” or “trade war”.

This “race” isn’t only about nations. This past week saw headlines that Interlune, a US-based startup, is “racing to be the first to mine helium on the Moon”, for potential uses in everything from quantum computing to nuclear fusion. Helium-3 is a rare non-radioactive isotope on Earth but more common on the lunar surface, valued at US$19 million per kilogram.

Other commercial entrants are looking to asteroid mining, with hyped claims that the “first trillionaire” will be whoever returns with rare minerals. We also see talk that this is a “billionares’ space race”.

The expressions used to understand, engage with and think about space aren’t neutral. They still carry the ideas of coloniality: the power structures and attitudes that persist as a legacy of colonisation.

‘Colonisation’ is not an empty metaphor

When space is described in terms of “colonisation”, “conquest”, “manifest destiny” or the prize in a “race”, these words are not empty metaphors.

They echo imperialist ideals. Such mindsets push for taking more power and extending dominance into new “frontiers” of control, racism and erasure of other forms of knowledge. They also simultaneously exclude voices that don’t align with them, preserving the dominant narrative.

The idea of a “manifest destiny” is driven by a human-centric approach to the environment. The Moon or other celestial bodies are seen as resources to be conquered by first arrivals. Phrases such as “final frontier” and “wild west” have similarly colonial origins.

Historically, “manifest destiny” was used to legitimise US nationalism and the violent expansion that dispossessed Indigenous peoples from tribal lands and territories as the so-called American frontier expanded westward.

The same logic first infused US space policy during the Cold War, as the US and Soviet Union vied to take that first “one small step” on the Moon and assert leadership as the preeminent global superpower.

Such perspectives of dominance have not gone uncontested. During Cold War era negotiations for the United Nations’ international space law treaties that still stand today, Global South nations – many of which had endured painful experiences of colonial rule – advocated for a more equitable approach.

Foundational principles in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 seek to safeguard outer space as the province of all humankind and for the benefit of all nations, not only the powerful and privileged few.

Yet a gap between principles and practice remains. How we talk about space affects the futures we create off-Earth – and a better framing already exists in Indigenous perspectives.

An alternative, inclusive future

The Māori ethic of kaitiakitanga – which broadly encompasses the concept of stewardship – envisions a future grounded in reciprocity and shared responsibility. It extends beyond the human to embrace the more-than-human world.

Rather than treating space as an empty “frontier” to conquer and exploit, kaitiakitanga recognises that celestial bodies, Earth and humankind are not separate domains, but part of an interconnected system.

This perspective challenges the assumptions that only people hold moral standing. Instead, the night sky and celestial bodies have value in and of themselves.

Kaitiakitanga also maintains intergenerational responsibilities: ensuring that decisions made today honour past, present and future relationships. Such obligations also support nascent calls for an Indigenous right to space.

Likewise, collaborative research by Bawaka Country under the guidance of the Yolŋu songspiral Guwak “refuses the idea of space, portrayed by would-be space colonisers as a dead, empty stock of resources awaiting exploitation”.

Instead, it recognises space as an ancestral domain for Indigenous and some non-Indigenous peoples globally. It explains how “space colonisation” risks disrupting and harming enduring, millennia-old connections and ethical obligations of care to the sky and beyond.

These and other Indigenous perspectives offer lessons that benefit everyone.

Reclaiming the narrative

When we shift the conversation away from the human-centric logic of exploitation and empire-building, we also expand who has a relationship with and a responsibility to space.

We all do. In effect, we are all “space citizens”. That means space must not be left to dominant nations and tech titans alone.

To realise this future, we must reclaim the narrative around outer space from powerful actors who use exclusionary language grounded in coloniality. Instead, we should move towards a more inclusive, relational and sustainable ethic of stewardship.

Otherwise, we risk repeating history and launching injustices into the cosmos, one rocket at a time.

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. For too long, colonial language has dominated space exploration. There is a better way – https://theconversation.com/for-too-long-colonial-language-has-dominated-space-exploration-there-is-a-better-way-264886

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow in Urban Risk and Resilience, The University of Melbourne

If you’ve ever driven in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, chances are you’ve used – or steered clear of – a private toll road.

Those three cities are home to 22 private toll roads. And one giant company, Transurban, operates 18 of them: 11 in Sydney, all six toll roads in Brisbane, plus Melbourne’s CityLink.

So, how did Australia become so dependent on privatised toll roads? And what problems can it create for commuters, governments and the wider economy?

Public–private partnerships

Australia’s toll roads are mainly built and operated under what are called public–private partnership contracts.

Under this model, a private operator finances, builds and maintains a road in return for the right to collect tolls – often for decades at a time.

State governments have embraced this model because it allows them to avoid massive upfront spending, and shifts construction and financing risks onto private firms.

The modern toll road era arguably began with the contract for Melbourne’s CityLink in 1996, along with the creation of Transurban (a consortium of Australia’s Transfield Holdings and Japan’s Obayashi Corporation).

Transurban has grown into one of the world’s largest toll road operators, worth about A$45 billion. In the most recent financial year alone, Transurban brought in $987 million from Melbourne CityLink tolls alone.

Where the model breaks down

Public–private partnerships are sold as a way to shift financial risk away from government.

The problem is, private investors who fund toll roads build these risks back into the contracts they have with governments.

In some early toll contracts, the government included clauses cushioning operators against low returns.

For example, under the CityLink deal, Transurban was formally required to pay the Victorian government hundreds of millions of dollars in concession fees over the life of the project. But the contract also allowed the company to defer those payments if its internal rate of return fell below 10%.

That effectively shifted part of the financial risk back onto taxpayers.

Other long concessions guarantee annual toll increases – often whichever is higher of 4% or the rate of inflation – to shield financiers.

Predicting and managing road use

Our reliance on this model of road funding creates other issues too. One is the process creates incentives for toll operators to be over-optimistic when forecasting how many vehicles will use a proposed road.

A federal review of 14 Australian toll roads found first-year traffic was an average 45% under forecast and was still 19% down after six years. Studies show it’s a similar story around much of the world.

Companies bidding for a toll road contract have an incentive to put forward higher traffic forecasts, because it makes their proposal look stronger. If they expect more cars, they can promise more toll revenue and offer the government a better price up front.

On some contracts, this might lower the government’s initial costs, if the toll operator takes on the risk of how many people will use the road and banks on future tolls. But if the contract guarantees the government will cover any revenue shortfall, the risk shifts back to taxpayers.

The system also puts revenue ahead of optimising traffic flow. Toll contracts are designed to guarantee revenue for investors – not to manage demand.

That means operators don’t adjust prices to ease peak-hour congestion, and tolled roads don’t necessarily make the wider network operate more efficiently.

Little genuine competition

Transurban’s scale allows it to dominate bids for new projects, often out-competing smaller rivals. Over time, this has produced a monopoly-like situation across cities on Australia’s east coast.

In some cases, governments have extended Transurban’s concessions in return for funding other projects, without putting the extensions to open tender.

An example is Melbourne’s West Gate Tunnel deal, in which the Victorian government granted Transurban a ten-year extension of its CityLink tolling rights (to 2045) in exchange for delivering the new tunnel.

An independent review commissioned by the New South Wales government concluded Transurban’s dominance has created a market with little genuine competition.

Equity is a major problem

Then there’s the unfairness of the system as a whole.

For one, the burden of tolls is not spread evenly. Drivers in Sydney’s outer west and northwest often face weekly bills of $100 or more, which can amount to 10–20% of income for lower-earning households.

Many inner-suburban residents with access to better public transport can avoid these charges.

In Victoria, unpaid tolls can be converted into state-enforced fines – debts that can balloon into tens of thousands of dollars.

For trucking companies, tolls can amount to tens of thousands of dollars per vehicle each year. Faced with those costs, operators often have two bad options: take detours through suburban streets to avoid tolls, or absorb the charges and pass them on through higher freight rates.

The first option risks turning local roads into freight corridors, with added safety, noise and air pollution problems for residents. The second filters straight into the cost of goods and everyday living.

Rethinking the future of tolling

The first step towards fixing the system is fairer, more transparent contracts. Windfall profits – the extra gains a toll operator makes when revenues turn out far higher than expected – should be capped, revenue-sharing with governments made standard, and toll increases tied to performance rather than guaranteed indexations.

Oversight also needs to be genuinely independent and open to public scrutiny.

The second is a smarter pricing system. Analysis shows a network-wide distance-based charge in Sydney – a few cents per kilometre at peak times only, coupled with reduced registration fees – could cut congestion while raising billions.

Roads are public goods. Our toll system should treat them that way.

Milad Haghani receives funding from the Australian Research Council and The Office of Road Safety.

David A. Hensher receives funding from ARC and iMOVE CRC

– ref. Private toll roads are supposed to save taxpayers’ money, but can have these hidden costs – https://theconversation.com/private-toll-roads-are-supposed-to-save-taxpayers-money-but-can-have-these-hidden-costs-263441

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Harriette Richards, Senior Lecturer, School of Fashion and Textiles, RMIT University

The New South Wales government recently announced the launch of the NSW Fashion Sector Strategy, 2025–28. The strategy, developed in partnership with the Australian Fashion Council, TAFE NSW, University of Technology Sydney and the Powerhouse Museum, promises to “accelerate NSW’s position as a global leader in high-quality, innovative and inclusive fashion”.

This new policy includes A$750,000 in funding to support local designers. It also prioritises smart factories, skills and training, and a fashion hub to incubate emerging talent.

It is a welcome contribution to the local fashion economy. Yet it is also a reminder of the complex challenges facing the industry.

Fashion in Australia

Australia has a global reputation for producing high-quality, sustainable textiles and clothing.

Despite widespread offshoring of manufacturing capabilities since the 1990s, Australian wool and cotton remain in high demand. Local small and medium-sized brands lead the way in sustainable and ethical fashion production.

The sector is also a significant employer of women. The $27 billion fashion industry – encompassing designers, retailers, suppliers and manufactures, among other roles – employs nearly half a million Australians, 77% of whom are women.

But recent years have seen the closure of many pioneering local sustainable fashion brands, including Arnsdorf, A.BCH, Nique and Nobody Denim (bought by Outland Denim). These closures are testimony to the difficult retail landscape in Australia.

Despite consumers committed to ethical fashion, the challenges of producing locally and competing with low-cost fast fashion brands often prove insurmountable.

The industry has been flooded with fast fashion since the 2010s, with the arrival of Zara (in 2011), H&M and Uniqlo (both in 2014). This accelerated with the introduction of ultra-fast fashion brands such as Shein from 2021.

Annually, 220,000 tonnes of clothing ends up in Australian landfills.

Legislating against ultra-fast fashion

To combat the dominance of these low-cost brands, France has established new taxes on the import of ultra-fast fashion and bans on influencer promotions of their products.

The legislation aims to protect the French fashion industry from cheap products saturating the market, and to reduce the number of garments going to landfill. It sends a strong message to producers and consumers about the harmful labour conditions that make ultra-fast fashion viable.

This week, the European Union adopted new rules mandating producer responsibility to cover costs of collecting, sorting and recycling of textiles.

Despite being the largest per capita consumer of fashion items globally, Australian approaches to tackling the issues of fast fashion have been either voluntary or toothless.

Read more:
Ultra fast fashion could be taxed to oblivion in France. Could Australia follow suit?

Modern slavery in fashion supply chains

The closest Australia currently comes to regulating the fashion industry is at the intersection of fashion and modern slavery.

In 2018, Australia introduced the Modern Slavery Act. The policy requires companies operating in Australia with an annual revenue of more than $100 million to report on the risks of modern slavery in their supply chains.

But Australian fashion brands continue to be implicated in offshore modern slavery practices, largely because there is no requirement to act on risks identified. Furthermore, most fashion brands are not required to report because their revenue falls below the threshold.

A recent report from Oxfam Australia looked at continued labour rights abuses in Bangladesh’s garment industry. The report notes reporting on modern slavery under the act “has become a box-ticking exercise for many brands, with little impact for the people making our clothes”.

The report makes for difficult reading, and reinforces concerns around the lack of penalties for non-compliance.

New initiatives to support local fashion

There are calls for further regulation of the industry. Peak industry body, the Australian Fashion Council, launched Seamless in 2023, designed to make brands responsible for the entire life of their products.

Seamless aims to create a circular clothing industry – in which the fashion lifecycle follows a reduce, reuse, recycle model – by 2030.

Labels participating in the voluntary scheme will have a 4 cent levy for each clothing item sold. This levy will fund programs to incentivise durable design and crucial expansion of used (or unsold) clothing collection, sorting and recycling.

In response to the Productivity Commission’s interim report on unlocking the future of a circular economy, Seamless is calling for regulation of the scheme.

Local brands, such as Citizen Wolf and Madre Natura, are advancing innovative onshore manufacturing technologies and radical circular business models.

It is vital we support small businesses if these sorts of approaches to fashion production are to survive.

What next?

The introduction of the NSW Fashion Sector Strategy is a positive sign of much-needed investment in this industry.

However, Australia has the potential to have one of the most creative and sustainable fashion industries in the world.

To live up to this potential, we need a more consolidated approach.

The industry requires a whole-of-government strategy to strengthen legislation that will protect our industry. This must include stronger penalties to prevent modern slavery in supply chains, new taxes on ultra-fast fashion, and stronger regulation for circular-economy business models.

That would be a real game-changer for our industry.

Lisa Lake works for UTS, a partner in the NSW Fashion Strategy, and a Supporter of Seamless.

Natalya Lusty receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Harriette Richards 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. NSW has a new fashion sector strategy – but a sustainable industry needs a federally legislated response – https://theconversation.com/nsw-has-a-new-fashion-sector-strategy-but-a-sustainable-industry-needs-a-federally-legislated-response-264579

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jared Mondschein, Director of Research, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

In yet another shocking act of political violence in the United States, Charlie Kirk, who came to prominence as a conservative influencer and supporter of Donald Trump, was assassinated while debating with students at a university in Utah.

The 31-year-old, who came to fame by doing just that – debating whoever wanted to engage with him – was undeniably the most influential figure in young conversative politics.

News of his killing sent social media into an all-too familiar frenzy, with opposing political camps blaming each other for the increasingly febrile environment in contemporary America. It has also raised fears it may provoke even more violence.

Who was Charlie Kirk?

The meagre tent in which Kirk would set up shop on university campuses around America to engage in debate with university students should not be mistaken for meagre support.

Kirk’s political organisation, Turning Point USA (TPUSA), had a revenue of US$78,000 (A$118,000) when he founded it in 2012. As of last year, its annual revenue had grown to US$85 million (A$129 million).

His podcast, The Charlie Kirk Show, boasted between 500,000 and 750,000 downloads for each episode, ranking it as one of the top 25 most listened to podcasts in the world. Even Kirk’s 7 million X account followers is greater than MSNBC’s 5 million.

Outside the online world, TPUSA today has a presence in more than 3,500 high school and college campuses, with more than 250,000 student members, and more than 450 full- and part-time staff. But perhaps the most important metric is the fact that a TikTok survey of users under 30 found that, among those who voted for Trump, they trusted Kirk more than any other individual.

As much as Kirk’s many detractors abhorred his views and his conduct – particularly his views of Black people, Jews, trans people and immigrants, as well as his efforts to denounce professors engaging in “leftist propaganda” – there was no denying he was willing to debate practically anyone.

Whether it was in storied lecture halls at Oxford University or a progressive university campus in the US, Kirk engaged in political debate with anyone willing to come to the open microphone at his events, encouraging students to “prove me wrong”. The dissemination of clips of these interactions – typically an unwitting progressive student asking Kirk a question only to have Kirk counter-argue – garnered hundreds of millions of views across a variety of social media channels.

Support for Trump

Kirk first came to prominence championing more conventional Republican politicians, including Texas Senator Ted Cruz and former Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. But he eventually came around to supporting Trump in 2016, and never looked back.

Indeed, when many – particularly within the Republican party – sought to distance themselves from Trump after incidents such as the infamous Access Hollywood tape in 2016 or the violence at the US Capitol on January 6 2021, Kirk stayed the course.

The combination of his unceasing loyalty to Trump and his increasing popularity among young voters saw him increase his power within conservative circles. This power saw his organisation contribute millions of dollars to various Trump-aligned campaigns. TPUSA also bolstered support for embattled cabinet nominee, and now defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, and initiate efforts to oust former chair Ronna McDaniel from the Republican National Committee.

But perhaps Kirk’s most notable political win was harnessing a record number of young people to vote for Trump in 2024, despite the fact he was the oldest ever person to lead the Republican presidential ticket.

US political violence

Some may look at yet another instance of deadly US political violence and wonder whether it would have any sort of lasting impact. After all, the creation of the US followed an act of political violence known to Americans as the Revolutionary War. And this founding preceded more political violence, including the Civil War, Reconstruction and Civil Rights movement, among others.

Yet, as much as the entirety of US history is filled with such incidents, there is no denying that for the past generation in particular, it has also grown worse.

Numerous studies have found that the number of attacks and plots against elected officials, political candidates, political party officials, and political workers is exponentially higher now than in recent history. In examining 30 years of data, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found the number of attacks and plots in the past five years is nearly triple that of the preceding 25 years combined.

But beyond the numbers, US politicians themselves increasingly cite the spectre of violence as a reason why they have either retired from politics or – perhaps more worryingly – changed their votes.

Ultimately, there’s little question as to whether the US will continue to suffer from political violence. The greater question is to what extent and at what cost.

Kirk’s death will affect far more than just his friends and his family – including his widow and two young children. Today marked the loss of a unique leader in the US conservative movement.

Jared Mondschein 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. Charlie Kirk’s assassination is the latest act of political violence in a febrile United States – https://theconversation.com/charlie-kirks-assassination-is-the-latest-act-of-political-violence-in-a-febrile-united-states-265063

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

It says everything about the Liberals that the fracas over Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s comments about Indian immigrants became a proxy for the longer-term, debilitating battle over the party’s leadership and identity.

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley mishandled the affair initially by not personally dealing with Price at once. But it quickly became clear Price was using the situation to play the victim and defy her leader.

After a week of damage to the Liberals, when Price on Wednesday refused to endorse her leadership, Ley sacked her recalcitrant colleague from the shadow ministry (as she had to).

In doing so, Ley upheld her authority. But she must know she also undermined that authority.

Price has signalled she’ll use her backbench freedom to talk on whatever she likes, including divisive issues such as net zero.

From Price’s point of view, it might be a setback, but it has advantages. She no longer has to master those knotty details about procurement policy she was supposed to get across in the defence industry portfolio she held.

She doesn’t have to work so hard. She can swan around feted by the Coalition’s conservative base, enjoying regular spots on Sky News, and creating headlines when she says something provocative.

From a distance, Price can watch Ley grapple with what seems an impossible job and, if and when it all blows up, she can reckon on getting some of the spoils from whoever leads the new order.

Price’s misstep – saying the government encouraged Indian immigrants because they voted Labor – would have been quickly fixed if the Liberal Party was functional and collegiate.

But it is a seething mass of frustrated ambition, resentment, tribalism and deep ideological division.

Ley’s factional protector, Alex Hawke (who previously was Scott Morrison’s numbers man), was in the firing line after he tried unsuccessfully to strong-arm Price into an apology. Factional warriors prefer to work in a dim light; Price, effectively accusing Hawke of bullying, shone a spotlight on a figure who already has plenty of enemies.

Two Liberal women, Sarah Henderson and Jane Hume, whom Ley demoted to the backbench, waded into the Price affair. They come at Ley from opposite ends of the spectrum: Henderson is a conservative, Hume is usually with the moderates. Anger can make for strange bedfellows. They are unlikely to give up.

Ley’s leadership is safe for the moment. Her opponents are aware she has to be given time. While the pro- and anti-Ley numbers in the party room are close, wannabes Angus Taylor and Andrew Hastie know that trying to take down the first Liberal female leader would be a messy business.

Taylor has been careful with his words, but the behaviour of Hastie, a member of the shadow cabinet, is extraordinary. He trails his leadership coat while saying now isn’t the time (young family and all that). He repeatedly preempts the party’s net-zero review.

On Thursday he said, “People know I have a desire to lead but there isn’t a move”. He said he’d speak out on issues such as energy (despite being spokesman on home affairs, not energy): “I oppose net zero”.

Looking at what is ahead of Ley, you have to ask: if one rebellious senator brought a crisis, how can she and her party hope to get on top of everything else besetting them?

The most obvious issue is the future of the commitment to net zero. The Nationals will almost certainly dump it, and it’s becoming anyone’s guess what the Liberals will do. If they stick with net zero, do the parties split the Coalition?

The Liberal Party is now two parties. One is made up of the conservatives, obsessed with anti-“wokism”, who want to go further to the right, having given up on the urban seats now held by teals. The other is centred on the moderate wing plus some pragmatists, who seek policies that can win urban electorates, but lack fresh ideas about the shape they should take.

Ley is hardworking, and many centrist voters would probably like to see her succeed. But she is not an innovative policy thinker.

Later this year, the Liberals will release the report on their election performance, by former federal minister Nick Minchin and former state minister Pru Goward. They’ve been undertaking many interviews, but they hardly need them to identify what went wrong.

Policy that was ill-prepared and left too late; an unpopular and often tone-deaf leader; failure to reach key constituencies, especially women and young people; and multiple inadequacies with the party’s ground game.

Minchin and Goward will stress the Liberals must step up their efforts with the young, female voters and ethnic communities. But is Ley likely to have a snowball’s chance in hell of doing this?

The infighting over climate will alienate young voters, already turned off the main parties. If the Liberals were rash enough to ditch net zero, nothing they could do would drag younger voters back.

The party is fractured over quotas for female candidates, with Ley sitting awkwardly on the barbed-wire fence while saying there must be more women, however it’s achieved. Moreover, the Albanese government has made delivering for women one of its priorities – the Liberals could never outdo it here.

Meanwhile, senior party figures can’t even be civil about their own women. Victorian state director Stuart Smith had to resign on Thursday after belittling women in WhatsApp messages, including apparently joking that a female state Liberal MP had dementia.

The disaster that is the Victorian Liberal Party matters for Ley. If the Victorian Liberals do badly against what should be a highly vulnerable Allan government at next year’s election, there will be a knock-on impact for Ley, assuming she is still leader.

As for the migrant communities, alienating the Chinese diaspora has cost the party votes in the past and now it has added the Indians.

On Thursday Ley apologised, on behalf of the opposition, to the Indian community. As in her handling of the affair generally, the action came way too late.

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. Grattan on Friday: Sussan Ley hasn’t solved her Jacinta Price problem – it may just become bigger – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-sussan-ley-hasnt-solved-her-jacinta-price-problem-it-may-just-become-bigger-264779

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin T. Jones, Senior Lecturer in History, CQUniversity Australia

The Australian National University is one of the most prestigious universities in Australia and is regularly ranked among the world’s best.

Despite this pedigree, it has recently been embroiled in ongoing controversies. This includes a restructure to try to save A$250 million, including mass redundancies and the closure of nationally significant research programs.

The ANU leadership has been scrutinsed by Senate hearings and there is an ongoing investigation by the national university regulator.

After months of mounting pressure and staff dissent, vice-chancellor Genevieve Bell has resigned. Chancellor Julie Bishop – who is also under pressure – made the announcement on Thursday.

This leadership crisis actually presents a rare opportunity for the federal government to intervene. The ANU is a unique institution in Australia, with a specific mandate to do research in the national interest.

This means Education Minister Jason Clare could get involved to return the ANU to this mission and create a model of university governance for the rest of the university sector.

Why was the ANU created?

The ANU is the only Australian university established by an act of federal parliament. In 1946 about £872,500 (roughly A$75 million today) was set aside to establish the ANU. This was because education was a matter for the states, according to the Constitution. A national university would allow the federal government to directly intervene to promote research in the national interest.

As Social Services Minister Nicholas McKenna argued, the ANU could “expand to meet the needs of the whole community”:

we have an unexampled opportunity to speed the development of that national spirit.

Member for Wilmont and former school teacher Gilbert Duthie argued after defeating Nazism and fascism in the war, the new university was a way of winning the battle of ideologies. He claimed:

our enemies have to go to school again to unlearn their beliefs, and we have to go to school again to relearn what democracy stands for.

Prime Minister Ben Chifley tied the ANU to a broader program of promoting and preserving what makes Australia unique:

Australian literature, music and art will prove a national asset as our country develops a culture of its own.

So the Australian National University Act states it should be a national institution that facilitates research “in relation to subjects of national importance to Australia”.

It was not to be led by market forces or the fickleness of student subject choices, but funded to pursue research in the national interest.

What can Jason Clare do?

The legislation that created the ANU has reasonably precise rules on how the university’s governing council should operate. But is silent on many other issues.

There are three ways today’s federal government could amend the act to restore public confidence in the university.

Read more:
There is declining trust in Australian unis. Federal government policy is a big part of the problem

1. Increase transparency

As economist Jack Thrower and political historian Joshua Black have argued, the Senate estimates process is a powerful tool. This is where government departments and institutions come before senators for public questioning.

At the moment, ANU leadership only appears before Senate committees on an ad-hoc basis. As Thrower and Black noted in March, the ANU has only ever appeared four times for a total of 4 hours and 45 minutes of questioning since estimates was established in 1970.

The ANU could be required to appear before a Senate committee at least once a year.

If the university’s leadership had to regularly and publicly justify their spending decisions, this could dramatically change the culture. Perceived lavish executive travel and spending would likely be reined in if each flight, party, and office refurbishment had to be publicly accounted for.

A regular review of this kind would also provide an opportunity to scrutinise the significant payments to consultancy groups.

By making the ANU the benchmark for public accountability, Clare may also encourage state parliaments to pass similar legislation to allow public scrutiny of how other universities are run.

2. Executive salaries

Australian vice-chancellors’ salaries have more than quadrupled since the 1980s (even allowing for inflation). But there is scarce evidence this has resulted in better outcomes.

No one denies universities are large, complex organisations and that running a university is a high-pressure job. But million dollar-plus salaries have eroded public trust and make governments unsympathetic to appeals for greater sector funding.

Clare can set a national standard by legislating, for example, a vice-chancellor salary at the ANU cannot exceed two times a professor’s salary.
(Bell took a 10% pay cut in 2024 and was on a base salary of $969,564. The top academic salary level at the ANU is currently $222,362.)

Again, this could hopefully encourage state parliaments to pass similar laws.

Read more:
Universities have lost their way, but cost-cutting and consultants are not the answer

3. Return to the public good

Thirdly and most importantly, Clare should work with ANU representatives at all levels – not just the leadership – to re-articulate the true purpose of the national university.

What are the institutions and outputs that should be seen, not as a mere budget line, but something in the national interest? The current legislation vaguely mentions “national importance”. This could be rewritten to set out a clear vision.

As is stands, national treasures such as the Humanities Research Centre and the Australian National Dictionary Centre may be disestablished, while the Australian Dictionary of Biography, Australian Studies Institute, and School of Music face a precarious future.

If the ANU is not committed to research that tells the Australian story then well may we ask, what is the point of a national university?

In a campaign policy speech ahead of the 1946 election, Chifley defended the ANU, declaring, “the
government has not lost sight of the value of culture in the community”.

The current government – and new ANU leadership – should not lose sight of it either.

Benjamin Jones completed a PhD in History and Politics at the ANU in 2012.

– ref. The ANU was set up to be a ‘national asset’. Here are 3 ways it can return to its original mission – https://theconversation.com/the-anu-was-set-up-to-be-a-national-asset-here-are-3-ways-it-can-return-to-its-original-mission-265067

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joel Robert McGregor, Senior Lecturer, Criminology, Swinburne University of Technology

Violent crime involving young people is causing significant community concern in Victoria.

The recent fatal stabbings of two boys in Cobblebank, along with the high rates of youth involvement in robberies and aggravated burglaries, has fuelled calls for “Jack’s Law” to be introduced in Victoria.

Jack’s Law would give police powers to conduct random, non-invasive wanding searches (using handheld electronic metal detectors) for knives and other weapons in public spaces, similar to random breath testing.

Read more:
The Jack’s Law expansion is a symbolic step – it’s not a solution to knife crime

The push for ‘Jack’s Law’ in Victoria

Jack’s Law was first trialled in 2021 and locked in permanently in Queensland by mid-2025. Versions of Jack’s Law have since been copied in New South Wales, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and Western Australia.

A change.org petition titled “Jack’s Law for Victoria – End Knife Crime” has rapidly gained momentum, with more than 8,000 verified signatures.

Premier Jacinta Allan is weighing up the proposal.

People are understandably worried about the rise in knife-related offences in Victoria, so tougher laws might feel like the obvious fix.

But the evidence doesn’t really back that up.

A review of the recent Queensland Police wanding trial found no proof it actually stopped people from carrying knives or reduced violent crime.

What it did do was make people feel safer, largely because of the increased police presence and media attention around it.

But focusing only on harsher policing risks overlooking the bigger picture.

Knife laws mask the real issues

For many young people, carrying a knife is tied up with trying to navigate poverty, school disengagement and housing instability. Research backs this up.

A 2009 Melbourne study of Year 9 students from disadvantaged backgrounds found those caught up in delinquent peer groups were more likely to carry knives.

More recently in NSW, a report showed how housing instability makes it harder for young people to stay engaged at school. When kids facing homelessness or insecure housing act out, the usual response is often suspension, but that just pushes them further away rather than helping them stay connected and supported.

The United Kingdom Youth Justice Board found kids don’t carry knives for just one reason. Carrying a knife to navigate social and economic hardships can feel like a way to cope, even if it puts young people at greater risk.

Of course, it’s worth stressing that most young people, even in tough circumstances, don’t carry weapons at all.

But we risk reinforcing cycles of over-policing young people if we only zero in on more police powers. This will likely lead to mistrust of police and won’t address the real reasons knives are carried in the first place.

How tougher laws undermine trust

While stop-and-search tactics might seem like a good fix, they often end up unfairly targeting young people in marginalised communities.

Take NSW, for example. Between 2020 and 2023, First Nations people were 5.6 times more likely to be stopped and searched than Caucasian people, despite making up just 3.4% of the population.

That kind of disproportionate use of power reinforces systemic racism and sends a clear message to Indigenous young people that their rights aren’t being respected.

The same pattern is apparent overseas.

In England and Wales, police carried out more than half a million stop-and-searches in one year (mid 2022-mid 2023).

It was found those with Black and Asian geographic ancestry were stopped and searched much more regularly than the overall average and the white population.

It’s clear certain communities and certain demographics carry the heaviest burden of policing.

For young people, being stopped again and again doesn’t build safety. It risks alienation and mistrust.

Trust is important for young people to feel safe, respected, and that they actually belong in society.

Without that trust, police tactics risk making the problems we are trying to solve worse.

Real pathways to safety

After the fatal machete attack in Cobblebank, South Sudanese community leaders urged the government to focus on long-term solutions rather than quick crackdowns.

They made the point that prison only exacerbates problems and argued for more support in schools and communities to stop violence before it starts.

Real safety comes from changing the conditions that push young people to carry knives in the first place. Investing in housing, education and jobs gives young people stability and reduces the fear that fuels violence.

Mentoring programs work. A 2021 report by the NSW Government showed mentoring programs were linked with reduced youth justice involvement, anti-social behaviour and criminal activity, especially those featuring strong mentor screening, training, life-skills development and community engagement.

Mentoring, as well as trauma-informed counselling and diversion schemes, can help young people feel supported and rebuild trust. Not only in the adults around them, but also in community services and justice systems that often feel stacked against them.

Schools and community organisations also play a significant role by creating a sense of belonging and giving young people practical skills to manage conflict without violence.

If Victoria puts its energy and resources into prevention and support, instead of symbolic policing powers, we could move towards a safer, fairer community – one that deals with the root causes of youth violence, not just the symptoms.

Joel Robert McGregor 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. Tougher knife laws aren’t the only solution to Victoria’s violent crime problem – https://theconversation.com/tougher-knife-laws-arent-the-only-solution-to-victorias-violent-crime-problem-264993

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grace Thompson, Associate Professor in Music Therapy; Senior Academic Fellow at Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne

From November, music and art therapists will be able to charge the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) the same as counsellors, after an independent review found they can be effective and “even life changing” for some people with disability.

The National Disability Insurance Agency commissioned the review, led by health economist Stephen Duckett, after widespread criticism of pricing changes it announced last year.

In November last year, the federal government announced it would slash the maximum therapists could bill per hour from A$193.99 to $67.56, citing insufficient evidence they were effective.

This week, the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) has accepted the Duckett Review’s 19 recommendations, and the finding these therapies are effective and beneficial for people with specific conditions and disabilities.

Here’s what we know, and what will change.

What’s changing

Art and music therapies will be restored to the “therapy supports” funding category, following last year’s unexpected announcement they would be restricted to the “community participation” category.

These NDIS funding categories are different in two important ways.

The first relates to the maximum hourly rate for an individual session. Therapy supports can cost a maximum of $193.99 an hour. In contrast, “community participation” costs are capped at $67.56 an hour.

The review recommended a new hourly rate of $156.16 for individual art and music therapy sessions – the same hourly rate as counselling. However this remains significantly lower than other allied health services with similar levels of training, such as occupational therapy.

The second difference is that therapy services and community participation programs have very different requirements for providing evidence they are beneficial, and for providers’ qualifications levels and training.

The review also recommended a clearer distinction between art and music as a therapeutic support, and art and music as an activity.

And it recommended these therapies should be delivered by a qualified and registered music or art therapist.

So, what’s the difference?

As a music therapy researcher, I am often asked to explain the difference between “music therapy” and “music activity”.

People can be confused because music activities might also make us feel good. For example, music activities such as singing in a community choir can have mental health benefits for adults. Learning to play the ukulele has been shown to build stronger empathic skills in children.

Music activities like these are valuable for many people, but they are not music therapy.

Music therapy practice is informed by research into the benefits of specific methods and techniques for people with disability. These include autistic children, people with profound disabilities, and people recovering from major injury.

For example, if a client is non-speaking, the therapist might use a vocal improvisation technique, creating supportive music to encourage the person to make sounds with their voice. The back-and-forth musical dialogue at first doesn’t rely on words. But the therapist may help the client extend to more expressive vocalisations and even word production.

In Australia, music therapists must complete a two-year master’s degree before they are able to register with the Australian Music Therapy Association, and engage in continuous professional development.

The review said artists or musicians who do not have relevant qualifications to register with their professional bodies should not charge the new hourly rate for therapy.

So, what does the evidence say?

The new review acknowledged that establishing the evidence for therapy and disability is a complex task.

Around one in five Australians live with disability. Each person has unique needs and strengths, and disability occurs across the lifespan, meaning needs can also change. But when studying whether a particular kind of therapy is beneficial, researchers will focus on a particular group of people, such as adults with cerebral palsy.

This means the quantity and quality of evidence available will vary across different age groups and conditions – and there may be gaps. So care needs to be taken when interpreting the research to consider whether findings from one study might be applicable to other people with similar goals, needs, or conditions.

Qualified therapists are trained to interpret this evidence. They may be working with a client whose condition or needs differ from what’s in the existing research literature. So, they will consider whether a study showing benefits for music therapy with one group (such as non-speaking autistic children) could be relevant to another (for example, other people who have limitations in verbal expression).

The Duckett Review acknowledges this challenge of generalising evidence across different therapies. But it also warns of possible discrimination against people with rare conditions that attract limited research funding, and calls for more research.

Grace Thompson is a Registered Music Therapist.
Grace Thompson was the co-lead in the Australian Music Therapy Association’s submission to Steven Duckett.
Grace Thompson is a person with disability, and receives a support plan from the NDIS.

– ref. Art and music therapies can be ‘life changing’ for people with disability – https://theconversation.com/art-and-music-therapies-can-be-life-changing-for-people-with-disability-264973

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chelsea Morrison, PhD Candidate, Occupational Therapy, Southern Cross University

The government plans to redirect some children off the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and onto a new program called Thriving Kids. When announcing the change last month, health and disability minister Mark Butler explained:

Tens and tens of thousands of young children with mild to moderate developmental delay or autism are on a scheme set up for permanent disability.

This seemed to imply autism is something people “grow out of”. It’s not: autism spectrum disorder is a lifelong neurodevelopmental condition.

The government’s announcement about redirecting people off the NDIS has also raised concerns about what supports will remain available for autistic people as they grow older.

So what should support look like for autistic adults?

Read more:
‘Thriving Kids’ could help secure the future of the NDIS. But what will the program mean for children and families?

How is autism diagnosed?

Autism is defined by differences in social communication and behavioural flexibility. These are outward signs of a diverse way of thinking and represent a specific neurotype.

Autism spectrum disorder is diagnosed when the neurotype is associated with significant distress or impaired functioning at school, work or in social settings.

Terms such as “mild” or “moderate” autism are not part of contemporary diagnostic frameworks. Rather, autism spectrum disorder is diagnosed as level 1, 2 or 3, based on the individual’s support needs at the time of assessment.

Levels can’t predict the impact of autism on an individual’s future life. Many autistic adults who are considered level 1 and 2 at a particular point in time still face significant barriers in daily life.

Levels can also fluctuate based on context. While the level at diagnosis can indicate the degree of support needed at that time of diagnosis, they cannot be used to predict future need.

Not all autistic people qualify for the NDIS and rely on Medicare-subsidised services or community health programs for support. These vary widely in affordability and availability.

What might autistic adults need?

Support needs in adulthood are diverse and dynamic. One person may need in-home support and care to manage routines or daily living skills.

Another person may live independently, but struggle with executive functioning, emotional regulation or burnout.

Executive functioning difficulties can affect planning, time management, task-initiation and decision-making. This makes things like grocery shopping, paying bills, or attending appointments overwhelming and difficult.

Read more:
What are executive function delays? Research shows they’re similar in ADHD and autism

Emotional regulation challenges may show up as intense reactions to stress, difficulty remaining calm, or feeling overwhelmed and distressed by small changes.

Burnout, often caused by prolonged stress or “masking” autistic traits, can lead to exhaustion, withdrawal and a reduction in capacity to manage daily tasks. This can affect someone’s ability to work, maintain routines or participate in everyday life.

What do support services look like?

Supports should be person-led and flexible enough to adapt as needs change.

The goal is not to “fix” autism, but to foster wellbeing and authentic participation in daily life.

As such, service providers focus on:

Building daily living skills

An occupational therapist (OT) may visit the person in their home to assess how they currently manage tasks, identify barriers and develop strategies with the person to promote their independence and confidence.

The OT might:

• help break down a task, such as cooking a meal, into manageable steps
• introduce visual schedules for daily routines or checklists for budgeting and daily tasks
• build skills for navigating public transport using maps and apps.

Support can also include practising routines, adapting the environment, or introducing assistive technology. The aim is to build the person’s capacity in real-life contexts so they can live with greater autonomy and less stress.

Supporting mental health and emotional regulation

Mental health support may include psychological therapy, counselling, peer support or psychiatric care, depending on the person’s needs and preferences.

These services are delivered by psychologists, counsellors, nurse practitioners, occupational therapists or psychiatrists in clinics, community settings or via telehealth.

Talking therapies may focus on identifying triggers, developing calming strategies and building emotional awareness.

Enhancing communication and social connection

This involves support from providers such as speech pathologists to build skills such as initiating conversation, interpreting social cues, building social connections with peers and expressing needs.

Supports are tailored to the person’s communication style, goals and preferences. They can take place in clinics, homes, or community settings, individually or in groups.

Creating safe environments at home, work and in the community

This involves supporting autistic adults to understand and express their neurodivergent identity, advocate for their needs and help them feel psychologically safe at home, work and in the community.

This may include peer mentoring, counselling and occupational therapy support, and often occurs in community hubs, clinics or online spaces.

Lessons from abroad

While adult autism support remains underfunded and under-researched across the world, some countries are leading the way.

The United Kingdom’s National Autistic Society, for example, offers adult-specific services, including supported employment and housing. These empower autistic adults to live independently, access meaningful work and engage with their communities in safe, affirming environments. This approach reflects best practice and promotes long-term wellbeing.

In Canada, peer-led initiatives and neurodivergent-designed programs create spaces where autistic and neurodivergent adults feel seen, heard and supported. The Neurodivergent Collective of New Brunswick, for example, offers grassroots, peer-to-peer support groups that address mental health, relationships and daily life challenges to build community and reduce isolation.

In Australia, support for autistic adults is increasing. But we don’t have a clear evidence base about what works and what doesn’t, or even how daily living skills are developed in adulthood. Our ongoing research aims to fill this gap and improve support for autistic people throughout their life.

Chelsea Morrison also works as an occupational therapist within the NDIS.

Andrew Cashin receives funding from the NDIS ILC grants programme. He also works providing therapeutic supports to people with autism funded by the NDIS.

Kitty-Rose Foley receives funding from the Australian government Department of Health and Aged Care for her role in the National Centre of Excellence in Intellectual Disability Health. She is an NDIS provider of occupational therapy.

– ref. Autism is lifelong. Here’s what support looks like in adulthood – https://theconversation.com/autism-is-lifelong-heres-what-support-looks-like-in-adulthood-264121

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By DB Subedi, Lecturer, The University of Queensland

Earlier this week, thousands of mainly young people in Nepal took to the streets in mass protests triggered by the government’s decision to ban 26 social media platforms.

Some 22 people died and hundreds were injured within in a few hours in the clashes between protesters and police.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and his cabinet ministers resigned in the face of growing public outrage and widespread criticism, both domestically and internationally, over the protesters’ deaths.

What happened?

Provoked by the deaths of the protesters on September 8, angry, young demonstrators burned down several government buildings across the country, including the parliament and supreme court.

Several politicians’ residences were also set on fire, while leaders of major political parties went into hiding.

The Nepal Army is currently mobilising troops on the streets to take control of the situation, but power has not yet been officially transferred to a new government.

Unrest leads to protests

Political protests and public uprisings are not new in Nepal. The country’s first mass uprising in 1990 (labelled “Jana Andolan I”) and the second in 2006 (“Jana Andolan II”) both called for major changes in the political system.

The governments that followed failed to meet the public’s hopes for real reforms.

For the first time in the country’s history, a protest of this size has been entirely led by young people from Generation Z (born roughly between 1997 and 2012). Out of nearly 30 million people in Nepal, about 40% belong to this generation.

Growing up in a digital culture shaped by internet and social media platforms, this generation has lived through Nepal’s worst years of political instability and frequent government changes. There have been 14 governments in the past 15 years.

In 2015, Nepal shifted from a constitutional monarchical system to a federal republic system. But this massive change has delivered few improvements for everyday people. Despite some improvements in roads, electricity and the internet, inequality, political corruption, elitism and nepotism continue.

Making the situation even worse is an unemployment rate that exceeds 10% overall – and more than 20% for young people.

The social media ban that sparked action

In a country where more than 73% of households own a mobile phone and about 55% of the population uses the internet, social media platforms are not only a source of entertainment and networking, but also a way of amplifying political voices – especially when traditional media is perceived as being biased towards political interests.

Nepal’s Gen Z is using social media both as a social and political space. #Nepobaby is often trending on TikTok, while Instagram posts detail the lavish lifestyle that politicians and their children enjoy compared to the hard reality of many young people, who work low-wage jobs or have to leave the country just to survive.

On September 3, the government banned these social media platforms, citing a directive requiring companies to register in Nepal. The government justified the move as necessary to control fake news, misinformation and disinformation.

But Gen Z saw the ban as censorship. The frustration spreading on social media quickly turned into a nationwide uprising.

The government lifted the ban on September 8, but it could not save the coalition government.

Similarities in other countries

The protests in Nepal mirror similar movements led recently by young people elsewhere in Asia, especially Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Indonesia.

Like Bangladesh in 2024, the young protesters in Nepal were frustrated with corruption and joblessness.

Similar to Sri Lanka’s “Aragalaya” movement in 2022, Nepal’s protesters fought against inequality and nepotism, resulting in the collapse of the government.

And like Indonesia’s student protests in recent weeks, the Nepali protesters relied on memes, hashtags and digital networks, rather than party machines to organise.

Where to from here?

What comes next for Nepal is unclear. The army chief is now coordinating with Gen Z activists to set up an interim civilian government that will prepare for fresh elections.

This is a remarkable shift: the youth who shook the streets are being asked to help shape the country’s political future.

Yet, challenges remain.

The young protesters are still a loose, leaderless network lacking the experience to run a state system. After an online meeting September 10, the protesters reportedly agreed to propose former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, now in her 70s, as a leader of the interim civilian government.

Nepal’s key institutions, such such as the courts, bureaucracy and security forces, are still largely dominated by older elites, as well. Any attempt to shift power may face resistance.

Perhaps Nepal can take a lesson from Bangladesh’s recent experience, where young protesters stepped in to help form an interim government, under the leadership of Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus.

Despite the challenges ahead, the uprising has provided a historic opportunity to fix Nepal’s broken government system. But real change depends on how power shifts from the old guard to new leaders, and whether they can address the structural and systemic issues that drove young people to the streets.

DB Subedi 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. Deadly Nepal protests reflect a wider pattern of Gen Z political activism across Asia – https://theconversation.com/deadly-nepal-protests-reflect-a-wider-pattern-of-gen-z-political-activism-across-asia-264968

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Thompson, Lecturer in Theatre, Australian Catholic University

Carrie, published in 1974 and adapted by screenwriter Lawrence Cohen for Brian De Palma’s 1976 film, is generally cited as Stephen King’s first novel.

His actual first novel, The Long Walk, was written some seven years earlier, but published after Carrie in 1979 under the pseudonym Richard Bachman. The Long Walk is a gripping first novel. And now, all these years later, it has been adapted into a surprisingly compelling film.

Why surprising? Well, at first blush, the premise can seem a bit thin and schlocky: in a dystopian United States, 50 young men are chosen by lottery to compete in a cross-country marathon in which they must maintain a walking speed of three miles (4.8 kilometres) per hour to avoid being shot – with the last one standing winning a dream prize.

However, screenwriter Jeffrey Mollner and director Francis Lawrence (who also directed most of The Hunger Games films) deliver a deeply human story of friendship and loyalty in the face of overwhelming odds.

As with the better King adaptations, it’s the depth and power of the characters, and our empathy for them, that elevates this story. A talented young cast is led by Cooper Hoffman, David Jonsson and Charlie Plummer, along with gravel-voiced Mark Hamill as the villain.

The Long Walk is just one more example of how so many of King’s stories have, and continue to, be manna for the big screen.

Human stories at their heart

In the more gripping and engaging King adaptations such as Carrie (1976), The Shining (1980) and Misery (1990), the violence and horror are often what Alfred Hitchcock called a MacGuffin: a thing the story seems to be about when, in fact, it’s about something far more human.

The horror of what’s in Room 237 in The Shining, or what Annie Wilkes does with her sledgehammer in Misery are great scary moments, but they’re not what these stories are about.

As Mike Flanagan, director of Life of Chuck, Gerald’s Game (2017) and Doctor Sleep (2018) puts it:

You forget that It isn’t about the clown, it’s about the kids and their friendship […] The Stand isn’t about the virus or the demon taking over the world, it’s ordinary people who have to come together and stand against a force they cannot defeat.

To that end, the graphic violence in The Long Walk is the least interesting aspect of it. Yet King insisted the violence be kept in the screenplay.

When he wrote the story in the 1960s, it was a metaphor for the Vietnam War, and a generation sacrificed to conscription. As he recently told Deadline, the characters are “the same sort of kids that are pulled into the war machine”.

In 2025, however, the screenplay is about bread and circuses – and false hope for an economically and socially disenfranchised society dominated by authoritarian powers.

It’s also reminiscent of another endurance-based film, Sydney Pollack’s classic They Shoot Horses Don’t They? (1969), in which poor young people living in Depression-era America compete in a dance marathon for a cash prize.

We feel for the villains, too

The Long Walk is the latest of several King adaptations to hit screens this year.

We’ve seen Osgood Perkins’ disappointing horror-comedy The Monkey, Jack Bender and Benjamin Cavell’s plodding Stan series The Institute and, more recently, The Life of Chuck, Mike Flanagan’s glorious celebration of life, joy, grief, death and the unreliability of memory. Coming up we’ve got Welcome to Derry, from It (2017) director Andrés Muschietti, and Edgar Wright’s remake of The Running Man.

It’s remarkable the 77-year-old author of almost 70 books is still so prolifically adapted for the screen. With more than 50 feature films and dozens of TV series associated with his name, King is one of the most adapted authors of all time. Why is that?

His enormous onscreen success comes down to more than just his big name as a writer. It also comes down to his stories, which are grounded in humanity and told through relatable, empathetic characters.

It’s not enough to scare an audience. You also need to touch their hearts. They want to be moved – to laugh, cry and feel. Not just scream.

Film writer Jake Coyle argues the best King adaptations come from the author’s more warm-hearted tales. But I would say there is also much joy and heartbreak to be found in his not-so-warm adaptations, such as Pet Sematary (1989) and Christine (1983).

Moreover, King’s antagonists – even the super-scary ones – are usually as well-crafted, compelling and psychologically complex as his protagonists.

Whether its Annie Wilkes in Misery, Jack Torrance in The Shining, or now Gary Barkovitch in The Long Walk, King invites us to understand what drives these complex and layered characters – even as we’re reviled by their actions. They do monstrous things, but they’re more than just monsters.

As Frank Darabont, director of The Shawshank Redemption (1994) and The Green Mile (1999), puts it:

There’s a very haunting and melancholy quality to [The Green Mile] […] the people in it are […] trying very much to do the best they know how […] they’re wrestling with issues of compassion and morality, all the things I love to see in a story.

I’m with Frank. I look for these things in a story too. They’re there in The Long Walk, in The Life of Chuck, and in so many others King adaptations. And it’s a good bet they’ll be there on our screens for a long time to come.

Chris Thompson 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 Long Walk proves yet again why Stephen King’s stories are perfect for the big screen – https://theconversation.com/the-long-walk-proves-yet-again-why-stephen-kings-stories-are-perfect-for-the-big-screen-264024

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Beckett, Adjunct Senior Lecturer, Nutrition, Dietetics & Food Innovation – School of Health Sciences, UNSW Sydney

If you’ve been supermarket shopping lately, you might have noticed more foods with big, bold protein claims on black packaging – from powders and bars to yoghurt, bread and even coffee.

International surveys show people are shopping for more protein because they think it’ll help their fitness and health. But clever marketing can sway our judgement too.

Before your next shop, here’s what you should know about how protein is allowed to be sold to us. And as a food and nutrition scientist, I’ll offer some tips for choosing the best value meat or plant-based protein for every $1 you spend – and no, protein bars aren’t the winner.

‘Protein’ vs ‘increased protein’ claims

Let’s start with those “high protein” or “increased protein” claims we’re seeing more of on the shelves.

In Australia and New Zealand, there are actually rules and nuances about how and when companies can use those phrases.

Under those rules, labelling a product as a “protein” product implies it’s a “source” of protein. That means it has at least 5 grams of protein per serving.

“High protein” doesn’t have a specific meaning in the food regulations, but is taken to mean “good source”. Under the rules, a “good source” should have at least 10 grams of protein per serving.

Then there is the “increased protein” claim, which means it has at least 25% more protein than the standard version of the same food.

If you see a product labelled as a “protein” version, you might assume it has significantly more protein than the standard version. But this might not be the case.

Take, for example, a “protein”-branded, black-wrapped cheese: Mini Babybel Protein. It meets the Australian and New Zealand rules of being labelled as a “source” of protein, because it has 5 grams of protein per serving (in this case, in a 20 gram serve of cheese).

But what about the original red-wrapped Mini Babybel cheese? That has 4.6g of protein per 20 gram serving.

The difference between the original vs “protein” cheese is not even a 10% bump in protein content.

Black packaging by design

Food marketers use colours to give us signals about what’s in a package.

Green signals natural and environmentally friendly, reds and yellows are often linked to energy, and blue goes with coolness and hydration.

These days, black is often used as a visual shorthand for products containing protein.

But it’s more than that. Research also suggests black conveys high-quality or “premium” products. This makes it the perfect match for foods marketed as “functional” or “performance-boosting”.

The ‘health halo’ effect

When one attribute of a food is seen as positive, it can make us assume the whole product is health-promoting, even if that’s not the case. This is called a “health halo”.

For protein, the glow of the protein halo can make us blind to the other attributes of the food, such as added fats or sugars. We might be willing to pay more too.

It’s important to know protein deficiency is rare in countries like Australia. You can even have too much protein.

How to spend less to get more protein

If you do have good reason to think you need more protein, here’s how to get better value for your money.

Animal-based core foods are nutritionally dense and high-quality protein foods. Meats, fish, poultry, eggs, fish, and cheese will have between 11 to 32 grams of protein per 100 grams.

That could give you 60g in a chicken breast, 22g in a can of tuna, 17g in a 170g tub of Greek yoghurt, or 12g in 2 eggs.

In the animal foods, chicken is economical, delivering more than 30g of protein for each $1 spent.

But you don’t need to eat animal products to get enough protein.

In fact, once you factor in costs – and I made the following calculations based on recent supermarket prices – plant-based protein sources become even more attractive.

Legumes (such as beans, lentils and soybeans) have about 9g of protein per 100g, which is about half a cup. Legumes are in the range of 20g of protein per dollar spent, which is a similar cost ratio to a protein powder.

Nuts and seeds like sunflower seeds can have 7g in one 30g handful. Even one cup of simple frozen peas will provide about 7g of protein.

Peanuts at $6 per kilogram supply 42g of protein for each $1 spent.

Dry oats, at $3/kg have 13g of protein per 100g (or 5g in a half cup serve), that’s 33g of protein per dollar spent.

In contrast, processed protein bars are typically poor value, coming in at between 6-8g of protein per $1 spent, depending on if you buy them in a single serve, or in a box of five bars.

Fresh often beats processed on price and protein

Packaged products offer convenience and certainty. But if you rely on convenience, colours and keywords alone, you might not get the best deals or the most nutritious choices.

Choosing a variety of fresh and whole foods for your protein will provide a diversity of vitamins and minerals, while reducing risks associated with consuming too much of any one thing. And it can be done without breaking the bank.

Emma Beckett has received funding for research or consulting from Mars Foods, Nutrition Research Australia, NHMRC, ARC, AMP Foundation, Kellogg and the University of Newcastle. She works for FOODiQ Global and is the author of ‘You Are More Than What You Eat’. She is a member of committees/working groups related to nutrition and food, including the Australian Academy of Science, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and is a member of the Nutrition Society of Australia and the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology.

– ref. Want more protein for less money? Don’t be fooled by the slick black packaging – https://theconversation.com/want-more-protein-for-less-money-dont-be-fooled-by-the-slick-black-packaging-264039

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Davinia Beaver, Postdoctoral research fellow, Clem Jones Centre for Regenerative Medicine, Bond University

You’re introduced to someone and your attention catches on their eyes. They might be a rich, earthy brown, a pale blue, or the rare green that shifts with every flicker of light. Eyes have a way of holding us, of sparking recognition or curiosity before a single word is spoken. They are often the first thing we notice about someone, and sometimes the feature we remember most.

Across the world, human eyes span a wide palette. Brown is by far the most common shade, especially in Africa and Asia, while blue is most often seen in northern and eastern Europe. Green is the rarest of all, found in only about 2% of the global population. Hazel eyes add even more diversity, often appearing to shift between green and brown depending on the light.

So, what lies behind these differences?

It’s all in the melanin

The answer rests in the iris, the coloured ring of tissue that surrounds the pupil. Here, a pigment called melanin does most of the work.

Brown eyes contain a high concentration of melanin, which absorbs light and creates their darker appearance. Blue eyes contain very little melanin. Their colour doesn’t come from pigment at all but from the scattering of light within the iris, a physical effect known as the Tyndall effect, a bit like the effect that makes the sky look blue.

In blue eyes, the shorter wavelengths of light (such as blue) are scattered more effectively than longer wavelengths like red or yellow. Due to the low concentration of melanin, less light is absorbed, allowing the scattered blue light to dominate what we perceive. This blue hue results not from pigment but from the way light interacts with the eye’s structure.

Green eyes result from a balance, a moderate amount of melanin layered with light scattering. Hazel eyes are more complex still. Uneven melanin distribution in the iris creates a mosaic of colour that can shift depending on the surrounding ambient light.

What have genes got to do with it?

The genetics of eye colour is just as fascinating.

For a long time, scientists believed a simple “brown beats blue” model, controlled by a single gene. Research now shows the reality is much more complex. Many genes contribute to determining eye colour. This explains why children in the same family can have dramatically different eye colours, and why two blue-eyed parents can sometimes have a child with green or even light brown eyes.

Eye colour also changes over time. Many babies of European ancestry are born with blue or grey eyes because their melanin levels are still low. As pigment gradually builds up over the first few years of life, those blue eyes may shift to green or brown.

In adulthood, eye colour tends to be more stable, though small changes in appearance are common depending on lighting, clothing, or pupil size. For example, blue-grey eyes can appear very blue, very grey or even a little green depending on ambient light. More permanent shifts are rarer but can occur as people age, or in response to certain medical conditions that affect melanin in the iris.

The real curiosities

Then there are the real curiosities.

Heterochromia, where one eye is a different colour from the other, or one iris contains two distinct colours, is rare but striking. It can be genetic, the result of injury, or linked to specific health conditions. Celebrities such as Kate Bosworth and Mila Kunis are well-known examples. Musician David Bowie’s eyes appeared as different colours because of a permanently dilated pupil after an accident, giving the illusion of heterochromia.

In the end, eye colour is more than just a quirk of genetics and physics. It’s a reminder of how biology and beauty intertwine. Each iris is like a tiny universe, rings of pigment, flecks of gold, or pools of deep brown that catch the light differently every time you look.

Eyes don’t just let us see the world, they also connect us to one another. Whether blue, green, brown, or something in-between, every pair tells a story that’s utterly unique, one of heritage, individuality, and the quiet wonder of being human.

Davinia Beaver 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. Blue, green, brown, or something in between – the science of eye colour explained – https://theconversation.com/blue-green-brown-or-something-in-between-the-science-of-eye-colour-explained-264681

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Ogden, Associate Professor in Global Studies, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

With the old global order in a heightened state of flux, driven by US President Donald Trump’s attacks on free trade, international organisations and human rights, small states like New Zealand are having to adjust their foreign policies and hedge their bets.

As long-term economic and diplomatic power shifts towards Asia and the wider Indo-Pacific, alternative multilateral groups are now growing in importance.

Foremost among these is the grouping known as BRICS, a maturing – and potentially dominant – centre of global economic power. Whether New Zealand would consider joining is still moot, but the forum already includes major nations vital to this country’s future.

Formed in September 2006 by Brazil, Russia, India and China (the original BRIC), it had its first annual summit in June 2009, with South Africa joining in December 2010 (thus becoming BRICS).

The core strategic logic of BRICS is based on consensus and solidarity, not coercion, and to gain member benefits via collective strength. As then Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh put it in 2009:

We share the vision of inclusive growth and prosperity in the world [… and] we stand for a rule-based, stable and predictable global order.

Having substantial economies, populations, landmasses and ambitions underpinned this shared goal of a multipolar world – which now seems to be emerging by a different route due to Trump’s isolationist “America first” policies.

Strength in numbers

In 2012, motivated by mutual concerns over food and energy security, terrorism and climate change, BRICS members signed the Delhi Declaration, stating:

We envision a future marked by global peace, economic and social progress [… and] strengthened representation of emerging and developing countries in the institutions of global governance.

In 2013, BRICS launched the New Development Bank, designed to progressively reform the world’s financial architecture after the global financial crisis of 2008.

Seeking to fund sustainable development and infrastructure projects in developing states, the bank now rivals older Western-based institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The rising significance of BRICS has been accelerated by its recent expansion. In 2024, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates all became members, as did Indonesia in 2025.

Argentina had also agreed to join in 2024 but then pulled out due to the election of its US-orientated populist president Javier Milei.

The expansion saw BRICS’ share of global GDP rise to 39% in 2023. Member states now account for 48.5% of the planet’s population and 36% of total global territory.

BRICS also accounts for around 72% of the world’s reserves of rare earth minerals, 43.6% of global oil production, 36% of natural gas production and 78.2% of coal production.

By such measures, BRICS is an economic and diplomatic powerhouse. In economic terms, it has been out-ranking the G7 countries (US, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy and Canada) since around 2019.

An alternative, not a choice

Diplomatically, BRICS members pledge to better synchronise their national policies by meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, IMF, World Bank and G20 summits.

Joining such a body provides an attractive way for countries to enhance their trade and diplomatic bandwidth, as well as hedge against US-inspired instability.

Joining BRICS also comes with potential risks, of course. Any perception of traditional Western alliance systems being undercut could see aid and investment reduce. So far, however, Trump’s threat to impose an extra 10% trade tariff on any countries aligned with BRICS is yet to materialise.

But as economist Stephen Onyeiwu has written, with the exception of Russia and Iran,

Most of the countries and partners in BRICS are either allies of western countries or neutral on global issues. They are unlikely to support decisions or actions that are grossly inimical to western interests.

Given the current geopolitical situation, New Zealand may well baulk at closer ties with Russia and Iran. But being inside the forum would also allow diplomatic opportunities to press other member states over their actions or policies.

In fact, New Zealand – along with many US allies – joined the Beijing-inspired Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank and signed a Free Trade Agreement with China in 2008. It didn’t suffer any adverse consequences.

New BRICS members can be invited or make a formal request to apply, which is then considered at the next BRICS annual summit. Or they can apply to be a partner country, which is akin to “observer” status.

This allows them to take part in special summits and foreign minister meetings, as well as contribute to official documents and policy statements. But they can’t host meetings or select new members and partners.

Most importantly, joining BRICS would not mean New Zealand needs to leave other multilateral institutions.

Rather, it would be a pragmatic way for Wellington to spread its diplomatic wings and prepare for a future in which Asia and the Indo-Pacific – already the world’s largest economic and military region – will only become more powerful.

Chris Ogden is affiliated as a Senior Research Fellow with the Foreign Policy Centre, London.

– ref. As the world order shifts, NZ should ‘spread its diplomatic wings’ and look at joining BRICS – https://theconversation.com/as-the-world-order-shifts-nz-should-spread-its-diplomatic-wings-and-look-at-joining-brics-264861

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Stevenson, ARC DECRA Fellow, Swinburne University of Technology

Ten years ago, scientists heard the universe rumble for the first time. That first discovery of gravitational waves proved a key prediction from Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity and began a new era of astronomy.

Now, a new gravitational-wave discovery marks the anniversary of this major breakthrough. Published today in Physical Review Letters, it puts to the test a theory from another giant of science, Stephen Hawking.

What are gravitational waves?

Gravitational waves are “ripples” in the fabric of space-time that travel at the speed of light. They are caused by highly accelerated massive objects, such as colliding black holes or the mergers of massive star remains known as neutron stars.

These ripples propagating through the universe were first directly observed on September 14 2015 by the twin Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors in the United States.

Read more:
Gravitational waves discovered: how did the experiment at LIGO actually work?

That first signal, called GW150914, originated from the collision of two black holes, each more than 30 times the mass of the Sun and more than a billion light years away from Earth.

This was the first direct proof of gravitational waves, exactly as predicted by Einstein’s theory of relativity 100 years earlier. The discovery led to the award of the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics to Rainer Weiss, Barry Barish and Kip Thorne for their pioneering work on the LIGO collaboration.

Hundreds of signals in less than a decade

Since 2015, more than 300 gravitational waves have been observed by LIGO, along with the Italian Virgo and Japanese KAGRA detectors.

Just a few weeks ago, the international LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA collaboration released the latest results from their fourth observing run, more than doubling the number of known gravitational waves.

Now, ten years after the first discovery, an international collaboration including Australian scientists from the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery (OzGrav), has announced a new gravitational-wave signal, GW250114.

The signal is almost a carbon copy of that very first gravitational wave signal, GW150914.

The black hole collision responsible for GW250114 had very similar physical properties to GW150914. However, due to significant upgrades to the gravitational wave detectors over the past ten years, the new signal is seen much more clearly (almost four times as “loud” as GW150914).

Excitingly, it’s allowed us to put to the test the ideas of another groundbreaking physicist.

Hawking was right, too

More than 50 years ago, physicists Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein independently formulated a set of laws that describe black holes.

Hawking’s second law of black hole mechanics, also known as Hawking’s area theorem, states that the area of the event horizon of a black hole must always increase. In other words, black holes can’t shrink.

Meanwhile, Bekenstein showed that the area of a black hole is directly related to its entropy, a scientific measure of disorder. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that entropy must always increase: the universe is always getting messier. Since the entropy of a black hole must also increase with time, it tells us that its area must also increase.

How can we test these ideas? Colliding black holes, it turns out, are the perfect tool.

The precision of this recent measurement allowed scientists to perform the most precise test of Hawking’s area theorem to date.

Previous tests using the first detection, GW150914, showed that signal was in good agreement with Hawking’s law, but could not confirm it conclusively.

Black holes are surprisingly simple objects. The horizon area of a black hole depends on its mass and spin, the only parameters necessary to describe an astrophysical black hole. In turn, the masses and spins determine what the gravitational wave looks like.

By separately measuring the masses and spins of the incoming pair of black holes, and comparing these to the mass and spin of the final black hole left over after the collision, scientists were able to compare the areas of the two individual colliding black holes to the area of the final black hole.

The data show excellent agreement with the theoretical prediction that the area should increase, confirming Hawking’s law without a doubt.

Which giant of science will we put to the test next? Future gravitational wave observations will allow us to test more exotic scientific theories, and maybe even probe the nature of the missing components of the universe – dark matter and dark energy.

Simon Stevenson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He works for Swinburne University of Technology. He is a member of OzGrav and the LIGO Scientific collaboration.

– ref. 10 years ago, gravitational waves changed astronomy. A new discovery shows there’s more to come – https://theconversation.com/10-years-ago-gravitational-waves-changed-astronomy-a-new-discovery-shows-theres-more-to-come-264131

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aki Ishida, Professor and Director, College of Architecture and Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Design, Washington University in St. Louis

The word “local” has become synonymous with sustainability, whether it’s food, clothes or the materials used to construct buildings. But while consumers can probably go to a local lumberyard to buy lumber from sustainably grown trees cut at nearby sawmills, no one asks for local glass.

If they did, it would be hard to give an answer.

The raw materials that go into glass – silica sand, soda ash and limestone – are natural, but the sources of those materials are rarely known to the buyer.

The process by which sand becomes sheets of glass is often far from transparent. The sand, which makes up over 70% of glass, could come from a faraway riverbed, lakeshore or inland limestone outcrop. Sand with at least 95% silica content is called silica sand, and only the purest is suitable for architectural glass production. Such sand is found in limited areas.

If the glass is colorless, its potential sources are even more limited, because colorless low-iron glass – popularized by Apple’s flagship stores and luxury towers around the world – requires 99% pure silica sand.

Glass production in Venice

The mysteries of glass production have historic precedent that can be traced back to trade secrets of the Venetian Empire.

Venice, particularly the island of Murano, became the center for glass production largely due to its strategic location for importing raw materials and production know-how and exporting coveted glass objects.

From the 11th to the 16th centuries, the secrets of glassmaking were protected by the Venetians until three glassmakers were smuggled out by King Louis XIV of France, who applied the technology to create the Palace of Versailles’ Hall of Mirrors.

Venice was an otherwise unlikely location for glassmaking.

Neither the primary materials of sand and soda ash (sodium carbonate) nor the firewood for the medieval Venetian glassmakers were found in the city’s immediate vicinity. They were transported from the riverbeds of the Ticino River in Switzerland and the Agide River, which flows from the Austria-Switzerland border to the Adriatic Sea south of Venice. Soda ash, which is needed to lower the melting point of silica sand, was brought from Syria and Egypt.

So Venetian glass production was not local; it was dependent on precious resources imported from afar on ships.

Rising demand for low-iron, seamless glass

In the past few decades, low-iron glass, known for its colorlessness, has become the contemporary symbol of high-end architecture. The glass appears to disappear.

Low-iron glass is made from ultrapure sand that is low in iron oxide. Iron causes the green tint seen in ordinary glass. In architecture, low-iron glass doesn’t affect the performance – only the appearance. But it is prized.

In the U.S., this type of sand is found in a few locations, primarily in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Missouri, where sand as white and fine as sugar – thus called saccharoidal – is mined from St. Peter sandstone. Other locations where it can be found around the world include Queensland in Australia and parts of China. Less pure sand can be purified by methods such as acid washing or magnetic separation.

Perhaps no corporation has popularized low-iron and seamless glass in architecture more than the technology giant Apple.

Glass has become fundamentally linked with Apple’s products and architecture, including its flagship stores’ expensive and daring experiments in architectural uses of glass.

Apple’s first showroom, completed in Soho in New York in 2002, showcased all-glass stairs that were strengthened with hurricane- and bullet-resistant plastic interlayers sandwiched between five sheets of glass. The treads attach to all glass walls with a hockey puck-size titanium hardware, making both the glass stairs and the shoppers appear to float.

The company’s iconic flagship store near New York’s Central Park is an all-glass cube measuring 32½ feet (10 meters) on each side and serving as a vestibule to the store below. The first version was completed in 2006 using 90 panels, which was a technical feat. Then, in 2011, Apple reconstructed the cube in the same location, same size, but with only 15 panels, minimizing the number of seams and hardware while maximizing transparency.

Today, low-iron glass has become the standard for high-profile architecture and those who can afford it, including the “pencil towers” in Manhattan’s Billionaires’ Row.

Glass’s climate impact

Glass walls common in high-rise buildings today have other drawbacks. They help to heat up the room during increasingly hot summers and contribute to heat loss in winter, increasing dependence on artificial cooling and heating.

The glassmaking process is energy intensive and relies on nonrenewable resources.

To bring sand to its molten state, the furnace must be heated to over 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit (1,500 degrees Celisus) for as long as 50 hours, which requires burning fossil fuels such as natural gas, releasing greenhouse gases. Once heated to that temperature, the furnace runs 24/7 and is rarely shut down.

The soda ash and limestone also release carbon dioxide during melting. Moreover, glass production requires mining or producing nonrenewable natural resources such as sand, soda ash, lime and fuel. Transporting them further increases emissions.

Production and fabrication of extra-large glass panels rely on specialized equipment and occur only at a limited number of plants in the world, meaning transportation increases the carbon footprint.

Architectural glass is also difficult to recycle, largely due to the labor involved in separating glass from the building assembly.

Although glass is touted as infinitely recyclable, only 6% of architectural glass is downcycled into glass products that require less purity and precision, and almost none is recycled into architectural glass. The rest ends up in landfills.

The increasing demand for glass that is colorless, extra large and seamless contributes to glass’s sustainability problem.

How can we make glass more sustainable?

There are ways to reduce glass’s environmental footprint.

Researchers and companies are working on new types of glass that could lower its climate impact, such as using materials that lower the amount of heat necessary to make glass. Replacing natural gas, typically used in glassmaking, with less-polluting power sources can also reduce emissions.

Low-e coatings, a thin coat of silver sprayed onto a glass surface, can help reduce the amount of heat that reaches a building’s interior by reflecting both the visible light and heat, but the coating can’t fully eliminate solar heat gain.

People can also alter their standards and accept smaller and less ultraclear panels. Think of the green tint not as impure but natural.

Aki Ishida 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. Where does your glass come from? – https://theconversation.com/where-does-your-glass-come-from-263421