Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Hill, Speech Pathologist and Senior Lecturer, School of Allied Health, Curtin University

From mid-2027, the government will divert children with mild and moderate developmental delay and autism away from the NDIS and onto a program called Thriving Kids.

The government is also considering new Medicare items for allied health services when children need additional support. This may include occupational therapy, speech pathology and psychosocial (psychological and social) therapy.

But what exactly is a developmental delay?

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

Progressing more slowly than their peers

Developmental delay is a general label for a range of conditions. Developmental refers to something arising during development and delay means a child is progressing in the expected way, just more slowly.

Up to 24% of children are considered “developmentally vulnerable”. This means they haven’t met a key milestone and are at risk in one or more areas, including speech and language, motor skills, thinking and learning, social and emotional development, and everyday life skills.

A child might be delayed in their speech and not speak in sentences by the age of three.

A child might not crawl or walk by around 18 months or may have difficulty using their hands to play with toys or feed themselves.

Thinking skills such as memory and problem-solving may develop more slowly. Or a child might have more trouble controlling their emotions or interacting with parents or siblings than others their age.

Everyday tasks such as dressing, going to the toilet and brushing teeth can also be difficult for children with developmental delay.

It ranges in severity

When a child shows difficulty in one area, it’s called a specific delay.

When multiple areas are impacted, it’s called a global delay. Around 1–3% of children experience global developmental delay.

Developmental delays are usually identified as a result of parental concern, observations at daycare, or during routine milestone checkups by a family GP and/or child health nurse. They’re then confirmed by a GP, paediatrician, or allied health provider.

Delays are described as mild, moderate, or severe. Mild delays occur when a child is developing at less than about one-third of their actual age, moderate between one-third and two-thirds, and severe at less than two-thirds.

In reality, judging severity is complicated. Children’s abilities can vary from day to day. Assessment tools may not fully capture their strengths and needs, especially if the child is shy, tired, or unfamiliar with the environment.

This means severity labels don’t always fully reflect a child’s abilities or the support they require.

Do kids grow out of it?

Some children with developmental delays will “catch up” over time. A child who has had fewer opportunities to hear and use language, for example, may make progress with the right support. Early intervention can be highly effective.

However, a large proportion of children won’t grow out of their difficulties.

The term developmental delay is frequently criticised for failing to recognise that delayed development is often associated with long-term difficulties (not just a lag). And it can be difficult to identify which young children have delays that will improve over time.

Globally, around 15% of children are diagnosed with a developmental disorder: lifelong conditions that affect how they grow and participate in the world.

Developmental disorders include autism spectrum disorder, Down syndrome, intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), specific learning disorders (for example, dyslexia), and developmental language disorder, which impacts a child’s ability to use and understand language.

If a child is still having difficulties by the time they are four or five, they would be considered to meet criteria for a developmental disorder.

How should children be supported?

Whether a child has a developmental delay or disorder, research shows a strong link between early support and better outcomes. Support often comes from a team of specialists such as:

• occupational therapists. They help children develop skills such as dressing, playing and managing emotions

• speech pathologists. They help with feeding and support children to express their wants and needs, and to be understood clearly

• physiotherapists. They focus on movement and physical skills, helping children improve their balance, coordination and strength for activities such as walking and playing

• psychologists. They implement strategies to help children and families manage difficult behaviours and emotions, and improve daily functioning

• audiologists. They assess and support hearing difficulties that can contribute to developmental delays in communication and social skills

• specialist teachers in schools and early learning settings. They have extra training and experience in supporting children with additional needs.

Intervention should begin as soon as difficulties are noticed, rather than waiting to see what happens and should be tailored to the needs and preferences of each child and their family.

Therapists work directly with children individually or in small groups, either in clinics, at home, or at daycare or school, where they collaborate with teachers to embed strategies such as visual supports or play-based activities.

This can be combined with helping family members and other professionals (such as teachers) develop the skills to support the child. However, coaching others takes time and training to ensure success.

Therapists also provide advocacy and systems support, helping families navigate services, school and funding pathways to ensure children receive the right help at the right time.

The best outcomes for children with developmental differences, whether delay or disorder, are achieved by a combination of one-on-one as well as systems-level support. It’s important policymakers keep this in mind as they design the Thriving Kids program and new Medicare items.

Read more:
Occupational therapists tackle obstacles in the home, from support to cook a meal, to navigating public transport

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. Kids with ‘developmental delay’ will be diverted from the NDIS. But how do you know if your child is delayed? – https://theconversation.com/kids-with-developmental-delay-will-be-diverted-from-the-ndis-but-how-do-you-know-if-your-child-is-delayed-263633

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirk Dodd, Lecturer in English and Writing, University of Sydney

Playwright Joanna Murray-Smith has a long held fascination with the brilliance of Patricia Highsmith, who published the classic novel The Talented Mr. Ripley in 1955.

In 2014, Murray-Smith’s Switzerland explored Highsmith’s life, directed by Sarah Goodes for the Sydney Theatre Company. Now, Goodes directs Murray-Smith’s new adaptation of Highsmith’s novel, continuing their engagements with the author’s morally ambiguous characters.

Murray-Smith describes Tom Ripley as “the world’s most famous serial killer […] waiting for his moment in the spotlight”. And while this accolade could be disputed, it reveals Murray-Smith’s fascination with the psychological and ethical complexities of the Ripley novel.

The story follows Ripley (played neatly and commendably by Will McDonald), a man in his 20s who lost his parents young and was raised by a poor but nasty aunt.

A surprise encounter sees Ripley sent to Europe by a wealthy shipping magnate (astutely played by Andrew McFarlane) to bring back his wayward son, Dickie Greenleaf (Raj Labade) – an inciting incident not unlike Henry Jame’s novel The Ambassadors. The publisher describes the novel as “a blend of the narrative subtlety of Henry James and the self-reflexive irony of Vladimir Nabokov”.

In Italy, Ripley becomes thoroughly enamoured with Greenleaf and his glamorous life. Labade plays the laid-back Greenleaf with spades of charm and panache, and Claude Scott-Mitchell plays Greenleaf’s girlfriend, Marge, with tremendous poise, increasingly wary of the interloping Ripley.

Mr. Ripley’s “talent” is mimicking others, and he starts using his talent to take over Dickie’s identity.

As Ripley and Greenleaf take vacations around Italy, Ripley’s deceptions graduate to murder and identity theft. While his motives are framed around class envy, he seems motivated more by the dread of returning to his mundane life.

Ripley does not commit murder because he wants to become Dickie Greenleaf, so much as he assumes Dickie Greenleaf’s identity because this proves the most expedient way of escaping his despised past.

A filmic production

The performances and production values are impressive, but the play itself does not quite land. The inescapable need for Ripley to narrate his own tale directly to the audience breaks the golden rule of theatre: show don’t tell. As Anton Chekhov reputedly said, “Don’t tell me the moon is shining. Show me the glint of light on broken glass.”

The need for pace and momentum sees the narration interspersed with performed vignettes, rather than fuller dramatic scenes. This becomes more filmic than theatrical, lacking tension, dramatic stakes, subtext and climax.

Ripley’s backstory seems important to his psychology, but the snippets we receive didactically through narration make his motives seem trite. When Tom crumples to the floor and sobs because Dickie Greenleaf doesn’t see him, it is difficult to connect with: framed as a standalone vignette that arises from nowhere.

Unlike Shakespeare’s disgruntled villains Richard III and Edmond the Bastard, it is difficult to accept Ripley’s motives. Perhaps if Ripley was given more charismatic soliloquies of self-justification like Richard and Edmond, we could better attend his plight.

The bare set offers dynamic opportunities for clever stagecraft and lighting (sets by Elizabeth Gadsby, lighting by Damien Cooper), helping to facilitate these quick vignettes (sunny umbrellas for the beach, snazzy lights for a nightclub, a yellow dinghy for an ocean jaunt). But these values only add to the filmic effect.

Good theatre should do things films can’t do, not emulate their fluent realism.

Reworking old stories

The artistic genesis of this adaptation seems to gratify a programming trend more than an ardent need to tell this particular story.

It has been unnerving to see so many adaptations staged by major theatre companies of late. In recent years, the Sydney Theatre Company has staged many adaptations of novels: Bram Stoker’s Dracula (2024), Pip Williams’ The Dictionary of Lost Words (2023), Nevil Shute’s On the Beach (2023), Wong Shee Ping’s The Poison of Polygamy (2023), and Ruth Park’s Playing Beatie Bow (2021), to name a few.

In 2019, playwright Ross Mueller critiqued this trend of “risk-averse programming”, acknowledging that “selling new plays is tough”, but noting it’s much easier for theatre companies if playwrights “can write plays with titles that we can all google”.

Today’s playwrights, Muller writes, “compete for programming with films, novels and fully developed and proven Broadway hits and West End darlings”. And this unusual demand for adaptations comes on the back of staging less Shakespeare to make room for new plays by local writers.

Some of these adaptations have worked, drawing critical acclaim and box office success. But it seems short shrift to have so much narration in a theatrical adaptation of a novel. Would we not rather buy and read the novel? And save our precious theatre pennies for attending new original plays or classics?

Those familiar with the book might enjoy yet another rendition, but this The Talented Mr. Ripley moves too swiftly through its plot points; telling the story, but scant on forging connections with the audience.

The Talented Mr. Ripley is at the Sydney Theatre Company until September 28.

Kirk Dodd 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. Impressive performances and production values – but Joanna Murray-Smith’s The Talented Mr. Ripley doesn’t quite land – https://theconversation.com/impressive-performances-and-production-values-but-joanna-murray-smiths-the-talented-mr-ripley-doesnt-quite-land-260921

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Austin, Senior Lecturer in Theatre, The University of Melbourne

Award-winning playwright and actor Kristy Marillier’s new work, Destiny, is an ensemble drama set in 1976 South Africa, against a backdrop of rising resistance to the apartheid regime.

Commissioned and developed through Melbourne Theatre Company’s Next Stage Writers’ Program, Destiny is an intimate fictional family drama based on real world events.

Through a complex set of relationships, the play provides a searing insight into the fear, brutality, rebellion and activism of 1970s South Africa.

Della (played by Marillier) is the feisty protagonist and matriarch of the Meth family. Since her mother’s death, she has stepped into caring for both her hard-working and broken-hearted father Cliff (Patrick Williams), who has a tendency to drink and become lost in his memories and grief, and her antagonistic and excitable brother Rocky (Gaz Dutlow).

Della finds herself in dangerous territory when Ezra Jones (Barry Conrad) – a charismatic and irresistible student activist who broke her heart years earlier – returns to their small town to lie low.

Ezra’s confidence in his political views is both alluring and terrifying for the Meth family members, as they wrestle with a desire to imagine new futures while also struggling with the grief and fear that dominates their past.

The impressionable Rocky is particularly seduced by the seductive glamour of Ezra and his cause, and yearns for the kind of freedom he represents.

Fractured within and without

The story is set largely in the Meth family home, with a black and white portrait of Della’s mother taking centre place on the living room wall.

Cliff can often be found chatting and singing to the photograph of his long departed wife. The domestic space is represented as porous and permeable, with a summer breeze that blows through the kitchen windows and lifts the lace curtains. The front door opens on to an often wide-open stoop.

This family home, in an unnamed small mountainous town, is far away from the politics of the city – yet not immune from the effects of brutal policies and regimes.

The domestic setting becomes the site of both grief and joy of an epic and intimate nature, with the family’s personal tragedy reverberating within the broader injustices of their context. The fractures in the family are inextricably tied to the fractures in society at large.

Beyond the interior and exterior of the Meth family home, set designer Sophie Woodward has created a series of angular pathways evoking the mountainous terrain, leading to the simple general store where Della works.

Rich emotional terrain

In one powerful moment, Della tells the story of a white woman who comes to the coloured part of town, to the coloured general store where Della works, seeking a specific treat for her son. This tale hints at the casual cruelty routinely endured by the Meth family, and others who the system classifies as lesser.

Despite these harsh realities, there are many gloriously funny, laugh out loud moments throughout the play. The writer, performers and director Zindzi Okenyo all deftly employ humour, and the characters are enormously likeable. As the story unfolds, love, loss, hope and uncertainty all coalesce around a deceptively simple family tale.

There is also a deeply personal note present in the writing and performances – which may be explained by the fact that three of the actors have parents who lived through apartheid.

The title of the play evokes the inevitable ramifications of our choices on the future. Resistance and rebellion come at great personal cost, but ultimately create hope for a new future – just as they did in the 1970s in apartheid South Africa.

The personal is political

Destiny reminds us that although 1994 marks the official end of the regime, the aftermath continues to ripple through generations of people whose lives have been impacted.

In the final scene, Della enacts a small act of her own resistance by smashing a radio that has been a source of propaganda and control. She directs the smallest of wry looks at the audience, breaking the fourth wall, before the stage blacks out; we are all implicated.

What might this final, direct look compel us to consider? Marillier’s unsettling moment of acknowledgement of the audience stayed with me long after the play ended.

I am left with a resounding sense of the weight of history and the importance of resistance and rebellion in the face of brutality and injustice. In a fractured and uncertain time, Destiny reminds us the personal is political.

Destiny is playing at Melbourne Theatre Company until September 13.

Sarah Austin is an employee of the University of Melbourne and Melbourne Theatre Company is a department of that institution.

– ref. Destiny is a fierce new stage show exploring love, loss and rebellion under the shadow of apartheid South Africa – https://theconversation.com/destiny-is-a-fierce-new-stage-show-exploring-love-loss-and-rebellion-under-the-shadow-of-apartheid-south-africa-262515

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Thompson, Associate Professor in Media and Communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The recent internal report on RNZ’s performance, variously described as “scathing” and “blunt” in news coverage, caused considerable debate about the state broadcaster’s performance and priorities – not all of it fair or well informed.

The report makes several operational recommendations, including addressing RNZ National’s declining audience share by targeting the 50+ age demographic and moving key program productions from Wellington to Auckland.

But RNZ’s diminishing linear radio audience has to be understood in the context of its overall expansion of audience reach online, and audience trends across the radio sector in general.

Total audience engagement with RNZ content on third-party platforms (including social media, YouTube and content-sharing partners who are permitted to republish RNZ material) now exceeds the reach of its radio audience.

There has also been a steady but significant decline in the daily reach of linear radio overall. NZ On Air audience research shows that in 2014, 67% of New Zealanders listened to linear broadcast radio every day. A decade later, this had dropped to 42%.

RNZ National’s share of the total 15+ audience peaked at 12% in 2021, following the initial pandemic period. By 2024, this had declined to 7%, having been overtaken by Newstalk ZB on 8% (also down from 9% in 2021).

But using comparative audience reach and ratings data to gauge the performance of a public service media operator does not capture the quality or diversity of audience engagement, or the extent to which its charter obligations are being met.

Nor do audience data reflect the positive structural role RNZ plays in supporting other media through its content-sharing model, the Local Democracy Reporting scheme or its RNZ Pacific service.

Clashing priorities

Data provided by RNZ show the decline in RNZ National’s audience to be primarily in the 60+ age groups. How much that reflects recent efforts to appeal to a more diverse demographic through changed programming formats is unclear.

The RNZ report also suggests staff are uncertain about what audiences their programmes are aiming at. If so, this could explain the departure of some older listeners.

But that doesn’t necessarily support the report’s conclusion that RNZ National should stick to its radio knitting and double down on the 50+ audience, especially in Auckland, to compete with Newstalk ZB.

In fact, prioritising the 50+ audience at the expense of a broader appeal might reinforce RNZ’s brand image as a legacy service for older listeners – a prospect its commercial rivals would doubtless welcome.

Between 2007 and 2017, RNZ was subject to a funding freeze and was pressured by successive National-led governments to justify any claim for future increases with evidence of improved performance. Its Queenstown, Tauranga and Palmerston North offices all closed during this period of austerity.

In the 2017 budget, RNZ eventually received an extra NZ$11.4 million over four years. Its statement of intent that year acknowledged funding increases were premised on achieving a wider audience and that budgets needed to make “operational expenditure available for new online initiatives and updated technology”.

Given that expanding the online arm of RNZ would affect investment in its radio service, it would be surprising if operational priorities didn’t sometimes clash. While commercial broadcasters prioritise their most lucrative demographics, public service operators have the perennial challenge of providing something for everyone.

The risk of pleasing no one

The online reach of RNZ’s website and app is now comparable to the reach of its linear broadcasts. Critics might frame that as under-performance on the radio side, but it also shows audience reach has grown beyond the older-skewing linear radio demographic.

According to RNZ’s 2024 audience research, 80% of New Zealanders engage with its content every month. Meanwhile, amid growing concern about declining trust in news, RNZ ranked top in the 2025 JMAD survey on trust in media. None of this supports the narrative of a failing legacy operator that has lost its way.

Some of the issues raised in the RNZ report may simply reflect the reality of modern media management: maintaining the character, quality and demographic appeal of existing radio services while trying to reach broader demographics on new platforms.

Meeting that challenge was perhaps made more realistic when the previous Labour government increased RNZ’s baseline funding by $25.7 million in 2023. So the current government’s recent decision to cut RNZ’s budget by $18 million over the next four years represents a real setback.

RNZ’s charter obliges it to serve a diverse range of audiences, something the data show it achieves with a broad cross-section across all platforms.

If it were to now prioritise the 50+ or even 60+ radio audience at the expense of expanding online services and audience diversification, there would likely be more criticism and calls for further defunding from the broadcaster’s political and commercial enemies.

Rather like the moral of Aesop’s fable about the man, the boy and the donkey, if RNZ is expected to please everyone, it runs the risk of pleasing no one.

Peter Thompson is a founding board member of the Better Public Media Trust, a registered charity which advocates for public media. He has previously undertaken externally-commissioned research contracts, including work for the Ministry for Culture & Heritage, NZ On Air, the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Canadian Department of Heritage and SPADA.

– ref. A ‘scathing’ report on RNZ’s performance obscures the good news – and the challenge of serving many audiences – https://theconversation.com/a-scathing-report-on-rnzs-performance-obscures-the-good-news-and-the-challenge-of-serving-many-audiences-263618

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Blair Williams, Lecturer in Australian Politics, Monash University

It’s no secret the Liberal Party of Australia has a problem with women. The party has made headlines over the years for its toxic blokey “Big Swinging Dick” culture, underrepresentation of women in the party, and dwindling support from women voters.

Yet it hasn’t always been this way. In its early years, the Liberals achieved most of the “firsts” for women in Australian politics and, for much of the 20th century, enjoyed more support from women than from men. So what changed?

In a new open-access study, I traced this transformation by exploring the influence of leaders on the party’s ideology and changing prioritisation of women’s issues.

A party for women

Women played a crucial role in the founding of the Liberal Party in 1944. In creating a new party, Robert Menzies depended on the support of established conservative women’s organisations such as the Australian Women’s National League (AWNL).

As the largest conservative political organisation in Australia at the time, the AWNL brought an existing branch structure and volunteer base. Its chair, Elizabeth Couchman, came to the table with strong negotiating power and ensured structural equality for women at all levels of the party.

Though not labelled as such, these could be considered early examples of “gender quotas”.

As leader, Menzies was also central to the inclusion of women and their issues in the Liberal Party. Although a staunch traditionalist, he could see the changing times in postwar Australia and acknowledged women’s increasing roles in the workforce and politics.

While Labor remained a blokey party that mainly spoke to working-class male voters, the Liberals were the first party to specifically target women in the 1949 election campaign.

Through socially liberal policies such as legalising divorce, provision of vocational training for women re-entering the workforce, and the landmark Child Care Act in 1972, the Liberals achieved important progress for women.

The party also put more women into federal parliament than Labor, including the first woman cabinet minister.

Enter John Howard

The Liberals began to abandon women’s issues in the later years of the Fraser government. Their social liberalism was replaced with a neoliberal approach that pushed free-market capitalism, corporate deregulation and privatisation, and rugged individualism.

Yet neoliberalism has a woman problem. Neoliberals argue against using the state to pursue social justice, instead favouring traditional roles for women in the home. This is known as the “markets and motherhood” push.

As Fraser’s treasurer, John Howard championed this approach and combined it with the social conservatism of the US-influenced New Right.

This push took greater hold when Howard became opposition leader. The party positioned the family as Australia’s moral centre, with policy manifestos implying women in the home should replace the state in providing care.

Despite the record number of Liberal women politicians, the election of the Howard government in 1996 wound back many of the advances for women achieved in the previous two decades.

Howard opposed feminism. He swiftly defunded women’s organisations and dismantled gender equality measures. Despite pushing “choice”, his government legislated policies such as the Family Tax Benefit, which shaped women’s roles in society to conform with a socially conservative vision.

In doing so, Howard sidelined many of the party’s moderates, and especially its liberal feminists.

Howard’s neoliberal approach ignored the social conditions and structural origins that create inequalities, ultimately worsening conditions for women and minority groups.

While women once voted for the Liberals in greater numbers than men, this changed in 2001. It’s been on a downward spiral since the 2013 election.

Casting a long shadow

Subsequent leaders from Tony Abbott to Peter Dutton have channelled Howard in various ways, especially in their approach to gender equality policy, women voters and women in the party.

Abbott continued to draw on the Howard blueprint. It was during his term that rumours of the “Big Swinging Dicks” club first broke.

Abbott’s “women problem” gained further attention when his first cabinet included only one woman, and the Women’s Budget Statement wasn’t included in the 2014 budget.

Though Turnbull resembled Fraser more than Howard, it was under his watch that the infamous “bonk ban” was introduced.

Morrison also evoked Howard, but with an added layer of evangelical fundamentalism. The Liberal Party’s “woman problem” defined Morrison’s second term, from a blokey “build back better” approach to COVID, to the mishandling of sexual assault allegations from political staffers in Parliament House.

After three governments and almost a decade in power, the party failed to improve women’s economic security, safety or wellbeing. In fact, the Liberals’ “women problem” had only worsened and became a factor in costing them the 2022 election.

With party leadership falling on the shoulders of Dutton, it lurched further to the right. Dutton’s leadership style of protective masculinity channelled Howard, but his conservatism was more reactionary, focusing less on economics and more on culture wars.

Looking back to move forward

In May 2025, the Liberals were defeated in a landslide election, receiving the worst seat result since the party’s inception. In the aftermath of this crushing defeat, Sussan Ley was elected leader: the first woman to hold the role in the party’s 80-year history.

The number of Liberal women across both houses has fallen to its lowest since 1993. This has sparked renewed calls from those within and outside the party to introduce quotas. Yet the party remains divided.

Given the significance of gender equality for many of its constituents, the party must reflect on why women are losing interest – as voters, members and political candidates – before it can begin to remedy the problem.

Moderates are urging the party to return to the Menzies-era centre and broaden its appeal to reconnect with women and younger voters. Conservatives, however, insist on a move to the right.

By dominating the Liberal Party and shaping it in his image, Howard’s legacy is the transformation of the party for women into one that women largely shun.

If the party wants to solve its “women problem”, it must return to its liberal roots.

Blair Williams 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 Liberals used to be the party for women – then John Howard came along – https://theconversation.com/the-liberals-used-to-be-the-party-for-women-then-john-howard-came-along-262614

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sora Lee, Lecturer in Ageing and End of Life, La Trobe University

Australia’s job market is facing a paradox. Employers across every major sector – from construction to healthcare – report crippling skills shortages.

A key measure of skills shortages, the proportion of advertised vacancies filled, shows 30.3% of surveyed occupations were in shortage in the March quarter.

Yet there are more than two million people – hidden workers – who remain on the fringes of the labour market. They might just be a missing piece in solving Australia’s talent crisis.

This mismatch is more than a numbers problem – it’s a systemic failure to connect the untapped talent with unmet industry demand.

Businesses need to rethink rigid hiring practices, challenge outdated stereotypes and create pathways for those sidelined from work. Policymakers need to build in targeted pathways that connect their skills to shortage areas.

Who are the hidden workers?

Each month, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) releases official data on the labour force: new jobs created, the unemployment rate and other measures. But these figures don’t tell the whole story.

Collectively, the term hidden workers encompasses:

• people who are underemployed (working one or more part-time job but willing and able to work full-time)
• the unemployed (without work but seeking work)
• discouraged workers (who are not currently working or looking, but are willing and able to work if the right circumstances arise).

Using nationally representative data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, our research reveals some patterns of hidden workers.

Women are predominant among the hidden workers, reflecting ongoing gendered divisions in caregiving. Half of the discouraged workers, who have given up looking for work, are over 41.

Those with lower educational attainment (below Year 12) are more likely to be discouraged or unemployed. Hidden workers often lack networks or live in disadvantaged areas.

It’s not just discouraged workers

Our research shows hidden workers make up 21.1% of Australians aged 15 and over, according to the HILDA 2022 survey data. We use broader definitions of discouraged workers and the underemployed than the ABS does, and we include people over 65. The ABS, which uses a different survey and methods, arrives at a rate of about 17%. We explain these differences in further detail below.

Discouraged workers are most common among the youngest and oldest age groups, comprising 43.17% of hidden workers. Discouraged workers are a big part of the story, but not the whole picture.

Many hidden workers are underemployed (39.1%). They are actively working, but in casual or part-time jobs that don’t give them the hours or income they need. Working parents, especially mothers, are underemployed in unstable part-time roles, juggling caregiving responsibilities.

Findings from another study which analyses the probabilities of becoming a hidden worker, confirms women’s participation in the labour market is hindered at various stages of life by the unequal sharing of childcare and other care responsibilities.

Limited local job opportunities and economic resources further widen the gender gap, particularly among those aged 45–64.

Why our research paints a fuller picture

The ABS defines “potential workers” as people who are willing and able to work, a group that includes both those classified as unemployed and those considered discouraged workers. However, the ABS publishes underemployment as a separate category. This mainly covers people employed part-time who wanted more hours, and were available.

However, in hidden worker research, underemployed workers are defined more broadly, as people who want more hours and can’t get them, without the readiness-to-start condition.

By grouping them as a category under hidden workers, we get a fuller picture of the “missing” labour that could be mobilised if structural and systemic barriers were addressed.

My research into hidden workers stems not just from academic curiosity, but from my own experience. As a newly completed PhD, a migrant woman of culturally and linguistically diverse background, and a mother of two young children, I found it challenging to navigate a labour market that didn’t fully recognise my skills, experience or potential.

Despite being “willing and able to work”, I was underemployed, unemployed and then discouraged.

Why does this matter for the economy?

Australia cannot afford to address only the visible tip of the labour market iceberg. The hidden workers in Australia are a vital yet invisible part of the workforce.

Bringing hidden workers into policy focus is not only an economic priority, but also a public health imperative. A young hidden worker may start out in insecure, low-paid jobs that limit access to good food, safe housing and adequate health care.

These early disadvantages don’t just affect the present. Over time, these disadvantages may compound, leading to chronic stress, mental health challenges and a higher risk of long-term illness. The accumulated disadvantages can lead to inequitable ageing.

To make a difference, job services, health care, housing and community support all need to work together so these challenges don’t keep them stuck. The Victorian state government has an initiative for a community council to help design better solutions.

Governments should link employment services with health and social protection systems to address compounding disadvantages. Unlocking this hidden workforce could be a game-changing step toward securing Australia’s economic resilience and strengthening its social fabric.

Sora Lee 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. Officially, the unemployment rate is 4.2%. But that doesn’t count all the hidden workers in Australia – https://theconversation.com/officially-the-unemployment-rate-is-4-2-but-that-doesnt-count-all-the-hidden-workers-in-australia-262870

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dennis Wesselbaum, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Otago

What is the true value of a policy project? For governments tasked with improving citizens’ lives while spending taxpayers’ money responsibly, this is no mere academic question. It lies at the heart of good governance.

Public policy should create social, economic and environmental value. But determining that value in advance is difficult. Policies often have long-term, cross-sector effects that are hard to quantify.

This challenge is compounded by the reality of limited public resources. Whether the decision concerns investment in health, education, transport or climate resilience, funding one initiative often means deferring another.

Prioritisation, then, becomes a moral, economic and political task – with real consequences for how society progresses, and who benefits.

To make better decisions, policymakers need tools that allow structured, transparent and evidence-based comparisons of costs and benefits. The “social cost-benefit analysis” (sometimes abbreviated to SCBA) has long served that purpose.

Cost-benefit analyses are not new. They gained prominence in the United States in the 1930s to guide investment in water infrastructure, and soon became standard in regulatory and environmental policy making worldwide.

The central idea is simple: compare the costs of a policy or project with its expected benefits. Proceed if the benefits outweigh the costs.

In practice, however, it is rarely simple. Identifying all relevant costs and benefits, quantifying them credibly, and ensuring robust data requires skill, diligence – and, crucially, political will.

In a policy environment where decisions often have intergenerational and cross-sectoral consequences, the importance of cost-benefit analysis is hard to overstate.

It enables decision-makers to move beyond intuition and ideology, focusing instead on evidence and impact. It also promotes transparency, providing a framework to communicate a policy’s expected outcomes. This can enhance public understanding and trust.

Consistent, transparent and timely

Traditional cost-benefit analysis has long struggled with complex social policies. Benefits such as improved mental health, stronger social cohesion or reduced criminality are harder to quantify than savings from, say, infrastructure.

This limitation can skew assessments and omit critical aspects of wellbeing. Recognising this gap, the New Zealand Treasury developed a more advanced tool: CBAx with its first version released at the end of 2015.

CBAx is a cost–benefit analysis toolkit developed by the New Zealand Treasury to help public agencies assess and compare the long-term fiscal and social impacts of their initiatives. At its core, CBAx is a spreadsheet-based model designed specifically for use by social sector agencies.

The CBAx includes a comprehensive database of New Zealand-specific monetised impact values, covering areas such as health, education, justice and subjective wellbeing. These values are drawn from a range of non-market valuation methodologies and adjusted to ensure consistency and comparability across government.

CBAx standardises key elements of cost–benefit analysis – such as the discounting of future impacts – and supports more consistent, transparent and timely evaluations of policy options.

The CBAx toolkit also includes guidance documents, templates and training resources. It is supported by a growing community of practice aimed at improving cost–benefit analysis capability across the public sector.

This has changed how cost benefit analyses are conducted in New Zealand.

Previously, many agencies lacked either the capability or the incentive to produce robust cost benefit analyses. Since the introduction of CBAx, both the number and quality of cost-benefit analysis submissions linked to budget bids have increased.

The tool has helped standardise assumptions, improve consistency and enable more meaningful comparisons across projects. Still, many recent government-funded programmes – famously the Auckland Light Rail Project – did not use any cost-benefit analysis to justify their merits. The result has been an avoidable waste of both fiscal and economic resources.

Realising the full potential of CBAx

Cost-benefit analyses have limitations. Monetising impacts relies on assumptions, many of which are contestable. Assigning a dollar value to life, mental health or cultural outcomes is inherently fraught. Some effects cannot be captured with precision.

Rigorous CBAx analysis also requires time, resources and technical expertise – assets not equally distributed across agencies. Institutional barriers, such as budget processes and regulatory frameworks, may further limit its influence.

Critically, CBAx remains a tool. It does not replace judgement. While it can illuminate tradeoffs, quantify impacts and support sound decisions, it cannot determine what is “right”. Politics, values and public priorities still matter.

New Zealand has made commendable progress towards evidence-based policy with CBAx. It reflects a mature understanding of public value – one that extends beyond the bottom line to encompass wellbeing. But its full potential remains unrealised.

To strengthen the use of CBAx, several steps are needed.

First, the government should expand the database of impact values, particularly for non-market and wellbeing outcomes. More research is required to develop robust methodologies that capture the full value of public policy.

Second, public servants should receive broader training and support to ensure consistent and competent use of the tool.

Third, CBAx should be more deeply embedded in policy design – especially where decisions have long-term or cross-sector consequences.

The Treasury deserves credit for developing and promoting CBAx. A well-functioning Treasury ensures not only fiscal discipline but also that public spending delivers value for money.

The use of CBAx supports this aim – helping to ensure government policy delivers real, measurable and lasting value for all New Zealanders.

Arthur Grimes has previously received funding from the New Zealand Treasury to examine the social discount rate which is one input into CBAx. Arthur Grimes is a Senior Fellow of Motu Research, and is Professor of Wellbeing and Public Policy at Victoria University of Wellington (Te Herenga Waka).

Dennis Wesselbaum 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. Treasury has a great cost-benefit calculator for big-spending projects – we just need to use it better – https://theconversation.com/treasury-has-a-great-cost-benefit-calculator-for-big-spending-projects-we-just-need-to-use-it-better-263619

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ramona Alaggia, Professor, Social Work, University of Toronto

The long-awaited Oasis reunion tour is a rousing success. Since launching in Wales in July, the band has been selling out shows across four continents, including two stops in Toronto.

Reviews have been glowing, and fans are thrilled not just with the music but also with the sight of Noel and Liam Gallagher showing each other genuine brotherly affection on stage — something that once seemed impossible.

This is a far cry from 2009, when Oasis broke up after an epic fallout. Noel, the elder brother, announced he could no longer put up with Liam’s drug-fuelled antics and frequent no-shows. The brothers then spent nearly 15 years estranged.

Read more:
Oasis reunion: How to stop your sibling feud from becoming a lifelong estrangement

Painful childhood

Their conflict isn’t surprising when you consider their childhood. Research shows that family violence and abuse can have lasting effects on sibling relationships.

In the Gallaghers’ case, Noel has spoken of being abused by their father, and both brothers witnessed domestic violence against their mother. Growing up with these adversities can make close family bonds harder to sustain — and may help explain the long rift between them.

So what’s made the difference? How have they managed to heal wounds and reunite? One answer may be resilience.

In my research, I’ve found that resilience is what allows some people, with the right support and circumstances, to rise above adversity and come out stronger. Back in 2017, I explored how this might apply to the Gallagher brothers, who grew up in a difficult and sometimes violent home.

Read more:
The Oasis brothers: Father’s abuse explains feud, resilience could end it

Parental influence

Resilience is a complex idea, and one way to understand it is through social learning theory. The basic idea is that we learn from the examples around us.

For the Gallaghers, growing up in a violent and chaotic home meant they were exposed to unhealthy patterns of behaviour and relationships. But at the same time, they also had a powerful positive influence in their lives through their mother, Peggy.

By ultimately leaving her abusive husband, despite the difficulties that followed, she modelled to her children that there are alternatives to destructive relationships.

This balance of negative and positive role models matters. Harmful examples can damage development, but protective role models can demonstrate healthier ways of coping, relating and moving forward.

In 2024, when the brothers announced their reunion tour, I revisited their story offering ideas on how they might get along to make the tour a success and how they might finally put their long-running feud behind them.

I suggested that counselling focused on conflict resolution could help. These approaches often include learning skills like open communication, active listening, exploring options together, collaborating, compromising, and aiming for a win-win solution.

Apologizing and avoiding casting blame are also important parts of the process. While we may never know if the Gallagher brothers were provided any of these supports, or used them to resolve their conflicts, it’s clear they’ve achieved some significant measure of reconciliation.

Noel has even recently talked about how much he enjoys being around his brother and how proud he is of him.

Not looking back in anger

The combined raw talent of the Gallagher brothers, along with the drive and persistence to form a band, captured the hearts of a generation of music-lovers and are continuing to attract new and younger fans around the world.

After years apart, their return to the stage shows that reconciliation is possible and that even the most fractured relationships can find a way forward.

Watching the Gallaghers side by side on stage, frequently laughing and embracing, it seems clear that resilience, combined with a genuine desire to reconcile, has helped bring them back together.

Their reunion is more than a comeback tour; it’s a story of overcoming adversity that speaks to a universal hope. The Gallaghers are showing that even long-standing family conflicts can be healed.

Ramona Alaggia’s studies have been funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. The triumph of the Oasis reunion: Resilience rules the day as the Gallaghers end their feud – https://theconversation.com/the-triumph-of-the-oasis-reunion-resilience-rules-the-day-as-the-gallaghers-end-their-feud-263789

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kam Phung, Assistant Professor of Business & Society, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University

Despite growing awareness and legislation aimed at eradicating modern slavery — including forced labour, bonded labour and other extreme forms of human exploitation — efforts to combat the issue remain largely ineffective.

The United Kingdom, the first to enact a modern slavery act in 2015, is a case in point. The latest government figures show 5,690 potential victims in the U.K. were referred to the Home Office between April and June. This is the highest quarterly figure since the national referral mechanism began in 2009.

This could be attributed to a multitude of reasons, including an actual rise in exploitation, growing awareness of the issue and more training being provided for frontline services. But the effectiveness of transparency and disclosure laws in achieving substantive change in businesses’ behaviours has long been questioned.

Read more:
Ten years after the Modern Slavery Act, why has this ‘world-leading’ legislation had so little impact?

Canada also has a modern slavery act, Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act, which came into effect in 2024. It requires certain private-sector and government entities to report on efforts to prevent and reduce the risk the issues.

Read more:
Canada’s Modern Slavery Act is the start — not the end — of efforts to address the issue in supply chains

It’s still too early to tell if Canada’s approach has amounted to any real change. However, since its onset, experts have cautioned that such a transparency and disclosure law “falls short of what is required to make large corporations exercise due diligence to prevent labour abuse from occurring within their supply chains.”

Deflecting responsibilities

When confronted with modern slavery risks, some companies justify their inaction or adopt ineffective measures that do little to address the problem.

In a recent book chapter published in the The Routledge Companion to Responsible Business, my co-researchers and I explore three rationalizations used by businesses and professionals to deflect responsibility for addressing modern slavery and other pressing societal issues, even as pressure to do so increases.

Our insights emerged from interviews we conducted with a range of businesses operating in Canada with global supply chains leading up to Canada’s enactment of modern slavery legislation. They represent some, but not all, of the ways businesses deflect responsibilities for addressing modern slavery.

Deflection involves redirecting attention, blame or responsibility away from oneself to avoid taking accountability or confronting uncomfortable truths and negative feelings. Rather than addressing an issue, focus is shifted elsewhere, enabling an organization to get away with inaction or sub-par action that can enable modern slavery.

In everyday organizational life, these deflections can be hard to spot. They manifest in subtle ways, and may sound reasonable on the surface but ultimately serve to sidestep meaningful responsibility.

Perceptual rationalizations

“Perceptual rationalization” occurs when businesses resist addressing modern slavery because they fear negative perceptions and consequences.

In our interviews, some businesses worried that acknowledging the issue might be seen as an admission of guilt, making their company vulnerable to media criticism and public backlash.

To some companies, modern slavery is considered so toxic and stigmatized that they prefer to avoid the topic altogether. In the face of media coverage on linkages to modern slavery, some businesses fear that bringing attention to the issue will become a public relations nightmare.

This is despite evidence that broader society may, in fact, praise businesses for detecting and publicly disclosing such information.

Ironically, this suggests the media’s role as “watchdogs” of corporate behaviour may actually deter some businesses from taking action rather than deter socially irresponsible behaviours.

Read more:
Modern slavery is endemic in global supply chains. Companies should be praised – not shamed – for detecting it

Structural rationalizations

“Structural rationalizations” happen when businesses claim that industry factors like regulations or systemic factors absolve them of responsibility.

For example, company representatives in highly regulated industries like transportation argued their supply chains are already monitored and therefore have a “low risk” of modern slavery — despite using high-risk materials like rare minerals, including conflict minerals, in their parts.

Meanwhile, others claimed that modern slavery is a “system issue” that requires government intervention and changes in consumer behaviours, not corporate action.

While acknowledging the systemic nature of the problem is important, we found some companies use this perspective to shift responsibility to external entities like governments, consumers and other businesses instead of taking proactive steps.

In this way, the systemic nature of issues such as modern slavery, and other issues like climate change, may actually be leveraged by some as a way to avoid doing their part to address them. System issues are all-hands-on-deck issues. Everyone needs to be doing their part.

Territorial rationalizations

“Territorial rationalization” was one of the most common rationalizations in our interviews. It occurs when individuals or organizations argue modern slavery falls outside their scope of responsibility, leaving it for others to address.

At the individual level, someone might say their performance indicators don’t include addressing the issue, so it’s outside the scope of their work. At the organizational level, companies may claim the issue is simply irrelevant to them. However, such dismissals are often based on false assumptions or misunderstandings.

Some companies, for example, believe that because their products are high quality goods, they are shielded from the issue despite legitimate risks.

Yet, modern slavery is not confined to low-quality goods. In 2024, for instance, the Democratic Republic of Congo accused Apple subsidiaries in France and Belgium of using conflict minerals. Similarly, Italy’s competition authority is investigating claims of worker exploitation linked to Armani and Dior.

Taking ownership means shifting from “that’s not my job” to “how can I help solve this?” while still maintaining reasonable boundaries.

Transforming inaction into accountability

The fight against modern slavery in supply chains reveals a troubling paradox: the very factors that should drive corporate action, like moral urgency and the systemic nature of the issue, often become excuses for inaction and deflection.

Read more:
Here’s what businesses and consumers can do to tackle modern slavery in supply chains

Progress requires business leaders to embrace accountability within their sphere of influence. The path forward demands three critical shifts:

1. Business education must evolve to prepare professionals, managers and executives with moral frameworks and practical tools to address systemic challenges. They must be taught to view social issues as an opportunity rather than a challenge or threat.

2. Companies must resist the temptation to hide behind the systemic nature of problems and instead focus on what they can control and influence.

3. Stakeholders like leadership teams and regulators must design incentive structures that encourage engagement, not avoidance.

Successful managers and businesses recognize that social responsibility is not about shouldering blame for every systemic issue, but contributing to solutions within their operational reach.

An important first step is being able to spot deflections on the ground, whether it involves you, a colleague or any other stakeholder, and understand how it can perpetuate any given issue.

Kam Phung receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), Humanity United Action, and the Ford Foundation.

– ref. How businesses deflect responsibilities for addressing modern slavery in their supply chains – https://theconversation.com/how-businesses-deflect-responsibilities-for-addressing-modern-slavery-in-their-supply-chains-262859

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hanlie Smuts, Professor and Head of Department, University of Pretoria

In today’s world, huge amounts of data are being created all the time, yet more than half of it is never used. It stays in silos, or isn’t managed, or can’t be accessed because systems change, or isn’t needed because business priorities change. This “dark data” accumulates in servers and storage devices, consuming electricity and inflating the digital carbon footprint.

It may appear harmless, but this growing mass of digital waste has consequences for the environment. Storing unused or obsolete digital data requires constant power for servers and cooling systems. This drives up electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Dark data alone is estimated to generate over 5.8 million tonnes of CO₂ annually. This is the equivalent of emissions from 1.2 million cars per annum.

Dark data also accelerates e-waste from hardware replacement and depletes resources through manufacturing, such as using recycled raw materials, and water-intensive cooling.

Organisations collect vast volumes of information during routine operations. But it might never be analysed or repurposed. System log files that track user activity, errors and transactions remain untouched after initial storage. We’re talking about every email, photo, video, or unused spreadsheet saved on a server. Think of it like forgotten boxes stored in a warehouse, except this warehouse uses energy all the time. Managing dark data is not only a matter of working efficiently; it is a pressing sustainability issue.

The solution lies partly in effective knowledge management practices.

This means making an effort to reduce the environmental impact of digital systems, particularly those related to data storage and usage. Organisations should collect, manage and retain data with energy consumption and carbon emissions in mind.

My research aimed to find ways to do this. I collected 539 quantitative and qualitative questionnaire responses representing North America at 31.9% (172), followed by Europe at 21.5% (116) and Asia at 19.9% (107). Africa (10.8%) and Australia (9.8%) were represented too, while South America (5.8%) and Antarctica (0.4%) had the smallest shares.

The findings highlighted the need for data governance, data security and continuous learning within organisations. It showed the value of energy efficient information technology practices, centralised knowledge repositories and working across disciplines to address dark data risks.

My research also provided organisations with guidelines to make digital decarbonisation part of the way they operate and make decisions. This would improve organisational efficiency, reduce carbon footprints and promote the reuse of valuable data insights.

The digital dilemma: more data, more emissions

As digital technologies become more embedded in everyday operations, the demand for data storage and processing power surges. Globally, data centres already account for about 2% of greenhouse gas emissions, equal to the environmental impact of the aviation industry. The figure is expected to double by 2030 as digital adoption accelerates.

But dark data isn’t getting much attention. This is because it is mostly unstructured, hidden in legacy systems or backup servers. Information technology and sustainability teams tend to overlook it. It’s expensive to manage and easy to ignore. But it consumes costly storage space and drives up energy bills for powering and cooling servers. It also requires ongoing backup, security and compliance measures despite delivering no business value.

Knowledge management to tidy up dark data

Knowledge management strategies can address the dark data problem. Knowledge management acts like a smart organiser for all the information that organisations hold. It makes it possible to find hidden or forgotten files buried in systems, understand whether the data is useful or outdated, and decide on the best course of action. That can be by turning valuable data into insights or securely deleting what’s no longer needed.

This reduces wasted storage, cuts costs, lowers the environmental impact and ensures that the information kept actually supports better decision-making.

We recommend two things organisations can do: classification and streamlining.

1. Classification: organise, tag, and unlock value

Classification is the first step in bringing order to data chaos. It involves discovering, tagging, categorising and assessing data to determine its relevance and value. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning can help with this.

This approach not only reduces waste, but also unlocks hidden opportunities. For example, previously unused customer feedback data can be analysed for product innovation, or old project documentation can inform new initiatives.

2. Streamlining: stop hoarding, start reducing

Streamlining is about developing leaner, cleaner data environments. It calls for robust data governance, including clear retention policies, regular audits and employee education on digital hygiene. Using AI tools, organisations can identify duplicated, outdated, or irrelevant files and automate their safe deletion.

It’s not just a technical process. It involves cultivating a culture that values purposeful data usage and discourages unnecessary hoarding. When employees understand the environmental cost of unmanaged data, they become more responsible stewards of digital information. The outcome is a more agile, cost-effective and sustainable data ecosystem.

One example of an organisation doing this is the car brand, BMW Group. It’s made digital decarbonisation part of its production processes.

Google has invested in sustainable IT practices, including energy-efficient data storage and processing. The data centres of the company have been carbon-neutral since 2007, and it is working towards running its operations on 100% renewable energy.

Let data work smarter, not harder

Digital sustainability does not demand that organisations do less; it encourages them to do better. Rethinking dark data management is a step towards reducing digital emissions and conserving resources.

Through knowledge management strategies like classification and streamlining, organisations can turn an overlooked liability into a strategic asset.

Data should serve us, not burden us.

Hanlie Smuts 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. Data that is stored and not used has a carbon footprint. How companies can manage dark data better – https://theconversation.com/data-that-is-stored-and-not-used-has-a-carbon-footprint-how-companies-can-manage-dark-data-better-262966

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

Israel’s conduct in Gaza increasingly risks turning the state into a pariah.

Whereas world leaders initially rallied around Israel after the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre by Hamas militants, the resulting destruction inside the Palestinian enclave has seen the country ever more isolated on the international stage.

In recent weeks, even long-standing allies such as Germany, the U.K. and Australia have distanced themselves from the Israeli government, notably by pushing for recognition of Palestinian statehood.

As an Israeli scholar of the Middle East working in the U.S., I have seen how these international currents are affecting Israel’s standing in the world. And while the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stood defiant and unmoved by the hardening stance against it, the blowback against its citizens is certainly being felt.

Images of starvation

The change in attitude toward Israel has been unfolding since soon after the start of the war. It has been driven by Israeli actions that are increasingly seen as disproportionate and indefensible. But it has reached new heights – or lows – in recent months given the increasingly desperate plight of Palestinians being broadcast around the globe.

Horrifying images of starving children and thousands of people skirmishing for scraps of food in what a U.N.-backed body has called famine are now regularly reported in media outlets around the world and in the U.S. Even conservative platforms such as Fox News that until recently were sympathetic to Israel’s response to Oct. 7 have dedicated airtime to reporting on the hunger crisis and questioning its motives.

Increasingly, Israel’s onslaught on Gaza – which to date has killed at least 62,000 people, around half of whom are women and children, and left 70% of the strip in ruins – is being viewed through a critical lens.

Nearly two years after the attack that sparked the Israeli operation, the war aims of Israel are understood more and more as politically motivated, with the purpose being the political survival of Netanyahu and his government.

There is increasing international condemnation and sanctioning of some of the government’s more prominent members who are accused of using genocidal language against the Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere.

Australia recently barred the entrance of one far-right Israeli parliamentarian, citing his violent and inflammatory language against Palestinians. The U.K. has sanctioned two members of Netanyahu’s government, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, for similar reasons.

Moreover, international organizations and scholars are increasingly framing the actions of the Israeli government as a whole in Gaza as genocide – and recently two Israeli human rights organizations have joined them.

Israeli public opinion

But to what extent are Israeli citizens being conflated with the Netanyahu government in international criticism?

Israeli public opinion polls tell a complex story of views on the war in Gaza. On one hand, Netanyahu’s government remains deeply unpopular among 70% of Israeli citizens, and a growing number of Israelis now fully believe that the prime minister is prolonging the war for his own political interests.

Such sentiment has seen an uptick in protests over the war. On Aug. 17, the country practically shut down during a widespread strike and demonstration against the government. Hundreds of thousands of people gathered in Tel Aviv in an unprecedented mass rally, calling for the end of the war and a ceasefire deal that would bring all hostages back.

Yet polls also show that a majority of Israelis remain either indifferent to the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza or are in support of it, as dehumanization of Palestinians is widespread among large swaths of Israeli society.

It seems that only recently cracks in this wall of indifference have emerged.

Bans, booing and ostracism

The labeling of Israel as a pariah state internationally does not seem to bother the government.

Netanyahu insists that all the reporting about the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is fake news, orchestrated by Hamas and antisemitic forces around the world. Netanyahu has also responded to the moves by Western governments to recognize the Palestinian state by labeling their decisions as antisemitic.

But there are signs that international condemnation of the war in Gaza is affecting Israelis themselves – both at home and abroad.

Israelis and Israeli organizations from all walks of life are facing increased instances of anti-Israeli actions and sentiments.

The movement to boycott, divest and sanction Israel, known as BDS, has been in existence since 2005, but until the war in Gaza it had only limited success in generating wide support for its campaign. Now, 20 years after its establishment, the floodgates have seemingly been lifted and resulted in a deluge of boycotts and other actions that are slowly affecting almost every sector in Israel. To give one example, the British grocery chain Co-op earlier this year announced that it would stop sourcing Israeli produce at its 2,300 stores.

Israeli tourists in Greece have been targeted by pro-Palestinian demonstrations. And there are multiple reports of Israeli tourists being questioned or harassed elsewhere for their possible involvement in the war in Gaza.

There is pressure on FIFA to force Israel out of the global soccer organization, and matches involving Israeli teams in European capitals have been marred by violence by fans on both sides.

Meanwhile, a growing number of academics around the world are refusing to collaborate with their Israel peers. The EU is considering a move to block Israel from accessing its prestigious Horizon Europe research and innovation program. And Israeli artists are now regularly ostracized and disinvited from artistic events around the world, from music festivals to architecture exhibitions.

International cultural events that are scheduled to take place in Israel are now routinely modified or canceled, as just happened with the International Harp Competition, which had been scheduled for December 2025. Meanwhile, the popular Eurovision Song Contest has now been a site of anti-Israeli demonstrations for the second year in a row. This is despite Israeli fans of the event, hugely popular among the LGBTQ community, belonging predominantly to the progressive left-leaning camp in Israel – the very people most likely to be in opposition to the current government.

Israelis have responded to this challenge in multiple ways. Even prior to the mass demonstration on Aug. 17, tens of thousands of Israelis have protested the government for months on end, accusing Netanyahu and his far-right government for turning Israel into a pariah state. Artists and academics have issued petitions, acknowledging Israeli’s responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and calling for the end of the war.

Abroad, Israelis, who are known for being avid international tourists, are now traveling more to sites that are deemed less hostile to Israel. Many prefer not to disclose their Israeli identify. Reservists and discharged soldiers are fearful of being arrested abroad after posting on social media about their military service in Gaza.

Claims of antisemitism

Yet Netanyahu, who is subject to an outstanding arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court, along with his far-right Cabinet, seem to be unmoved. The global isolation may even serve their narrow interests by putting Israel in this precarious situation and helping them mobilize their base around the argument that all anti-Israeli actions are motivated by antisemitism.

And while antisemitism is real and widespread, and some of it drives anti-Israeli actions, it is a far cry to argue that antisemitism – and not Israeli government policy – is the main reason for current global sentiments and actions against the country.

The government is particularly indifferent to areas that are considered “elitist” and that have been mainly affected by the global protest movement against Israel.

Members of the government and its supporters see Israeli academia or Israeli arts as fields filled with liberal leftists whose power should be curbed. It is telling that when the Weitzman Institute, one of Israel’s most distinguished academic centers, was hit by an Iranian missile during the 12-day war in June, a popular far-right radio and TV anchor and supporter of the government tweeted: “God 1; Weitzman Institute 0.” The suggestion was that God punished this globally renowned academic institution for its lack of support for the government.

The tweet was condemned by journalists and some members of the opposition but was endorsed and repeated on Channel 14, widely known as Netanyahu’s “house TV channel.” Government officials remained silent.

When this is the sentiment among the government and its supporters, why would they be bothered with the consequences to Israeli academia and indeed its citizens by Israel being increasingly seen as a pariah state?

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

– ref. Netanyahu remains unmoved by Israel’s lurch toward pariah status − but at home and abroad, Israelis are suffering the consequences – https://theconversation.com/netanyahu-remains-unmoved-by-israels-lurch-toward-pariah-status-but-at-home-and-abroad-israelis-are-suffering-the-consequences-263154

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Libby (Elizabeth) Sander, MBA Director & Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour, Bond Business School, Bond University

So your boss wants you in the office more? If this makes you anxious, you’re not alone.

Return-to-work tensions aren’t simply resistance to change. They reflect deeper questions about how different people work best and what modern organisations actually need to succeed.

After COVID, return-to-office rates stabilised by around June 2023, without much movement since.

In Australia, 36% of Australians were working from home regularly in August 2024 and 37% in 2023. This is a dramatic shift from pre-pandemic levels when only 5% of Australians worked from home regularly.

In Europe and North America, around 30% of employees now work hybrid schedules, with 8% fully remote.

Yet tensions persist. Many employers are pushing harder to get workers back in person, while unions are pushing back. The Australian Services Union recently requested presumed work-from-home arrangements and 26 weeks’ notice before employees have to return to the office.

Meanwhile, the Victorian government plans to introduce laws giving employees the legal right to work from home two days a week.

Workers tend to prefer hybrid models

Research on remote and hybrid work models reveals both benefits and challenges.

Hybrid work can increase productivity, improve work-life balance and reduce attrition rates.

A 2024 randomised controlled trial found hybrid work arrangements led to 33% lower quit rates. There were particular benefits for women, non-managers and employees with long commutes.

Research tracking individual productivity found fully remote work was associated with a 10% drop in productivity. However, hybrid working appeared to “have no impact on productivity”.

Employees generally prefer hybrid models, with many willing to accept pay cuts for remote work options.

It’s good to spend some time in the office

There are benefits in spending time with our colleagues face-to-face.

We learn more naturally in social settings. We gain knowledge informally through observation, spontaneous questions and overheard conversations.

The social connections that form more readily in person contribute significantly to employee retention and satisfaction.

Collaboration and innovation often flows better face-to-face too.

Some things are difficult to replicate virtually. The spontaneity of brainstorming, the nuanced communication possible through body language, and the collective energy of problem-solving are hard to achieve online.

Being able to work from home improves inclusion

Parents, carers and people with disabilities benefit significantly from the flexibility to manage responsibilities while maintaining productivity.

Recent research shows flexible working practices are important for neurodivergent employees. This includes those with autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Neurodivergent workers make up a significant percentage of the Australian workforce: 12% in 2024. And in the United States, 20% of adults have a learning or attention issue.

For neurodivergent employees, working at home gives much-needed sensory control and routine flexibility. This includes adjusting lighting to reduce overwhelm, controlling noise levels and taking breaks when needed. It also allows avoiding the social exhaustion that constant office interactions can create.

Loneliness is also a workplace issue

Loneliness is a significant concern among both remote and on-site workers.

A survey of 7,500 American workers found over half feel lonely. Some 36% of lonely workers were more likely to seek a job somewhere else, compared with 20% of workers who were not lonely. Additionally, 42% of lonely workers reported being disengaged. This is twice as many as among surveyed workers who were not lonely.

Earlier research from 2024 found one in five workers globally experienced loneliness a lot in the previous day.

Loneliness is particularly pronounced among younger workers, with 46% of those aged 18–24 feeling left out.

Loneliness impacts business performance as well individuals. Workplace loneliness leads to decreased engagement, reduced commitment, and increased turnover.

Managers can address workplace loneliness by fostering a culture of wellbeing, creating opportunities to build relationships, increasing support and practising inclusive decision-making.

How can employers help anxious staff return to the office?

Know that workers may feel anxious about returning to offices, so allow them to ease back in. Gradual transitions prove more effective than abrupt changes, perhaps starting with one day weekly before building up.

Preparation is essential to support a diverse workforce. This should include clear communication about hybrid expectations, flexibility where possible, and recognition that transitions take time.

Attention to the physical work environment is vital. Creating inclusive office environments means considering lighting, noise levels and providing spaces where employees can work without visual and auditory distraction.

Regular check-ins with returning staff, openness to feedback and maintaining flexibility around working arrangements can significantly ease transitions.

Finally, keep in mind that forced returns can backfire, creating more anxiety rather than engagement.

Set policies that allow employees to thrive

The evidence highlights that no approach works for everyone. Some people genuinely thrive in collaborative office environments, while others do their best work from home.

A large body of research shows a majority of workers benefit from hybrid models that maximise both collaboration and individual productivity, while supporting diverse working styles.

Organisations need to adopt both evidenced-based practice and individual flexibility to get the best from their workforce. Success depends on recognising that workplace anxiety, loneliness and productivity are complex issues requiring individualised approaches.

Whether you’re an employee worried about office returns, or a manager supporting your team, focus on creating environments where everyone can contribute effectively, while maintaining wellbeing.

As this workplace evolution continues, the most successful organisations will be those that remain flexible, listen to diverse employee needs, and adapt based on evidence rather than personal preferences or assumptions about what is most effective.

Libby (Elizabeth) Sander 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. When it comes to wellbeing, what are the pros and cons of working in an office vs from home? – https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-wellbeing-what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-working-in-an-office-vs-from-home-263540

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brian Q. Jenkins, Lecturer, School of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University

This year Australia has seen a horrific string of reports and allegations about abuse and neglect in childcare centres. Families are desperate to ensure their kids are safe and political leaders have been rushing to respond.

Last month, federal parliament passed legislation to strip funding from centres not meeting safety and quality standards. Earlier this week, the Victorian government released a damning report, which called for a shakeup of the early childhood sector.

On Friday, Australia’s federal and state education ministers agreed on several new safety measures. Federal Early Childhood Education Minister Jess Walsh described them as “the strongest and most significant package of child safety reforms in our nation’s history.”

What was agreed? And how could they be improved?

What’s been announced?

Education ministers agreed to set up a new “national educator register” to tell regulators who is working in the early childhood sector and where. It will also show the status of people’s working with children checks. Federal Education Minister Jason Clare said it would be developed from scratch, need new legislation and roll out from February next year.

Other measures include:

• mandatory child safety training for all early childhood education staff – including the bosses of childcare companies. This will begin in 2026 to help workers “spot a person who might be hiding in plain sight” and who may be grooming a child

• a national CCTV trial in up to 300 services, which will begin by the end of 2025

• a ban on personal mobile phones in services from September 1 2025

• 1,600 extra spot checks to be carried out by Commonwealth officers

• more information for parents about the condition and record of centres, including the last time a check was made and if any issues have been raised by regulators.

These measures are a positive start but they could also go further, as we explain below.

Read more:
The new childcare bill relies on something going wrong to keep kids ‘safe’. Here’s what else we should do

Is a national educator register a good idea?

A register for early childhood education and care workers makes sense. The register will be helpful for tracking where people have worked, so potential employers can look up the backgrounds of those applying for jobs.

For example, it could be a red flag if someone has moved around a lot (noting the sector is highly casualised, staff turnover is high and it is not unusual for people to work in multiple jobs). A national register will also help investigators if someone is suspected of wrongdoing.

Clare says the government will “develop and build” the register over time. But in its current planned form, it falls short of a nationally consistent reportable conduct scheme (which was proposed by the child abuse royal commission in 2017).

This would include any reports of misconduct that cannot be prosecuted criminally and are therefore missed in criminal history screenings (via working with children checks).

Some states are doing this on their own (for example from July 2026, in Queensland, early childhood organisations will be required to report concerning conduct from anyone who works with children). This week, the Victorian government announced it would reform its reportable conduct scheme so information relevant to child-safety “whether substantiated or not” is shared with relevant regulators and agencies.

But such schemes are most effective if they’re all connected to each other as it’s very easy to cross a border in Australia. We should also be enforcing standards around reference checks – which was recommended by the Victorian review this week.

How would CCTV help?

A 2025 report on the New South Wales sector estimated 30% of childcare services already had CCTV installed.

Obviously, 300 services nationally is not a lot (there are more than 9,000 centre-based services in Australia). Clare said the trial would look at where cameras are placed in centres and how data can be safely stored.

We know CCTV can have a general deterrent effect – and people are less likely to offend if they believe they are being surveilled. And it can also be used in investigations if there is an allegation or complaint. Research (including our own upcoming study) suggests many educators would like CCTV for their own protection if allegations were ever made against them.

But we can’t expect CCTV to prevent everything – you can’t have someone sitting at a control panel looking at footage all the time.

The Victorian report recommended a “four eyes” principal in centres, where there need to be two adults, visible to each other, taking care of kids at all times. Clare told reporters on Friday ministers had asked the national childcare authority to report back before the end of the year on this idea and the impact on educator-to-child ratios. This is an important prevention strategy. But it will depend on addressing workforce issues so there are enough staff who are empowered to speak up when they notice something.

More spot checks

Regulatory agencies have been woefully under-resourced – so more funds to do checks is a positive step. But beyond the spot checks, regulators need to actually shut services down if they are unsafe.

They have previously had the power to do this but have rarely done it, given the impact on families. As the Productivity Commission noted in 2024, shutting a service down was “severe” and “should be used as a last resort when less severe measures have not succeeded.”

Parents should also know they can do a spot check themselves at any time. Just turn up at your centre unannounced (so, not at 8am or 5pm). Is your centre welcoming and happy to see you? Do the children seem calm and cared for?

Read more:
Parents of kids in daycare are terrified following Melbourne abuse allegations. What can they do?

What are we missing?

As the Victorian report observed this week, there is an inherent problem in Australia’s early childhood system. It is mainly run by for-profit providers. We know for-profit childcare services are, on average, rated as lower quality than not-for-profit services.

These latest federal government proposals don’t address the root causes of problems in the early childhood. Instead they work within the boundaries of what we already have. There is a tendency for policymakers to take the conventional wisdom and package it up and say “we’re doing more, we’re trying harder”.

Arguably we have to do something more radical and restructure the entire sector so profit is not a driver and services are only focused on quality and safety.

Brian Q. Jenkins has received funding from the Queensland Family and Child Commission.

Danielle Arlanda Harris has received funding from the Queensland Family and Child Commission.

– ref. Australia will get a register to track educators and CCTV trial in centres – we still need more to keep kids safe – https://theconversation.com/australia-will-get-a-register-to-track-educators-and-cctv-trial-in-centres-we-still-need-more-to-keep-kids-safe-263641