Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

Labor increased its lead again in a YouGov poll, but Freshwater put the party ahead by just 50.3–49.7. This article also covers the final WA upper house results for the March 8 election.

A national YouGov poll, conducted April 11–15 from a sample of 1,506, gave Labor a 53–47 lead, a 0.5-point gain for Labor since the April 4–10 YouGov poll. It’s Labor’s biggest lead in YouGov for 18 months. Primary votes were 33% Labor (up one), 33% Coalition (down 0.5), 7% One Nation (down 1.5), 2% Trumpet of Patriots (up one), 9% independents (steady) and 3% others (steady).

Using 2022 election preference flows would give Labor about a 54.5–45.5 lead from these primary votes. YouGov is applying preference flows from its previous poll that was conducted from late February to late March.

However, recent polls that use respondent preferences suggest the gap in the Coalition’s favour between respondent and 2022 preference flows has dropped to nearly zero. This means YouGov’s current preference assumptions may be too pro-Coalition. Analyst Kevin Bonham has more on this.

In contrast to voting intentions, leaders’ ratings moved to Peter Dutton and against Anthony Albanese. Albanese’s net approval was down four points to -6, with 49% dissatisfied and 43% satisfied. Dutton’s net approval was up five points to -10. Albanese had a 48–38 better PM lead over Dutton (48–37 previously).

I’ve said before that changes in leaders’ ratings may indicate the next change in voting intentions in a poll, though this doesn’t always follow.

While YouGov shows Labor’s surge continuing, the Freshwater poll below only gave Labor a 50.3–49.7 lead. However, this was still a gain for Labor from the post-budget Freshwater poll. Freshwater has the Coalition primary vote at 39%, four points higher than in any other poll in the past week.

Here is the poll graph. I’m using the unrounded two-party numbers for Freshwater’s last two polls, improving Labor from a 51–49 deficit in the post-budget poll to a 50.6–49.4 deficit. There’s a big difference between this week’s Freshwater and all other national polls taken in the past week.

Freshwater poll has very narrow Labor lead

A national Freshwater poll for The Financial Review, conducted April 14–16 from a sample of 1,062, had a 50–50 tie by respondent preferences, a one-point gain for Labor since the Freshwater poll conducted after the March 25 budget. Before rounding, Labor led by 50.3–49.7.

Primary votes were unchanged at 39% Coalition, 32% Labor, 12% Greens and 17% for all Others. By 2022 election flows, this poll would give about a 50–50 tie.

Albanese’s net approval was up one point to -10, while Dutton’s was steady at -11. Albanese led as preferred PM by 46–41 (46–45 previously).

The Coalition’s lead over Labor on cost of living has been cut from a high of 14 points last October to two points in this poll. The Coalition held a 17-point lead on economic management last November, which has been reduced to six points. Cost of living remained the most important issue, with 73% citing it as a top issue.

Resolve poll on tax and housing policies

To gauge the popularity of Labor and the Coalition’s housing policy announcements at their April 13 campaign launches, a Resolve poll for Nine newspapers was conducted April 14–15 from a sample of 801. This poll didn’t report voting intentions, which were assessed in the April 9–13 Resolve poll.

By 40–34, voters preferred Labor’s tax policy to the Coalition’s, which were both announced the week of the March 25 budget. By 40–27, they preferred Labor’s housing policy.

JWS polls of Greens-held Brisbane seats

The Greens hold three seats in Brisbane: Ryan (by 52.6–47.4 vs the Liberal National Party), Brisbane (by 53.7–46.3) and Griffith (by 60.5–39.5). The Poll Bludger reported Thursday that JWS polls for Australian Energy Producers gave the LNP a 57–43 lead over Labor in Ryan with the Greens a distant third on primary votes.

In Brisbane, Labor led the LNP by 51–49 with the Greens once again a distant third. In Griffith, Labor led the LNP by 51–49, but the LNP led the Greens by 53–47.

Seat polls conducted by JWS Research have had very strong results for the Coalition. While the Greens could lose these seats to Labor, I believe the massive swings to the LNP shown here are unrealistic. I expect inner city seats to be good for left-wing parties relative to the national swing.

Redbridge poll: Labor close to majority

A national poll by Redbridge and Accent Research, using MRP methodology and reported by the News Corp tabloids, was conducted from February 3 to April 1 from a sample of 9,953. Labor was still polling poorly in February before they started to lift from early March.

The most likely outcome was 72 of the 150 House of Representatives seats for Labor, four short of a majority, 63 for the Coalition and 15 for all Others. The previous MRP poll by Redbridge and Accent Research in December had the most likely outcome as 71 Coalition seats to 65 for Labor.

Unemployment rate steady at 4.1%

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported Thursday that the unemployment rate was 4.1% in March, unchanged from February, with over 32,000 jobs added. The employment population ratio (the percentage of eligible Australians that are employed) was steady at 64.1% after dropping from a near-record high of 64.4% in January.

WA upper house final result

The button was finally pressed on Wednesday to electronically distribute preferences for the upper house for the March 8 Western Australian state election. The upper house used a reformed system with 37 members elected statewide by proportional representation with preferences. A quota was just 1/38 or 2.63%.

Labor won 16 of the 37 seats (down six on 2021 when they won their first WA upper house majority on a massive landslide), the Liberals won ten seats (up three), the Nationals two (down one), the Greens four (up three), One Nation two (up two), Legalise Cannabis one (down one), Australian Christians one (up one) and Animal Justice one (up one). Overall, left-wing parties won the upper house by 22–15 over right-wing parties.

Final primary votes gave Labor 15.54 quotas, the Liberals 10.3, the Nationals 2.1, the Greens 4.2, One Nation 1.45, Legalise Cannabis 1.1, Australian Christians 1.0, an independent group 0.51 and Animal Justice 0.46.

After distribution of preferences, One Nation’s second candidate had 0.83 quotas Labor’s 16th candidate 0.70 quotas, Animal Justice’s top candidate 0.66 quotas and Sophia Moermond, the independent group’s top candidate, 0.63 quotas. Owing to exhaustion, the top three were elected to the last three seats short of a quota.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Labor’s poll surge continues in YouGov, but it’s barely ahead in Freshwater – https://theconversation.com/labors-poll-surge-continues-in-yougov-but-its-barely-ahead-in-freshwater-254708

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

Labor increased their lead again in a YouGov poll, but Freshwater put them ahead by just 50.3–49.7. This article also covers the final WA upper house results for the March 8 election.

A national YouGov poll, conducted April 11–15 from a sample of 1,506, gave Labor a 53–47 lead, a 0.5-point gain for Labor since the April 4–10 YouGov poll. It’s Labor’s biggest lead in YouGov for 18 months. Primary votes were 33% Labor (up one), 33% Coalition (down 0.5), 7% One Nation (down 1.5), 2% Trumpet of Patriots (up one), 9% independents (steady) and 3% others (steady).

Using 2022 election preference flows would give Labor about a 54.5–45.5 lead from these primary votes. YouGov is applying preference flows from its previous poll that was conducted from late February to late March.

However, recent polls that use respondent preferences suggest the gap in the Coalition’s favour between respondent and 2022 preference flows has dropped to nearly zero. This means YouGov’s current preference assumptions may be too pro-Coalition. Analyst Kevin Bonham has more on this.

In contrast to voting intentions, leaders’ ratings moved to Peter Dutton and against Anthony Albanese. Albanese’s net approval was down four points to -6, with 49% dissatisfied and 43% satisfied. Dutton’s net approval was up five points to -10. Albanese had a 48–38 better PM lead over Dutton (48–37 previously).

I’ve said before that changes in leaders’ ratings may indicate the next change in voting intentions in a poll, though this doesn’t always follow.

While YouGov shows Labor’s surge continuing, the Freshwater poll below only gave Labor a 50.3–49.7 lead. However, this was still a gain for Labor from the post-budget Freshwater poll. Freshwater has the Coalition primary vote at 39%, four points higher than in any other poll in the past week.

Here is the poll graph. I’m using the unrounded two-party numbers for Freshwater’s last two polls, improving Labor from a 51–49 deficit in the post-budget poll to a 50.6–49.4 deficit. There’s a big difference between this week’s Freshwater and all other national polls taken in the past week.

Freshwater poll has very narrow Labor lead

A national Freshwater poll for The Financial Review, conducted April 14–16 from a sample of 1,062, had a 50–50 tie by respondent preferences, a one-point gain for Labor since the Freshwater poll conducted after the March 25 budget. Before rounding, Labor led by 50.3–49.7.

Primary votes were unchanged at 39% Coalition, 32% Labor, 12% Greens and 17% for all Others. By 2022 election flows, this poll would give about a 50–50 tie.

Albanese’s net approval was up one point to -10, while Dutton’s was steady at -11. Albanese led as preferred PM by 46–41 (46–45 previously).

The Coalition’s lead over Labor on cost of living has been cut from a high of 14 points last October to two points in this poll. The Coalition held a 17-point lead on economic management last November, which has been reduced to six points. Cost of living remained the most important issue, with 73% citing it as a top issue.

Resolve poll on tax and housing policies

To gauge the popularity of Labor and the Coalition’s housing policy announcements at their April 13 campaign launches, a Resolve poll for Nine newspapers was conducted April 14–15 from a sample of 801. This poll didn’t report voting intentions, which were assessed in the April 9–13 Resolve poll.

By 40–34, voters preferred Labor’s tax policy to the Coalition’s, which were both announced the week of the March 25 budget. By 40–27, they preferred Labor’s housing policy.

JWS polls of Greens-held Brisbane seats

The Greens hold three seats in Brisbane: Ryan (by 52.6–47.4 vs the Liberal National Party), Brisbane (by 53.7–46.3) and Griffith (by 60.5–39.5). The Poll Bludger reported Thursday that JWS polls for Australian Energy Producers gave the LNP a 57–43 lead over Labor in Ryan with the Greens a distant third on primary votes.

In Brisbane, Labor led the LNP by 51–49 with the Greens once again a distant third. In Griffith, Labor led the LNP by 51–49, but the LNP led the Greens by 53–47.

Seat polls conducted by JWS Research have had very strong results for the Coalition. While the Greens could lose these seats to Labor, I believe the massive swings to the LNP shown here are unrealistic. I expect inner city seats to be good for left-wing parties relative to the national swing.

Redbridge poll: Labor close to majority

A national poll by Redbridge and Accent Research, using MRP methodology and reported by the News Corp tabloids, was conducted from February 3 to April 1 from a sample of 9,953. Labor was still polling poorly in February before they started to lift from early March.

The most likely outcome was 72 of the 150 House of Representatives seats for Labor, four short of a majority, 63 for the Coalition and 15 for all Others. The previous MRP poll by Redbridge and Accent Research in December had the most likely outcome as 71 Coalition seats to 65 for Labor.

Unemployment rate steady at 4.1%

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported Thursday that the unemployment rate was 4.1% in March, unchanged from February, with over 32,000 jobs added. The employment population ratio (the percentage of eligible Australians that are employed) was steady at 64.1% after dropping from a near-record high of 64.4% in January.

WA upper house final result

The button was finally pressed on Wednesday to electronically distribute preferences for the upper house for the March 8 Western Australian state election. The upper house used a reformed system with 37 members elected statewide by proportional representation with preferences. A quota was just 1/38 or 2.63%.

Labor won 16 of the 37 seats (down six on 2021 when they won their first WA upper house majority on a massive landslide), the Liberals won ten seats (up three), the Nationals two (down one), the Greens four (up three), One Nation two (up two), Legalise Cannabis one (down one), Australian Christians one (up one) and Animal Justice one (up one). Overall, left-wing parties won the upper house by 22–15 over right-wing parties.

Final primary votes gave Labor 15.54 quotas, the Liberals 10.3, the Nationals 2.1, the Greens 4.2, One Nation 1.45, Legalise Cannabis 1.1, Australian Christians 1.0, an independent group 0.51 and Animal Justice 0.46.

After distribution of preferences, One Nation’s second candidate had 0.83 quotas Labor’s 16th candidate 0.70 quotas, Animal Justice’s top candidate 0.66 quotas and Sophia Moermond, the independent group’s top candidate, 0.63 quotas. Owing to exhaustion, the top three were elected to the last three seats short of a quota.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Labor’s poll surge continues in YouGov, but they’re barely ahead in Freshwater – https://theconversation.com/labors-poll-surge-continues-in-yougov-but-theyre-barely-ahead-in-freshwater-254708

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gode Bola, Lecturer in Hydrology, University of Kinshasa

The April 2025 flooding disaster in Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo, wasn’t just about intense rainfall. It was a symptom of recent land use change which has occurred rapidly in the city, turning it into a sprawling urban settlement without the necessary drainage infrastructure.

Local rains combined with runoff from torrential rains coming from neighbouring Congo Central Province quickly overwhelmed the city’s small urban tributaries. The Ndjili River and its tributary (Lukaya), which run through the city, overflowed and flooded homes on either side.

This led to the deaths of at least 70 people, 150 injured and the temporary displacement of more than 21,000 people. Floods affected the running of 73 healthcare facilities. Access to water and transport services were disrupted in large parts of the city. People could only move around by dugout canoe or by swimming in flooded avenues.

Floods have become recurrent in the DRC. The last quarter of 2023 and the beginning of 2024 saw the most devastating floods there and in neighbouring countries since the 1960s.

According to UN World Urbanisation Prospects (2025), the reason the floods have become this devastating is the growth of Kinshasa. The city is the most densely populated city in the DRC, the most populous city and third-largest metropolitan area in Africa.

Kinshasa’s 2025 population is estimated at 17,778,500. Back in 1950, it was 201,905. In the past year alone, the city’s population has grown by 746,200, a 4.38% annual change. At least 2% of the population live in areas prone to flooding. Urban infrastructure, especially flood-related, is non-existent or inadequate. Where it exists, drainage systems are blocked by solid waste, itself another sign of the city whose public services such as waste collection have become dysfunctional.

We have been studying the characteristics of flooding and the prediction of risk linked to it in the Congo Basin for five years as part of our work at the Congo Basin Water Resources Research Center in Kinshasa. We study the movement of water in natural and modified environments and its interactions with infrastructure over a range of geographical scales. We argue in this article that understanding why Kinshasa floods means recognising two very different water systems at play – and how urban growth has made the city more vulnerable to both.

Kinshasa faces two distinct flood hazards: first, flooding from the Congo River, which typically peaks around December and January; and, second, urban flood events driven by local rainfall and runoff from the hills south of the city around April and December.

Most of Kinshasa’s flood disasters have come from the second type. And as Kinshasa has urbanised, expanding into the floodplains, but without the necessary urban infrastructure, the impact of urban flood events has become worse.

With more sealed surfaces – because of more urban settlements – and less natural water absorption, more rainwater runs off, and faster. This overwhelms the city’s small urban tributaries and the Ndjili river.

Growth of Kinshasa and flood

As the city has expanded, so has its flood exposure. The city’s tributaries drain steep, densely populated urban slopes and are highly responsive to rainfall.

Of Kinshasa’s two flood risks, the impact of Congo River flooding can be observed in large cities located along major rivers, and typically peaks around January. These are seasonal floods driven by rainfall across the whole Congo Basin.

Research at Congo Basin Water Resources Research Center shows that while Congo River high water levels can cause “backwater effects” – the upstream rise in water level caused by reduced flow downstream – most damaging floods result from intense local rainfall overwhelming the city’s small river catchments. The flood risk analysis indicates that 38 territories are the hotspot of flooding in the Congo basin. Kinshasa is a hotspot due to its double risk sources and extensive urbanisation.

Read more:
Kenya’s devastating floods expose decades of poor urban planning and bad land management

The urban flood events are more challenging. They can happen with less rainfall and cause major destruction. They are driven by local rainfall and rapid growth of informal settlements.

Other cities face similar risks. In 2024, Nairobi suffered deadly floods after prolonged rain overwhelmed informal neighbourhoods and infrastructure.

Across Africa, cities are growing faster than their infrastructure can keep up with. Kinshasa has unique exposure, but also strong local research capacity.

The Congo River’s seasonal peaks are relatively well understood and monitored. But urban tributaries are harder to predict.

DRC’s meteorological agency Mettelsat and its partners are building capacity for real-time monitoring. But the April 2025 floods showed that community-level warning systems did not work.

Climate change is expected to intensify extreme rainfall in central Africa. While annual totals may not increase, short, intense storms could become more frequent.

This increases pressure on cities already struggling with today’s rains. In Kinshasa, the case for climate-resilient planning and infrastructure is urgent.

Read more:
Local knowledge adds value to mapping flood risk in South Africa’s informal settlements

What needs to change?

Forecasting rainfall is not enough. Government agencies in collaboration with universities must also forecast flood impact – and ensure people can act on the warnings. There is a need to put in place systems to achieve this under a catchment integrated flood management plan.

The main elements of such a plan include:

• Improved early warning systems: Use advanced technologies (such as satellites) to gather real-time data on environmental conditions.

• Upgraded drainage infrastructure: Identify weaknesses and areas prone to flooding, to manage storm water better.

• Enforcement of land use planning: Establish clear regulations that define flood-prone areas; outline permissible land uses.

• Define safety perimeters around areas at risk of flooding: Use historical data, flood maps, and hydrological studies to pinpoint areas that are at risk. Regulate development and activities there.

• Local engagement in flood preparedness: Educate residents about flood risks, preparedness measures, and emergency response.

Read more:
Nigeria and Ghana are prone to devastating floods – they could achieve a lot by working together

Institutions such as the Congo Basin Water Resources Research Center play a critical role, not just in research but in turning knowledge into action. Rainfall may trigger the flood, but urban systems decide whether it becomes a disaster. And those systems can change.

Gode Bola receives funding support from the Congo River User Hydraulics and Morphology (CRuHM) project (2016-2021), which was entirely funded by The Royal Society-DFID Africa Capacity Building (RS-DFID) under grant number “AQ150005.” He is affiliated with the Regional School of Water (ERE) and the Congo Basin Water Research Center (CRREBaC) of the University of Kinshasa, as well as the Regional Center for Nuclear Studies of Kinshasa.

Mark Trigg received funding support from the Congo River user Hydraulics and Morphology (CRuHM) project (2016-2021), which was wholly funded by The Royal Society-DFID Africa Capacity Building (RS-DFID) under the grant number “AQ150005”. Mark Trigg is affiliated with water@leeds at the University of Leeds and the Global Flood Partnership.

Raphaël Tshimanga receives funding from he Congo River user Hydraulics and Morphology (CRuHM) project (2016-2021), which was wholly funded by The Royal Society-DFID Africa Capacity Building (RS-DFID) under the grant number “AQ150005”. He is affiliated with the Congo Basin Water Resources Research Center and the Regional School of Water of the University of Kinshasa.

– ref. Why Kinshasa keeps flooding – and why it’s not just about the rain – https://theconversation.com/why-kinshasa-keeps-flooding-and-why-its-not-just-about-the-rain-254411

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

Peter Dutton, now seriously on the back foot, has made an extraordinarily big “aspirational” commitment at the back end of this campaign.

He says he wants to see a move to indexing personal income tax – an assault on the “bracket creep” that sees people pushed into higher tax brackets when their income rises due to inflation.

He suggests this would be a task for after a Coalition government had the budget back in shape, so he puts no timing on it.

If Dutton is serious, this is the most radical proposal we’ve heard for the election, apart from the nuclear policy.

The opposition leader produced the indexation idea, out of the blue, in an interview with The Australian, saying, “I want to see us move as quickly as we can as a country to changes around personal income tax, including indexation, because bracket creep, as we know, is a killer in the economy”.

When there are widespread calls from business and experts for an overhaul of the taxation system, but apparent deafness from most politicians, dealing with bracket creep would be one major step forward.

Economist Richard Holden from the University of New South Wales, is a strong advocate. “The current system has been built on tax increases on every working Australian all the time,” he says. An indexed system would be “more honest”, as well as forcing fiscal discipline on governments.

The latter constraint is one big reason governments shy away from it. Bracket creep provides a huge amount of revenue automatically, and indexing tax brackets would be very costly. The spending discipline the system would then require is probably beyond any modern government, given the enormous demands from voters.

There’s another point. Governments like to make good fellows of themselves by handing back some of this bracket creep in tax cuts at times of their choosing, particularly at elections – as we’ve seen this time.

Ken Henry, former treasury secretary and lead author of the major taxation review commissioned by the Rudd government, urged indexation in a February speech outlining a blueprint for tax change.

Henry is particularly concerned with intergenerational equity. “Young workers are being robbed by a tax system that relies increasingly upon fiscal drag,” he said. “Fiscal drag forces them to pay higher and higher average tax rates, even if their real incomes are falling.”

A conservative government did index income tax, way back in Malcolm Fraser’s day, when the then-prime minister described it as a “great taxation reform”.

Fraser argued: “Perhaps the single most important feature of the reform, is that it is not a once-and-for-all measure. It will continue to have significant beneficial effects in personal income tax payments from year to year”.

The change, however, didn’t last long – after introducing it in 1976, Fraser cut it back in 1979 and then scrapped it in 1982.

But, accepting the potential upsides of the idea, the fact that Dutton has come out with this ambitious, “aspirational” policy in this way, at this time, raises questions about his campaign strategy.

If he means it, this should have been front and centre of his election pitch, advanced much earlier and cast as part of a reform agenda.

Instead, all we got from the Liberals on tax was the weekend commitment to a one-off income tax offset. And that followed the party earlier saying it would not be able, for financial reasons, to produce anything at all. Also, of course, they rejected the modest tax cuts in the budget.

Some Liberal sources say Dutton always intended to float the indexation idea. If so, he and those running the Liberals’ campaign missed a big opportunity.

The other view is to think Dutton could have been freelancing – talking up his commitment to economic reform, going for an easy headline, but knowing he would never have to deliver. Most likely, he would not reach office. If he did win government – well, this was an “aspiration”, whose time would never arrive.

Questioned on Thursday about his idea, Dutton argued the difficulty of writing tax policies from opposition.

He pointed to the example of the Howard government, which unveiled the GST after winning power in 1996, then took it to a subsequent election in 1998.

It is a risky precedent to highlight, however. John Howard promised in opposition he would “never, ever” bring in a GST. Dutton can’t afford to fan any suggestion that we don’t really know his full tax agenda – that he might surprise if he won.

For its part, Labor this week found itself again caught in the weeds of a perennial tax debate – over whether, despite its denials, it might abolish the negative gearing tax break for property investors.

Anthony Albanese kicked an own goal in Wednesday’s debate when he insisted the government hadn’t commissioned Treasury modelling on the impact of negative gearing for the housing market. There was much to-ing and fro-ing last year about this, but it finally became clear Treasurer Jim Chalmers had requested advice.

Chalmers on Thursday made a Jesuitical distinction between asking Treasury for “a view” and commissioning modelling.

“I said last year […] I sought a view. That’s different to commissioning modelling,” Chalmers told a news conference alongside Albanese. “The prime minister was asked about commissioning modelling. I sought a view.

“The view from the Treasury is that a change to negative gearing wouldn’t get the sort of improvement that we desperately need to see in our economy when it comes to supply and that’s why our focus is not on changing that.”

Pressed to “rule out” any changes to negative gearing, Chalmers said “we’re not proposing any changes in this area”.

Dutton claimed Chalmers was “an advocate for the abolition of negative gearing”, and was “at war” with Albanese.

Once again, the opposition is trying to sow doubt about what Labor might do, regardless of what it might say, on this thorny issue. Or, as the government claims, it is trying to distract from its own problems.

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: Peter Dutton’s tax indexation ‘aspiration’ has merit – so why didn’t we hear about it before? – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-peter-duttons-tax-indexation-aspiration-has-merit-so-why-didnt-we-hear-about-it-before-254589

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tessa Charles, Accelerator Physicist, Monash University

The Large Hadron Collider has been responsible for astounding advances in physics: the discovery of the elusive, long-sought Higgs boson as well as other new exotic particles, possible hints of new forces of nature, and more.

Located at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) on the border of France and Switzerland, the LHC is expected to run for another 15 years. Nevertheless, physicists are already planning what will come after it.

One of the most favoured proposals for CERN’s next step is the 70-year Future Circular Collider (FCC) project. More than three times the size of the LHC, this enormous proposed machine promises to resolve some mysteries of the universe – and undoubtedly reveal some new ones.

What will the Future Circular Collider do?

The LHC, which occupies a circular tunnel 27 kilometres in circumference, is currently the largest machine in the world. The FCC would be housed in a much larger 91km tunnel in the Geneva basin between the Jura mountains and the Alps.

The first stage of the FCC would be the construction and operation of a collider for electrons (the lightweight particles that make up the outer shell of atoms) and positrons (the antimatter mirror images of electrons). This collider would allow more precise measurements of the Higgs boson.

The second stage would be a collider for protons (heavier particles found in the cores of atoms). The LHC already collides protons, but the new collider would accelerate the protons up to more than seven times as much energy.

This increase in collision energy allows for the discovery of particles never produced by humanity before. It also brings with it technical challenges, such as the development of high-powered superconducting magnets.

Known unknowns

The most high-profile result from the LHC has been the discovery of the Higgs boson, which lets us explain why particles in the universe have mass: they interact with the so-called Higgs field which permeates all of space.

This was a great victory for what we call the Standard Model. This is the theory that, to the best of our current knowledge, explains all the fundamental particles in the universe and their interactions.

However, the Standard Model has significant weaknesses, and leaves some crucial questions unanswered.

The FCC promises to answer some of these questions.

For example, we know the Higgs field can explain the mass of heavy particles. However, it is possible that a completely different mechanism provides mass to lighter particles.

We also want to know whether the Higgs field gives mass to the Higgs boson itself. To answer these Higgs questions we will need the higher energies that the FCC will provide.

The FCC will also let us take a closer look at the interactions of very heavy quarks. (Quarks are the tiniest components of protons and some other particles.) We hope this may shed light on the question of why the universe contains so much more matter than antimatter.

And the FCC will help us look for new particles that might be dark matter, a mysterious substance that seems to pervade the universe.

Of course, there is no guarantee that the FCC will provide the answers to these questions. That is the nature of curiosity-driven research. You know the journey, but not the destination.

Competing colliders

The FCC is not the only major particle physics project under consideration.

Another is a proposed 20-kilometre machine called the International Linear Collider, which would likely be built in Japan.

The US has several projects on the go, mainly detectors of various kinds. It also supports an “offshore Higgs factory”, located in Europe or Japan.

One project that may concern the FCC’s backers is the planned 100 kilometre Chinese Electron Positron Collider (CEPC), which has significant similarities to the FCC.

This poses a dilemma for Europe: if China goes ahead with their project, is the FCC still worthwhile? On the other hand, CERN chief Fabiola Gianotti has argued that the FCC is necessary to keep up with China.

High costs

The decision on the FCC won’t be taken lightly, given the large cost associated with the project.

CERN estimates the first stage will cost 15 billion Swiss francs (around US$18 billion or A$28 billion at current exchange rates), spread out over 12 years. One third of this cost is the tunnel construction.

The size of the sum has attracted criticism. However, a CERN spokesperson told the Agence France-Press that up to 80% of the cost would be covered by the organisation’s current annual budget.

The second stage of FCC, which would reuse the 91km tunnel as well as some existing LHC infrastructure, is currently estimated to cost 19 billion Swiss francs. This costing carries a large uncertainty, as the second stage would not be commissioned until 2070 at the earliest.

Benefits beyond science

Pure science has not been the only benefit of the LHC. There have been plenty of practical technological spinoffs, from medical technology to open and free software.

One specific example is the Medipix chips developed for a detector at the LHC, which are now used across multiple areas in medical imaging and material science.

For the past 70 years, CERN has served as a fantastic model for peaceful and efficient international collaboration. Beyond its astonishing scientific output, it has also produced significant advances in engineering that have spread through society. Building the FCC will be an investment in both technology and curiosity.

Tessa Charles has previously received funding through an EU Horizon 2020 project, the FCC Innovation Study (FCCIS).

Ulrik Egede receives funding from the Australian Research Council to carry out research at the Large Hadron Collider. He is representing southeast Asia and Australia/NZ on the International Committee of Future Accelerators.

– ref. Why do scientists want to spend billions on a 70-year project in an enormous tunnel under the Swiss Alps? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-scientists-want-to-spend-billions-on-a-70-year-project-in-an-enormous-tunnel-under-the-swiss-alps-254577

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer McKay, Professor in Business Law, University of South Australia

Could someone take you to court over an agreement you made – or at least appeared to make – by sending a “👍”?

Emojis can have more legal weight than many people realise. A search of the Australasian Legal Information Institute database reveals emojis have been part of evidence in at least 240 cases in the past few years.

Their use in texts and emails has been considered in unfair dismissals, wills, family law and criminal cases.

Australian law does not explicitly address the use of emojis in contracts. And although emojis have been accepted in evidence, the context in which they are used is always a crucial part of the picture.

Here’s what you need to know about what makes a contract under the law – and why you might want to be especially cautious with the “🤝” button.

Is it a casual agreement or a contract?

Contracts don’t have to be printed on paper and signed in a lawyer’s office.

In Australia, a contract is generally considered legally binding if it meets certain requirements. There has to be:

• an intention to create legal relations
• a clear unequivocal offer
• certainty and completeness of terms
• “consideration” – the price exchanged for the promise made
• clearly communicated acceptance
• no “vitiating factors” – things that could spoil the contract such as unconscionable conduct or duress.

Indeed, case law supports the notion that contracts can be partly oral and partly written. But the oral terms cannot contradict the terms of the written agreement.

Contracts can also incorporate graphics. The former chief justice of the High Court of Australia, Robert French AC, said in December 2017:

There is no reason in principle why pictorial contracts explained orally or supplemented textually or contextually could not be enforceable in the same way as any other contract.

‘I hereby accept’

In contract cases, courts often use what’s called an objective test to consider whether a reasonable person would conclude the parties intended to create a binding contract.

In Australian law, parties to a contract must clearly communicate that they accept its terms.

Social and domestic agreements are presumed not to create legal intent, unless proven otherwise. But with extensive use of texts and emails with emojis now, there is less clarity about what is a social and domestic agreement.

Commercial and business contracts are presumed to have contractual intent. However, even in business contracts, emojis may be deemed to amount to acceptance, depending on the past behaviour of the parties.

That’s because many emojis are ambiguous.

In one situation, a thumbs up (👍) might mean “I have something”, but in another it could mean “I agree to it”. A smiley face is the same so context is crucial. The least ambiguous is arguably the handshake emoji – 🤝.

The experience overseas

A number of cases from overseas show how emojis sent in response to an offer can lead to unintended contracting.

They can induce what the law calls “reasonable reliance” of one party on the other, more than “bare hope” an agreement can be relied upon. This can subject the sender to liability if that reliance is misplaced.

One 2023 case in Canada centred on a thumbs-up emoji sent in response to a proposal for the purchase of flax.

Here, the court ruled that the emoji did signify agreement to the terms, similar to a written signature. It had been habitually used between the buyer and seller in a longstanding business relationship.

Because of this repeated use, the court ruled, a reasonable bystander would conclude the emoji response created a binding agreement.

Borrowing a big boat

A subsequent case, in the United Kingdom, centred on an alleged four-year “charterparty” agreement to hire a large crude oil tanker called the “Aquafreedom” between Southeaster, its owners and the logistics company Trafigura.

Trafigura claimed a binding agreement to charter the ship had been reached, following a period of offers and counteroffers. But the vessel’s owner Southeaster disagreed. Trafigura claimed it had suffered about US$15 million in lost business as a result.

The evidence in this case was principally a bundle of written communications between the parties, including email, telephone and WhatsApp communications.

While the court ultimately ruled no contract had been entered into, it found that more informal communications used in evidence, including WhatsApp messages containing emojis, shouldn’t be given less weight than email communications.

What can you do?

Here are some helpful hints for navigating the use of emojis, especially when buying or selling anything, running your own business or sending messages at work:

• be careful when discussing services or purchase of goods over text
• when acknowledging receipt of a contract, it’s safest to clearly state that you will review the terms and get back to the sender
• do not use an emoji on its own
• do not use the handshake emoji
• keep business-like arrangements on a more formal footing.

Remember, context remains important and past behaviour is critical.

The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of Mark Giancaspro, senior lecturer in law at the University of Adelaide, for assistance in the preparation of this article.

Jennifer McKay receives research funding from CRC Race 2030.

– ref. Could you accidentally sign a contract by texting an emoji? Here’s what the law says – https://theconversation.com/could-you-accidentally-sign-a-contract-by-texting-an-emoji-heres-what-the-law-says-252287

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Trang Nguyen, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre for Global Food and Resources, University of Adelaide

Australians waste around 7.68 million tonnes of food a year. This costs the economy an estimated A$36.6 billion and households up to $2,500 annually.

Much of this food is wasted at home. So while consumers are increasingly aware of sustainability issues, awareness does not always translate into better food management in practice.

Our previous research revealed people differ in the ways they generate and dispose of food waste.

Our latest study takes a closer look at two groups who care deeply about food, for different reasons. It exposes a paradox: people who prioritise healthy eating waste less food, while those focused on sustainability do not necessarily follow through with waste reduction.

This suggests encouraging healthier eating habits might be a better way to cut household food waste than sustainability messaging alone.

Sustainability awareness doesn’t always mean less waste

To understand how food values influence waste, we surveyed 1,030 Australian consumers living in Adelaide between April and May 2021. We set quotas for age, sex and household income to match national demographics.

We wanted to find out who wasted more food: nutrition-conscious or sustainability-conscious consumers?

We asked each person how they plan meals and shop, what they value when buying food, and how much food they throw away each week.

Our results show nutrition-conscious consumers tend to plan meals in advance, use shopping lists and avoid over-purchasing. These behaviours contribute to both a healthier diet and less food waste.

We found consumers who make more nutrition-conscious food choices tended to waste less edible food. A one-point increase on our nutrition scale corresponded to a 17.6% reduction in food waste, compared to people with lower scores on the nutrition scale.

On the other hand, those who prioritise sustainability over nutrition did not show any significant reduction in edible food waste.

These consumers tend to choose environmentally friendly products. They typically prefer to shop locally, buy organic produce and avoid excessive food packaging. But that does not necessarily translate into waste-reducing behaviours.

Those concerned with sustainability tend to buy more food than they need. They have good intentions, but lack strategies to manage and consume the food efficiently. Unfortunately this means sustainably sourced food often ends up in landfill.

Integrating nutrition and food waste messaging

Our research reveals a disconnect between purchasing choices and what actually happens to the food at home.

This highlights an opportunity for policymakers and campaigns aimed at reducing food waste. Rather than focusing solely on sustainability, including messages about improving nutrition can boost health and reduce food waste at the same time.

Some successful interventions already demonstrate the potential of this approach. For example, an Australian school-based program found children involved in preparing their own meals wasted less food than they did before the program began.

These students learned about food waste and healthy eating, participated in workshops on meal preparation and composting, and helped pack their own lunches – with less food waste as a result.

5 ways to reduce food waste

So, what can households do to reduce food waste while maintaining a healthy diet? Our research suggests the following key strategies:

1. plan ahead – creating a weekly meal plan and shopping list helps prevent impulse purchases and ensures food is consumed before it spoils

2. buy only what you need – over-purchasing, even of sustainable products, can lead to unnecessary waste

3. store food properly – understanding how to store fresh produce, dairy, and leftovers can significantly extend their shelf life

4. prioritise nutrition – choosing foods that fit into a balanced diet naturally leads to better portion control and mindful consumption, reducing waste

5. use what you have – before shopping, check your fridge and pantry to incorporate existing ingredients into meals.

Reducing waste is a bonus

People are often more motivated by personal health benefits than abstract environmental concerns. Our research suggests this is the key to reducing household food waste.

Encouraging meal planning for a balanced diet, careful shopping to avoid over-purchasing, and proper food storage, can make a big difference to the amount of food being wasted. This will not only help households save thousands of dollars each year, but also promote healthy eating habits.

Ultimately, developing a more sustainable food system is not just about buying the right products. It’s about how we manage, prepare and consume them.

Trang Nguyen receives funding from the End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre and the Australian Government.

Jack Hetherington receives funding from the End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre and the Australian Government and is a member of the Landcare Association of South Australia volunteer Management Committee.

Patrick O’Connor receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Agrifutures and the Commonwealth and State Governments

– ref. Why healthy eating may be the best way to reduce food waste – https://theconversation.com/why-healthy-eating-may-be-the-best-way-to-reduce-food-waste-253852

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ken Nosaka, Professor of Exercise and Sports Science, Edith Cowan University

Do you ever feel like you can’t stop moving after you’ve pushed yourself exercising? Maybe you find yourself walking around in circles when you come off the pitch, or squatting and standing and squatting again when you finish a run.

Sometimes the body knows what’s best for us, even if we’re not aware of the science.

Moving around after intense exercise actually helps the body recover faster. Here’s how it works – plus a tip for if you feel exactly the opposite (and just want to lie down).

What is ‘intense’ exercise?

There are different ways to measure exercise intensity. One is simply how hard it feels to you, known as the “rating of perceived exertion”.

This takes into account how fast you’re breathing, how much you’re sweating and how tired your muscles are. It also considers heart rate.

The average resting heart rate when you’re not exerting yourself is around 60–80 beats per minute, although this can vary between people.

The maximum healthy heart rate is based on subtracting your age from 220. So, if you’re 20 years old, that’s 200 beats per minute when you’re exercising as hard as you can.

This decreases as you age. If you’re 50 years old, your maximum heart rate would be around 170 beats per minute.

An increased heart rate helps pump blood faster to deliver fuel and oxygen to the muscles that are working hard. Once you stop exercising your body will begin its recovery, to return to resting levels.

Let’s look at how continuing to move after intense exercise helps do this.

Removing waste from the muscles

Whenever the body converts fuel into energy it also produces leftover substances, known as metabolic byproducts. This includes lactate (sometimes called lactic acid).

During intense exercise we need to burn more fuel (oxygen and glucose) and this can make the body produce lactate much more quickly than it can clear it. When lactate accumulates in the muscles it may delay their recovery.

We can reuse lactate to provide energy to the heart and brain and modulate the immune system. But to do this, lactate must be cleared from the muscles into the bloodstream.

After intense exercise, continuing to move your body – but less intensely – can help do this. This kind of active recovery has been shown to be more efficient than passive recovery (meaning you don’t move).

Returning blood to the heart

Intense exercise also makes our heart pump more blood into the body. The volume pumped to the muscles increases dramatically, while blood flow to other tissues – especially the abdominal organs such as the kidneys – is reduced.

Moving after intense exercise can help redistribute the blood flow and speed up recovery of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. This will also clear metabolic byproducts faster.

After a long run, for example, there will be much more blood in your leg muscles. If you stand still for a long time, you may feel dizzy or faint, thanks to lowered blood pressure and less blood flow to the brain.

Moving your legs, whether through stretching or walking, will help pump blood back to the heart.

In fact around 90% of the blood returning from the legs via veins relies on the foot, calf and thigh muscles moving and pumping. The calf muscle plays the largest role (about 65%). Moving your heels up and down after exercising can help activate this motion.

What if you don’t feel like moving?

Maybe after exercise you just want to sit down in a heap. Should you?

If you’re too tired to do light movement such as stretching or walking, you may still benefit from elevating your legs.

You can lie down – research has shown blood from the veins returns more easily to the heart after exercise when you’re lying down, compared to sitting up, even if you’re still. Elevating your legs has an added benefit, as it reverses the effect of gravity and helps circulation.

Ken Nosaka 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. Why can’t I keep still after intense exercise? – https://theconversation.com/why-cant-i-keep-still-after-intense-exercise-247555

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine Stevens, PhD Candidate, Education, Murdoch University

Starting high school is one of the most significant transitions young people make in their education. Many different changes happen at once – from making new friends to getting used to a new school environment and different behaviour and academic expectations.

What do young people think about this crucial time in their lives?

In our new research we spoke to ten students in Year 7 at a co-educational school in Perth, Western Australia in 2023. Students were interviewed in Term 3 and asked to share their thoughts about what the move to high school was like. We used a focus group to allow young people to explore their thoughts in a supportive environment.

Our current study is on a small scale. But it contributes to the growing body of research showing the importance of supporting students’ emotional wellbeing during school transitions.

Big changes take time

One of the key things students discussed was how it took time to adjust to high school.

This included managing their time to fit in new study commitments, such as homework for multiple subjects. They also had to locate new classrooms: “trying to go around the school and find them was hard”.

They noted how “different teachers have different rules […] so you gotta remember that and where you’re going”. Other students explained how there was “too much stuff for my brain to handle”.

As another student talked about the pressure to be organised:

It’s hard work going in from Year 6 primary school to Year 7. I can tell you that much. […] we’ve been expected from the first week to remember our timetable, be organised, not forget anything and know our classes […] it’s a lot of pressure and stress on you because we also get bucketloads of homework as well because we don’t get enough time to finish our work.

Adjusting to new friendship dynamics

Previous research has found when students start high school they are “more focussed on building new relationships and maintaining old friends”. They will then shift their focus to academic matters “later on”.

Students in our study certainly discussed the importance of friends. Some students had looked forward to making new friends and were enjoying being able to “make some proper friends that you can actually have a proper relationship with”.

Others spoke about their worries about not knowing anyone or having any friends (“I was always questioning myself. Am I going to make any friends?”). Others found their friendship groups changed from primary school (“I don’t talk to them as much […] it’s kind of not the same with them).

Students also talked about how working out new friendships took time.

you’ll find that yes, you might be friends […] but then you might find that they’re not the person who you thought they would be and you might not really want to be with them.

A lot more work

All students observed there was an increased workload of Year 7. Many students said they did not feel prepared for the volume of work and the time frames in which they were expected to complete it.

Some students “found it stressful to keep on top of work”. For some “the homework load and the amount of tests that we have and assessments” were the least enjoyable features of high school. They said it felt like in Year 7, “everything is about academics”.

But students also said they enjoyed being able to do a wider range of subjects. And the hands-on subjects such as cooking and design and technology helped them balance out more intense, academic subjects.

What can help Year 7s?

While students outlined challenges about moving from Year 6 to Year 7, they also identified three things to help make the transition easier.

1. A support network: students stressed it was important to have a support network, whether informally through fellow students, staff or a parent or formally with counselling. This is something schools can encourage with buddy groups or peer support.

2. Extra time: students talked about the importance of teachers giving them extra time to complete work and to get used to new places and processes at high school. They were grateful to teachers who “let you develop in the classroom”.

3. Transition programs: students said specific Year 7 transition programs – that prepare students for the new logistics and expectations – would also help. One student suggested a term in Year 6 should “replicate what it feels like to be in Year 7”.

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. ‘We get bucketloads of homework’: young people speak about what it’s like to start high school – https://theconversation.com/we-get-bucketloads-of-homework-young-people-speak-about-what-its-like-to-start-high-school-254474

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Kay, PhD Candidate at the College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University

Women’s sport has recently enjoyed unprecedented success in Australia.

We have seen the Matildas sell out 16 successive home games, a world-record attendance for a women’s Test cricket match at the MCG, and women athletes contribute 72% of Australia’s gold medal tally at the Paris Olympics.

However, against the backdrop of these successes, women and girls continue to participate in community sport at lower rates than boys and men, a phenomenon known as the “gender play gap”.

What is the ‘gender play gap’?

The gender play gap is the difference between the number of women and girls participating in sport compared to the number of men and boys.

The gap exists from a very young age, with Australian government data showing nearly 30% more boys aged 0–14 participate in club or association sport than girls.

The gap closes to just 2% between the ages of 15–17, but then explodes to 43% for those aged 18–24.

Although the gap grows and shrinks at various points, it is consistently in favour of more men and boys participating in organised sport than women and girls.

Trying to find answers

Together with colleagues at Flinders University, we are currently working with the South Australian government to research how to close this gap.

The first stage found there isn’t enough research attention to this area. Of the 3,000+ studies included in a global literature search, only five focused on increasing rates of sport participation in young women.

We then conducted a large-scale qualitative study which uncovered the following reasons why young women drop out of sport, and often do not re-engage.

1. Sport stops being fun

Social experiences in sport are central to girls’ enjoyment and long-term participation. While friendships keep them engaged, negative team dynamics, exclusion and club politics can push them away.

2. A lack of genuine equality

Although progress in gender equality has been made, young women still struggle to have the same access to facilities and quality coaching as males. Typically, women and girls prefer women coaches who can relate to their experiences, yet women remain underrepresented in these roles.

3. They have too much on their plates

Schoolwork, part-time jobs and social lives compete for young women’s time, and many feel overwhelmed by increasing training commitments and school demands. In addition, girls as young as 13 are promoted to senior-age teams, which adds pressure and can break the social bonds with their peers.

4. They lose competitive opportunities

Although some young women enjoy a more relaxed, social approach to sport, others really value structured training and competition. Many girls end up dropping out because the competitive opportunities for them are not of the same standard as those available to boys. Some sports have fewer games per season for girls, or a shorter finals series than for boys.

How can we close the gap?

Sport participation efforts have typically focused on recruitment of new participants and retention of existing participants.

With so many young women dropping out of sport during adolescence, a renewed focus on re-engaging these previous participants may help to close the gender play gap.

Dropout is often considered a failure and a negative endpoint of a sport participation journey. However, there is a growing sentiment in sport research that transitioning out of sport temporarily may be necessary for some adolescents’ development.

It is okay for anyone to take a break from sport, but the sport needs to make it easier for them to return when they are ready. The key is to make re-engagement easy and appealing.

Re-engagement programs should be distinctly different from those aimed at new participants, and should revolve around the following key areas:

1. Targeted promotion and communication

Often, young women do not return to sport because they’re not aware of available opportunities if they return. Sport organisations should highlight programs that cater to those who want to start playing again, as well as those aimed at new participants.

2. Strengthen social connection

Young women are more likely to return to sport if they feel a sense of belonging and connection and have opportunities to create friendships outside of school. Programs that can foster strong social bonds while maintaining a focus on competition and skill development are most likely to be effective.

3. Champion equity and inclusion

Gender equity must be a priority for all sport organisations, with all genders having equitable access to high-quality training and competition.

4. Future-proofing

To achieve long-term gender equality in sport, organisations must actively future-proof their programs by encouraging women’s and girl’s leadership and providing young women with same-gender role models. By embedding gender equity into policies, coaching pathways and community engagement, sport organisations can create a more sustainable and welcoming environment for young women.

What’s next?

Despite the success of women’s sport in recent years, we have a long way to go to achieve genuine gender equality in sport.

Rather than relying on one-size-fits-all approaches to participation, sport organisations should adopt a targeted approach that may narrow the gender play gap and progress towards a more equitable sport participation landscape.

James Kay receives funding from the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing, South Australia.

Sam Elliott receives funding from the Australian Sports Commission, the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing, the South Australian National Football League, and the MRFF.

– ref. How to tackle the ‘gender play gap’: 4 ways to encourage young women back into sport – https://theconversation.com/how-to-tackle-the-gender-play-gap-4-ways-to-encourage-young-women-back-into-sport-251353

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Arosha Weerakoon, Senior Lecturer and General Dentist, School of Dentistry, The University of Queensland

After decades of Hollywood showcasing white-picket-fence celebrity smiles, the world has fallen for White Lotus actor Aimee Lou Wood’s teeth.

Wood was bullied for her looks in her youth and expressed gratitude for the positive comments she received about her teeth since appearing on White Lotus. She also joked that people shouldn’t take to drastic measures like filing teeth to copy her famous gap.

But social media influencers are promising that teeth filing is a quick way to achieve a straight smile. Some influencers even use electric nail drills to cut gaps between their front teeth.

A few of my patients admit to taking a nail file to “buff” or file jagged edges off their teeth. Many do this without understanding what they are cutting away.

Here’s why you should think twice about filing your teeth at home, and why we as dentists or orthodontists occasionally resort to this.

When might a dentist file a tooth?

Dentists and orthodontists occasionally file a tooth’s enamel, known as enameloplasty, to conservatively smooth-down a chipped tooth, or even-out a smile.

But adjustments to a person’s smile are minute, and always limited to the superficial enamel layer of the tooth.

Why don’t dentists routinely file teeth?

Dentists and orthodontists are particular about what and when we cut because teeth don’t grow back like fingernails or hair.

So what is a tooth? A tooth is like an egg, with an outer diamond-like lustrous crystal enamel coat that envelops the hard yet springy dentine.

The enamel and dentine envelop a central chamber – containing blood vessels, cells and nerves – called the pulp.

The outer periphery of the pulp is surrounded by and nourishes special dentine-making cells called odontoblasts.

The odontoblasts are similar to our bone-making cells but don’t have the capacity to regenerate. These cells eventually give way to age-related changes or trauma.

Our enamel-making cells die when our teeth cut through our gums as children, which means we can no longer make new, or repair damaged, enamel.

So damaged enamel or dentine on the outer surface of the tooth cannot self-repair.

Cutting your teeth without sealing and filling them can leave the tooth exposed, destroying the previously well-insulated pulp and causing sensitivity and pain.

Infections can occur because the bacteria from the plaque inside your mouth travels into the tooth and inflames the pulp.

And just like a cut on your skin, the pulp inflames and swells as part of the healing process. But your pulp is encased in a hard enamel-dentine chamber, so it has no room to expand and swell, leading to a throbbing toothache.

What can you do if you want to change your teeth?

You can change your smile without compromising the integrity of your teeth. Dentists can even create or close gaps.

And we will always offer conservative options, including “no treatment”, to keep as many of your teeth whole and healthy as possible.

Sometimes, your dentists and or orthodontists may offer options to:

• use braces to move teeth. Moving teeth can create a different smile, and sometimes change the shape and position of your jaws, lips and cheeks

• whiten teeth to remove superficial stains to make your smile look more visually even

• adapt white resin fillings or veneers to add and change the shape of teeth, with little or no tooth cutting required.

If you’re concerned about the look of your teeth, talk to your dentist or orthodontist about options that won’t damage your teeth and make them last the distance.

Don’t forget that Aimee Lou Wood’s iconic smile makes her stand out from the crowd. Your smile is what makes you special, and is part of who you are.

Arosha Weerakoon is a member of the Australian Dental Association and Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons. She is the Deputy Chair of the Country to Coast Queensland Clinical Advisory Council. Arosha is a Colgate Advocate for Oral Health. In this role, she promotes professionalism to her peers. She is the principal and owner of a general dental practice.

– ref. Want straighter teeth or a gap between? Don’t believe TikTok – filing them isn’t the answer – https://theconversation.com/want-straighter-teeth-or-a-gap-between-dont-believe-tiktok-filing-them-isnt-the-answer-253931

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brianna Le Busque, Lecturer in Environmental Science, University of South Australia

Walk into any home or workplace today, and you’re likely to find an array of indoor plants. The global market for indoor plants is growing fast – projected to reach more than US$28 billion (A$44 billion) by 2031.

People keep indoor plants inside for a variety of reasons, including as decoration, to clean the air and for stress relief. But my colleagues and I wanted to delve further. What sort of relationships do people have with indoor plants? And what can this tell us about ties between humans and nature?

We surveyed indoor plant owners in Australia, and found many of us form highly meaningful connections with our leafy companions. Some people even consider their plants as family, get anxious about their health and mourn a plant when it dies.

A blooming hobby

People have grown plants inside for thousands of years.

Evidence suggests Egyptians brought plants indoors in the 3rd century BC. The remains of the former city of Pompeii reveal indoor plants used there more than 2,000 years ago, and in medieval England, indoor plants were used in medicine and cooking.

The keeping of indoor plants became widespread across the world in the second half of the 20th century. The practice was particularly popular during the COVID-19 pandemic, likely due to a desire to connect with nature when access to outdoor green spaces was limited.

The benefits of indoor plants go beyond nature connection. Studies show they can increase positive emotions, reduce stress, enhance productivity, and even decrease physical discomfort such as pain.

However, people have varying levels of connection to their plants, as research by my colleagues and I shows.

Why we love indoor plants

We surveyed 115 Australian adults, recruited through social media posts and poster advertisements at the University of South Australia. Participants were roughly 69% female, 30% male and 1% non-binary, and ranged in age from 18 to 69.

On average, participants owned 15 indoor plants. Some owned a single indoor plant and one person owned a whopping 500!

Between them, respondents kept 51 different varieties of house plants. The most common were succulents, devil’s ivy and monstera. They most commonly kept the plants in the living room, kitchen or bedroom.

Across all participants, 11 benefits of having indoor plants were reported.

Half the respondents described the aesthetic appeal of indoor plants. Comments included that indoor plants were “nice to look at”, “soften rooms” and “add colour”. Participants also reported air quality benefits, and that they found indoor plants calming.

Other less commonly reported benefits were that the plants helped the respondents set habits, improved their physical health, provided distraction, relieved fatigue and had a pleasant smell.

4 types of relationships with indoor plants

Our research identified four types of relationships people have with their indoor plants:

1. Highly connected (14% of respondents)

These people typically described a deep personal connection to their plants. Comments included:

They are like my children. (male, 28)

I often water them and take care of them as family members. (female, 26)

Well I cried over my plants leaf getting broken off today, so you could say I’m pretty attached
to her. (female, 21)

I feel terrible if one dies, I feel as though I have let it down and generally bury it in the garden. (female, 34)

2. Engaged (42% of respondents)

These people enjoyed and tended to their plants, but without deep emotional attachment. For example:

Watering them and watching them grow is exciting, I feel proud to keep them alive so long (female, 22)

I get sad when one dies or is looking droopy, I feel happy when they look alive and freshly
watered. (female, 22)

3. Limited engagement (23%)

These respondents enjoyed having indoor plants but spent minimal time caring for them and reported minimal emotional connections to them. One participant said:

Feel like indoor plants are fine but through our large windows we can see our outdoor plants and that’s more important to us. (female, 45)

4. No relationship (12%)

Participants who did not have a relationship with their indoor plants said:

Hardly watered it as it’s a succulent. (male, 21)

They are all gifts rather than something I’ve gone out to buy. (male, 21)

(For the remaining 9% of participants, their responses to the question of their relationship with house plants were invalid and not included.)

Unlocking the potential of indoor plants

Our research suggests indoor plants can enrich our lives in ways we are only beginning to understand.

It’s important to note that data for our study were collected in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This context may have influenced our results. For example, some participants may have felt particularly connected to their indoor plants because their access to outdoor green space was curtailed. So, further research is needed in the post-pandemic context.

Human–nature relationships are an emerging field of research. By understanding the relationship between people and plants, we may help unlock the potential for nature to improve our health and wellbeing.

Brianna Le Busque 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. ‘They are like my children’: research reveals 4 types of indoor plant owners. Which one are you? – https://theconversation.com/they-are-like-my-children-research-reveals-4-types-of-indoor-plant-owners-which-one-are-you-252387

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

Two “moments” stuck out in Wednesday’s leaders’ debate, the second head-to-head of the campaign.

Peter Dutton cut his losses over his faux pas this week when he wrongly named Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto as having said there had been a Russian approach to base aircraft in Papua.

So that was a mistake, ABC moderator David Speers asked. “It was a mistake.”

The other “moment” was in a discussion about negative gearing, when Anthony Albanese denied the government had sought modelling on that. The public service “certainly wasn’t commissioned by us to do so”. In fact, we know Treasurer Jim Chalmers asked Treasury to do it.

That enabled Dutton to repeat a favourite Coalition line. “This prime minister has a problem with the truth.” (Albanese has given grist for this line by his denial earlier in the campaign that he fell off a stage, when the footage contradicted him.)

While the leaders were predictably well-rehearsed across the broad sweep of issues, they could not prevent their weak spots being put on display.

Albanese struggled with something that has not been canvassed enough.Wasn’t there a case for more means testing of some of the big spending the government has undertaken?

Then of course there was the perennially unanswerable question: when will power prices come down? The PM squirmed.

Dutton left us no more informed about what a Coalition government would cut to finance his programs, although he did concede, when asked whether cuts to the public service would be enough to cover all his spending, “The short answer is no”.

On climate change, the opposition leader looked awkward, when asked what seemed simple questions, such as whether the impact of climate change was getting worse. That’s a judgement he’d prefer to leave to others, “because I’m not a scientist”.

Aware that he is paying a political cost by being painted as Trump-lite, Dutton dodged when asked whether he trusted Trump. “I don’t know Donald Trump” was his lame response (although he continues to declare himself confident of being able to get a deal on tariffs with him).

Albanese, for his part, said he had “no reason not to trust him”.

The PM reconfirmed that in tariff discussions with the US, Australia’s critical minerals were on the table, but lacked clarity when pressed on what precisely was Australia’s proposed critical minerals reserve.

The two leaders were at one on being behind AUKUS (just like they are on not touching negative gearing) despite increasing criticism of the agreement in Australia.

Housing was thoroughly canvassed but without taking us much further. It now seems it is the politicians against the experts, many of whom are sceptical of much of both sides’ offerings.

Speers’ raising the issue of renters was a reminder that the housing issue in this campaign – at least as it’s being argued by the main parties – has been firmly focused on promoting ownership. The plight of renters has been the bailiwick of the Greens.

Asked about the one big reform change they’d like to be remembered for, Albanese nominated affordable child care.

Dutton went to a more ambitious level, nominating energy, which was, he said, “the economy”, an inevitably more contestable area than childcare. This opened the usual claims and counter-claims about nuclear.

For those who want to hear the next round of the leaders’ duelling, they will meet again on April 27 on commercial TV.

Business signals post-election fight on gender-based undervaluation of work

The Albanese government has made reducing the gender pay gap one of its signature issues. Among other initiatives, its legislation in 2022 required the Fair Work Commission to take into account the need to achieve gender equality.

The commission’s expert panel for pay equity has been investigating five areas: pharmacists, health workers, social and community services employees, dental assistants, and child care workers.

On Wednesday its results were released, finding gender-based undervaluation of work in all these areas and proposing pay rises up to 35%.

There is an immediate determination for pharmacists, who will receive a 14.1% pay rise phased in over three years. In the other areas, a process of further hearings will commence.

The government reacted cautiously. The bill for the wages of many workers in the care sector falls on to the public purse.

A Labor spokesperson said: “A re-elected Albanese Government will engage positively with the Commission consistent with the principles set out in our submission [to the expert panel] , including our obligation to manage any changes in a fiscally and economically responsible manner”.

The Australian Industry Group declared “many employers will struggle to meet the scale of the increased costs proposed”.

“Industry will be  anxiously awaiting  the response of the major sides of politics  to the decision and what concrete commitments will be made to assist employers in grappling  with its implications.”

The last thing the government wants to make on this before the election is a “concrete commitment”.

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. Election Diary: there were a couple of ‘moments’ in second Albanese-Dutton encounter – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-there-were-a-couple-of-moments-in-second-albanese-dutton-encounter-254586

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andy Marks, Vice-President, Public Affairs and Partnerships, Western Sydney University

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have had their second showdown of the 2025 federal election campaign. The debate, hosted by the ABC, was moderated by David Speers in the national broadcaster’s studios in Western Sydney.

The leaders were asked a wide range of questions on topics such as negative gearing, nuclear energy and Australia’s relationships with the US and China. But the debate was kicked off on housing, which has been a major focus of the campaign over the last few days.

So, how did it shape up, and how did it compare to the first debate a fortnight ago? Three experts give their analysis.

Matthew Ricketson, Deakin University

Ahead of tonight’s debate, commentators predicted it would have little impact because most people no longer get their news from television and because the election campaign has been deeply uninspiring.

That’s partly an index of how drastically the media landscape has changed. As recently as 2010, nearly 3.4 million people tuned in to watch the debate between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, which was broadcast on all three commercial networks, as well as the ABC. That number showed evidence of widespread interest in politics.

The number of viewers’ advance questions to the ABC tonight also illustrated keen interest, particularly on issues like the plight of potentially lifelong renters in an overheated housing market and the urgent need to tackle climate change.

The second leaders’ debate didn’t become heated or hostile. Both the prime minister and the opposition leader stayed relentlessly on-message.

As is well known, Albanese is no Cicero, but he was well prepared and generally clear. He was stronger on housing than his opponent, but clearly did not want to get trapped predicting energy prices again, as he had during the 2022 campaign.

Dutton was also clear when he focused on the issue at hand. His strongest line was one he used at least three times: are you better off now than you were three years ago? It is a line used by US President Donald Trump during his successful campaign last year.

But it was on Trump that Dutton tied himself in knots, asserting he would be able to get a deal done with Trump when virtually no one else has and then saying he did not know him. Huh?

He was also defensive when pressed on his nuclear policy and he was all over the shop on climate change.

Befitting the current election campaign, there were meme-able moments on offer for both. Dutton got out his line about Albanese having a problem with the truth. But he coughed up his own when he admitted making a mistake in saying Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto had “publicly announced” Russia had asked his country for a base for its aircraft.

Michelle Cull, Western Sydney University

After both leaders finished their opening statements in good spirits, the debate quickly turned to housing. As suggested by host David Speers, both parties have “put forward ideas that a lot of experts and economists are warning will only push up prices even more”.

So, could the leaders explain how their plans will make housing more affordable in five or ten years?

Albanese said his party had a plan for both demand and supply. He mentioned the Building Australia’s Future Fund to build more public housing, Build to Rent scheme to increase the private rental supply, and the 5% deposit for first home buyers. He also made note of the 100,000 homes that would be allocated only to first home buyers.

Dutton blamed Albanese for the current housing crisis. He promoted the Coalition’s plans to allow first home buyers access up to $50,000 of their superannuation to buy a home and a planned $5 billion infrastructure fund to free up to 500,000 new home lots. Reducing immigration and foreign ownership also rated a mention.

Dutton explained the most important part of the Coalition’s plan was to allow first home buyers a tax deduction for interest on the first $650,000 of their mortgage. When questioned about this favouring higher income earners, Dutton quickly responded that the average taxpayer would save around $11,000 a year.

Talking tax, this provided the perfect opportunity for Speers to pose the question that many viewers wanted to ask – why are both parties not willing to review the tax breaks for investors and the capital gains tax discount?

Dutton jumped at the chance to challenge Albanese about the modelling on negative gearing conducted by Treasury for the government last year. Albanese replied Treasury was just doing their job and looking at ideas.

The host reminded both leaders that they themselves are property investors. When pressed about possibly placing limits on the number of properties held by investors, Dutton argued there should be no limit as we need the rentals.

Talking rentals, Dutton said renters’ rights were up to the states, while Albanese said his party has delivered the Renter’s Rights Program and increased rental assistance.

Andy Marks, Western Sydney University

For the second leaders’ debate, the ABC’s new Parramatta digs, Studio 91, felt more like the legendary New York dance club, Studio 54. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton stuck to their steps while the host, “DJ” David Speers, tried to disrupt their rhythm.

Dutton opened with the Reaganesque classic, asking viewers: “Are you better off than you were three years ago?”. Albanese countered by saying Australians have done the “hard work” over the past three years, then adding, “there’s much more work to do”.

Dutton wanted to talk about renters. Labor’s policies, he argued, would “drive up the cost of rents”. Albanese held out, preferring to talk first home buyers. “We need to give people a fair crack”, he said.

Dutton retorted, we need to “give young Australians a go”. A “crack” or a “go”. Both options have “hit” written all over them.

Speers then changed tunes, turning to the old election stalwart, spending versus revenue.

“We have improved the bottom line”, Albanese assured viewers. That claim “defies the reality”, Dutton responded. Speers asked Dutton, “Where do you cut?”. No answer. Speers then quizzed Albanese. “When will power bills come down?” No answer.

“I’m friends with Keir Starmer”, Albanese suddenly volunteered, cautioning against the Coalition’s nuclear energy plans. The UK prime minister, Albanese said, regrets his country’s nuclear adventures.

Crossing the Atlantic, Dutton remarked, the Coalition has an “incredible relationship” with the Trump administration. The government’s current ambassador, Kevin Rudd, “can’t get a phone call with the president”, he said. The former ambassador, Joe Hockey, “used to play golf with him.”

The second leaders’ debate traversed the dance floor to the golf course, but got no closer to differing visions for the country.

In a rare moment of harmony, Albanese and Dutton concurred: both sides of government have failed Indigenous Australians. No debate there.

Michelle Cull is an FCPA member of CPA Australia, member of the Financial Advice Association Australia and President Elect of the Academy of Financial Services in the United States. Michelle is an academic member of UniSuper’s Consultative Committee. Michelle co-founded the Western Sydney University Tax Clinic which has received funding from the Australian Taxation Office as part of the National Tax Clinic Program. Michelle has previously volunteered as Chair of the Macarthur Advisory Council for the Salvation Army Australia.

Andy Marks and Matthew Ricketson 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. Second leaders’ debate is a tame affair befitting a ‘deeply uninspiring’ campaign – https://theconversation.com/second-leaders-debate-is-a-tame-affair-befitting-a-deeply-uninspiring-campaign-254466

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

Australians strongly disagree with key policies of US President Donald Trump, and have overwhelmingly lost trust in the United States to act responsibly in the world, according to the Lowy Institute’s 2025 poll.

Despite this, 80% of people say the alliance is “very” or “fairly” important for Australia’s security, only fractionally down on last year’s 83%.

The poll also found people nearly evenly divided on whether Peter Dutton (35%) or Anthony Albanese (34%) would be the better leader to manage Australia’s relations with Trump.

But Albanese rated much more strongly than Dutton as better able to manage Australia’s relationship with China and President Xi Jinping (45% to 25%).

Albanese was also well ahead (41%-29%) when people were asked who would be more competent at handling Austrlaia’s foreign policy over the next three years.

The poll comes as the “Trump effect” has overshadowed the campaign, and increasingly worked against Dutton. Labor has cast Dutton as having looked to the US for policies, such as his proposed cuts to the public service. It has labelled him “DOGEy Dutton”, a reference to Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The Lowy poll of 2,117 people was taken between March 3 and 16. This was after Trump had announced plans for a 25% tariff on steel and aluminium imports, and other tariffs, but before his “Liberation Day” regime which saw a 10% general tariff hitting all countries.

Trust in the US has plummeted since the last Lowy poll in 2024, with nearly two-thirds of respondents (64%) having little or no trust in the US to act responsibly in the world, compared with 44% a year before.

This is a new low in the poll’s two-decade history. Trust fell dramatically among older voters. Trust was already relatively low among younger voters, and fell by a smaller margin.

On various Trump stances, the poll found Australians most disapproving (89%) of Trump’s pressure on Denmark to sell or or hand over its self-governing territory of Greenland to the US.

More than eight in ten (81%) disapproved of Trump’s use of tariffs to pressure other countries to comply with his administration’s objectives.

Three-quarters disapproved of the US withdrawing from the World Health Organization (76%) and from international climate change agreements (74%).

In addition, three-quarters (74%) disapproved of Trump negotiating a deal on the future of Ukraine with Russian President Vladimir Putin that might require Ukraine to accept a loss of territory. The dramatic Oval Office showdown between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US Vice President JD Vance took place just before the survey.

Australians also disapproved of the US cutting spending on foreign aid (64%) and undertaking mass deportations of undocumented migrants (56%).

On Trump’s demand that US allies spend more on defence people were, however, evenly divided (49% approved/disapproved).

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. Poll shows Australians hate Trump policies and have lost trust in US, but still strongly believe in alliance – https://theconversation.com/poll-shows-australians-hate-trump-policies-and-have-lost-trust-in-us-but-still-strongly-believe-in-alliance-254587

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

We now have the competing bids for our votes by the alternative governments on income tax policy.

From Labor, future cuts to the lowest marginal tax rate and new standard deductions for work expenses. From the Coalition, a one-off return to a tax offset for low and middle income earners that was previously nicknamed the “lamington”.

Our modelling shows slightly higher benefits for low- and middle-income earners from the Coalition’s proposals compared to Labor’s.

Labor’s drip-fed tax policies

The Labor government announced its main tax proposal in the recent budget. It is a permanent cut in the lowest marginal tax rate.

Currently, the tax rate on income between A$18,201 and $45,000 is 16%. This will drop to 15% from July 2026 and then to 14% from July 2027.

This will reduce the tax paid by taxpayers in all income brackets, with most receiving $536 a year in relief. But it is proportionately larger for those on lower incomes.

Read more:
Tax cuts are coming, but not soon, in a cautious budget

At the weekend, the government announced an additional measure: allowing everyone to claim a standard tax deduction of $1,000 instead of claiming individual work-related expenses.

Those with expenses over $1,000 can continue to claim their deduction in the current way. The government estimates this measure will assist 39% of taxpayers. The average relief for those benefiting will be $205 per year.

Coalition’s revived tax offset

Also at the weekend, the Coalition released its tax policies. It is essentially proposing the reintroduction of the Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (“LMITO”, which led to the nickname the “lamington”), for one financial year only.

Read more:
The Low and Middle Income Tax Offset has been extended yet again. It delivers help neither when nor where it’s needed

The Morrison government introduced a low- and middle-income tax offset in the 2018-19 tax year. It was subsequently extended, but then abolished by the Labor government.

It is now called the Cost of Living Tax Offset. Those with taxable incomes between $48,000 and $104,000 will get a one-off rebate of $1,200. Other taxpayers with incomes below $144,000 will get smaller rebates.

Read more:
Dutton to offer targeted income tax offset of up to $1,200

Although Dutton was critical of Labor’s income tax cuts for not starting until 2026, the one-off rebate would also not be paid until mid-2026.

Dutton has not explained why he said three weeks ago that the budget position would not allow for income tax cuts but now he thinks it does.

Who benefits most from the competing proposals?

We have estimated the distribution of the benefits from Labor’s proposed tax cut (but not the instant tax deduction) and the Coalition’s one-year tax offset.

Given a federal election is held every three years, the estimates are provided up to mid-2028. This resulted in a slightly higher cumulative figure of around $10 billion for the Labor proposal (over two years) and $11 billion for the Coalition proposal (over one year). This is slightly higher than the Coalition’s own estimate.

The following charts show disposable household income deciles from the poorest 10% to the 10% with the highest incomes. This is household income that has been adjusted to allow comparison of income levels between households of differing size and composition.

The chart indicates slightly higher benefits from the Coalition for households in the lowest and second-lowest income groups. This may be an overestimate as it assumes those earning less than $37,000 get a $265 benefit. The policy is rather vague on this, saying only that they would get “up to” $265.

The Coalition proposal provides a somewhat higher benefit for middle income earners, but withdraws it for those on higher incomes.

All individual taxpayers earning above $45,000 will receive the same benefit from the Labor proposal. But differences in household composition mean that the benefit calculated by household continues to rise somewhat.

The Coalition proposal gives no benefits to individuals earning over $144,000. But even the households in the highest income groups have some members earning less than this, such as adult children living at home. So the average household with a high income will still get some benefit.

In terms of family type, the Coalition proposal will give less benefit than the Labor plan to couples with children but more to other groups, especially single parents.

From these distributions of both income level and family type, it seems that neither party has a clear plan to target their own traditional constituencies with these policies. The Coalition proposal may be targeting households in outer suburban marginal seats which tend to have more low and middle income households.

How much will they cost?

According to the budget papers, Labor’s cut to the lowest marginal rate will cost $3 billion in 2026-27, $6.7 billion in 2027-28 and $7.4 billion in 2028-29.

The cost of the instant tax deduction will be $2.4 billion over four years.

The Coalition has claimed its rebate would cost $10 billion in 2026-27.

This would of course increase if a Dutton government feels under pressure to extend the new rebate, as happened with the LMITO.

Disappointing for democratic decision-making

It is very disappointing that both major parties are releasing key policies on taxation and housing literally only days before people start voting.

Previous leaders like Robert Menzies (when opposition leader from 1943 to 1949) and Gough Whitlam (1967 to 1972) would spend years developing, then explaining and advocating for policies. This gave time for them to be scrutinised, and if necessary revised, before voters were asked to pass judgement.

The proposals are also disappointing for those arguing for substantial tax reform.

John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist in the Australian Treasury.

Yogi Vidyattama 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. We compared the Labor and Coalition’s income tax proposals to see who benefits most – https://theconversation.com/we-compared-the-labor-and-coalitions-income-tax-proposals-to-see-who-benefits-most-254576

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ranjodh B. Singh, Senior Economics and Finance Lecturer, Curtin University

Australia’s renters have to battle rising rents and a lack of available properties. They also face ongoing instability. Our new research suggests half of all landlords sell their investment properties after only two years, adding to renters’ insecurity.

Our study released by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, models the behaviour of landlords using longitudinal data from 2001 to 2021. It looks at what motivates small-scale investors to buy, sell or keep their rental properties.

This work can inform future planning for the private rental sector, which has been projected to continue expanding. Both Labor and the Coalition were strongly criticised for making little mention of renters or supply in their housing policies released on Sunday.

The short-term owners

Those landlords who got rid of their investment after two years, sometimes sooner, often did so because they hadn’t counted on the additional costs of property ownership or their circumstances changed because they divorced or lost their job.

While younger people aged 25–34 years were more likely to buy a rental
property compared to other age groups, this group was also more likely to sell their property sooner.

Landlords who sold after two years or less, were more likely to be women, unemployed, unmarried and with low-to-moderate incomes.

How this makes renting less secure

Landlords who sell after a relatively short investment period disrupt the supply of private rental housing, which can potentially have a negative impact on both tenant security and affordability.

This includes unplanned moves for renters after a notice period, as well as possible increases in the amount of rent they have to pay. This type of exposure to precarious housing conditions adversely affects the wellbeing of tenants.

This is especially important given that the share of private renters in Australia has risen over the last 20 years and there is ongoing concern about affordability among private renters. Private renters now represent about 30% of the market.

What motivates landlords?

Understanding the factors that increase the likelihood of landlords holding onto a property will contribute to tenure security in the rental sector.

These landlords tend to have higher educational qualifications, higher incomes and smaller mortgages on their own homes. As such, these landlords are financially stable and are able to withstand the higher economic costs of holding a rental property.

Our findings show there is value in establishing programs that offer education on property investment. This could support landlords’ efforts to hold their rental properties. It could also increase the supply of long-term rental housing for tenants.

As well, there should be more rigorous financial risk assessments by lenders and appropriate regulations so those who buy rental investment properties can afford to hold them.

Potential impact of policy changes

Policy changes that affect the costs of supplying rental housing for landlords could also have affordability consequences for renters.

Landlords will only continue to invest in the rental market if market conditions offer them income relative to their property values.

For instance, policy changes that apply long-term freezes to rent increases will reduce rental yields for landlords. This might in turn hurt the supply of rental properties available to renters.

Changes to policies affecting landlords’ tax positions could also have major impacts on whether they keep their rental investment over time.

For instance, if changes are made to capital gains tax and interest rates that directly increase the landlord’s cost of holding an investment property, they will likely pass these costs on to tenants.

As a consequence, rents would become less affordable. Any changes to tax settings that affect landlords need to be rolled out incrementally. This will avoid destabilising rental markets and reducing the supply of housing available for tenants.

Why we need a secure rental market

Increasing the supply of private rental dwellings would help make renting more affordable.

Individuals who can afford investment properties add to the supply of private rental stock. And if they can hold their rentals for long periods, the rental market becomes even more secure.

Those who can’t hold their rental investments for long can disrupt the supply of private rental housing, with potentially negative impacts on affordability and security.

Our study has focused on individual landlords, which make up the majority of suppliers of rental housing in Australia. However, improving tenure security for renters will require more than just encouraging a stable flow of rental housing from individual landlords.

For instance, increasing institutional investment in rental stock might result in more diverse and affordable housing options for renters.

Social housing is also a crucial source of secure housing for those who cannot compete in the private rental market. There is now an urgent need to redress decades of under-investment in social housing in Australia.

Ranjodh B. Singh has received funding from AHURI.

Chris Leishman receives funding from AHURI, SMCA, ARC, ESRC, the Office of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Scottish Government, UK Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Government, South Australia Government. He is a non-executive director of Housing Choices Australia, a Trustee for the UK’s Housing Studies Charitable Trust, Chair of the Australasian Housing Studies Association, editor of the Urban Studies journal, guest editor of the Regional Studies, Regional Studies journal. He is not a member of any political party in any country.

Rachel Ong ViforJ is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project FT200100422). She also receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Jack Hewton 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. Half of Australian landlords sell their investments after 2 years, adding to renters’ insecurity – https://theconversation.com/half-of-australian-landlords-sell-their-investments-after-2-years-adding-to-renters-insecurity-254578

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

As well as the election for the full House of Representatives, there will be an election on May 3 for 40 of the 76 senators. The 72 state senators have six-year terms, with half of them up for election every three years. The four territory senators are all up for election with each House election.

In a double dissolution election, all senators are up for election, but this election won’t be a double dissolution. State senators elected at this election will begin their six-year term on July 1.

The six states are entitled to equal representation in the Senate, so each state has 12 senators. This system greatly overrepresents Tasmania relative to its population. The ACT and Northern Territory have two senators each.

Senators are elected by proportional representation in their jurisdictions with preferences. At a half-Senate election, with six senators in each state up for election, a quota is one-seventh of the vote, or 14.3%. For the territories, a quota is one-third or 33.3%. Half a quota on primary votes (7.1% in a state) is usually enough to give a party a reasonable chance of election.

Voters will be instructed to number at least six boxes above the line or 12 below the line, but only one box above the line or six below is needed for a formal vote. Preferences are voter-directed, with the group ticket voting system scrapped before the 2016 election. Owing to exhausted votes, the final seats in states are likely to be filled on less than a full quota.

To become law, legislation must pass both the House and Senate in the same form. With the Senate’s proportional representation, it’s very unlikely to be under government control, so governments need to negotiate with other parties to pass their legislation through the Senate.

Party standings and seats up for election

The Coalition holds 30 of the 76 total senators, Labor 25, the Greens 11, One Nation two, the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) one, the United Australia Party (UAP) one and all others six.

During this term, Lidia Thorpe defected from the Greens, Fatima Payman from Labor and Tammy Tyrrell from JLN. As all three are state senators who were last elected in 2022, none will be up for election until 2028. The Coalition also lost two senators to defections (Gerard Rennick and David Van) – both were last elected in 2019 and will be up for election this year.

Other than the ACT and NT seats, the seats up for election were last up in 2019. At that election, the Coalition won 17 of the 36 state senators, Labor 11, the Greens six, One Nation one and Jacqui Lambie one.

The Coalition and One Nation combined won four of the six Queensland senators. In Tasmania, Labor and the Greens won three seats, the Liberals two and Lambie one. All other states were tied between the left and right blocs.

In the 2022 election, Labor and the Greens combined won four of the six Western Australian senators, Tasmania once again went three Labor and Greens, two Liberals and Tyrrell from JLN, and the other states were tied between the left and right. The state senators elected in 2022 are not up for election.

The four territory senators elected in 2022 will be up for election. In 2022, the ACT split one Labor and one for independent David Pocock, the first time its senators had not split one Labor, one Liberal. The NT is expected to once again be one Labor, one Country Liberal Party.

Here is a table of Senate seats up for election in 2025. I have ignored the defections of Rennick and Van from the Coalition in Queensland and Victoria. The good news for the left is that only Pocock’s ACT seat looks winnable for the right.

Left-wing parties likely to gain Senate seats

For either the left or the right to win four of the six senators for a state, they need to win nearly four quotas of votes or 57%.

The Poll Bludger’s BludgerTrack by state for the House currently gives Labor a 51.9–48.1 lead in New South Wales, a 52.1–47.9 lead in Victoria, a 56.4–43.6 lead in WA and a 54.7–45.3 lead in South Australia. The Coalition leads in Queensland by 52.7–47.3.

On these vote shares, NSW, Victoria, Queensland and SA would be tied 3–3 between the left and right, while the left would probably repeat their 4–2 win in WA from 2022.

A 3–3 split in Queensland would be a gain for the left from the right, as the right are defending a 4–2 split from 2019. A 4–2 win for the left in WA would also be a gain, as WA was 3–3 in 2019.

Tasmania doesn’t have enough polling to be included in BludgerTrack. But analyst Kevin Bonham, who is a Tasmanian, believes the likely outcome is two Labor, two Liberals, one Green and one to Lambie, the same as in 2019.

There haven’t been any ACT Senate polls, but cities are becoming more left-wing, and the ACT is just a city. In 2022, Labor won the ACT by 67.0–33.0 in the House, a 5.3% two-party swing to Labor. It’s plausible that any Trump-inspired backlash against the Coalition will be strongest in the ACT, so it may be difficult for the Liberals to regain their ACT Senate seat.

If Labor and the Greens gain Senate seats in Queensland and WA, Pocock retains in the ACT, and there are no other changes to the left-right balance, the new Senate would have 38 seats for Labor and the Greens, 33 for the Coalition, One Nation and UAP, and one each of Pocock, Lambie, Thorpe, Payman and Tyrrell.

It’s increasingly likely that Labor will win the House election. Labor and the Greens are likely to increase their Senate numbers. If Labor and the Greens hold 38 of the 76 Senate seats after the election, Labor would only need one more vote to pass legislation supported by the Greens but opposed by right-wing parties. The five others are mostly left-wing, so this shouldn’t be difficult.

Candidate nominations down from 2022

Candidate nominations were declared last Friday. The Poll Bludger said Saturday that there will be 330 total candidates for the Senate, down from 421 in 2022. The total number of groups (above the line boxes) dropped from 151 to 118.

Victoria has the most groups with 20, Queensland has 19, NSW and WA 18, SA 16 and Tasmania 12. With only two vacancies each, the ACT has seven groups and the NT eight.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Labor and the Greens likely to gain Senate seats at the election – https://theconversation.com/labor-and-the-greens-likely-to-gain-senate-seats-at-the-election-253937

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Bodeker, Teaching Assistant in Behavioural Psychology, University of Canterbury

Methamphetamine is New Zealand’s most harmful illicit drug and wastewater testing shows its use and availability are on the rise.

Much of the harm results from reckless and impulsive behaviour – including ram raids and gang violence – some people show when under methamphetamine’s influence.

Methamphetamine impairs decision making because it increases the likelihood of users acting impulsively, without regard to risk or long-term consequences.

Impulsivity is a maladaptive pattern of choice behaviour linked to crime, violence and drug use. Research shows higher levels of impulsivity are associated with a higher risk of initiating drug use, increase the amounts used, drop out of rehabilitation programmes and relapse.

Our new research investigates how methamphetamine affects impulsivity in rats. We argue that our findings are applicable to people and could improve treatments to reduce the high relapse rate of about 77% of methamphetamine users.

Stimulant drugs and impulsive behaviour

There has been substantial research and several tests have been developed to measure and define impulsivity. However, the effect of stimulant drugs such as methamphetamine on impulsivity remains unclear.

Some studies report amphetamines reduce impulsivity whereas others have found methamphetamine increases it. A probable cause of these conflicting results is the multi-dimensional nature of impulsivity.

Although often reported as a singular concept, impulsivity comprises several distinct but related components that must be assessed individually.

Laboratory research can help us better understand impulsivity. Specially designed behavioural experiments present animals with choices that provide an equivalent of those humans might experience.

The results can help us unravel the complex nature of impulsivity which we can then translate to human experience and inform treatment programmes. In our research we used rats to study two situations related to impulsivity.

The first is a choice between a smaller reward given sooner or a larger reward received later, known as “delay discounting”. The other choice is between a smaller but certain reward and a larger uncertain reward, known as “probability discounting”. We also examined how the overall magnitude of the rewards affected choice.

How we consider choices

In human studies, people are often asked to make hypothetical choices about money.

In delay discounting, opting for the smaller/sooner reward is an impulsive choice. For example, imagine you are given a choice between $400 now and $500 in one year, and choose the $400 now.

However, if you were asked instead to choose between $40,000 now and $50,000 in one year, you may select the delayed option. When the rewards are larger, we are less likely to choose impulsively.

In probability discounting, choice of the larger/uncertain reward is impulsive. Imagine you are given a choice between $50 for sure or a 50% chance at $100. You might be willing to gamble on the larger amount.

But what if your choice was between $5,000,000 for sure and a 50% chance at $10,000,000? You would be more likely to choose the certain reward because we tend to be less impulsive when the possible loss is greater.

Complex nature of impulsivity

In our research, rats could choose between two alternatives that resulted in food rewards by pressing levers in an experimental chamber.

Some rats completed delay discounting sessions in which they chose between smaller/sooner and larger/later food outcomes. Other rats completed probability discounting sessions and chose between smaller/certain and larger/uncertain outcomes.

We also varied the overall amounts of food to confirm rats were less likely to choose impulsively with larger amounts. We measured the rats’ sensitivity to differences between delay, probability and magnitude.

Results were similar to studies with humans in that the rats’ choices reflected trade-offs between delay, probability and the amount of food. Impulsive choices were reduced with larger amounts.

We then gave the rats gradually increasing doses of methamphetamine and observed how their choices changed. Our results reflected the complex nature of impulsivity. Increasing methamphetamine doses resulted in decreasing sensitivity to the most salient difference between the two choices the rats experienced.

On methamphetamine, more rats chose the larger delayed reward. This means a decrease in impulsive choice because sensitivity to delay was reduced and the smaller/sooner option was less attractive.

However, we found the opposite in probability discounting. Here, methamphetamine increased preference for the larger/uncertain reward, indicating an increase in impulsivity because sensitivity to risk decreased.

Sensitivity to magnitude also decreased, meaning rats were more likely to choose impulsively even when the reward was large.

What this means for people

People are obviously cognitively more complex, but methamphetamine users also demonstrate decreased sensitivity to risk in response to tasks similar to those we used with rats.

Therefore our findings are applicable to human methamphetamine users and highlight that long-term changes to impulsivity should be taken into account in treatment programmes. This is especially important because effects on decision making can persist long after drug use during periods of abstinence.

Psycho-education on impulsivity could be incorporated into existing treatment programmes. This would mean educating methamphetamine users about their increased risks related to decision making and how that may affect treatment outcomes.

The Salvation Army’s Bridge Programme, a well-known drug rehabilitation programme with 20 centres throughout the country, is a good example. It uses a community reinforcement approach as part of their treatment, which involves participants building skills to cultivate rewarding experiences outside of drugs or alcohol use.

Rehabilitation processes could implement a psycho-education component focused on the increased vulnerability to risky choices, regardless of amount, of current and former methamphetamine users. This could raise the personal agency of participants by making them more aware of the increased risk factors for relapse and other negative decision making.

Psycho-education could help release people from the grip of this pervasive and increasingly prolific drug.

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. 3 in 4 meth users relapse – outcomes could improve if treatments considered the drug’s effect on impulsive behaviour – https://theconversation.com/3-in-4-meth-users-relapse-outcomes-could-improve-if-treatments-considered-the-drugs-effect-on-impulsive-behaviour-253439