Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rose Nakayi, Senior Lecturer of Law, Makerere University

Populism is rife in various African countries. This political ideology responds to and takes advantage of a situation where a large section of people feels exploited, marginalised or disempowered. It sets up “the people” against “the other”. It promises solidarity with the excluded by addressing their grievances. Populism targets broad social groups, operating across ethnicity and class.

But how does populism fare when it informs state interventions to address long-standing societal issues under capitalism? Do populist state measures – especially when launched by a politically powerful leader – deliver improvements for the stated beneficiaries?

As academics who have researched populism for years, we were interested in the implementation and outcomes of such policies and programmes. To answer these questions, we analysed a populist intervention by President Yoweri Museveni in Uganda to address rampant land conflicts. In 2013 he set out to halt land evictions.

What good came of this? Did it help the poor?

We analysed land laws, court cases, government statements and media reports and found that, for the most part, the intervention offered short-term relief. Some people returned to the land, but the underlying land conflict was unresolved.

This created problems that continue to be felt today, including land disputes and land tenure insecurity. The intervention also increased the involvement of the president and his agents personally in providing justice.

It didn’t make pro-poor structural changes to address the root of the problem.

Yet, the intervention had several political benefits:

• it enhanced the political legitimacy of the president and state

• it offered a politically useful response to a land-related crisis and conflict

• it addressed broader criticisms over injustice and poverty by sections of the public and opposition leaders, some of whom (like Robert Kyagulanyi) also relied on populist rhetoric.

The promise to deal with land evictions “once and for all” has yet to be realised over a decade later. During Heroes Day celebrations on 9 June 2024, Museveni’s speech repeated his promise to stop evictions.

Such promises of getting a grip on and ending evictions via decisive state actions, including proposed new legal guidelines, were also made more recently, for example during Heroes Day 2025. This indicates that evictions – and state responses to them – remain a top issue on the political agenda ahead of Uganda’s 2026 election.

Persistent evictions

Evictions were rampant in the 2010s, especially in central Uganda’s Buganda region. They were driven by increased demand for land amid a growing population and legal reforms that seemed to protect tenants over landlords. Some landlords, desperate to free their land of tenants, were carrying out the evictions themselves.

The president condemned the evictions, but they continued. Soon, the number of evictees was in the thousands.

In response, Museveni set up a land committee within the presidency. He announced at a press conference in early 2013 that:

all evictions are halted. There will be no more evictions, especially in the rural areas. All evictions involving peasants are halted.

The dynamics of populism-in-practice

Museveni’s attempts to personally deal with evictions illustrate a continued power shift in Uganda, from institutions to the president’s executive units.

Despite its shortcomings, such as case backlogs, the judicial system offers an opportunity to present cases in a more neutral environment. It also allows parties to appeal decisions. This way, higher courts can correct errors where necessary.

The presidential land committee, we found, tended to be biased in favour of tenants, paying less attention to the landlords’ cases.

The president’s intervention wasn’t adequate to address the immediate causes and effects of the evictions, nor the root causes.

Those included land tenure insecurities. Due to legal reforms, land-rich landlords were unable to get rent at market value from tenants. Neither could they evict them lawfully where rent was in arrears.

In some cases, legal options such as land sales between landlords and tenants were applied. This was often to the detriment of tenants, especially where there was no neutral actor to oversee negotiations.

Land reforms need to be institutionalised and funded to deliver the intended outcomes. Otherwise, unlawful sales and evictions become a quick option for landlords.

Museveni’s populist initiative also unleashed new problems for beneficiaries. Some secured land occupancy in the interim but lived in fear of a relapse of conflict. Mistrust and scarred interpersonal relationships hampered cohesion in some communities. Disputes over land put political actors who would ideally be working together to restore calm at loggerheads.

Populism as power

The creation of populist presidential units has become routine in Uganda. More recently, Museveni created a unit to protect investors, which has resolved some investment-related land disputes. Another one was established to fight corruption. Both units remain very active.

Our research finds that the government needs these units and interventions for a number of reasons. It uses them to govern the country’s conflict-ridden economy and society. They allow the government to assemble a politically useful response to crises and to address some on-the-ground problems. They make the state look concerned and responsive to people’s needs. And they allow ruling party political actors to increase their popularity locally.

Museveni and his ruling party, the National Resistance Movement, therefore, benefit from a key aspect of populism. It allows the merging of disparate, competing and contradictory views, interests and demands of members of various societal classes and groups into a significantly simplified and uniform narrative that (potentially) speaks to all. This could mean: end corruption, end evictions, wealth for all, and so on.

A general election is due in early 2026. The steps Museveni has taken on evictions, and the units set up to fight corruption or protect investors, need to be seen with this political context in mind.

Museveni has put protecting people from evictions high on his government’s agenda. Speaking to party members in August 2024, he emphasised

the importance of adhering to the mass line, which prioritises the needs and rights of the masses over those of the elite.

In our view, this pre-election narrative signifies the continued political and social relevance of populism in today’s Uganda. This could result in heightened populist state activity in the run-up to and after the election.

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. Uganda’s land eviction crisis: do populist state measures actually fix problems? – https://theconversation.com/ugandas-land-eviction-crisis-do-populist-state-measures-actually-fix-problems-260512

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Rudge, Law lecturer, University of Sydney

A recent landmark court decision could have significant ramifications for several million social security recipients.

The ruling means the federal government will need to recalculate more than A$4 billion in debts owed to the Department of Social Services, which administers Centrelink.

Some of the debts – which occurred due to overpayment of benefits – stretch back decades.

Reminiscent of Robodebt, the problem occurred because an unlawful method – income apportionment – was used to calculate the money Centrelink claimed it was owed.

The judgement

From the early 1990s until 2020, more than 5.3 million welfare debts were calculated using income apportionment.

In the test case Chaplin v Secretary, Department of Social Services, the full Federal Court approved a method proposed by the government to recalculate the debts.

The court was not asked whether the debts were unlawful – a point the department had already conceded – but whether its remedy was legally sound. In a two-judge majority, the court ruled it generally was.

Following the judgement, the department swiftly resumed debt recovery, which had been paused in 2023, pending the legal decision. It said in a statement:

now there is certainty to the legal position, assessments will recommence in line with the court’s decision.

The scale of the problem

The unlawful debts are worth $4.31 billion in total, and affect almost three million Australians. About 91% of these debts – $3.93 billion – has already been repaid to Centrelink.

Another 170,000 debts – totalling $347 million – remain outstanding.

All the debts – either repaid or still owing – must be recalculated using the revised method approved by the court.

According to the government, the median debt is $330 and has been owed for 19 years, on average.

But the judgement does not compel the government to actually recover the money. Some media reports suggest a waiver is being considered.

For its part, the government says it will “evaluate” the court decision and develop a “suitable response”.

What is income apportionment?

An internal anti-fraud policy meant Centrelink was obliged to calculate a person’s income when it was “earned” rather than “received”.

This led to the use of income apportionment – essentially an educated guess about a person’s fortnightly earnings when their pay cycle didn’t align with their income reporting period.

This process, which typically produced overpayments to recipients, spread income outside an instalment period, which was contrary to the applicable law. It also attributed earnings to a person for days and fortnights they hadn’t worked.

Income apportionment was discontinued in 2020. Three years later, the Commonwealth ombudsman found the method was unlawful.

Is this different to Robodebt?

While Social Services has sought to distinguish income apportionment from Robodebt, the two methods of calculating debt are comparable.

Both attributed a person’s daily income beyond the timeframe permitted by law.

But there are differences in source and scale.

Where apportionment was personalised by using individual customer payslips, Robodebt used Australian Tax Office records to raise debts en masse.

Significantly, while the ombudsman said the department’s understanding of the law relating to apportionment was “incorrect”, it was also “genuinely held”.

On the other hand, the infamous Robodebt scheme was designed to ramp up debt clawbacks. Claims of misfeasance in public office continue to be litigated.

Other troubling overlaps remain.

Many individuals affected by apportionment debts raised after 2015 will be the same people served with Robodebt notices.

Evidentiary burden

A troubling aspect of the test case was the suggestion by the majority judges – citing High Court precedent –
that the evidentiary burden could shift to the welfare recipient when overpayments are believed to occur through “wrongdoing”.

This could force an individual to disprove their alleged debt if a decision-maker concluded the recipient had accidentally under-reported – as occurred in the test case – and a lack of evidence made it difficult for the government to prove its allegation.

The finding arguably runs counter to the Robodebt Royal Commission’s observation that most welfare recipients lack the power to disprove a debt because their historical records are unavailable.

The dissenting judge in the case rejected the government’s proposed recalculation method, finding it “not proper” for recovery action to be taken without probative evidence.

He said the majority decision meant Centrelink could reassess debts in the future after evidence had been lost, and recipients would be powerless to disprove them.

Expensive fix

The administrative burden of reassessing these unlawful debts is immense.

Late last year, a team of 150 public servants, each costing $117,400 per annum, was assigned to rectify income apportionment.

Their internal sampling revealed 64% of people issued debt bills were overcharged, 29% were undercharged, while 4% are owed a total refund.

The remediation process has been chaotic.

In the year following the ombudsman’s report, recipients lodged 531 appeals and made 530 complaints, highlighting the human impact of income apportionment.

But in a five-month period, a mere 83 cases have been finalised.

Controversially, Social Services offered to process debts on request, contrary to a provisional finding of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed the method being used by the department.

Political choice

While the Federal Court has seemingly given the government a legal victory, the ultimate outcome will be costly – especially if the debts are waived.

The court ruling requires recipients be afforded “procedural fairness”, meaning resource-intensive investigations will need to be undertaken into the millions of cases yet to be reviewed.

The final price tag is yet unknown. In the 2025–26 budget, income apportionment was recorded as a “contingent liability – unquantifiable”.

Almost all of the outstanding debts would have already been resolved if the government had implemented the Robodebt Royal Commission recommendation that welfare overpayments should not be pursued if they are more than six years old.

The court’s decision also fails to address the 159 Australians believed to have been criminally prosecuted over unlawful debts since 2018. These people – and likely many more before that year – may have been convicted on defective evidence.

The response to these issues will be a test for the government.

Has it learned the lessons of previous egregious mistakes, or will it allow the ghost of Robodebt to continue to haunt our welfare system?

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

– ref. The ghost of Robodebt – Federal Court rules billions of dollars in welfare debts must be recalculated – https://theconversation.com/the-ghost-of-robodebt-federal-court-rules-billions-of-dollars-in-welfare-debts-must-be-recalculated-261543

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ken Pang, Senior Principal Research Fellow and Group Leader, Transgender Health Research Group, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

Gender clinics provide multidisciplinary care that helps trans people to explore and affirm their gender identity.

The number of adolescents referred to gender clinics has increased worldwide in recent years, especially among those who were assigned female at birth.

This has prompted claims that “social contagion” is driving young people – and in particular, teenagers who were assigned female at birth – to identify as trans and seek medical care.

But this notion isn’t supported by robust evidence, and our latest research directly challenges this idea.

Backlash against gender care

Despite its lack of evidence, the social contagion theory has been used by critics to help fuel an international backlash against adolescent gender care.

In the United States, more than half of all states have enacted laws or policies limiting access to gender care for those under 18 years.

In the United Kingdom, laws now prohibit transgender young people under 18 from starting puberty blockers.

Evidence has now emerged of the adverse consequences of these laws in both the US and UK. This includes sharp declines in mental health and increased suicide attempts among transgender young people.

Despite this evidence, the Queensland government in Australia recently halted access to puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones to new patients aged under 18.

This decision was made even though a 2024 independent evaluation found that gender care in Queensland is safe and evidence-based and recommended that service capacity be increased.

Trans people seek gender care at different stages of their lives

Our recently published study examined gender clinic referrals across the entire lifespan.

We used data from publicly funded gender clinics in Melbourne and Amsterdam across a three-year period between 2016 and 2019. The Amsterdam and Melbourne services received 2,044 and 1,903 referrals respectively.

We found remarkably similar results in both countries. The majority of adolescent referrals (around 70%) were for trans boys and non-binary people assigned female at birth. However, among adults, this observation was flipped, with the majority of adult referrals being for individuals assigned male at birth.

Specifically, 55% of referrals of those aged in their 20s were for individuals assigned male at birth. This grew every subsequent decade, reaching around 80% for those in their 50s and beyond.

What do these findings mean?

Previous surveys from Sweden, Belgium and the United States indicate the proportion of people assigned male and female at birth who are transgender is roughly equal.

Assuming these two groups share a similar desire to access gender clinics, you would expect the number of referrals to be around the same over the course of a lifetime.

Our new findings are consistent with this expectation but the likelihood of referral to gender clinics seems to be influenced by both the sex a person was assigned at birth, as well as their age. While those assigned female at birth are more likely seek referral as adolescents, those assigned male “catch up” in later years.

So rather than an over-representation of those assigned female at birth, adolescent referral patterns most likely reflect an under-representation of assigned males.

Why is this happening?

Trans misogyny is a unique type of discrimination trans girls and women face. It combines transphobia, the hatred for and discrimination against trans people, with misogyny, the prejudice and contempt towards women.

The impact of trans misogyny is far-reaching. During adolescence, trans girls experience higher rates of bullying and victimisation than trans boys and cisgender peers.

During adulthood, trans women remain at high risk of abuse and violence. They are also more likely to encounter housing discrimination, homelessness, unemployment and poverty than the general population.

Faced with such daunting prospects, it seems much harder for trans girls to reveal their gender identity as adolescents at an already uncertain time of their lives.

But as trans girls progress into adulthood, we suspect an intrinsic desire to express their gendered sense of self eventually tips the balance in favour of “coming out”. As a result, we see more trans women seeking gender care in their 20s, 30s and beyond.

These new findings suggest we need to do more to support trans adolescents. Rather than being driven by the fear of “social contagion”, we must instead recognise and address the challenges trans adolescents, and specifically trans girls and women, face.

This article was co-authored by Freya Kahn, a paediatrician working on research projects at the Royal Children’s Hospital.

Ken Pang receives research funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund. He is a member of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and the editorial board of the journal, Transgender Health.

Anja Ravine has paid membership of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health.

– ref. Critics claim gender clinics are seeing an excess of trans boys. But new data suggest otherwise – https://theconversation.com/critics-claim-gender-clinics-are-seeing-an-excess-of-trans-boys-but-new-data-suggest-otherwise-257817

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ella Vines, Post-doctoral researcher, Green Lab, Monash University

One-time Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce sought to dominate the first sitting week of the current federal parliament by proposing a divisive plan to reverse Australia’s net zero emissions target.

The campaign, backed by fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, aims to repeal what Joyce calls Australia’s “lunatic crusade” of net zero by 2050. It comes as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley convenes a working group to set a way forward on climate and energy policy following the Coalition’s historic election defeat.

Meanwhile, the Albanese government is considering Australia’s next round of emissions reduction targets. And scientists warn just three years remain for the world to keep global warming below the vital 1.5°C threshold.

If Australia is to take meaningful climate action, federal parliament must engage with the facts honestly and without distortion. So let’s take a closer look at whether Joyce and McCormack’s latest claims withstand scrutiny.

Claim 1: Australia’s net zero policy will not address climate change

Joyce describes as “perverse” the notion that Australia’s net zero goal can meaningfully help address global climate change.

This claim is not backed by science.

Every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions adds to global warming. What’s more, Joyce’s claim ignores the near-universal agreement of nations signed up to the Paris Agreement – including Australia – to pursue efforts (including domestic measures) to limit the average global temperature rise to 1.5°C.

It’s true that collective national efforts to curb warming have so far been insufficient. But that doesn’t mean they should be abandoned.

Claim 2: Global support for net zero is waning

McCormack claims there is a growing global shift against net zero, and Joyce describes it as “a peculiar minority position”.

This statement is not backed by evidence.

In fact, the number of countries, cities, businesses and other institutions pledging to get to net-zero is growing.

In the United States, President Donald Trump has dismantled climate policy, damaging that nation’s progress towards net zero. But many US states have retained the target, and global climate action will continue regardless of Trump’s actions.

A landmark court ruling this week is likely to further strengthen global pressure for nations to ramp up emissions reduction. The advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice observed countries are legally obliged to prevent harms caused by climate change – including by regulating the fossil fuel industry.

As others have noted, Australia must now reconsider its stance on approving new fossil fuel projects – including those geared to export markets.

Claims 3: the net zero goal is a security threat

Joyce claims a net zero policy agenda is “treacherous” for Australia’s security and will “inflame our incapacity” to contend with geopolitical threats.

But evidence suggests the opposite is true. There is a significant link between climate change and certain types of military conflicts.

Research predicts the Australian Defence Force will become involved in more wars as the climate crisis escalates, and respond to more frequent climate-related disasters inside our borders.

Claim 4: net zero is bad for regional Australia

Both Joyce and McCormack say the net zero target and associated renewable energy rollout is devastating regional Australia. The Institute of Public Affairs, a prominent right-wing think tank, this week launched a documentary making similar claims.

Joyce cited division in rural communities over renewable energy. In reality, there is significant support in regional Australia for such technology. A poll last year by Farmers for Climate Action found 70% of regional Australians in renewable energy zones support the development of renewable energy projects on local farmland.

Joyce also pointed to “the removal of agricultural land from production” to support his stance. However, analysis shows very little farmland is required for the clean energy transition.

What’s more, the cost of inaction is high. Climate change is disproportionately affecting cost of living for regional households – for example, due to higher insurance premiums.

Joyce also appears deaf to the myriad regional voices calling for stronger climate action.

The Mackay Conservation Group, for example, is challenging Whitehaven’s Winchester South coal mine in Queensland’s Land Court. Similarly, an environment group based in the NSW Hunter Valley this week successfully appealed the expansion of MACH Energy’s Mount Pleasant coal mine.

Only facts can stop a new wave of climate wars

Clearly, the efforts of Joyce and McCormack to undermine Australia’s net zero goal are not backed by evidence.

The Coalition must heed the facts – not backbench pressure – as it weighs its climate and energy policy. Only then can Australia avoid reigniting the divisive climate wars that stalled progress and positioned Australia as a global laggard.

Likewise, the Albanese government must not be distracted from the climate action task. Australia’s next round of climate targets should be based on the best available science, and make a meaningful, credible contribution to the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

Ella Vines 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. Barnaby Joyce wants Australia to abandon net zero – but his 5 central claims don’t stack up – https://theconversation.com/barnaby-joyce-wants-australia-to-abandon-net-zero-but-his-5-central-claims-dont-stack-up-261837

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Madden, Emeritus Professor, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University

In the wake of last week’s Tasmanian election that delivered another hung parliament, the new government will need to shore up crossbench support. One of the issues to be negotiated will be support for the new stadium due to be constructed next to Hobart’s historic docks. It won’t be an easy task given the bulk of likely crossbenchers are strongly opposed.

Whatever the political wrangling, it’s important this takes place in the light of the actual economics of the proposed stadium.

Building the 23,000 seat stadium is a condition of the state’s licence for an AFL team.

What the studies show

Fortunately, there have been several studies of the proposed waterfront stadium that attempt to evaluate its net social and economic benefits to the Tasmanian community. While estimates vary between the studies, they all indicate the benefits from the stadium are likely to be substantially below its cost.

The state government has downplayed the negative net-benefit estimates from these studies, citing positive impacts on the economy and employment. But the independent cost-benefit analysis undertaken by KPMG in 2024 already includes an assessment of the positive benefits for businesses and workers.

The whole point of a social cost-benefit analysis is to evaluate the entire effects on the welfare of the population of its reference region (Tasmania).

But does the cost-benefit analysis tell the whole story? In its consolidated report released last month, KPMG refers to unquantifiable intangible benefits not captured by its analysis.

Some of the benefits are ‘intangible’

On purely tangible economic criteria, as KPMG recognises, stadiums rarely have benefits that exceed costs. The justification for building stadiums is that the net economic cost is spent to acquire intangible benefits, such as national pride and social cohesion.

But on my reading, KPMG has already included estimates for the main intangible benefits. Indeed, there is research suggesting one of the intangible benefits that KPMG includes – health benefits – is tenuous. It would seem unlikely there are other significant unaccounted intangible benefits from the stadium.

In January, a further cost-benefit report was released. This report, by independent economist Nicholas Gruen, says KPMG overestimates benefits and underestimates costs.

Gruen performs his own cost-benefit analysis and finds the benefits to Tasmanians are likely to be less than half of what it costs them.

There are reasons for paying attention to pessimistic findings. The University of Oxford’s Bent Flyvbjerg and his colleague, Dirk Bester, have recently highlighted the dangers of optimism bias in cost-benefit analyses of public projects. They find unambiguous statistical evidence that projections of costs and benefits are consistently inaccurate and biased towards overoptimism.

If Gruen’s estimates are correct, the new stadium will come at a considerable cost to Tasmanians. There may be winners and losers. But Gruen’s results imply the Hobart stadium may come at a cost to the welfare of the average Tasmanian household of about A$3,300.

Indeed, it may turn out to be more. Recently, there has been a $190 million, or almost 25%, increase in estimated construction costs. That takes the total to $945 million, up from the most recent estimate of $755 million. The original costing was $715 million.

And it’s worse when viewed from a Tasmanian government perspective. That’s because the AFL, as is common with major sporting bodies, has ensured a contract in which all cost overruns are the responsibility of the state government.

Overall, the state government has committed to contribute $375 million and will be responsible on current estimates to find a further $315 million. The federal government will contribute $240 million and the AFL just $15 million.

Cost blowouts are very common

My recent literature review shows venues built for mega sporting events under urgent timelines and rigid specifications tend to have particularly large cost overruns.

While the budget for the Hobart stadium contains a significant amount for contingencies, cost overruns can be huge – for Olympic venues 172% on average. While the stadium is unlikely to see overruns of this magnitude, the downside risks imposed by current AFL requirement to build the stadium are considerable.

Can Tasmania draw a lesson from the Beijing National (Bird’s Nest Stadium), built for the 2008 Olympics, where it was decided to save costs by abandoning the planned retractable roof?

Gruen finds that not including the fixed, translucent roof would reduce the net social cost to Tasmanians by about 10%. And it would help lower risk exposure, and may substantially improve the aesthetics.

Hobart winter nights are only about one degree colder than Melbourne, so the necessity for a roof for AFL games is questionable, and it poses problems for test cricket. Against this, not having a roof might make it a less appealing venue for concerts.

Of course, not having a new stadium at all, but still having a Tasmanian AFL team, might represent the best outcome for the state. But standing up to the AFL comes at the risk of Tasmania not entering the AFL.

In the case of mega events, the history of negotiations between sporting organisations and potential host cities, however, is that cities most unwilling to jeopardise their chances of selection, end up with the worst deal. Sports economists refer to this as the “winner’s curse”.

John Madden does not receive income from any organisation that might benefit from this article. John has been a fan of Tasmanian sports teams since the 1950s.

– ref. As post-election talks drag on, what will Hobart’s proposed stadium actually cost Tasmanians? – https://theconversation.com/as-post-election-talks-drag-on-what-will-hobarts-proposed-stadium-actually-cost-tasmanians-261666

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angelique Nadia Sweetman McInnes, Academic in Financial Planning, CQUniversity Australia

Is there anything you can do to protect your superannuation from dodgy providers or questionable financial advice? And if someone rings you out of the blue and tempts you with a better return on your savings – what should you do?

Around 12,000 Australians with A$1.2 billion in retirement savings have been caught up in three collapsed or frozen funds: First Guardian, Shield and Australian Fiduciaries.

People have described being cold-called or seeing ads on social media, suggesting they could earn more by leaving their current super fund. Several financial advisers linked to these funds have now been banned for giving “inappropriate advice” to clients, containing “false and misleading statements”.

As a former financial adviser and now researcher, here are the questions I wish more people asked to screen out scammers and dodgy financial advisers faster – and places to seek help if you need it.

What do I do if someone calls with an unexpected sales pitch?

The first thing you need to know is that in Australia we have anti-hawking legislation. This prohibits people making cold calls or unsolicited face-to-face approaches for financial products, such as superannuation.

If you get a phone call like that, the official advice is now to hang up immediately. If they persist, you could say:

I didn’t request this cold call. Did you know you’re breaking the law and I can report you?

They will probably put the phone down! They know they’re not doing the right thing. If they keep talking, hang up.

Block their number. Tell a family member if you need help. If you’ve shared personal information, call your super fund or bank.

I’m thinking of switching super funds. What should I ask first?

Whether you’re talking to a super fund or a financial adviser, my first three questions would be about their fees, what’s known as “the 4Ps” – philosophy, people, process and performance – and risk profile.

What are the fees?

Don’t just look at a super fund’s returns: look closely at their fees.

Your super fund statement will disclose how much administration, insurance premiums, transactions, buy/sell spread and investment fees and costs are being deducted.

High fees charged by a trustee eat up your super balance over time. If a fund earns 7% annually and charges fees of 0.63% annually, then your actual return is only 6.37%.

Is the fund a good match on “the 4 Ps”?

Go to the provider’s website to understand whether the fund’s philosophy reflect your core beliefs about investing and risk.

Learn about the reputations of the people behind the fund who lead and invest your money.

Find out what process they use to select and manage investments. Finally, consider how well and consistently the fund has performed over the past five to ten years.

What’s the risk profile?

Super funds classify investment options into risk profiles (such as conservative, balanced or growth) to provide you with investments to match your risk tolerance and age.

You can find a fund’s risk profile on the fund’s website under investment options, in the product disclosure statement and target market determination.

How can I compare my super fund?

Want to check if your retirement savings are in an underperforming fund? For the past few years, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has called out MySuper funds that aren’t performing to standard.

Compare funds with the Australian Tax Office’s YourSuper Comparison Tool.

How I can find out if a financial adviser’s been in trouble?

On advisers, you can investigate their reputation or past complaints at:

• MoneySmart’s financial advisers register to confirm registration, qualification and authorisations
• banned and disqualified register to see if they’re authorised to provide financial products and services
• register of disciplinary action for Financial Advice Association members who’ve been investigated by the conduct review committee.

If you’re comfortable using OpenAI, such as ChatGPT or CoPilot, you can try searching with the following prompts.

• “Can you find any complaints or disciplinary actions against (name of adviser/fund)?”
• “What is the public reputation of (adviser/fund) in financial forums or news?”
• “Has (adviser/fund) been mentioned in any ASIC enforceable actions, bans or media reports?”

More action promised, but not yet delivered

There are echoes in what’s allegedly happened with First Guardian and Shield of Storm Financial’s collapse in 2009, which also hit thousands of people.

There are bad apples in every industry. Whether it’s in finance or medicine, it’s often colleagues who know who the dodgy operators are. Then it’s a question of whether anyone does anything about it.

In the case of First Guardian and Shield, other financial advisers helped raise the alarm – unfortunately several years before the corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, acted.

The commission says they’re now working with the federal government on more “reform options”. But that won’t help the thousands of people currently without access to their retirement savings, uncertain how much of those funds they’ll recover.

You can seek free counselling and advice from the National Debt Helpline (1800 007 007); Mob Strong Debt Helpline (1800 808 488) for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; or the Consumer Action Law Centre.

Disclaimer: this is general information only and not to be taken as financial advice.

Angelique Nadia Sweetman McInnes received funding from the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand and Central Queensland University. She is presently on a panel in her academic capacity assisting the Financial Advice Association of Australia (FAAA) review and update their Professional Standards. She is also a council member of the FAAA Financial Planning Education Council. Angelique was an authorised representative (practicing financial adviser) from 2009 to 2012.

– ref. Want to save yourself from super scams and dodgy financial advice? Ask these questions – https://theconversation.com/want-to-save-yourself-from-super-scams-and-dodgy-financial-advice-ask-these-questions-261756

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jamilla Rosdahl, Senior Lecturer, Australian College of Applied Psychology

Last month, actor Brad Pitt stepped onto the Formula One circuit as the leading man of the high-octane film F1, backed by Apple Studios, Jerry Bruckheimer Films and Pitt’s own Plan B Entertainment.

During the publicity campaign, cameras followed Pitt at every twist and turn, beaming his heartthrob persona to audiences. The coverage was gushing, with few mentions of the 2016 allegations of physical and emotional abuse made by Angelina Jolie, the award-winning actor and Pitt’s former partner.

Pitt was never charged over these allegations, but he was under considerable public scrutiny when they first came to light.

The tone has since shifted. Now, many media outlets are focused on Pitt’s clothing, describing him as looking “effortlessly iconic” and someone who is “just trying to have fun with his style” – a seemingly polished return to the limelight.

Pitt is far from an exception. He is part of a well-established pattern of powerful men in Hollywood who rebound from scandal quickly, and with seemingly little repercussion.

Pitt’s career trajectory, bolstered by critical acclaim and PR campaigns, reveals how easily the public memory can be rewritten.

How the media protects accused men

One 2019 study that looked at coverage of rape allegations against Portuguese footballer Cristiano Ronaldo highlighted how the media helps construct narratives that favour the accused. The allegations came from American woman Kathryn Mayorga, who accused Ronaldo of raping her in 2009.

The study found Portuguese media and political leaders largely defended Ronaldo, hailing him as a “national hero”. They focused on his career and presumption of innocence, while minimising and discrediting Mayorga’s account.

When Mayorga reopened the case in 2018, alleging coercion into an earlier settlement, the coverage stereotyped her as a “gold digger”, diverting attention away from the issue of sexual violence. Reports also emphasised “collateral damages”, such as Ronaldo’s club avoiding matches in the United States.

These findings underscore how the “celebrity halo” can compromise serious coverage of allegations.

According to Karen Boyle, gender studies professor and author of the 2018 book #MeToo, Weinstein and Feminism, mainstream media and celebrity culture systemically protect powerful men accused of violence against women.

Celebrity culture is fundamentally patriarchal, Boyle argues, and will centre men even when they’re found to be perpetrators. She writes:

Even when these men fall, they fall spectacularly, with all eyes on them […] Their stories dominate.

Instead of drawing attention to female survivors, media narratives orbit around the accused celebrity – including their downfall, legacy and potential redemption.

The machinery of ‘redemption’

The post-#MeToo era promised a reckoning. Survivors were to be heard, and powerful men held accountable. Yet the cultural reset hasn’t been what many supporters of the movement hoped for.

Boyle argues we must understand #MeToo in relation to an ongoing history of popular misogyny which normalises men’s abuse of women.

The #MeToo movement has faced mounting backlash since it went viral in 2017. Articles in Vox and Dame Magazine highlight how public sympathy is increasingly shifting towards accused men, recasting them as victims of “cancel culture” while sidelining survivors.

Online platforms such as Instagram, Reddit and Youtbe have also created space for public commentators to blame victim-survivors and make excuses for famous male perpetrators.

And it’s not just about attraction-leniency theory, wherein physically attractive people are judged more favourably. It’s also about race.

One 2015 study found media coverage of intimate partner violence by celebrity men was more likely to be portrayed as “criminal” when the man was black.

“Reports are more likely to include excuses for men’s violence against women when the coverage is of a white celebrity than when the celebrity is black,” said the author Joanna Pepin.

White men in Hollywood accumulate prestige, status and connections that operate like currency, buffering them from consequences that would derail the careers of others.

Ideology, power and coercive control

As a scholar who had been analysing coercive control for more than ten years, I argue power operates not just through institutions, but through discourse: through who gets to speak, who is believed, what is remembered, and what is erased.

Belief is often unconscious. The public may know violence occurred, but still act as though it didn’t. People choose to forget, to preserve the comforting fiction their favourite heartthrob is a good man.

My research argues coercive control isn’t limited to perpetrators of domestic violence, but is a widespread tactic employed by high-profile men to assert power and dominance.

It operates like a modern panopticon. Powerful men can use gendered power and social status to not only trap and discipline victims within an invisible prison, but can extend this control to entire communities.

Importantly, this control can be subtle. It is often hidden behind performative niceness – hard to see and harder to prosecute.

Shifting the lens

Gender studies scholar Judith Butler argues Trump-era politics have actively distorted public conversations about gender, power and accountability. They explain in one interview:

What we’re seeing with the Trump administration is a normalisation of hatred, of xenophobia, masculinity and misogyny that emboldens far-right groups and legitimises violence against vulnerable populations.

Moving forward, we need to collectively recognise how media narratives can contribute to our collective amnesia of violence against women.

We also need to prioritise teaching younger generations about masculine culture and the dangers of gendered violence. And when survivors speak, the focus shouldn’t be on whether they seem “credible” or “emotional enough”, but on the structures that may embolden the men they are accusing.

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

– ref. The celebrity halo effect: why abuse allegations against powerful men like Brad Pitt are so easily forgotten – https://theconversation.com/the-celebrity-halo-effect-why-abuse-allegations-against-powerful-men-like-brad-pitt-are-so-easily-forgotten-261101

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

Efforts to end the relentless siege of Gaza have been set back by the abrupt end to peace talks in Qatar.

Both the United States and Israel have withdrawn their negotiating teams, accusing Hamas of a “lack of desire to reach a ceasefire”.

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff says it would appear Hamas never wanted a deal:

While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith. We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people in Gaza

The disappointing development coincides with mounting fears of a widespread famine in Gaza and a historic decision by France to formally recognise a Palestinian state.

French President Emmanuel Macron says there is no alternative for the sake of security of the Middle East:

True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognise the State of Palestine

What will these developments mean for the conflict in Gaza and the broader security of the Middle East?

‘Humanitarian catastrophe’

The failure to reach a truce means there is no end in sight to the Israeli siege of Gaza which has devastated the territory for more than 21 months.

Amid mounting fears of mass starvation, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says Gaza is in the grip of a “humanitarian catastrophe”. He is urging Israel to comply immediately with its obligations under international law:

Israel’s denial of aid and the killing of civilians, including children, seeking access to water and food cannot be defended or ignored.

According to the United Nations Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA, more than 100 people – most of them children – have died of hunger. One in five children in Gaza City is malnourished, with the number of cases rising every day.

Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini says with little food aid entering Gaza, people are

neither dead nor alive, they are walking corpses […] most children our teams are seeing are emaciated, weak and at high risk of dying if they don’t get the treatment they urgently need.

The UN and more than 100 aid groups blame Israel’s blockade of almost all aid into the territory for the lack of food.

Lazzarini says UNRWA has 6,000 trucks of emergency supplies waiting in Jordan and Egypt. He is urging Israel – which continues to blame Hamas for cases of malnutrition – to allow the humanitarian assistance into Gaza.

Proposed ceasefire deal

The latest ceasefire proposal was reportedly close to being agreed by both parties.

It included a 60-day truce, during which time Hamas would release ten living Israeli hostages and the remains of 18 others. In exchange, Israel would release a number of Palestinian prisoners, and humanitarian aid to Gaza would be significantly increased.

During the ceasefire, both sides would engage in negotiations toward a lasting truce.

While specific details of the current sticking points remain unclear, previous statements from both parties suggest the disagreement centres on what would follow any temporary ceasefire.

Israel is reportedly seeking to maintain a permanent military presence in Gaza to allow for a rapid resumption of operations if needed. In contrast, Hamas is demanding a pathway toward a complete end to hostilities.

A lack of mutual trust has dramatically clouded the negotiations.

From Israel’s perspective, any ceasefire must not result in Hamas regaining control of Gaza, as this would allow the group to rebuild its power and potentially launch another cross-border attack.

However, Hamas has repeatedly said it is willing to hand over power to any other Palestinian group in pursuit of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. This could include the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), which governs the West Bank and has long recognised Israel.

Support for a Palestinian state

Israeli leaders have occasionally paid lip service to a Palestinian state. But they have described such an entity as “less than a state” or a “state-minus” – a formulation that falls short of both Palestinian aspirations and international legal standards.

In response to the worsening humanitarian situation, some Western countries have moved to fully recognise a Palestinian state, viewing it as a step toward a permanent resolution of one of the longest-running conflicts in the Middle East.

Macron’s announcement France will officially recognise a full Palestinian state in September is a major development.

France is now the most prominent Western power to take this position. It follows more than 140 countries – including more than a dozen in Europe – that have already recognised statehood.

While largely symbolic, the move adds diplomatic pressure on Israel amid the ongoing war and aid crisis in Gaza.

However, the announcement was immediately condemned by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claimed recognition “rewards terror” and

risks creating another Iranian proxy, just as Gaza became. A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel – not to live in peace beside it.

Annexing Gaza?

A Palestinian state is unacceptable to Israel.

Further evidence was recently presented in a revealing TV interview by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak who stated Netanyahu had deliberately empowered Hamas in order to block a two-state solution.

Instead there is mounting evidence Israel is seeking to annex the entirety of Palestinian land and relocate Palestinians to neighbouring countries.

Given the current uncertainty, it appears unlikely a new ceasefire will be reached in the near future, especially as it remains unclear whether the US withdrawal from the negotiations was a genuine policy shift or merely a strategic negotiating tactic.

Ali Mamouri 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. Ceasefire talks collapse – what does that mean for the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza? – https://theconversation.com/ceasefire-talks-collapse-what-does-that-mean-for-the-humanitarian-catastrophe-in-gaza-261942

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacqueline Stephens, Associate Professor in Public Health, Flinders University

This week, the World Health Organization (WHO) raised concerns about a surge in the number of cases of a mosquito-borne viral infection called chikungunya.

Diana Rojas Alvarez, a medical officer at the WHO, highlighted an outbreak occurring across La Réunion and Mayotte. These small islands in the Indian Ocean were previously hit during an epidemic of the virus in 2004–05.

Between August 2024 and May 2025, more than 47,500 confirmed cases and 12 deaths from chikungunya were reported in La Réunion. Some 116 cases were reported in Mayotte between March and May this year.

But more than 100 countries have seen local transmission of this virus to date, and the WHO has also flagged recent cases in Africa, Asia and Europe.

So, what is chikungunya, how does it spread, and should we be worried here in Australia?

What are the symptoms?

The main symptoms of chikungunya include fever, joint pain and joint swelling. However, other symptoms may include headache, rash, muscle pain, nausea and tiredness. On rare occasions, chikungunya can be fatal.

Some people are more prone to having worse symptoms, including infants, older adults, and people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Symptoms can take up to 12 days to appear, but most people start to experience symptoms three to seven days after being bitten by an infected mosquito.

There’s no specific treatment for chikungunya other than managing the pain with medications, such as paracetamol.

Most people recover after a few weeks, but some people can experience ongoing tiredness and joint pains for many months, or even years.

How does it spread?

Infected female mosquitoes spread chikungunya. The mosquitoes become infected when they feed on a person carrying the virus in their blood. Once infected, the virus reproduces in the mosquito, and then they can transmit it to other people when the mosquitoes bite them.

There are more than 3,000 different types of mosquitoes on Earth, but only two are commonly involved in transmitting chikungunya: Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus.

A. aegypti and A. albopictus look similar and can be easily confused. Both are about 4–7 millimetres in size and have similar black and white markings on their thorax and legs.

Both are day-time biters, unlike other mosquitoes that typically bite at dawn or dusk. They’re known as “ankle biters” because they mainly bite exposed legs and ankles. These aggressive mosquitoes bite multiple times and are known to follow people indoors to get their meal of human blood.

These species also transmit dengue virus, yellow fever virus and Zika virus.

Where does chikungunya occur?

Chikungunya was first documented in Tanzania in 1952. While outbreaks initially occurred across Africa and Asia, over time the virus has spread around the world. As of December 2024, local transmission of chikungunya had been reported in 119 countries and territories.

The 2004–05 epidemic was the largest so far, with hundreds of thousands of people infected. The epidemic started in the Indian Ocean islands, but eventually spread across to India. Since then, outbreaks have become more frequent and widespread.

A key contributor to the proliferation of chikungunya is climate change. Warmer temperatures, altered rainfall patterns, and increased humidity are creating ideal conditions for mosquito breeding. This allows the mosquitoes to adapt to new environments and therefore expand into new habitats.

The increase is also partly because chikungunya has evolved and been introduced into new populations, whose immune systems have not previously been exposed to the virus.

So, should we be worried?

While evidence suggests A. aegypti has been present in northern Queensland since the 1800s (outbreaks of dengue occurred in Townsville in 1879 and Rockhampton in 1885), A. albopictus is a more recent arrival, first documented in the Torres Strait in 2005.

A. aegypti mosquitoes are now found in areas across north, central and southern Queensland, while A. albopictus is currently still only found in the Torres Strait.

Nonetheless, to date, there have been no recorded cases of chikungunya transmission within Australia.

But cases do occur in people who have recently travelled overseas, most often to South and Southeast Asia, or the Pacific Islands.

In 2023 there were 42 cases of chikungunya recorded in Australia, 70 in 2024, and 90 so far in 2025. Previous years have seen figures above 100, however numbers in recent years may have been lower due to COVID impacting travel.

As climate change continues to support the spread of A. aegypti and A. albopictus, the risk of transmission within Australia increases.

That said, there is some evidence we might be lucky in Australia, with potential immune protection from a related local virus, Ross River virus.

I’m travelling, what should I do?

Two vaccines are approved for use in the United States against chikungunya, but there’s currently no vaccine approved in Australia. The only way to reduce your risk of infection is to avoid being bitten by mosquitoes.

People travelling to places where chikungunya is known to occur should wear loose-fitting and light-coloured clothing with enclosed shoes, use insect repellent, close windows and consider using mosquito bed nets. Taking these steps also reduces the risk of other mosquito-borne infections, such as dengue fever.

If you travel to a place where chikungunya occurs and you get bitten by mosquitoes, monitor yourself for signs and symptoms.

If you become unwell, see a doctor immediately.

Jacqueline Stephens is affiliated with the Australasian Epidemiological Association and the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy.

Jill Carr is affiliated with the Australasian Virology Society and receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council to study viral diseases.

– ref. What is chikungunya virus, and should we be worried about it in Australia? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-chikungunya-virus-and-should-we-be-worried-about-it-in-australia-261847

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau, Research Fellow, Jeff Bleich Centre for Democracy and Disruptive Technologies, Flinders University

Conspiracy theories are a widespread occurrence in today’s hyper connected and polarised world.

Events such as Brexit, the 2016 and 2020 United States presidential elections, and the COVID pandemic serve as potent reminders of how easily these narratives can infiltrate public discourse.

The consequences for society are significant, given a devotion to conspiracy theories can undermine key democratic norms and weaken citizens’ trust in critical institutions. As we know from the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, it can also motivate political violence.

But who is most likely to believe these conspiracies?

My new study with Daniel Stockemer of the University of Ottawa provides a clear and perhaps surprising answer. Published in Political Psychology, our research shows age is one of the most significant predictors of conspiracy beliefs, but not in the way many might assume.

People under 35 are consistently more likely to endorse conspiratorial ideas.

This conclusion is built on a solid foundation of evidence. First, we conducted a meta analysis, a “study of studies”, which synthesised the results of 191 peer-reviewed articles published between 2014 and 2024.

This massive dataset, which included over 374,000 participants, revealed a robust association between young age and belief in conspiracies.

To confirm this, we ran our own original multinational survey of more than 6,000 people across six diverse countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, the US and South Africa.

The results were the same. In fact, age proved to be a more powerful predictor of conspiracy beliefs than any other demographic factor we measured, including a person’s gender, income, or level of education.

Why are young people more conspiratorial?

Having established conspiracy beliefs are more prevalent among younger people, we set out to understand why.

Our project tested several potential factors and found three key reasons why younger generations are more susceptible to conspiracy theories.

1. Political alienation

One of the most powerful drivers we identified is a deep sense of political disaffection among young people.

A majority of young people feel alienated from political systems run by politicians who are two or three generations older than them.

This under representation can lead to frustration and the feeling democracy isn’t working for them. In this context, conspiracy theories provide a simple, compelling explanation for this disconnect: the system isn’t just failing, it’s being secretly controlled and manipulated by nefarious actors.

2. Activist style of participation

The way young people choose to take part in politics also plays a significant role.

While they may be less likely to engage in traditional practices such as voting, they are often highly engaged in unconventional forms of participation, such as protests, boycotts and online campaigns.

These activist environments, particularly online, can become fertile ground for conspiracy theories to germinate and spread. They often rely on similar “us versus them” narratives that pit a “righteous” in-group against a “corrupt” establishment.

3. Low self-esteem

Finally, our research confirmed a crucial psychological link to self-esteem.

For individuals with lower perceptions of self worth, believing in a conspiracy theory – blaming external, hidden forces for their problems – can be a way of coping with feelings of powerlessness.

This is particularly relevant for young people. Research has long shown self esteem tends to be lower in youth, before steadily increasing with age.

What can be done?

Understanding these root causes is essential because it shows simply debunking false claims is not a sufficient solution.

To truly address the rise of conspiracy theories and limit their consequences, we must tackle the underlying issues that make these narratives so appealing in the first place.

Given the role played by political alienation, a critical step forward is to make our democracies more representative. This is best illustrated by the recent election of Labor Senator Charlotte Walker, who is barely 21.

By actively working to increase the presence of young people in our political institutions, we can help give them faith that the system can work for them, reducing the appeal of theories which claim it is hopelessly corrupt.

More inclusive democracy

This does not mean discouraging the passion of youth activism. Rather, it is about empowering young people with the tools to navigate today’s complex information landscape.

Promoting robust media and digital literacy education could help individuals critically evaluate the information they encounter in all circles, including online activist spaces.

The link to self-esteem also points to a broader societal responsibility.

By investing in the mental health and wellbeing of young people, we can help boost the psychological resilience and sense of agency that makes them less vulnerable to the simplistic blame games offered by conspiracy theories.

Ultimately, building a society that is resistant to misinformation is not about finding fault with a particular generation.

It is about creating a stronger, more inclusive democracy where all citizens, especially the young, feel represented, empowered, and secure.

Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. 3 reasons young people are more likely to believe conspiracy theories – and how we can help them discover the truth – https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-young-people-are-more-likely-to-believe-conspiracy-theories-and-how-we-can-help-them-discover-the-truth-261074

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Santosh Tadakamadla, Professor and Head of Dentistry and Oral Health, La Trobe University

Just over one-third of Australians are eligible for public dental services, which provide free or low cost dental treatment.

Yet demand for these services continues to exceed supply. As a result, many Australian adults face long waits for access, which can be up to three years in some states.

So what’s going wrong with public dental care in Australia? And how can it be fixed?

Who funds public dental care?

Both the federal government and state and territory governments fund public dental services. These are primarily targeted at low-income Australians, including children, and hard-to-reach populations, known as priority groups.

Individuals and families bear a majority of the costs for dental services. They paid around 81% (A$10.1 billion) of the cost for dental services in 2022–23, either directly through out-of-pocket expenses, or through private health insurance premiums.

The Commonwealth contributed 11% to the cost of dental care, while the states and territories paid the remaining 8% in 2022–23.

Who is eligible for public dental care?

Just under half of Australian children are eligible for the means-tested Child Dental Benefits Schedule. This gives them access to $1,132 of dental benefits over two years.

While children from low-income families tend to benefit from this scheme, critics have raised concerns about the low uptake. Only one-third use the dental program in any given year.

Some children access free or low-cost dental care from state and territory based services, such as the Victorian Smile Squad school dental program or the NSW Health Primary School Mobile Dental Program.

Others use their private health insurance to pay for some of the costs of private dental care.

What if you’re low-income but aren’t eligible?

Some Australians aren’t eligible for public dental services but can’t afford private dental care. In 2022–23, around one in six people (18%) delayed or didn’t see a dental professional when they needed to because of the cost.

Some Australians are accessing their superannuation funds under compassionate grounds for dental treatment. The amount people have accessed has grown eight-fold from 2018–19 to 2023–24, from $66.4 million to $526.4 million.

However, concerns have been raised about the exploitation of this provision. Some people have accessed their super for dental treatment costing more than $20,000. This more than what would typically be required for urgent dental care, impacting their future financial security.

Why are the waits so long in the public dental care system?

The long waits are due to a combination of factors, alongside high levels need:

• systemic under-funding by Australian governments. This is exacerbated by federal government funding for public dental services remaining fixed rather than being indexed annually

• workforce shortages in rural and remote areas, with dental practitioners concentrated in wealthy, metro areas

• poor incentives for the oral health workforce in public dental services

• too few public clinics, in part because the initial outlay and ongoing equipment costs are so great.

What is the government planning in the long term?

The federal government is taking action to improve the affordability of dental services through long-term funding reforms only targeting priority populations to bring some dental services into Medicare.

An initial focus is for older Australians and First Nations people.

Cost estimates for a universal dental scheme vary significantly, depending on the population coverage and the number of dental benefits individuals are eligible for, and whether services are capped (as in the case of the Child Dental Benefits Schedule) or uncapped.

The Grattan Institute estimates a capped scheme would cost $5.6 billion annually.

The Australian Parliamentary Budget Office estimates it would cost $45 billion over three years.

When increasing government funding for public dental service, it’s important policymakers ensure the services included are evidence-based and represent value for money.

What needs to be done in the meantime

Meaningful long-term funding reform towards a universal dental scheme requires some foundational policy work.

First, there should be an agreed understanding of what dental services should be government subsidised and provide annual limits for reimbursement to prevent overtreatment. This would avoid some people getting a lot of dental treatment they don’t need, while others could miss out.

Many dental services are routinely offered without any clinical benefit. This includes six-monthly oral health check-ups and cleans for low-risk patients.

Second, resource allocation is best done when we focus on prevention and governments fund cost-effective dental services. Priority-setting is best done using economic evaluation tools.

Third, the federal government should extend its existing decision-making frameworks to include dental services. This would bring dental care in line with medicine and service listings on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS), ensuring that safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness inform public funding decisions.

Fourth, the government needs to reform the workforce. This should include funding to support recruitment and training of students from regional, rural and remote areas. These students are more likely to return to their communities to work, balancing the unequal distribution of the workforce.

We also urgently need to attract and retain more people to work in public dental services.

Finally, we need a coordinated national approach to oral health policy and funding. The federal government has an opportunity to do this now as consultations continue through 2025 to develop and implement the National Oral Health Plan 2025–2034.

Santosh Tadakamadla received National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship (APP1161659) from 2019-2023. He is Head of Dentistry and Oral Health at La Trobe Rural Health School in Bendigo.

Tan Nguyen receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council (Postgraduate Scholarship Scheme APP1189802). He is affiliated with Deakin University, Monash University, Oral Health Victoria, Public Association of Australia, National Oral Health Alliance and Dental Board of Australia.

– ref. Waiting too long for public dental care? Here’s why the system is struggling – and how to fix it – https://theconversation.com/waiting-too-long-for-public-dental-care-heres-why-the-system-is-struggling-and-how-to-fix-it-261661

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Renwick, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Lincoln University, New Zealand

The alarming rise of butter prices has become a real source of frustration for New Zealand consumers, as well as a topic of political recrimination. The issue has become so serious that Miles Hurrell, chief executive of dairy co-operative Fonterra, was summoned to meetings with the government and opposition parties this week.

After meeting Hurrell, Finance Minister Nicola Willis appeared to place some of the blame for the high price of butter on supermarkets rather than on the dairy giant.

According to Stats NZ, butter prices rose by 46.5% in the year to June and are now 120% higher than a decade ago. The average price for a 500g block is NZ$8.60, with some local brands costing over $10.

But solving the problem is not a matter of waving a magic economic wand. Several factors influence butter prices, few of which can be altered directly by government policy.

And the question remains – would we want to? Proposals such as reducing exports to boost domestic supply, or cutting goods and services tax (GST) on dairy products, all carry consequences.

A key factor driving butter prices in New Zealand is that 95% of the country’s dairy production is exported.

Limited domestic supply and strong global demand have pushed up prices for a range of commodities – not just milk, but beef as well. These increases are reflected in local retail prices.

Another contributing factor is rising costs along the supply chain. At the farm level, producers are receiving record prices for dairy. But this comes at a time when input costs have also increased significantly. It is not all profit.

Weighing the options

Before changing rules around dairy exports, the government must weigh the broader consequences.

On the one hand, high milk prices benefit “NZ Inc”. The dairy sector accounts for 25% of exports and employs 55,000 New Zealanders. When farmers do well, the wider rural economy benefits – with flow-on effects for the country as a whole.

On the other hand, there is the ongoing challenge of domestic food security. Many people cannot afford basic groceries and foodbank use is rising.

So how can New Zealand maintain a food system that benefits from exports while also supporting struggling domestic consumers?

One option is to remove GST from food. Other countries exempt dairy products from such taxes in an effort to make staples more affordable.

This idea has been repeatedly reviewed and rejected – including by the 2018 Tax Working Group. In 2024, it was estimated that removing GST could cost the government between $3.3bn and $3.9bn, with only modest benefits for the average household.

Fonterra or supermarkets?

Another route would be to examine Fonterra’s dominance in the supply chain. There are advantages to having a strong global player. And it is not in the national interest for the company to incur losses on domestic sales.

Still, the structure of the market may warrant scrutiny. For a long time there were just two main suppliers of processed dairy products – Fonterra and Goodman Fielder – and two main retailers – Foodstuffs and Woolworths. This set up reduced the need to compete on prices.

While there is arguably more competition in manufacturing sector now, supermarkets are still under scrutiny and have long faced criticism for a lack of competition.

The opaque nature of the profit margins across the supply chain also fuels suspicion. Consumers know what they pay at the checkout and what farmers receive. But the rest is less clear. This lack of transparency invites speculation about who benefits from soaring prices.

In the end, though, the government may not need to act at all.

As economists like to say: “Nothing cures high prices like high prices.” While demand for butter is relatively inelastic, there comes a point at which consumers reduce their purchases or seek alternatives. International buyers will also push back – and falling global demand may redirect more supply to domestic markets.

High prices also act as a signal to producers across the globe to increase production, which could happen relatively quickly if there are favourable climatic and other conditions.

We only need to look back to 2014, when the price of dairy dropped by 48% over the course of 12 months due to reduced demand and increased supply, to see how quickly the situation can change.

Alan Renwick 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. Butter wars: ‘nothing cures high prices like high prices’ – but will market forces be enough? – https://theconversation.com/butter-wars-nothing-cures-high-prices-like-high-prices-but-will-market-forces-be-enough-261750

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

Last week, the ultrafast fashion brand Princess Polly received B Corp certification. This certification is designed to accredit for-profit businesses that provide social impact and environmental benefit.

Established on the Gold Coast in 2010, a 50% stake in Princess Polly was acquired by United States-based A.K.A. Brands in 2018.

Since then, it has grown its global reach as a low-cost, high-turnover online retailer.

So can ultrafast fashion ever be sustainable?

Who is Princess Polly?

Princess Polly distinguishes itself from other fast fashion retailers through a mission to “make on-trend, sustainable fashion accessible to everyone”.

As part of this mission, Princess Polly is a participant of the United Nations Global Compact, which commits them to sustainable procurement. The 2024 Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report placed them in the top 20% of 460 global brands assessed.

Yet, on the sustainability rating website Good On You, Princess Polly receives a “Not Good Enough” grade, due to their lack of action on reducing plastic and textile waste or protecting biodiversity in their supply chains, and the absence of evidence that they pay their workers a living wage.

Regardless of how they make their clothes, Princess Polly produces a lot. At the time of writing, the brand has 3,920 different styles available on their website (excluding shoes and accessories).

Of those, 34% (1,355 styles) are listed as “lower impact,” which means items are made using materials such as organic cotton and linen, recycled polyester and cellulose fabrics. There are also 720 items on the website currently listed as “new”: their daily new arrivals means they are constantly adding fresh items for sale.

Overproduction, no matter what the garments are made from, is inherently wasteful. Even when clothes are purchased (and 10–40% of the clothing produced each year is not sold), the poor quality of fast fashion items means that they end up in landfill faster and stay there for longer, contributing to the ongoing environmental disaster.

Sustainability communication

In Australia, 1,096 companies are accredited with B Corp status, including 152 fashion businesses.

B Corp assesses the practices of a company as a whole, rather than focusing on one single social or environmental issue. Businesses must score at least 80 out of a possible 250+ points in the B Impact Assessment to achieve accreditation.

Organisations are assessed in five key areas – community, customers, environment, governance and workers – and must meet high standards of social and environmental performance, transparency and accountability.

Third-party accreditations such as B Corp, Fairtrade and Global Organic Textile Standard are often used by brands as a marketing tool.

These certifications can enhance consumer trust without the need for detailed explanations. For fashion brands, accreditation can help them stand out in a crowded market. They can provide legitimacy, attract ethical fashion consumers and reduce consumer scepticism.

While B Corp aims to provide assurance to consumers, activists have accused it of greenwashing. In 2022, the organisation came under fire for accrediting Nespresso, a brand owned by Nestlé, which has a reputation for poor worker rights and sourcing policies.

B Corp is now facing renewed condemnation for issuing certification to Princess Polly.

Who needs certification?

Other B Corp certified Australian fashion brands such as Clothing the Gaps and Outland Denim have built their reputations on their ethical credentials. For values-driven fashion-based social enterprises such as these, accreditations can provide valuable guarantees regarding ethical processes.

According to our research, however, there are several barriers fashion-based social enterprises face when pursuing ethical accreditation.

The cost of accreditation, both financial and in terms of time, skills and resourcing, is a significant challenge. And there is no certification that covers all aspects of environmental sustainability and ethical production. As a result, fashion-based social enterprises often require multiple accreditations to fully communicate the breadth of their ethical commitments.

Despite the costs involved, if fashion-based social enterprises don’t acquire certain certifications they risk being ineligible for government grants and tenders, such as social procurement contracts.

Differences between fashion-based social enterprises and fast fashion brands are stark. While Clothing the Gaps, Outland Denim and Princess Polly now all hold B Corp certification, the former score much more highly on the B Impact Assessment.
The value and credibility of the certification is diminished when it extends to unsustainable ultrafast fashion.

Is it possible for fast fashion to ever be sustainable?

The question of whether fast fashion can ever be sustainable has become increasingly heated since the advent of ultrafast fashion, where brands produce on demand and sell directly online.

Fast fashion took seasonal trends from high fashion runways and made them available to consumers at low costs within weeks. Ultrafast fashion takes trends from social media and reproduces them extremely cheaply for mass consumption within days.

Both fast and ultrafast fashion’s low-cost, high-volume models encourage consumers to value quantity over quality. Using permanent sales and discounts, these brands incentivise multiple purchases of items that may never actually be worn. Online “micro trends” and “haul” videos further spur this overconsumption.

Princess Polly may be using more sustainable textiles and engaging in more ethical forms of production than some of its ultrafast fashion counterparts. But this is not enough when the business model itself is unsustainable. Accreditations such as B Corp are unable to account for this nuance.

Princess Polly claims to make sustainable fashion, yet it is also proudly trend driven. As an ultrafast fashion brand, it relies on overproduction and overconsumption. The idea that this can ever be “sustainable” is simply an oxymoron.

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. Ultrafast fashion brand Princess Polly has been certified as ‘sustainable’. Is that an oxymoron? – https://theconversation.com/ultrafast-fashion-brand-princess-polly-has-been-certified-as-sustainable-is-that-an-oxymoron-261561

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

Business, universities, and investors have jointly urged the federal government to commit to cutting the cost of red tape by 25% by 2030, in a submission for next month’s Economic Reform Roundtable.

The push to reduce regulation is in line with action by the EU and the United Kingdom’s Labour government, the submission says.

“Cutting red tape means faster home builds, quicker loan approvals, and lower prices at the checkout,” it says.

“For Australians, it’s the difference between waiting months or days for a service, and it ensures growth isn’t choked by unnecessary or outdated processes that haven’t kept up with the modern world.”

The need to push against red tape is highlighted in the recently-published book Abundance by Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein. The book has impressed Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who has urged his colleagues to read it.

The coalition of 27 groups includes small, medium and large businesses, universities and the investment community. The united approach is an attempt by business to avoid being divided and trapped at the roundtable, as business felt it was at the 2022 Jobs and Skills summit.

On taxation, the submission proposes a three-month review, supported by Treasury, the Productivity Commission, business representatives and other stakeholders to “kick start” comprehensive tax reform.

The exercise would be underpinned by principles that encouraged investment and economic growth.

Business has become concerned the roundtable could be a way of seeking support for tax increases rather than comprehensive tax reform.

The submission says tax reform and the trade offs involved, should not be pursued separately from measures to promote efficiency and spending restraint to “ensure government lives within its means”.

Tax reform should support the dynamism and productivity of Australian individuals and businesses”, the submission says.

Revenue should be raised with the least possible cost to society, and there should be minimum distortions to work, savings and investment.

Among other proposals, the coalition urges a boost to investment and innovation by reforming the handling of R&D.

It says there should be a national strategy to boost Australia’s investment competitiveness.

The submission backs reforming the framework for environmental and planning approvals. It says there should be a “single, predictable, and transparent approval pathway that provides timely and certain decisions.”

“Our economic rule book is out of date. If we don’t fix it, not only will Australians struggle to get ahead in life, but future generations are at risk of missing out on the quality of life we enjoy today,” the joint group of industry associations says.

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. Business coalition calls for 25% cut in the cost of red tape by 2030 – https://theconversation.com/business-coalition-calls-for-25-cut-in-the-cost-of-red-tape-by-2030-259688

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Stewardson, CEO One Basin CRC, The University of Melbourne

A report card into the A$13 billion Murray–Darling Basin Plan has found much work is needed to ensure the ecology of Australia’s largest river system is properly restored.

The assessment, by the Murray–Darling Basin Authority, is the most comprehensive to date.

The authority says the river system is doing better now than it would have without the plan, which aims to ensure sustainable water use for the environment, communities and industries. But it found there is more to be done.

We are water, economics and environmental researchers with many years of experience working in the Murray-Darling Basin. We agree more work is needed, but with a more local focus, to restore the basin to health.

This requires more than just more water for the environment. Coordinated local efforts to restore rivers and the surrounding land are desperately needed. There’s so much more to the river system than just the water it contains.

What’s the plan?

The Murray-Darling Basin is Australia’s food bowl. But for too long, the health of environment was in decline – rivers were sick and wildlife was suffering. The river stopped flowing naturally to the sea because too much water was being taken from it.

Poor land management has also degraded the river system over time. Floodplain vegetation has been damaged, the river channel has been re-engineered, and pest plants and animals have been introduced.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was established in 2012. It aimed to recover water for the environment and safeguard the long-term health of the river system, while continuing to support productive agriculture and communities. It demanded more water for the environment and then described how this water would be delivered, in the form of targeted “environmental flows”.

Since 2012, the allocation of water to various uses has gradually changed. So far, 2,069 billion litres (gigalitres) of surface water has been recovered for the environment. Combined with other earlier water recovery, a total of about 28% of water previously diverted for agriculture, towns and industry is now being used by the environment instead.

A mixed report card

The evaluation released today is the first step towards a complete review of the plan next year. The 2026 review will make recommendations to Environment and Water Minister Murray Watt. It will then be up to him to decide whether any changes are needed.

It is a mixed report card. Ecological decline has been successfully halted at many sites. But sustained restoration of ecosystems across the basin is yet to be achieved, and native fish populations are in poor condition across 19 of the basin’s 23 catchments.

Climate change is putting increasing pressure on water resources. More intense and frequent extreme climate events and an average 20–30% less streamflow (up to 50% in some rivers) are expected by mid-century.

The evaluation also called for better policy and program design. Specifically, flexible programs have proven more effective than prescriptive, highly regulated programs.

Finally, the report also highlights that the cost of water reform is increasing.

Direct buybacks of water licences, mostly from irrigators, account for around two-thirds of the water recovered for the environment under the basin plan. Buybacks are the simplest and most cost-effective way to recover water but are controversial because of concerns about social and economic impacts.

Much of the remaining water has been recovered through investment in more efficient water supply infrastructure, with water savings reserved for environmental use.

The authority suggests different approaches will be needed for additional water recovery.

Healthy rivers need more than water

For the past two decades, measures to restore the Murray-Darling Basin have focused largely on water recovery. But research suggests attention now needs to be paid to other, more local actions.

In March, one author of this article – Samantha Capon – identified nine priority actions to restore Australia’s inland river and groundwater ecosystems at local levels. They included:

• revegetating land alongside waterways
• retiring some farmland
• modifying barriers to fish movements
• installing modern fish screens on irrigation pumps.

The study estimated such actions would cost around A$2.9 billion a year, if completed over the next 30 years.

Works to restore vegetation or other environmental conditions at these critical habitats will only occur with landholders, as well as Traditional Owners.

That’s because most of the basin’s wetlands and floodplain areas are on private property, including in irrigation districts.

Irrigator involvement is needed to place fish screens on private irrigation pumps or retire farmland. There is a growing interest and some early experience in using private irrigation channels to deliver environmental water. This also requires local partnerships.

The basin plan should include targets for environmental outcomes, not just water recovery. This will allow the benefits from local restoration measures and environmental flows to be included when tracking the plan.

Such ecosystem accounting tools already exist. Research is urgently needed to make these tools both locally relevant and suitable for the basin plan.

Time for a local approach

To date, water for the environment under the basin plan has been recovered largely through centralised government-led programs. Decisions around the delivery of environmental flows are also largely in the hands of government agencies.

But other local restoration actions are also needed.

A business-as-usual approach would leave responsible agencies struggling to complete these vital local measures with limited funding, resources and accountability.

Michael Stewardson is a member of the Advisory Committee on Social, Economic and Environmental Science, which advises the Murray Darling Basin Authority,, although he is not representing the views of this committee in this article. The committee is established under Section 203 of the Water Act 2007.
Michael Stewardson is the CEO of the One Basin CRC, which is jointly funded under the commonwealth Cooperative Research Centre Program and by its partners listed here: https://onebasin.com.au/
These partners include: state and federal government agencies including the Murray Darling Basin Authority; irrigation infrastructure operators (government owned and non-government), natural resource management agencies (government and non-government); agriculture businesses, industry organisation and R&D organisations; local government organisations; consulting companies in the water sector; technology companies; education and training organisations; and research organisation. Partners contribute to the One Basin CRC in the form of in-kind and cash contributions. The One Basin CRC is also funded by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office under its FlowMER program. The views in this article do not necessarily represent the views of these partner and funding organisations.
Michael Stewardson has previously received research funding from the Australian Research Council and both state and federal government agencies.

Neville Crossman is a Program Leader for Adaptation and Innovation in the One Basin CRC. He is a past employee of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (2018-2024). He has worked closely with a range of State and federal government agencies and many researchers, industry and community members in the Murray-Darling Basin throughout his career.

Samantha Capon receives funding from the federal Department of Climate Change, Energy Efficiency, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), NSW DCCEEW, the Cotton Research and Development Corporation. She is a member of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s Advisory Committee for Social, Economic and Environmental Science (ACSEES), but is not representing the view of this committee in this article. Samantha has worked closely with NRM agencies, a range of State and federal government agencies and many researchers, industry and community members in the Murray-Darling Basin throughout her career.

Seth Westra is the Research Director for the One Basin CRC. He receives funding from the federal Department of Climate Change, Energy Efficiency, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), NSW DCCEEW and the South Australian Department for Environment and Water (DEW). Seth is Research Director of the One Basin Cooperative Research Centre, Director of the Systems Cooperative, and has worked closely with NRM agencies, a range of State and federal government agencies and many researchers, industry and community members in the Murray-Darling Basin throughout his career.

– ref. The Murray–Darling Basin Plan Evaluation is out. The next step is to fix the land, not just the flows – https://theconversation.com/the-murray-darling-basin-plan-evaluation-is-out-the-next-step-is-to-fix-the-land-not-just-the-flows-261840

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra

Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock has fleshed out the central bank’s thinking behind its surprise decision to keep interest rates on hold this month.

In a speech today to the Anika Foundation, Bullock said there has been:

meaningful progress in bringing inflation down.

But the Reserve Bank is waiting for confirmation that underlying inflation has actually moved back towards the mid-point of its 2% to 3% target band:

We still think it will show inflation declining slowly towards 2.5%, but we are looking for data to support this expectation.

The governor was pleased to see the progress on inflation did not come at the cost of jobs growth. Employment has remained around an all-time high as a proportion of the population. Comparable countries have not managed as well as this.

The Reserve Bank has cut interest rates twice this year, and said policy is leaning towards further cuts by the end of the year.

The dual mandate

The Reserve Bank’s 2-3% inflation target is well known. But it is not the sole focus of policymakers. The bank actually has a dual mandate of inflation and employment, which was the topic of Bullock’s annual speech to Sydney’s financial community.

The Reserve Bank Act charges the bank’s monetary policy board with setting monetary policy:

in a way that, in the Board’s opinion, best contributes to:

(i) price stability in Australia; and

(ii) the maintenance of full employment in Australia.

Full employment has been enshrined in legislation as a goal of the central bank since the 1940s.

Last week, the monthly employment report unexpectedly showed a jump in unemployment to 4.3% in June after five months as 4.1% as more people looked for work.

In her speech, Bullock said while some of the coverage suggested the increase was a shock, the employment figures over the whole of the June quarter were in line with the bank’s forecasts.

She did not think it would have meant a different decision at the last board meeting if it had been known then.

Are the twin goals in conflict or complementary?

Some other central banks, such as the US Federal Reserve, also have dual mandates.

In the long run, there is no conflict between these goals. In the governor’s words:

Low and stable inflation – or price stability – is a prerequisite for strong and sustainable employment growth because it creates favourable conditions for households and businesses to plan, invest and create jobs without having to worry about inflation.

Even in the short run, the two goals often involve no conflict. When the economy is overheating, inflation is high and unemployment low, so it is clear interest rates should be raised. During a recession, inflation is low and unemployment high, so it is clear interest rates should be lowered.

But there are times when the implications from the two goals clash. A surge in oil prices, for example, could lead to both higher inflation (suggesting interest rates should be raised) and weaker economic activity (suggesting interest rates should be lowered).

The governor said the bank’s response may depend on the likely longevity of such a shock:

If a supply disruption is temporary and modest, monetary policy should mostly ‘look through’ it. Raising interest rates makes little sense if inflation is expected to ease once temporary supply disruptions are resolved – it would only weaken the job market.

By contrast, when a supply shock is likely to have a longer lasting effect on the economy and inflation there may be stronger grounds for monetary policy to respond.

The outlook

In its latest published forecasts, in May, the bank said that if, as markets expected, it lowers its cash rate target to 3.4% by the end of the year, then unemployment would rise marginally, to 4.3%, while its preferred measure of underlying inflation drops to 2.6%.

The Reserve Bank will release its updated forecasts after its next policy meeting on August 12, when it is also expected to cut interest rates.

Better monthly inflation data on the way

The Reserve Bank governor has made clear she regards the quarterly inflation series as a better guide than the current monthly series. At her May press conference she said:

We get four readings on inflation a year.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has announced it is upgrading the monthly consumer price index (CPI) with effect from the October 2025 reading. It will then have the same coverage as the current quarterly CPI. But it will still be a more volatile measure than the quarterly.

The bank will go through a learning experience becoming familiar with the new monthly series.

Read more:
Australia’s inflation rate is to go monthly. Be careful what you wish for

John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist at the Reserve Bank.

– ref. Reserve Bank says unemployment rise was not a shock, inflation on track – https://theconversation.com/reserve-bank-says-unemployment-rise-was-not-a-shock-inflation-on-track-261759