Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Smith, Research Scientist in Earth & Environment, Boston University

When summer turns up the heat, cities can start to feel like an oven, as buildings and pavement trap the sun’s warmth and vehicles and air conditioners release more heat into the air.

The temperature in an urban neighborhood with few trees can be more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit (5.5 Celsius) higher than in nearby suburbs. That means air conditioning works harder, straining the electrical grid and leaving communities vulnerable to power outages.

There are some proven steps that cities can take to help cool the air – planting trees that provide shade and moisture, for example, or creating cool roofs that reflect solar energy away from the neighborhood rather than absorbing it.

But do these steps pay off everywhere?

We study heat risk in cities as urban ecologists and have been exploring the impact of tree-planting and reflective roofs in different cities and different neighborhoods across cities. What we’re learning can help cities and homeowners be more targeted in their efforts to beat the heat.

The wonder of trees

Urban trees offer a natural defense against rising temperatures. They cast shade and release water vapor through their leaves, a process akin to human sweating. That cools the surrounding air and reduces afternoon heat.

Adding trees to city streets, parks and residential yards can make a meaningful difference in how hot a neighborhood feels, with blocks that have tree canopies nearly 3 F (1.7 C) cooler than blocks without trees.

But planting trees isn’t always simple.

In hot, dry cities, trees often require irrigation to survive, which can strain already limited water resources. Trees must survive for decades to grow large enough to provide shade and release enough water vapor to reduce air temperatures.

Annual maintenance costs – about US$900 per tree per year in Boston – can surpass the initial planting investment.

Most challenging of all, dense urban neighborhoods where heat is most intense are often too packed with buildings and roads to grow more trees.

How cool roofs can help on hot days

Another option is “cool roofs.” Coating rooftops with reflective paint or using light-colored materials allows buildings to reflect more sunlight back into the atmosphere rather than absorbing it as heat.

These roofs can lower the temperature inside an apartment building without air conditioning by about 2 to 6 F (1 to 3.3 C), and can cut peak cooling demand by as much as 27% in air-conditioned buildings, one study found. They can also provide immediate relief by reducing outdoor temperatures in densely populated areas. The maintenance costs are also lower than expanding urban forests.

However, like trees, cool roofs come with limits. Cool roofs work better on flat roofs than sloped roofs with shingles, as flat roofs are often covered by heat-trapping rubber and are exposed to more direct sunlight over the course of an afternoon.

Cities also have a finite number of rooftops that can be retrofitted. And in cities that already have many light-colored roofs, a few more might help lower cooling costs in those buildings, but they won’t do much more for the neighborhood.

By weighing the trade-offs of both strategies, cities can design location-specific plans to beat the heat.

Choosing the right mix of cooling solutions

Many cities around the world have taken steps to adapt to extreme heat, with tree planting and cool roof programs that implement reflectivity requirements or incentivize cool roof adoption.

In Detroit, nonprofit organizations have planted more than 166,000 trees since 1989. In Los Angeles, building codes now require new residential roofs to meet specific reflectivity standards.

In a recent study, we analyzed Boston’s potential to lower heat in vulnerable neighborhoods across the city. The results demonstrate how a balanced, budget-conscious strategy could deliver significant cooling benefits.

For example, we found that planting trees can cool the air 35% more than installing cool roofs in places where trees can actually be planted.

However, many of the best places for new trees in Boston aren’t in the neighborhoods that need help. In these neighborhoods, we found that reflective roofs were the better choice.

By investing less than 1% of the city’s annual operating budget, about US$34 million, in 2,500 new trees and 3,000 cool roofs targeting the most at-risk areas, we found that Boston could reduce heat exposure for nearly 80,000 residents. The results would reduce summertime afternoon air temperatures by over 1 F (0.6 C) in those neighborhoods.

While that reduction might seem modest, reductions of this magnitude have been found to dramatically reduce heat-related illness and death, increase labor productivity and reduce energy costs associated with building cooling.

Not every city will benefit from the same mix. Boston’s urban landscape includes many flat, black rooftops that reflect only about 12% of sunlight, making cool roofs that reflect over 65% of sunlight an especially effective intervention. Boston also has a relatively moist growing season that supports a thriving urban tree canopy, making both solutions viable.

In places with fewer flat, dark rooftops suitable for cool roof conversion, tree planting may offer more value. Conversely, in cities with little room left for new trees or where extreme heat and drought limit tree survival, cool roofs may be the better bet.

Phoenix, for example, already has many light-colored roofs. Trees might be an option there, but they will require irrigation.

Getting the solutions where people need them

Adding shade along sidewalks can do double-duty by giving pedestrians a place to get out of the sun and cooling buildings. In New York City, for example, street trees account for an estimated 25% of the entire urban forest.

Cool roofs can be more difficult for a government to implement because they require working with building owners. That often means cities need to provide incentives. Louisville, Kentucky, for example, offers rebates of up to $2,000 for homeowners who install reflective roofing materials, and up to $5,000 for commercial businesses with flat roofs that use reflective coatings.

Efforts like these can help spread cool roof benefits across densely populated neighborhoods that need cooling help most.

As climate change drives more frequent and intense urban heat, cities have powerful tools for lowering the temperature. With some attention to what already exists and what’s feasible, they can find the right budget-conscious strategy that will deliver cooling benefits for everyone.

Lucy Hutyra has received funding from the U.S. federal government and foundations including the World Resources Institute and Burroughs Wellcome Fund for her scholarship on urban climate and mitigation strategies. She was a recipient of a 2023 MacArthur Fellowship for her work in this area.

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

– ref. 2 ways cities can beat the heat: Which is best, urban trees or cool roofs? – https://theconversation.com/2-ways-cities-can-beat-the-heat-which-is-best-urban-trees-or-cool-roofs-260188

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aimee E. Smith, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Net Zero Observatory, The University of Queensland

When an outing calls for upfront payment, such as admission to the cinema, a play or a theme park, the question of who covers it can shape the tone before the fun even begins.

Navigating payment with others – whether colleagues, close friends or new acquaintances – can be tricky and interrupt the social dynamic that makes shared experiences so valuable.

Our new research, published in Psychology and Marketing, suggests the way you approach splitting upfront costs could have some surprising impacts.

In some cases, despite the dent in your bank account, covering the full cost of an experience for yourself and someone else could actually make you happier.

But this won’t always be the case. And it likely comes down to the different norms and expectations we have for different kinds of relationships.

The experience economy

When times are tough financially, psychology suggests people would prefer to spend their money on material goods rather than experiences.

Yet despite ongoing cost-of-living pressures, there’s evidence to suggest many Australians are prioritising experiences.

Experiences are not just services, but rather about creating memorable events. Compared with material goods, experiences are consistently linked to improved happiness.

A big part of the benefit we derive from such experiences hinges on the fact that we share them with other people. Putting money towards experiences lets us spend time with other people and relate to them in ways just buying “stuff” often can’t match.

So much so, that factors like who we go with, the quality of conversations an experience leads to, or the clarity we have about the other person’s interests can have as much of an effect on happiness as the experience content itself.

In shared experiences, where money is unavoidable, how does “who pays” affect their well-being benefits? This is the question we posed in our latest research, coauthored with Belinda Barton and Natalina Zlatevska.

Going to the movies

We conducted three experiments with 2,640 people and presented them with a common scenario: they would be going to the cinema with either their best friend or a casual acquaintance.

We told half of the participants they would split the cost (that is, pay only for their own admission). The other half were told they would cover the whole cost for both themselves and the other person. We then asked them how happy they would be with this purchase.

Across the three studies, when participants were with their best friend, they reported they would be happier paying the full amount than they would be splitting the cost. In contrast, when participants were with an acquaintance, we found that how the cost was split had no effect on happiness.

The ‘close friends’ effect

With closer friends, unlike acquaintances and strangers, we often have a different set of norms and expectations – especially surrounding reciprocity.

Interactions with close friends usually follow “communal norms”. This is where people help each other based on care and need, without expecting something in return.

On the other hand, interactions with strangers and acquaintances are more likely to follow “exchange norms”, which prioritise balance and direct repayment.

In line with this, we found when participants were with their best friends, their expectations of repayment were lower than with acquaintances when they paid for them. Where participants had higher expectations of repayment, they noted they would be less happy.

Other possibilities

We also tested other ideas, such as whether who pays would affect how smooth the conversation felt or whether it created awkwardness in the dynamic.

We also examined whether the payment felt like an investment in the relationship, or whether it made the other person think more positively of the participant.

We found that none of these really changed depending on who paid and how close the two people were, so they didn’t seem to explain why paying for a close friend felt better.

Instead, norms around reciprocity in different types of relationships can make paying feel more transactional than a kind gesture. This, in turn, affects how happy it makes us feel.

So, should I spend all my money on my friends?

While our research suggests paying for others can make you happier, we don’t recommend budgeting your life savings for this cause.

We limited our experiments to inexpensive experiences (that is, the cinema). So, it’s unlikely paying for your friend’s 2026 Europe trip will bring you ultimate happiness.

Also, if your friend already owes you money, you might expect them to pay you back sooner, and footing the bill again could start to wear thin on your happiness.

Aimee E. Smith 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. Time to ditch splitting the bill? Shouting a close friend could actually make you happier – https://theconversation.com/time-to-ditch-splitting-the-bill-shouting-a-close-friend-could-actually-make-you-happier-261557

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Heffernan, Lecturer in Anthropology, Australian National University

Almost half of all Australian properties are at risk of bushfire, while 17,500 face risk of coastal erosion. By 2030, more than 3 million will face riverine flood risk.

Meanwhile, housing demand continues to outpace supply. With climate-related disasters projected to increase in frequency and severity, the task of ensuring safe and adequate housing for all Australians remains a challenge.

In other words, disasters are worsening the housing shortage, rendering more people at risk of homelessness.

There is growing consensus in the homelessness and emergency management sectors that Australia needs a national policy response.

We must ensure secure and safe housing options are a disaster planning priority.

Like ‘living a disaster every day’

Climate disasters displace 22,261 Australians on average each year. People with the lowest incomes make up 80% of this. The very poorest 3%, despite being small, make up 14% of displaced households.

Australia is not alone. Globally, 70% of internal displacement in 2024 resulted from disasters, often disproportionately affecting low socioeconomic areas.

Loss of housing affects everything from a person’s health and employment to education and relationships. One person who’d experienced disaster-related housing loss said it was like

living a disaster every day, but without the assistance and support given to most disaster survivors.

Renters, rough sleepers and people living in unattached dwellings are most vulnerable.

Slipping through the cracks

The catastrophic Northern Rivers floods in 2022 provide an instructive example.

The floods rendered over 3,500 homes uninhabitable and more than 8,000 were damaged. Over 1,400 people were displaced and offered emergency accommodation by the New South Wales government.

The total number of people experiencing homelessness post-floods remains unclear. This is due to existing overcrowding and because people left the area or became uncontactable.

Recent research colleagues and I conducted with homeowners and renters, commissioned by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, examined 17 people’s experiences of securing shelter after disaster.

In Lismore, a key barrier was poor communication and increased competition for rental housing. One person told us:

The real estate basically dropped the ball after a month. I had to chase them up, and the return of my bond and all that. […] I applied for ten different properties and never heard back. […] I ended up sourcing my own accommodation, a camper trailer, and camped out at the local showgrounds.

For renters, the disaster couldn’t have come at a worse time. A preexisting rental crisis across the region meant the private market was already tight.

Homeowners, by contrast, were able to use insurance to cover transitional housing costs or were eligible for several funding sources to repair properties. This highlights a policy emphasis toward homeowners.

In this context, people can slip through the cracks, increasing the risk of homelessness.

Post-disaster housing can compound vulnerability

Temporary shelters – such as crisis shelters, motels, short-term rentals, pods, cabins and caravans – can be a stop-gap against the risk of homelessness after disaster. However, temporary shelter comes with trade-offs and downsides.

Crisis and commercial options can be damaged during disaster, limiting their use. Pod villages provide mass shelter but are costly, slow to deliver, and there’s often no meaningful plan for people to transition out of them.

Some 18 months after the 2022 Northern Rivers floods, 1,021 people were still living in temporary pod villages and 257 people remained in caravans.

Rent is not usually charged. When relied on beyond the immediate term, this can compound vulnerability by creating gaps in people’s rental history.

A NSW government audit found 724 households were on the waitlist for temporary housing a year after the floods, though this list was rarely updated.

Overall, relatively few households have secured long-term housing solutions. This year, four pod villages will be demobilised amid the region’s ongoing rental crisis.

This comes at a time when Australia is facing a shortfall of 640,000 social and affordable homes.

Around 110,000 requests for homelessness services go unassisted annually.

A national framework is needed

In 2024, a national symposium, convened by the Australian Red Cross, Homelessness Australia and UNSW Sydney’s HowWeSurvive initiative, brought together 125 professionals from the housing, homelessness, emergency management, government and academic sectors.

The report, released in June 2025, called for a national framework focused on disasters, housing and homelessness.

Several policies deal separately with these areas at the Commonwealth, state and territory levels. A unified approach, however, would reposition shelter after disaster from a stop-gap to a central part of disaster planning.

The aim is to strengthen housing options before a natural hazard occurs and prevent disaster-related homelessness.

Australia needs a coordinated strategy and taskforce to align housing, homelessness, and disaster policies and programs. Homelessness planning should be part of disaster planning, and vice versa, to ensure housing type and tenure does not place people at risk of homelessness when disaster strikes.

This requires going beyond just linking displaced households with crisis services.

We must plan for each stage of housing before and after a disaster and anticipate diverse needs, especially for renters and those at risk of homelessness.

Responses should be trauma-informed and able to adapt individual experiences.

Now is the time to act – before the next disaster strikes.

This article was developed with the Australian Red Cross and Homelessness Australia, co-facilitators of the Housing, Homelessness and Disasters National Symposium held in Melbourne in 2024. The symposium was supported by National Shelter and the Community Housing Industry Association, and event funding was provided by the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation.

Timothy Heffernan has received funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), the NSW government and the National Health and Medical Research Council. He is an Honorary Research Fellow at HowWeSurvive, UNSW Sydney.

– ref. Climate disasters are pushing people into homelessness – but there’s a lot we can do about it – https://theconversation.com/climate-disasters-are-pushing-people-into-homelessness-but-theres-a-lot-we-can-do-about-it-259149

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

More than 100 people were arrested in the United Kingdom on the weekend for supporting Palestine Action, a protest group that opposes Britain’s support of Israel.

Palestine Action was recently proscribed as a terrorist organisation, placing it in the same category as Hamas, al-Qaeda and Islamic State.

Many of those arrested were simply holding signs that read: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action”. They were predominantly aged over 60.

In recent weeks, an 83-year-old vicar, a former government lawyer and various pensioners have been taken into custody and could be jailed for up to 14 years if found guilty of belonging to the protest group.

Simply holding a sign or wearing a T-shirt with the words “Palestine Action” could be punishable with a six-month jail term.

The protesters say they refuse to be silenced:

If we cannot speak freely about the genocide that is occurring […], if we cannot condemn those who are complicit in it […] then the right to freedom of expression has no meaning, and democracy and human rights in this country are dead.

So what is Palestine Acton and why is “middle England” up in arms over its designation as a terrorist group?

Activist network

Palestine Action is a UK-based activist network founded in 2020 with the stated aim of “ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.

The group views the British government as complicit in Israeli war crimes in Gaza. It also aspires to halt UK arms exports through disruptive protests and vandalism.

Members have generally targeted Israeli-linked businesses, such as defence company Elbit Systems, by damaging equipment or blocking entrances.

Supporters include grassroots activists, civil liberties advocates, health professionals, clergy and prominent figures such as Pink Floyd musician Roger Waters.

Serious concerns

Palestine Action was officially proscribed in the UK on July 5, after campaigners sprayed paint into the engines of two Voyager aircraft at an air force base.

The final vote was overwhelming: 385 MPs supported the ban, while just 26 opposed it.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, membership, support, or public endorsement of a proscribed group is a criminal offence punishable by sentences up to 14 years.

The UK government argues the group’s actions exceeded legal protest and raised serious security concerns.

Since then, scores of people have been searched and arrested at rallies in support of Palestine Acton.

Blurring the lines

Critics, including Amnesty International, civil liberties groups and The Guardian editorial board warn the ban blurs the line between non-violent civil disobedience and terrorism. They argue it also threatens democratic dissent through a statutory abuse of power.

Counter-terrorism laws permit extraordinary interference in due process and other fundamental human rights protections. Consequently, they must always be used with the highest degree of restraint.

The UK already had legislation in place to deal with criminal damage and violent disorder.

United Nations legal and human rights experts have spoken out against treating the actions of protesters who damage property without the intent to injure people as terrorism:

According to international standards, acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism.

Abuse of power

Designating Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation appears to be aimed at curtailing free expression, the assembly and association of those who support the protest action against Israel’s war on Gaza.

Placing it in the same legal category as Hamas seems designed to reduce public sympathy for the group.

Palestine Action is challenging its proscription in the UK High Court. Lawyers for the group argue the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre has assessed the vast majority of its activities to be lawful:

On nature and scale, the home secretary [Yvette Cooper] accepts that only three of Palestine Action’s at least 385 actions would meet the statutory definition of terrorism […] itself a dubious assessment.

The lawyers further argue proscription was “repugnant” and an “authoritarian abuse of power”.

Australian version?

There are no indications from the intelligence community that any direct affiliate of Palestine Action (UK) operates in Australia.

However, there are pro-Palestinian activist organisations, including a Palestine Action Group Sydney, which is part of the Australian Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN).

Broader solidarity movements such as Students for Palestine, are active in protests on university campuses and against arms shipments to Israel.

Domestic terrorism powers

Traditional boundaries between “activism”, “extremism”, “hate-crime” and “terrorism” are rapidly blurring in Australia.

The attorney general may list (“proscription” is a UK term) any organisation as a “terrorist organisation” if they are satisfied it is “advocating terrorism”. This would mean criminalising the expression of support, instruction, or praise of terrorist acts or offences.

The latest addition to the 31-member list is Terrorgram, an online terrorism advocacy chatroom.

Australia’s extensive definition of “terrorist act”, currently under review, expressly excludes

advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action and which is not intended to cause serious or life-endangering harm or death or to create a serious risk to the safety or health of the public.

This suggests an Australian version of a Palestine Action undertaking similar conduct to its UK cousin would not meet the legal threshold for listing.

However, the recent Terrorgram listing makes reference to advocacy for “attacks on minority groups, critical infrastructure and specific individuals”.

This suggests the UK and Australian governments are becoming more aligned in interpreting “violent” protest to include violence against property, rather than just against people.

Short of listing, a significant suite of investigative, coercive and preventative executive exists that could be deployed if a similar organisation appears in Australia.

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. UK bans Gaza protest group – could the same thing happen in Australia? – https://theconversation.com/uk-bans-gaza-protest-group-could-the-same-thing-happen-in-australia-261562

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lachlan Goold, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary Music, University of the Sunshine Coast

Ozzy Osbourne, the “prince of darkness” and godfather of heavy metal, has died aged 76, just weeks after he reunited with Black Sabbath bandmates for a farewell concert in his hometown of Birmingham in England.

His family posted a brief message overnight: “It is with more sadness than mere words can convey that we have to report that our beloved Ozzy Osbourne has passed away this morning.”

John Michael Osbourne changed the sound of rock music and leaves behind a stellar career spanning six decades, numerous Grammy awards, multiple hall of fame inductions – and a wave of controversy.

An agent of change

In 1969, from the ashes of various bands, Geezer Butler (bass), Tony Iommi (guitar), Bill Ward (drums) and Osbourne formed the band Earth.

Realising the name was taken, they quickly changed their name to Black Sabbath, an homage to the 1963 Italian horror anthology film.

With the Summer of Love a recent memory, Black Sabbath were part of a heavy music revolution, providing an antidote to the free loving hippies of the late 60s period.

Despite making their first two albums cheaply, Black Sabbath, released in February 1970, and Paranoid, released September that same year, they were a global success.

Their approach was laden with sarcasm and irony. American audiences mistook this for satanic worship, positioning them as outsiders (albeit popular ones).

After Black Sabbath’s early successes, they were managed by the notorious Don Arden, whose daughter Sharon Levy was the receptionist. More than any musical bond Osbourne had in his life, Sharon would be the most influential character throughout his life.

Osbourne recorded eight albums with Black Sabbath (some to critical acclaim) and was then kicked out (by Sharon) due to his troubles with drugs and alcohol.

Ozzy solo

Osbourne’s solo career has always been managed by Sharon. While recording his second solo album, Diary of a Madman, guitarist Rhodes died in a tragic light plane crash. Osbourne was close to Rhodes and fell into a deep depression, after never having lost someone so close.

Sharon and Osbourne married only months after this incident. His struggle with drug use did not stop him from making further solo records alongside various guitar players, continuing with moderate success throughout his career.

On the road, Osbourne put the John Farnham’s last tour trope to shame.

He held his last ever gig more times than one can count with names like No More Tours (1992–93), Retirement Sucks (1995–96) and No More Tours 2 (2018–19).

This lament for touring led to the most successful era of Osbourne’s career. After being rejected for the 1995 Lollapaloza festival bill, Sharon (and their son Jack) started Ozzfest; initially an annual two-day multiband festival headlined by Osbourne, held in Phoenix, Arizona, and Devore, California.

Subsequently becoming a national – and then international – tour, Ozzfest led to a successful partnership with MTV, which led to the reality TV show The Osbournes premiering in 2002. Here, his previous and ongoing battle with drugs was obvious, proudly on display – and ridiculed – to huge global audiences.

The spectacle of a rich rockstar and his family, featuring a constant barrage of swearing, battles with lavish TV remotes, canine therapy, never-ending chaos, and Osbourne constantly yelling “Sharrrooon” like a twisted maniacal loop of A Street Car Named Desire.

Struggles and controversies

Osbourne suffered multiple health conditions over the years, rarely concealing the state of his physical or mental wellbeing.

Notably he’s struggled with drug and alcohol abuse his whole career with drug recovery centres using Osbourne as an exemplar. In 2007 he disclosed he suffered from the Parkinson’s adjacent condition Parkinsonian syndrome. In 2019 he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.

This resulted in him being unable to walk for his final Back to the Beginning show in Birmingham on July 5 2025.

And Osbourne’s career had more than its fair share of controversy. He bit the head off a dove and a bat (celebrated with a commemorative toy), and urinated on the Alamo cenotaph. He was taken to court multiple times, but was never convicted.

Ozzy and me

As a white middle-class boy growing up in the Brisbane suburbs in the 80s, heavy metal music appealed to my testosterone and pimple filled body.

Exploring the secondhand record shops of Brisbane, I would’ve bought my first copy of Black Sabbath around 1985. The sound of thunder and a distant church bell before the first drop-D riff enters seemed like the antithesis to sunny Queensland and 80s pop.

As my life became obsessed with the recording studio and the vociferous music scene in Brisbane in the post-Joh era, and those drop-D riffs influenced a new style that swept the world in the early 90s.

Osbourne’s influence was huge and through grunge, his sound was reborn. Grunge was a marriage of the Sabbath-like drop-D riffs with the energy of punk and the melody of the Beatles.

Listening to Black Sabbath and Ozzy records, equipped me with a sonic palette ready to capture the wave of alternative music emmerging from the Brisbane scene.

While Ozzy’s death is no surprise (except for those who never thought he’d last this long), we should take pause and remember an icon with an endless energy for entertaining, a passion for music, and changing the expectations of popular culture for more than 50 years.

Lachlan Goold 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 incredible impact of Ozzy Osbourne, from Black Sabbath to Ozzfest to 30 years of retirement tours – https://theconversation.com/the-incredible-impact-of-ozzy-osbourne-from-black-sabbath-to-ozzfest-to-30-years-of-retirement-tours-258820

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sara Webb, Lecturer, Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology

On July 1, astronomers spotted an unusual high-speed object zooming towards the Sun. Dubbed 3I/ATLAS, the surprising space traveller had one very special quality: its orbit showed it had come from outside our Solar System.

For only the third time ever, we had discovered a true interstellar visitor. And it was weird.

3I/ATLAS breaking records

3I/ATLAS appeared to be travelling at 245,000 kilometres per hour, making it the fastest object ever detected in our Solar System.

It was also huge. Early estimates suggest the object could be up to 20km in size. Finally, scientists believe it may even be older than our Sun.

Could it be alien?

Our first assumption when we see something in space is that it’s a lump of rock or ice. But the strange properties of 3I/ATLAS have suggested to some that it may be something else entirely.

Harvard astrophysics professor Avi Loeb and colleagues last week uploaded a paper titled Is the Interstellar Object 3I/ATLAS Alien Technology? to the arXiv preprint server. (The paper has not yet been peer reviewed.)

Loeb is a controversial figure among astronomers and astrophysicists. He has previously suggested that the first known interstellar object, 1I/ʻOumuamua, discovered in 2017, may also have been an alien craft.

Among other oddities Loeb suggests may be signs of deliberate alien origin, he notes the orbit of 3I/ATLAS takes it improbably close to Venus, Mars and Jupiter.

We’ve sent out our own alien probes

The idea of alien probes wandering the cosmos may sound strange, but humans sent out a few ourselves in the 1970s. Both Voyager 1 and 2 have officially left our Solar System, and Pioneer 10 and 11 are not far behind.

So it’s not a stretch to think that alien civilisations – if they exist – would have launched their own galactic explorers.

However, this brings us to a crucial question: short of little green men popping out to say hello, how would we actually know if 3I/ATLAS, or any other interstellar object, was an alien probe?

Detecting alien probes 101

The first step to determining whether something is a natural object or an alien probe is of course to spot it.

Most things we see in our Solar System don’t emit light of their own. Instead, we only see them by the light they reflect from the Sun.

Larger objects generally reflect more sunlight, so they are easier for us to see. So what we see tends to be larger comets and asteroid, especially farther from Earth.

It can be very difficult to spot smaller objects. At present, we can track objects down to a size of ten or 20 metres out as far from the Sun as Jupiter.

Our own Voyager probes are about ten metres in size (if we include their radio antennas). If an alien probe was similar, we probably wouldn’t spot it until it was somewhere in the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars.

If we did spot something suspicious, to figure out if it really were a probe or not we would look for a few telltales.

First off, because a natural origin is most likely, we would look for evidence that no aliens were involved. One clue in this direction might be if the object were emitting a “tail” of gas in the way that comets do.

However, we might also want to look for hints of alien origin. One very strong piece of evidence would be any kind of radio waves coming from the probe as a form of communication. This is assuming the probe was still in working order, and not completely defunct.

We might also look for signs of electrostatic discharge caused by sunlight hitting the probe.

Another dead giveaway would be signs of manoeuvring or propulsion. An active probe might try to correct its course or reposition its antennas to send and receive signals to and from its origin.

And a genuine smoking gun would be an approach to Earth in a stable orbit. Not to brag, but Earth is genuinely the most interesting place in the Solar System – we have water, a healthy atmosphere, a strong magnetic field and life. A probe with any decision-making capacity would likely want to investigate and collect data about our interesting little planet.

We may never know

Without clear signs one way or the other, however, it may be impossible to know if some interstellar objects are natural or alien-made.

Objects like 3I/ATLAS remind us that space is vast, strange, and full of surprises. Most of them have natural explanations. But the strangest objects are worth a second look.

For now, 3I/ATLAS is likely just an unusually fast, old and icy visitor from a distant system. But it also serves as a test case: a chance to refine the way we search, observe and ask questions about the universe.

Sara Webb 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. Could the latest ‘interstellar comet’ be an alien probe? Why spotting cosmic visitors is harder than you think – https://theconversation.com/could-the-latest-interstellar-comet-be-an-alien-probe-why-spotting-cosmic-visitors-is-harder-than-you-think-261656

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pandanus Petter, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

The government in the UK is introducing legislation into parliament to lower the voting age to 16.

If passed, the new age rules will be in place for the next general election, expected around 2029.

Should Australia follow suit? We asked five experts.

Pandanus Petter’s employment is funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant.

Faith Gordon receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Jill Sheppard receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Blair Williams and Intifar Chowdhury 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. Should Australia lower the voting age to 16 like the UK? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/should-australia-lower-the-voting-age-to-16-like-the-uk-we-asked-5-experts-261469

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Savulescu, Visiting Professor in Biomedical Ethics, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute; Distinguished Visiting Professor in Law, University of Melbourne; Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, The University of Melbourne

A young woman needs an abortion and the reasons, while urgent, are not medical. A United States Navy nurse at Guantánamo Bay is ordered to force-feed a defiant detainee on hunger strike.

These very different real-life cases have one connecting thread: the question of whether a health professional can conscientiously object to carrying out a patient’s request.

Freedom of conscience is often held up as a purely noble principle. But when it’s used to deny health care, it means a single person’s beliefs are dictating what is best for another person’s physical and mental health – which can have devastating, even fatal, results.

In our recent book, Rethinking Conscientious Objection in Healthcare, colleagues and I conclude doctors should not be free to make medical decisions based on their personal beliefs.

It’s not noble to refuse care

Freedom of conscience is strongly – but not absolutely – protected under international human rights law. It is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This principle has often been used for moral purposes: for example, to resist orders to torture or kill.

But after researching use of conscientious objection by health professionals, I have concluded it is seriously flawed when used to deny patients health services. This is especially so when particular doctors have a monopoly on service provision, as is the case with abortion and assisted dying in many rural and regional areas of Australia.

In Australia, doctors are allowed to conscientiously object to abortion, although nearly all states require referral to other service providers or information about how to access the relevant service.

In practice, these laws are not enforced and sometimes disregarded.

A doctor’s refusal can mean patients can be denied the standard of care they need, or indeed, any care at all.

Health-care professionals are not like pacifists refusing conscription into the military, opposing something forced upon them. They freely choose health-care careers that come with obligations and with ethical stances already established by professional codes of conduct.

People are free to hold whatever beliefs they choose, but those beliefs will inevitably close off some options for them. For example, a vegetarian will not be able to work in an abattoir. That is true for every one of us. But what shouldn’t happen is a doctor’s personal beliefs closing off legitimate options for their patient.

4 guiding questions

Instead of personal values, there are four key secular principles we propose that doctors should rely on when deciding how to advise patients about sensitive procedures:

• is it legal?

• is it a just and fair use of any resources that might be limited?

• is it in the interests of the patient’s wellbeing?

• is it what the patient has themselves decided they want?

Of course, there will be times when some of these principles are in conflict – that is when it is important to apply the most crucial ones, the wellbeing of the patient and the patient’s own wishes.

In Ireland in 2012, a young woman named Savita Halappanavar went to an Irish hospital for treatment for her miscarriage. Doctors knew there was no hope of the pregnancy surviving but refused to evacuate her uterus while there was still a fetal heartbeat, for fear of breaching Ireland’s anti-abortion laws. The result: Savita died of septicaemia at 31.

If doctors had put the patient’s wellbeing first, they would have given her that termination, despite the law, and it would have saved her life.

These are the principles that should have been applied to the examples above: the woman seeking an abortion for career reasons or the nurse refusing to force-feed prisoners.

The doctor (or nurse) should ask: Is it what the patient has autonomously decided they want? Will it lead to the best outcome for both their physical and their mental health?

If abortion will promote a woman’s wellbeing, it is in her interests. Hunger strikers should not be force-fed because it violates their autonomy.

An unfair burden

While doctors’ personal values are important, they should not dictate care at the bedside. Not only can this disadvantage the patient, but it places an unfair burden on colleagues who do accept such work, and must carry a disproportionate load of procedures they might find unpleasant and financially unrewarding.

It also creates injustice. Patients who are educated, wealthy and well-connected already find it easier to access health care. Conscientious objection intensifies that unfairness in large swathes of the country because it further limits options.

Two countries with excellent health-care systems, Sweden and Finland, do not permit conscientious objection by medical professionals.

In Australia, it is time we do the same and strongly limit conscientious objection as a legal right for health professionals. We should also ensure those entering the discipline are prepared to take on all procedures relevant to their specialty.

And lastly, but most importantly, we should educate them that the patient’s interests and values must always come first. An individual doctor’s sense of moral authority should not be permitted to morph into medical and moral authoritarianism.

Julian Savulescu 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. Doctors shouldn’t be allowed to object to medical care if it harms their patients – https://theconversation.com/doctors-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-object-to-medical-care-if-it-harms-their-patients-260003

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rowena Maguire, Professor of Law and Director of the Centre of Justice, Queensland University of Technology

For centuries, clothes were hard to produce and expensive. People wore them as long as possible. But manufacturing advances have steadily driven down the cost of production. These days, clothing can be produced very cheaply. In the 1990s, companies began churning out fast fashion: low cost versions of high end trends. In the 2010s came ultra fast fashion, where clothes are produced extremely rapidly and intended to be almost disposable.

Ultra fast fashion is deeply unsustainable. Producing it is energy intensive and many low quality items go rapidly to landfill.

In response, France is planning to add a A$16 tax to each item of ultra-fast fashion, require mandatory environmental disclosures and ban advertising and influencer promotions.

To date, Australia has done little about the problem – even though every Australian bought an average of 53 new pieces of clothing as of 2023 and we send 220,000 tonnes of clothes to the dump annually. Responses so far have focused on voluntary schemes, which have done little to help. Policymakers should look overseas.

Why is ultra fast fashion such a problem?

About 117 billion pieces of clothing were purchased worldwide in 2023 – about 14 pieces per person. That’s well beyond the limit of five new garments per year experts recommend if we’re to live within our planetary boundaries.

There are many problems with buying too many cheap clothes. Textile manufacturing is surprisingly energy intensive. At present, the industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions and this is expected to rise steadily. Millions of barrels of oil are used each year to make synthetic fibres such as polyester.

Ultra fast fashion items rely heavily on synthetic fibres. When washed, they produce large volumes of microplastics which go into rivers and oceans. The European Union estimates textiles account for about 20% of freshwater pollution annually. Many ultra cheap clothing items have question marks over how ethically they were produced. Nearly all of these cheap clothes only have one owner before going to the dump.

Australia’s response is minimal

Australia has no national policy on clothing. Circular economy policies and strategies at both federal and state levels don’t tend to focus on textiles.

Australian consumer laws regulate greenwashing of products. In 2023, Australia’s peak competition regulator flagged the textile industry as one with a high rate of concerning claims.

Similarly, Australia’s modern slavery laws require large corporations to identify and address risks of slave labour in their operations. Fashion brands often source materials and labour from regions with high exploitation risks Unfortunately, these laws don’t have penalties attached.

These laws are positive, but still far from the EU’s large-scale efforts to regulate the textile industry.

One promising effort is the voluntary Seamless textile scheme. Voluntary schemes like these are often used as a way to introduce reforms to a previously unregulated sector or industry.

The goal of this scheme is to help brands take responsibility for the entire lifespan of the garments they make or sell. Participating brands and retailers pay a levy which is used to promote clothing repair and rental, expand recycling and run information campaigns. Seamless is meant to help the industry prepare for a potential mandatory scheme in the future. Former Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said she was “not afraid to regulate” last year, but nothing has happened since.

To date, participation has been very limited. Around 60 brands and retailers have signed up. Ultra-fast fashion brands such as Temu and Shein aren’t covered by the scheme, as they’re based overseas.

Time for laws with teeth?

France’s planned ultra fashion laws are directly aimed at high-volume, low-cost clothing producers with binding measures such as taxes and advertising bans. If the laws come into effect, France would likely see a substantial drop in the flows of these clothes and the textile waste produced.

By contrast, Australia’s efforts so far aren’t changing things. The Seamless scheme is voluntary, while greenwashing and modern slavery laws rely on disclosures and lack enforcement powers and penalties.

It wouldn’t be easy. At present, Australia lacks laws focused on textiles, while responsibility for clothing imports is split between different government departments and levels of government. The issue of fast fashion often hits local governments hardest in the form of increased waste volumes, for instance, but local governments have no power over the problem. If policymakers did introduce a French-style tax, they would face resistance from the industry and from some consumers.

The upside? France’s approach is far more likely to actually curb the damage done by ultra-fast fashion.

Rowena Maguire receives funding from United Nations Environment Program – Legal Division.

– ref. Ultra fast fashion could be taxed to oblivion in France. Could Australia follow suit? – https://theconversation.com/ultra-fast-fashion-could-be-taxed-to-oblivion-in-france-could-australia-follow-suit-259559

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Simon, Adjunct Fellow in Economics, Macquarie University

In the United States, President Donald Trump has been pressuring the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, to slash interest rates. This is partly to ease the interest payments on the ballooning US government debt.

Powell has so far resisted, but Trump has also threatened to replace him with someone who will do what he asks.

In Australia, after the Reserve Bank’s surprise decision to hold interest rates steady this month, some commentators have wondered if the central bank had “betrayed” Australians. Treasurer Jim Chalmers pointedly remarked:

It’s not the result millions of Australians were hoping for or what the market was expecting.

On Tuesday, the Reserve Bank released the minutes of that controversial policy-setting meeting, which said some economic data was slightly stronger than expected. The majority of the board believed:

lowering the cash rate a third time within the space of four meetings would be unlikely to be consistent with the strategy of easing monetary policy in a cautious and gradual manner.

Can’t rates just be kept low?

Wouldn’t we be better off if central banks kept interest rates low, as some politicians and borrowers were hoping for? It would certainly help those of us with mortgages.

Surprisingly, the answer is no.

We are better off when central banks set interest rates with a view on the longer run rather than just the short-term demands of politicians and borrowers.

To see why we can look at history to see what happens when a central bank isn’t independent.

Why does independence matter?

In the 1970s the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Arthur Burns, was pressured to cut interest rates in the run-up to the 1972 election. He dutifully did so and, while President Richard Nixon was re-elected, this led to “stagflation” – with inflation, unemployment and even interest rates, higher than before interest rates were cut.

A more recent example of political pressure can be seen in Turkey where the president pressured the central bank to cut interest rates. He hoped to stimulate the economy and believed higher interest rates caused higher inflation.

Unfortunately, lower rates were shortly followed by higher inflation and, ultimately, much higher interest rates.

And today in the US, even though Powell has so far resisted Trump’s pressure, financial markets are shaken and long-term interest rates go up when Trump talks about replacing him.

Lower interest rates can be like a caffeinated energy drink – they give you a short-term energy boost, but can leave you tired, irritable and with a headache when the effects wear off.

So, why does this happen? It’s all about expectations.

Expectations about the future matter

A central bank influences the economy both through what it does and what people expect it to do. The ability to shape expectations is a powerful tool for central banks, especially during crises such as the COVID pandemic, when official interest rates were close to zero.

Imagine, for example, you are about to take out a mortgage. In making this decision you will likely think not just about current interest rates and your ability to make repayments, but what is likely to happen to future interest rates, your wages and inflation.

Credibility is the key to successfully shaping people’s expectations. If a central bank is independent and credible, consumers and businesses will listen to what it says and adjust their expectations accordingly.

The chart below illustrates this point.

Macquarie University’s Business Outlook Scenarios Survey asks businesses if they believe the Reserve Bank will meet its inflation goals. Those that do trust the bank (the line labelled “certain”) have lower inflation expectations than those that don’t (the line labelled “uncertain”).

Importantly, the expectations of those that trust the bank to meet its inflation goals tend to align with the bank’s 2–3% inflation target over the business cycle.

And these expectations affect what businesses and consumers do today.

So, how credible is the Reserve Bank today?

Despite the surprise hold, Australians still trust the RBA

Data from the Business Outlook Scenarios Survey shows the Reserve Bank has rebuilt its credibility since its 2021 “promise” not to raise interest rates until 2024. It has done this by reforming its board structure and membership, being more open and, most critically, by hitting the inflation target.

Indeed, the most recent survey data shows that, if anything, the surprise decision increased people’s confidence in the bank’s ability to control inflation.

In July, the survey was in the field between July 7 and 10. The Reserve Bank made its announcement on July 8. Out of 512 businesses surveyed, 368 completed it before the announcement and 144 completed it after the announcement.

Overall, more than 40% of businesses surveyed were certain the Reserve Bank will achieve its inflation target. This is up from less than 10% a year ago. And, those who completed the survey after the announcement were more likely to trust the Reserve Bank than those that who completed it before the announcement.

So next time you hear politicians and commentators calling for immediate interest rate cuts, you should hope the Reserve Bank ignores those calls and focuses on the longer term. Overseas experience shows things do not end well when politicians start determining interest rates.

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. Central bank independence and credibility matters. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/central-bank-independence-and-credibility-matters-heres-why-260198

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ciara Smart, PhD Graduand in Australasian Irish History, University of Tasmania

Love them or hate them, there’s no doubt Irish hip-hop trio Kneecap are having a moment.

Their music – delivered in a powerful fusion of English and Irish – is known for its gritty lyrics about party drugs and working-class life in post-Troubles Ireland. More recently, the group has made headlines for its outspoken support for the Palestinian people.

British police have charged member Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh (known by his stage name Mo Chara) with a terrorism offence. Ó hAnnaidh was charged in May, after being accused of displaying a Hezbollah flag at a London concert in November.

But this isn’t the first time an Irish republican group has courted controversy for backing other oppressed peoples. This has been happening for almost two centuries.

Unsanitised and vocal support

Ireland is composed of 32 counties. Twenty-six are in the Republic of Ireland, while six are part of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland. When the British government withdrew from most of Ireland in 1921, the Irish Free State was largely Catholic, while Northern Ireland was more heavily Protestant. But these divisions are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

While Ireland is still split across two nations, public support for Irish unity remains strong, particularly among citizens of the Republic.

Kneecap’s members are from Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland. They are also fierce republicans, which means they want to see Ireland united as one nation. One of their most popular songs, Get Your Brits Out, calls for the British state’s withdrawal from Northern Ireland.

The group has experienced a meteoric rise in recent years, helped by a semi-autobiographical film released last year.

They have reclaimed the term “Fenian”, often used as an anti-Irish slur. Their decision to rap in Irish is also a cultural milestone, as the language was suppressed in Northern Ireland for most of the 20th century, only achieving official language status in 2022.

Despite being undeniable provocateurs, they claim they aren’t
interested in reigniting Catholic-Protestant conflict. They celebrate the similarities between both groups, rather than highlight their differences.

Ó hAnnaidh’s alleged terrorism offence came after he waved a Hezbollah flag at a London gig and chanted “Up Hamas, up Hezbollah”. Both Hamas and Hezbollah are considered terrorist groups in Britain. He will face court on August 20.

Irish-Māori solidarity

Kneecap is carrying on a long tradition of Irish groups who faced controversy for denouncing the oppressive acts of powerful states.

In the 19th century, several Irish nationalist groups expressed solidarity with other colonised peoples, especially Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand. Groups such as the Irish Republican Brotherhood (whose members were called Fenians) arguably saw Māori and Irish as co-victims of a tyrannical state.

Irish nationalist newspapers often wrote sympathetically about the colonisation of New Zealand, and tried to inspire Ireland to resist British subjugation, like Māori seemed to be doing.

In July 1864, the Fenian newspaper The Irish People stressed British hypocrisy. It wrote, “savages we call [Māori], using the arrogant language of civilisation, but, honestly, they deserve to be characterised by a much better word”.

It also scoffed at the “unconquerable propensity of the Anglo-Saxon to plunder the lands of other people – a propensity which manifests itself most strikingly alike in Ireland and New Zealand”.

Similarly, in December 1868, the nationalist newspaper The Nation contrasted “valiant” Māori with “terrified” British. It sarcastically described Māori as “rebels (men fighting for their own rights on their own soil)” and mocked the British forces as “valiant men who could bully a priest”.

The article finished on a sombre note: “Mere valour will in the end go down before the force of numbers and the cunning of diplomacy”.

Rumours of a secret rebellion

Other Irish leaders, such as the nationalist Michael Davitt, saw inspirational parallels between the nonviolent campaign of Charles Stewart Parnell, the 19th century leader of the Irish Home Rule movement, and Māori leader Te Whiti-o-Rongomai.

In Ireland, Parnell encouraged poor tenant farmers to pause rent payments to their British landlords. In New Zealand, Te Whiti encouraged Māori to dismantle colonially-constructed fences and plough the land for themselves. Both were arrested in 1881 within three weeks of each other.

So strong was the sense of kinship between Irish and Māori that, in the 1860s, there were persistent rumours of a joint Irish-Māori rebellion reported in the media and even New Zealand’s parliament.

In March, 1869, the conservative New Zealand newspaper Daily Southern Cross reported a large number of Māori “have decided on joining the Fenian Brotherhood, and have adopted the green flag as their national emblem”.

Later that year, the paper reported the supposed Fenians told a Māori resistance group that, “like the Maori, they hate the British rule, and are prepared to make common cause […] to overthrow that rule in New Zealand”.

However, these rumours were probably no more than a conspiracy fuelled by racist anti-Irish paranoia.

Actions and outcomes

Any tangible results of cross-cultural sympathy from 19th century Irish nationalists were mixed, at best. My ongoing research shows solidarity with Māori was partly motivated by humanitarian motives, but was also often used to make a point about Ireland.

Identifying with another oppressed peoples within the context of a corrupt empire was a powerful way to argue for improved political recognition within Ireland. Irish nationalists generally didn’t do much other than declare their sympathy.

Kneecap, on the other hand, seems willing to bear the legal and financial consequences of being vocal about human rights abuses in Gaza. Some of their shows have been cancelled, and funding providers have withdrawn.

While curated rebellion can be lucrative in show-business, Kneecap says the controversy following them is a distraction. They insist the world should focus squarely on Gaza instead.

Ciara Smart 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. Kneecap’s stance on Gaza extends a long history of the Irish supporting other oppressed peoples – https://theconversation.com/kneecaps-stance-on-gaza-extends-a-long-history-of-the-irish-supporting-other-oppressed-peoples-261261

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nathan Cooper, Associate Professor of Law, University of Waikato

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will issue a highly anticipated advisory opinion overnight to clarify state obligations related to climate change.

It will answer two urgent questions: what are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment from greenhouse gas emissions, and what are the legal consequences for states that have caused significant harm to Earth’s atmosphere and environment?

ICJ advisory opinions are not legally binding. But coming from the world’s highest court, they provide an authoritative opinion on serious issues that can be highly persuasive.

This advisory opinion marks the culmination of a campaign that began in 2019 when students and youth organisations in Vanuatu – one of the most vulnerable nations to climate-related impacts – persuaded their government to seek clarification on what states should be doing to protect them.

Led by Vanuatu and co-sponsored by 132 member states, including New Zealand and Australia, the United Nations General Assembly formally requested the advisory opinion in March 2023.

More than two years of public consultation and deliberation ensued, leading to this week’s announcement.

What to expect

Looking at the specific questions to be addressed, at least three aspects stand out.

First, the sources and areas of international law under scrutiny are not confined to the UN’s climate change framework. This invites the ICJ to consider a broad range of law – including trans-boundary environmental law, human rights law, international investment law, humanitarian law, trade law and beyond – and to draw on both treaty-related obligations and customary international law.

Such an encyclopaedic examination could produce a complex and integrated opinion on states’ obligations to protect the environment and climate system.

Second, the opinion will address what obligations exist, not just to those present today, but to future generations. This follows acknowledgement of the so-called “intertemporal characteristics” of climate change in recent climate-related court decisions and the need to respond effectively to both the current climate crisis and its likely ongoing consequences.

Third, the opinion won’t just address what obligations states have, but also what the consequences should be for nations:

where they, by their acts and omissions have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment.

Addressing consequences as well as obligations should cause states to pay closer attention and make the ICJ’s advisory more relevant to domestic climate litigation and policy discussions.

Global judicial direction

Two recent court findings may offer clues as to the potential scope of the ICJ’s findings.

Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights published its own advisory opinion on state obligations in response to climate change.

Explicitly connecting fundamental human rights with a healthy ecosystem, this opinion affirmed states have an imperative duty to prevent irreversible harm to the climate system. Moreover, the duty to safeguard the common ecosystem must be understood as a fundamental principle of international law to which states must adhere.

Meanwhile last week, an Australian federal court dismissed a landmark climate case, determining that the Australian government does not owe a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to protect them from the consequences of climate change.

The court accepted the claimants face significant loss and damage from climate impacts and that previous Australian government policies on greenhouse gas emissions were not aligned with the best science to limit climate change. But it nevertheless determined that “matters of high or core government policy” are not subject to common law duties of care.

Whether the ICJ will complement the Inter-American court’s bold approach or opt for a more constrained and conservative response is not certain. But now is the time for clear and ambitious judicial direction with global scope.

Implications for New Zealand

Aotearoa New Zealand aspires to climate leadership through its Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019. This set 2050 targets of reducing emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) to net zero, and biogenic methane by 25-47%.

However, actions to date are likely insufficient to meet this target. Transport emissions continue to rise and agriculture – responsible for nearly half of the country’s emissions – is lightly regulated.

Although the government plans to double renewable energy by 2050, it is also in the process of lifting a 2018 ban on offshore gas exploration and has pledged $200 million to co-invest in the development of new fields.

Critics also point out the government has made little progress towards its promise to install 10,000 EV charging stations by 2030 while axing a clean-investment fund.

Although a final decision is yet to be made, the government is also considering to lower the target for cuts to methane emissions from livestock, against advice from the Climate Change Commission.

With the next global climate summit coming up in November, the ICJ opinion may offer timely encouragement for states to reconsider their emissions targets and the ambition of climate policies.

Most countries have yet to submit their latest emissions reduction pledges (known as nationally determined contributions) under the Paris Agreement. New Zealand has made its pledge, but it has been described as “underwhelming”. This may present a chance to adjust ambition upwards.

If the ICJ affirms that states have binding obligations to prevent climate harm, including trans-boundary impacts, New Zealand’s climate change policies and progress to date could face increased legal scrutiny.

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. Do countries have a duty to prevent climate harm? The world’s highest court is about to answer this crucial question – https://theconversation.com/do-countries-have-a-duty-to-prevent-climate-harm-the-worlds-highest-court-is-about-to-answer-this-crucial-question-261396

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

We’re now less than a month away from the start of the Albanese government’s “economic reform” (aka “productivity”) roundtable, but it has become quite hard to get a fix on exactly what this gathering will amount to.

The guest list for the August 19-21 summit is obviously tight, given the government decided it wanted the meeting to fit into the cabinet room (so avoiding a more extensive “talkfest”).

But excluding the states and territories from a meeting that discusses deregulation and taxation means major players in these policy areas are not in the room (the NSW treasurer, Daniel Mookhey, chair of the board of treasurers, is the only state government representative invited). Treasurer Jim Chalmers says he will meet state treasurers beforehand, but that doesn’t quite cover their omission.

The government has flagged that industrial relations isn’t on the table, although the unions will be at that table. Yet IR is a major issue in productivity, so that excludes a central area from discussion. The unions are being given a level of protection other players potentially do not have.

Tax reform is a central topic at the roundtable, the themes of which are productivity, budget sustainability and economic resilience. But the scope of what is up for serious consideration is limited.

The government is not willing to consider changing the GST, even if it is not formally ruling out it being canvassed.

When it was put to him that he opposed altering the GST, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told the ABC this week what he would not do was “go to an election and secure a majority because our government concentrated on cost-of-living measures in our first term […] and immediately we get elected and we say, we’re going to put up the price of everything that you buy.

“That is not something that’s tenable. That’s something which would have represented a breach of trust upon which we were elected on May 3rd.”

Rejecting an overhaul of the GST kyboshes, for better or worse, a major tax switch from our over-reliance on personal income tax to putting more of the tax burden on indirect tax. This is a change many tax experts advocate.

Despite the hype around the pre-roundtable discussion of broad tax reform, what appears likely to find favour with the government are tax changes affecting wealth (but excluding the family home) and the resources sector.

It remains unclear to what extent Chalmers will seek to define the outcome beforehand. That is: will he, after reviewing the submissions, go into the roundtable with a firm idea of what he wants to get out of it, and then see how much he can get over the “consensus” line?

Helpfully for everyone at the roundtable, the Productivity Commission is about to release a series of reports on various aspects of productivity, which will provide data and ideas.

These cover economic resilience, improving workforce skills and adaptability, harnessing digital technology, improving care delivery, and investing in the net zero transformation.

Meanwhile business, which felt it was made something of a patsy in the 2022 jobs and skills summit, with the government using that meeting to gain traction for what it already wanted to do, is being cautious this time.

Even before the formal announcement of the roundtable, it set up a group following the government’s nomination of productivity as a central priority for this term. The umbrella body’s first meeting was attended by more than 20 groups representing businesses of all sizes, universities and the investment community. This body is ongoing. It includes the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Minerals Council of Australia and the Council of Small Business Organisations.

The umbrella body will put forward a suite of recommendations for the roundtable including on investment, innovation, reducing red tape, planning and approval processes, tax, education and employment.

We now have the full list of roundtable participants. It’s interesting for who’s there and who’s not. Ken Henry, of the seminal Henry taxation report – of which Chalmers has vivid memories from his days as a staffer of former treasurer Wayne Swan – will be present. Henry last week gave a strong presentation at the National Press Club about the pressing need for reform of the environment protection regime.

Also scoring an invitation is teal crossbencher Allegra Spender, who made tax reform one of her core issues last term. Spender is holding her own “tax reform roundtable” on Friday, with a who’s who of experts.

But left off the Treasurer’s invitation list list was the Minerals Council of Australia. This despite the fact that tax changes in the resources area seem a ripe area for discussion.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: How much can Jim Chalmers get out of the economic reform roundtable? – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-how-much-can-jim-chalmers-get-out-of-the-economic-reform-roundtable-261095

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Esterman, Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of South Australia

Winter is here, and with it come higher rates of respiratory illnesses. If you’ve been struck down recently with a sore throat, runny nose and a cough, or perhaps even a fever, you’re not alone.

Last week, non-urgent surgeries were paused in several Queensland hospitals due to a surge of influenza and COVID cases filling up hospital beds.

Meanwhile, more than 200 aged care facilities around Australia are reportedly facing COVID outbreaks.

So, just how bad are respiratory infections this year, and which viruses are causing the biggest problems?

COVID

Until May, COVID case numbers were about half last year’s level, but June’s 32,348 notifications are closing the gap (compared with 45,634 in June 2024). That said, we know far fewer people test now than they did earlier in the pandemic, so these numbers are likely to be an underestimate.

According to the latest Australian Respiratory Surveillance Report, Australia now appears to be emerging from a winter wave of COVID cases driven largely by the NB.1.8.1 subvariant, known as “Nimbus”.

Besides classic cold-like symptoms, this Omicron offshoot can reportedly cause particularly painful sore throats as well as gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea and diarrhoea.

While some people who catch COVID have no symptoms or just mild ones, for many people the virus can be serious. Older adults and those with chronic health issues remain at greatest risk of experiencing severe illness and dying from COVID.

Some 138 aged care residents have died from COVID since the beginning of June.

The COVID booster currently available is based on the JN.1 subvariant. Nimbus is a direct descendant of JN.1 – as is another subvariant in circulation, XFG or “Stratus” – which means the vaccine should remain effective against current variants.

Free boosters are available to most people annually, while those aged 75 and older are advised to get one every six months.

Vaccination, as well as early treatment with antivirals, lowers the risk of severe illness and long COVID. People aged 70 and older, as well as younger people with certain risk factors, are eligible for antivirals if they test positive.

Influenza

The 2025 flu season has been unusually severe. From January to May, total case numbers were 30% higher than last year, increasing pressure on health systems.

More recent case numbers seem to be trending lower than 2024, however we don’t appear to have reached the peak yet.

Flu symptoms are generally more severe than the common cold and may include high fever, chills, muscle aches, fatigue, sore throat and a runny or blocked nose.

Most people recover in under a week, but the flu can be more severe (and even fatal) in groups including older people, young children and pregnant women.

An annual vaccination is available for free to children aged 6 months to 4 years, pregnant women, those aged 65+, and other higher-risk groups.

Queensland and Western Australia provide a free flu vaccine for all people aged 6 months and older, but in other states and territories, people not eligible for a free vaccine can pay (usually A$30 or less) to receive one.

RSV

The third significant respiratory virus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), only became a notifiable disease in 2021 (before this doctors didn’t need to record infections, meaning data is sparse).

Last year saw Australia’s highest case numbers since RSV reporting began. By May, cases in 2025 were lower than 2024, but by June, they had caught up: 27,243 cases this June versus 26,596 in June 2024. However it looks as though we may have just passed the peak.

RSV’s symptoms are usually mild and cold-like, but it can cause serious illness such as bronchiolitis and pneumonia. Infants, older people, and people with chronic health conditions are among those at highest risk. In young children, RSV is a leading cause of hospitalisation.

A free vaccine is now available for pregnant women, protecting infants for up to six months. A monoclonal antibody (different to a vaccine but also given as an injection) is also available for at-risk children up to age two, especially if their mothers didn’t receive the RSV vaccine during pregnancy.

For older adults, two RSV vaccines (Arexvy and Abrysvo) are available, with a single dose recommended for everyone aged 75+, those over 60 at higher risk due to medical conditions, and all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 60+.

Unfortunately, these are not currently subsidised and cost about $300. Protection lasts at least three years.

The common cold

While viruses including COVID, RSV and influenza dominate headlines, we often overlook one of the most widespread – the common cold.

The common cold can be caused by more than 200 different viruses – mainly rhinoviruses but also some coronaviruses, adenoviruses and enteroviruses.

Typical symptoms include a runny or blocked nose, sore throat, coughing, sneezing, headache, tiredness and sometimes a mild fever.

Children get about 6–8 colds per year while adults average 2–4, and symptoms usually resolve in a week. Most recover with rest, fluids, and possibly over-the-counter medications.

Because so many different viruses cause the common cold, and because these constantly mutate, developing a vaccine has been extremely challenging. Researchers continue to explore solutions, but a universal cold vaccine remains elusive.

How do I protect myself and others?

The precautions we learned during the COVID pandemic remain valid. These are all airborne viruses which can be spread by coughing, sneezing and touching contaminated surfaces.

Practise good hygiene, teach children proper cough etiquette, wear a high-quality mask if you’re at high risk, and stay home to rest if unwell.

You can now buy rapid antigen tests (called panel tests) that test for influenza (A or B), COVID and RSV. So, if you’re unwell with a respiratory infection, consider testing yourself at home.

While many winter lurgies can be trivial, this is not always the case. We can all do our bit to reduce the impact.

Adrian Esterman receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund.

– ref. COVID, flu, RSV: how these common viruses are tracking this winter – and how to protect yourself – https://theconversation.com/covid-flu-rsv-how-these-common-viruses-are-tracking-this-winter-and-how-to-protect-yourself-261383

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lyndall Strazdins, Professor, Australian National University

There are lots of reasons why people work extra hours. In some jobs, it’s the only way to cover the workload. In others, the pay is poor, so people need to work extra time. And in others still, working back late or on weekends is encouraged and rewarded, explicitly and implicitly.

Those employees who do the extra hours, willingly and without complaint, are seen as hungry and ambitious. A view expressed in some workplaces is simply “that’s what everyone does”.

But what if we discovered that people – at least in heterosexual couple households – can only work long hours at their partner’s expense? Would it still be OK for workplaces to expect people to work longer than our standard full time week, and incentivise them for doing so?

Our study, published this month in the journal Social Indicators Research, found in Australian couple households where both partners had jobs, men earned on average $536 more than women every week. In Germany, the weekly gender earnings gap was €400.

About half of that income gap in both Australia and Germany was due to men working long hours and women effectively subsidising them to do this by cutting back their own work hours.

It’s tough to combine a job with running a household, but one person working extra hours makes this almost impossible. In households, a job with long work hours means someone else must pick up the rest. This includes caring for kids, running the house, walking the dog, cooking dinner and more.

What happens when one partner has to pick up the rest

One in three Australian employees care for children, and 13% of part-time and 11% of all full-time employees give care to someone else, often an ageing parent. This has knock-on effects which are impacting many people in our workforce. The extra hours don’t come out of nowhere, but they have been invisible in what we think of as fair.

In our study, we costed this knock-on in terms of earnings and work hours gaps in households, and what this could mean for equality of income.

We studied between 3,000 and 6,000 heterosexual couples from 2002 to 2019 in Australia and in Germany, estimating their weekly earnings and work hour gaps.

To understand the dynamics in the household, we used a two-stage instrumental variable Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition – a method that allowed us to model earnings gaps as a function of both partners’ paid and unpaid hours. This helped us estimate what the gender gap in hours and earnings would look like if time weren’t being “borrowed” or “subsidised” within the home.

Changing the hours men and women work

The results were striking. We showed how one partner’s paid work hours can increase when the other partner does more unpaid (household) work. This ability for partners to “trade” hours was one of the most important drivers of the work hour (and earning) gap.

So we re-ran models and recalculated what hours a woman and a man would work if one partner wasn’t “subsidising” the other’s work hours. The model showed women would work more hours and men would work fewer when there was a more even split of home duties. The weekly work hour gap shrank to 5.1 hours in Australia (a 58% reduction) and 6.9 hours in Germany (a 47% reduction).

The impact on earnings was just as significant. The gender earnings gap would shrink by 43% in Australia and 25% in Germany.

The gender earnings and work hours gaps are well known, and these are not the only countries facing this problem. What hasn’t been shown before is how it works in households to drive gender inequality across the nation.

The rest of the earnings gap is largely due to differences in pay across male and female industries and jobs, and the persistent gender pay gap in hourly pay.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the average gender gap in hourly pay is 11.1%. This gap reflects the fact, hour for hour, women are generally paid less. The average weekly earnings gap is much larger at 26.4%.

As things currently stand in Australia, women earn only three-quarters of what men do, a shortfall similar to that in (Germany).

One part of the earnings gap is the gap in the hourly pay rate, but the other is the gap in how many hours are worked. We show how this would shrink if men worked hours that were closer to Australia’s legislated 38-hour week, and workplaces encouraged them to do so.

Closing the gap

If we stopped the time-shifting to partners that our culture of long working hours relies upon, we estimate that in a heterosexual couple, men’s hours would average closer to 41 a week, and women’s would increase to 36.

We could change the long and short hour compromise that so many households have to face. This change could make a huge difference to gender inequality, and women would no longer carry such a large economic cost from their partner’s work.

Maybe reining in excess hours should be the new focus for gender equality.

Lyndall Strazdins has received funding from the Australian Research Council to undertake research on this topic.
She has served as an expert witness on work hours and well-being for the State and Federal Court.

Liana Leach receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund. She is a member of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU).

Tinh Doan receives funding from the Australia ComCare and the Department of Health and Aged Care for other works that are not related to this article.

– ref. New study finds the gender earnings gap could be halved if we reined in the long hours often worked by men – https://theconversation.com/new-study-finds-the-gender-earnings-gap-could-be-halved-if-we-reined-in-the-long-hours-often-worked-by-men-260815

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amra Lee, PhD candidate in Protection of Civilians, Australian National University

Australia has joined 28 international partners in calling for an immediate end to the war in Gaza and a lifting of all restrictions on food and medical supplies.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong, along with counterparts from countries including the United Kingdom, France and Canada, has signed a joint statement demanding Israel complies with its obligations under international humanitarian law.

The statement condemns Israel for what it calls “the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians” seeking “their most basic need” of water and food, saying:

The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths. The Israeli government’s aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity […] It is horrifying that over 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid.

Weapon of war

Gazans, including malnourished mothers denied baby formula, face impossible choices as Israel intensifies its use of starvation as a weapon of war.

In Gaza, survival requires negotiating what the United Nations calls aid “death traps”.

According to the UN, 875 Gazans have been killed – many of them shot – while seeking food since the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation began operating in late May. Another 4,000 have been injured.

More than 170 humanitarian groups have called for the food hubs to be shut down.

Gaza has been described as the “hungriest place on Earth”, with aid trucks being held at the border and the United States destroying around 500 tonnes of emergency food because it was just out of date.

More than two million people are at critical risk of famine. The World Food Programme estimates 90,000 women and children require urgent treatment for malnutrition.

Nineteen Palestinians have starved to death in recent days, according to local health authorities.

We can’t say we didn’t know

After the breakdown of the January ceasefire, Israel implemented a humanitarian blockade on the Gaza Strip. Following mounting international pressure, limited aid was permitted and the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation began operations.

As anticipated, only a fraction of the aid has been distributed.

About 1,600 trucks entered Gaza between May 19 and July 14, well below the 630 trucks needed every day to feed the population.

Israeli ministers have publicly called for food and fuel reserves to be bombed to starve the Palestinian people – a clear war crime – to pressure Hamas to release Israeli hostages.

Famine expert Alex De Waal says Israel’s starvation strategy constitutes a dangerous weakening of international law. It also disrupts norms aimed at preventing hunger being used as a weapon of war:

operations like the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation are a big crack in these principles [that is] not going to save Gaza from mass starvation.

Palestinian organisations were the first to raise the alarm over Israel’s plans to impose controls over aid distribution.

UN Relief Chief Tom Fletcher briefed the UN Security Council in May, warning of the world’s collective failure to call out the scale of violations of international law as they were being committed:

Israel is deliberately and unashamedly imposing inhumane conditions on civilians in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Since then, clear and unequivocal warnings of the compounding risks of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing have intensified from the UN, member states and international law experts.

Weaponising aid

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation claims it has handed out millions of meals since it began operating in the strip in May. But the UN has called the distribution model “inherently unsafe”.

Near-daily shootings have occurred since the militarised aid hubs began operating. Malnourished Palestinians risking death to feed their families are trekking long distances to reach the small number of distribution sites.

While the foundation denies people are being shot, the UN has called the aid delivery mechanism a “deliberate attempt to weaponise aid” that fails to comply with humanitarian principles and risks further war crimes.

Jewish Physicians for Human Rights has rejected the aid’s “humanitarian” characterisation, stating it “is what systematic harm to human beings looks like”.

Human rights and legal organisations are calling for all involved to be held accountable for complicity in war crimes that “exposes all those who enable or profit from it to real risk of prosecution”.

Mounting world action

Today’s joint statement follows growing anger and frustration in Western countries over the lack of political pressure on Israel to end the suffering in Gaza.

Polling in May showed more than 80% of Australians opposed Israel’s denial of aid as unjustifiable and wanted to see Australia doing more to support civilians in Gaza.

Last week’s meeting of the Hague Group of nations shows more collective concrete action is being taken to exert pressure and uphold international law.

Th 12 member states agreed to a range of diplomatic, legal and economic measures, including a ban on ships transporting arms to Israel.

The time for humanity is now

States will continue to face increased international and domestic pressure to take stronger action to influence Israel’s conduct as more Gazans are killed, injured and stripped of their dignity in an engineered famine.

This moment in Gaza is unprecedented in terms of our knowledge of the scale and gravity of violations being perpetrated and what failing to act means for Palestinians and our shared humanity.

Now is the time to exert diplomatic, legal and economic pressure on Israel to change course.

History tells us we need to act now – international law and our collective moral conscience requires it.

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

– ref. Suffering in Gaza reaches ‘new depths’ – Australia condemns ‘inhumane killing’ of Palestinians – https://theconversation.com/suffering-in-gaza-reaches-new-depths-australia-condemns-inhumane-killing-of-palestinians-261547

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Chappell, Post Doctoral Research, University of New England

Australia’s 48th parliament has a record 112 women members. Ten of those women are independents.

As they take their seats in the chamber, they’ll be realising the aspirations of some of Australia’s first suffragists who, more than a century ago, staunchly supported independent representation, but failed to gain traction at the ballot box.

Our earliest female political aspirants, Catherine Spence in Adelaide, Rose Scott in Sydney and Vida Goldstein in Melbourne, eschewed party politics, believing significant social issues should transcend political boundaries.

Recent close contests in the electorates of Bradfield and the eponymous Goldstein echoed the challenges of female independent candidates across time.

Australia’ first female candidate

Spence had been declined preselection for the nascent Labor Party in 1896. This was when women in South Australia, including Aboriginal women, became the first in Australia to have the right not only to vote, but also to stand for parliament.

Spence believed issues of social justice and electoral reform should override party allegiance.

The following year, Spence nominated for the federal convention to draft a Constitution for the new Australian parliament. Her strongest commitment was to proportional voting based on the Hare system of the single transferable vote, which was ultimately introduced to the Australian Senate in 1948. Spence believed this was the fairest electoral system to give voice to minority concerns.

She was the only woman to nominate. Although not elected, she won her place in history as Australia’s first female political candidate.

Acknowledging her defeat, Spence reflected:

I stood or fell on a question which both parties thought it expedient to ignore […] I look on my position in the poll as very satisfactory.

Similarly, Goldstein, the first woman to stand for Australia’s federal parliament in 1903, viewed her loss as “virtually a victory”. She explained to her supporters:

I stood as a protest against press domination and the creation of the vicious system of machine politics. I had the prejudice of ages to fight, and yet I secured more than half of the votes of the candidate heading the polls.

‘Women do not vote as women’

Scott was a political powerbroker of her day.

Although she did not stand for office, she brought together politicians across the divide with people of influence from the judiciary, publishing and the arts at her Friday evening salons.

Despite her privileged background and private income, Scott’s political leanings were towards socialism.

For more than 20 years she corresponded regularly with both Spence and Goldstein. Their extant letters reveal shared concerns for equal pay and education for women and child welfare.

Significant NSW legislation was reputedly drafted on Scott’s rosewood dining table. She remained staunchly opposed to party politics, scrawling her endorsement across a copy of The Inebriates Act 1900 “non-party and non-sectarian”.

Scott joined Goldstein on the hustings and furnished letters of support in Goldstein’s campaign pamphlets.

Spence, however, recalling the bitter lesson of her own candidature, wrote:

I am not at all sure that Vida Goldstein is wise in standing for the Senate. Women do not vote as women for women.

Successive, but unsuccessful attempts

Like Spence, Goldstein was hampered by misinformation, with questions asked about her eligibility to stand for parliament. Both lacked the financial support available to their opponents backed by party organisations.

Goldstein was attacked in the conservative press for her views on home and marriage. Comments on her dress and appearance trivialised reporting of her political message. Labor newspapers proclaimed that support for Goldstein would split the vote and result in a defeat of Labor’s candidates.

Spence escaped similar attention because she was short, stout and in her seventies when she campaigned.

Goldstein nominated for the Senate again in 1910, campaigning for equal pay and federal reform of marriage and divorce laws.

Although she polled higher than in 1903, her campaign was hampered by lack of funds and negative press coverage.

Party politics had become more polarised. Many women were now actively joining the Labor Party or supporting the conservative Australian Women’s National League.

Between 1910 and her final tilt for the Senate in 1917, Goldstein stood twice for the seat of Kooyong, currently held for a second term by independent MP Monique Ryan.

Goldstein stood as a progressive independent for Kooyong in 1912. Labor did not field a candidate. She polled around half the votes of her male opponent. She stood again in 1915, remaining frank and uncompromising on her independent status:

as a non-party candidate I had difficulties to face that confronted no other candidate. The non-party candidate does not get the support of the party press. And the other special prejudice I have to fight is that of sex.

While their work towards women’s suffrage is acknowledged, the broader social and political contributions of our early feminists are often overlooked. When the right to vote still seemed unobtainable, they were lobbying for fairer divorce, child welfare, prevention of domestic violence and equal pay. Political representation seemed a step too far.

“None of these women could have imagined a Julia Gillard. It would have made their heads spin to think that a woman could be prime minister,” says historian Clare Wright.

An Australian parliament with majority of cabinet positions held by women, with women leading both the opposition in the House of Representatives and the government in the Senate, would leave them stunned, but triumphant.

Elizabeth Chappell previously received funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship 2021-2024

– ref. As female independent MPs descend on parliament, they’re fulfilling the dreams of women across history – https://theconversation.com/as-female-independent-mps-descend-on-parliament-theyre-fulfilling-the-dreams-of-women-across-history-252634