Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hussein Dia, Professor of Future Urban Mobility, Swinburne University of Technology

Australia’s road tax system has a problem. Revenue from the fuel excise – the primary way we tax motoring – has been declining steadily as a proportion of government revenue over the past two decades.

Politicians, policy experts and business leaders have all long called for reform. Now, change could be on the horizon.

The Australian Financial Review reports that at a closed-door dinner with business leaders in Canberra last week, Treasurer Jim Chalmers hinted that addressing falling fuel excise revenue would be a tax reform priority if Labor is re-elected.

One option would be a road user charge on electric vehicles (EVs), which obviously don’t pay fuel excise. But singling them out would undermine the government’s own efforts in promoting EVs to help meet the nation’s emissions reduction targets.

There are also other inequities in the way the current fuel excise works. Our previous research has shown Australia is ready for a rational and transparent discussion about road-user charging on all vehicles, not just electric ones.

How we tax roads today

Currently, Australian motorists pay several government taxes and other fees on their vehicles.

One is the fuel excise. This tax, collected by the Commonwealth, is paid per litre of fuel purchased and is indexed every six months to account for inflation.

Then there are registration fees, typically paid every six or 12 months and collected by state and territory governments.

Vehicle owners also have to pay compulsory third-party insurance, which in some states is bundled with registration fees.

When buying or transferring ownership of a vehicle, other fees can apply. These include stamp duty as well as the luxury car tax on vehicles priced above a certain threshold.

The system isn’t working

As a proportion of Australian taxation revenue, revenue from the fuel excise has dwindled from 7.4% in 2000 to 3.9% in 2025.

It might be tempting to blame electric cars for this decline. But this share began declining steadily long before EVs were introduced in Australia, and is projected to fall further.

Falling fuel excise revenue can be attributed to a range of other factors. Improvements in engine fuel consumption have had a substantial impact on the number of litres used to travel the same distances.

In Australia, the average fuel consumption of passenger cars in 2005 was 11.3 litres per 100 kilometres. In 2024, this figure was around 6.9 litres.

Fuel consumption rates are expected to improve further and match those in other nations with the introduction of the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard, which came into effect at the start of this year.

Public transport usage has also been trending upwards in many of Australia’s major cities since the turn of the millennium, reducing reliance on private cars.

Need for an alternative

Australia’s current road taxes are blunt instruments that don’t reflect the true societal costs of driving.

The fuel excise, for example, does not properly account for traffic congestion or emissions. A driver who travels in regional Victoria or in an outer suburb of Sydney for local shopping or school drop-offs will pay the same excise as a driver who contributes to congestion by travelling into the city centre.

Similarly, car registration fees are not related to the number of kilometres travelled, congestion created, or emissions produced by driving.

One of the most widely known alternatives alternatives to a fuel excise tax is a pay-per-distance road user charge. Such charges work by charging vehicles a fee per kilometre travelled.

This would not be a new tax on top of existing taxes – it would replace current fuel excise and car registration fees.

Adjustments to this model can include exempting some groups from the charges (such as low-income families, taxis and emergency service vehicles), adjusting charges for different categories of vehicles, and applying congestion charges under certain conditions.

Failed attempts

Targeting electric vehicles with a road user charge has been an acute priority for many states, as they are currently completely exempt from paying the fuel excise.

In 2021, the Victorian government introduced a controversial distance-based charge for EVs. But this scheme was challenged in the High Court and ruled unconstitutional.

Victoria’s measure was found to be a form of excise, and only the Commonwealth can impose such a tax.

Following the ruling, the treasurer asked state and territory treasurers to look into the design of a national scheme in December 2023. But this process reportedly stalled.

Support for reform

Today, there are about 300,000 EVs on Australian roads (including around 248,000 battery electric cars and 53,500 plug-in hybrids).

That’s only a tiny fraction of the 21 million cars registered across the nation. Over coming decades, as EVs take a greater share of total vehicles on the road, the hit to already flagging fuel excise revenue will become acute.

In the meantime, our own previous research and public surveys show Australia is ready for a rational and transparent discussion about road-user charging on all vehicles, not only electric vehicles.

We found most respondents would support such charges if they were transparent, equitable and replace or reduce other road taxes.

There have already been several Australian studies around the shape and form of road user charges that can inform the discussions and public consultations.

We also found willingness to pay a road-user charge varies with the level of expected savings. Most respondents were willing to pay a road-user charge if it saved them on registration fees and fuel taxes.

If well planned and implemented, a national approach to road-user charges can raise enough revenue to replace the fuel excise tax. It will also ease congestion, promote sustainable transport and help achieve Australia’s targets for cutting transport emissions.

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

Hadi Ghaderi receives funding from the iMOVE Cooperative Research Centre, Transport for New South Wales, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, IVECO Trucks Australia limited, Innovative Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre, Victoria Department of Education and Training, Australia Post, Bondi Laboratories, Innovative Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre, Sphere for Good, Australian Meat Processor Corporation, City of Casey, 460degrees and Passel.

– ref. Jim Chalmers wants to fix Australia’s broken road tax system. Here’s what one solution might look like – https://theconversation.com/jim-chalmers-wants-to-fix-australias-broken-road-tax-system-heres-what-one-solution-might-look-like-249477

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christina Vogels, Senior Lecturer, School of Communication Studies, Auckland University of Technology

When Married at First Sight Australia bride Lauren Hall said her main goal was to “serve” her man, the reality show contestant was reflecting a growing trend in western culture – the so-called tradwife lifestyle.

Tradwives are women who choose to take up traditional gendered roles within the home, centred around serving their husband and children. This version of wifehood is underpinned by a deference to one’s husband.

Because of this, tradwives tend to be financially dependent on their husbands and many also give over decision-making rights to their husbands. In essence, the tradwife lifestyle rejects the past seven decades of feminism.

But why is being a tradwife growing in popularity in 2025, and how has it become so marketable?

The rise (or return) of tradwives

Social media is partly to blame. The tradwife trend has risen in visibility across platforms such as Instagram and TikTok.

Influencer Hannah Neeleman from Ballerina Farm is one of the most prolific tradwife influencers, topping ten-million followers on her Instagram page.

Other Instagram accounts such as Ekaterina Anderson and Aria Lewis are popular in their own right, with followers ranging from 100,000 to 200,000.

All promote a joy of domesticity. They post about their daily tasks of baking, preparing meals, raising children and, for many, connecting to the land and living sustainably.

However, underneath this joy of domesticity is often an advocation of subservience. Many tradwives openly promote the daily pleasure they get from serving their husbands, who they argue are the “natural” head of the household.

Marketing a romanticised lifestyle

Why, then, is this version of femininity so desirable?

For one, tradwives market a romanticised lifestyle. Theirs is reminiscent of the 1950s: a golden age economically, where employment was high, consumables were affordable and the male breadwinner was supported at home by a subservient wife.

The tradwife lifestyle also promotes a pioneering domesticity. Tradwife influencers often post about baking their own bread, make their own preserves and mending their family’s clothes.

Many also wear pioneering-type clothing – blouses and long skirts with the signature tradwife apron. A number of tradwives such as Aria Lewis also have their own clothing and merchandise lines for their followers to buy.

People’s need for “ontological security” (security of the self) – a term coined in 1984 by sociologist Anthony Giddens – is another reason why the tradwife lifestyle is followed by so many women today.

Broadly speaking, ontological security denotes a desire for a stable identity. Academics Catarina Kinnvall and Jennifer Mitzen offer this explanation:

As the world is becoming more fragile, contentious, and conflictual, we are, Giddens argues, prone to seek a sense of security, a “protective cocoon”, in established norms and routines and in beliefs about particular narratives of home and secure pasts.

The tradwife identity offers women this security: a stable, strictly defined and seemingly uncomplicated identity that is predicated solely on serving one’s husband and children. The nostalgia for the 1950s and the pioneering “return to basics” life feeds this sense of security.

A double entanglement

It also seems women are desiring the tradwife lifestyle due to the damaging effects of “double entanglement”.

Society constantly tells women they can “have it all”: sexual freedom, any career they desire and an ability to choose whether or not to become mothers.

In reality, however, this is an empty promise. Sexually assertive women, women who appear overly dominant in the workplace, and women who choose not to mother are often heavily shamed in society.

Herein lies the double-entanglement. Women are told they can choose how to live their lives but are then shamed for choosing ways of living that are actually seen as unfeminine.

It is possible the tradwife identity offers women a version of femininity that provides safe haven from being shamed as “pariahs” in society.

Sadly, though, there is no safe haven. When you strip away the romanticism of domesticity, the tradwife lifestyle only furthers the difficulties women face today by breeding a deep misogyny that is based on an intense subjugation of women.

The new female right

This misogyny is further entrenched by many tradwives’ association with the far-right women’s movement, which is gaining popularity within the United States.

The BBC’s America’s New Female Right documentary explores the rise of this movement and how it further feeds into narratives that femininity ought to be based on submission to men.

It seems this version of womanhood will only gain momentum as the world veers even farther to the far right. The uncertainty of today – with frequent economic crises, climate emergencies and other crises of humanity – will only fuel the need for a nostalgic, seemingly simpler life.

On the surface, this is what many feel a traditional return to womanhood offers. But the costs of giving up the gains of feminism are not clear.

Christina Vogels 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. With a ‘tradwife’ starring in Married at First Sight, a nostalgic vision of womanhood takes centre stage – https://theconversation.com/with-a-tradwife-starring-in-married-at-first-sight-a-nostalgic-vision-of-womanhood-takes-centre-stage-248861

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

The Albanese government will on Wednesday announce it is willing, as a last resort, to purchase the collapsed Rex Airlines, in its latest bid to prop up aviation services to regional and remote areas.

As the administrators work on the second attempt to sell Rex, the  government will say that, in the first instance, it will work with shortlisted bidders on potential support to maximise the prospects of a sale. The initial attempt to sell Rex failed last year.

What support will be offered  will be conditional on bidders committing to provide an “ongoing, reasonable level of service to regional and remote communities”. Assistance must also represent value for taxpayers’ money and there would have to be assurances from the potential buyer of good governance.

While the government is not a bidder in the sale process now underway and hopes that will be successful, if there is no result, it will go down an alternative route.

“In the event there is no sale, the Albanese government will undertake necessary work, in consultation with relevant state governments, on contingency options, including preparations necessary for potential Commonwealth acquisition.”

The government is also providing an extension to the exemption from the “use it or lose it” test for REX regional flight slots at Sydney airport. This will ensure its access to those slots until October 24 next year.

REX went into voluntary administration last year. An attempt (now abandoned) to compete on capital city routes had proved disastrous for it.

The Federal government has provided it with extensive support to keep it in the air on regional routes while its future is being determined.

This has included $80 million in a loan to the administrator to keep regional flights operating until June 30, as well as a buyout of $50 million debt from its biggest creditor, PAGAC Regulus Holdings Limited. The government is now Rex’s largest creditor.

Prime Minister Albanese said: “We are working collaboratively with the administrators of REX to ensure that regional services continue beyond June 2025, including looking at what support the Commonwealth can provide.

“Regional Australians can be assured that our government will continue to fight to ensure these regional airfare remain available.”

Transport minister Catherine King said: “When markets fail or struggle to deliver for regional communities the government has a role to ensure people do not miss out on opportunities, education and critical connections.”

When speaking about the future of the airline last month, opposition transport spokeswoman Bridget McKenzie declined to say whether the Coalition would support nationalisation of Rex.

Until the 1990s the federal government owned Qantas and one of the two major domestic airlines.

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. Albanese government looking to acquire Rex Airlines if buyer can’t be found – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-looking-to-acquire-rex-airlines-if-buyer-cant-be-found-249594

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By A J Brown, Professor of Public Policy & Law, Centre for Governance & Public Policy, Griffith University

Australia has turned the corner on its decade-long slide on Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), once again ranking in the top ten least corrupt countries in the world. The fresh ranking comes just ahead of a federal election, which will determine the future of many key anti-corruption reforms.

In the latest 2024 index, Australia rose two points to a score of 77 on the 100-point scale. The index is the world’s most widely cited indicator of how countries are faring in controlling corruption in government.

The result confirms a positive trend, placing Australia back in the top 10 countries for the first time since 2016. It now sits at equal 10th alongside Iceland and Ireland.

In 2012, Australia was ranked as the 7th least corrupt country in the world, with a score of 85 out of 100. But by 2021 it had fallen to a score of 73 and 18th place on the index.

With that fall widely attributed to a decade of complacency and foot-dragging on efforts to bolster integrity in government, the confirmed recovery is a major affirmation of reforms of the past three years. It also highlights some stark choices for policymakers heading into the 2025 federal election.

The best – and worst – places for corruption

Globally, Denmark again tops the index with a score of 90, followed by Finland on 88. The most corrupt countries in the world are Venezuela (10), Somalia (9) and South Sudan (8).

However, the global outlook is highly challenging. Over the past ten years, many more countries have now declined significantly in their anti-corruption scores (47 countries) than have improved on the index (32 countries).

Australia’s recovery is therefore now bucking a negative trend, including the “integrity complacency” still affecting many other developed countries. The United Kingdom (71/100) and United States (65/100) have now fallen to their own lowest-ever scores on the index.

The index is compiled from 13 independent surveys of professional and expert perceptions of public sector corruption across the world. Nine sources were used to inform Australia’s result – including include Freedom House, the World Justice Project and the World Bank’s Executive Opinion Survey.

Two sources had Australia still declining, including the global academic-led Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. However, six sources rate Australia as improving, led by the Economist Intelligence Unit’s assessment, conducted most recently in September 2024.

Australian reforms are making a difference

There’s now little doubt that the federal integrity reforms of the past three years are a major reason for Australia’s new direction of travel. These include the creation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission in 2022, as well as the long overdue strengthening of Australia’s foreign bribery laws in 2024. A renewed commitment to the global Open Government Partnership, much of the response to Robodebt, and measures to strengthen merit in public appointments, such as replacement of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, have also helped.

Long overdue anti-money laundering laws were also introduced late in 2024, beyond the time frame for data collection for the latest index. While the impact of these on expert opinion will be known in the future, they highlight that much of the business of Australia’s anti-corruption “catch up” is unfinished and ongoing.

The result poses a challenge for any policymakers suffering under the illusion that Australia’s integrity systems are somehow “fixed”.

From an international perspective, Australia is yet to move to control secret and sham company ownerships – the major vehicle used to hide bribes and stolen public money. This is despite championing transparency in the beneficial ownership of companies since hosting the G20 in 2014.

The need to bring transparency and integrity to federal political donation and funding laws continues to overshadow the last weeks of the 47th parliament. Negotiations between the major parties have failed to inspire confidence among independents, and much of the public.

Effective control of undue influence in decision-making, pork-barrelling, professional lobbying and “revolving door” jobs for politicians and public servants are ongoing challenges.

And in a clear signal to both the Labor government and the Coalition, a team of cross-benchers, led by independent Andrew Wilkie, have introduced a bill to establish a Whistleblower Protection Authority. This remains the single biggest gap in Australia’s integrity system and the most major anti-corruption reform still needed.

Even before Australia hit its 2022 low, some leaders were softening citizens up to accept a reduced position on the index. In 2018, Coalition Attorney-General Christian Porter claimed Australia had remained “consistently in the top 20 countries on Earth for low corruption”. This prompted independent Rebekha Sharkie to point out that Australia had fallen from the top ten: “the trajectory is not good”.

By contrast, Labor leader Anthony Albanese went into the last election accusing the Morrison government of dragging Australia down on corruption, and promising Labor would do better. He said:

The health of our democracy, the integrity of our institutions, the transparency and fairness of our laws, the harmony and cohesion of our population. These aren’t just noble ideals. They are a powerful defence against the threat of modern authoritarianism.

Amid the challenges, there is hope. The federal parliament’s reform record of the past three years is clearly a big step in the right direction.

However, the climb back to 77 on the Corruption Perceptions Index shows it’s clearly just the first step in securing Australia’s reputation as a democracy that protects itself against undue influence and abuse of power.

A J Brown AM is Chair of Transparency International Australia. He has received funding from the Australian Research Council and all Australian governments for research on public interest whistleblowing, integrity and anti-corruption reform through partners including Australia’s federal and state Ombudsmen and other regulatory agencies, parliaments, anti-corruption agencies and private sector bodies. He was a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Expert Panel on Whistleblowing (2017-2019) and is a member of the Queensland Public Sector Governance Council.

– ref. Australia improves on global corruption rankings, but there is still work to be done – https://theconversation.com/australia-improves-on-global-corruption-rankings-but-there-is-still-work-to-be-done-249458

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Bridges, Senior Lecturer in Public Relations and Director of Academic Program – Communication, Creative Industries, Screen Media, Western Sydney University

For new parents struggling with challenges such as breastfeeding and sleep deprivation, social media can be a great place to turn for advice. Digital platforms such as Facebook and Reddit host a range of groups that offer peer support and information.

Research shows connecting with other new parents can also foster a sense of community.

But there is growing concern businesses and influencers may also be using groups to push certain products and services.

In recent media reports, new parents have described feeling misled, after discovering the parent support group they thought was founded by a local mum was run by a media company owner and monetised through advertising.

So how can you identify when commercial interests are involved?

Here’s what to look out for to get the best from online parenting groups.

How can social media groups help?

In Australia, closed Facebook groups are a popular choice for parents accessing free peer support and information online. Closed groups are not public – they are run by administrators and moderators who can approve requests from other users for membership.

These groups are often started by not-for-profit organisations or parents themselves and have a number of benefits. Parents can connect with others, share experiences, seek advice and learn about different parenting approaches.

This can be particularly useful for people in remote and regional areas who may find it harder to access in-person support, and was essential during COVID lockdowns.

My research with colleagues has revealed the important role these groups can play.

In several studies we have looked at how parents use closed Facebook groups facilitated by the Australian Breastfeeding Association.

Over four weeks, we tracked the frequency and type of posts, the number and nature of the comments, and how parents felt about the support they received in these groups.

We found they provided information and emotional support group members could trust because they were facilitated by trained peer breastfeeding counsellors and other mothers.

This is significant because we know lack of breastfeeding support is often cited by mothers as one of the key reasons for premature weaning.

The group administrators played an important role responding to queries and making sure discussions stuck to the association’s code of ethics.

This code encourages mutual respect, sharing evidence-based information, and co-operation with health professionals. It also discourages the promotion of products and services.

Our research has shown the value of accessing trusted information and sharing experiences in a supportive community, where human connection is centred rather than products.

What’s the problem with monetising groups?

When access to parenting support and information is limited or biased, it can have serious consequences for those already facing challenges with parenting.

Let’s imagine an example. A group member is posting about birth trauma. But in responding, other members aren’t allowed to mention local service providers – for example, counselling – because they are not paid sponsors of the group.

This means advice is skewed towards organisations that can afford to pay for sponsorship and be mentioned.

As a result, new parents might not find out about the range of not-for-profit support groups that can help them with important challenges like breastfeeding and postpartum mental health.

This deceptive practice can erode trust within online communities. Users may perceive the platform as prioritising profit over the wellbeing of its members, which can reduce engagement and the overall quality of the group.

It may also leave new parents – who are particularly vulnerable to unethical marketing – open to exploitation.

What can we do?

Protecting parents from commercialised social media groups requires a multifaceted approach.

First, regulation is crucial, such as ensuring that social media groups are transparent about any commercial interests, and commercial entities are marketing their products ethically.

Second, we need public awareness campaigns to educate parents about the potential biases and risks associated with commercialised platforms. This includes fostering media literacy skills to critically evaluate information and identify reliable sources.

Finally, collaboration between policymakers, researchers, industry representatives, and parent advocacy groups is vital to develop effective solutions that address these challenges.

What should I look out for?

To protect yourself from misinformation in online parenting groups, it’s crucial to be critical of information sources. It’s a good idea to:

• watch out for warning signs like excessive product promotion, lack of transparency about group affiliations, and a primary focus on selling. For example, when joining a closed Facebook group, read the page’s “about” section. If there is mention of advertising or sponsorship, this is a red flag

• look at who the “admins” are. If listed admins include business names that can also be a cause for concern

• check out the list of “members”. If the group accepts “pages” (which are often run by businesses) in addition to individual people, this is also a sign that commercial interests are at play.

• look for groups focused on sharing experiences, offering support, and building authentic relationships

• observe how members interact and how heavily the groups are moderated and censored, and seek out groups with diverse perspectives

• when you join the group, carefully consider the group rules that you are agreeing to and what they say about mentioning support services, and the promotion of commercial products. Will this mean that you may be censored or receive censored information?

Always cross-reference information with reputable sources like government organisations (such as the Raising Children Network or Australian Breastfeeding Association) and compare information from multiple sources to get a balanced perspective.

Finally, trust your instincts. If a group feels “off” or overly promotional, don’t hesitate to leave.

Nicole Bridges is a volunteer breastfeeding counsellor and educator with the Australian Breastfeeding Association.

– ref. Social media groups can offer support to new parents. Here’s how to tell if there’s marketing involved – https://theconversation.com/social-media-groups-can-offer-support-to-new-parents-heres-how-to-tell-if-theres-marketing-involved-247212

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scott French, Senior Lecturer in Economics, UNSW Sydney

US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have stated an exemption for Australia from Trump’s executive order placing 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminium imported into the US is “under consideration”. But prospects remain uncertain.

Albanese would do well to secure an exemption using similar arguments as then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull did in 2018.

If Australia cannot obtain a carve-out from the tariffs, the main group affected will be the Australian producers of steel and aluminium. But the size of the hit they will take is difficult to predict.

Regardless of whether Australia gets an exemption, the world economy – and Australians – will be affected by Trump’s latest round of tariffs.

Producers will be hit

If ultimately imposed by the US, these tariffs will make steel and aluminium produced in Australia more expensive for US manufacturers relative to domestically produced alternatives. This will certainly result in reduced demand for the Australian products.

However, three factors will help limit the effects:

1. The price of metals produced in the US will rise

It will take time to ramp up US production to fill the gap of reduced imports, and the extra production will likely come from less efficient domestic producers. This means that US manufacturers will continue to buy imported metals, despite the higher prices.

2. The US is not a huge market for Australian steel and aluminium

Australia produced A$113 billion of primary and fabricated metal in the 2022-23 financial year, according to the ABS.

By comparison, less than $1 billion of steel and aluminium was exported to the US in 2023, according to data from UN Comtrade, consisting of about $500 million of aluminium and less then $400 million of steel. Exports to the US account for about 10% of Australia’s total exports of these metals.

3. Major markets

If major markets such as China and the European Union enact retaliatory tariffs on US metals, this could make Australian metals more competitive in these markets.

Some stand to benefit

While workers in Australian steel and aluminium plants will be watching the news with trepidation, some of Australia’s biggest manufacturing companies may be less concerned.

For example, BlueScope Steel has significant US steel operations, and saw its share price increase on news of the tariffs.

US-based Alcoa, which owns alumina refineries in Western Australia and an aluminium smelter in Victoria, will also expect to see its US operations benefit.

And Rio Tinto will be most concerned about its substantial Canadian operations. Its Canadian hub is responsible for close to half of its global aluminium production.

Demand for iron ore could fall

The US tariffs will also have wider ranging effects on the Australian economy, regardless of whether Australia’s products are directly targeted.

While aluminium is Australia’s top manufacturing export, it still makes up only about 1% of total exports, and steel makes up less than half that.

Iron ore, by contrast, makes up more than 20% of Australia’s exports, with aluminium ores making up an additional 1.5%.

This means the effect of the tariffs on demand for the raw materials to make steel and aluminium may have the largest detrimental effect on the Australian economy.

Because the tariffs will make steel and aluminium more expensive to US manufacturers, they will seek to reduce their use of them. This means global demand for the metals, and the ores used to produce them, will decline.

Investors appear to be betting on this, with shares of Australian miners like Rio Tinto and BHP falling since Trump announced the tariffs.

Imported goods will become more expensive

Many of the things Australians buy are likely to get more expensive.

All US products that use steel and aluminium at any stage of the production process will also become more expensive. Tariffs will raise the cost of steel and aluminium for US manufacturers, both directly and by reducing overall productivity in the US.

About 11% of Australia’s imports come from the US. And about half of this consists of machinery, vehicles, aircraft, and medical instruments, which typically contain steel and aluminium. Further, these goods are used by manufacturers around the world to produce and transport many of the other things Australians buy.

Scott French 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. Whether we carve out an exemption or not, Trump’s latest tariffs will still hit Australia – https://theconversation.com/whether-we-carve-out-an-exemption-or-not-trumps-latest-tariffs-will-still-hit-australia-249493

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Strangio, Emeritus Professor of Politics, Monash University

Is history repeating itself in Labor’s fortress state of Victoria?

At the 1990 federal election, Bob Hawke’s Labor government had a near-death experience when it lost nine seats in Victoria. A furious Hawke laid the blame squarely at the feet of John Cain’s state Labor government, which was listing badly in its third term due especially to a series of financial calamities.

Less than six months later, a broken Cain, one of Victoria’s great reformist premiers, resigned. His successor was Joan Kirner, the state’s first woman leader. Despite battling gamely, she was unable to avert a landslide Labor defeat in 1992.

Wind forward to the present and there are some eerily similar dynamics. Anthony Albanese’s government will shortly head to the polls at a time when Jacinta Allan’s ageing Labor administration is in deep political strife in a state groaning under mountainous public debt.

Labor decline

Saturday’s twin byelection results highlight state Labor’s parlous position. In the inner urban seat of Prahran, the ALP was so accepting of its lack of competitiveness that it didn’t field a candidate.

The Liberal Party achieved a modest primary vote swing of 4.8%, which was enough to snatch the decade-long held Greens seat.

In the outer western suburban seat of Werribee, Labor’s primary vote collapsed by more than 16%. But the Liberal Party only increased its first vote by a relatively paltry 3.7%. To put that in perspective, the Victorian Socialists enjoyed an equivalent lift in support.

Inevitably, much ink is being spilt trying to divine what these byelection results portend for the Albanese government. In short, whether the unpopularity of the Allan government threatens to unseat federal Labor and open the door to a Peter Dutton prime ministership.

State stronghold

Victoria has been a citadel for the ALP, both state and federal, for decades. John Howard’s dubbing of the state as the “Massachusetts of Australia” has become almost cliched so often it is invoked by journalists as a shorthand way of describing Victoria’s predisposition for left-of-centre voting behaviour. It is a label first ascribed to Victoria in the 19th century showing how long it has been known for its progressive political temperament. It is a trait coiled in the state’s political DNA.

Following the 2022 federal election, the Coalition held only 11 out of 39 seats in Victoria. The Liberals were nearly banished entirely from metropolitan Melbourne, where they now hold just two electorates, Deakin and Menzies (the fringe outer suburban seats of Casey and La Trobe are classified by the AEC as rural and provincial respectively).

To compound matters, boundary redistributions have since wiped out the Liberals’ margin in Deakin and turned Menzies into a notional Labor seat. All of this means that the federal Coalition must perform substantially better in Victoria, and specifically Melbourne, if its to have a viable path to power.

State Labor’s political doldrums have offered some hope to Dutton, who is targeting four seats in Victoria, and at a stretch, five: Aston, Chisholm, Goldstein (held by the Teal, Zoe Daniel), McEwen and Dunkley. Notably, only three of those seats – Aston, McEwen and Dunkley – are outer suburban. And the latter is considered the least likely to fall.

Dutton’s pitch to the suburbs

Nonetheless, the outer suburbs are a key to Dutton’s election strategy. It’s where he is seeking a major realignment of Australia’s electoral politics by pillaging traditional Labor working class and lower middle class voters.

This strategy isn’t unprecedented. The so-called “battler” vote was a component, albeit exaggerated, of John Howard’s formula for electoral success as he reoriented the Liberal Party towards conservative populism. Dutton is aggressively doubling down on that pivot.

The Werribee result, however, can hardly be construed as a harbinger of Liberals storming the ramparts of the outer suburbs. The party’s primary vote in the byelection was only 29%, indicating voters in such areas, which are characterised by breakneck growth and a tsunami of demographic change, are still wary of the local Liberals.

That scepticism is understandable. For years now, the Victorian Liberal party has been deeply dysfunctional. It has been consumed by ideological and personal feuds, out of sync with the state’s progressive attitudes, low on talent, and seemingly habituated to reposing in opposition rather than presenting as a serious alternative government.

But, even allowing for such Victorian specific factors (and it is far from the only under-performing Liberal division across the country – think of South Australia and Western Australia), the Werribee result suggests Dutton’s outer suburban focus will not easily yield sizeable dividends, and certainly not in one electoral cycle. It will be a slow burn at best.

In the meantime, if the Liberals are to win government, they will need to make up ground in inner and middle metropolitan electorates, including Teal-held seats, to which Dutton is far less attuned.

Major party disenchantment

What Saturday’s byelections mostly underscored is the dissatisfaction with all of the established parties, including the Greens, whose vote flat-lined in both Prahran and Werribee.

The disenchantment was expressed in the approximate one third of votes that went to a melange of other parties or independent candidates. This is consistent with the trend that so dramatically materialised at the 2022 federal election when a fractious public voted along increasingly fragmented lines.

Rather than any party enjoying a grand sweep of the outer suburbs or elsewhere, that is what we can expect at the impending federal election: volatility and unpredictability which is confirmed as the new normal.

In the past, Paul Strangio received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Byelections show Labor is in trouble in Victoria – but how much will Peter Dutton benefit? – https://theconversation.com/byelections-show-labor-is-in-trouble-in-victoria-but-how-much-will-peter-dutton-benefit-249479

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Nissen, HERA Program Director – Health Workforce Optimisation Centre for the Business & Economics of Health, The University of Queensland

If you’ve tried to get an appointment to see a GP or specialist recently, you will likely have felt the impact of Australia’s doctor shortages.

To alleviate workforce shortages, the Queensland government is considering introducing health workers called physician assistants more widely to the state’s health system.

But the medical body representing physicians, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, has warned thorough consultation with medical experts is needed first.

So what exactly are physician assistants? And are they the solution to our workforce issues we’ve been looking for? Let’s look at what the evidence says – and the lessons from abroad.

What is a physician assistant?

Physician assistants, also known as physician associates, are trained health professionals who work under the supervision of a doctor. They undertake a variety of tasks including:

• examining patients
• ordering and interpreting blood tests
• assisting in surgery
• prescribing medicines.

In general practice, physician assistants may also provide preventative health care such as giving vaccinations and providing health advice.

Physician assistants commonly complete postgraduate-level university education and a hands-on training program. They may also need to have completed a health-based undergraduate degree.

In most countries, physician assistants work under a “delegation” model. This means the treating doctor and physician assistant together determine the tasks the physician assistant can undertake, depending on their competence. As their skills and knowledge increase, the level of supervision changes accordingly.

When were they first used?

Similar roles have been used throughout history, including in the military. As early as the 1800s, trained assistants known as feldshers (or feldschers) provided basic medical care during times of war, for example in Russia, Bulgaria and Poland.

The contemporary physician assistant role evolved in the 1960s in the United States. It was initially designed to use the skills of medically trained military servicemen.

Since then, it has become an accepted and well established part of the health care team in the US, where the medical profession supports the physician assistant role and contributes to its regulation.

There are currently more than 178,000 physician assistants practising in the US, across a wide range of settings. Around one-quarter work in family/general medicine and one-fifth in rural and medically under-served areas.

Physician assistants can be found in many countries, including Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands.

Australia previously trialled physician assistant in two states, Queensland and South Australia. Like other countries, the role was found to be effective and acceptable.

What does the research say about their use?

Most research about physician assistants originates from the US. Studies spanning several decades show physician assistants provide safe and appropriate care. They can competently undertake consultations, perform complex procedures, provide preventative health care, treat non-complex patients in the emergency department and provide a wide range of services in rural areas.

Most studies have reported patient satisfaction with the physician assistant role.

Research has found it’s cost-effective to use physician assistants, including for complex patients.

Physician assistants can improve the continuity of patient care in hospitals, as they remain with their supervising doctor rather than moving between hospital areas as trainee doctors do. This enables them to maintain consistent contact with patients, their families and other members of the health-care team.

Using physician assistants in emergency departments enables doctors to review more complex patients.

In surgery, physician assistants can reduce the workload on resident doctors. They can prepare patients for surgery, review them afterwards and perform some surgical procedures. They can also reduce the time patients stay in hospital.

Physician assistants can also provide care in rural and remote areas and have worked with Aboriginal health workers in remote areas of Australia.

What do Australian policymakers need to consider?

Like many other countries, the Australian health workforce is under pressure. Recent reviews have highlighted the need to examine how the health system and workforce can more effectively meet the needs of the community. This includes making better use of all current health professions by enabling them to perform the tasks they have been trained to do.

Health professionals must ensure their care keeps patients safe and aligns with public expectations. This relies on appropriate education and training, funding and payment policies, governance and regulation. Effective regulation ensures health professionals are held accountable for their practice, according to defined professional practice expectations.

Despite physician assistants being trialled in Queensland and SA, the role did not gain the support of the medical profession. As a result, only a small number of physician assistants are currently practising. And Australia no longer provides education programs for physician assistants.

Several factors affected the acceptance of the physician assistant role.

Their skills and competence weren’t widely understood or recognised. This meant their scope of practice was poorly defined, which may have been confusing for both patients and health professionals.

The profession was also unable to access Medicare rebates or Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme subsidies for patient consultations or scripts. This limited their full involvement in some health services such as general practice.

What could we do better?

Australia needs to learn from the available evidence when considering a possible role for physician assistants.

In the US and Canada, for example, a close relationship between the medical and physician assistant professions has provided guidance and support for the role, and ensured physician assistants are accountable for their practice, through the development of “expected standards” of practice.

As demand for health services increases, it makes sense to explore the addition of physician assistants to Australia’s health-care workforce, if safety and quality can be assured, and health care teams function optimally.

Lisa Nissen receives funding from the Commonwealth Department and Aging and jurisdictional health departments for research related to Health Workforce Optimization and team based care.

Lynda Cardiff 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. What are physician assistants? Can they fix the doctor shortage? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-physician-assistants-can-they-fix-the-doctor-shortage-247560

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Orr, Veterinarian, Southern Cross University

Late last year, rumours swirled online that HomeSafeID, a private Australian pet microchip registry, had stopped operating.

On Feburary 5 2025, a notice appeared on the HomeSafeID website, ostensibly from the site’s administrator. It states the website “is likely to go offline” soon due to unpaid bills. This means the database of information stored on HomeSafeID would also go offline.

There has been no official word from HomeSafeID as to the status of the company. HomeSafeID did not respond when The Conversation reached out for comment.

According to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), the company is still registered and no insolvency notice has been published. However, it’s possible HomeSafeID has stopped operating or will do so in the near future.

If this happens, any pet with a HomeSafeID registered microchip would no longer have searchable microchip details. If these pets become lost, vets and shelters will have no way of finding or verifying their owner.

The situation is a symptom of a bigger problem with pet microchip registries in Australia – a lack of national oversight.

Why should you microchip your pet?

If your pet goes missing, their microchip is key to you being reunited. Vets and shelters can scan a stray animal’s microchip, search one of the seven microchip registries in Australia, find the pet owner’s details and contact them. Pet microchips significantly increase the likelihood lost pets will be reclaimed by their owners.

In fact, microchipping pets is a legal requirement in all states and territories of Australia except the Northern Territory, although it is required in the City of Darwin. In New South Wales, fines for failing to microchip your pet range from A$180 to $880.

If HomeSafeID does go offline, many pets will have microchips that don’t connect to a database any more, making them essentially useless.

It’s difficult to estimate the scale of the problem, but it could affect hundreds of thousands of pets, including ones adopted from RSPCA Queensland.

According to ASIC, RSPCA Queensland was a part-owner of HomeSafeID until 2020. A spokesperson for the charity told The Conversation it has no current partnership with HomeSafeID, and “don’t know the extent of how many animals are affected”. Yesterday, RSPCA Queensland issued advice for pet owners to check their registration details.

Where are microchip details stored?

There are currently seven registries in Australia. Five are privately owned, including HomeSafeID, and two are owned by state governments, in NSW and South Australia. Pets microchipped in those states are meant to be registered with the state registry.

The five private registries jointly fund a website called Pet Address, which allows you to search the five private databases to find where your pet’s details are stored.

However, Pet Address doesn’t cover the state registries – these have to be searched separately. Only NSW vets and “authorised identifiers” (such as shelters) can access the pet owner details stored in the NSW registry.

If a pet is moved to another state but their owner doesn’t update the registry, their microchip won’t be readable in the new location by non-NSW vets and shelters.

There are currently no rules, regulations or even guidelines around how private pet microchip registries should operate in Australia. If a microchip database were to cease operating, there is no safety net to ensure information is automatically moved to another database.

What can I do to make sure my pet’s microchip is up to date?

Given current uncertainty around the HomeSafeID registry, pet owners across Australia should check their pets’ microchip numbers and find out which database they’re registered in.

If you don’t already know your pet’s microchip number, vets and shelters can use a microchip scanner to find that number for you. Then, you can run it through Pet Address or the SA and NSW registries where relevant, to find out which database the number is registered on.

If your pet’s microchip is currently with HomeSafeID, it might be prudent to move your pet’s details to another database. You can do this by contacting one of the other microchip registries and applying to register with their database (this may involve a small fee).

Australia needs national coordination on pet microchipping

Given it’s mandatory to microchip dogs and cats, it might seem strange there are no regulations or guidelines around how microchip registries should operate. However, this is a symptom of a much bigger issue.

There is almost no national leadership or collaboration on companion animal issues in Australia. Pets are firmly the domain of state governments, with the federal government only really involved in the export and import of companion animals.

There are, however, avenues for national coordination. The renewal of the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy is one, and the national Animal Health Committee is another.

Regardless of who takes responsibility, it’s clear a round table on pet microchipping is urgently required to prevent hundreds of thousands of pets walking around with microchips that don’t work anymore.

Otherwise, lost pets may find themselves at shelters and pounds unnecessarily, and animals that might have otherwise been returned home could end up being adopted, or worse, euthanised.

Bronwyn Orr is a Director of the Walk In Clinic For Animals and Veterinary Support Group.

– ref. Thousands of Australian pets may soon have ‘useless’ microchips. It’s a symptom of a bigger problem – https://theconversation.com/thousands-of-australian-pets-may-soon-have-useless-microchips-its-a-symptom-of-a-bigger-problem-249492

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

US President Donald Trump has agreed to “consider” exempting Australia from the 25% tariff he has imposed on imports of steel and aluminium to the US.

Trump gave the undertaking during a wide-ranging 40-minute conversation with Anthony Albanese early Tuesday morning (Australian time). The prime minister, speaking to a news conference soon afterwards, stressed that Trump had agreed on the precise words to be used to describe the outcome.  

“I presented Australia’s case for an exemption and we agreed on wording to say publicly, which is that the US president agreed that an exemption was under consideration in the interests of both of our countries.”

Albanese gave no indication of when he expects a decision.

Meanwhile, Trump has signed the executive orders for the 25% tariffs on steel and aluminium without exemptions.

The Australian government might be able to take heart from Trump’s later comments on the discussion.

The president described Albanese as a “very fine man”.

“We have a surplus with Australia, one of the few, and the reason is they buy a lot of airplanes. They’re rather far away and they need lots of airplanes. We actually have a surplus. It’s one of the only countries which we do. I told him that that’s something that we’ll give great consideration to,” he told the media.

Pressed on whether he was confident of an exemption, Albanese would not speculate beyond the agreed words. “The words that I’ve used are the words that I’ll stick to,” he said.

“It’s appropriate when you’re dealing with the president of the United States to not speak on his behalf. And those are the words that were agreed.”

“We’ll continue to engage diplomatically.” Albanese said, “Australia will always stand up for Australia’s interests […] We’ll continue to put the case.”

The prime minister described the call as “constructive and warm” and posted on social media that it was a “great conversation”.

Outlining Australia’s argument for an exemption Albanese said the US had a trade surplus with Australia of about two to one, and steel supplier BlueScope had extensive production in the US.

“When you look at the imports of these products into the US, it’s about 1% of imports of steel, 2% of aluminium,” he told his news conference.

“Our steel is an important input to US manufacturing. BlueScope is the US’s fifth largest steelmaker. They’ve invested $5 billion in the US across a range of states. I think there’s more than 30 different investments there.

“Of course the major export is Colorbond there, for roofs in California on the west coast. And it plays an important role.

“Aluminium is a critical input for manufacturing in the United States and our steel and aluminium are both key inputs for the US-Australian defence industries. in both of our countries.”

Albanese said that in the conversation, “We spoke about a range of other things as well, including the fact that Jordan Mailata is a Super Bowl champion and I did point out that he was a South Sydney junior”.

The call, which was in train before the tariff announcement, also canvassed critical minerals and AUKUS.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton again criticised Albanese over his past comments about Trump. But the opposition leader told a news conference: “What’s important now is the Trump administration hears there is a bipartisan position in Australia to stand up for our national interest and that national interest is best served by a removal of the tariff as it applies to Australia.”

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. Trump agrees to consider Australian exemption from tariffs, describing Albanese as ‘very fine man’ – https://theconversation.com/trump-agrees-to-consider-australian-exemption-from-tariffs-describing-albanese-as-very-fine-man-248886

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

Donald Trump is moving rapidly to change the contours of contemporary international affairs, with the old US-dominated world order breaking down into a multipolar one with many centres of power.

The shift already includes the US leaving the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Accords, questioning the value of the United Nations, and radical cuts to the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Such a new geopolitical age also involves an assertion of raw power, with Trump using the threat of tariffs to assert global authority and negotiating positions.

While the US is not significantly less powerful, this new era may see it wield that power in more openly self-interested and isolationist ways. As new US Secretary of State Marco Rubio put it in January, “the post-war global order is not just obsolete – it is now a weapon being used against us”.

With global democracy in retreat, the emerging international order looks to be moving in an authoritarian direction. As it does, the position of New Zealand’s vibrant democracy will come under mounting pressure.

But world orders have come and gone for millennia, reflecting the ebb and flow of global economic, political and military power. Looking back to previous eras, and how countries and cultures responded to shifting geopolitical realities, can help us understand what is happening more clearly.

An evolving world order

Previous orders have often focused on specific centres – or “poles” – of power. These include the Concert of Europe from 1814 to 1914, the bipolar world of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, and the unipolar world of American dominance after the end of the Cold War and since the September 11 attacks in 2001.

Periods of single-power dominance (or hegemony) are referred to as a “pax”, from the Latin for “peace”. We have seen the Pax Romana of the Roman Empire (27 BCE to 180 AD), multiple Pax Sinicas around China (most recently the Qing Dynasty 1644 to 1912), Pax Mongolica (the Mongol Empire from 1271 to 1368) and Pax Britannica (the British Empire from 1815 to 1924).

It is the Pax Americana of the US, from 1945 to the present, that Trump seems bent on dismantling. We now live in an international order that is visibly in flux. With autocracy on the rise and the US at is vanguard, a “Pax Autocratica” is emerging.

This is accentuated by the rapid rise of Asia as the main sphere of economic and military growth, particularly China and India. The world’s two most populous countries had the world’s largest and third largest economies respectively in 2023, and the second and fourth highest levels of military spending.

The simultaneous rise of multiple power centres was already challenging the Pax Americana. Now, a new international order appears to be a certainty, with Trump openly adapting to multipolarity. Several major powers now compete for global influence, rather than any one country dominating.

China’s preference for a multipolar international order is shared by India and Russia. Without one dominant entity, it will be the political and social basis of this order, as determined by its major actors, that matters most – not who leads it.

Pax Democratica

The current (now waning) international order has been underpinned by specific social, political and economic values stemming from the national identity and historical experience of the US.

According to US political expert G. John Ikenberry, former president Woodrow Wilson’s agenda for peace after the first world war sought to “reflect distinctive American ideas and ideals”.

Woodrow imagined an order based on collective security and shared sovereignty, liberal principles of democracy and universal human rights, free trade and international law.

As its dominance and military strength increased in the 20th century, the US also provided security to other countries. Such power enabled Washington to create open global trade markets, as well as build core global institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, United Nations and NATO.

For Ikenberry, this Pax Americana (we might call it a Pax Democratica) rested on consent to the US’s “provision of security, wealth creation, and social advancement”. This was aided by the its more than 800 military bases in over 80 countries.

The democratic deficit

Trump undercuts the central tenets of this liberal world order and accelerates a slide towards authoritarianism. Like Russia, India and China, the US is also actively constraining human rights, attacking minorities and weakening its electoral system.

This democratic retreat leaves a country such as New Zealand in a global minority. If Trump targets the region or country with economic tariffs, that precariousness might increase.

On the other hand, previous world orders have not been truly hegemonic. Pax Britannica did not encompass the entire world. Nor did Pax Americana, which didn’t include China, India, the former Soviet bloc, much of the Islamic world and many developing countries.

This suggests pockets of democracy can survive within a Pax Autocratica, especially in a multipolar world which is more tolerant of political independence.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2023 Democracy Index ranked New Zealand, the Nordic countries, Switzerland, Iceland and Ireland highest because their citizens

choose their political leaders in free and fair elections, enjoy civil liberties, prefer democracy over other political systems, can and do participate in politics, and have a functioning government that acts on their behalf.

It is these countries that can be at the vanguard of democratic resilience.

Chris Ogden is a Senior Research Fellow with The Foreign Policy Centre, London.

– ref. As Trump abandons the old world order, NZ must find its place in a new ‘Pax Autocratica’ – https://theconversation.com/as-trump-abandons-the-old-world-order-nz-must-find-its-place-in-a-new-pax-autocratica-249358

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ronnie Das, Associate Professor in Data Analytics, The University of Western Australia

In the recent Border-Gavaskar series against India, Steve Smith agonisingly missed out reaching 10,000 Test runs in front of his home crowd at the Sydney Cricket Ground, falling short by just one run.

However he entered the “10K club” in style after hitting his 35th century against Sri Lanka in the series won by Australia, 2-0.

Smith is now the 15th batsman to join the exclusive club and the fourth Australian to do so, after Allan Border, Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting.

The illustrious group of players who have reached 10,000 is headed by Indian legend Sachin Tendulkar (15,921 runs) with Ponting (13,378) second and South African Jacques Kallis (13,289) third.

Among this group, Tendulkar, the West Indies’ Brian Lara and Sri Lanka’s Kumar Sangakkara were fastest to 10,000 in terms of innings batted (195), just ahead of Ponting (196). Smith was fifth fastest (205 innings).

But where does Smith sit among this group of truly elite batsmen? How does he compare to his fellow Australians? And can he eventually reach the pinnacle and overtake Tendulkar at the top of the mountain?

The challenges of modern cricket

Modern day cricket is physically, emotionally and psychologically demanding.

The physical demands, coupled with fixture congestion, make it tough on athletes’ bodies. Research also suggests psychological pressures have a heightened impact on players’ thinking, feeling and overall performances.

The evolution of lucrative Twenty20 games has also meant cricketers often play in these shorter-format leagues instead of resting between Test series.

Smith is one of many elite cricketers still playing all three formats of the sport.

While some batsmen continue to score well into their late 30s, more often than not performance declines in these twilight years of a batter’s career.

Smith turns 36 in June.

Judging the best

The 10,000 run club is the hallmark of batting excellence in Test cricket.

It is regarded as the pinnacle of a batsman’s career achievement.

Together (at the time of writing) the players in the 10K club have scored 181,947 runs, with 541 centuries and 818 half centuries.

The highest individual score belongs to Lara, who scored 400 (not out) against England in 2004.

Lara also maintained a very high strike rate (60.51) throughout his career.

A strike rate is a batsman’s run scoring efficiency per 100 balls – the higher the strike rate, the faster the batter scores. A higher strike rate puts more pressure on opposition bowlers and when a batter scores quickly, it allows more time for their team’s bowlers to take the 20 wickets required for a Test victory.

Only Ponting (a strike rate of 58.72 per 100 balls) closely matches Lara’s calibre, but England’s Joe Root (57.47) is enjoying a late-career renaissance and is closing the gap.

Compare that to the Border and Sunil Gavaskar era (late 1970s–early 1990s) when runs were not as easy to come by – these two ended their career with low (41.09 and 43.35 respectively) strike rates.

What about Smith?

In his second match, his strike rate was an exceptionally high 75.75 but, since then it has dipped to 53.58 as Smith has become a more balanced batsman.

Another way to judge a batter’s impact is their centuries per innings rate.

Smith has the highest century per innings rate (17.48%) among the 10K club.
He recently scored his 36th century, matching his modern-day peer, Root. But Root has played 72 additional innings.

In terms of overall centuries, Tendulkar leads the way having scored a staggering 51 centuries during his Test career (six more than Kallis, in second). However, Tendulkar did it over a mammoth 329 innings – 38 more than anyone else on the list.

How the Australians compare

Across generations, the four Australians have shown different styles of play in achieving the landmark.

Data shows Border was the most consistent player among them, with his average remaining relatively steady through his career, while Waugh improved his performance after a lacklustre start to his career.

Smith hit his peak at around his 75th match and Ponting around his 115th match, before their run scoring dropped.

In terms of batting positions, data suggests Smith has scored most of his runs coming in at number four. Border was most dominant coming in at four and five.

Ponting dominated as a number three batsman, while Waugh was very consistent at number five.

How far can Smith go?

Considering Smith’s age (35), current form and the physical demands of modern cricket, our findings suggest it will take him at least another three to four years to surpass Ponting.

That may be achievable but Smith’s year-long ban after the 2018 “sandpapergate saga” makes reaching Tendulkar’s mark extremely unlikely.

However, there is a chance Smith ends up with the best average in the club.

His batting average currently sits at 56.74, with only Sangakkara (57.4) higher.

Considering his current form, with four centuries in his past five Test matches, there’s every chance this modern-day great retires atop the tree in that metric at least.

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. Is Steve Smith set to become the best? What data says about Test cricket’s elite 10,000+ run club – https://theconversation.com/is-steve-smith-set-to-become-the-best-what-data-says-about-test-crickets-elite-10-000-run-club-248891

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zena Assaad, Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, Australian National University

Last week, Google quietly abandoned a long-standing commitment to not use artificial intelligence (AI) technology in weapons or surveillance. In an update to its AI principles, which were first published in 2018, the tech giant removed statements promising not to pursue:

• technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm
• weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people
• technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms
• technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.

The update came after United States President Donald Trump revoked former President Joe Biden’s executive order aimed at promoting safe, secure and trustworthy development and use of AI.

The Google decision follows a recent trend of big tech entering the national security arena and accommodating more military applications of AI. So why is this happening now? And what will be the impact of more military use of AI?

The growing trend of militarised AI

In September, senior officials from the Biden government met with bosses of leading AI companies, such as OpenAI, to discuss AI development. The government then announced a taskforce to coordinate the development of data centres, while weighing economic, national security and environmental goals.

The following month, the Biden government published a memo that in part dealt with “harnessing AI to fulfil national security objectives”.

Big tech companies quickly heeded the message.

In November 2024, tech giant Meta announced it would make its “Llama” AI models available to government agencies and private companies involved in defence and national security.

This was despite Meta’s own policy which prohibits the use of Llama for “[m]ilitary, warfare, nuclear industries or applications”.

Around the same time, AI company Anthropic also announced it was teaming up with data analytics firm Palantir and Amazon Web Services to provide US intelligence and defence agencies access to its AI models.

The following month, OpenAI announced it had partnered with defence startup Anduril Industries to develop AI for the US Department of Defence.

The companies claim they will combine OpenAI’s GPT-4o and o1 models with Anduril’s systems and software to improve US military’s defences against drone attacks.

Defending national security

The three companies defended the changes to their policies on the basis of US national security interests.

Take Google. In a blog post published earlier this month, the company cited global AI competition, complex geopolitical landscapes and national security interests as reasons for changing its AI principles.

In October 2022, the US issued export controls restricting China’s access to particular kinds of high-end computer chips used for AI research. In response, China issued their own export control measures on high-tech metals, which are crucial for the AI chip industry.

The tensions from this trade war escalated in recent weeks thanks to the release of highly efficient AI models by Chinese tech company DeepSeek. DeepSeek purchased 10,000 Nvidia A100 chips prior to the US export control measures and allegedly used these to develop their AI models.

It has not been made clear how the militarisation of commercial AI would protect US national interests. But there are clear indications tensions with the US’s biggest geopolitical rival, China, are influencing the decisions being made.

A large toll on human life

What is already clear is that the use of AI in military contexts has a demonstrated toll on human life.

For example, in the war in Gaza, the Israeli military has been relying heavily on advanced AI tools. These tools require huge volumes of data and greater computing and storage services, which is being provided by Microsoft and Google. These AI tools are used to identify potential targets but are often inaccurate.

Israeli soldiers have said these inaccuracies have accelerated the death toll in the war, which is now more than 61,000, according to authorities in Gaza.

Google removing the “harm” clause from their AI principles contravenes the international law on human rights. This identifies “security of person” as a key measure.

It is concerning to consider why a commercial tech company would need to remove a clause around harm.

Avoiding the risks of AI-enabled warfare

In its updated principles, Google does say its products will still align with “widely accepted principles of international law and human rights”.

Despite this, Human Rights Watch has criticised the removal of the more explicit statements regarding weapons development in the original principles.

The organisation also points out that Google has not explained exactly how its products will align with human rights.

This is something Joe Biden’s revoked executive order about AI was also concerned with.

Biden’s initiative wasn’t perfect, but it was a step towards establishing guardrails for responsible development and use of AI technologies.

Such guardrails are needed now more than ever as big tech becomes more enmeshed with military organisations – and the risk that come with AI-enabled warfare and the breach of human rights increases.

Zena Assaad 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. Google has dropped its promise not to use AI for weapons. It’s part of a troubling trend – https://theconversation.com/google-has-dropped-its-promise-not-to-use-ai-for-weapons-its-part-of-a-troubling-trend-249169

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenainn Simpson, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland

About 400 kilometres northwest of Sydney, just south of Dubbo, lies a large and interesting body of rock formed around 215 million years ago by erupting volcanoes.

Known as the Toongi deposit, this site is rich in so-called rare earths: a collection of 16 metallic elements essential for modern technologies from electric cars to solar panels and mobile phones.

Efforts are under way to mine this deposit, but the demand for rare earths in the coming decades is likely to be enormous.

To find more, we need to understand how and why these deposits form. Our latest research on Australian volcanoes, published in Nature Communications Earth and Environment, shows how tiny crystals formed inside volcanoes offer clues about the formation of rare earth deposits – and how we can find more of them.

Rare earths and the melting mantle

The formation of rare earth element deposits begins with partial melting of Earth’s mantle which lies deep below the crust.

Earth’s mantle is dominated by minerals that are rich in iron and magnesium. These minerals also contain small amounts of other elements, including the rare earth elements.

When the mantle melts to form magma, the rare earth elements move easily into the magma. If the amount of melting is small, the magma has a higher proportion of rare earth elements than if the amount of melting is large – for example, at a mid-ocean ridge where vast amounts of magma rush to the surface and form new oceanic crust.

As this magma migrates towards Earth’s surface, it cools down and new minerals begin to form. These minerals are mostly composed of oxygen, silicon, calcium, aluminium, magnesium and iron.

This means the leftover magma contains a higher concentration of rare earth elements. This residual liquid will continue to ascend through the crust until it solidifies or erupts at the surface.

From Greenland to central New South Wales

If the magma cools and crystallises in the crust, it can form rocks containing high levels of critical metals. One place where this has happened is the Gardar Igneous Complex in Southern Greenland, which contains several rare earth element deposits.

In central New South Wales in Australia, magmas enriched in rare earth elements erupted at the surface. They are collectively given the geological name Benolong Volcanic Suite.

Within this suite is the Toongi deposit – a part of the ancient volcanic plumbing system. This is an “intrusion” of congealed magma containing very high levels of critical metals.

Magmas enriched in rare earth elements are uncommon, and those that are enriched enough to be productively mined are rarer still, with only a few known examples worldwide. Even with all we know about how magmas form, there is much more work to be done to better understand and predict where magmas enriched in critical metals can be found.

Crystals record volcanic history

You may have wondered how scientists know so much about what happens kilometres (sometimes tens of kilometres) below our feet. We learn a lot about the interior of the Earth from studying rocks which make their way to the surface.

The processes that occur in a magma as it rises from Earth’s interior leave clues in the chemical composition of minerals which crystallise along the way. One mineral in particular – clinopyroxene – is particularly effective at preserving these clues, like a tiny crystal ball.

Fortunately, there are crystals of clinopyroxene within many of the rocks in the Benolong Volcanic Suite. This allowed us to examine the history of the non-mineralised rocks and compare it with the mineralised Toongi intrusion.

What’s different about the rocks at Toongi

We found that the Toongi rocks have two important differences.

First, the clinopyroxenes in the non-mineralised volcanic suite contain a lot of rare earth elements. This tells us that for most rocks in the volcanic suite, critical metals were “locked up” within clinopyroxene, rather than remaining in the residual melt.

In contrast, clinopyroxene crystals from Toongi show low levels of rare earth elements. Here, these elements are contained in a different mineral, eudialyte, which can be mined for rare earth elements.

Second, and most interesting, the clinopyroxenes from Toongi have an internal crystal structure that resembles an hourglass shape. This is caused by different elements residing in some parts of the crystal. It’s an exciting observation because it suggests rapid crystallisation occurred due the release of gas while the crystals were forming.

In contrast, we found no evidence of rapid crystallisation in the rocks without high levels of rare earths.

Our work means we can now track the composition and zoning of clinopyroxene in other extinct volcanoes in Australia and beyond to find out which ones may accumulate relevant rare earth element deposits.

This study adds another piece of the puzzle for understanding how critical metals accumulate, and how we can find them to power green, renewable energy sources for a sustainable future.

Brenainn Simpson works for the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Geological Survey of New South Wales and publishes with the permission of the Chief Geoscientist and Head of the Geological Survey of New South Wales.

Carl Spandler receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Teresa Ubide works for The University of Queensland. She receives research funding from the Australian Research Council, and infrastructure funding from NCRIS AuScope.

– ref. Where should we look for new metals that are critical for green energy technology? Volcanoes may point the way – https://theconversation.com/where-should-we-look-for-new-metals-that-are-critical-for-green-energy-technology-volcanoes-may-point-the-way-248659

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mareike Riedel, Senior lecturer in law, Macquarie University

The dramatic rise in antisemitic incidents has dominated headlines in Australia in recent months, with calls for urgent action to address what many are calling a crisis.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry tallied more than 2,000 antisemitic incidents in 2024, including physical assaults, attacks on synagogues, vandalism and graffiti. This is a 316% increase over the previous year.

These alarming events have sparked a heated political debate, with the opposition accusing the federal government of not taking the issue seriously enough.

However, focusing only on overt acts of antisemitism risks seeing it as an exceptional phenomenon or a problem limited to fringe extremist groups. This can obscure the more subtle and structural forms of antisemitism that perpetuate stereotypes about Jews and entrench discrimination in society.

How laws ingrain structural antisemitism

In my research, I examine how certain forms of antisemitism persist in Western societies with a Christian tradition.

While laws explicitly targeting Jews are largely a relic of the past, subtler forms of exclusion and discrimination remain. These often stem from perceptions that Jews deviate from dominant cultural norms.

For instance, Jewish communities frequently encounter resistance to the building of an eruv. This is a symbolic demarcation of a public space that enables Jews to observe Shabbat, a day when work is prohibited. It can sometimes involve stringing a wire between poles to create a boundary where people can do things they aren’t normally able to do, such as push a pram or carry shopping bags.

When an Orthodox Jewish community in Sydney sought permission to construct an eruv in the 2010s, local residents opposed it. Many arguments invoked stereotypes of Jews as clannish, intrusive and conspiratorial.

There have been similar disputes over eruvs in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. In many cases, local councils have sided with opponents, meaning Orthodox Jewish communities have had to go to court to seek approval.

In Europe, bans on religious slaughter have also singled out Jews and Muslims as cruel and fundamentalist, despite the widespread use of factory farming in Western societies.

There have also been calls to outlaw infant male circumcision in the name of children’s rights in many European countries and parts of the US.

These campaigns have, at times, tapped into longstanding antisemitic ideas about Jews as barbaric, bloodthirsty and backward.

These legal conflicts or campaigns reveal the structural dimensions of antisemitism. Similar to other forms of structural racism, structural antisemitism normalises majoritarian norms, perceptions and practices.

In turn, it marginalises and denigrates Jews as foreign, threatening and a problematic “other”.

Institutions, including schools, workplaces and local councils, can perpetuate these biases when they legitimise such exclusionary norms without critical reflection.

Read more:
The long, dark history of antisemitism in Australia

Challenging majority cultural norms

Understanding structural antisemitism also requires examining the Christian heritage of Western societies. In particular, there is a need to reflect on the legacy of Christian anti-Judaism.

Historically, the Christian belief in “supersessionism” referred to idea that Christianity has superseded Judaism and that Christians have replaced Jews as the people of God. Alongside the stereotype of Jews as the killers of Christ, this belief has contributed to stereotypes of Jews as inferior to Christians and being archaic, unenlightened, exclusive and ritualistic.

As the legal conflicts over eruvs, religious slaughter and circumcision suggest, such views continue to subtly influence attitudes towards Jews, even in modern secular societies.

For example, popular references to Judeo-Christian values signal the equality of Jews and Christians in society. However, this glosses over the fact that the acceptance of Jews can be contingent on conforming with majority norms.

This legacy also normalises Christian privilege. While Christians may face discrimination in certain contexts, they also enjoy inherent advantages in societies shaped by Christian traditions.

National calendars, weekly rhythms and public holidays align with Christian practices, while minorities need to seek accommodations to observe their own traditions.

For example, Western cities are filled with Christian symbols, such as churches and annual Christmas decorations. Several Australian parliaments and local councils also still begin meetings with Christian prayers.

What might seem like benign cultural traditions can signal exclusion to minority communities, including Jews. Implicit Christian norms can also create pressure to assimilate, especially given the long history of Christian societies’ attempts to convert or assimilate Jews.

However, these dynamics are rarely acknowledged in public debates about the discrimination of Jews and can also fly under the radar of the law.

In 1998, for instance, a Jewish father in New South Wales brought racial discrimination complaints against the education department over Christian activities at his children’s public school. These included nativity plays, Christmas carols and exchanging Easter eggs. The complaints were dismissed because they did not constitute discrimination on the basis of race.

The law in NSW does not prohibit religious discrimination (although the state now has religious vilification laws).

This gap exists in federal discrimination law, as well. It leaves minority religious groups with limited legal options to challenge the dominance of Christian norms. The NSW example demonstrates this and suggests there may be a case for a new federal religious discrimination law.

The question of what constitutes antisemitism remains a vexed question, including among Jews. Violent antisemitic attacks demand urgent attention. Yet, public discussions of antisemitism must also address these subtler forms of exclusion and the structural dimensions of antisemitism.

Mareike Riedel 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. Antisemitism goes beyond overt acts of hate – subtle forms of bias take their toll, too – https://theconversation.com/antisemitism-goes-beyond-overt-acts-of-hate-subtle-forms-of-bias-take-their-toll-too-249023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane McAdam, Scientia Professor and ARC Laureate Fellow, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Sydney

For a long time, it seemed refugee law had little relevance to people fleeing the impacts of climate change and disasters.

Nearly 30 years ago, the High Court of Australia, for instance, remarked that people fleeing a “natural disaster” or “natural catastrophes” could not be refugees.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Canada had said “victims of natural disasters” couldn’t be refugees “even when the home state is unable to provide assistance”.

It was back in 2007 that I first started considering whether international refugee law could apply to people escaping the impacts of drought, floods or sea-level rise. At the time, I also thought refugee law had limited application. For a start, most people seeking to escape natural hazards move within their own country and don’t cross an international border. That fact alone makes refugee law inapplicable.

Refugee law defines a refugee as someone with a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group.

So one challenge was in classifying supposedly “natural” events as “persecution”, which requires an identifiable human actor.

It was also widely thought such events were indiscriminate and couldn’t target people on account of their race, religion or one of the other five grounds. This is partly why some advocates called for an overhaul of the Refugee Convention to protect so-called “climate refugees”.

However, we have learned a lot in the intervening years.

A new approach

It’s become clear the impacts of climate change and disasters interact with other social, economic and political drivers of displacement to create risks for people.

This is what some legal experts have called the “hazard-scape”.

And the impacts of climate change and disasters are not indiscriminate – they affect people in different ways. Factors such as age, gender, disability and health can intersect to create particular risk of persecution for particular individuals or communities.

For example, a person who is a member of a minority may find their government is withholding disaster relief from them. Or, climate or disaster impacts may end up exacerbating inter-communal conflicts, putting certain people at heightened risk of persecution.

Now, we have a much more nuanced understanding of things. Refugee law (and complementary protection under human rights law) do have a role to play in assessing the claims of people affected by climate change.

No such thing as a ‘climate refugee’ under the law

There isn’t a legal category of “climate refugee” – a popular label that has caused confusion. However, there are certainly people facing heightened risks because of the impacts of climate change or disasters. These impacts can generate or exacerbate a risk of persecution or other serious harm.

This means that when it comes to the law, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel.

Instead, by applying existing legal principles and approaches, it’s clear some people impacted by climate change already qualify for refugee status or complementary protection (under human rights law).

One instructive case, heard in New Zealand, involved a deaf and mute man from Tuvalu who was seeking to avoid deportation on humanitarian grounds. He was found to be at heightened risk if a disaster struck because he could not hear evacuation or other warnings. He also didn’t have anyone who could sign for him or ensure his safety.

In another case, an older couple from Eritrea were found to be especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change because of “their elderly status and lack of family support”, in circumstances where they would be exposed to “conditions of abject poverty, underdevelopment and likely displacement”. This, in addition to other conditions in Eritrea, meant that there was “a real chance they would suffer cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by way of starvation and destitution”. They were granted complementary protection.

A practical way forward

New Zealand has led the way on showing how existing international refugee and human rights law can provide protection in the context of climate change and disasters. It’s time for the rest of the world to catch up.

With colleagues from Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, I’ve helped create a practical toolkit on international protection for people displaced across borders in the context of climate change and disasters.

This is a detailed resource for legal practitioners and decision-makers tasked with assessing international protection claims involving the impacts of climate change and disasters.

It shows when, why and how existing law can apply to claims where climate change or disasters play a role.

Inaccurate but popular labels aren’t helpful

Inaccurate but popular labels – such as “climate refugee” – have caused confusion and arguably hampered a consistent, principled approach.

Some judges and decision-makers assessing refugee claims may be spooked by “climate change”. They may think they need specialist scientific expertise to grapple with it.

The new toolkit shows why international protection claims arising in the context of climate change and disasters should be assessed in the same way as all other international protection claims. That is, by applying conventional legal principles and considering the facts of each case.

The toolkit stresses that it’s important to assess the impacts of climate change and disasters within a broader social context.

That includes examining underlying systemic issues of discrimination or inequity that may impact on how particular people experience harm.

The toolkit also shows why a cumulative assessment of risk is necessary, especially since risks may emerge over time, rather than as the result of a single, extreme event.

And it emphasises the need to look at the “hazard-scape” as a whole in assessing the future risk of harm to a person.

We hope the toolkit helps to debunk some common misunderstandings and charts a clear way forward. Our ultimate ambition is that people seeking international protection in the context of climate change and disasters will have their claims assessed in a consistent, fair and principled way.

Jane McAdam receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the expert sub-committee of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration. She thanks the Open Society Foundations (OSF) for its generous support of this project and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for its endorsement.

– ref. Climate impacts are forcing people from their homes. When, how and why do they have valid refugee claims? – https://theconversation.com/climate-impacts-are-forcing-people-from-their-homes-when-how-and-why-do-they-have-valid-refugee-claims-248865

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maggie Kirkman, Senior Research Fellow, Global and Women’s Health, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

You’ve heard of the gender pay gap. What about the gap in medical care?

Cardiovascular diseases – which can lead to heart attack and stroke – are one of the leading causes of death for women in Australia.

But women are less likely than men to receive preventive care for heart disease, such as appropriate medication. One study in New South Wales showed women admitted to hospital for a stroke were more likely to be first told by paramedics it was a migraine, headache, anxiety or nausea.

Despite these differences, official guidelines in Australia too often ignore the impact of sex and gender on health care. For example, a guideline on atrial fibrillation (irregular and often fast heartbeat) has limited information on sex and nothing on gender.

“Sex” refers to various biological characteristics by which at birth we are identified as female, male or intersex. “Gender” is a social and cultural concept in which people understand themselves to be a woman, a man or non-binary.

Our recent study reviewed 80 clinical guidelines. We found very few define sex and gender and the majority don’t mention gender at all. This has serious consequences for everyone, but especially for women, girls and gender-diverse people.

What are clinical guidelines for?

Clinical guidelines are recommendations about how to diagnose and treat a medical condition, based on research and usually developed by a team of specialists. Clinicians and other health workers are expected to use them to guide day-to-day health care.

For example, there are guidelines for physiotherapists on how to provide the best rehabilitation for someone after a heart attack. Other guidelines outline what a GP should do if a patient discloses intimate partner violence.

Because clinical guidelines are based on research, they can report only what has been studied and published in peer-reviewed journals. This means where there are gaps in research, clinical guidelines are usually silent.

What we did

As part of a larger project, the federal government asked our team to examine whether there are still clinical guidelines that do not take into account sex and gender differences.

There is no central database of Australia’s clinical guidelines. But in a comprehensive search, we found 80 published from January 2014 to April 2024.

These encompassed guidelines for conditions including various cancers, diabetes and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, designed for a range of health professionals such as general practitioners, medical specialists, physiotherapists and paramedics.

We searched every document for the following words:

• sex
• gender
• female
• male
• women
• men
• girl
• boy

If none of these words were found, we looked for “psychosocial” and “cultural”, to see if gender was considered without being named directly. We also read the text around each relevant word to understand its context and meaning.

What we found

Clinical guidelines in Australia too often do not offer guidance on incorporating sex and (especially) gender into health care.

We found:

• 15% of guidelines didn’t mention sex or gender at all. This includes recommendations about acute coronary syndrome from the National Heart Foundation and on e-mental health by the peak body for GPs. These guidelines did not even give the most basic information on sex differences in occurrence (of heart disease or mental health problems)

• only four guidelines (5%) defined the terms “sex” and “gender”

• 19% made no reference to clinical practice concerning sex. That is, there was no information on how symptoms and treatments might vary among biologically female, male and intersex bodies

• the majority (58%) ignored the role gender can play in clinical practice and how it might shape what treatment is most effective. For example, some women may be more comfortable being seen by a female doctor, for a range of personal or cultural reasons

• most (81%) did acknowledge biological sex in some way. But among those 65 guidelines there was great variation, ranging from a single statement about whether a condition (such as lung cancer) occurred more often in women or men, to detailed risk factors, prevalence, treatment and management, such as for advanced life support by paramedics.

Why does this matter?

The male body has historically been considered the “standard” human. With hormonal changes and pregnancies, women’s bodies have been seen as too complicated to be included in clinical research.

This means research has been conducted on men and then applied to women, ignoring the differences that excluded them from the research in the first place.

If the standard body is implicitly that of a (white) male, discrimination against all other bodies is inevitable.

The Australian Institute of Sport’s guideline on concussion and brain health is one of just four guidelines that define sex and gender.

This is crucial, given growing evidence women footballers are at greater risk of concussion than men. But their approach is far from mainstream.

Gender-diverse people also require distinct health care and support, based on inclusive and non-discriminatory practice and policy. There is clear evidence the mental health of gender-diverse people is profoundly affected by how sensitive – or discriminatory – their health care is.

Eliminating discrimination

Discrimination can be explicit and overt.

But it can also simply come from a lack of imagination, based on the assumption some kinds of health care are sex- and gender-neutral.

For example, the treatment of skin – dermatology – could appear neutral, as everyone has skin. Yet social expectations about clothing, make-up and appearance are highly gendered, and these can influence how skin conditions develop and are treated.

Guidelines that offer detailed information on sex- and gender-aware practice, such as those by GP Supervisor Australia, can contribute to challenging both explicit and implicit discrimination.

Ultimately, we hope this leads to equitable health care for people of all sexes and genders.

We recommend all developers of clinical guidelines look for evidence concerning sex and gender and, when they find none, say so. Funding bodies should also demand inclusion of sex and gender as a criterion to award money for medical research.

Silence on sex or gender implies that the topics aren’t important. This is far from the truth.

We acknowledge the contribution of the other members of our research team: Tomoko Honda, Steve McDonald, Sally Green, Karen Walker-Bone, and Ingrid Winship.

Maggie Kirkman received funding from the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care to conduct this research.

Jane Fisher receives funding from:

The National Health and Medical Research Council, The Australian Research Council, The Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, VicHealth, The Ramsay Hospital Research Foundation, The Paul Ramsay Foundation, The Human Safety Net, The LEGO Foundation, The Jasper Foundation, The National Center for Healthy Ageing

– ref. Australia’s clinical guidelines shape our health care. Why do so many still ignore sex and gender? – https://theconversation.com/australias-clinical-guidelines-shape-our-health-care-why-do-so-many-still-ignore-sex-and-gender-237400

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Iain White, Professor of Environmental Planning, University of Waikato

Urban planning has a long history of promoting visionary ideas that advocate for particular futures. The most recent is the concept of the 15-minute city, which has gained traction globally.

But empirical evidence on public preference for what people want is surprisingly thin on the ground.

To help address this gap, we conducted a national survey (1,491 responses) in Aotearoa New Zealand to find out what amenities people want to have easy access to, how much time they prefer to spend getting there, and how this differs between different groups in the population.

Our recently published research provides more depth. The headline messages have significant implications for politicians, policy-makers and others interested in planning cities to better meet the needs of citizens.

People want green space and local shops

The first message is that visions such as 15-minute cities tend to promote the idea of livability connected to easy access to multiple amenities – from education to employment and culture.

However, when we asked what amenities people prefer the most, two things came out far above others: local nature and local shops.

This finding is important as it allows cash-strapped local authorities to prioritise and sequence spending. It also supports the agenda of those who are advocating for an increase in urban green space or local living.

A complete shift to a 15-minute city can be daunting, but investment in these two specific areas could be an excellent first step in improving livability in a way that reflects what citizens want from planning.

We also asked people for their preferred maximum travel time to their most preferred amenity for a one-way trip, using different modes. Nationally, the data were consistent, identifying around 20 minutes as a good rule of thumb for maximum preferred travel time.

Importantly, this time was broadly similar regardless of the transport mode chosen. Whether walking, cycling or travelling by micro-mobility modes such as e-scooters, people wanted to spend no more than 20  minutes doing so – even though the distances vary.

It is important to acknowledge this time is a maximum, not a preference. It is better understood as a threshold or decision point after which people are much more likely to drive or choose not to travel.

This evidence has a wider resonance.

First, it strongly reinforces the 15-minute city or 20-minute neighbourhood as accurately reflecting public preferences for travel time to reach destinations, especially as this figure was consistent regardless of the travel mode.

Second, people are willing to walk further than we typically plan for.

For example, planners may typically apply a walkable catchment of an 800-metre radius around the central business district or transit nodes to allow for higher-density zoning. This distance is a walk of about ten minutes. Our data suggest this area could be expanded and more opportunities created to increase housing volume and diversity.

One size does not fit all

One crucial aspect for improving livability is recognising differences in people’s ability or willingness to walk, cycle or use micro mobility. To explore this, our survey asked people how comfortable they were using each active travel mode after dark.

We reveal a strong gender difference. For example, 41% of people said they were uncomfortable walking after dark. Of this group, 86% were female.

For all travel modes, there was a similar story with females more likely to change travel behaviour, mostly due to safety concerns. The survey also revealed that people with a disability are significantly less comfortable travelling after dark than those without.

This finding is useful for those concerned with equity. Citizen movement is typically modelled on the idea of an able-bodied person who feels equally comfortable in all urban spaces at all times of day or night.

Without considering difference across populations, advocates may promote an equitable 15-minute city during the day and an inequitable car-dependent one after dark.

This also highlights that any new urban strategy or investment needs to understand existing behaviour and the risks of making current disadvantages worse.

Agendas such as 15-minute cities hold significant value in planning for wellbeing and health, economic activity or decarbonisation. They also hold potential for planners to engage with communities to explain the value of planning, the kind of lifestyle citizens can expect in the future, and why authorities are spending public money.

But urban researchers also need urban concepts to be grounded in evidence to avoid becoming the next urban imaginary accused of failing to be transformative.

Our research helps provide some clarity. The general message is that people want easy access to green spaces and local shops more than anything else and they want to spend no more than 20 minutes getting there.

It also highlights context and differences between groups. We need to marry promising urban concepts to empirical research designed to support people’s preferences and encourage movement and equity.

Iain White receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Endeavour Fund and from the Natural Hazards Commission. He is New Zealand’s national contact point for the Horizon Europe program for the climate, energy and mobility research cluster.

Silvia Serrao-Neumann receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Endeavour Fund and from the Natural Hazards Commission.

Xinyu Fu receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Endeavour Fund and from the Natural Hazards Commission.

– ref. Nature and shops: here’s what people told us they want most from urban planning – https://theconversation.com/nature-and-shops-heres-what-people-told-us-they-want-most-from-urban-planning-247994

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew King, Associate Professor in Climate Science, ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather, The University of Melbourne

Earth is crossing the threshold of 1.5°C of global warming, according to two major global studies which together suggest the planet’s climate has likely entered a frightening new phase.

Under the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, humanity is seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep planetary heating to no more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial average. In 2024, temperatures on Earth surpassed that limit.

This was not enough to declare the Paris threshold had been crossed, because the temperature goals under the agreement are measured over several decades, rather than short excursions over the 1.5°C mark.

But the two papers just released use a different measure. Both examined historical climate data to determine whether very hot years in the recent past were a sign that a future, long-term warming threshold would be breached.

The answer, alarmingly, was yes. The researchers say the record-hot 2024 indicates Earth is passing the 1.5°C limit, beyond which scientists predict catastrophic harm to the natural systems that support life on Earth.

2024: the first year of many above 1.5°C

Climate organisations around the world agree last year was the hottest on record. The global average temperature in 2024 was about 1.6°C above the average temperatures in the late-19th century, before humans started burning fossil fuels at large scale.

Earth has also recently experienced individual days and months above the 1.5°C warming mark.

But the global temperature varies from one year to the next. For example, the 2024 temperature spike, while in large part due to climate change, was also driven by a natural El Niño pattern early in the year. That pattern has dissipated for now, and 2025 is forecast to be a little cooler.

These year-to-year fluctuations mean climate scientists don’t view a single year exceeding the 1.5°C mark as a failure to meet the Paris Agreement.

However, the new studies published today in Nature Climate Change suggest even a single month or year at 1.5°C global warming may signify Earth is entering a long-term breach of that vital threshold.

What the studies found

The studies were conducted independently by researchers in Europe and Canada. They tackled the same basic question: is a year above 1.5°C global warming a warning sign that we’re already crossing the Paris Agreement threshold?

Both studies used observations and climate model simulations to address this question, with slightly different approaches.

In the European paper, the researchers looked at historical warming trends. They found when Earth’s average temperature reached a certain threshold, the following 20-year period also reached that threshold.

This pattern suggests that, given Earth reached 1.5°C warming last year, we may have entered a 20-year warming period when average temperatures will also reach 1.5°C.

The Canadian paper involved month-to-month data. June last year was the 12th consecutive month of temperatures above the 1.5°C warming level. The researcher found 12 consecutive months above a climate threshold indicates the threshold will be reached over the long term.

Both studies also demonstrate that even if stringent emissions reduction begins now, Earth is still likely to be crossing the 1.5°C threshold.

Heading in the wrong direction

Given these findings, what humanity does next is crucial.

For decades, climate scientists have warned burning fossil fuels for energy releases carbon dioxide and other gases that are warming the planet.

But humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase. Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its first report in 1990, the world’s annual carbon dioxide emissions have risen about 50%.

Put simply, we are not even moving in the right direction, let alone at the required pace.

The science shows greenhouse gas emissions must reach net-zero to end global warming. Even then, some aspects of the climate will continue to change for many centuries, because some regional warming, especially in the oceans, is already locked in and irreversible.

If Earth has indeed already crossed the 1.5°C mark, and humanity wants to get below the threshold again, we will need to cool the planet by reaching “net-negative emissions” – removing more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than we emit. This would be a highly challenging task.

Feeling the heat

The damaging effects of climate change are already being felt across the globe. The harm will be even worse for future generations.

Australia has already experienced 1.5°C of warming, on average, since 1910.

Our unique ecosystems, such as the Great Barrier Reef, are already suffering because of this warming. Our oceans are hotter and seas are rising, hammering our coastlines and threatening marine life.

Bushfires and extreme weather, especially heatwaves, are becoming more frequent and severe. This puts pressure on nature, society and our economy.

But amid the gloom, there are signs of progress.

Across the world, renewable electricity generation is growing. Fossil fuel use has dropped in many countries. Technological developments are slowing emissions growth in polluting industries such as aviation and construction.

But clearly, there is much more work to be done.

Humanity can turn the tide

These studies are a sobering reminder of how far short humanity is falling in tackling climate change.

They show we must urgently adapt to further global warming. Among the suite of changes needed, richer nations must support the poorer countries set to bear the most severe climate harms. While some progress has been made in this regard, far more is needed.

A major shift is also needed to decarbonise our societies and economies. There is still room for hope, but we must not delay action. Otherwise, humanity will keep warming the planet and causing further damage.

Andrew King receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather and the National Environmental Science Program.

Liam Cassidy 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. Earth is already shooting through the 1.5°C global warming limit, two major studies show – https://theconversation.com/earth-is-already-shooting-through-the-1-5-c-global-warming-limit-two-major-studies-show-249133

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flavio Macau, Associate Dean – School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

Coles is reducing its product range by at least 10%, a move that has sparked public backlash and renewed discussions about the role of supermarkets in the cost-of-living crisis.

In cutting the range of items on offer Coles is moving closer to Aldi and Costco’s strategy to grow exclusive brands and limit product range.

The goal is to boost profitability by reducing costs, increasing sales, and increasing control over the supply chain.

Coles is unlikely to cut traditional brands, especially those from companies with significant market power like Coca-Cola or Nestle. In a battle between giants, the status quo is likely to prevail.

Smaller suppliers are likely to bear the load as they struggle to renew contracts and face increased competition from home brands.

To fully understand the reasons behind this move and its impact on the cost of living, insights from psychology, finance, and supply chain management come in handy.

Why cut back on brands?

The Coles move is all about profitability.

Over the past decade, competition in the Australian supermarket sector has intensified. Coles’ market share declined from 31% to 25% between 2013 and 2023, while Woolworths’ share fell from 41% to 37%.

This shift reflects the rise of Aldi, which now holds approximately 10% of the market, and its strong position in the home brand space.

To boost profitability with a smaller customer base, Coles needs to find ways to enhance its earnings. This can be achieved by raising prices, cutting costs, or increasing the market share of its home brands.

Raising prices vs cutting costs

Raising prices is not a viable option, as consumers are already struggling with high food prices inflation and the rising cost-of-living. However, there is room to cut costs.

One approach is to squeeze suppliers, but again this is unlikely to be effective. The consumer watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), is holding an inquiry into concerns that the supermarkets are using their market power to the disadvantage of their suppliers and consumers.

Additionally, as producers exit unprofitable businesses, supermarkets risk supply chain disruptions due to increased market concentration among surviving suppliers.

Another strategy is to reduce complexity. The more product variety there is, the more complicated and expensive it becomes to manage. Tasks such as stocking shelves, adjusting prices, maintaining inventory, managing delivery schedules, and disposing of expired products all contribute to higher costs.

Anna Croft, Coles’ operations and sustainability officer, explained the strategy when telling investors in November that 13 basic table salts could be cut to five.

Simplifying the product range can also boost sales. When faced with too many options, consumers can experience “choice overload”. A widely recognised study in psychology found that people are more likely to make a purchase when presented with a limited selection rather than an extensive array of choices.

Shifting to home brands

Simplifying the range will likely focus on items where Coles has a home brand. Home brands now account for 33.5% of Coles’ sales, with 6,000 products. About 1,100 were added over the past year.

This move is a response to competitors like Aldi and Costco. While Coles and Woolworths manage over 25,000 items in their stores, Aldi limits its offering to about 1,800 products.

Coles is focusing on its home brands to better compete with non-branded offerings from Aldi. In its report to the ACCC, the supermarket highlights its investment in expanding its own-brand range to provide more affordable prices, up to 40% cheaper than similar proprietary brands.

While consumers may have fewer choices, it is expected that they will benefit from better prices.

This shift towards home brands is not exclusive to Australia. In the United States, private label sales hit a record in 2023 across a range of items from beauty products to general merchandise. In the United Kingdom, home brand products now account for over half of supermarket sales.

Have we been here before?

Almost 10 years ago, Woolworths and Coles started a significant move to adjust their price positioning in response to the competition. Along with Metcash (IGA), they reduced product ranges in 2015–16 by 10% to 15% to simplify the weekly grocery shop for consumers.

At that time, the culling of products put suppliers under pressure (as now) while consumers were ambivalent: some wanted more brand variety and others preferred less.

As history repeats itself, it will be interesting to see if Woolworths and Metcash will follow the latest move from Coles and how customers, suppliers, and the ACCC will react this time.

A/Prof Flavio Macau is affiliated with the Project Management Institute (PMI)

– ref. As Coles slashes its product range, will well-known brands disappear from supermarket shelves? – https://theconversation.com/as-coles-slashes-its-product-range-will-well-known-brands-disappear-from-supermarket-shelves-249274

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacinta Humphrey, Research Fellow in Urban Ecology, RMIT University

Golf courses are sometimes seen as harmful to the environment. According to the popular notion, the grass soaks up too much water, is cut too short and sprayed with dangerous chemicals. But in reality, golf courses can act as safe havens for native wildlife, especially in cities.

Cities are home to a wide range of plants and animals, including 30% of Australia’s threatened species. But ongoing population growth and urban development threatens this biodiversity. We’re still losing green space and tree cover, leaving less habitat and resources for native birds, bats, possums, lizards, frogs, beetles and butterflies.

This is where golf courses can play a role. Australia is one of the golfing capitals of the world, with more than 1,800 active courses. These courses represent large, continuous green spaces often with native vegetation, mature trees, lakes and wetlands. Given their ubiquity, golf courses could help conserve urban biodiversity.

This week, the annual LIV Golf tournament returns to Grange Golf Club in South Australia. Grange is one of 30 Australian golf courses certified for its commitment to sustainability, partly due to its extensive woodland, natural habitats and wildlife. So what makes a golf course good or bad for biodiversity?

The gold in the rough

From a biodiversity perspective, the most valuable part of a golf course is the area all golfers seek to avoid: the “rough”. These spaces between the green, manicured fairways can include remnant or restored bushland with dense leaf litter, long grass, thick shrubs, and both living and dead trees. This vegetation is often native and features a diversity of plant species.

Collectively, this can provide a range of resources for native wildlife including food, shelter and tree hollows for nesting. In Melbourne, research found golf courses provided better habitat for wildlife than nearby suburban streets and parklands. They were also home to a greater diversity of birds and bats.

Golf courses also have relatively little human activity. Golfers are only allowed on the course during certain hours of the day. Courses usually do not allow dogs. And there are few cars and roads, so there’s less noise and light pollution than in other urban areas. This makes golf courses pretty attractive to native animals looking for somewhere to live.

Many golf courses are heavily irrigated to ensure high-quality playing surfaces. This ample water supply (typically from recycled sources) is fantastic for wildlife, especially in warmer and drier climates. Birds are known to flock to water resources during drought – a behaviour likely to become more common under future climate change.

Much-feared water hazards for golfers, such as lakes and ponds, actually provide valuable habitat for aquatic birds, frogs, fish and insects. These water bodies are particularly important in cities where wetlands are regularly cleared to make way for new houses, shops and roads.

Importantly, once constructed, golf courses are rarely threatened by clearing or development. In Perth, research found golf courses helped protect native vegetation as development spread through surrounding suburbs. The mere existence of a golf course can help secure a home for native species for many decades to come.

Golf courses are not a perfect solution

However, not all land on golf courses is valuable for wildlife. Large open areas such as fairways typically only benefit species adapted to life in cities such as the aggressive noisy miner.

Golf courses can also harbour pests such as cane toads, rats and common mynas. These undesirable species may pose a threat to native biodiversity.

The use of pesticides and fertilisers can affect soil quality, contaminate water sources, and make frogs sick.

Frequent lawn mowing can reduce insect diversity, particularly among bugs, bees, wasps and ants. This is likely to have flow-on effects for animals that feed on insects, and for flowering plants that depend on insects for pollination and seed dispersal.

Some urban golf courses may also be physically isolated from other suitable habitats, making it hard for wildlife to safely move around to find food, water and a mate. To get in and out, animals may need to cross busy roads or move through dangerous areas where they are exposed to predators such as cats and foxes.

So, how can we best manage golf courses for biodiversity?

In an ideal world, golf courses should only be constructed in developed areas. That’s because constructing courses in natural, undisturbed areas is likely to involve clearing vegetation for fairways, greens, car parks and club houses.

As a result, the biodiversity value of a golf course increases the closer it is to a city.

Existing golf courses can help protect biodiversity by retaining and restoring diverse bushland patches in the rough. Important conservation areas can also be fenced off and deemed “out of bounds” to golfers.

The use of harsh chemicals should be reduced to minimise risks to soil, water and wildlife. “Organic golf courses” overseas are already making progress in this space, but they are far from mainstream.

Finally, efforts must be made to connect golf courses to nearby parks and reserves through wildlife corridors, road underpasses, and special crossing structures such as rope bridges. This will enable animals to safely move around the urban landscape.

Many golf courses now have biodiversity management plans and are working hard to make their practices more sustainable. In other cases, disused golf courses are even being converted into conservation reserves, such as the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve in Elsternwick, Melbourne.

While golf courses cannot replace natural habitats, they can provide a useful alternative for many species that call our cities home.

Jacinta Humphrey receives funding from the Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment, the Ecological Society of Australia, BirdLife Australia, Australian Wildlife Society, and the Field Naturalists Club of Victoria.

– ref. Golf courses can be safe havens for wildlife and beacons of biodiversity – https://theconversation.com/golf-courses-can-be-safe-havens-for-wildlife-and-beacons-of-biodiversity-246673

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

The Albanese government is set to mount a major effort to win an exemption from a proposed 25% tariff on steel and aluminium imports to the United States foreshadowed by President Donald Trump.

Assuming Trump follows through on the move, it will put major pressure on the prime minister to match the success of the Turnbull government in 2018 when Trump put a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminium in his first administration.

Speaking to reporters travelling on Air Force One, Trump flagged he would make the tariff announcement on Monday (Washington time). He said the tariffs would start “almost immedciately” on all foreign steel and aluminium imports.

The Australian government on Monday was scrambling to put together its response, although government sources insisted it was not surprised and was well prepared.

Cabinet met on Monday morning where the Trump comments were presumably discussed.

Trade Minister Don Farrell said on Monday:

We have consistently made the case for free and fair trade, including access into the US market for Australian steel and aluminium.

Our bilateral economic relationship is mutually beneficial – Australian steel and aluminium is creating thousands of good paying American jobs, and are key for our shared defence interests too.

Sources said the government had been making representations on steel and aluminium for months.

Last week, Farrell said he was seeking talks with incoming US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, but that would have to wait until he was confirmed.

In the lobbying for special treatment, the government will stress that the US has a trade surplus with Australia.

In 2023-24, the US imported about 240,000 tonnes of steel products from Australia, valued at US$250 million (A$400 million).

US imports of Australian aluminium peaked in 2019 at about 270,000 tonnes and declined to around 83,000 in 2024. The three-year average imports from Australia were 167,000 tonnes per year, valued at US$496 million (A$791 million).

Nationals leader David Littleproud said the issue was a test for Anthony Albanese and Australia’s ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd.

Littleproud said:

When you make disparaging comments about leaders in other parts of the world sometimes it comes back to bite you.

And unfortunately it could be the Australian economy that gets the bite.

This is a test to see whether Anthony Albanese’s previous remarks and Kevin Rudd’s previous remarks about President Trump has done this nation harm.

Littleproud said if Rudd was “not the right person to have these discussions, then we should be mature enough as a country to send someone who can have those discussions to get that carveout”.

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles has just returned from Washington.

At a news conference there, he was asked whether Australia was concerned about direct reciprocal tariffs or a flow-on effect from them.

Marles said:

We obviously are engaging with the United States in respect of our bilateral relationship in respect to tariffs.

We’ll obviously press Australia’s interest in our case in respect of that. But none of this is a surprise. We know what President Trump’s platform was as he went into the American election.

He’s been very clear about his policy direction. And so I think we all understand that is going to see changes in American policy in relation to this. From an Australian point of view, we will continue to press the Australian case around the question of trade.

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. Trump is now flagging tariffs on steel and aluminium. Can Albanese win an exemption for Australia? – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-now-flagging-tariffs-on-steel-and-aluminium-can-albanese-win-an-exemption-for-australia-249476