Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Neal, Senior lecturer in Economics / Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

Commentators have branded last night’s federal budget as an attempt to win over typical Australian voters concerned about the cost of living, ahead of what is expected to be a tightly fought federal election.

The budget’s big-ticket items included tax cuts and energy bill relief, plus measures to make childcare and healthcare cheaper.

There was little in the budget dedicated to stemming Australia’s environmental crises. Given this, one might assume the average voter cares little for action on conservation and curbing climate change. But is this true?

Polling suggests the clear answer is “no”. Voters consistently say they want more government action on both conservation and climate change. As the federal election looms, Labor is running out of time to show it cares about Australia’s precious natural environment.

What environmental spending was in the budget?

The main spending on the environment in last night’s budget had been announced in the weeks before. It includes:

• A$250 million over five years to help protect 30% of Australia’s land and waters by 2030

• $2 billion over 19 years to help Australia’s aluminium smelters transition to renewable electricity

• $1 billion over seven years to support new facilities and supply chains for “green” iron.

These measures are welcome. However, the overall environment spending is inadequate, given the scale of the challenges Australia faces.

Australia’s protected areas, such as national parks, have suffered decades of poor funding, and the federal budget has not rectified this. It means these sensitive natural places will remain vulnerable to harms such as invasive species and bushfires.

More broadly, Australia is failing to stem the drivers of biodiversity loss, such as land clearing and climate change. This means more native species become threatened with extinction each year.

Experts say conserving Australia’s threatened species would cost an extra $2 billion a year. Clearly, the federal budget spending of an extra $50 million a year falls well short of this.

And global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. This contributes to ever-worsening climate change, bringing heatwaves, more extreme fires, more variable rainfall and rising seas.

Contrary to what the federal budget priorities might suggest, Australians are concerned about these issues.

What does the average voter think about the environment?

Results from reputable polling provide insight into what the average voters want when it comes to environmental policy and spending.

When it comes to conservation, the evidence is clear. Polling by YouGov in October last year (commissioned by two environment groups) estimated that 70% of Australians think the Labor government should do more to “protect and restore nature”. The vast majority of voters (86%) supported stronger national nature laws.

Essential Research polling in October 2023 found 53% of voters think the government is not doing enough to preserve endangered species. About the same proportion said more government action was needed to preserve native forests, and oceans and rivers.

On climate change, the average voter appears to have views significantly out of step with both major parties. The Australia Institute’s Climate of the Nation report last year found 50% of voters believed the government was not doing enough to prepare for and adapt to climate impacts.

The report also found 50% of voters supported a moratorium on new coal mines in Australia, 69% support charging companies a levy for each tonne of carbon pollution they emit, and 69% are concerned about climate change.

Also in 2024, a Lowy Institute poll found 57% of Australians supported the statement that “global warming is a serious and pressing problem, and that we should take steps now to mitigate it even if it involves significant costs”.

There’s a caveat here. As the cost-of-living crisis has worsened, the issue has edged out all others in terms of voter concerns at the upcoming election.

For example, in January this year, Roy Morgan polling found 57% of voters considered cost of living one of their top-three issues of concern. Only 23% considered global warming a top-three issue.

However, global warming was still more of a concern for voters than managing the economy (22%), keeping interest rates down (19%) and reducing taxes (15%). It was tied with reducing crime (23%).

It’s also important to note that climate change and cost-of-living pressures are not separate issues. Research suggests that as climate change worsens, it will cause inflation to worsen.

Labor’s unmet election promises

The singular focus on the cost of living in last night’s federal budget means environmental spending has been neglected.

Context matters here. Labor has utterly failed to deliver its 2022 election promise to rewrite federal environmental protection laws and create an environmental protection agency.

The government could have used this budget to repair its environmental credentials going into the next election – but it didn’t. The many voters concerned about the environment might well wonder if Labor considers the environment a policy priority at all.

The upcoming election result may show whether minor parties and independents better reflect the Australian electorate’s views on this important issue.

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

– ref. The 2025 federal budget fails the millions of voters who want action on Australia’s struggling environment – https://theconversation.com/the-2025-federal-budget-fails-the-millions-of-voters-who-want-action-on-australias-struggling-environment-253099

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Coghlan, Senior Lecturer in Digital Ethics, Centre for AI and Digital Ethics, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

Every day, users ask search engines millions of questions. The information we receive can shape our opinions and behaviour.

We are often not aware of their influence, but internet search tools sort and rank web content when responding to our queries. This can certainly help us learn more things. But search tools can also return low-quality information and even misinformation.

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have entered the search scene. While LLMs are not search engines, commercial web search engines have started to include LLM-based artificial intelligence (AI) features into their products. Microsoft’s Copilot and Google’s Overviews are examples of this trend.

AI-enhanced search is marketed as convenient. But, together with other changes in the nature of search over the last decades, it raises the question: what is a good search engine?

Our new paper, published in AI and Ethics, explores this. To make the possibilities clearer, we imagine four search tool models: Customer Servant, Librarian, Journalist and Teacher. These models reflect design elements in search tools and are loosely based on matching human roles.

The four models of search tools

Customer Servant

Workers in customer service give people the things they request. If someone asks for a “burger and fries”, they don’t query whether the request is good for the person, or whether they might really be after something else.

The search model we call Customer Servant is somewhat like the first computer-aided information retrieval systems introduced in the 1950s. These returned sets of unranked documents matching a Boolean query – using simple logical rules to define relationships between keywords (e.g. “cats NOT dogs”).

Librarian

As the name suggests, this model somewhat resembles human librarians. Librarian also provides content that people request, but it doesn’t always take queries at face value.

Instead, it aims for “relevance” by inferring user intentions from contextual information such as location, time or the history of user interactions. Classic web search engines of the late 1990s and early 2000s that rank results and provide a list of resources – think early Google – sit in this category.

Journalist

Journalists go beyond librarians. While often responding to what people want to know, journalists carefully curate that information, at times weeding out falsehoods and canvassing various public viewpoints.

Journalists aim to make people better informed. The Journalist search model does something similar. It may customise the presentation of results by providing additional information, or by diversifying search results to give a more balanced list of viewpoints or perspectives.

Teacher

Human teachers, like journalists, aim at giving accurate information. However, they may exercise even more control: teachers may strenuously debunk erroneous information, while pointing learners to the very best expert sources, including lesser-known ones. They may even refuse to expand on claims they deem false or superficial.

LLM-based conversational search systems such as Copilot or Gemini may play a roughly similar role. By providing a synthesised response to a prompt, they exercise more control over presented information than classic web search engines.

They may also try to explicitly discredit problematic views on topics such as health, politics, the environment or history. They might reply with “I can’t promote misinformation” or “This topic requires nuance”. Some LLMs convey a strong “opinion” on what is genuine knowledge and what is unedifying.

No search model is best

We argue each search tool model has strengths and drawbacks.

The Customer Servant is highly explainable: every result can be directly tied to keywords in your query. But this precision also limits the system, as it can’t grasp broader or deeper information needs beyond the exact terms used.

The Librarian model uses additional signals like data about clicks to return content more aligned with what users are really looking for. The catch is these systems may introduce bias. Even with the best intentions, choices about relevance and data sources can reflect underlying value judgements.

The Journalist model shifts the focus toward helping users understand topics, from science to world events, more fully. It aims to present factual information and various perspectives in balanced ways.

This approach is especially useful in moments of crisis – like a global pandemic – where countering misinformation is critical. But there’s a trade-off: tweaking search results for social good raises concerns about user autonomy. It may feel paternalistic, and could open the door to broader content interventions.

The Teacher model is even more interventionist. It guides users towards what it “judges” to be good information, while criticising or discouraging access to content it deems harmful or false. This can promote learning and critical thinking.

But filtering or downranking content can also limit choice, and raises red flags if the “teacher” – whether algorithm or AI – is biased or simply wrong. Current language models often have built-in “guardrails” to align with human values, but these are imperfect. LLMs can also hallucinate plausible-sounding nonsense, or avoid offering perspectives we might actually want to hear.

Staying vigilant is key

We might prefer different models for different purposes. For example, since teacher-like LLMs synthesise and analyse vast amounts of web material, we may sometimes want their more opinionated perspective on a topic, such as on good books, world events or nutrition.

Yet sometimes we may wish to explore specific and verifiable sources about a topic for ourselves. We may also prefer search tools to downrank some content – conspiracy theories, for example.

LLMs make mistakes and can mislead with confidence. As these models become more central to search, we need to stay aware of their drawbacks, and demand transparency and accountability from tech companies on how information is delivered.

Striking the right balance with search engine design and selection is no easy task. Too much control risks eroding individual choice and autonomy, while too little could leave harms unchecked.

Our four ethical models offer a starting point for robust discussion. Further interdisciplinary research is crucial to define when and how search engines can be used ethically and responsibly.

Damiano Spina has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is an Associate Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S).

Falk Scholer has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is an Associate Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S).

Hui Chia and Simon Coghlan 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. What makes a good search engine? These 4 models can help you use search in the age of AI – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-a-good-search-engine-these-4-models-can-help-you-use-search-in-the-age-of-ai-252927

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Murray, Professor of Cybersecurity, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

Yesterday, The Atlantic magazine revealed an extraordinary national security blunder in the United States. Top US government officials had discussed plans for a bombing campaign in Yemen against Houthi rebels in a Signal group chat which inadvertently included The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.

This is hardly the first time senior US government officials have used non-approved systems to handle classified information. In 2009, the then US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fatefully decided to accept the risk of storing her emails on a server in her basement because she preferred the convenience of accessing them using her personal BlackBerry.

Much has been written about the unprecedented nature of this latest incident. Reporting has suggested the US officials involved may have also violated federal laws that require any communication, including text messages, about official acts to be properly preserved.

But what can we learn from it to help us better understand how to design secure systems?

A classic case of ‘shadow IT’

Signal is regarded by many cybersecurity experts as one of the world’s most secure messaging apps. It has become an established part of many workplaces, including government.

Even so, it should never be used to store and send classified information. Governments, including in the US, define strict rules for how national security classified information needs to be handled and secured. These rules prohibit the use of non-approved systems, including commercial messaging apps such as Signal plus cloud services such as Dropbox or OneDrive, for sending and storing classified data.

The sharing of military plans on Signal is a classic case of what IT professionals call “shadow IT”.

It refers to the all-too-common practice of employees setting up parallel IT infrastructure for business purposes without the approval of central IT administrators.

This incident highlights the potential for shadow IT to create security risks.

Government agencies and large organisations employ teams of cybersecurity professionals whose job it is to manage and secure the organisation’s IT infrastructure from cyber threats. At a minimum, these teams need to track what systems are being used to store sensitive information. Defending against sophisticated threats requires constant monitoring of IT systems.

In this sense, shadow IT creates security blind spots: systems that adversaries can breach while going undetected, not least because the IT security team doesn’t even know these systems exist.

It’s possible that part of the motivation for the US officials in question using shadow IT systems in this instance might have been avoiding the scrutiny and record-keeping requirements of the official channels. For example, some of the messages in the Signal group chat were set to disappear after one week, and some after four.

However, we have known for at least a decade that employees also build shadow IT systems not because they are trying to weaken their organisation’s cybersecurity. Instead, a common motivation is that by using shadow IT systems many employees can get their work done faster than when using official, approved systems.

Usability is key

The latest incident highlights an important but often overlooked lesson in cybersecurity: whether a security system is easy to use has an outsized impact on the degree to which it helps improve security.

To borrow from US Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, we might say that a system designer who prioritises security at the expense of usability will produce a system that is neither usable nor secure.

The belief that to make a system more secure requires making it harder to use is as widespread as it is wrong. The best systems are the ones that are both highly secure and highly usable.

The reason is simple: a system that is secure yet difficult to use securely will invariably be used insecurely, if at all. Anyone whose inbox auto-complete has caused them to send an email to the wrong person will understand this risk. It likely also explains how The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief might have been mistakenly added by US officials to the Signal group chat.

While we cannot know for certain, reporting suggests Signal displayed the name of Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat group only as “JG”. Signal doesn’t make it easy to confirm the identity of someone in a group chat, except by their phone number or contact name.

In this sense, Signal gives relatively few clues about the identities of people in chats. This makes it relatively easy to inadvertently add the wrong “JG” from one’s contact list to a group chat.

A highly secure – and highly usable – system

Fortunately, we can have our cake and eat it too. My own research shows how.

In collaboration with Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Group, I helped develop what’s known as the Cross Domain Desktop Compositor. This device allows secure access to classified information while being easier to use than traditional solutions.

It is easier to use because it allows users to connect to the internet. At the same time, it keeps sensitive data physically separate – and therefore secure – but allows it to be displayed alongside internet applications such as web browsers.

One key to making this work was employing mathematical reasoning to prove the device’s software provided rock-solid security guarantees. This allowed us to marry the flexibility of software with the strong hardware-enforced security, without introducing additional vulnerability.

Where to from here?

Avoiding security incidents such as this one requires people following the rules to keep everyone secure. This is especially true when handling classified information, even if doing so requires more work than setting up shadow IT workarounds.

In the meantime, we can avoid the need for people to work around the rules by focusing more research on how to make systems both secure and usable.

Toby Murray receives funding from the Department of Defence. He is Director of the Defence Science Institute, which is funded by the Victorian, Tasmanian and Commonwealth Governments. He previously worked for the Department of Defence.

– ref. Leak of US military plans on Signal is a classic case of ‘shadow IT’. It shows why security systems need to be easy to use – https://theconversation.com/leak-of-us-military-plans-on-signal-is-a-classic-case-of-shadow-it-it-shows-why-security-systems-need-to-be-easy-to-use-253036

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Conley Tyler, Honorary Fellow, Asia Institute, The University of Melbourne

This week’s budget will come as a relief to Australia’s neighbours in the Indo-Pacific that rely on development assistance. The Albanese government did not follow the lead of US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in cutting its foreign aid.

The Trump administration froze foreign assistance and dismantled the US Agency for International Development (USAID) when it came into office. Meanwhile, the UK announced 40% aid cuts of its own.

It is to Australia’s credit this has not happened here. Australia’s development budget remains intact this year and in forward estimates.

Sensible policymakers seem to recognise that Australia’s strategic circumstances are different. As a nation surrounded by low- and middle-income countries, Australia cannot vacate the field on development issues without enormous reputational, diplomatic and strategic damage.

This budget shows Australia is committed to its region – with 75% of the foreign assistance budget flowing to the Indo-Pacific – and sees development partnerships as a way to solve shared problems.

What’s in the budget for aid and development

The details of the development budget show Australia has been listening to its partners to identify critical gaps and reprioritise funds.

In the Pacific, funding has risen to a historic high, with no country receiving less aid. There have been changes in focus to respond to the US funding cuts, including programs on HIV/AIDS in Papua New Guinea and Fiji and gender-based violence in the Pacific.

This fits with Australia’s desire to be a partner of choice – and to prevent an increased Chinese presence in the region.

In Southeast Asia, Australia has increased its aid to all countries and has shifted funding, particularly in health where the US was a major donor.

This is in Australia’s interest. A new program on Indonesian human and animal health, for example, will help prevent health system failures in areas such as tuberculosis and polio elimination on Australia’s doorstep.

Funds have also been reallocated to support civil society organisations working in vital areas like media freedom and human rights, which would have been a casualty in the US cuts.

There was also a shift in humanitarian funding to Myanmar and Bangladesh, where the US aid withdrawal has left Rohingya refugees in a desperate state.

Importantly, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is helping local organisations survive US cuts by allowing temporary flexibility in the use of grant funding to help them continue to deliver essential services.

Beyond these reprioritisations, the other heartening thing about the budget is its normality.

It maintains funding for assistive technology for people with disabilities and an Inclusion and Equality Fund to support LGBTQIA+ civil society organisations and human rights defenders. There are programs on maternal health, including reproductive rights.

The future is still precarious

However, it would be wrong to think this budget will fill the gaps left by the US withdrawal.

The ANU Development Policy Centre estimates that traditional OECD donors will cut at least 25% of their aid by 2027. It said, “when that much of a thing goes missing, it’s clearly at risk of collapse”.

Some development organisations will close their doors, potentially including household names that Australians have donated to for years. This is a time of huge transformation for the sector.

Another future problem will be maintaining multilateral institutions that rely on US funding – including the World Health Organization, World Food Programme, World Bank and Asian Development Bank. This will require a concerted effort with other countries.

So, while the Australian budget shows a government deploying current funding as intelligently as possible, there will eventually be limits to this approach.

In the “new world of uncertainty” described in the treasurer’s budget speech, it simply won’t be possible to meet Australia’s strategic aims and keep development spending at its current rate. It is still far away from 1% of the federal budget.

At some point, Australia must rethink the trajectory of its international commitments.

Analysis by the Development Intelligence Lab, a think tank working on development cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, has shown that over the last 25 years, the international parts of the federal budget – defence, intelligence, diplomacy and development – have held steady at around 10%.

In a time of disruption, this might need to change. In 1949, for example, Australia invested almost 9% of the federal budget on development and diplomacy alone – not including defence.

Those in the foreign aid sector can celebrate Australia has not pulled back on its commitments like the US and UK. At the same time, we should expect the next government will inevitably be called on to do more.

Melissa Conley Tyler is Executive Director at the Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy & Defence Dialogue (AP4D), an initiative funded by the foreign affairs and defence portfolios and hosted by the Australian Council for International Development..

– ref. Australia stands firm behind its foreign aid in the budget, but the future remains precarious – https://theconversation.com/australia-stands-firm-behind-its-foreign-aid-in-the-budget-but-the-future-remains-precarious-253028

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Garrow, Editorial Web Developer

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has described the income tax cuts in this week’s federal budget as a “top-up”. They will amount to roughly one cup of coffee a week for every taxpayer in the first year.

But they will add another A$17 billion to the deficit over coming years, in addition to a raft of previously announced spending measures and very little savings.

That is against a backdrop of the most uncertain global economic outlook since the Global Financial Crisis of 2007–08. Australia may face a real economic shock if trade wars trigger recessions in our major trading partners.

We asked five experts if this is the right budget for these economic times. Only two agreed, with three saying much more is needed to address long-term structural debt and meaningful economic reform.

– ref. Is this the right budget for these economic times? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/is-this-the-right-budget-for-these-economic-times-we-asked-5-experts-252922

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Ellerton, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Education; Curriculum Director, UQ Critical Thinking Project, The University of Queensland

There is a Fox News headline that goes like this:

Transgender female runner who beat 14,000 women at London Marathon offers to give medal back

Read about the event elsewhere and it turns out the athlete was also beaten by thousands of people and it was a participation medal. While the Fox News headline is true, it is framed to potentially elicit a negative reaction.

Misinformation is on the rise. We’re told we need to think critically when we read things online, but how can we recognise such situations? And what does it mean to think critically anyway?

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is based on the idea that if all ideas are equal, then all ideas are worthless. Without this assumption, there can be nothing to be critical of.

When we think critically, we focus on the quality of our reasoning and the factors that can influence it. In other words, thinking critically primarily means being critical of your own thinking.

Importantly, critical thinking is not strongly correlated with intelligence. While some believe intelligence is basically fixed (though there is debate around this), we can learn to think critically.

Other factors being equal, there’s also no evidence thinking critically is an innate ability. In fact, we have evidence critical thinking can be improved as a skill in itself, and it is transferrable to other contexts.

The tools of argumentation

Many factors can affect the quality of your thinking. They include things like cognitive biases (systemic thinking errors), prior beliefs, prejudices and worldviews, framing effects, and how much you know about the subject.

To understand the quality of our reasoning, we can use the concepts and language of argumentation.

People often think “arguments” are about conflicting views. A better way to understand argumentation is to view it as a way of making our thinking visible and accessible to each other.

Arguments contain premises, those things we think are true about the world, and conclusions, which is where we end up in our thinking. Moving from premises to conclusions is called inferring, and it is the quality of these inferences that is the concern of critical thinking.

For example, if I offer the premises

P1: All Gronks are green

P2: Fred is a Gronk

Then you have already inferred the conclusion

C: Fred is green

You don’t even need to know what a Gronk is to make that inference.

All our rational judgements and decisions are made up of chains of inferences. Constructing, evaluating and identifying types of arguments is the core business of critical thinking.

How can we improve our critical thinking skills?

To help us get better at it, we can understand critical thinking in three main ways.

First, we can see critical thinking as a subject we can learn. In this subject, we study how arguments work and how our reasoning can be influenced or improved. We also learn what makes for good thinking by using ideas like accuracy, clarity, relevance, depth and more. These are what we value in good thinking. By learning this, we start to think about how we think, not just what we think about.

Second, we improve our critical thinking by using what we’ve learned in real situations. This helps us build important thinking skills like analysing, justifying, evaluating and explaining.

Third, we can also think of critical thinking as a habit or attitude – something we choose to practice in our everyday lives. This means being curious, open-minded and willing to question things instead of just accepting them. It also means being aware of our own biases and trying to be fair and honest in how we think.

When we put all three of these together, we become better thinkers – not just in educational contexts, but in life.

Practical steps to improving critical thinking

Since critical thinking centres on the giving and taking of reasons, practising this is a step towards improvement. There are some useful ways to do this.

1. Make reasoning – rather than conclusions – the basis of your discussions with others.

When asking for someone’s opinion, inquire as to why they think that. And offer your thinking to others. Making our thinking visible leads to deep and meaningful conversations in which we can test each other’s thinking and develop the virtues of open-mindedness and curiosity.

2. Always assess the credibility of information based on its source and with a reflection on your own biases.

The processes of our thinking can shape information as we receive it, just as much as the source can in providing it. This develops the virtues of carefulness and humility.

3. Keep the fundamental question of critical inquiry in mind.

The most important question in critical thinking is: “how do we know?”. Continually testing the quality of your inquiry – and therefore thinking – is key. Focusing on this question gives us practice in applying the values of inquiry and develops virtues such as persistence and resilience.

You are not alone!

Reasoning is best understood as a social competence: we reason with and towards each other. Indeed, to be called reasonable is a social compliment.

It’s only when we have to think with others that we really test the quality of our thinking. It’s easy to convince yourself about something, but when you play in the arena of public reasoning, the bar is much higher.

So, be the reasonable person in the room.

That doesn’t mean everyone has to come around to your way of thinking. But it does mean everyone will get closer to the truth because of you.

Use online resources

There are many accessible tools for developing critical thinking. Kialo (Esperanto for “reason”), brings together people from around the world on a user-friendly (and free) platform to help test our reasoning in a well-moderated and respectful environment. It is an excellent place to practice the giving and taking of reasons and to understand alternative positions.

The School of Thought, developed to curate free critical thinking resources, includes many that are often used in educational contexts.

There’s also a plethora of online courses that can guide development in critical thinking, from Australian and international universities.

Peter Ellerton is affiliated with the Rationalist Society of Australia.

– ref. Critical thinking is more important than ever. How can I improve my skills? – https://theconversation.com/critical-thinking-is-more-important-than-ever-how-can-i-improve-my-skills-252517

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vita Pilkington, Research Fellow, PhD Candidate in men’s experiences of sexual trauma, The University of Melbourne

In Australia, it’s estimated almost one in five boys (18.8%) experience child sexual abuse. And at least one in 16 men (6.1%) experience sexual violence after age 15.

However, many boys and men don’t tell others about these experiences. Studies show men are less likely to disclose sexual abuse and assaults than women.

It also takes boys and men longer to first disclose sexual abuse or assaults. On average, men wait 21 years before telling anyone about being abused.

This is a problem because talking to others is often an important part of understanding and recovering from these traumatic experiences. When boys and men don’t discuss these experiences, it risks their mental health problems and isolation becoming worse and they don’t get the support they need.

We wanted to understand what prevents boys and men from telling others about sexual abuse and assaults (or “sexual trauma”). So we conducted a systematic review, where we pooled together evidence from a range of studies on the topic.

We found 69 relevant studies, which included more than 10,500 boys and men who had experienced sexual trauma from around the world. Studies were published in 23 countries across six continents, with most studies from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Two studies were published in Australia.

Our new findings offer clues as to how we can break down the barriers preventing men and boys from discussing sexual trauma.

Upending masculine identities

We found across countries and cultures, boys’ and men’s sexual trauma affected their masculine identities. This included feeling as though they are not “real men”, or that they’re weak for having been targeted and assaulted.

In one study, a participant explained:

Sexual abuse to a man is an abuse against his manhood as well.

Almost universally, boys and men suffered intense feelings of shame and guilt about being victimised, and many blamed themselves for years to decades.

Many boys and men said they were worried others would think they were gay if they disclosed being abused or assaulted. This harmful stereotype reflects widespread homophobic attitudes as well as mistaken beliefs about survivors of abuse and assaults.

Sexual abuse against boys and men has been long been overlooked, dismissed and misunderstood. The taboo nature of the issue was felt by participants. As a therapist who supported male survivors of abuse said in one study:

We don’t have a cultural place for men as victims.

LGBTQIA+ men face additional barriers to disclosure. Some experienced distress surrounding concerns abuse or assaults somehow cause, or contribute to, their sexualities. Many also reported receiving unsupportive and homophobic responses when they disclosed abuse and assaults to others. This includes their stories being minimised and dismissed, or suggestions they must have consented given their attraction to other men.

Stigma if they do tell

In many cases, boys and men who tried to tell others about their sexual trauma were met with stigmatising and unhelpful responses. Some were blamed, told they were making it up, or even mocked.

Others were discouraged from speaking out about their experiences again. In some countries, people tell boys and men not to talk about being abused or assaulted because this is seen as bringing shame on themselves and their families.

Boys and men who were assaulted by women were often told their experiences can’t be classified as abuse or assaults, or aren’t bad enough to warrant support.

Understanding why men don’t talk

Many of these barriers to disclosure are linked to harmful myths about sexual abuse and assaults among boys and men. These include mistaken beliefs that men are not abused or assaulted, and that only gay men are abused or assaulted.

What’s more, many people believe experiencing sexual abuse or assaults is at odds with socially-held ideas about how men “should” behave: for example, constantly demonstrating physical strength, dominance, self-reliance and toughness.

These strict ideas about what it means to be a man appear to prevent many boys and men from disclosing sexual trauma, and impact how others respond when they do disclose.

It can also mean boys and men try to bury their difficulties after sexual trauma because they feel they’re expected to be unemotional and cope with their problems independently.

What can we do better?

We know having experienced sexual trauma is closely linked to significant mental health problems in boys and men. These include substance abuse and addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and even suicide.

Receiving unsupportive and stigmatising responses when they try to seek help only makes these issues worse, and adds to cycles of silence and shame.

We must break down barriers that stop boys and men disclosing these traumatic experiences. Doing so could save lives.

Helping boys and men disclose sexual trauma isn’t just about encouraging them to come forward. We need to make sure other people are prepared to respond safely when they choose to speak up.

There are many ways to raise awareness of the fact sexual abuse and assault happens to boys and men. For example, television shows such as Baby Reindeer helped put this issue at the forefront of conversation. Public health campaigns that explicitly bring boys and men into discussions about sexual trauma can also be helpful.

We also need to do more to make sure boys and men who experience sexual trauma have suitable places to go for support. Australia has some services doing vital work in this space, such as the Survivors & Mates Support Network. However, more funding and support is crucial so men across the country have safe spaces to discuss and recover from their experiences.

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

Vita Pilkington led this project and receives funding from the Melbourne Research Scholarship and the Margaret Cohan Research Scholarship, both awarded by the University of Melbourne.

Sarah Bendall has been awarded a NHMRC Investigator Grant to support research surrounding understanding and treating trauma in young people with mental health difficulties. She has previously held a NHMRC Early Career Fellowship and a McCusker Philanthropic Foundation Fellowship. She advises government on trauma and youth mental health policy, including Victoria’s statewide trauma service (Transforming Trauma Victoria).

Zac Seidler receives funding from an NHMRC Investigator Grant. He is also the Global Director of Research with the Movember Institute of Men’s Health.

– ref. ‘We don’t have a cultural place for men as victims’: why men often don’t tell anyone about sexual abuse – https://theconversation.com/we-dont-have-a-cultural-place-for-men-as-victims-why-men-often-dont-tell-anyone-about-sexual-abuse-252630

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Corey Martin, Lecturer/Podcast Producer, Swinburne University of Technology

Podcasting was once the underdog of the media world: a platform where anyone with a microphone and an idea could share their voice.

With low barriers to entry and freedom from institutional gatekeeping, it promised to amplify marginalised voices and allow underrepresented groups to tell their own stories, on their own terms.

Today, however, this promise seems increasingly strained as corporate interests tighten their grip on the industry. As money flows in, the podcasting space is beginning to resemble the rest of the digital media world – driven by advertising revenues and political polarisation.

The promise of podcasting

Six years ago, audio scholars Martin Spinelli and Lance Dann described podcasting as a “revolutionary” medium for its ability to inspire empathy through innovative forms of audio.

Podcasting was heralded as a format that broke through the barriers of traditional media by offering new ways to engage with underrepresented voices and ideas. Media and cultural studies pointed to the direct-to-ear delivery – free from the biases of visual culture – as a uniquely intimate way to consume content.

Globally, the industry boomed as a result of pandemic lockdowns, with the number of podcasts on Spotify skyrocketing from 450,000 in 2019, to 1.5 million in 2020.

Listenership has also surged in Australia. According to a 2024 report by Edison Research, we’ve seen a 20% increase in listenership from 2022 to 2024 – with 48% of the those aged 12 and above having listened to a podcast within the past month.

From open space to rat race

In his 2024 book Podcasting in a Platform Age, podcast researcher John Sullivan warns the podcasting space is being increasingly dominated by a handful of powerful media companies that dictate what and who gets visibility.

Larger podcasts with higher production budgets, celebrity hosts and backing from major networks are attracting larger audiences, with independent creators struggling to get a foot in the door.

At the time of writing, of the top 50 most popular podcasts in Australia, more than half (52%) come from overseas, and primarily the United States.

Of the 24 Australian-made podcasts on the list, 80% are backed by a media organisation, with most (64%) connected to major networks such as LiSTNR, which is owned by Southern Cross Austereo. Only 12% of the Australian podcasts on the list come from truly independent creators without any corporate funding or major production support.

Why does it matter that large-network ownership is on the rise? To understand this, it helps to first understand how ads keep podcast networks in business – and how this can impact content decisions.

Deepening ideological divides

Advertisers follow the crowds. In a podcasting context, this means they’re more likely to funnel their dollars into large networks, further bolstering their resources.

At the same time, networks want to drive as many ears to their ad sponsors as possible. To do this, they focus on producing content they know will get the most engagement.

The result is a vicious cycle in which attention and advertising power feed each other, making it even harder for independent voices to break through. Over time, this feedback loop can lead to less content diversity and more polarisation.

It’s here that we’re seeing an increase of politicians using podcasts to push their views and cultivate ideological loyalty.

In the lead-up to the 2024 US election, Kamala Harris appeared on Call Her Daddy (the second most popular Spotify podcast in 2024), while Donald Trump was on The Joe Rogan Experience (the most popular). Both interviews were later fact-checked and found to contain false or misleading claims.

Trump’s interview in particular was flagged by CNN for having 32 false claims. Nonetheless, analysts and researchers pointed to it as a driver behind his success with young male voters.

The political podcasting trend is also playing out in Australia ahead of the next federal election.

Late last year, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton appeared on the podcast Diving Deep With Sam Fricker. This was followed by an appearance on Straight Talk, hosted by businessman Mark Bouris, in January.

More recently, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Greens leader Adam Bandt separately appeared on It’s A Lot with Abbie Chatfield.

Read more:
Misinformation is rife and causing deeper polarisation – here’s how social media users can help curb it

Diversity in the podcasting space

According to 2022 Pew Research Centre data, 55% of Americans said their major reason for listening to podcasts was “to learn”, while 29% said they wanted to stay up-to-date with current affairs. But information-hungry listeners may be getting shortchanged, as podcasts are less likely to be fact-checked against the same editorial standards that govern traditional media.

As platform researcher Michael Bossetta notes, although large platforms such as Spotify have the potential to create a more informed world, they
are more likely to push content that keeps users hooked (that is, content they already enjoy and/or agree with).

Recommender algorithms also have a role to play. One 2020 study found that while Spotify’s personalised suggestions increased user engagement by 28.90%, they also reduced the individual-level diversity of podcast streams by 11.51%.

But platforms do have the power to do better. They could, for instance, use their algorithms to prioritise content diversity. This would help ease the “engagement-diversity trade-off”, in which personalisation increases engagement, but limits the diversity of content consumed by an individual.

That said, it’s unlikely platforms will voluntarily change the way they operate. If meaningful reforms are to happen, they will more likely have to come from government regulations or through independent governing bodies.

In the meantime, listeners aren’t powerless. While we can’t stop algorithms from pushing certain content to the top of our feeds, we can disrupt them by actively seeking out independent voices and diverse stories.

Corey Martin 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. Podcasting was once a rebel medium for diverse voices. Now it’s slowly being consumed by big media – https://theconversation.com/podcasting-was-once-a-rebel-medium-for-diverse-voices-now-its-slowly-being-consumed-by-big-media-252169

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jade Wrathall, Teaching Fellow, Te Kura Toi Tangata – School of Education, University of Waikato

The New Zealand government’s plan to purchase a standardised tool to assess reading, writing and mathematics for school children between Year 3 and 10 has caught parents, schools and education groups by surprise.

The tool would essentially be a return to a form of national standards, a policy introduced in 2008 under John Key’s National government.

Under this policy, children were compared against the level of achievement expected for their age and time at school. The goal was to improve results across the education system.

The policy was ended by Labour in 2017 after there was little improvement in international testing results and several criticism from the sector. The National Standards in their Seventh Year survey of teachers and principals found just 16% of respondents said the standardised testing had a positive impact.

The planned introduction of a new standardised assessment tool is concerning for a number of reasons – particularly when it comes to long-term consequences for schools and student learning.

But what has also raised the hackles of many in education is how the tender process for the new tool happened without warning. Here is what parents, schools and the public should know about the background to this debate.

A narrowing curriculum

There is plenty of research – from New Zealand and overseas – highlighting the negative consequences of standardised testing in education.

Standardised assessment can, for example, lead to schools being ranked against each other according to their achievement data. A low ranking could jeopardise a school’s reputation and therefore the number of enrolments and subsequent funding they receive.

In this high-stakes environment, teachers can be pressured to focus on assessed subjects, often to the detriment of the broader curriculum. While the curriculum in New Zealand has already been considerably narrowed under the government’s “Teaching the Basics Brilliantly” policy, a standardised assessment could further exacerbate this trend.

Teachers may also be inclined to “teach to the test” and employ rote learning strategies, where children are encouraged to memorise the correct answers. While this may result in high test scores, it is questionable whether deeper learning will occur.

Focusing on assessment can also be detrimental to children’s belief that they could learn and their attitudes towards learning, particularly when they are labelled according to their level of achievement.

Finally, while standardised tests might promise an “easy fix” to improve educational outcomes, they do not address the deeper socioeconomic disparities which continue to significantly affect educational achievement.

A lack of consultation

This shift back towards a national testing standard is happening without any known consultation with the education sector. Instead, the plan to use one standardised assessment tool only became evident when the government tender was released.

But the introduction of a standardised test also doesn’t fit with the government’s previous public statements on testing.

In 2024, Education Minister Erica Stanford announced plans to allow schools to choose between two tools to assess students. These tools were selected specifically to prevent comparison across schools because they were so different from one another.

At the time, Stanford said

It’s not our intention to pit schools against each other. This data is for parents to know how their kids are going, teachers to inform practice, and as a system to know how we’re tracking.

But according to documents released later the same year, the government already had a plan to rely on a single standardised assessment tool that could produce comparable data.

Control from afar

While the Ministry of Education says this new standardised assessment tool “will deliver a long-term solution to support all schools and kura”, there are reasons to be sceptical.

Standardised assessment can be used by the government to control what teachers do in the classroom and provide data to reallocate resources to where they are most needed. This resource allocation strategy, however, can leave some schools without the funding and support they need.

Principals and teachers can also be held accountable for student achievement, while larger contextual factors, such as socioeconomic inequalities, are ignored. This can ultimately lead to educators being blamed if achievement targets are not met.

Regardless of who wins the tender for the new assessment tool, New Zealand’s recent experience with standardised testing didn’t achieve what was promised. Returning to national standards – either in name or just in spirit – should raise alarms for everyone.

Marta Estellés has previously received funding from The Spencer Foundation, New Zealand National Commission of UNESCO, the Division of Education at The University of Waikato and The University of Cantabria.

Jade Wrathall 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. National standards by stealth? Why the government’s latest plan for schools might fail the history test – https://theconversation.com/national-standards-by-stealth-why-the-governments-latest-plan-for-schools-might-fail-the-history-test-252917

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

Tax cuts are the centrepiece of the Albanese government’s cost-of-living budget bid for re-election in May. The surprise tax measures mean taxpayers will receive an extra tax cut of up to A$268 from July 1 next year and up to $536 every year from July 1 2027.

Delivering his fourth budget on Tuesday night, Treasurer Jim Chalmers described the tax relief as “modest”. It will cost the budget $3 billion in 2026-27, $6.7 billion in 2027-28 and just over $17 billion over the forward estimates.

From July 1 2026 the 16% tax rate – which applies to taxable income between $18,201 and $45,000 – will be reduced to 15%. From July 1 2027, this will be further reduced to 14%.

While cost of living is at the heart of the budget, apart from the tax changes, almost all the other measures have been announced. These include about $8.5 billion to strengthen Medicare (mostly to boost bulk billing) and $150 per household to extend energy relief until the end of the year. The government has also previously announced measures on cheaper medicines and improved access to childcare.

The opposition has so far refused to say what a Coalition government would do on tax. It will now be under pressure to quickly produce a counter tax policy for the election, which is likely to be called this weekend.

Chalmers presented a cautiously optimistic picture on the economy, while stressing the uncertain international times ahead.

“Our economy is turning the corner,” he said. “This budget is our plan for a new generation of prosperity in a new world of uncertainty.”

“It’s a plan to help finish the fight against inflation [and] rebuild living standards.”

Read more:
A ‘modest’ tax bribe, delivered against dark clouds of Trump-induced uncertainty

After delivering two budget surpluses, this budget has deficits for the foreseeable future.

This financial year’s deficit is estimated at $27.6 billion, rising to $42.1 billion in 2025-26 (in the December 2024 update it was expected to be $46.9 billion). The cumulative deficits across the forward estimates reach $179.5 billion.

The budget predicts 335,000 in net migration in 2024-25, which is a fall of 100,000 from the previous year. It projects 260,000 for 2025-26.

Chalmers described the global economy as “volatile and unpredictable” with “storm clouds” gathering. “Trade disruptions are rising China’s growth is slowing, war is still raging in Europe and a ceasefire in the Middle East is breaking down,” he told parliament.

“Treasury expects the global economy to grow 3.25% for the next three years, its slowest since the 1990s. It’s already forecasting the two biggest economies in the world will slow next year – with risks weighing more heavily on both,” he said.

Chalmers said Australia was “neither uniquely impacted nor immune” from the international pressures. “But we are among the best placed to navigate them.”

Australia’s economic growth is forecast to increase from 1.5% this financial year to 2.5% in 2026-27, with the private sector “resuming its rightful place as the main driver of this growth.”

Read more:
The 2025 budget has few savings and surprises but it also ignores climate change

Unemployment is projected to peak at 4.25%, lower than previously anticipated. Employment and real wage growth will be stronger and inflation was coming down faster, Chalmers said.

“Treasury now expects inflation to be sustainably back in the [2%-3%] target band six months earlier than anticipated,” he said. “The worst is now behind us and the economy is heading in the right direction.”

Chalmers told his Tuesday afternoon conference the budget is a “story of Australian exceptionalism”.

He called the tax cuts “top up tax cuts” that built on the recalibrated stage 3 tax cuts. He claimed the average household with two earners would save $15,000 over four years through a combination of all these tax cuts and energy bill relief.

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

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 bids for votes with ‘top-up’ tax cuts for all – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-bids-for-votes-with-top-up-tax-cuts-for-all-253021

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Digital Storytelling Team, The Conversation, The Conversation

What’s the theme?

Many budget measures are aimed at easing cost of living. The headline announcement is tax cuts: everyone will get one, but not until July 1 2026. Other major spends are on Medicare, medicines and energy bill rebates. If this seems familiar, it’s because the government has already announced most of these measures before budget day.

Your tax cut calculator

Key announcements:

Read the full analysis from our experts:

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. At a glance: the 2025 federal budget – https://theconversation.com/at-a-glance-the-2025-federal-budget-252637

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra

By the standards of pre-election budgets, this one is surprisingly modest. There are only a handful of new revenue and spending initiatives. The Budget Paper 2 book, which contains new measures, is a slim document.

In part, this is because many of the most significant new spending proposals have been announced already – support for more bulk billing, the Future Made in Australia program, funding for schools and pre-schools and the Housing Australia Future Fund.

It can be hard to discern the new initiatives from the old. For example, the budget commits the government to support wage growth by “funding wage increases for aged care workers and early childhood educators” and “advocating for increases to award wages”. It will also ban non-compete clauses (contract provisions that hinder workers from moving between employers) for low- and middle-income workers.

These should in theory significantly shift wages upwards. Yet the economic forecast for the wage price index barely moves – from 4.1% in 2023-24 to 3% in 2024-25 and 3.25% in 2025-26. That is because the forecasts had already built in assumptions on the impact of things like aged care and childcare wage rises – they aren’t new.

The non-compete reform is a new initiative and over the longer term has the potential to improve wages as people move jobs. More importantly, it will improve flexibility in the labour market and improve productivity.

Overall, the deficits are forecast to continue for the foreseeable future.

Some more tax cuts on the way

The one surprising element of the budget is tax cuts. In essence, they return some bracket creep to low- and middle-income earners for a couple of years, after which revenue estimates return to trend. Bracket creep refers to increases in tax revenues as taxpayers move into higher tax brackets.

It is one of the reasons why governments have resisted calls to index the income tax brackets to inflation. Giving back bracket creep from time to time in the form of a tax cut, especially when an election looms, is more politically attractive.

There were few savings initiatives. The main one was the old chestnut of more funding to the Australian Taxation Office for compliance.

The Taxation Office receives an additional A$999 million over four years to combat tax avoidance including non-compliance, under reporting of income and illicit tobacco. This is expected to recoup $3.2 billion over five years, while increasing payments by $1.4 billion – some of the additional tax collected will go to GST payments to the states. So in net terms therefore this is also a modest saving.

One thing to look for in every budget is the provision for “decisions taken but not yet announced”. This refers to money put aside in the budget for future announcements – such as election promises.

It is not clear what the government might have planned. Revenue drops in 2025-26, but it climbs back up again in the following two years. Spending decisions include $323 million next year, which is relatively small change in the overall budget.

For transparency, we should not have any undisclosed decisions but at least the ones in this budget are far from extravagant.

Public service numbers

On staffing in the public service, there has been a large increase since the government took office. There will be some 33,000 more public servants – the majority outside Canberra – in 2025-26 than in 2022-23. However, the rate of increase is slowing. Not all agencies have had staff increases in this budget.

Nevertheless, the government has devoted ten pages to arguments for investing in the public service, and why the public service is a valuable resource. This is probably to emphasise one of the few points of difference between it and the opposition.

The defence budget saw almost no change. The treasurer was asked in his budget lockup press conference why this was, given the uncertain geopolitical environment documented in the budget papers.

Chalmers agreed “the world is a dangerous place right now” but pointed to increases in defence spending in previous budgets and argued these had positioned Australia to respond.

One missing element of the budget is new spending to combat climate change. The threat of climate change to the budget estimates has grown significantly. This is acknowledged briefly with a half page in the budget’s “statement of risks” – “climate change is expected to have a significant impact on the budget”.

However, that impact is not quantified – possibly because of “significant uncertainty”. Yes, there is uncertainty.

But the same applies to other parts of the budget, including the international economy, which is discussed in much more depth. The climate change department is one of a handful that lose staff in this budget. It may take more severe disasters before it regains prominence in the budget papers.

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

– ref. The 2025 budget has few savings and surprises but it also ignores climate change – https://theconversation.com/the-2025-budget-has-few-savings-and-surprises-but-it-also-ignores-climate-change-253026

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

Today’s budget is a cautious and responsible response to the cost-of-living pressures facing voters.

As noted ahead of budget night, many of the major spending initiatives had already been announced.

But, in the only major surprise, there are income tax cuts for all income taxpayers. Even if we need to be patient. The new tax cuts only start in July 2026, with a second round in July 2027.

And as Treasurer Jim Chalmers himself said, they are “modest” cuts. A worker on average earnings will receive A$268 in the first year, rising to $536 in the second year.

Combined with the government’s first round of tax cuts in last year’s budget, this will add up to $2,190 per year in 2027.

The cost to the budget of the latest tax cuts in 2026-27 will be $3 billion, and over three years will be $17.1 billion. The cuts still need to pass parliament.

But calls by economists such as Chris Richardson and Ken Henry for major tax reform have not been heeded. Major reforms inevitably create losers as well as winners. So, big changes were never likely just weeks before an election.

And there is still bracket creep (increases in tax revenues as taxpayers move into higher tax brackets) over the next decade. Total tax receipts are projected to rise from 25.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2024-25 to 26.8% in 2035-36. This will do most of the work in the very gradual windback of the budget deficit.

How concerned should we be about the budget moving into deficit?

In the first back-to-back surpluses for almost 20 years, there were budget surpluses in 2022-23 and 2023-24. This year we are returning to deficit and further deficits are expected for about a decade. Should we be alarmed?

A balanced or surplus budget is not necessarily a good budget. What we want is a budget appropriate to current economic conditions and sustainable in the long run.

The Australian economy has only been growing modestly in recent years and is forecast to grow 1.5% in the current year. Inflation is near the target range in underlying terms. So, a modest deficit is not unreasonable.

The longer run projections show a very gradual return to balance. But this assumes no recession and no further income tax cuts, for a decade. It might be better to rebuild the fiscal position more quickly so as to be better placed to provide fiscal stimulus in the event of a global recession or another pandemic.

‘A new world of uncertainty’

As Chalmers said, we are in a “new world of uncertainty” with “the threat of a global trade war”. The volume of Australian exports is forecast to only expand by 2.5% in 2025-26 and 2026-27, but it could be lower.

In February, the Reserve Bank forecast headline inflation would rebound above the 2% to 3% target range when the electricity rebates expired. The extension of the rebates in Tuesday’s budget as well as the reductions in the price of prescription medicines will help keep inflation below 3%. Headline inflation is forecast to improve to 2.5% in 2026-27.

In the December 2024 budget update, the unemployment rate was forecast to be around 4.5% in mid-2025 and stay around that level for the next couple of years. Given the unemployment rate was steady at 4.1% in February, the reduction to 4.25% seems plausible.

What will it mean for interest rates?

One reason the government went for a modest tax cut rather than a wild “cash splash” is it did not want to undermine the narrative there will be future interest rate cuts by stimulating household spending too much.

If households were given immediate cash to spend, this could drive up inflation.

The Reserve Bank is unlikely to change interest rates at its April 1 meeting. But it would be very unhelpful for the government’s electoral prospects if the minutes showed the central bank had become more concerned about inflation and less likely to cut interest rates at future meetings.

The Reserve Bank is unlikely to feel this budget contains enough government spending to boost economic activity in the near term and therefore change its view on the economic outlook.

So, a further interest rate cut remains possible at the bank’s following meeting on May 20.

And any further relief on interest rates would be welcomed by households – as well as whoever might be in government by then.

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

– ref. Tax cuts are coming, but not soon, in a cautious budget – https://theconversation.com/tax-cuts-are-coming-but-not-soon-in-a-cautious-budget-253027

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Parker, Adjunct Fellow, Naval Studies at UNSW Canberra, and Expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University

A report in The Atlantic today sent shockwaves through Washington and beyond: senior US officials shared military operations for a bombing campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen in a Signal group chat that inadvertently included the magazine’s editor.

Military planning of this nature is highly classified, which is why some media outlets are characterising it as “an extraordinary breach of American national security intelligence”.

Here are three key reasons why this incident is so concerning, and how such conversations are typically handled.

What are the potential consequences of this kind of breach?

From an operational and strategic level, this incident could have had significant implications.

Had the Houthis or their Iranian backers managed to access this information, they could have moved the individuals or equipment that was being targeted, making the strikes ineffective.

In addition, depending on what military assets the US was using to conduct the strikes – for example, ships and aircraft – the information could have given away their positions. This could have allowed the Houthis to pre-emptively target these assets, which is another significant concern.

Or, the Houthis could have pre-emptively attacked something else, such as oil facilities in neighbouring Saudi Arabia, which they have targeted successfully in the past.

At the strategic level, this breach provides an insight into the dynamics of the people involved in the key defence decision-making in the Trump administration. Many names were reportedly shared, including an active intelligence officer.

If America’s adversaries were able to access this information, they could use it to target these people or people around them.

More broadly, this incident is just a bad look. This is a classified discussion about military planning being conducted on an unclassified platform that was accessed by a journalist who didn’t have high-level clearances and shouldn’t have had access to the information.

How are classified conversations usually conducted?

During my time in the Australian Defence Force, I was a former director of operations of a 38-nation coalition of maritime forces in the Middle East.

And I was quite surprised to see these US plans being discussed on Signal.

Normally, operations of this kind are discussed strictly on secure, classified devices only, such as phones or laptops. Military commanders are contactable on these devices at all hours of the day or night.

These devices are “cleaned” before they’re issued by the Department of Defence and regularly checked. You can’t plug a foreign device into them, which ensures they can’t be compromised in any way. Any communications that take place on these devices would also be encrypted.

In addition, on a classified network, it would be impossible to add someone to a conversation in the way the Atlantic editor was, unless they had access to the same secure technology.

I would be highly surprised if the US secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, and the national security advisor, Mike Waltz, do not have access to these devices. They may have chosen to have this conversation on Signal for ease, but it clearly makes the information much more vulnerable.

If high-level conversations do need to happen on an unclassified platform like Signal, the participants would normally use a code word that doesn’t give away what they’re talking about. This keeps a conversation encrypted to a degree until a secure device can be accessed.

Should America’s allies worry about intelligence lapses, too?

The US’ key partners and allies should seek to have a conversation with the Americans behind closed doors to understand the context of what happened.

The big questions are: what does this kind of lapse mean and what is the US doing to address it?

The US National Security Council has already said it intends to look at the situation in depth.

So, at this stage, I don’t think America’s Five Eyes partners should necessarily be concerned about the potential for other intelligence breaches.

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

– ref. Why is the US group chat on Houthi attack plans so concerning? A military operations expert explains – https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-us-group-chat-on-houthi-attack-plans-so-concerning-a-military-operations-expert-explains-253029

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Watson, Professor in Conservation Science, School of the Environment, The University of Queensland

In 2022, Australia and many other nations agreed to protect 30% of their lands and waters by 2030 to arrest the rapid decline in biodiversity.

Since then, the Albanese government has protected large new areas of ocean, taking the total up to 52% of territorial waters. In tonight’s federal budget, the government is expected to announce A$250 million in funding to protect an additional 30 million hectares of land over the next five years. At present, Australia protects 22% of its lands through its National Reserve System. This would take the total to 30%.

You might expect conservationists to be ecstatic. But we’re not. Large new areas of desert and arid areas are likely to be protected under this scheme, because these areas have minimal population and are not sought after by farming. But these ecosystems are already well protected.

We have to come back to the point of the 30 by 30 agreement: protect biodiversity. That means the government has to protect representative samples of all ecosystems – including in areas sought for farming or other human uses.

Buying land is only a fraction of the task

For years, Australia’s National Reserve System of national parks, state parks and Indigenous Protected Areas has languished. The last big infusion of funding and political interest came between 2007 and 2010 under a previous Labor government, when Peter Garrett was environment minister. Then, the government expanded the reserve system, grew Indigenous Protected Areas and ensured new reserves would preserve a representative sample of Australia’s ecosystems.

Since then, conservation efforts have largely not been up to scratch. Funding has stagnated. National parks are riddled with invasive species and other environmental problems.

On funding grounds alone, the $250m announced by Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek is welcome. It is, however, just a fraction of what’s needed to properly protect the right areas.

In 2023, environmental organisations called for a $5 billion fund to buy and protect important habitat – and to pay for maintenance.

The purchase of land represents perhaps 10% of the overall cost of conservation. If you buy land and do nothing, it can be overrun by invasive species. Australia’s ever-larger number of threatened species are often threatened because of these species, as well as the growing threat of land clearing in Queensland and the Northern Territory. Fire management is another cost.

Which lands actually need protection?

As successive governments have backed away from conservation, non-government organisations such as the Australian Land Conservation Alliance, Bush Heritage Australia and Australian Wildlife Conservancy have stepped up. These organisations are doing fine work in protecting land and doing the necessary on-ground land management to safeguard threatened species and ecosystems, but they do not have access to resources at a government scale.

So how will this government funding be used? It’s likely we will see further growth in Indigenous Protected Areas – areas managed by Traditional Owners alongside authorities to protect biodiversity.

These areas are often located where low rainfall often means they are not viable for farming. This means there’s less conflict over what to do with the land. If our government is determined to meet the 30% target as quickly and cheaply as possible, we may well see more arid lands and desert protected.

When you set a target of 30% protected land by 2030, governments often see the top-line figure and aim for that alone. But the text of the international agreement stresses the need to prioritise “areas of particular importance for biodiversity”.

Governments have a choice: the easy, less effective way or the hard but effective way. The recent growth in marine protected areas suggests the government is taking the easy path. Even though the science is clear that marine parks bolster fish stocks in and outside the park, they are still controversial among fishers who believe they are being locked out.

As a result, Australia’s marine park system has made greatest gains where there are very few humans who might protest, such as quadrupling the protected areas around the very remote Heard and McDonald Islands in the sub-Antarctic region. (The government has expanded marine parks at a smaller scale closer to population centres too.)

This same story may well play out on land.

What would it look like if our government was willing to do what was necessary? It would involve actively seeking out the ecological communities in clear decline, such as native grasslands, brigalow woodlands and swamps, and buying up remaining habitat.

Saving here, clearing there

On the one hand, 22% of Australia’s land and 52% of seas come under some form of protection. But on the other, over the last two decades an area the size of Tasmania has been cleared – largely for livestock farming and mining. Satellite analyses show land clearing is actually increasing in many parts of the country.

Land clearing places further pressure on threatened species. In fact, most species considered threatened with extinction are largely in this situation because the land they live on has attributes prized by farmers or graziers, such as grass and water.

Australia’s environment faces real challenges in the next few years. Intensified land clearing, worsening climate change and whiplash drought-flood cycles, to say nothing of ballooning feral populations.

If we protect the right 30% of Australia, we have a chance to ensure most of our ecosystems have areas protected. But if we protect the wrong 30% and leave the rest open to bulldozers, we will only lock in more extinctions.

James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council, National Environmental Science Program, South Australia’s Department of Environment and Water, Queensland’s Department of Environment, Science and Innovation as well as from Bush Heritage Australia, Queensland Conservation Council, Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and Birdlife Australia. He serves on the scientific committee of BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with Bush Heritage Australia and Wildlife Conservation Society. He serves on the Queensland government’s Land Restoration Fund’s Investment Panel as the Deputy Chair.

– ref. A budget splash to conserve 30% of Australia’s lands will save species – if we choose the right 30% – https://theconversation.com/a-budget-splash-to-conserve-30-of-australias-lands-will-save-species-if-we-choose-the-right-30-252918

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Irene Nikoloudakis, PhD Candidate in Law, University of Adelaide

Being robbed is a horrible experience under any circumstances. But being robbed by your employer involves a unique betrayal of trust.

So it was a sign of real progress when “wage theft” finally became a crime in New Zealand earlier this month with the passage of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Act.

Heralded by trade unions and the Labour Party as a victory for workers, the new law makes it a criminal offence under the Crimes Act for an employer to intentionally (and without reasonable excuse) fail to pay workers what they’re entitled to.

Wage theft can include deliberately underpaying wages or holiday pay, or making unlawful deductions from pay packets. The question now is how well the new law will be enforced.

While there is little research on how widespread wage theft in New Zealand is, we do know it all too often affects temporary migrant workers and those in labour-intensive industries such as hospitality, construction and horticulture.

But if, as seems likely, the police are tasked with investigating allegations of wage theft, the new law may struggle to be enforced effectively.

Who investigates wage theft?

Until the law change, wage theft was only addressed through the civil system, not the criminal courts. Underpaid employees could take an employer to court to recover what was owed – if they had the means to navigate what could be a complex process.

It took an initiative by former Labour MP Ibrahim Omer – who as a refugee in New Zealand had experienced wage theft – to begin the reform process. He introduced a members’ bill to parliament in 2023 seeking to make wage theft a criminal offence.

Under the new law, the maximum penalties for wage theft are the same as for general theft. For serious offences, this means employers can be imprisoned for stealing their workers’ pay.

The trouble is, the law doesn’t state which government agency will be responsible for investigating such crimes. This is important because adequately enforcing the law is the whole point.

A 2024 report by the Ministry of Justice had suggested investigative responsibility might sit with New Zealand’s workplace regulator, the Labour Inspectorate. This seemed a logical move.

But when the legislation was being debated in parliament, it became clear MPs assumed enforcement responsibility would lie with police. Confirming the law change this month, Labour MP Camilla Bellich said:

Theft is theft, and before this bill was law workers had to take up a civil case. Civil wage claims are difficult for any employee to initiate and often time consuming and expensive. Now workers can go to the police and report wage theft as a crime.

How Australia does it

On the face of it, the police might seem like the logical enforcement agency. They investigate crimes and play an important role in crime prevention. But wage theft isn’t an area they have dealt with before. And uncovering wage theft in practice is very difficult.

First, those most at risk – such as migrant workers and young employees – are the least likely to report it, often for fear of the consequences or because they simply don’t know how to make a formal complaint.

Secondly, bad employers are good at covering their tracks, leaving no paper trail or fudging the books.

Without specialised knowledge or experience in these areas – as well as dealing with their existing resourcing challenges – the police will potentially struggle to uncover wage theft offending.

A better model might be Australia’s criminal wage theft regime, which came into effect at the start of this year. Overall, it is tougher and more targeted than New Zealand’s.

The Australian law applies hefty maximum penalties for wage theft offences – up to ten years’ imprisonment and monetary fines in the millions. Investigations are the responsibility of the national workplace regulator, the Fair Work Ombudsman.

This makes sense, because it’s the Fair Work Ombudsman which has significant experience in uncovering breaches of national employment laws, not the police.

Put the Labour Inspectorate in charge

The equivalent enforcement agency in New Zealand is the Labour Inspectorate, whose entire remit is to uncover breaches of employment standards.

The Labour Inspectorate, far more than the police, will understand the intricacies of wage theft, including which workers and industries are most vulnerable, and what methods dodgy employers use to hide wage theft.

If necessary, the inspectorate’s powers and resources could be reviewed and modified to ensure it has the tools to conduct criminal investigations, including the ability to search and seize evidence.

Finally, empowering an agency with the right tools, knowledge and experience to investigate wage theft would leave the police to deal with the other serious crimes already demanding their attention.

Irene Nikoloudakis 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. Wage theft is now a criminal offence in NZ – investigating it shouldn’t be left to the police – https://theconversation.com/wage-theft-is-now-a-criminal-offence-in-nz-investigating-it-shouldnt-be-left-to-the-police-252712

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in International Law, Curtin University

Only five days after the arrest warrant against former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte was issued, he was apprehended and immediately put on a plane to The Hague to face charges before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The prompt action – and the fact he is the first former Asian head of state before the ICC – have been heralded as “a pivotal moment for the court”.

While this is a rare success story in the court’s tumultuous history, many challenges remain. The successful arrest of one defendant will unfortunately do little to change negative perceptions of the court or remove the many obstacles it faces in prosecuting cases.

A long history of criticism

The ICC was conceived as a “court of last resort” in 1998 under the Rome Statute, the treaty that established it. The aim was to try individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression in cases where a state’s domestic courts refuse or are unable to do so.

Shortly after it began its work in 2002, however, the ICC faced criticism for its perceived focus on Africa.

In more recent years, it has also been criticised for its limited effectiveness, its perceived hypocrisy, and a lack of support from major powers, such as the US, China and Russia, which are not members.

The court has long faced a public relations crisis it may never be able to resolve. When it does not investigate a potential case, it is said to be ineffective. And when it does initiate investigations, it is often said to be biased or acting beyond its capabilities.

Putin and Netanyahu

Currently, the ICC has 12 ongoing investigations, mostly in Africa and Asia. It has issued 56 arrest warrants, half of which have yet to be executed.

As the focus of the court is limited to those who bear the greatest responsibility for international crimes, the cases frequently involve high-profile individuals.

Current arrest warrants, for example, have been issued against Russian President Vladimir Putin on charges of allegedly deporting Ukrainian children to Russia and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza.

These two cases have been among the court’s most controversial. Critics say the ICC lacks jurisdiction because:

• the alleged crimes did not occur in their own states
• their states are not parties to the Rome Statute
• the UN Security Council did not refer these cases to the ICC for investigation.

Others have accused the court of selective prosecution and bias for pursuing a case against Netanyahu, specifically, instead of prioritising cases in states run by dictators, such as Syria.

And some complain the court should be focusing on crimes allegedly committed by Western leaders in places like Iraq.

Indicting leaders of states raises additional legal challenges. International law dictates that heads of state enjoy immunity in other states’ courts – unless this immunity is expressly waived by their own governments.

The ICC defends its actions as fair. It argues it does have jurisdiction in the cases against Putin and Netanyahu because the alleged crimes took place in Ukraine and Palestine, two states who have explicitly accepted its jurisdiction.

And Article 27 of the Rome Statute says the ICC can exercise jurisdiction over people with state immunity, although it’s debatable whether this must be first waived for leaders of states not party to the Rome Statute.

Cooperation remains key

The ICC is not only constrained by these complex legal questions, but also by the limited cooperation of states around the world.

It relies on close cooperation with its 125 state parties, among others. But some states have been reluctant or even refused to cooperate with the court in executing the arrest warrants of controversial figures.

For example, Putin was not arrested when he visited Mongolia, an ICC member, last year, in part, because Mongolia relies heavily on Russian energy. South Africa similarly refused to arrest Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir when he visited in 2015.

Even when state parties do cooperate, the political fallout can impact the court’s reputation.

Following Duterte’s arrest last week, a Filipino senator (the sister of the current president) launched an urgent investigation to ensure due process was followed and Duterte’s legal rights were upheld and protected. She acknowledged the arrest has “has deeply divided the nation”.

The lack of support from the US – arguably, still the world’s most powerful democracy – remains a perennial problem, as well.

While the US has generally supported the court’s mandate over the years, it has been wary of its jurisdiction over American citizens and those of its allies accused of crimes. Last month, President Donald Trump authorised new sanctions against ICC officials in an attempt to paralyse the international organisation.

Although 79 states did declare their support for the ICC following the sanctions, the Trump adminstration’s rejection of the court’s jurisdiction, legitimacy and authority has had significant consequences for its operations.

It remains to be seen how the case against Duterte will play out. Securing a conviction is not assured.

However, his arrest demonstrates the court can fulfil its mandate and remain a relevant force in the fight against the gravest of crimes. It is also a significant moment for the families of those killed during Duterte’s rule, who have long sought justice for their loved ones.

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

– ref. The ICC showed its might by arresting Rodrigo Duterte. Its reputation will take longer to fix – https://theconversation.com/the-icc-showed-its-might-by-arresting-rodrigo-duterte-its-reputation-will-take-longer-to-fix-252509

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Fuller, Clinical Trials Director, Department of Endocrinology, RPA Hospital, University of Sydney

If you’ve ever picked up your child from childcare and wondered if they’re living a double life, you’re not alone.

Parents often receive rave reports from educators about kids’ adventurous eating habits, only to face a different reality at home, when the child who devoured a veggie-packed curry at lunchtime morphs into a fussy eater refusing anything but dinosaur-shaped chicken nuggets.

While this confusing behaviour is frustrating, it’s completely normal.

Here’s why it happens and what you can do.

How kids’ tastes and eating behaviour develops

To understand why kids eat differently in different settings, we need first to understand two factors that shape their tastes and food preferences:

1. Genetics. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors developed physiological responses for survival that are embedded in our genes and influence taste preferences from birth. These include developing “food fussiness” – a natural aversion to unfamiliar foods and bitter flavours to avoid ingesting toxins – and learning to seek palatable foods rich in natural sugars, fat and protein to avoid starvation.

2. Eating environment. As kids grow, their surroundings at mealtimes – namely carers’ eating habits, feeding practices, routines and social cues conveyed – shape what they actually eat and enjoy.

The interaction between these two factors drives how fussy kids will be, their likes and dislikes and how open they are to new foods.

Why eating behaviour differs between childcare and home

The simple reason kids may eat differently at childcare comes down to the eating environment. Here’s what typically makes childcare different to home:

1. Childcare has strict routines

Childcare runs to a strict schedule, teaching kids to expect meals and snacks at set times and places. Meals are also planned to ensure kids sit down to eat when they’re hungry, and food is offered for a limited time – factors that help kids focus on eating.

When mealtimes are less structured at home, it often leads to kids snacking, reducing their appetite at dinnertime. Distractions, like screens, also take kids’ attention away from eating.

2. Kids are exposed to peer influence and different role models

Kids are natural copycats, so seeing friends enjoying healthy food makes them more willing to try it. This behaviour is supported by a study showing that seating a preschooler who dislikes a vegetable next to a peer who enjoys it can gradually shift their preference, leading them to eat the previously disliked vegetable.

Additionally, the social nature of eating in a group setting encourages kids to try new foods and eat more.

Research also shows carers – who are trained to model enthusiasm for nutritious foods – shape healthy eating habits and help kids learn other valuable behaviours like table manners.

At home, time constraints and limited knowledge can make it harder for parents to model these same behaviours.

3. Childcare regularly exposes kids to new foods

At childcare, meals are carefully planned according to Australian Dietary Guidelines and are focused on exposing kids to new foods regularly and repeatedly to get them comfortable with different tastes and textures.

At home, busy family lives often lead to repetitive meal routines.

4. Kids are offered limited choices

At childcare, meals are planned with military precision and served without negotiation, teaching kids to try to eat what’s provided.

At home, mealtimes can involve high-stakes negotiations when kids refuse certain foods, leading parents to surrender and offer alternatives – a tactic that only reinforces fussy eating and teaches kids to hold out for favourite foods.

5. Kids are given some control over what they eat

Kids have very little control over their daily lives – we’re constantly telling them what to do and when they’ll do it.

However, one way kids assert control is by refusing to eat certain foods at home.

Childcare cleverly gives kids the control they seek, encouraging them to serve themselves from shared platters, making them more willing to try new foods.

6. Kids experience less attention and pressure

At home, we naturally focus on what our child is eating (and not eating) which makes mealtimes stressful for kids.

At childcare, kids don’t have an audience watching their every bite, so they feel less pressure, eat more freely and are more willing to try different foods.

Read more:
5 picky eating habits – and how to help your child overcome them

Six ways to bring childcare eating habits home

1. Stick to a strict routine

Serve meals around the same time each day and establish snack times, ensuring they’re two hours before mealtimes so your child sits down hungry and ready to eat. Your routine should include putting devices away so your child’s full attention is on eating.

2. Be a positive role model

Because kids observe and mimic what they see, if you show enthusiasm for trying new foods and healthy eating your child will do the same.

3. Get creative

Take a leaf out of childcare’s book and ensure your child’s plate features different colours, textures and flavours presented in fun ways to capture and hold their interest in new foods.

And just like childcare, do this regularly, as repeated exposure is key – it can take eight to ten exposures before your child will accept eating a new food.

4. Limit food choices (but in a fun way)

Offer limited choices but in a way that gives your child some control, like serving platter-style meals where they can choose what they want.

Don’t give into food demands. While it’s tempting to offer alternatives when meals are refused, this creates more problems than it solves, reinforcing food fussiness and narrowing their diet.

5. Encourage independence

Actively involve your child in meal preparation, asking them to pick healthy recipes, help you shop and complete simple tasks like washing veggies and mixing ingredients. This can make them curious to taste the meal they’ve helped prepare.

6. Make mealtimes stress-free

Prioritise sitting down to eat as a family and ensure mealtimes are relaxed and fun – especially when you’re introducing new foods – to create positive associations with healthy eating.

Nick Fuller is the author of Healthy Parents, Healthy Kids – a clinically proven blueprint to overcoming food fussiness.

A/Professor Nick Fuller works for the University of Sydney and RPA Hospital and has received external funding for projects relating to the treatment of overweight and obesity. He is the author and founder of the Interval Weight Loss program, and the author of Healthy Parents, Healthy Kids with Penguin Books.

– ref. Why does my kid eat so well at childcare but not at home? – https://theconversation.com/why-does-my-kid-eat-so-well-at-childcare-but-not-at-home-247447

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mike Climstein, Associate Professor, Faculty of Health, Southern Cross University

You’ve got a new brown spot on your face, but is it a freckle or a sunspot? Or perhaps you’ve found a spot on your back that looks like a mole but is flatter than your other ones – is it a mole or a dark freckle?

Here’s how to tell the difference between freckles, sunspots and moles – and when you need to get a spot checked to see if it’s skin cancer.

Freckles

Freckles, known as ephelides, are small, flat, light brown spots that appear on people with fair skin, or red or light-coloured hair.

These people are more likely to have the MC1R gene, which leads to freckles forming.

Freckles are caused by sun exposure and are more noticeable in summer. When sunlight hits the skin, cells called melanocytes produce melanin, the pigment that gives skin its colour.

In people prone to freckles, the melanin doesn’t spread evenly. Instead, it clumps together, creating freckles.

Freckles generally appear in childhood and may fade with age, especially if sun exposure reduces. As we age we produce less melanin, or it can break down or disperse, resulting in lighter or fewer freckles.

Using sunscreen and wearing protective clothing can help prevent new freckles from developing, especially on the face and arms.

While freckles are completely harmless, they are a sign that someone is genetically at higher risk of developing skin cancer.

Sunspots

Sunspots are also called age spots or actinic keratoses (or liver spots, but they have nothing to do with the liver). They are larger than freckles: sometimes the size of a small coin, and appear as flat brown spots.

Sunspots develop over time due to long-term sun exposure, which leads to excessive melanin production. They tend to appear on skin with greater sun exposure, such as the face, hands, shoulders and arms.

Unlike freckles, which tend to get lighter with less sun exposure, sunspots will not fade with time, and may further darken with continued sun exposure.

However, some people try to remove their sunspots for cosmetic reasons using either a laser, chemical peel or a prescription topical cream.

While sunspots are not dangerous, they do increase your risk of other skin cancers in that area.

It’s also important to monitor them, as slow-growing melanomas may initially look like sunspots. If you see the spot changes in size, shape or colour, see your doctor to rule out skin cancer.

Moles

Moles are often dark, raised or flat skin growths that can appear anywhere on your body.

Although moles can exist from birth, they typically grow during childhood, adolescence and early adulthood (including during pregnancy, when hormones are changing), until around the age of around 40. Moles can increase in size, and new ones can also appear.

Most adults have between ten and 40 moles on their body. A person with a high mole count has 50 or more, while someone with a very high mole count has 100 or more.

Moles form when melanocytes grow in clusters instead of spreading evenly throughout the skin.

Moles can either be raised or flat, depending upon their type, depth and age.

Raised moles, referred to as compound nevi, have both flat and raised portions and typically have pigment that is deeper in the skin.

Dermal nevi are skin-coloured or light brown moles that are also raised.

Most moles are harmless. Some may have hair growing from them and some may disappear, whereas other moles may darken or alter with age or hormonal changes.

However, some moles can develop into melanoma, a dangerous form of skin cancer.

When to see your doctor

While freckles and sunspots are completely harmless, moles do require more attention, especially if they change in size, shape, colour or texture.

If a mole shows any of the following warning signs, see your doctor, who will use the ABCDE rule to detect if a lesion is a skin cancer:

• asymmetry: if one half of the mole looks different from the other half

• border: if your mole is shaped irregularly, jagged or has poorly defined edges

• colour: varied shades or sudden changes in colour of the mole

• diameter: if it is larger than 6 millimeters (about the size of a pencil eraser)

• evolving: if your mole has any changes in its size, shape, colour, or sensation such as itching or bleeding for more than a few weeks.

Our research shows only 21.7% of people can correctly identify melanoma on their own, so professional checks are essential.

How to prevent skin damage

Since freckles, sunspots and some moles are influenced by exposure to the sun, you can protect your skin by:

• avoiding the sun when ultraviolet rays are strongest

• wearing sunscreen with SPF 50 every day, even when it’s cloudy. Apply it 20 minutes before going outside and reapply every two hours

• wearing protective clothing, including a wide-brimmed hat to cover your face, neck and ears, and long-sleeved shirts and pants to protect your arms and legs.

Mike Climstein received funding from Johnson & Johnson

Jeremy Hudson receives funding from Agaibey Enterprises Ltd.

Michael Stapelberg receives funding from Johnson & Johnson.

Nedeljka Rosic received research funding from Johnson & Johnson

– ref. What’s the difference between freckles, sunspots and moles? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-freckles-sunspots-and-moles-250768

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carolyn Nickson, Associate Professor, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne; Adjunct Associate Professor, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

Australia’s BreastScreen program offers women regular mammograms (breast X-rays) based on their age. And this screening for breast cancer saves lives.

But much has changed since the program was introduced in the early 90s. Technology has developed, as has our knowledge of which groups of women might be at higher risk of breast cancer. So how we screen women for breast cancer needs to adapt.

In a recent paper, we’ve proposed a fundamental shift away from an age-based approach to a screening program that takes into account women’s risk of breast cancer.

We argue we could save more lives if screening tests and schedules were personalised based on someone’s risk.

We don’t yet know exactly how this might work in practice. We need to consult with all parties involved, including health professionals, government and women, and we need to begin Australian trials.

But here’s why we need to rethink how we screen for breast cancer in Australia.

Why does breast screening need to change?

Australia’s BreastScreen program was introduced in 1991 and offers women regular mammograms based on their age. Women aged 50–74 are targeted, but screening is available from the age of 40.

The program is key to Australia’s efforts to reduce the burden of breast cancer, providing more than a million screens each year.

Women who attend BreastScreen reduce their risk of dying from breast cancer by 49% on average.

Breast screening saves lives because it makes a big difference to find breast cancers early, before they spread to other parts of the body.

Despite this, around 75,000 Australian women are expected to die from breast cancer over the next 20 years if we continue with current approaches to breast cancer screening and management.

Who’s at high risk, and how best to target them?

International evidence confirms it is possible to identify groups of women at higher risk of breast cancer. These include:

• women with denser breasts (where there’s more glandular and fibrous tissue than fatty tissue in the breasts) are more likely to develop breast cancer, and their cancers are harder to find on standard mammograms

• women whose mother, sisters, grandmother or aunts have had breast or ovarian cancer, especially if there are multiple relatives and the cancers occurred at young ages

• women who have been found to carry genetic mutations that lead to a higher risk of breast cancer (including women with multiple moderate risk mutations, as indicated by what’s known as a polygenic risk score).

Women in these and other high-risk groups might warrant a different form of screening. This could include screening from a younger age, screening more frequently, and offering more sensitive tests such as digital breast tomosynthesis (a 3D version of mammography), MRI or contrast-enhanced mammography (a type of mammography that uses a dye to highlight cancerous lesions).

But we don’t yet know:

• how to best identify women at higher risk

• which screening tests should be offered, how often and to whom

• how to staff and run a risk-based screening program

• how to deliver this in a cost-effective and equitable way.

The road ahead

This is what we have been working on, for Cancer Council Australia, as part of the ROSA Breast project.

This federally funded project has estimated and compared the expected outcomes and costs for a range of screening scenarios.

For each scenario we estimated the benefits (saving lives or less intense treatment) and harms (overdiagnosis and rates of investigations in women recalled for further investigation after a screening test who are found to not have breast cancer).

Of 160 potential screening scenarios we modelled, we shortlisted 19 which produced the best outcomes for women and were the most cost effective. The shortlisted scenarios tended to involve either targeted screening technologies for higher-risk women or screening technologies other than mammography for all screened women.

For example, in our estimates, making no change to the target age range or screening intervals but offering a more sensitive screening test to the 20% of women deemed to be at highest risk would save 113 lives over ten years.

Alternatively, commencing targeted screening from age 40 and offering a more sensitive screening test annually to the 20% of women at highest risk, and three-yearly screening (of the current kind) to the 30% of women at lowest risk, would save 849 lives over ten years.

However, less frequent screening of the lower risk group was expected to lead to small increases in breast cancer deaths in that group.

We also outlined 25 recommendations to put into action, and set out a five-year roadmap of how to get there. This includes:

• a large scale trial to find out what is feasible, effective and affordable in Australia

• making sure women at higher risk in different parts of Australia are offered suitable options regardless of where they live and who they see

• better data collection and reporting to support risk-based screening

• testing how we assess women for their risk of breast cancer, including whether these assessments work as intended and make sense to women from a range of backgrounds

• clinical studies of screening technologies to determine the best delivery models and associated costs

• ongoing engagement with groups including women, health professionals and government.

Breast cancer screening review out soon

Federal health minister Mark Butler said a review of the BreastScreen program would consider our recommendations. The results of this review are expected soon.

We’re not alone in calling for a move towards risk-based breast cancer screening. This is backed by national and international submissions to government, policy briefing documents and the Breast Cancer Network Australia.

We’ve provided an evidence-based roadmap towards better screening for breast cancer. Now is the time to commit to this journey.

We acknowledge Louiza Velentzis from the Daffodil Centre, and Paul Grogan and Deborah Bateson from the University of Sydney, who co-authored the paper mentioned in this article.

Carolyn Nickson led the ROSA Project for Cancer Council Australia. She receives funding from the Australian government Department of Health and Aged Care, the Medical Research Future Fund, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Melbourne Health.

Bruce Mann works as a surgeon at Northwestern BreastScreen in Melbourne. He was a board member of the Breast Cancer Network Australia, which has improved screening as a key strategic objective. He is director of research at Breast Cancer Trials.  If trials are done in this space, Breast Cancer Trials may be involved. He was a member of the ROSA Project coordination group and jointly chaired the project advisory groups.

Karen Canfell was executive lead for the ROSA Project discussed in this article. She has received grants from the Australian government’s Department of Health and Aged Care and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund, the US National Cancer Institute and CDC, Cancer Research UK, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and government agencies in several countries. She co-leads an investigator-initiated trial of cervical screening, Compass, run by the Australian Centre for Prevention of Cervical Cancer (ACPCC), which is a government-funded not-for-profit charity. Compass receives infrastructure support from the Australian government and the ACPCC has received equipment and a funding contribution from Roche Molecular Diagnostics, USA.  She also co-leads an implementation program Elimination of Cervical Cancer in the Indo-Pacific which has received support from the Australian government and the Minderoo Foundation, and equipment donations from Cepheid and Microbix.  

– ref. Breast cancer screening is ripe for change. We need to assess a woman’s risk – not just her age – https://theconversation.com/breast-cancer-screening-is-ripe-for-change-we-need-to-assess-a-womans-risk-not-just-her-age-252182

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Valerie A. Cooper, Lecturer in Media and Communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Of all the contradictions and ironies of Donald Trump’s second presidency so far, perhaps the most surprising has been his shutting down the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) for being “radical propaganda”.

Critics have long accused the agency – and its affiliated outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia – of being a propaganda arm of US foreign policy.

But to the current president, the USAGM has become a promoter of anti-American ideas and agendas – including allegedly suppressing stories critical of Iran, sympathetically covering the issue of “white privilege” and bowing to pressure from China.

Propaganda is clearly in the eye of the beholder. The Moscow Times reported Russian officials were elated by the demise of the “purely propagandistic” outlets, while China’s Global Times celebrated the closure of a “lie factory”.

Meanwhile, the European Commission hailed USAGM outlets as a “beacon of truth, democracy and hope”. All of which might have left the average person understandably confused: Voice of America? Wasn’t that the US propaganda outlet from World War II?

Well, yes. But the reality of USAGM and similar state-sponsored global media outlets is more complex – as are the implications of the US agency’s demise.

Public service or state propaganda?

The USAGM is one of several international public service media outlets based in western democracies. Others include Australia’s ABC International, the BBC World Service, CBC/Radio-Canada, France Médias Monde, NHK-World Japan, Deutsche Welle in Germany and SRG SSR in Switzerland.

Part of the Public Media Alliance, they are similar to national public service media, largely funded by taxpayers to uphold democratic ideals of universal access to news and information.

Unlike national public media, however, they might not be consumed – or even known – by domestic audiences. Rather, they typically provide news to countries without reliable independent media due to censorship or state-run media monopolies.

The USAGM, for example, provides news in 63 languages to more than 100 countries. It has been credited with bringing attention to issues such as protests against COVID-19 lockdowns in China and women’s struggles for equal rights in Iran.

On the other hand, the independence of USAGM outlets has been questioned often, particularly as they are required to share government-mandated editorials.

Voice of America has been criticised for its focus on perceived ideological adversaries such as Russia and Iran. And my own research has found it perpetuates stereotypes and the neglect of African nations in its news coverage.

Leaving a void

Ultimately, these global media outlets wouldn’t exist if there weren’t benefits for the governments that fund them. Sharing stories and perspectives that support or promote certain values and policies is an effective form of “public diplomacy”.

Yet these international media outlets differ from state-controlled media models because of editorial systems that protect them from government interference.

The Voice of America’s “firewall”, for instance, “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news”. Such protections allow journalists to report on their own governments more objectively.

In contrast, outlets such as China Media Group (CMG), RT from Russia, and PressTV from Iran also reach a global audience in a range of languages. But they do this through direct government involvement. CMG subsidiary CCTV+, for example, states it is “committed to telling China’s story to the rest of the world”.

Though RT states it is an autonomous media outlet, research has found the Russian government oversees hiring editors, imposing narrative angles, and rejecting stories.

Other voices get louder

The biggest concern for western democracies is that these other state-run media outlets will fill the void the USAGM leaves behind – including in the Pacific.

Russia, China and Iran are increasing funding for their state-run news outlets, with China having spent more than US$6.6 billion over 13 years on its global media outlets. China Media Group is already one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, providing news content to more than 130 countries in 44 languages.

And China has already filled media gaps left by western democracies: after the ABC stopped broadcasting Radio Australia in the Pacific, China Radio International took over its frequencies.

Worryingly, the differences between outlets such as Voice of America and more overtly state-run outlets aren’t immediately clear to audiences, as government ownership isn’t advertised.

An Australian senator even had to apologise recently after speaking with PressTV, saying she didn’t know the news outlet was affiliated with the Iranian government, or that it had been sanctioned in Australia.

Switched off

Trump’s move to dismantle the USAGM doesn’t come as a complete surprise, however. As the authors of Capturing News, Capturing Democracy: Trump and the Voice of America described, the first Trump administration failed in its attempts to remove the firewall and install loyalists.

This perhaps explains why Trump has resorted to more drastic measures this time. And, as with many of the current administration’s legally dubious actions, there has been resistance.

The American Foreign Service Association says it will challenge the dismantling of the USAGM, while the Czech Republic is seeking EU support to keep Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty on the air.

But for many of the agency’s journalists, contractors, broadcasting partners and audiences, it may be too late. Last week the New York Times reported some Voice of America broadcasts had already been replaced by music.

Valerie A. Cooper 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 silences the Voice of America: end of a propaganda machine or void for China and Russia to fill? – https://theconversation.com/trump-silences-the-voice-of-america-end-of-a-propaganda-machine-or-void-for-china-and-russia-to-fill-252901

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Wilson, Professor of Social Impact, University of Technology Sydney

Queensland and the federal government have reached an agreement on school funding. This means all Australian states and territories are now signed up to new arrangements, which officially began at the start of 2025.

The agreement follows more than a year of negotiations between the federal and state governments.

The agreements mean government schools will receive 25% of funding from the federal government, up from 20%. Cash-strapped state and territory governments now only have to find 75% (down from 80%).

In some good news for schools, it also means there is now a firm plan to “fully fund” public schools by 2034. This means they will get 100% of the funding recommended by the schooling resource standard (or school funding mechanism) – albeit more than a decade after it was first recommended by the Gonski review in 2011.

Much of the debate about the agreements has understandably focused on the funding split between federal and state governments.

But the agreements also tie vital funding for schools to specific targets and reforms for the next ten years. There is plenty of fine print.

Here are four major changes we can expect to see in schools and classrooms around Australia.

Read more:
Underfunded? Overfunded? How school funding works in Australia

1. A ‘unique’ identifier for all students

The new agreement will see all students receive a “unique student identifier” as part of a national system.

This is a number all students will have from the time they start school. It would follow them through school to tertiary education or any other further study or training.

The idea was first agreed to by the former Council of Australian Governments in 2009 and is already in place for university and vocational education students.

A long time in the planning, it was included in the last school funding agreement, which expired at the end of 2024, despite little progress.

At the moment, education systems can easily lose track of students. For example, pre-COVID an estimated 50,000 children and young people were not officially tracked by education authorities.

The identifier number means governments will be able to track students across school systems. For example, if they move from the public system to the private system. Or if they move states or begin homeschooling.

The identifier will also provide a greater understanding of the pathways taken by young people after school and potentially make it easier to link senior high schooling with TAFE and other vocational studies.

Introducing a bill to set up architecture for the indentifier last year, federal Education Minister Jason Clare said it would have “robust privacy measures”, including protection under the Privacy Act.

Read more:
NSW has finally struck a school funding deal. What does this mean for schools and students?

2. A new numeracy check

Along with rolling out a well-publicised national phonics check for Year 1 (which some states are already doing), the new agreements include a numeracy check for young students.

While numeracy is checked as part of NAPLAN in Year 3, the test was not designed to provide diagnostic data on individual students.

The new checks will be used to identify students and schools in need of extra support.

So far, we have few details on the design or time frames. The checks may also need significant research and development to work effectively. But existing programs (such as in South Australia) show screening checks have the potential to provide better monitoring and resourcing for student needs.

3. A review of how school funding is calculated

The new agreement also flags two more significant reviews.

One will be on the way school funding is calculated – the first review since the current system was devised in 2011.

The schooling resource standard is an estimate of how much total public funding a school needs to meet its students’ educational needs.

In 2025, the base rates are A$13,977 for primary students and $17,565 for high school students. On top of these, there are six loadings to provide extra funding for students and schools with additional needs. This includes students with disability, Indigenous students and students in remote areas.

But as a 2023 Productivity Commission review noted, some individual students qualify under multiple categories, and “the effects can be compounding”. This means this level of disadvantage needs more understanding and policy adjustment.

The review will examine the methodology behind the base rate and loadings. As part of this, it will hopefully look at transparency around school funding arrangements. The Australian National Audit Office identified this as an issue as far back as 2017.

4. A review of how schools are measured

There will also be a review of the national Measurement Framework for Schooling in Australia. This details key performance measures for schooling, such as attendance, NAPLAN results and school completion.

This framework usually has just minor adjustments about every couple of years. But a more significant overhaul is now in the works, with states agreeing a review will look at “possible new and updated measures”.

These could include indicators for students’ engagement and learning growth, as well as outcomes for students with disability and the teaching workforce.

An improved national data set holds enormous potential for addressing educational challenges, like declining participation rates, school refusal and teacher shortages.

Elsewhere in the new agreement, states and territories also agreed to “better understand” how socioeconomic diversity and school attendance are impacting student learning. This can be seen as high-level acknowledgement the current reporting mechanisms and data on students need to improve.

Now we need to see progress

The new schools agreement contains some promising new measures to improve outcomes for students and teachers. But we now need to see them implemented.

As the Productivity Commission and National Audit Office have previously noted, just because something is included in a school funding agreement, does not necessarily mean it will happen on time or as planned.

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. 4 key changes you may have missed in the new school funding agreement – https://theconversation.com/4-key-changes-you-may-have-missed-in-the-new-school-funding-agreement-252291