Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Song Shi, Associate Professor, Property Economics, University of Technology Sydney

Australians love rooftop solar power. About 4 million homes have solar panels on their roofs, and we generate more solar energy per person than any other country.

But affordability pressures on home owners are holding them back from installing rooftop solar on millions of homes. Without this, Australia could struggle to meet its goal of generating more than 80% of electricity) from renewables by 2030.

We propose a bold new “use it or lend it” solar program, under which the owners of detached and semi-detached homes would have the option of allowing the government to install and operate solar panels on their rooftops.

This could be an effective alternative to traditional energy rebates to accelerate the energy transition. And the electricity generated from these systems could be allocated to low-income households and renters, who are currently unable to access solar power.

Boosting solar

Slightly more than half of owner-occupied houses in Australia have solar panels.

Our new research looked at the factors that influenced household solar panel uptake in the Sydney metropolitan area from 2013 to 2024.

We found that as the cost of panels and batteries dropped over time and electricity prices soared, more homeowners decided to install solar. In contrast, the feed-in tariffs – the payment from electricity retailers for surplus electricity you put back into the grid – seem to have little impact on solar adoption.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found that high house prices relative to household incomes resulted in reduced solar adoption, showing housing affordability is a barrier for solar uptake. Despite the long-term savings offered by solar, home owners battling housing affordability simply didn’t have as much disposable income to spend on solar panels.

At present, a typical 6.6 kilowatt system costs about $8,500, but the owner only pays about $6,200 because of the Commonwealth Small-Scale Renewable Energy Scheme rebate. These rebates are being phased out by 2030.

Untapped potential

Australia has a legislated greenhouse emissions target of 43% below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Last month, it announced a more ambitious interim target of 62–70% below 2005 levels by 2035.

To meet this goal, we will need to generate more than 80% of Australia’s electricity from renewables by 2030. We are not yet on track.

To overcome the shortfall on solar adoption, bold policies are needed to make rooftop solar accessible to all households, not just those who can already afford it.

What has been proposed so far? The Climate Council advocates for the mandatory inclusion of solar on new and substantially renovated houses, as well as suitable new apartment buildings. The Grattan Institute says state and territory governments should provide certainty with a long-term date for the end of gas.

But these approaches take time. We propose a third and complementary “use it or lend it” option. Under this scheme, owners of detached and semi-detached houses that have not installed solar could “lend” their rooftop space to the government for publicly owned solar panels.

How ‘use it or lend it’ would work

Owners who chose this option would retain full ownership of their property while receiving compensation, such as annual lease payments, for allowing public use of their rooftop space.

This arrangement would give property owners the clear, risk-free benefit of financial compensation without the cost of installation or responsibility for maintenance of the panels themselves. We expect the program would appeal to low-income homeowners who cannot afford solar panels, as well as rental property owners who may be reluctant or unable to invest in solar.

For the government, the electricity from these systems could be allocated to low-income households and renters, two groups that face the greatest barriers to direct solar participation. This could be done through [virtual energy networks], a digital platform that allows solar households to sell excess electricity to non-solar households. The “use it or lend it” policy could be an effective tool to address equity concerns in solar uptake.

Property owners could choose to buy back the rooftop solar panel system installed by the government at any time. If existing owners initially opt out but later wish to opt back in, or if new property owners decide to participate, the purchase price would be determined based on the “cost neutrality” principle, meaning the government does not profit.

To ensure feasibility and fairness, the program would have to include safeguards covering roof integrity and owner indemnity against potential damage or injury. It would need fair access principles for the installation, service and removal of the solar panels and batteries.

Each property’s solar suitability would be assessed by accredited professionals, considering technical viability as well as the property owner’s priorities, for example planned subdivisions or renovations.

With only five years until the current solar rebates are phased out, now is the time to consider how to boost solar installation without them.

With careful design and drafting, a landowner lending their roof space to the government does not disadvantage them. Owners, renters, the government and the climate would all benefit from solar panels on unused roofs.

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. Many rooftops are perfect for solar but owners and renters can’t afford it. Here’s our answer – https://theconversation.com/many-rooftops-are-perfect-for-solar-but-owners-and-renters-cant-afford-it-heres-our-answer-266467

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nial Wheate, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

Magnesium supplements are everywhere – lined up on pharmacy shelves and promoted on wellness blogs and social media.

Maybe you have a friend or family member who swears a daily tablet will help everything, from better sleep to alleviating muscle cramps.

But do you really need one? Or it is just marketing hype?

What is magnesium and why do we need it?

Magnesium is an essential metal the body needs to make and operate more than 300 different enzymes.

These enzymes build protein, and regulate muscle and nerve function, help in the release of energy from our food, and help to maintain blood function. The body doesn’t produce magnesium so we need to get it from external sources.

The government recommends a daily magnesium dose of 310–420 mg a day for adults and 30–410 mg for children, depending on age and sex.

This is easily met through a good diet. Foods rich in magnesium include nuts and seeds, whole grains, seafood, meat, legumes and green leafy vegetables.

You can even get some of your magnesium needs met through dark chocolate. It has 146 mg per 100 g of chocolate.

How do I know if I’m deficient?

People at risk of experiencing magnesium deficiency include people with restricted diets, gastrointestinal problems such as Crohn’s and coeliac diseases, type 2 diabetes, and alcohol dependence. Older adults are also more likely to be deficient.

You will only need a magnesium supplement if you show signs of low magnesium. One of the most common signs is muscle spasms and twitches. Other symptoms to look out for include low appetite, nausea and vomiting, or your heart beating abnormally.

Magnesium deficiency can be properly diagnosed by a blood test ordered by your doctor. If you need this test, it’s covered by Medicare.

What conditions can it help?

Commercially available magnesium supplements have been promoted to prevent muscle cramps, manage insomnia and help with migraines.

While magnesium deficiency is linked to muscle cramps, the cause of most muscle cramps is unknown.

And the current evidence does not demonstrate that magnesium supplements can prevent muscle cramps in older adults.

There is conflicting data as to whether the use of magnesium helps with sleep. One study reported magnesium was able to reduce the time for a person to fall asleep by 17.4 minutes while others didn’t show an effect.

For migraines, the most recent research suggests taking 122-600 mg of magnesium supplements daily for 4–24 weeks may decrease their frequency and severity.

Are magnesium supplements safe?

Magnesium supplements are generally well tolerated.

However, they can cause gastrointestinal discomfort such as nausea, abdominal cramping and diarrhoea. Magnesium causes diarrhoea by drawing water into the intestine and stimulating movement in the gut.

It is possible to take too much magnesium and you can overdose on it. Very large doses, around 5,000 mg per day, can lead to magnesium toxicity.

Most of the research investigating the clinical use of magnesium focuses on magnesium in oral formulations.

What other formulations are available?

As magnesium is a small metal ion, it can pass through skin – but not easily.

Magnesium bath salts, patches and topical cream-based formulations may be able to raise your blood magnesium levels to some extent.

But due to the amount needed each day, tablets and foods are a better source.

Things to watch out for when taking magnesium

Commercially available magnesium products can vary widely in dose, formulation and cost. Magnesium supplements have between 150 to 350 mg of the metal per tablet. Your required dose will depend on your age and sex, and whether you have any underlying health problems.

Magnesium supplements sometimes contain other vitamins and minerals, such as vitamins C and D, and the metals calcium, chromium and manganese. So it’s important to consider the total quantities if you’re taking other vitamins and supplements.

Many magnesium supplements also include vitamin B6. While this vitamin is important for supporting the immune system, high intakes can it can cause serious health issues. If you’re already taking a B6 supplement, a magnesium supplement that also includes it can put you at risk.

What if you’re considering supplements?

If you think you might be deficient in magnesium, speak to your doctor who can order a blood test.

If you suffer from migraines, cramps, or poor sleep, talk to your doctor or pharmacist who can advise on and monitor the underlying cause. It may be that a change in lifestyle or an alternative treatment may be more appropriate for you.

If you do decide to take a magnesium supplement, check you won’t be taking too much of any other vitamin or mineral. A pharmacist can help select a supplement that suits you best.

Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd (a medical device company) and was previously a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. He is a member of the Haleon Australia Pty Ltd Pain Advisory Board. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design and testing.

Wai-Jo Jocelin Chan 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. Should I take a magnesium supplement? Will it help me sleep or prevent muscle cramps? – https://theconversation.com/should-i-take-a-magnesium-supplement-will-it-help-me-sleep-or-prevent-muscle-cramps-267542

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shaun Wilson, Associate Professor of Sociology, Macquarie University

At the 2025 federal election in May, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation recorded a primary vote of 6.4%, about half that of the Greens at 12.2%.

But since then, support for the right-wing populist party has surged, with polls showing it now sits between 11% and 14%. The latest Resolve poll for the Nine papers, for example, has One Nation at 12% on first preferences, edging out the Greens at 11%.

This is politically significant, for several reasons. Not only is this performance well above One Nation’s recent election results, but it is high enough to challenge the Greens as Australia’s third-largest party in polling terms.

If this result was replicated at an election, it would put One Nation in a position to win House of Representative seats.

Signs of major improvements in One Nation’s vote appeared in the final weeks of the federal election campaign. Despite this, it did not realise its best polling results on election day, with 6.4%. And even when combined with the Trumpet of the Patriots vote of 1.9%, these two political forces on Australia’s populist right did not manage to maintain their combined vote share of 9.1% achieved at the 2022 election.

Nonetheless, by the later stages of the campaign, pollsters were picking up frustration with the Coalition’s performance, as the prospects of a loss drew nearer. The RedBridge Group/Accent Research tracking poll in late April, for example, put Hanson’s net favourability score slightly higher than Liberal leader Peter Dutton’s in key marginal seats, though both remained in clear negative territory. Since then, and the election of Sussan Ley as the leader of the Liberal Party, One Nation’s fortunes have risen.

So what’s going on?

Liberals losing their right wing

After major election defeats, it is normal for opposition parties to decline further in the polls, as the re-elected government claims ascendancy and its opponents try to reposition themselves. In choosing Ley as leader, the Liberals chose to address their declining vote among women and centrist voters, substantial numbers of whom have switched their votes to Teals and Independents.

The scale of Labor’s victory and the Coalition’s shift to the centre appears to have opened opportunities for Australia’s populist right. Perhaps emboldened by the surge in right-wing populism globally, particularly in the United States, these disillusioned voters are looking to park their votes with smaller, right-wing populist parties.

General pessimism about the state of the world is playing a key role. In September and October 2025, the RedBridge Group and Accent Research asked 1,997 voters whether the “next generation will have a better life than their parents’ generation”. An overwhelming share of One Nation voters (78%) opted for “a worse life”. This result is dramatically more pessimistic than that recorded for other voters.

This alienation no doubt reflects frustration at the election result and fears about future living standards. But it also likely captures more than the material. It reflects a deeper resistance to the direction of modernisation in Australia, one resonant with right-wing electorates in other parts of the world.

With the possibility of a centre-left majority until the end of the decade, these currents of right-wing grievance are expressing themselves beyond parliament. A well-coordinated protest movement may not have fully met organisers’ expectations when it rallied across the country in late August, but it has captured national attention and may build further yet.

Core to right-wing mobilisation are voter anxieties about the pace of immigration following the disruption of COVID lockdowns. High inflation and low wages growth combined to unsettle the consensus about immigration: sky-high rents and housing shortages have become easy reference points for anti-immigration populism.

The Australian Cooperative Election Study for 2025 led by Shaun Ratcliff and I surveyed over 4,000 voters. We found a clear majority (60%) thought the number of migrants had gone “too far” or “much too far”.

For the combined sample of populist right voters – One Nation and Trumpet of Patriot voters – that share was an overwhelmingly 90%, with some 70% in this group choosing “much too far”.

Despite overall high numbers, anti-immigration sentiment remains concentrated on the political right. Some 77% of Coalition voters chose “too far” options. However, only 14% of Greens and 16% of Labor chose the “much too far” option. Instead, these voters more likely to state that migrant numbers are “about right” – 40% and 45% respectively.

So will One Nation’s numbers continue to climb?

The MAGA movement in the US and Reform in the United Kingdom have both built electoral support on far-right immigration populism. One Nation’s capacity to gather similar levels of voter support in Australia may be limited by the party’s political baggage and a questionable ability to win substantial support in diverse, mobile and relatively prosperous metropolitan areas. Australia’s compulsory voting means that success has, at least so far, been be found in the middle ground which remains far more responsive to the politics of opportunity than that of grievance.

Moreover, conservatives in the Coalition, alarmed by recent polling, are already positioning themselves to raise the profile of immigration politics as they attempt to limit One Nation’s gains and rebuild their primary vote.

This is a political challenge the Coalition has had to address before. In the late 1990s, when One Nation first emerged, and made its presence felt in the 1998 Queensland election with a destabilising 23% of the popular vote.

The growth of right-wing populism in the United Kingdom and elsewhere has been boosted by failures of the other side of politics to respond to voter needs. Keir Starmer’s Labour government has disappointed its voter base by pushing fiscal constraint onto an electorate already exhausted by a decade or more of austerity.

Australian Labor has not followed the path of austerity, spending more on key welfare state measures. It has also responded to the union movement in rebuilding the industrial relations system. This means pay growth and revitalised collective bargaining have both improved the situation for wage-earners.

However, younger voters in particular now looking an even larger response from Labor: a new social contract on housing. A consolidation of One Nation’s position will therefore depend as much on whether Labor can deliver on such a contract as it does on the Coalition’s search for a so-far elusive formula for rebuilding a majority electorate on the right.

Shaun Wilson 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 has support for One Nation surged since the 2025 federal election? – https://theconversation.com/why-has-support-for-one-nation-surged-since-the-2025-federal-election-267115

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Meese, Associate Professor, School of Media and Communication, RMIT University

Australians rely on their phones and the internet for education, business, socialising and in emergencies. And as Optus’ recent Triple Zero outage highlights, the consequences of a network outage can be fatal.

But the problems go beyond Triple Zero. The latest annual report from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, released earlier this week, shows a spike in complaints about network connection issues compared to last financial year. For example, there was a nearly 70% increase in complaints about “no phone or internet service”. Complaints about “poor mobile coverage” also increased more than 25%.

When it comes to connectivity problems, we often think about remote environments such as inland cattle stations or Indigenous communities in central and far north Australia. Or how language barriers, affordability and age might impact access.

However, across various research projects looking at digital inclusion, we have found a policy blind spot, where populations residing in certain suburban and regional areas have poorer connectivity outcomes than remote areas.

These people experience ongoing problems with network connection despite living in locations that look good on paper. This could be because of local infrastructure gaps or compounding social factors. We call this group “the missing middle”.

Until now, the absence of a clearly defined category has made it difficult to capture or report on their experiences systematically.

What is ‘digital inclusion’?

Digital inclusion is about ensuring all Australians, no matter who they are or where they live, have access to affordable, quality telecommunications and internet, and possess the skills necessary to benefit from these connections.

The issue is even more important as we face a changing climate, with telecommunications playing a crucial role in emergencies and during natural disasters.

Our research from 2023 on emergency preparedness
with rural residents showed the importance of ongoing telecommunications connectivity – especially during emergencies.

People participate in online community forums by keeping each other informed about conditions and contacting emergency services such as Triple Zero if they need to during the disaster. Afterwards, they use the internet to apply for financial assistance online.

Of course, natural disasters do not discriminate. Recent cyclones, floods and bushfires have impacted urban areas, as well as the outer edges of cities and key regional centres.

A good location doesn’t equal good connectivity

These combined forces have ensured telecommunications policies consistently focus on access. But access is just one component of Australia’s connectivity needs.

Through various interviews, focus groups and fieldwork across urban, regional and rural Australia from 2021–24 we have found that location alone doesn’t determine how good connectivity is.

In fact, some remote areas fare better than outer regional areas when it comes to telecommunications connectivity. This indicates geography isn’t the only factor affecting people’s level of digital inclusion.

Instead, compounding factors are determining whether or not people are digitally included.

For example, some people may not have enough money to afford appropriate connectivity to meet basic needs, needing two SIM cards to manage two unreliable networks. Infrastructure investment can also be patchy. A major regional town might have excellent coverage, but satellite towns could have a much poorer experience.

Urban networks can also taper off before reaching new builds on the edge of cities. Other people may have simply purchased a house amid inhospitable terrain, which can impact whether satellite internet services such as Starlink can be installed.

Voices from the ‘missing middle’

Experiences of 5G mobile consumers in suburban and regional Victoria we spoke with in 2024 give us some sense of this “missing middle” population.

One participant from Gippsland said:

I can be in the main street of a main regional town and not have reception.

Another participant said it was “less than ideal” that in the area between two towns “there’s still patches where we don’t get reception”. Echoing this, another participant said they felt it was reasonable to “expect to be able to drive from Gisborne to Kyneton [a distance of 30km] and not drop out on a phone call three times”.

These issues were not the sole preserve of those living in regional areas. Someone from a new housing development on the outskirts of Melbourne told us there was barely any mobile coverage in the area and said their phone was “just not usable”.

Dubbo is another example. While some major regional cities are well-connected, this major town in the central west of New South Wales is also part of the “missing middle”.

First Nations organisations there experienced slow and unreliable network connection. This impacted their capacity to service the area. Drops in coverage resulted in double handling of work. For example, land surveys would often need to be written by hand on site, then converted to digital forms back in a place with better connectivity.

A targeted approach

Lots of work has has been done in recent years to improve connectivity across Australia.

Since the National Broadband Network (NBN) was completed in 2020, more fixed line services — where a connection is installed in the home (like an NBN box) — have been made available in rural towns.

The federal government’s flagship infrastructure projects – such as the Regional Connectivity Program and Mobile Blackspot Program – have also steadily improved digital inclusion in many locations over the last decade. Starlink and the NBN’s satellite internet service SkyMuster are new entrants, providing a new connectivity option for people who live in the right locations (and can afford it).

However, current policy approaches to patching up connectivity gaps minimises the scale of the missing middle.

This is the result of several factors. First, a failure to understand the different needs of the local and visitor populations who use digital services. Second, fragmentation across telecommunications options (NBN, mobile hotspotting and Starlink). Third, a need to account for overlapping disadvantages.

We need to look beyond location or access, and develop a robust account of the “missing middle”.

Doing so requires policymakers and researchers to focus on areas with mixed and complex connectivity needs. Importantly, this kind of shift will help policymakers target the needs of these Australian telecommunication consumers.

James Meese has recieved and presently receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He has previously received funding from the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network and Meta.

Amber Marshall has recieved and presently receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Amber is an incoming Board Member for the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network and has previously received funding from them.

Holly Randell-Moon has received funding from the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network.

Jenny Kennedy receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Department of Government Services (Victoria). She is also a contributor to research projects that receive funding from Telstra.

Rowan Wilken receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), and has previously received funding from the ARC and the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network.

– ref. Some major Australian towns still have poor phone reception. It’s threatening public safety – https://theconversation.com/some-major-australian-towns-still-have-poor-phone-reception-its-threatening-public-safety-267009

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Mundy, Professor and Executive Dean, Faculty of Health and Education, Torrens University Australia

It’s exam season in Australia. Year 12 students are sitting final exams, while university and younger school students also face end-of-year assessments.

No doubt, students will be spending time memorising notes and revising past lessons.

But memory during exams isn’t just related to how much you study, it’s also about how your brain functions under pressure.

So it’s important students spend this revision time effectively. Neuroscience offers practical strategies to build memory resilience and improve performance under pressure.

We now understand more than ever how stress, sleep, emotion and attention shape the way students learn and remember.

Why exams can hijack memory

Memory is a complex network that involves several brain areas, including:

• the hippocampus, for long-term memory

• the prefrontal cortex, for working memory or the temporary storage used to solve problems and make decisions

• the amygdala, which processes emotion.

During exams, students rely heavily on working memory to hold and manipulate information, and on long-term memory to retrieve facts and concepts.

But stress activates the “hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis”, flooding the brain with the stress hormone cortisol.

While short bursts of stress can sharpen focus, chronic or acute stress impairs the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. This makes it harder to recall information and think clearly.

This is why students can “blank” during high-pressure moments such as exams.

What not to do (the ‘memory killers’)

Several common habits during exam season can sabotage memory. So try to avoid:

1. cramming: while it may feel productive, cramming relies on short-term memory and undermines long-term retention.

2. sleep deprivation: sleep is essential for memory consolidation. Without it, the brain struggles to transfer new learning into long-term storage.

3. multitasking and distraction: the brain’s working memory can only hold a small amount of information at any given time. Trying to juggle too many tasks – especially with phones or social media – is a recipe for forgetting. So keep your phone away from you when you’re studying.

4. high anxiety: emotional stress consumes brain resources, reducing working memory capacity. This can lead to poor recall and decision-making during exams.

What to do (the ‘memory boosters’)

Neuroscience-backed strategies can help students protect and enhance their memory during exam season. Try to include:

1. spaced repetition: this involves reviewing the same material repeatedly over time. This strengthens memory networks and is far more effective than last-minute cramming. If you can, aim for learning sessions at least one day apart, across at least a week. But more time is always better.

2. retrieval: test yourself – can you remember what you’ve been learning? This boosts recall and builds durable memory.

3. mindfulness and physical activity: both of these can reduce stress hormones and improve your brain function. Researchers have shown mindfulness exercises can reduce stress and mental wellbeing in university students. Research also suggests you should aim for 30 minutes of exercise about four hours after you do your learning. Exercise is thought to release brain chemicals that promote “plasticity”, the process by which neurons change and strengthen their connections to create memories.

4. sleep: aim for 7–9 hours of sleep per night to help your brain consolidate your learning.

5. eat well: your diet can also support brain health and overall mental and physical wellbeing. Omega-3s, antioxidants and hydration all play a role in memory performance. So drink lots of water and ensure a healthy balanced diet.

Matthew Mundy 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. 9 ways to help your brain and boost your memory during exam season – https://theconversation.com/9-ways-to-help-your-brain-and-boost-your-memory-during-exam-season-267616

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Missy Molloy, Senior Lecturer in Film, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

One Battle After Another, written, produced, and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, is among the most exciting Hollywood films to hit cinemas this year. It is technically brilliant, with stellar performances, a heavy-hitting score by Radiohead great Jonny Greenwood, and impeccable cinematography.

On NPR, Justin Chang called it “prescient and political”. Michelle Goldberg in the New York Times crowned it the artistic antidote to fascism.

But these claims mistake political theatre for genuine engagement.

One Battle After Another’s action-packed prologue, set 16 years ago, charts the dizzying excitement and painful unravelling of anarchist terrorists The French 75. The group funds the firepower to liberate immigration detention centres on the US/Mexico border by robbing banks.

Fiery Perfidia (Teyana Taylor) embodies the revolutionary movement’s highs and lows. She triggers a lethal competition between two men: wannabe anarchist and bomb specialist Ghetto Pat (Leonardo DiCaprio) and deportation enthusiast Colonel Lockjaw (Sean Penn), a caricature of far-right militarised masculinity.

After ratting out her comrades to avoid a lengthy prison sentence, she abandons them and her newborn daughter, Charlene (Chase Infiniti).

Forced into hiding, Pat and Charlene adopt aliases (Bob and Willa Ferguson) and settle into “normal” life in fictional sanctuary city, Baktan Cross. Fast forward to the present, and the question of which man technically fathered Willa reignites the conflict between the two men – and the political extremes they represent.

Focused mainly on these dysfunctional triangles, the film overlooks intriguing stories on its margins: Anderson neglects the political motivations of the French 75’s mother hen, Deandra (Regina Hall), and Willa’s karate teacher, Sensei Sergio St Carlos (Benicio del Toro).

Centring their commitments to the collective good would have radically shifted the film’s take on political action.

Missed opportunities

In the wake of Perfidia’s betrayal, Deandra helps Bob and Willa evade arrest. Later, she shepherds Willa to the “Order of the Sacred Beavers” to protect her from Lockjaw.

Deandra lacks a backstory, which forces Hall’s expressive face to pull double duty, filling narrative holes. Exploring what propelled her to political extremism would engage the film in a different kind of politics. She is clearly not attracted by the adrenaline rush of breaking or enforcing the law, but by defending those vulnerable to it.

Sergio plays a similar role, protecting Bob while he’s desperately searching for Willa. This happens during the standout action sequence at the film’s midpoint, when Lockjaw empowers military forces to “round up” the so-called “wetbacks” – a slur against Mexicans living in the United States.

Sergio calmly watches over Bob, who stumbles around in his bathrobe trying to charge his phone and remember a password. At the same time, Sergio manages what he calls a “Latino Harriet Tubman situation” – tunnelling immigrants to the sanctuary of a local church – while repeating his signature mantra “ocean waves” to summon tranquillity in chaos.

The film is clearly more interested in reckless, self-motivated action than either “ocean waves” or Deandra’s revolutionary motto: “women and children first”.

Their underdeveloped stories gesture to a genuinely political film that One Battle After Another doesn’t quite deliver.

Politics should prioritise the interests of large groups over individuals, but this film is in thrall to the seduction of political violence and power for a handful of extreme personalities. This is precisely what we need less of if a just, equitable world is possible to imagine from here.

One Battle After Another’s most blatant misstep involves Taylor’s scene-stealing Perfidia, who is undermined by sexist and racist clichés. She is shot firmly through the male gaze, and her passion for political action is portrayed as a kink.

The film fumbles the opportunity to inject substance into a character that might have shone new light on the racist roots of contemporary immigration debates.

You could argue that the film critiques the misogyny and racism of the culture it represents. But multiple black women characters seem to only represent their racialised sex appeal for white men.

Because the film portrays Perfidia as driven by lust for explosions and sex, her musing about “trying to change the world” in the film’s final act comes off as shallow.

A frustrating end

One Battle After Another offers familiar seductions: sexy women with guns, visceral car chases, repellent villains who get what they deserve in the end.

When unlawfully deployed military forces clash with the people who live in Baktan Cross, the timeliness of a film that took years to develop strikes a chord.

But the film’s politics are thin and rely too heavily on spectacle. Featuring people of colour in cages between scenes that rehearse familiar hero/villain dramas isn’t revolutionary. It doesn’t inspire viewers to imagine a society that operates differently than this one.

One Battle After another is a work of high-quality cinema that presciently depicts a present-day US rocked by internal conflict. But the film mainly invests in formulaic power struggles. See it for the action – but don’t go expecting a deep dive into contemporary politics. If this is “the film that meets this political moment”, then at least it provides a clearer picture of the shaky ground we’re on.

Missy Molloy 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 true political fights of One Battle After Another unfortunately happen on the edges of the frame – https://theconversation.com/the-true-political-fights-of-one-battle-after-another-unfortunately-happen-on-the-edges-of-the-frame-267214

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jan Lanicek, Associate Professor in Modern European History and Jewish History, UNSW Sydney

In November 2025, cinemas worldwide will release Nuremberg, a courtroom drama directed by James Vanderbilt. The film focuses on the International Military Tribunal against 24 major Nazi war criminals (though two were ultimately not tried) and seven Nazi organisations – including the SS, the Gestapo and the general staff of the army – at the end of the second world war.

Its release coincides with the 80th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials, which officially opened on October 18 1945. The film explores our desire to see justice and reckoning for those who committed war crimes against civilian populations in the past and present.

The plot centres on the confrontation between Hermann Göring (played by Russell Crowe), a leading Nazi on trial, and psychiatrist Douglas M. Kelley (played by Rami Malek). Kelley’s task was to examine whether the top Nazis were fit to stand trial.

Nuremberg is often called “history’s greatest trial”. It was the first international trial that held senior governmental officials accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed across Europe. It also established individual responsibility for committing war crimes, rejecting the defence of following the orders of superiors.

The indictment covered Nazi crimes before and during the war, against both soldiers and civilians. Nuremberg happened in a unique moment in time, when a country that triggered a major war was completely crushed by a military alliance willing to enforce its “unconditional surrender”.

It was also during the short time before the outbreak of the Cold War, when the wartime alliance between the East and West still held together. Such a trial seems unlikely to be repeated in our current historical moment.

What were the Nuremberg trials?

The International Military Tribunal, which held its hearings in Nuremberg, Germany, lasted for almost a year, until October 1946. It was the first in a series of 13 trials that brought to justice representatives of all the Nazi political, military and business elites, as well as mid-ranking representatives of the army, medical professionals and other Nazi agencies.

The reckoning was comprehensive, even though with the developing Cold War, the Western allies soon lost their appetite for further trials.

The Allies chose Nuremberg as the place for the trials for both political and practical reasons. Nuremberg was one of the centres of the Nazi movement. Numerous political rallies and parades took place there during Hitler’s rule. Also, the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg was one of the few suitable buildings that survived the near total destruction of Germany. It had the facilities needed for a major international tribunal.

Besides Göring, the defendants at the first trial included the Nazi foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, military commanders Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl and armament minister Albert Speer. It also included the vicious antisemite Julius Streicher, and head of the Reich Security Main Office, Ernst Kaltenbrunner – the man in charge of the Nazi policies of persecution.

Several top representatives of Nazi Germany escaped justice: Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Goebbels had died by suicide.

In popular memory, the Holocaust or Shoah, the mass extermination of the European Jews, is now commemorated as the main symbol of Nazi atrocities. But historians offer a mixed assessment of the role the Holocaust played during the Nuremberg trial.

While the persecution of the Jews did not dominate the proceedings, their fate was repeatedly emphasised as one of the Nazi crimes. Three Jewish survivors personally testified in the courtroom, reminding the world about the death of approximately six million Jews and incarceration of hundreds of thousands more who survived the ordeal of the camps.

In the courtroom, the prosecution played the footage from the liberated concentration camps, including Belsen and Buchenwald, which shook the audience – including the defendants. Defence witness Rudolf Höss, former commandant of Auschwitz, described the killing process in the gas chambers and crematoria in detail.

The Nazis’ persecution of other minorities received minimum coverage in the main trial. In addition to Jewish people, they also persecuted the Romani people, disabled people, homosexuals and religious minority groups.

Earlier efforts at international justice

Previous efforts to bring leaders of defeated states to justice and establish their accountability had been relatively unsuccessful. The Versailles Peace Treaty in 1919, for instance, promised to bring German leaders to justice for suspected war crimes during the first world war, though the effort never really materialised.

In the Soviet Union, trials of Nazi war criminals and local collaborators had already begun during the second world war. In 1943, the Krasnodar and Kharkov trials sentenced most defendants to death. In late 1944, a Soviet–Polish court sentenced guards from the Majdanek concentration camp to death. Further local trials continued in the first post-war months by the allied militaries, and new political authorities in the liberated countries.

But Nuremberg was the main piece in the puzzle of a comprehensive, often brutal retribution and cleansing all over Europe that brought tens of thousands of war criminals and collaborators to justice. Not only Germans, but also representatives of occupied nations accused of war crimes and collaboration, sat in the dock. Nazi war crimes trials, on a smaller scale, continued for decades.

In fact, just a few years ago, in 2022, 97-year-old Irmgard Furchner, a former secretary at a Nazi concentration camp, Stutthof, was found guilty of complicity in the murder of more than 10,500 people. She received a two-year suspended sentence.

‘History will judge us’

Nuremberg’s significance was political, legal, moral and historical. The tribunal prosecuting major war criminals “whose offenses have no particular geographical location” was jointly led by the four main Allied powers: the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France. Each had representatives among the judges and prosecution teams. The prosecutors also represented the interests of other, minor allies, such as Poland or Czechoslovakia, who could provide evidence for the trial.

The indictment listed four counts: conspiracy to commit crimes, crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In the first trial, 22 Nazis were in the dock.

In his opening speech, US Chief of Counsel for Nuremberg, Justice Robert H. Jackson, stressed:

the wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated.

He continued, “We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow.”

The confirmation of the Nazi crimes that came with the liberation of Europe had shocked the world. When pushing the Wehrmacht (the armed forces of Germany’s Third Reich) from the east and west, seasoned Allied troops liberated destroyed villages and towns, coming across evidence of mass murder of civilians. In 1944 and 1945, the Red Army and western Allies liberated Nazi concentration camps, confirming the mass extermination of Jews and other groups.

At Nuremberg, the charge of “crimes against humanity”, in particular, punished crimes against civilians, such as “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts”. The promoter of this term was lawyer Hersch Lauterpacht, who was born in Galicia (then part of Austria-Hungary) and lived in the UK.

A competing legal terminology had been developed by another Galician-born lawyer, based in the US, Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term “genocide”. While the concept supported by Lauterpacht focused on the persecution of individuals, Lemkin stressed that the Nazi crimes were committed with the intent to destroy whole groups, particularly the Jews.

Although Nuremberg mentioned genocide on several occasions, the judges preferred “crimes against humanity” when characterising Nazi crimes. This legal concept allowed the Allies to punish German leaders for the persecution of their own citizens, even before the war.

As international lawyer and author Philippe Sands has said, this decision mean that “no longer would a state be free to treat its people entirely as it wished”.

A refined version of Lemkin’s term for genocide was officially enshrined in international law by the United Nations in 1948. It has been criticised for establishing a high threshold of proof. As a result, only a few cases of mass violence against civilians meet the criteria.

There were several notable moments during the trial. Göring, the former head of the Luftwaffe (German airforce), was considered the main defendant, and dominated the trial. Eventually, he had to be isolated from the other defendants, to allow them to speak more freely.

His questioning by Justice Jackson has been characterised as one of the worst cross-examinations in history. US attorney Robert Hedrick said, in 2016, that Göring was a “slippery” witness, who often complained about the translation of questions to buy time to think of an answer – and Jackson “did not control his witness”. But the prosecution had enough evidence to sentence him to death on all four counts, including crimes against humanity.

Rudolf Hess, deputy leader of the Nazi Party, escaped on a plane to Britain in 1941, allegedly with the aim to negotiate peace. He was imprisoned and kept in custody until the end of the war. In Nuremberg, Hess claimed amnesia and mental problems to avoid accountability for his crimes. In the end, he was sentenced to life in prison and died at Spandau prison in Berlin, in 1987.

Architect Albert Speer, who from 1942 became Hitler’s armament minister, cooperated with the court. He expressed remorse for the crimes he committed, though denied any knowledge of the Holocaust. These claims have later been disputed.

For instance, in 1971, Harvard University historian Erich Goldhagen found that Speer had attended a conference of senior Nazis in October 1943, at which SS head Himmler had spoken openly about “the extermination of the Jewish people”. (Though his biographer couldn’t confirm he had heard the speech in person, she concluded “he knew”.) He was sentenced to 20 years and was released in 1966, aged 61.

The judges sentenced 12 defendants to the death penalty. Martin Bormann, the head of the Nazi Party Chancellery and Secretary to Hitler, was sentenced in absentia. Although it was believed he was at large, it was later confirmed he died in the battle of Berlin in early May 1945.

Three defendants, Hitler’s minister of economics Hjalmar Schacht, propagandist Hans Fritzsche, and Hitler’s erstwhile conservative ally Franz von Papen were acquitted, despite the protest of the Soviet judge. Göring, sentenced to death, escaped justice by dying by suicide the night the execution was ordered.

International war crimes trials since Nuremberg

Nuremberg was the first major international trial for war crimes. It was followed by others. At around the same time, beginning in 1946, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East met in Tokyo, judging Japanese war criminals. The Tokyo Charter closely followed the Nuremberg Charter.

In the 1990s, in the post-Cold War period, the UN Security Council established two more ad hoc international criminal tribunals.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was set up in the Hague, for war criminals from the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Its mandate lasted from 1993 to 2017. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convened in Arusha, Tanzania, to prosecute persons responsible for genocide and war crimes in the Rwandan civil war, committed in 1994. Both men and women were sentenced to long prison terms at these trials, including for the crime of genocide.

In 2002, the UN General Assembly approved the creation of the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). Based on the Rome statute, the ICC can judge genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. However, some of the major world powers, such as the US, Russia, China and India, do not recognise its jurisdiction and do not cooperate with the court.

The ICC is currently investigating several states and their leaders, including Russia, Israel and a Hamas representative. Usually, only heads of smaller states, who lack strong international partners, sit in the dock. More powerful actors ignore the extradition requests, accusing the court of either pro-western bias, “neo-colonialist repression” or antisemitism.

Almost 80% of all indictments issued by the court have been against African leaders. The court has not opened one single case against leaders from the West.

Because of the indictment against Israeli leaders, the US has threatened the court with sanctions, and Hungary has withdrawn from the ICC. The ICC lacks the instruments to enforce extradition and can only rely on members’ cooperation. State leaders sought by the ICC travel relatively freely around the world, visiting major international states including permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Could the Nuremberg trials happen today?

A major trial of international significance – comparable to the Nuremberg Trials – would only be possible in the case of a major military defeat of the investigated government, and its occupation by those willing to bring the leading politicians to justice.

This is unlikely to happen. Countries are unwilling to extradite their leaders to international courts, unless they are coerced by circumstances. Many prefer to settle the scores on their home turf.

The Allies organised the Nuremberg trials with the hope of bringing the horrible chapter of Nazism to an end and sending a clear message for the future. The destruction, war crimes and crimes against humanity revealed at the end of the war truly shocked the world.

Even so, the East and West were only able to meet and sentence the German leaders during this brief historical moment before the outbreak of the Cold War.

With growing divisions in the world today, another Nuremberg is unlikely to happen any time soon.

Jan Lanicek receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Friday essay: the Nuremberg Trials at 80 – could such a reckoning ever happen again? – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-nuremberg-trials-at-80-could-such-a-reckoning-ever-happen-again-267313

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Beattie, Lecturer, Media and Communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

A wave of proposed social media bans for young people has swept the globe recently, fuelled by mounting concern about the apparent harm the likes of TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat can cause to vulnerable minds.

Australia was the first to announce restrictions on people under 16 having a social media account. New Zealand may soon follow, and Denmark’s prime minister recently declared her country would ban social media for under-15s, accusing mobile phones and social networks of “stealing our children’s childhood”.

The moves are part of a growing international trend: the United Kingdom, France, Norway, Pakistan and the United States are now considering or implementing similar restrictions, often requiring parental consent or digital ID verification.

At first glance, these policies appear to be about protecting young people from mental health harm, explicit content and addictive design. But beneath the language of safety lies something else: a shift in cultural values.

The bans reflect a kind of moral turn, one that risks reviving conservative notions that predate the internet. Might we be entering a new Victorian era of the internet, where the digital lives of young people are reshaped not just by regulation but by a reassertion of moral control?

Policing moral decline

The Victorian era was marked by rigid social codes, modest dress and formal communication. Public behaviour was tightly regulated, and schools were seen as key sites for socialising children into gender and class hierarchies.

Today, we see echoes of this in the way “digital wellness” is framed. Screen-time apps, detox retreats and “dumb” phones are marketed as tools for cultivating a “healthy” digital life – often with moral undertones. The ideal user is calm, focused and restrained. The impulsive, distracted or emotionally expressive user is pathologised.

This framing is especially evident in the work of Jonathan Haidt, psychologist and author of The Anxious Generation, a central text in the age-restriction movement. Haidt argues that social media accelerates performative behaviour and emotional dysregulation in young people.

Viewed this way, youth digital life involves declining psychological resilience, rising polarisation and the erosion of shared civic values, rather than being a symptom of complex developmental or technological shifts. This has helped popularise the idea that social media is not just harmful but corrupting.

Yet the data behind these claims is contested. Critics have pointed out that Haidt’s conclusions often rely on correlational studies and selective interpretations.

For example, while some research links heavy social media use to anxiety and depression, other studies suggest the effects are modest and vary widely depending on context, platform and individual differences.

What’s missing from much of the debate is a recognition of young people’s agency, or their ability to navigate online spaces intelligently, creatively and socially.

Indeed, youth digital life is not just about passive consumption. It’s a site of literacy, expression and connection. Platforms such as TikTok and YouTube have fostered a renaissance of oral and visual communication.

Young people stitch together memes, remix videos and engage in rapid-fire editing to produce new forms of storytelling. These are not signs of decline but evolving literacies. To regulate youth access without acknowledging these skills risks suppressing the new in favour of preserving the familiar.

Regulate platforms, not young people

This is where the Victorian metaphor becomes useful. Just as Victorian norms sought to maintain a particular social order, today’s age restrictions risk enforcing a narrow vision of what digital life should look like.

On the surface, terms such as “brain rot” appear to convey the harm of excessive internet use. But in practice, they’re often used by teenagers to laugh about and resist the pressures of 24/7 hustle culture.

But concerns about young people’s digital habits seem rooted in a fear of cognitive difference – the idea that some users are too impulsive, too irrational, too deviant.

Young people are often cast as unable to communicate properly, hiding behind screens, avoiding phone calls. But these changing habits reflect broader shifts in how we relate to technology. The expectation to be always available, always responsive, ties us to our devices in ways that make switching off genuinely difficult.

Age restrictions may address some symptoms, but they don’t tackle the underlying design of platforms that are built to keep us scrolling, sharing and generating data.

If society and governments are serious about protecting young people, perhaps the better strategy is to regulate the digital platforms. Legal scholar Eric Goldman calls the age-restriction approach a “segregate and suppress” strategy – one that punishes youth rather than holding platforms accountable.

We would never ban children from playgrounds, but we do expect those spaces to be safe. Where are the safety barriers for digital spaces? Where is the duty of care from digital platforms?

The popularity of social media bans suggests a resurgence of conservative values in our digital lives. But protection should not come at the cost of autonomy, creativity or expression.

For many, the internet has become a moral battleground where values around attention, communication and identity are fiercely contested. But it is also a social infrastructure, one that young people are already shaping through new literacies and forms of expression.

Shielding them from it risks suppressing the very skills and voices that could help us build a better digital future.

Alex Beattie receives funding from The Royal Society Te Apārangi. He is a recipient of a Marsden Fast Start Grant.

– ref. As social media age restrictions spread, is the internet entering its Victorian era? – https://theconversation.com/as-social-media-age-restrictions-spread-is-the-internet-entering-its-victorian-era-267610

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Lockey, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Melbourne Business School

Have you ever used artificial intelligence (AI) in your job without double-checking the quality or accuracy of its output? If so, you wouldn’t be the only one.

Our global research shows a staggering two-thirds (66%) of employees who use AI at work have relied on AI output without evaluating it.

This can create a lot of extra work for others in identifying and correcting errors, not to mention reputational hits. Just this week, consulting firm Deloitte Australia formally apologised after a A$440,000 report prepared for the federal government had been found to contain multiple AI-generated errors.

Against this backdrop, the term “workslop” has entered the conversation. Popularised in a recent Harvard Business Review article, it refers to AI-generated content that looks good but “lacks the substance to meaningfully advance a given task”.

Beyond wasting time, workslop also corrodes collaboration and trust. But AI use doesn’t have to be this way. When applied to the right tasks, with appropriate human collaboration and oversight, AI can enhance performance. We all have a role to play in getting this right.

The rise of AI-generated ‘workslop’

According to a recent survey reported in the Harvard Business Review article, 40% of US workers have received workslop from their peers in the past month.

The survey’s research team from BetterUp Labs and Stanford Social Media Lab found on average, each instance took recipients almost two hours to resolve, which they estimated would result in US$9 million (about A$13.8 million) per year in lost productivity for a 10,000-person firm.

Those who had received workslop reported annoyance and confusion, with many perceiving the person who had sent it to them as less reliable, creative, and trustworthy. This mirrors prior findings that there can be trust penalties to using AI.

Read more:
Being honest about using AI at work makes people trust you less, research finds

Invisible AI, visible costs

These findings align with our own recent research on AI use at work. In a representative survey of 32,352 workers across 47 countries, we found complacent over-reliance on AI and covert use of the technology are common.

While many employees in our study reported improvements in efficiency or innovation, more than a quarter said AI had increased workload, pressure, and time on mundane tasks. Half said they use AI instead of collaborating with colleagues, raising concerns that collaboration will suffer.

Making matters worse, many employees hide their AI use; 61% avoided revealing when they had used AI and 55% passed off AI-generated material as their own. This lack of transparency makes it challenging to identify and correct AI-driven errors.

What you can do to reduce workslop

Without guidance, AI can generate low-value, error-prone work that creates busywork for others. So, how can we curb workslop to better realise AI’s benefits?

If you’re an employee, three simple steps can help.

1. start by asking, “Is AI the best way to do this task?”. Our research suggests this is a question many users skip. If you can’t explain or defend the output, don’t use it

2. if you proceed, verify and work with AI output like an editor; check facts, test code, and tailor output to the context and audience

3. when the stakes are high, be transparent about how you used AI and what you checked to signal rigour and avoid being perceived as incompetent or untrustworthy.

What employers can do

For employers, investing in governance, AI literacy, and human-AI collaboration skills is key.

Employers need to provide employees with clear guidelines and guardrails on effective use, spelling out when AI is and is not appropriate.

That means forming an AI strategy, identifying where AI will have the highest value, being clear about who is responsible for what, and tracking outcomes. Done well, this reduces risk and downstream rework from workslop.

Because workslop comes from how people use AI – not as an inevitable consequence of the tools themselves – governance only works when it shapes everyday behaviours. That requires organisations to build AI literacy alongside policies and controls.

Organisations must work to close the AI literacy gap. Our research shows that AI literacy and training are associated with more critical AI engagement and fewer errors, yet less than half of employees report receiving any training or policy guidance.

Employees need the skills to use AI selectively, accountably and collaboratively. Teaching them when to use AI, how to do so effectively and responsibly, and how to verify AI output before circulating it can reduce workslop.

Steven Lockey’s position is funded by the Chair in Trust research partnership between the University of Melbourne and KPMG Australia.

Nicole Gillespie receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Chair in Trust research partnership between the University of Melbourne and KPMG Australia.

– ref. AI ‘workslop’ is creating unnecessary extra work. Here’s how we can stop it – https://theconversation.com/ai-workslop-is-creating-unnecessary-extra-work-heres-how-we-can-stop-it-267110

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Tookey, Professor of Construction Management, Auckland University of Technology

The Gaza Strip is a tortured piece of land that is about 40km long and 11km wide. Some 2.3 million souls are crammed into a space of around 360 square kilometres. This is barely larger than central Sydney.

People and empires have lived in, built on, fought over and destroyed the area for thousands of years.

The dire situation in Gaza

The consequences of the Israel-Palestine war have been catastrophic.

The human toll is immense: the United Nations estimates more than 67,000 Palestinians have been killed and almost 170,000 wounded. About 1,200 Israelis have been killed and 5,400 injured since October 7, 2023.

Gaza itself has been razed to the ground in many areas. The United Nations estimates 83% of all structures and housing units have been damaged in Gaza City.

The ability of Gaza to support life is in question.

The recent ceasefire could see longer-term peace. At the time of writing it continues to hold, but optimism is not high.

If peace is to hold in the long term, there is a need to look into reestablishing the means by which Gaza can sustain its population.

Read more:
Trump’s ‘shock and awe’ foreign policy achieved a breakthrough in Gaza – but is it sustainable?

Priorities in rebuilding Gaza

Gaza is a disaster zone. Infrastructure has been dramatically impacted.

The damage is similar in scale and scope to a Category 4 or 5 hurricane.

Like any disaster, food, medicine and bottled water are the immediate priorities. This will sustain life in the short term.

Assuming a major effort can be made to open border crossings, lives will be saved by bringing immediate relief to victims of food and medical supply shortages.

Engineers will be a key resource in reconstructing Gaza.

After sustained bombing, priorities will be reconstituting buried assets such as power, water and sewerage, and pumping stations. While the original lines of buried pipes will be known from city mapping, much of the infrastructure will be cracked, broken or destroyed.

Failure to do so will lead to outbreaks of diseases such as typhus and dysentery.

Unexploded bombs and ammunition will need clearance.

Damaged houses and public buildings will present huge public safety risks of collapse.

Massive demolition and clearance will be required for millions of tonnes of debris.

Following these immediate priorities will be the construction or repair of hospitals, houses, schools, road systems and governance infrastructure – all of which will have been massively compromised.

A daunting challenge

Realistically, it will take decades to design, finance and reconstruct infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. Emergency fixes can be made in the short term (3–6 months) but winter could extract a further toll if delays occur.

Demolition requires specialist equipment and heavy goods vehicles. The required work is daunting.

Just up the coast, Beirut is facing the problem of what to do with 32 million tonnes of demolition waste from the latest Israel-Lebanon conflict, not long after rebuilding from its civil war.

Gaza may face a similar dilemma considering how much demolition waste there is on the ground.

It is likely a housing prefabrication scheme and a massive logistical effort will be needed at the least.

Historical precedents outline the scale of the rebuilding task: Stalingrad took more than 20 years to reconstitute after World War II and Warsaw did not finish postwar reconstruction until the 1980s.

Power, fuel and water issues

Creating a future Gaza is dependent on funding and access to resources.

This is more than just money – it will need materials, skills and labour on the ground.

It requires a sustainable peace, a disentanglement of existing infrastructure and a creation of new options for supply.

All critical supplies and infrastructure are not under the control of its government: power, fuel and water currently come from Israel.

Logistically, aid agencies are on the ground to maintain some services. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is foremost among these. It is a program mandated to provide basic humanitarian assistance and services to Palestinian refugees.

In two weeks in September, UNWRA provided access to 18 million litres of water to 370,000 people in Gaza, as well as removing 4,000 tonnes of solid waste.

This implies 3 billion litres of water – equivalent to filling around 1,200 Olympic swimming pools annually – and removing in excess of 600,000 tonnes of waste every year as a minimum requirement to sustain the Gazan society.

Any engineering solution will need to provide this level of support if not substantially more. This is a huge commitment for funders and engineers.

New port infrastructure needs to be developed as a priority. Supply infrastructure such as roads and ports independent of outside controls will be essential to sustain any society in a post-war setting.

Potentially, much of the demolition waste from Gaza’s damaged buildings could be used to reclaim land from the sea and provide breakwaters for this.

However, this waste is heavily contaminated, creating further problems.

A challenging future

To achieve these reconstruction outcomes simultaneously will require billions of dollars in aid over many decades.

Without serious aid coming to the region, the cost of construction materials will inevitably soar and there will be shortages of engineers and technicians accordingly.

All in all, the undertaking is likely to be a major mobilisation exercise for a number of years – no matter how much money is thrown at it by donors.

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

– ref. With 83% of its buildings destroyed, Gaza needs more than money to rebuild – https://theconversation.com/with-83-of-its-buildings-destroyed-gaza-needs-more-than-money-to-rebuild-267431

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ed Harrison, PhD Candidate, Institute for Digital Security and Behaviour, University of Bath

Last September, Reform leader Nigel Farage dismissed a policy of mass deportations as a “political impossibility”. Now, a year on, the party has pledged to deport up to 600,000 illegal migrants and retrospectively strip indefinite leave to remain from people already settled in the UK.

This is a drastic lurch to the right, even for Reform. Only last year the party was saying it seeks to represent the “silent majority” and keep out “extremists”.

In explaining this shift, Reform politicians would probably claim this is what the silent majority wants. They would point to a hardening of public opinion on illegal migration.

They would want to avoid the accusation they have given in to extremists by proposing these policies. Reform has, after all, sought to distance itself from the far-right with every step it takes towards the mainstream.

But an analysis of social media suggests something else. Many people and groups on the radical and far-right are harnessing a process known as audience capture in order to influence political policy.

A group of anonymous X accounts is said to follow a “posting-to-policy” strategy. These accounts – some of which are run by disaffected Westminster professionals – post to inject their grievances into online discourse.

Their goal is to see their narratives circulate and gain popularity within rightwing networks. Once established, they hope political actors, many of whom follow them, will take up the ideas.

Use and discussion of the “Boriswave” is an example of this. The term, which refers to a rise in non-EU immigration under former prime minister Boris Johnson, originated and proliferated from this network. It is now commonly used in the mainstream and was deployed by Reform to justify its proposal to revoke indefinite leave to remain.

Another example is the motability scheme, a programme that helps eligible disabled individuals lease a car. It was first highlighted and heavily criticised by anonymous accounts on X for being wasteful and subject to fraudulent abuse, and has dominated much of the discussion on welfare reform in 2025. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch recently promised to restrict eligibility to the scheme.

While many of these accounts are anonymous, some are more out in the open. Online conservatives such as Connor Tomlinson and Steven Edington have boasted of how their work has helped move Reform to the right.

Further to the online activities of aggrieved anonymous online users and disaffected conservatives, are the cases of ex-Reform politicians MP Rupert Lowe and Advance UK leader Ben Habib. Both left the party in acrimonious circumstances, both now lead alternative movements, and both are pushing Reform to adopt more radical policies.

Lowe has called Reform’s pledge to deport up to 600,000 illegal migrants “pathetic” and has suggested it be quadrupled. Habib attended the far-right Unite the Kingdom protests in September.

Add these forces together and you get what amounts to a rightwing arms race – communities of social media users pushing for more radical policies in an attempt to change the norms and policies of Reform and the right.

How an idea spreads

To explore this dynamic, and how Reform’s recent u-turn has been shaped by it, we analysed the online networks that drove conversation about “mass deportations” on X over the past year. Using computational methods, we identified four distinct sub-communities defined by their retweet relationships. These sub-communities were formed around far-right influencers, radical right influencers, Advance UK/free-marketeer influencers – and around the Reform party.

Reposting network of discussion of mass deportation on X:

Discussion of mass deportations in 2024 was almost exclusively dominated by the far-right and the anonymous accounts of the radical right. Fast forward to April 2025 and we find Lowe, Habib and a wider range of rightwing influencers have entered the conversation in support of the policy.

Finally, in September, following Reform’s August announcement, you can see Farage and key Reform personnel supplant the influencers as players in a movement they had little role in creating. In doing so, the party has aligned itself with a policy that less than a year ago it vehemently rejected.

This offers only a snapshot of discussions on social media and cannot account for the wider political and socioeconomic factors influencing these shifts. It does, however, demonstrate how narratives in far-right and fringe online ecosystems can migrate into more mainstream discourse over time and help shape the norms and policies of whole political movements.

It is difficult to imagine this happening without the new role of X under Elon Musk. With far-right figures now allowed back onto the platform, and the liberalisation of its algorithms to push more extreme content, the result has been the amplification and normalisation of more radical views and rhetoric.

Researchers have highlighted how, as a result of this, social media begins to function like a funhouse mirror, distorting political reality. Because online debate is dominated by a small number of extreme voices (10% of users produce 97% of political content), it projects a skewed and unrepresentative picture of public opinion.

This, in turn, blurs users’ sense of which norms and views are mainstream. The fact that offline, the majority is said to oppose the retrospective removal of indefinite leave to remain, only adds weight to the argument that Reform’s policy shifts are being driven by a small number of influential online voices rather than the voices of the masses.

Where once social media played a role more akin to that of a town hall, allowing people to express their views and support for political parties, it is now increasingly reflective of the strategic activities of a select influential few.

While the extent of this is unclear, we have to wonder if Reform’s perceptions of public opinion are being distorted by the funhouse mirror that X has increasingly become. And while the party is polling ahead of all others, that has implications for the future direction of the UK.

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. Inside the far-right social media ecosystem normalising extremist ideas in UK politics – https://theconversation.com/inside-the-far-right-social-media-ecosystem-normalising-extremist-ideas-in-uk-politics-266948

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

It was a classic “old bull” versus “young bull” struggle, and the old bull showed he had life in him yet.

Paul Keating was only one among many critics of the controversial aspects of Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ proposed superannuation tax changes. But as the father of national superannuation, the former treasurer enjoyed a special advantage when it came to lobbying.

Keating wasn’t going to be denied. He was in Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s ear as well as badgering Chalmers. (Chalmers revealed he’d spoken half a dozen times with Keating just in the second half of last week when recrafting the superannuation package.)

Albanese, naturally cautious when pressure mounts on unpopular measures, drove the retreat announced by Chalmers on Monday. The reworked package (which still faces the Senate hurdle) increases the tax on big superannuation balances but drops the earlier plan to tax unrealised capital gains. And unlike the original one, it also includes indexation for affected balances.

After the victory, Keating issued a statement lavishing praise on Chalmers for the revised version. But it couldn’t alter the reality. After months of limbo, Chalmers had been publicly humiliated.

The revamped arrangements, which involve separate higher tax rates for balances over $3 million and $10 million respectively, plus more help with superannuation for low income earners, do make the super system fairer. And they bring some savings for the budget, albeit less than the original plan, which was to take effect sooner.

Chalmers tried to put the best spin on it, denying he had been rolled by Albanese. But this has been one of the most difficult weeks of his time as treasurer.

In the public’s mind, Chalmers is the obvious next Labor leader. After the huge election victory, Albanese might look like going on forever, but politics doesn’t often work like that. Many in Labor, if pushed, would predict the prime minister will win the next election and then depart sometime during his third term.

Chalmers will want, and need, this second term to be a showcase for his credentials for future leadership.

A few years ago, Labor’s talked-about potential leadership field was quite extensive: Chris Bowen, Tanya Plibersek and Jason Clare were among those on the list. Now it has narrowed, probably to Chalmers, Tony Burke and Richard Marles.

Of these, Chalmers, 47, and Burke, 55, are considered (at this stage) the leading contenders (although Marles certainly hasn’t given up). The two men are a study in contrasts, and the contest between them for long-term ascendancy may be tighter than it appears at first glance.

While Chalmers was licking his wounds this week, Burke was appearing at the National Press Club, announcing new measures to crack down on crypto crime.

Looking to the top job, Burke has the advantage of being from the factionally-strong NSW right. He is close to Albanese, who’s from the NSW left. In that state, right and left can make common cause when they choose; the right helped deliver support to Albanese for the leadership in 2019.

For most of Labor’s first term, Burke was in the workplace relations portfolio, where he delivered in spades to the union movement. His own origins are in the powerful Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA).

Later he was moved to his present post of home affairs minister, after the government found itself in a world of trouble over the former immigration detainees, released after a High Court judgement.

Burke’s performance in this role has been politically masterful. One of his advantages for Albanese is his skill with the broom – he’s the man to clean up messes.

He pulled off an extraordinary deal to relocate the ex-detainees to Nauru. He sought a way to minimise angst over the return of Islamic State brides (though he was partly thwarted by the fact Senate estimates hearings were on last week, giving more opportunity for questioning).

Burke has rebuilt the home affairs behemoth, which Labor, having condemned its reach in opposition, had earlier substantially dismantled. ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and other agencies are back under the home affairs minister. Burke told the National Press Club on Thursday, “when we have a convergence of threats we need to have a convergence of protection”.

Burke is also Leader of the House of Representatives, a position that both gives him power to maximise Labor’s parliamentary advantages, and also provides routine contact with to caucus members, a chance to win friends for the future.

Burke has less of a presence in the public market place than Chalmers, who is (and seeks to be) constantly in the media.

Like Burke, Chalmers is from the right but coming from Queensland means he has a smaller base. If Chalmers is eventually to reach the leadership, he must rely on building a reputation as a reformer and on his sales skills.

But just how much reform will he be able to produce?

Chalmers made it clear after the economic roundtable that he is looking to tax reform, which was supported in broad terms by many participants. The knock he took on superannuation, however, will reinforce his fear Albanese won’t be up for major tax changes, which would likely cost the government political capital. Labor almost certainly cannot be defeated at the 2028 election, but Albanese will want to keep intact as much of the majority as possible.

The roundtable was a pointer to Chalmers’ ambition generally. Albanese announced it as a roundtable on “productivity”; Chalmers renamed it as one on “economic reform” and put in a tremendous effort to have ministers involved and to achieve results. At the end of the three days he announced a long list of initiatives centring particularly on reducing red tape and clearing bottlenecks. But many were speeding up existing efforts or otherwise incremental. In one area, a new road user charge, progress appears to going slowly, despite Chalmers hoping for fast action.

There’s general agreement in Labor that Chalmers is the government’s best communicator. But insiders watching this race know Burke is the master tactician. Journalist Phillip Coorey recently described him as “probably one of the best practitioners of the dark arts”. Burke may not wear his ambition on his sleeve to the extent Chalmers does, but it burns intensely and he is not to be underestimated.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Master communicator vs master tactician, the race between Chalmers and Burke – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-master-communicator-vs-master-tactician-the-race-between-chalmers-and-burke-267221

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeff Borland, Professor of Economics, The University of Melbourne

The rate of unemployment in Australia is on the rise again. Official labour force data released on Thursday shows that in the month to September, Australia’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate jumped from 4.3% to 4.5%.

That’s the highest rate since November 2021. The surprise jump strengthens the case for the Reserve Bank of Australia to cut the official cash rate in November.

Back in November last year, the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment was 3.9%. It has now been above 4% for ten consecutive months, and has only been going in one direction: up.

What could this mean for interest rates?

In its recent decisions, the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy board has jumped at any signs of higher price inflation. But it has retained a favourable outlook on labour market conditions.

In its most recent September decision, the board stated:

labour market conditions have been broadly steady in recent months and remain a little tight.

Such an outlook does not seem an option in light of today’s unemployment numbers.

The Reserve Bank has a full employment mandate to achieve “the maximum level of employment consistent with low and stable inflation”.

The mandate doesn’t put a specific numerical rate on this full employment goal. However, the rate of unemployment is now well above any credible estimate of full employment.

Employment growth is slowing

The reason why the rate of unemployment is rising is not hard to spot. Employment growth is slowing.

In 2024, my calculations based on the official labour force data show an average of 32,600 extra people became employed each month, compared with an extra 33,900 looking for work.

With growth in employment and the labour force relatively balanced, the rate of unemployment remained stable.

So far in 2025, each month only an average of 12,900 extra people have moved into employment.

The number of people looking for work has responded to the weaker labour market conditions, also growing less each month than in 2024, by 22,100 on average.

But unemployment is rising because the increase in the number of people looking for work in 2025 has been much bigger than the increase in employment.

A cooling jobs market

No matter which statistic you look at, my analysis of the official labour force data reveals the signs of a weakening labour market are clear to see.

Monthly hours worked grew on average by 0.27% each month in 2024, but only 0.04% so far in 2025.

In 2024, the total stock of jobs rose by 351,600. In the first six months of 2025, it grew by just 44,100.

And the proportion of people who have jobs, but want to work more hours, has increased from 9.9% to 10.4% since the end of 2024.

Government spending

The reason employment growth is slowing is not what might have been expected – but is even more worrying.

Since about mid-2021, employment growth in Australia has been propped up by a fast pace of job creation in what is known as the non-market sector, which consists of:

• health care and social assistance
• education and training
• public administration and safety.

That growth has come about as the federal government has pushed for improvements in the quality of government services, and expanded the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and childcare services.

It has been expected for some time that eventually, the rate of increase in government spending on services would slow. That would in turn cause growth in non-market employment and total employment to slacken.

What’s really driving the trend?

However, that is not what has caused the slower employment growth in 2025.

In fact, today’s data release shows that growth in total hours worked in the non-market sector has continued at pretty much the same pace as in previous years.

Instead, the drop-off in total hours worked has been due to employment in the market sector declining.

Private employers are responding to what they see as weaker economic conditions, by reducing the rate at which they are adding new jobs.

This is a further undeniable sign of a weakening labour market.

Jeff Borland has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. What a surprise spike in the unemployment rate means for interest rates and the economy – https://theconversation.com/what-a-surprise-spike-in-the-unemployment-rate-means-for-interest-rates-and-the-economy-267624

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geetanjali (Tanji) Lamba, Public Health Physician, Medical Advisor and PhD Candidate, Monash University

Voluntary assisted dying is being debated in the Northern Territory (NT) parliament this week.

The NT is now the last jurisdiction in Australia without voluntary assisted dying laws. But it wasn’t always this way. Once, the NT was a pioneer in legalising assisted dying.

Here’s what’s happened since then, and why this time, the conversation looks very different.

A brief history

It’s been nearly 30 years after the NT made history as the first jurisdiction in the world to legalise assisted dying.

In 1995, the NT passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, allowing terminally ill adults to choose a medically assisted death. Four people used the law.

But the Commonwealth overturned it in 1997, removing the power of the NT and Australian Capital Territory to legislate on the issue.

It’s almost three years since the Commonwealth restored the NT’s right to make its own voluntary assisted dying laws.

Now, every other jurisdiction in Australia has legalised voluntary assisted dying, most recently the ACT in 2024.

Why the NT is unique

The NT’s context is unlike anywhere else in Australia. It is vast and sparsely populated. It is home to more than 250,000 people, spread across an area more than five times the size of the United Kingdom.

About 30% of Territorians identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, and about three-quarters of Aboriginal Territorians live in remote or very remote communities.

Health-care access is limited. Many communities rely on small remote health clinics that face chronic staff shortages and high turnover.

Northern Territory residents, collectively, suffer from disease and die prematurely about 58% more than the national average. The number of years of life lost by Indigenous Territorians as a result of ill health, poor nutrition and other causes is 3.5 times the number for non-Indigenous residents.

Against this backdrop, introducing voluntary assisted dying raises complex questions. How can Territorians exercise equal choice at the end of life – either with each other or in comparison with Australians in other jurisdictions – when access to doctors, nurses, interpreters, and even reliable internet varies so widely?

Telehealth is a major barrier

Under the Commonwealth criminal code, using “a carriage service” such as a phone or the internet to discuss or arrange assisted dying remains illegal, as it falls under prohibitions on suicide-related material.

A federal court confirmed in 2023 this restriction applies to voluntary assisted dying. For people in remote NT communities, where the nearest doctor might be hundreds of kilometres away, this makes equitable access almost impossible.

Until this issue is resolved, voluntary assisted dying in the NT and elsewhere in Australia can only occur through face-to-face consultations. This is an unrealistic expectation for many rural, remote and frail residents, when telehealth is an accepted part of health care in other areas.

Aboriginal perspectives

Views among Aboriginal Territorians on voluntary assisted dying are diverse and deeply nuanced, as we heard during consultations led by the NT Voluntary Assisted Dying Independent Expert Advisory Panel.

Many Aboriginal organisations told the panel they supported equitable access to all end-of-life services. Others raised cultural, spiritual and religious concerns.

As one community-controlled organisation told the panel:

People might engage better with health services knowing that it could be an option to come back [to Country].

Others expressed unease, noting that assisted dying could conflict with cultural or religious beliefs. One Aboriginal organisation told the panel:

For the older generation, [who have] one foot in the Dreamtime and another in religion, this would probably be really difficult.

In research published earlier this year in the Medical Journal of Australia, we expand on such issues and highlight an important difference in world views.

Western medical models emphasise individual autonomy, while Aboriginal decision-making often happens collectively, in kinship networks.

Voluntary assisted dying laws that require a person to act independently and without influence may not easily align with cultural norms around family consultation and shared decision-making.

Cultural safety and co-design

“Cultural safety” is care that Aboriginal patients and communities define as safe. This will be essential if voluntary assisted dying becomes law. However, it means more than translating forms or providing interpreters. It involves building trust, recognising power imbalances, and ensuring Aboriginal voices are central to governance and service delivery.

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report tabled this month recommends voluntary assisted dying. Like our earlier research, the report calls for co-design with Aboriginal organisations to ensure culturally safe implementation, ongoing consultation, and appropriate training for clinicians.

If the NT does proceed, success will depend on Aboriginal leadership in governance, properly resourced services, and flexibility to adapt as communities engage with the law in their own way.

Voluntary assisted dying in the NT cannot simply be imported from elsewhere. It must be built for the Territory, and with the Territory.

If this article raises issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Griefline on 1300 845 745.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can also contact
13YARN on 13 92 76.

Geetanjali (Tanji) Lamba is a public health physician at NT Health. She was a member of the Northern Territory Chief Minister’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Independent Expert Advisory Panel and medical advisor to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Inquiry into voluntary assisted dying. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of her employers or the NT government.

Kane Vellar works at NT Health as a Staff Specialist in psychiatry, palliative care and psycho-oncology. He undertakes select in-patient private practice after hours with Healthscope at the Darwin Private Hospital. Kane Vellar was a member of the Northern Territory Chief Minister’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Independent Expert Advisory Panel and is a member of the Australian Indigenous Doctors’ Association. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of his employers or the NT government.

Paul Komesaroff has received funding from the NHMRC. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of his employer.

– ref. How voluntary assisted dying in the NT would be different to down south – https://theconversation.com/how-voluntary-assisted-dying-in-the-nt-would-be-different-to-down-south-267429

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gwyn McClelland, Senior Lecturer, Japanese Studies, University of New England

At first, there might not seem to be any immediate similarities between a devastated Nagasaki after the US atomic bombing in 1945 and Gaza today, aside from massive destruction.

But in considering Gaza’s recovery from war – should the current ceasefire hold – much may be gleaned from Nagasaki’s experience and how it managed the painful process of starting over and rebuilding from virtually nothing.

Damage and destruction

The estimates of those killed from the atomic bombings in 1945 range widely from 70,000–140,000 at Hiroshima and 40,000–70,000 at Nagasaki.

In Gaza, the Palestinian health authorities say more than 67,000 Palestinians have died, with many more perhaps buried in the rubble.

In 1945, the US Army dropped an atomic bomb close to the centre of Hiroshima. But in Nagasaki’s case three days later, the plutonium bomb fell a few kilometres to the north of the city in a suburb called Urakami.

The bombing destroyed an area that was socio-economically less well-off, which had an impact on Nagasaki’s recovery, compared with Hiroshima.

Many of those who lived there were minorities, including colonised Korean people, Catholics and outcasts known as buraku.

And just as in Gaza, much of the city infrastructure was decimated. An atomic archive estimates that in Nagasaki, around 61% of city structures were damaged in the bombing, compared with 67% in Hiroshima.

In Gaza, the United Nations Satellite Centre estimates 83% of structures have been damaged from Israeli bombing.

Recovering bodies in a war zone

The aftermath of the bombing shows just how great the needs of the people were in Nagasaki. I conducted an oral history survey with bombing survivors between 2008 and 2016. Twelve of them – mostly children from Catholic families close to Ground Zero at the time of the bombing – detailed their experiences before and after.

After the bombing, many said the unburied dead was a confronting aspect, both physically and spiritually “dangerous”. One survivor, Mine Tōru, told me:

The dead bodies were piled in carts used for rubbish collection and dumped out in an outer area.

Barrels were placed at intersections for the collection of ashes and bones. Meanwhile, the occupying US Army cleared Urakami with bulldozers.

In Swedish journalist Monica Brau’s book, a man named Uchida Tsukasa remembered those bulldozers driving over the bones of the dead in the same way as sand or soil. When someone tried to take a photo, a soldier pointed his gun and threatened to confiscate the pictures. Brau argued that US censorship grossly impaired the recovery in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The clean-up and retrieval of human remains took time. Some six months after the bombing, bones were still being pulled out of the river by a Buddhist Ladies’ Association.

This process is beginning in Gaza today, too. According to news reports, scores of bodies have already been pulled from the rubble since the ceasefire took hold. Estimates suggest there could be as many as 14,000 bodies in the rubble, many of which will never be recovered.

The political challenges of rebuilding

In rehabilitating Gaza, those overseeing the process will also need to ensure the civil liberties of the poor – children and women, in particular – are not infringed upon.

In Nagasaki, some bomb survivors were forced to live in caves that had previously been bomb shelters, including three of those I interviewed.

Fukahori Jōji, who was 16 at the time of the bombing, lost his whole family, including three siblings and his mother. He told me that after the bombing, urban revitalisation and road-widening took over part of his family’s land.

Nagasaki officials were alleged to have used the reconstruction to “clean up” an outcast community.

A writer, Dōmon Minoru, explained how land was acquired compulsorily and cheaply by the council, forcing many residents out: “the Urakami burakumin (outcasts) were neutralised”.

Their landlords sold the land where they had lived and the Nagasaki Council even did away with the name, Urakami town.

As will likely be the case in Gaza, the people of Nagasaki also had to rebuild under an occupation.

US historian Chad Diehl’s powerful book about the rebuilding highlighted the “disconnect” between the American occupiers and Nagasaki residents.

The rebuilding took decades. Diehl explained there are two words for recovery often used in Nagasaki, saiken (reconstruction), which usually refers to the physical rebuilding, and fukkō (revival), which refers to wellbeing – psychological, social and physical.

The wellbeing recovery will surely take even longer than the rebuilding of the physical infrastructure in Gaza.

Hope among the rubble

Another important aspect in recovery from war: the people need to have agency over the process. They shouldn’t just be thought of as survivors of a tragedy – they are integral to the revival of their communities.

Reiko Miyake, a teacher who was 20 at the time of the Nagasaki bombing, told me she returned to teaching at her elementary school a few months later. Only 100 of the 1,500 students at the school survived, and just 19 showed up on the first day.

As holders of memory, these people took on new roles of service for their communities. They were storytellers and rebuilders seeking hope in the face of unbearable loss and ongoing lament.

May such stories of the past encourage the difficult task of recovery in what is a bereft Gaza today.

Gwyn McClelland is the former recipient of a National Library of Australia Fellowship and a Japan Foundation Fellowship. He is the president of the Japanese Studies Association of Australia.

– ref. As Gaza starts to rebuild, what lessons can be learned from Nagasaki in 1945? – https://theconversation.com/as-gaza-starts-to-rebuild-what-lessons-can-be-learned-from-nagasaki-in-1945-267437

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Houlihan, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast

If you regularly scroll health and wellness content online, you’ve no doubt heard of optimising.

Optimisation usually means striving to make something the best it can be – the “optimal” version. A decade ago, it was mainly used to talk about workplace strategy, describing how a positive mindset might increase workers’ productivity.

But more recently it’s exploded in health messaging, not only among influencers and brands who want to sell us something, but also in government public health initiatives and research.

We’re now encouraged to optimise almost anything: our diets, sleep, brain health, gut biome, workout routines and even our lifespan.

This approach is often framed as the path to living a better, longer life, and it might seem empowering. But as a clinical psychologist and researcher, I believe the “optimisation mindset” has many of the hallmarks of perfectionism – a personality trait evidence links to poor mental health.

So, what do the two have in common? And what are some potentially healthier ways to approach things?

What we know about perfectionism

We don’t yet have much research about how adopting an optimisation mindset might affect mental health and wellbeing. But the negative effects of perfectionism are well established.

Perfectionism is a personality trait, meaning it’s stable over time. It involves the constant pursuit of high standards and achieving perfect outcomes. People with this trait are often very preoccupied by the fear of “getting it wrong”.

Perfectionism affects both men and women. It’s more common in people prone to anxiety, as well as high-achieving individuals such as students, athletes and academics.

People who have this trait are also more likely to have depression and low self-esteem.

And it’s one of the key features used to diagnose several mental health conditions, such as obsessive compulsive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and eating disorders.

Many of the thought patterns and feelings that come with “optimising” resemble those in perfectionism. So while optimisation isn’t a personality trait like perfectionism, this mindset may still lead to worse mental health.

What optimisation and perfectionism share

1. Constantly pursuing high standards

This means constantly working towards a goal and focusing on improvement. For example, it’s not enough to simply sleep or eat “well” – we need to strive for the “perfect” night’s sleep, or follow a precise and restrictive diet.

2. Being preoccupied with results

Focusing on certain end goals can become a source of worry and rumination, where you constantly go over the same problems in your head. People may be preoccupied about not meeting their goals perfectly and experience an intense fear of failure.

3. Constantly checking performance

Optimising encourages us to continually measure results to see if we’re improving. For example, by tracking sleep data every night, monitoring muscle gain or counting calories. But these behaviours can increase stress and could even be a sign of health anxiety or obsessive compulsive behaviours.

4. Procrastination and avoidance

People who have an intense fear of failure – of not doing something perfectly – often find starting a task overwhelming. This commonly leads to putting things off or avoiding them altogether. The pressure may be even more intense when we feel we have to “optimise” multiple areas of our lives at once.

5. Black and white thinking

This unhelpful habit is also known as “all or nothing” thinking. Everything is categorised into two opposing groups, with no middle ground. For example, your diet is either “healthy” (perfect and optimal) or “unhealthy” (imperfect and suboptimal). This type of thinking can intensify the fear of failure and avoidance that goes with it.

Finding balance

Some people will find an optimisation mindset helpful, and may not experience any negative effects.

But for others, focusing on optimising will likely carry risks of increased stress, anxiety and worse mental health. People with perfectionism, for example, may be more drawn to optimisation, which could then heighten this trait.

If you want to take a step back from optimising, you could try:

• setting realistic goals by focusing on what’s measurable and achievable, rather than always striving for the best possible outcome

• choosing goals that align with your personal values. For example, enjoying dinner out with friends and family, even if this means you won’t eat the “optimal” meal for health

• taking breaks to reflect on what you’ve already achieved, rather than only focusing on the end point.

If you want to improve your health specifically, always consult with a qualified professional who will help tailor goals to your individual needs.

And if you’re really struggling with perfectionism, anxiety or poor mental health, it’s best to seek help. Your GP can help you identify the problem and recommend evidence-based treatments such as cognitive-behavioural therapy, which can help you reframe unhealthy thinking and behaviour.

Catherine Houlihan 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. Optimising is just perfectionism in disguise. Here’s why that’s a problem – https://theconversation.com/optimising-is-just-perfectionism-in-disguise-heres-why-thats-a-problem-263260

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philip C. Almond, Emeritus Professor in the History of Religious Thought, The University of Queensland

In a series of four lectures, Silicon Valley tech billionaire Peter Thiel has been opining on the Antichrist.

Thiel’s amateur riffing identifies the Antichrist with anyone or any institution that he dislikes – from environmental activist Greta Thunberg to governmental attempts to regulate artificial intelligence.

Thiel’s overall definition of the Antichrist “is that of an evil king or tyrant or anti-messiah who appears in the end times”.

Thiel is aligning himself with a long tradition of identifying the Antichrist as a despotic world emperor who would arise at the end of the world.

By the ninth century, influenced by the Christian idea of the Antichrist, Islam and Judaism each had their own Antichrist figures who would come at the end of history – in Islam, al-Dajjal (the Deceiver), in Judaism, Armilus.

The Christian Antichrist

Drawing together 800 years of earlier Antichrist speculations, the Benedictine monk Adso of Montier-en-der wrote the first life of the Antichrist 1,100 years ago. According to Adso, the Antichrist would be a tyrannical evil king who would corrupt all those around him.

The Antichrist was the opposite of everything Christ-like. According to Christianity, Christ was fully human yet absolutely “sin free”. The Antichrist, too, was fully human, but completely “sin full” – not so much a supernatural being who became flesh as a human being who became completely demonised.

Born in Babylon (present day Iraq), the Antichrist was destined to come at the end of the world and rule over the earth from Jerusalem until he and his supporters were defeated by the forces of Christ at the battle of Armageddon.

Al-Dajjal, the Muslim Antichrist

Although the Dajjal does not appear in the Qur’an, he plays an important role in later Muslim understanding of the end of the world in the Hadith literature – the later collections of the sayings and deeds of Muhammad.

Dajjal was large and stout, of a red complexion, blind in one eye that appeared like a swollen grape, and had big curly hair. His most distinctive feature was the word Kafir (disbeliever) written on his forehead.

There is no declaration in the Hadith literature that the Dajjal would be Jewish, but it was said he would be followed by 70,000 Jews of Isfahan in Iran wearing Persian shawls.

According to the longest of the accounts of the Dajjal in the Hadith, called Sahih Muslim (c.850), he would appear somewhere between Syria and Iraq and spread trouble in all directions. He would stay on the earth for one year and ten weeks.

For those who accepted him, there would be bountiful food. For those who rejected him, there would be drought and poverty. He would walk through the wasteland and say “bring forth your treasures” and they would appear before him like a swarm of bees. He would then call a young man, strike him with a sword and cut him in pieces.

Then, God would send Jesus Christ. He would descend with his hands resting on the shoulders of two angels at the white minaret on the Eastern side of Damascus. Every non-believer would perish at his breath. He would search for the Dajjal, capture him at the gate of the city of Ludd (Lydda) in Israel and kill him.

Armilus, the Jewish Antichrist

Like al-Dajjal, you would recognise Armilus instantly. According to the medieval Prayer of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, he was born in Rome, the child of Satan and a stone in the shape of a beautiful girl.

He was more monstrous in appearance than either the Muslim or the Christian Antichrists. He was a giant, 5.5 metres tall. In several sources, he was reported as having two skulls.

One mid-eighth century tradition reported his hair was dyed, another that it was red, and another that his face was hairy and his forehead leprous. Several reports had him as bald. His eyes were variously malformed – small, deep, red and crooked, one eye small and the other big.

According to the earliest Jewish account of Armilus in Sefer Zerubbabel (or the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel), from between the seventh and ninth centuries, his hands hung down to his green feet. Another text had his right arm only as long as a hand and his left one metre long.

Like the Christian and Muslim Antichrists, he too would come in the end times. Sefer Zerubbabel tells us all those who see him will be terrified. But the Messiah will come “and will blow into his face and kill him”. The Messiah will then gather the Jews in Israel and usher in the Messianic age.

The Antichrist now?

The idea of the Antichrist in Judaism, Christianity and Islam has played a significant role in the histories of these three religions, each asserting its belief in the final victory of good over evil.

The image of the Antichrist remains a powerful one. It speaks to the continuing belief among both believers and non-believers that the course of human history is still to be understood in terms of a world-wide struggle between those on the side of God and the rest on the side of evil.

This division of the world into the good and the evil, patriots and terrorists, angels and demons, whether within or between countries, is one that can never bring any peace to the earth. Best if Thiel – and the rest of us – consign it to history.

Philip C. Almond 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. Peter Thiel thinks Greta Thunberg could be the Antichrist. Here’s how three religions actually describe him – https://theconversation.com/peter-thiel-thinks-greta-thunberg-could-be-the-antichrist-heres-how-three-religions-actually-describe-him-267439

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Professor in Geochronology and Geochemistry, Southern Cross University

When we think of lead poisoning, most of us imagine modern human-made pollution, paint, old pipes, or exhaust fumes.

But our new study, published today in Science Advances, reveals something far more surprising: our ancestors were exposed to lead for millions of years, and it may have helped shape the evolution of the human brain.

This discovery reveals the toxic substance we battle today has been intertwined with the human evolution story from its very beginning.

It reshapes our understanding of both past and present, tracing a continuous thread between ancient environments, genetic adaptation, and the unfolding evolution of human intelligence.

A poison older than humanity itself

Lead is a powerful neurotoxin that disrupts the growth and function of both brain and body. There is no safe level of lead exposure, and even the smallest traces can impair memory, learning and behaviour, especially in children. That’s why eliminating lead from petrol, paint and plumbing is one of the most important public health initiatives.

Yet while analysing ancient teeth at Southern Cross University, we uncovered something wholly unexpected: clear traces of lead sealed within the fossils of early humans and other ancestral species.

These specimens, recovered from Africa, Asia and Europe, were up to two million years old.

Using lasers finer than a strand of hair, we scanned each tooth layer by layer – much like reading the growth rings of a tree. Each band recorded a brief chapter of the individual’s life. When lead entered the body, it left a vivid chemical signature.

These signatures revealed that exposure was not rare or accidental; it occurred repeatedly over time.

Where did this lead come from?

Our findings show that early humans were never shielded from lead by the natural world. On the contrary, it was part of their world too.

The lead we found wasn’t from mining or smelting – those activities are from relatively recent human history.

Instead, it likely came from natural sources such as volcanic dust, mineral-rich soils, and groundwater flowing through lead-bearing rocks in caves. During times of drought or food shortage, early humans might have dug for water or eaten plants and roots that absorbed lead from the soil.

Every fossil tooth we study is a record of survival. A small diary of the early life of the individual, written in minerals instead of words. These ancient traces tell us that even as our ancestors struggled to find food, shelter and community, they were also navigating a world filled with unseen dangers.

From fossil teeth to living brain cells

To understand how this ancient exposure might have affected brain development, we teamed up with geneticists and neuroscientists, and used stem cells to grow tiny versions of human brain tissue, called brain organoids. These small collections of cells have many of the features of developing human brain tissue.

We gave some of these organoids a modern human version of a gene called NOVA1, and others an archaic, extinct version of the gene similar to what Neanderthals and Denisovans carried. NOVA1 is a gene that orchestrates early neurodevelopment. It also initiates the response of brain cells to lead contaminants.

Then, we exposed both sets of organoids to very small, realistic amounts of lead – what ancient humans might have encountered naturally.

The difference was striking. The organoids with the ancient gene showed clear signs of stress. Neural connections didn’t form as efficiently, and key pathways linked to communication and social behaviour were disrupted. The modern-gene organoids, however, were far more resilient.

It seems that somewhere along the evolutionary path, our species may have developed a better built-in protection against the damaging effects of lead.

A story of struggle

The environment – complete with lead exposure – pushed modern human populations to adapt. Individuals with genetic variations that help them resist a threat are more likely to survive and pass those traits to future generations.

In this way, lead exposure may have been one of the many unseen forces that sculpted the human story. By favouring genes that strengthened our brains against environmental stress, it could have subtly shaped the way our neural networks developed, influencing everything from cognition to the early roots of speech and social connection.

This didn’t change the fact lead continues to be a toxic chemical. It remains one of the most damaging substances to our brains.

But evolution often works through struggle – even negative experiences can leave lasting, sometimes beneficial marks on our species.

New context for a modern problem

Understanding our long relationship with lead gives new context to a very modern problem. Despite decades of bans and regulations, lead poisoning remains a global health issue. Most recent estimates from UNICEF show one in three children worldwide still have blood lead levels high enough to cause harm.

Our discovery shows human biology evolved in a world full of chemical challenges. What changed is not the presence of toxic substances, but the intensity of our exposure.

When we look at the past through the lens of science, we don’t just uncover old bones, we uncover ourselves.

In the industrial age, we’ve massively amplified what used to be short and infrequent natural exposure. By studying how our ancestors’ bodies and genes responded to environmental stress, we can learn how to build a healthier, more resilient future.

Renaud Joannes-Boyau receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Manish Arora receives funding from US National Institutes of Health. He is the founder of Linus Biotechnology, a start-up company that develops biomarkers for various health disorders.

Alysson R. Muotri 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. Human ancestors were exposed to lead millions of years ago, and it shaped our evolution – https://theconversation.com/human-ancestors-were-exposed-to-lead-millions-of-years-ago-and-it-shaped-our-evolution-267318

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shannon Brincat, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of the Sunshine Coast

On October 16, 1975, five journalists were killed in the remote Timorese town of Balibo. To this day, no one has been charged with their deaths.

Known as the “Balibo Five”, the men were reporting on the covert Indonesian invasion of Timor-Leste. They were Greg Shackleton and Tony Stewart from Australia, Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters from the United Kingdom, and Gary Cunningham from New Zealand.

Several months later, another Australian journalist, Roger East who went to investigate their disappearance, was executed. His body was never recovered.

Fifty years on, the case remains one of the most egregious examples of atrocities committed against war correspondents. It’s also a chilling case of a state failing to prosecute the murder of its own citizens.

The 1975 invasion

In 1975, Portugal abruptly decolonised Timor-Leste. The left-leaning FRETILIN party declared Timorese independence that November.

Indonesia, motivated by high estimates of oil and gas in the Timor Sea, launched a covert invasion under the pretext of anti-colonial stability.

Indonesian authorities felt they could operate with impunity because of the country’s strategic importance to the West’s fervent anti-communism agenda.

Indeed, it had done so in the previous decade, with mass killings of political dissidents in the 1960s.

It’s against this backdrop that the journalists, or the “Mártires de Balibo” (the Martyrs of Balibo), as they’re called in Timor, arrived to report on the illegal incursion of Indonesian forces. They had been guided to the town by the current Timorese President Jose Ramos-Horta, then in his 20s.

They famously painted the Australian flag on a nearby building they took shelter in, hoping it would protect them from attack. This failed plea remains in Balibo today.

President Ramos-Horta has said in a statement the Balibo tragedy “remains a symbol of the sacrifice of journalists in conflict zones and the struggle for
accountability and justice for war crimes”.

Honouring them as “national martyrs”, the President posthumously awarded the Collar of the Order of Timor-Leste – the nation’s highest honour – to Greg Shackleton (in 2014) and which will be declared to Cunningham, Stewart, Rennie, and Peters at a commemoration services at Balibo today – the Timorese national day for press freedom.

A ‘deliberate killing’

From the perspective of international law, the killings of the Balibo Five constitute a clear set of violations. Journalists are protected under the Geneva Conventions. They were unarmed and identifiable as foreign journalists.

An inquest by the New South Wales coroner in 2007 concluded the journalists had been “deliberately killed” by the Indonesian army to prevent them from reporting on the impending invasion.

This presaged the atrocities to come. While death tolls during Indonesia’s 24-year occupation of Timor-Leste are contested, we know hundreds of thousands of people died, many from forced starvation. Many scholars say Indonesia perpetrated a genocide.

Despite contradictory evidence, Indonesia maintains the five men were killed in crossfire.

Diplomacy over accountability

While the immediate facts of their execution by Indonesian Forces are now widely accepted by others and available in National Archives of Australia records, the subsequent legal and diplomatic story reveals a profound failure of international justice.

The pathway to justice for the Balibo Five has been systematically obstructed by the geopolitical calculus of Australia-Indonesia relations. For decades, the Australian government, regardless of political affiliation, prioritised maintaining a stable and cooperative relationship over pursuing legal accountability, including resisting calls for a full, transparent inquiry.

At the time of the killings, the Australian government had a clear picture of Indonesian intentions and military movements. Yet, it chose not to intervene to protect the journalists and, in the aftermath, has actively downplayed evidence of Indonesian responsibility to preserve diplomatic relations.

Australia also had an economic incentive to work with Indonesia. The two countries signed the Timor Gap Treaty in 1989, allowing both to explore the area’s oil and gas reserves. It’s likely pursuing justice for the Balibo Five would have risked this economic benefit.

Decades of obstruction

Obstructions have been on both sides. In 2003, the United Nations-sponsored Serious Crimes Unit in Timor-Leste indicted former Indonesian officers for the Balibo killings.

But Indonesia refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the Timorese courts over its nationals.

The Rudd government promised a shift in Australia’s response, calling for a robust inquiry. It officially endorsed the findings of the New South Wales coroner in 2007 and opened an Australian Federal Police investigation.

But without Indonesia’s cooperation, an Australian prosecution was impossible as the suspects in Indonesia could not be extradited. Rudd’s actions ultimately collided with the same geopolitical reality that had constrained all previous governments.

This decades-long impunity sends a dangerous message: powerful states can shield their military personnel from accountability for grave international crimes, provided they maintain sufficient strategic importance to their allies.

Australia continues to lag on press freedom, even threatening prosecution of reporters for investigating allegedly unlawful killings by Australian special forces in Afghanistan.

Protecting press freedom

Attacks against journalists globally are increasing at an alarming rate. Even as the Balibo case was re-opening in 2007, the comparison to the deaths of journalists in Palestine was already being made.

More than 210 journalists have since been killed in the recent Gaza crisis. At least 56 of them were intentionally targeted, according to Reporters Without Borders.

With this in mind, alongside the Balibo Five anniversary, there must be a renewed and unwavering commitment to protect journalists. They are the eyes and ears of the international community, especially in conflict zones. Their work is protected under international law, not as a privilege, but as a necessity.

Half a century on, the Balibo Five are remembered as martyrs for press freedom, yet justice remains elusive.

For the Timorese, the unresolved case symbolises the unfinished business of their struggle. It’s a painful reminder that while their nation is now free, the full truth and reconciliation with its past and powerful neighbours remain incomplete.

Shannon Brincat 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. It’s been 50 years since the Balibo 5 were killed in Timor-Leste. No one’s been held accountable – https://theconversation.com/its-been-50-years-since-the-balibo-5-were-killed-in-timor-leste-no-ones-been-held-accountable-266145

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cher McGillivray, Assistant Professor in Psychology, Bond University

Former tennis champion-turned-commentator Jelena Dokic this week revealed she had sought to reconcile with her abusive father as an adult. He never, however, apologised or showed remorse for the physical and psychological abuse he meted out to her throughout her childhood.

“In fact,” she told the ABC, “he said he would do it all again.”

As a psychologist, I found his response shocking but sadly unsurprising. Many parents and caregivers who abused their children will never apologise for the harm they have done; many won’t acknowledge or admit the abuse happened at all.

For the millions of victim-survivors around the world, this can be incredibly confusing and confronting. It can be hard to stop seeking that acknowledgement and apology from your abuser.

So, why does this happen, and what can victim-survivors do?

Shame and silence

Victims of child abuse often find denial by perpetrator or family protectors who dismiss and shift blame deeply traumatising. Feelings of powerlessness, fear and self-blame often follow.

It’s natural to want an apology; as history shows, apologies matter.

But apologies are deeply tied to shame for both survivors and their perpetrators. A genuine apology requires a shared understanding of what happened and why it was unjust.

Many perpetrators, however, lack self-confidence, impulse control and empathy. This often manifests as a string of failed peer and marital relationships marred by abuse, dysfunction and distress.

They may also genuinely believe corporal punishment is an effective method of disciplining a child. A vast body of research shows it causes many more problems than it solves.

Sadly, many parents who abuse were also abused as children themselves. They may believe the abuse they dished out was “nothing” compared to what they received, which (in their mind) justifies their own behaviour.

Things can get even more complex when the parent is abusing drugs or alcohol; their child may need to take on a lot of responsibility at a young age. This is sometimes referred to as “parentification” (when the child has to parent their parent).

An apology shifts the weight of blame from victim to perpetrator. But what can you do if your abuser refuses to accept blame?

Don’t expect the person to heal you

Start by understanding that what happened to you wasn’t your fault.

Ask yourself whether it’s actually helping you to wait for an apology from someone with no capacity, intention or ability to provide the apology you deserve.

Think carefully about whether you still – consciously or unconsciously – seek your abuser’s approval, and where else in life you can find that approval or acceptance.

Don’t expect the person who hurt you to heal you. You are able to pull yourself out.

Find people who believe you and share your story. Talk to a trusted family member or friend, or therapist. Recovery from maltreatment can be enhanced with therapy, including interventions involving family and child-focused interventions and parent training.

Ending intergenerational abuse isn’t easy, but it’s possible

Research has shown abusive parents can process their own past traumas and vulnerabilities.

Talk therapy with a psychologist or other mental health provider is particularly effective for parents who have experienced maltreatment themselves, especially when unresolved personal trauma may hinder acknowledgement and an apology.

But keep your expectations realistic.

If your abusive parent acknowledges your trauma, then they have to admit they failed you in some crucial way. Many are incapable of admitting this truth to themselves – but others, with the right support, might be able to take that step.

If your abuser can’t or won’t, do not let their internalised shame keep you in darkness.

Believe in your own intrinsic goodness and work to rebuild connections with yourself and others.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

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.

Cher McGillivray 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 won’t my abusive parent admit they were wrong and apologise? – https://theconversation.com/why-wont-my-abusive-parent-admit-they-were-wrong-and-apologise-267420

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Jayne Carle, Postdoctoral Researcher in Tropical Forest Ecology, Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, WSU, Australian National University

One approach to help fight climate change is to protect natural forests, as they absorb some atmospheric carbon released by burning fossil fuels and store large volumes of carbon.

Our new research on Australia’s tropical rainforests challenges the assumption that they will keep absorbing more carbon than they release.

We found that as climate change has intensified over the past half-century, less and less carbon has been taken up and converted to wood in the stems and branches of the trees in these forests. Woody biomass is a large and relatively stable store of carbon in forests, and acts as an important indicator of overall forest health.

The effect has been so pronounced that the woody biomass of these forests has gone from being a carbon sink to a carbon source. This means carbon is being lost to the atmosphere due to trees dying faster than it is being replaced by tree growth.

This is the first time woody biomass in tropical forests has been shown to switch from sink to source. Our research indicates the shift likely happened about 25 years ago.

It remains to be seen whether Australian tropical forests are a harbinger for other tropical forests globally.

What did we find?

Since 1971, scientists have tracked around 11,000 trees in 20 tracts of tropical rainforest in Australia’s far northeast, now part of the Queensland Permanent Rainforest Plots Network. This 49-year research effort is one of the world’s longest and most comprehensive of its kind.

We analysed this long-term data and found a clear signal: woody biomass switched from being a carbon sink to a carbon source about 25 years ago.

Why? One reason: trees are dying twice as fast as they used to.

Tropical rainforest tree species are adapted to generally warm, wet conditions. As the climate changes, they are subjected to increasingly extreme temperatures and drier conditions.These kinds of extreme climate events can damage wood and leaves, limiting future growth and leading to higher rates of tree death.

We also found tree deaths from cyclones reduced how much carbon these forests could absorb. Cyclones in far north Queensland are projected to become increasingly severe under climate change. They are also likely to push further south, potentially affecting new areas of forest.

Isn’t carbon dioxide plant food?

Burning fossil fuels and other human activities have increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. This should make it easier for plants to absorb CO₂ from the air, photosynthesise and grow. Given this, Earth system models predict higher atmospheric CO₂ levels will stimulate plant growth and increase how much carbon tropical forests can take up.

Also, remote sensing shows the canopies of tropical forests on Australia’s east coast are about 20% greener than they were in the 1980s. This suggests forest canopy growth has increased due to higher levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere. But this isn’t the whole picture.

Our data shows any potential increase in photosynthesis resulting in greener forest canopies has not translated to greater carbon storage in stems and branches.

The reason may be that tree growth can be limited by water, nutrients and heat. Our work suggest that warmer and drier conditions have limited tree growth even as CO₂ concentration has increased.

In a separate study, scientists artificially increased CO₂ and found the extra carbon taken up by leaves wasn’t being stored as extra woody growth. Rather, it was quickly released through roots and soil microbes.

What about other forest carbon stocks?

It will be challenging to find out whether these forests as a whole (including wood, roots, leaves and soils) have declined in carbon sink capacity.

The use of a specialised research tool known as eddy covariance towers could help, as these measure overall CO₂ movement into and out of ecosystems.

As of yet, only 15 years of this kind of data from three tropical Australian sites is available, which currently limits our ability to describe the fuller impact of climate change.

In any case, we know carbon stored in forest canopies and soils is often broken down and released back to the atmosphere faster than carbon in woody biomass.

So while Australia’s tropical rainforest carbon stores remain large, they may be less secure and reliable than in decades past.

Long term datasets are vital

When people visit Australia’s tropical rainforests, they can see intact stretches of biodiverse forest and large, carbon-rich trees. It’s hard to directly see the changes we have detected – for now, they’re only visible in the data.

Without high-quality long-term datasets, this signal would have been almost impossible to detect. Unfortunately, persistent funding shortages for long-term ecological monitoring threaten the continuity of these hugely valuable datasets.

Australia has the potential to assume a globally leading role in tropical ecosystem science. In light of state and national biodiversity and emission reduction commitments, Australian governments should support continued monitoring of vital ecological research sites.

Tropical forests may not be saviours

The fact that woody biomass in Australia’s tropical rainforests is now a net source of carbon has major implications.

These findings challenge our future reliance on forests as natural absorbers of extra atmospheric carbon.

We don’t know yet whether all tropical forests will respond similarly. Evidence on carbon sink capacity is mixed. Rainforests in South America are showing a decline while African rainforests are generally not.

Overall, the world’s tropical forests remain very significant stores of carbon and biodiversity. Their protection remains essential despite the climate risks they face.

Hannah Jayne Carle is affiliated with the Queensland Permanent Rainforest Plots network.

Adrienne Nicotra receives funding from the Australian Research Council and NCRIS.

Michael N Evans has received funding from the Royal Society of London and the Wolfson Foundation (UK).

Patrick Meir currently receives funding for research from the UK NERC, the Royal Society (UK), the UK government and the USA NSF

David Bauman 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. A crucial store of carbon in Australia’s tropical forests has switched from carbon sink to carbon source – https://theconversation.com/a-crucial-store-of-carbon-in-australias-tropical-forests-has-switched-from-carbon-sink-to-carbon-source-262955

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Hartigan, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney

The price of gold surged above US$4,100 (A$6,300) an ounce on Wednesday for the first time, taking this year’s extraordinary rally to more than 50%.

The speed of the upswing has been much faster than analysts had predicted and brings the total gains to nearly 100% since the current run started in early 2024.

The soaring price of gold has captured investors’ hearts and wallets and resulted in long lines of people forming outside gold dealers in Sydney to get their hands on the precious metal.

What explains the soaring price of gold?

A number of reasons have been suggested to explain the current record run for gold. These include greater economic uncertainties from ballooning government debt levels and the current US government shutdown.

There are also growing worries about the independence of the US Federal Reserve. If political interference pushes down US interest rates, that could see a resurgence in inflation. Gold is traditionally seen as a hedge against inflation.

But these factors are unlikely to be the main reasons behind the meteoric rise in gold prices.

For starters, the price of gold has been on a sustained upward trajectory for the past few years. That’s well before any of those factors emerged as an issue.

The more likely explanation for the current gold price rally is growing demand from gold exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

These funds track the movements of gold, or other assets such as stocks or bonds, and are traded on the stock exchange. This makes assets such as commodities much more accessible to investors.

Before the first gold ETF was launched in 2003, it was considered too difficult for regular investors to get gold exposure.

Now gold ETFs are widely available, gold can be traded like any other financial asset. This appears to be changing investors’ view of gold’s traditional role as a safe-haven asset in times of political or financial turmoil, when other assets such as stocks are more risky.

In addition to retail investor demand, some emerging market economies – notably China and Russia – are switching their official reserve assets out of currencies such as the US dollar and into gold.

According to the International Monetary Fund, central bank holdings of physical gold in emerging markets have risen 161% since 2006 to be around 10,300 tonnes.

To put this into perspective, emerging market gold holdings grew by only 50% over the 50 years to 2005.

Research suggests the reason for the switch into gold by emerging market economies is the increasing use of financial sanctions by the US and other governments that represent the major reserve currencies (the US dollar, euro, Japanese yen, and British pound).

Indeed, Russia became a net buyer of gold in 2006 and accelerated its gold purchases following its annexation of Crimea in 2014. It now has one of the largest stockpiles in the world.

Meanwhile, China has been selling down its holdings of US government bonds and switching to buying gold in a process referred to as “de-dollarisation”. It wants to reduce its dependency on the US currency.

Emerging market central banks also lifted their gold holdings after Russia’s exclusion from the international payments system known as SWIFT and a proposal by US and European governments to seize Russian central bank reserves to help fund support for Ukraine.

Further de-dollarisation efforts by emerging market economies are expected to continue. Many of these economies now view the major Western currencies as carrying unwanted risk of financial sanctions. This is not the case with gold. This could mean financial sanctions become a less effective policy tool in the future.

Could gold have further to run?

Ongoing demand from Russia and China, and investor demand for gold ETFs, means the gold price could rally further. Both factors represent sustained increases in demand, in addition to existing demand for jewellery and electronics.

Further price rises will likely fuel increased ETF inflows via the “fear of missing out” effect.

The World Gold Council last week reported record monthly inflows in September. For the September quarter as a whole, ETF inflows topped US$26 billion and for the nine months to September, fund inflows totalled US$64 billion.

In contrast, emerging market central bank demand for gold is less affected by price and more driven by geopolitical factors, which supports increasing demand for gold.

Based on these two drivers, analysts at Goldman Sachs have already revised up their price target for gold to US$4,900 an ounce by the end of the 2026.

Why gold’s rise is a win for Australia

What does the current gold rally mean for Australia?

As the world’s third-largest producer of gold, with at least 19% of known deposits, Australia will benefit from further increases in gold prices.

In fact, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources now expects the value of gold exports to overtake liquefied natural gas exports next year.

This will see gold become our second-most important export behind that other “precious” metal: iron ore.

Luke Hartigan receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP230100959).

– ref. The price of gold is skyrocketing. Why is this, and will it continue? – https://theconversation.com/the-price-of-gold-is-skyrocketing-why-is-this-and-will-it-continue-267004

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By George Buchanan, Deputy Dean, School of Computing Technologies, RMIT University

The hope of the world wide web, according to its creator Tim Berners-Lee, was that it would make communication easier, bring knowledge to all, and strengthen democracy and connection. Instead, it seems to be driving us apart into increasingly small and angry splinter groups. Why?

We have commonly blamed online echo chambers, digital spaces filled with people who largely share the same beliefs – or filter bubbles, the idea that algorithms tend to show us content we are likely to agree with.

However, these concepts have both been challenged by a number of studies. A 2022 study led by one of us (Dana), which tracked the social media behaviours of ten respondents, found people often engage with content they disagree with – even going so far as to seek it out.

When an individual engages with a disagreeable post on social media – whether it’s “rage bait” or something else that offends you – it drives income for the platform. But on a societal scale, it drives antisocial outcomes.

One of the worst of these outcomes is “affective polarisation”, where we like people who think similarly to us, and dislike or resent people who hold different views. Research and global surveys both show this form of polarisation is growing across the world.

Changing the economics of social media platforms would likely reduce online polarisation. But this won’t be possible without intervention from governments, and each of us.

How our views get reinforced online

Social media use has been associated with growing affective polarisation.

Online, we can be influenced by the opinions of people we agree or disagree with – even on topics we had previously been neutral towards. For instance, if there’s an influencer you admire, and they express a view on a new law you hadn’t thought much about, you’re more likely to adopt their viewpoint on it.

When this happens on a large scale, it gradually separates us into ideological tribes that disagree on multiple issues: a phenomenon known as “partisan sorting”.

Research shows our encounters on social media can lead to us developing new views on a topic. It also shows how any searches we do to get more insight can solidify these emerging views, as the results are likely to contain the same language as the original post that gave us the view in the first place.

For example, if you see a post that inaccurately claims taking paracetamol during pregnancy will give your baby autism, and you search for other posts using the key words “paracetamol pregnancy autism”, you will probably get more of the same.

Being in a heightened emotional state has been linked to higher susceptibility to believing false or “fake” content.

Why are we fed polarising content?

This is where the economics of the internet come in. Divisive and emotionally laden posts are more likely to get engagement (such as likes, shares and comments), especially from people who strongly agree or disagree, and from provocateurs. Platforms will then show these posts to more people, and the cycle of engagement continues.

Social media companies leverage our tendency towards divisive content to drive engagement, as this leads to more advertising money for them. According to a 2021 report from the Washington Post, Facebook’s ranking algorithm once treated emoji reactions (including anger) as five times more valuable than “likes”.

Simulation-based studies have also revealed how anger and division drive online engagement. One simulation (in a yet to be peer-reviewed paper) used bots to show that any platform measuring its success and income by engagement (currently all of them) would be most successful if it boosted divisive posts.

Where are we headed?

That said, the current state of social media need not also be its future.

People are now spending less time on social media than they used to. According to a recent report from the Financial Times, time spent on social media peaked in 2022 and has since been declining. By the end of 2024, users aged 16 and older spent 10% less time on social platforms than they did in 2022.

Droves of users are also leaving bigger “mainstream” platforms for ones that reflect their own political leanings, such as the left-wing BlueSky, or the right-wing Truth Social. While this may not help with polarisation, it signals many people are no longer satisfied with the social media status quo.

Internet-fuelled polarisation has also resulted in real costs to government, both in mental health and police spending. Consider recent events in Australia, where online hate and misinformation have played a role in neo-Nazi marches, and the cancellation of events run by the LGBTQIA+ community, due to threats.

For those of us who remain on social media platforms, we can individually work to change the status quo. Research shows greater tolerance for different views among online users can slow down polarisation. We can also give social media companies less signals to work from, by not re-sharing or promoting content that’s likely to make others irate.

Fundamentally, though, this is a structural problem. Fixing it will mean reframing the economics of online activity to increase the potential for balanced and respectful conversations, and decrease the reward for producing and/or engaging with rage bait. And this will almost certainly require government intervention.

When other products have caused harm, governments have regulated them and taxed the companies responsible. Social media platforms can also be regulated and taxed. It may be hard, but not impossible. And it’s worth doing if we want a world where we’re not all one opinion away from becoming an outcast.

Dana McKay has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Digital Health Agency, and Google (this last ruing her PhD).

George Buchanan 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 world wide web was meant to unite us, but is tearing us apart instead. Is there another way? – https://theconversation.com/the-world-wide-web-was-meant-to-unite-us-but-is-tearing-us-apart-instead-is-there-another-way-266253

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Kear, Sessional Lecturer, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

Despite the euphoria surrounding the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, Gaza is still wracked with violence.

More than two dozen Palestinians have been killed in recent days in clashes between Hamas and members of various clans. Hamas has also reportedly executed blindfolded men in a public square.

With the Israeli military withdrawing to pre-determined ceasefire lines, Hamas members are beginning to re-assert their control. However, powerful clans are also jockeying for position – some allied to Hamas’ ideological rival, the West Bank-based Fatah movement, and some backed by Israel.

So, who are these clans? What role do they play in Gaza? And how much of a threat are they to Hamas?

Who are the clans?

Familial clans have existed in Palestinian society for centuries. In recent decades, they have come to play a key role in Palestinian politics.

The clans are primarily collections of family groups in various parts of Gaza. One of the largest and most well-armed is the Dughmush clan in Gaza City, headed by Mumtaz Dughmush. This clan was immediately targeted by Hamas after the ceasefire.

The al-Majayda clan also holds sway in part of Khan Younis. Hamas forces raided their neighbourhood earlier this month, killing several family members. This week, however, the clan publicly supported Hamas’ effort to regain control over Gaza.

Importantly, these clans and their relationships with Hamas and Fatah are dynamic and constantly evolving. Members of both Hamas and Fatah also belong to clans. This often leads to clashes over territory and control, with clan loyalties often outweighing movement allegiances.

As Israeli historian Dror Ze’evi notes, any attempt by Hamas or Fatah to disarm the clans would be seen as an affront and met with serious opposition.

A long history of entrenched power

After the 1948 war that saw the creation of Israel and the Palestinian al-naqbah (or Nakba), around 750,000 Palestinians fled Israel to the Gaza Strip, West Bank and neighbouring Arab states.

This was when clans began to assume traditional roles of mediators and patrons. Their organised structures made them best-placed to provide welfare and assistance to a shattered Palestinian society.

As law and order, security and financial independence improved in the territories in the subsequent decades, Palestinians came to rely less on their support. This brought a decline in their power and influence.

This changed, though, during the First Intifada (1987–93) and Second Intifada (2000–05) when Palestinian society was again plunged into crisis. This was especially true in the Gaza Strip, which was known as the engine room of organised Palestinian resistance.

The Second Intifada, in particular, changed the role of the clans significantly, after Israel destroyed much of the organised Palestinian security forces and infrastructure in the territories.

With neither Hamas nor Fatah able to ensure the safety of Palestinians, this created a security vacuum. And some of the clans exploited this by transforming into paramilitary organisations. Again, this was especially true in the Gaza Strip, where Israel’s efforts to crush Palestinian resistance were felt most intensely.

When the Second Intifada ended, the Gazan clans retained a significant amount of political influence and military power. After Hamas won the 2006 elections, some Fatah-aligned clans tried to prevent it from taking power.

So entrenched were these clans that when Hamas finally assumed control of Gaza in 2007, it took the movement a year to effectively bring the more powerful clans under its authority. Even then, it was more of a truce than a victory for Hamas.

Israel backing Hamas rivals

This status quo remained until Hamas’ October 7 2023 terrorist attacks on Israel. Israel’s revenge for these attacks devastated the Gaza Strip, once again robbing Gazans of any semblance of safety and security.

Now, with Israel’s partial troop withdrawal, another security vacuum has been created. And many clans appear keen to fill it, some with the help of Israel.

In June, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted his government was arming some Gazan clans, gangs and militias, such as the Popular Forces, led by Yasser Abu Shabab.

Netanyahu’s rationale was that any opposition to Hamas helped Israel and saved soldiers’ lives. It also pitted Palestinian against Palestinian, placing additional pressure on Hamas.

After the ceasefire came into effect, Hamas began targeting what it called
“collaborators and traitors” – an apparent reference to those clans and gangs cooperating with Israel.

The Popular Forces, meanwhile, have refused to lay down their arms. A dozen other new militias have also reportedly emerged across the strip in recent days, including one led by Hossam al-Astal, who said:

Hamas was always betting that there won’t be any alternative to replace them in Gaza, but now I’m telling you, today, there is an alternative force to Hamas. It could be me or Abu Shabab or anyone else, but alternatives today exist.

While this violence between Hamas and rival groups does not directly affect the ceasefire that ended the war, it is evidence that Israel is still attempting to meddle in Gaza’s security and exert its control.

But the peace plan negotiated by US President Donald Trump looks shakier by the day, given its call for Hamas to disarm. Trump said this week if Hamas refused to disarm themselves, “we will disarm them […] perhaps violently”.

The peace plan also calls for Hamas to withdraw from Palestinian politics, to be replaced eventually by the Palestinian Authority, which currently administers parts of the West Bank. However, Netanyahu has repeatedly rejected the Palestinian Authority assuming control of Gaza.

This ambiguity over the future governance of Gaza opens the possibility that the more powerful clans could become alternate centres of political power, as they had during the Second Intifada. This time they may do so under the auspices of Israel’s military occupation.

This would further fracture Gaza and weaken any effort by the Palestinian Authority to reunite the territories under a single governance structure. It would also make a future Palestinian state tenuous.

Also, Hamas will not go quietly. And this is a very real danger to peace and security in Gaza, especially if Hamas sees any resistance to its authority from the clans as little more than a proxy war with Israel.

Martin Kear 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. Hamas is battling powerful clans for control in Gaza – who are these groups and what threat do they pose? – https://theconversation.com/hamas-is-battling-powerful-clans-for-control-in-gaza-who-are-these-groups-and-what-threat-do-they-pose-267446

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

Victorian Liberal senator James Paterson has, figuratively speaking, taken his Liberal colleagues by the scruffs of their necks and given them a good shake. His blunt message is, get out of your funk and cooperate in rebuilding the house.

In his Tuesday Tom Hughes Oration, Paterson did put it more politely, but he still didn’t mince words. “We must call time on the apology tour,” he said. “[We must] resolve our internal differences about our direction amicably”, he said (stressing both the importance and the difficulty of this), and “develop a coherent and compelling alternative policy agenda”.

Debate and discipline have to be balanced, which means “there is a time limit on this soul-searching process.

“We must do it now at the start of the term so it does not drag on forever. An ongoing mass public therapy session doesn’t exactly scream ‘ready for government’.”

There was more. Forget being tempted to ape Nigel Farage’s right wing Reform Party that’s doing so well in the United Kingdom. Apart from anything else – and Paterson expressed scepticism about what Reform preaches – he pointed out the obvious. Lurching off in that direction won’t work in our compulsory voting system.

Nor should the Liberals “become a free market version of the Teals, which accepts the cultural zeitgeist and contests no social agendas advanced by the left”.

And certainly they should forget the idea of a split in the party on ideological grounds. That “would be about as successful for us as Labor’s split in the 1950s was for them”.

“Instead, we must seek to understand and incorporate the reasonable concerns of the good faith actors on the right who today express dissatisfaction with the direction of the Liberal Party.”

Of course the adjectives are significant: what are “reasonable” concerns, and who are “good faith” actors will be, to an extent, in the eyes of beholders.

Paterson, who is finance spokesman and a member of the leadership team, is seen as one of the best talents in the much-depleted Liberals.

He’s a skilled attack dog. After Andrew Hastie’s dummy spit, he stepped in temporarily as acting home affairs spokesman, and last week gave the government an awkward time in Senate estimates over the ISIS brides.

If positions were based on merit Paterson, not Michaelia Cash, would be Liberal leader in the Senate.

Paterson is now taking it upon himself to analyse his party’s parlous situation, to make suggestions about what needs to be done (as well as warning what should not be done), and to argue to the demoralised and fractious troops that they can actually do it.

On Wednesday Liberal Leader Sussan Ley was initially coy when pressed about whether Paterson had discussed his speech with her before delivering it. Later she said she had read it beforehand.

Who really cares what she knew of it? There was hardly anything Paterson said to which Ley could reasonably object and indeed, this was the sort of speech she should be giving.

Paterson’s contribution is important not just for its content, but for who he is – a conservative who voted for Angus Taylor after the election but is supporting Ley’s leadership. That’s at least for the time being.

His support is especially important when radical conservatives such as Hastie and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price are rejecting her leadership (despite Hastie’s declarations on the contrary). If Ley loses a pragmatic conservative like Paterson, she’s probably done for.

Paterson frankly acknowledged and used history to make his points, including the failure to make generational change (from John Howard to Peter Costello before the 2007 election) and misreading electoral victories (after 2019).

On the tricky debate about whether the party’s eyes should be primarily on the “base” or on swinging voters in the centre, Paterson argued this was a “false choice”.

“We need to appeal to both our traditional supporters and swinging voters. It is only a question of sequence,” he said. He advocated starting with the base (with support for the flag, the ANZAC tradition, Australia Day and the like): symbols important to the base that do not turn off the swinging voters.

Paterson’s faith in such sequencing, let alone the practical management of it, does seem overly optimistic. Juggling the base and the appeal to the swingers is at best a delicate operation and can at times become near impossible.

In broad terms, Paterson wants the Liberals to land on “a policy agenda based on limited government, free markets and lower taxes”. Making that fit together in the contemporary world, however will require a big juggling effort. Let alone crafting politically acceptable detail.

“At the same time, we must not shy away from important debates about our culture, identity and sovereignty which are not going away in an age of disruption, and which matter so much to our supporters,” he said.

The Liberal party is full of those who see the glass as half empty if not drained altogether. Paterson is seeking to present it – at least publicly – as potentially half full.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Liberal frontbencher James Paterson delivers some sharp messages to his party – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-liberal-frontbencher-james-paterson-delivers-some-sharp-messages-to-his-party-267223