Spring in Australia has arrived like a celebration. Magpies are warbling in the morning, wildflowers are bursting open across bushland, and the air is humming with life as tiny creatures have stirred back into action after the winter: bees darting between flowers, dragonflies skimming across ponds, and swarms of flying ants mating.
But we are largely blind to Australia’s insects, and more specifically, what has happened to them over years and decades. That’s because Australia – despite having some of the richest insect biodiversity on the planet – doesn’t have long-term datasets about insects. And because of this, we don’t have a coordinated way to know whether our native bees, butterflies, or even pest species are stable, declining, or booming.
But we can all help address this knowledge gap, and now is the perfect time of the year to do so.
Huge changes in insect numbers
Depending on where we look, and which insects we look at, we are seeing huge changes in insect populations.
For example, Europe’s long-running insect monitoring programs, such as the Krefeld study in Germany, have revealed dramatic declines in flying insect biomass, with losses of up to 75% over three decades.
The lack of similar monitoring programs and long-term data about insect populations in Australia is already having consequences. Take the bogong moth.
Once so abundant its migrations darkened the skies of eastern Australia, its numbers have plummeted by more than 99% in some areas in recent years. The mountain pygmy possum, an endangered species that depends on these moths for spring feeding, is now struggling to survive without its main food source.
This cascading effect is a stark reminder that when insect populations collapse, everything that depends on them – plants, animals, even people – can feel the impact.
Yet, we only noticed the bogong moth crash after it happened. Without consistent monitoring, we simply don’t have a baseline to detect change early – let alone prevent it.
In recent years, bogong moth numbers in Australia have plummeted by more than 99% in some areas. davidcsimon/iNaturalist, CC BY-ND
Why spring matters for data collection
Spring is when insect life explodes into action. It’s when pollinators emerge to feed and breed, when decomposers such as beetles and flies begin their crucial work recycling nutrients, and when countless species begin to build the food webs that sustain ecosystems through the year.
Miss the spring data collection window, and you miss the moment when insect activity is at its peak. It’s like trying to understand traffic flow in a city by observing it at 3am instead of during peak hour.
Without good insect data, we can’t track shifts in emergence times that are changing due to warming temperatures (aphids are emerging up to a month earlier in the United Kingdom), or notice if key species are missing altogether.
That makes it harder to support agriculture, manage ecosystems, or respond to biodiversity loss in a meaningful way.
The need for a national monitoring network
For years Australian entomologists have been calling for a national insect monitoring network, one that collects regular, standardised data across ecosystems and seasons.
While not a fully fledged national network, initiatives such as Butterflies Australia demonstrate the potential of citizen science to contribute to long-term monitoring through standardised protocols and broad public participation.
Beyond conservation and risk detection, a national monitoring network would also play a critical role in discovering new species. Many of Australia’s invertebrates remain undocumented, and ongoing monitoring can lead to significant scientific discoveries.
One recent discovery came from a citizen science project where students helped identify a previously unknown wasp species in suburban Perth. This highlights the potential of a national-scale approach to not only track what we know, but also uncover what we don’t know.
While Australia still lacks a national insect monitoring network, you can help fill the data gaps right now. Whether you’re a budding naturalist, a student, or simply curious about the life around you, there are ways to get involved in building the baseline scientists urgently need.
The Christmas Beetle Count runs every summer and involves taking photos of Christmas beetles to help researchers understand if their populations have declined. From this initiative, we have been able to see Christmas beetles that have not been observed in decades.
The Great Southern Bioblitz is a big citizen science project, where users of iNaturalist are encouraged to upload photos of all kinds of nature to the website. Its goal is to increase our knowledge of southern hemisphere nature.
If you’ve got kids and want to observe nature, the app Seek provides a safer environment for children to take photos and contribute to citizen science.
On a more local scale, you can join a local initiative run by some councils and environmental groups, such as Moth Night and the Sutherland Shire Beetle Hunt.
Insects are the unsung heroes of our ecosystems, pollinating crops, recycling nutrients, feeding birds, and much more. By getting involved in citizen science, you’re not just collecting data, you’re laying the groundwork for a national monitoring system Australia urgently needs, and ensuring we notice what’s changing before it’s too late.
Eliza Middleton received funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with Accounting for Nature, and is a forum member of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures.
Caitlyn Forster is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia.
Bans in public policy are a blunt instrument with a mixed track record of success. Some issues are better suited to a ban than others.
So what determines the success or failure of banning and what can be done instead?
A brief history
Bans, differing in scope, method and duration, have featured in public policy over time and across a range of areas. These have mostly been aimed at preventing harm.
These can be blanket bans (such as recreational vaping), or efforts to strongly disincentivise certain things.
Gun control laws worked to disincentivise gun ownership. Following the national gun buyback scheme after the Port Arthur Massacre, there was not a single mass shooting in Australia for more than 20 years.
Australia was also the first country in the world to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products. The move aimed to discourage people from taking up smoking and reduce the appeal for those who already smoked.
A 2015 independent study found 25% of the decline in smoking prevalence was attributable to plain packaging.
Slow off the mark
In other areas, preventative action has been slow at state and federal levels.
For instance, when the Whitlam government first moved in 1973 to phase out tobacco advertising, the United Kingdom and United States had already banned it.
The connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer had been evident since the 1920s. Twostudies had been published in the 1950s linking smoking to lung cancer, but the tobacco lobby had been searingly strong.
But Australian governments have lacked the political will to do much about it, including banning gambling ads.
How do we change behaviour?
Something all these policies have in common is the aim to change people’s behaviour to reduce harm.
But key to this is establishing whether you need policy to change a population’s behaviour, or policy to change the behaviour of individual people, or both.
In the field of public health, for instance, the most important thing to work out is whether you are dealing with sick individuals (treating the person at high personal risk of disease) or a sick population (which means focusing on modifying environmental or societal factors causing disease across the population).
By focusing on solutions at the level of the individual, we have often led public policy astray by neglecting to address the broader picture.
So how can make policy for all of society?
We can learn a lot about societal solutions from a somewhat unlikely case study: reducing salt intake.
Salt is an essential micronutrient and a much-needed preservative. But high salt consumption is linked to elevated blood pressure and hypertension, largely due to the sodium contained in salts.
Many studies have researched peoples’ blood pressure problems and left it up to them to change their daily habits
Salt intake has often been left to individual people to manage, but salt is everywhere and can be hard to avoid. Emmy Smith/Unsplash
We made this replacement in households, shops, bakeries. And with food street vendors, community kitchens and restaurants. It was a “mass replacement” for the entire population.
The result was not only reduced high blood pressure in all villages, including in young adults, but was also fewer new cases of hypertension. The reduced availability of salt led to better outcomes at the individual, population and system levels.
Social media, like salt, is also widely available and part of everyday life. Asking people not to use it for their own good is rarely effective in the face social pressure. This is why restricting access to those under 16 is a good example of policy to reduce harm at the population level.
Providing real alternatives
But as any parent or salty food fan will know, when you take something away, you need to offer something in its place.
The Peru study didn’t ban salt, it replaced it. When supermarkets phased out plastic bags, biodegradable or paper ones were provided instead. People trying to drink less can buy non-alcoholic alternatives.
For broad restrictions to be effective, there needs to be, among other things, an alternative: something that actually fulfils the deep, underlying human needs that were fuelling use in the first place.
This is a central challenge to the social media ban. If the desired replacement is real social connection, there needs to be a clear way to achieve it. Accessible and engaging after-school care has high potential in this regard.
Framing the debate
The way we talk about banning something also contributes to its effectiveness and public support.
Prohibition means stopping someone from doing something, potentially something they used to be able to do. That can create a sense of deprivation.
Alternatively, if people believe something is worth abolishing (not just prohibiting), they think it allows them to have greater freedom to live lives they value.
The ban on single-use plastics focuses on harm reduction for the environment. Although it took some 20 years for all states and territories to ban them, it’s been relatively uncontroversial. The benefits are significant and the substitutes feel good.
One of the challenges with the social media ban is the way it is seen (by adults and kids alike) as the adults taking something away from the kids, thereby prohibiting it.
Instead, the government could frame the ban differently. They could say by abolishing social media use for under 16 year olds, it gives kids the best possible childhood, free of online harm.
Overall, good public policy to reduce harm assesses whether the action should be individual or society-wide, offers an effective replacement and frames the change positively. As we head towards the December 10 implementation of the social media ban, these will be important factors for the government to consider.
Kate Harrison Brennan was an advisor to Prime Minister Julia Gillard. She has received funding from the Paul Ramsay Foundation for the Australia Cares project at the Sydney Policy Lab. The Sydney Policy Lab has: a project with funding from a Social Determinants of Health Innovation Grant from the Ramsay Hospital Research Foundation; a partnership with SEED Futures, engaged on primary prevention in the early years; and a project with the Brain and Mind Centre at the University of Sydney on Beyond the Bell – rethinking after school hours in Australia. Kate serves on the Advisory Council of SEED Futures.
Jaime Miranda acknowledges having received funding support from the Academy of Medical Sciences, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, Bloomberg Philanthropies (via University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health), FONDECYT, British Council, British Embassy and the Newton-Paulet Fund, DFID/MRC/Wellcome Global Health Trials, Fogarty International Center, Grand Challenges Canada, International Development Research Center Canada, Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, National Cancer Institute, National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, National Health and Medical Research Council, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institute on Aging, National Institute for Health and Care Research, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute of Mental Health, NSW Health, Medical Research Future Fund, Swiss National Science Foundation, UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome, World Diabetes Foundation and the World Health Organization.
He is affiliated with the following academic organisations: Professor at the Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, and founding Director of the CRONICAS Centre of Excellence in Chronic Diseases, both at Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (Peru); Honorary Professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (UK); Lown Scholar at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (USA); and Distinguished Fellow at The George Institute for Global Health (Australia). He is also a member of the Advisory Board of the InterAmerican Heart Foundation (IAHF); and member of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) of the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research at the World Health Organization.
Most children bounce back from pain after an injury or illness. But for one in five – approximately 877,000 children in Australia – the pain continues.
For a new report commissioned by Chronic Pain Australia, published on Sunday, we surveyed 229 children, young people and families about their experiences of living with chronic pain.
They told us chronic pain affects every aspect of their lives – from sport, school and friendships, to parents’ ability to work. But it often remains invisible.
What kids and families told us about chronic pain
The 2025 National Kids in Pain Report included 53 responses from children and young people who live with chronic pain and 176 responses from caregivers. The aim was to explore their experiences of chronic pain and how much it affected day-to-day life.
The report paints a stark picture: pain disrupts schooling, erodes friendships, reshapes family life, and places enormous strain on national productivity.
It revealed consistent issues, including:
diagnosis delays: 64% of families had waited more than three years for a diagnosis, and many had never received one
school disruption: 83% of children had missed classes because of pain, and more than half had fallen behind academically
sleep and mental health: 84% struggled with sleep, while more than 80% experienced anxiety, low mood or other psychological impacts
family and economic costs: almost half of carers had reduced work hours or left employment. One in five parents had resigned, and one in 20 were fired
gender disparities: girls were disproportionately affected, representing 57% of cases.
The annual economic toll is conservatively estimated at A$15 billion. But perhaps most troubling is how long children waited for their pain to be believed.
One parent told us:
She first complained of pain when was eight, but we didn’t get a formal diagnosis until she was nearly 12. By then she had already missed so much school and was falling behind socially.
Families reported they were repeatedly dismissed, told it was anxiety (71%), “growing pains” (54%) or attention-seeking (35%).
These stigmatising responses can break trust in health-care systems and schools. One young person told us:
I wish someone had believed me earlier. Waiting years made everything worse – school, friends, even just believing in myself.
Invisibility has consequences
Chronic pain in Australia remains largely invisible because it is not formally recognised as a condition or tracked in national health data. This means it is not considered in how health services are planned and funding is allocated.
Although the World Health Organization recognised chronic pain as a distinct condition in 2019, Australia has yet to align with this recommendation.
In paediatric care, this leaves significant gaps.
There are only nine paediatric pain clinics across Australia, and none at all in Tasmania and the Northern Territory.
There are promising signs in New South Wales. New guidance in 2025 sets out how specialised paediatric pain services should deliver coordinated, culturally safe care and connect with schools. The next step is consistent implementation and shorter wait times, especially outside cities.
But federally, the government has moved away from a national plan to specifically manage pain, to a broader approach that focuses on chronic conditions. This risks further erasing pain from national health policy and planning.
Parents and carers must often navigate referrals for specialists, waiting lists and school adjustments, while also juggling jobs and other children. Caregivers are frequently stressed and their work is disrupted.
But when care is coordinated – connecting health professionals with schools and giving families clear plans to manage pain – parents’ health and work outcomes improve.
International and Australian guidelines for managing chronic pain in children advocate a practical mix of approaches, including:
age-appropriate movement with pacing (very gradually increasing physical activity)
sleep support
skills for managing flare-ups
psychological therapies that reduce fear and build confidence, and in some instances can reduce pain and disability
using medicines carefully when needed.
For schools, making “reasonable adjustments” is already a federal requirement under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Disability Standards for Education – even if the child does not have a formal diagnosis.
We already have evidence-based solutions to deliver better care for young people living with pain. What’s missing is national recognition of this experience and its impact.
Australia should follow the World Health Organization by classifying chronic pain as a distinct condition. This is the first step to fully recognising – and then addressing – paediatric pain.
Children and their carers want what any of us would want: to go to school, play sport, and live a life not dominated by pain.
Joshua Pate has received speaker fees for presentations on pain and physiotherapy. He receives book royalties.
Mark Hutchinson oversees program of work funded by NHMRC, MRFF, ARC, DSTG, DMTC, USDA, MLA, SIF and NIH. He is employed by Adelaide University. He is affiliated with the Australian Pain Solutions Research Alliance as chair of the board, he chairs the Safeguarding Australia through Biotechnology Response and Engagement (SABRE) Alliance advisory board, he is a Member of the Prime Minister’s National Science and Technology Council and he is a board member of Australia’s Economic Accelerator. He serves as an advisor to Alyra Biotech and to the Australian Wool Sustainability Scheme.
Australia’s worrying future under climate change was laid bare last week when the first National Climate Risk Assessment was released. It revealed extreme heat, fires, floods, droughts and coastal inundation already threatens lives and livelihoods – and will wreak further havoc in coming decades.
Much media attention focused on the effects in the continent’s south, where most Australians live. But the assessment found Northern Australia will be hardest hit on many fronts, including extreme heat.
This has major implications. Big plans are afoot to turn Northern Australia into Asia’s “food bowl”, as part of broader development for the region. It would involve building large-scale irrigation, dam and water infrastructure to increase agricultural production, create jobs and boost local economies.
But any discussion about transforming Northern Australia must confront the climate hazards threatening the region’s prosperity.
Turning the region into a food bowl would involve irrigating savannas and other ecosystems across northern parts of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland. The concept dates back decades, but gained momentum in 2015 when the Abbott government released a national white paper on developing Northern Australia.
Efforts to bring the plan to fruition are continuing. In 2018 for example, CSIRO released analysis of Northern Australia’s water resources and agricultural potential. And last year, a business case was developed for a major irrigation area in Far North Queensland.
A decade ago, I challenged the Northern Australia development agenda from a climate change perspective. While proponents pointed to a bright future for the north – with new roads, rail, dams and food production – I argued climate change may eventually make large parts of the region unlivable.
Since then, changes in climate across the north have confirmed many concerns I described.
More frequent and intense extreme weather poses the biggest climate risk for the region. Northern Australia is largely tropical and subtropical, so global heating effects will be more pronounced. This will force natural, social and economic systems into uncharted climate territory.
Research already shows people, food production and nature will be vulnerable to higher-intensity cyclones, more intense heatwaves, floods, droughts, bushfires and other climate harms.
As the risk assessment made clear, the world is on track to heat by at least 2.7°C by the 2090s if we don’t change course. In light of this, the report says:
Northern Australia is likely to experience escalating challenges as its proneness to hazards increases as global temperature rise. This will put pressure on
health, critical infrastructure, natural species and ecosystems, and primary industries. It will also pose additional challenges to emergency responders.
Extreme weather events, including heatwaves, bushfires, flooding and tropical cyclones, will intensify safety and security risks, potentially resulting in loss of life, destabilisation of community structures, and increased migration away from high-risk areas.
The number of heatwave days is projected to increase across Australia – but particularly in the north.
Global heating is already affecting the production of some tropical tree crops, including mangoes and avocados. These crops need periods of cooler winter weather to flower and bear good fruit.
The risk assessment also raises concerns about other primary industries, many of which exist in the north. Changes in practices may buy more time. Much will depend on future carbon emissions.
Supply chains – such as storage, transport and distribution – are crucial for getting agricultural produce to consumers. Extreme weather, such as Cyclone Jasper in 2023, is already disrupting supply chains in the north. This will only worsen.
And an agriculture industry needs people. But the risk assessment says without action, some areas of the north may become unliveable and uninsurable. Floods, tropical cyclones and bushfires can leave communities isolated, and these and other hazards pose serious health risks.
Maps showing Northern Australia is highly prone to hazards, even under modest future global heating. Australian Climate Service, CC BY-SA
What must happen now
Northern Australia has much to lose if carbon emissions keep rising and global heating continues. Adaptation and innovation may allow human communities and industries to survive for a while. But at some stage, crucial tipping points will be breached.
This will degrade the natural assets underpinning the north’s food, fibre and tourism industries.
Unless global warming is dramatically curbed, Northern Australia is unlikely to prosper in the second half of this century – and grandiose plans to turn the region into a food bowl will turn to dust.
Steve Turton has received funding from the Australian Government.
We can be pretty sure Jim Morrison wasn’t referring to BBQ when he wrote those famous lyrics – but he may as well have been. As the weather starts to warm across the country, throngs of people will take to the great outdoors to bask in the sun, crack open a cold one and, inevitably, fire up the grill.
It’s a pattern we all know well. But it tends to overshadow another often overlooked pattern, concerning who is holding the tongs?
Traditional masculinity continues to have a stronghold on BBQ. Even as other forms of cooking are (unfairly) treated as “womens’ work”, cooking meat on an open flame is largely framed as an activity for men.
How might we explain these gendered dynamics?
Which came first, the human or the fire?
According to English anthropologist Richard Wrangham, the ability to control fire, and therefore cook food, was the key driver in human evolution. In Wrangham’s words, “we humans are the cooking apes, the creatures of fire”.
Today, it is women who do the majority of household cooking in Australia.
The original barbies
In terms of food preparation, butchering predates cooking, and can be traced back to about 2.6 million years ago.
Filleting meat into smaller pieces made it easier to chew and digest large mammals such as mammoths, which allowed meat to become part of our diets early on. There is indirect evidence that homo erectus’anatomy diverged from non-human primates some 1.9 million years ago because of this shift in diet.
While it’s unclearexactly when humans started to control and manipulate fire, evidence of cooking in the Levant region goes as far back as 780,000 years.
There was even an entire mammoth economy around the end of the last ice age (27,000 years ago), which involved procurement, carcass transport, butchery, food preparation and storage.
Meat was cold-smoked in smokehouses, allowing it to be consumed fresh, or stored long-term. But experts are divided as to who did the cooking. Did the hunters bring their catch back to the group to cook, or did they cook it at the kill site? The general consensus is it was probably both.
The genderisation of food remains strong in the retail industry, and extends to advertising and marketing. When did you last see an ad that showed a woman in charge of the BBQ?
Barbecue cookbooks consistently have covers featuring men. There’s not a single woman to be found on the covers of the top 50 best-selling BBQ and grilling books on Amazon.
And just as you’re more likely to see cake mixers on special for Mother’s Day, you’re more likely to see BBQ-related products on sale for Father’s Day.
Chef Lennox Hastie of Sydney’s Firedoor restaurant is someone who knows a thing or two about fire. Hastie told us:
There’s no denying that, historically, fire has been wrapped up in a kind of rugged mythology – primal, elemental, often masculine. But some of the oldest, most enduring fire traditions have always been in the hands of women – it’s the industry that’s been slow to catch up. […] Fire doesn’t care who you are. It doesn’t respect ego. It requires attentiveness, intuition, patience – qualities that aren’t gendered.
Although deliberate fire starting, or arson, is a male dominated crime, there’s no evidence men are biologically wired, or pathologically driven, toward fire-setting.
Their over-representation in arson may be better explained by social, behavioural and psychological risk factors, including peer influence, antisocial personality traits, and a lack of emotional regulation.
Peacocking at the grill
Backyard BBQ as we know it is a relatively recent thing, gradually infiltrating our lifestyles in the 1950s and becoming firmly embedded with the introduction of the gas BBQ in the 1960s.
In many ways it is the modern equivalent of the Sunday roast; it fulfils the role of social and cultural ritual and reflects aspects of prestige, generosity and patriarchy. All of this plays into hegemonic masculinity, which frames men as the dominant sex in society: the provider, the carver, the griller.
In contrast, everyday cookery tends to be seen as domestic work, more in service of family wellbeing than a show of social status. It is an unpaid and often undervalued part of the invisible labour that still falls largely on woman.
It’s difficult to give precedence to just one of the multitude of theories that try and explain mens’ dominance over the BBQ. But there is a high chance historical social stereotypes and gendered expectations have a role to play.
Either way, best to keep a fire extinguisher handy.
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.
Jacinda Ardern’s second book released within four months, following her memoir, is a simple children’s story. Its title – Mum’s Busy Work – appears to still hold true, then, despite her no longer being prime minister.
Dedicated to her daughter Neve (the narrator of this tale), the “busy work” in fact refers to the big briefcase Ardern brings home nightly.
But the metaphor isn’t laboured in these 32 pages. It’s a book about emotions rather than events, dancing through the days of the working week that dictate Neve’s lifeworld.
Review: Mum’s Busy Work – Jacinda Ardern (Penguin Random House)
“First bloke” Clarke Gayford is there, doing the washing and being present when Neve wakes up on Tuesday and mum is already at work. All three go out for a Saturday picnic. Mum arrives home early on Friday to play hide-and-seek.
In fact, positive mentions of work are thin on the page. On Monday, mum tells Neve she doesn’t always like going to work; Neve thinks, “She looked really tired when she got home.”
There is a welcome chocolate treasure hunt in the prime minister’s office when Neve visits. While mum works at home on Sunday, Neve asks what her job is. Mum replies, “Looking after everyone, like you.”
The book ends with Monday rolling round again and Neve going from stomping her feet at the thought of daycare to dancing with mum in her “clippy-cloppy” work shoes. For Neve, this is mum’s real job: spending time with her, dancing, reading, playing and loving.
Work on her own terms
The pages are cleverly illustrated by Ruby Jones, best known for her TIME magazine cover after the 2019 terror attack in Christchurch. Her signature spare, colourful style captures Neve’s perspective and mood, from separation anxiety to love and joy.
Of course, Neve didn’t write the book. But, as Ardern notes at its end:
This book is based on the words and lessons taught to me by my daughter […] while I was the prime minister of New Zealand. May every child know that no matter what, they are our life’s greatest work.
There is an echo of C S Lewis in this, who said, “Children are not a distraction from more important work. They are the most important work.”
There’s also a hint of conservatism in Ardern’s insistence on labelling herself a “mum” as well as a professional politician. According to the blurb of her recent memoir, A Different Kind of Power, she also “considers her greatest roles to be those she will hold for life – being a mum and proud New Zealander”.
But this isn’t really a retreat. Ardern is subverting the issue of women and work on her own terms. She’s working through her experience of being “a working mother who juggled mum guilt” to open up a conversation and find a better way.
In the memoir, Ardern writes of her fear that the guilt she felt about being absent after Neve was born would have been reinforced by “guilt-inducing words” from her daughter.
It hadn’t been. What I felt – that constant ache that I should be with her more – had been created by me, all on my own. But tonight, Neve finally asked me the question I’d known would come eventually: “Mummy, why do you have to work so much?”
Having a working mum is OK
We have to remember that Ardern had only just learned she was pregnant when she became prime minister – at 37, New Zealand’s youngest in 150 years.
She was entering new leadership territory on the national and international stage, and was only the second world leader to give birth while in office (after Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto 30 years earlier).
As women in paid work often do, she largely left the backdrop of juggling new motherhood with her public role out of the picture. Neve was kept out of the spotlight and Ardern separated her job from her family’s private lives.
Clarke Gayford holding Neve at the UN, 2018. Getty Images
When she took Gayford and baby Neve to the UN in 2018, it was maybe a signal of things to come. Now, with a memoir, this book and a documentary about her time in power just released, she is challenging that separation.
Feminist scholars call it an “androcentric” view of work, where women entering traditional workplaces have to conform to restrictive and dominant masculine culture, rather than being able to craft new selves.
Mum’s Busy Work responds to that in two ways. On the one hand, it is clearly positioned as an “inspiring and heartwarming” story about the relationship between a working mum and her daughter.
On the other, it belongs to the genre of children’s books that tackle the challenges of unconventional households, such as those with same-sex or sole parents, or those made up of blended families.
This one is about “celebrating the relationship between working mums and their children”. Message: even if your mum works and you go to daycare Monday to Friday and feel separated from her, you are still the most important thing to her.
It’s a book that will be enjoyed and appreciated by working parents who’ve been asked “where is your child?” and “are you still working?”. And by children, who will hear that having a working mum is OK, being a working mum is OK – and missing mum is OK, too.
Katie Pickles 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.
What gives rise to human consciousness? Are some parts of the brain more important than others? Scientists began tackling these questions in more depth about 35 years ago. Researchers have made progress, but the mystery of consciousness remains very much alive.
In a recently published article, I reviewed over 100 years of neuroscience research to see if some brain regions are more important than others for consciousness. What I found suggests scientists who study consciousness may have been undervaluing the most ancient regions of human brains.
Consciousness is usually defined by neuroscientists as the ability to have subjective experience, such as the experience of tasting an apple or of seeing the redness of its skin.
The leading theories of consciousness suggest that the outer layer of the human brain, called the cortex (in blue in figure 1), is fundamental to consciousness. This is mostly composed of the neocortex, which is newer in our evolutionary history.
Figure 1, the human brain (made with the assistance of AI). Peter Coppola, CC BY-SA
The human subcortex (figure 1, brown/beige), underneath the neocortex, has not changed much in the last 500 million years. It is thought to be like electricity for a TV, necessary for consciousness, but not enough on its own.
There is another part of the brain that some neuroscientific theories of consciousness state is irrelevant for consciousness. This is the cerebellum, which is also older than the neocortex and looks like a little brain tucked in the back of the skull (figure 1, purple). Brain activity and brain networks are disrupted in unconsciousness (like in a coma). These changes can be seen in the cortex, subcortex and cerebellum.
What brain stimulation reveals
As part of my analysis I looked at studies showing what happens to consciousness when brain activity is changed, for example, by applying electrical currents or magnetic pulses to brain regions.
These experiments in humans and animals showed that altering activity in any of these three parts of the brain can alter consciousness. Changing the activity of the neocortex can change your sense of self, make you hallucinate, or affect your judgment.
Changing the subcortex may have extreme effects. We can induce depression, wake a monkey from anaesthesia or knock a mouse unconscious. Even stimulating the cerebellum, long considered irrelevant, can change your conscious sensory perception.
However, this research does not allow us to reach strong conclusions about where consciousness comes from, as stimulating one brain region may affect another region. Like unplugging the TV from the socket, we might be changing the conditions that support consciousness, but not the mechanisms of consciousness itself.
So I looked at some evidence from patients to see if it would help resolve this dilemma.
Damage from physical trauma or lack of oxygen to the brain can disrupt your experience. Injury to the neocortex may make you think your hand is not yours, fail to notice things on one side of your visual field, or become more impulsive.
People born without the cerebellum, or the front of their cortex, can still appear conscious and live quite normal lives. However, damaging the cerebellum later in life can trigger hallucinations or change your emotions completely.
Harm to the most ancient parts of our brain can directly cause unconsciousness (although some people recover) or death. However, like electricity for a TV, the subcortex may be just keeping the newer cortex “online”, which may be giving rise to consciousness. So I wanted to know whether, alternatively, there is evidence that the most ancient regions are sufficient for consciousness.
There are rare cases of children being born without most or all of their neocortex. According to medical textbooks, these people should be in a permanent vegetative state. However, there are reports that these people can feel upset, play, recognise people or show enjoyment of music. This suggests that they are having some sort of conscious experience.
These reports are striking evidence that suggests maybe the oldest parts of the brain are enough for basic consciousness. Or maybe, when you are born without a cortex, the older parts of the brain adapt to take on some of the roles of the newer parts of the brain.
There are some extreme experiments on animals that can help us reach a conclusion. Across mammals – from rats to cats to monkeys – surgically removing the neocortex leaves them still capable of an astonishing number of things. They can play, show emotions, groom themselves, parent their young and even learn. Surprisingly, even adult animals that underwent this surgery showed similar behaviour.
Altogether, the evidence challenges the view that the cortex is necessary for consciousness, as most major theories of consciousness suggest. It seems that the oldest parts of the brain are enough for some basic forms of consciousness.
The newer parts of the brain – as well as the cerebellum – seem to expand and refine your consciousness. This means we may have to review our theories of consciousness. In turn, this may influence patient care as well as how we think about animal rights. In fact, consciousness might be more common than we realised.
Peter Coppola 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.
Following the shooting of his political ally, the far-right activist and commentator Charlie Kirk, on September 10, Donald Trump has signalled his intention to pursue his political enemies – what he refers to as the “radical left”. In the days following Kirk’s assassination, the US president took to social media to announce he was planning on designating the antifa movement a terrorist organisation.
Trump announces his plan to designate ‘antifa’ as a terrorist organisation. TruthSocial
Calling antifa a “SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER”, Trump also threatened to investigate any organisations funding antifa. And when Kirk’s widow, Erika, said she forgave the person who has been arrested for the murder, Trump said he did not. “I hate my opponent,” he told people at a memorial event for Kirk at the weekend.
But Trump’s decision to target his ideological opponents faces significant legal and constitutional issues.
It’s not the first time that Trump has threatened such action. In 2020, he threatened the same thing on social media in response to the widespread protests following the death of George Floyd. But just as is the case in the present day, there was no legal process to designate any domestic group as a terrorist organisation.
Trump also appears to have misunderstood what antifa is. He represents it as a defined organisation, when it is more like a broad ideology. Mark Bray, a historian at Rutgers University, New Jersey, described the movement as similar to feminism. “There are feminist groups, but feminism itself is not a group. There are antifa groups, but antifa itself is not a group,” he said.
Antifa is shorthand for “anti-fascist”. It has no centralised leadership or defined structure. Despite being able to mobilise to oppose far-right groups with protests and counter-demonstrations, the movement’s dispersed character hampers efforts to classify it as an organisation of any formal kind.
Plans to use Rico laws
One of the laws Trump has suggested that US attorney-general Pam Bondi could use against antifa is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (Rico) Act of 1970. This was passed by Richard Nixon to tackle organised crime, but its application has since been extended to investigate various other organisations and individuals. This has included Donald Trump himself, over alleged irregularities in Georgia during the 2020 presidential election.
Although it would be challenging, the Trump administration might try to use Rico laws to break up antifa’s network if the movement is classified as a terrorist organisation. Authorities could argue that specific individuals are engaged in a series of racketeering activities, including any acts of violence or other criminal behaviour linked to the movement. But this method would undoubtedly face considerable legal challenges.
If the US government finds a way to define antifa as a group and identify people as members – it’s not clear at the moment whether this might be possible – it would then be possible to seek out and attempt to prosecute anyone who facilitates their activities or gives them funds. But as David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University, North Carolina, told the BBC this week: “Under the First Amendment, no one can be punished for joining a group or giving money to a group.”
Nevertheless, antifa activists may be subject to increased surveillance if the movement is proscribed. Such actions would mirror the FBI’s extra-legal counterintelligence programme (Cointelpro) that targeted the new left in America during the 1960s. Civil rights groups and Democrats would inevitably raise serious questions concerning executive overreach and possible violations of civil liberties.
Power grab
Labelling antifa as a terrorist group would allow the federal government to circumvent state-controlled law enforcement. It may seek to do so especially in Democrat states and cities where authorities might be hesitant to act against liberal or left-wing demonstrators. Federal agencies such as the FBI and Department of Homeland Security might be drafted in to lead investigations and prosecutions, superseding state authorities.
This consolidation of power would create further legal and political difficulties. While the Posse Comitatus Act is supposed to bar the use of federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement, there are exceptions. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807 it would give him the power to deploy troops to restore order.
Antifa’s classification as a terrorist organisation could have profound effects on the first amendment rights of large numbers of law-abiding US citizens. It would be a serious danger to American democracy if US citizens were unable to voice their protest and exercise their right to free speech because of this classification.
A decision to vilify anti-establishment rhetoric would set a dangerous precedent for silencing dissent and infringing fundamental constitutional rights in the US during the 21st century.
The administration’s position on domestic extremism has changed significantly with Trump’s plan to label antifa as a terrorist organisation. The political consequences are far-reaching, potentially setting important precedents for the balance between civil liberties and US national security. This could shift the focus more toward security and potentially harm individual freedoms.
But it’s unlikely that the Trump administration will be deterred by any constitutional considerations. This is an executive branch that has acted first and sought justification through the courts. There will be a lengthy legal process if Trump follows through on this. But by the time courts make their final decision, the damage will already have been done to the US political system.
Dafydd Townley 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.
“Cut out all dairy. Ditch gluten. Never touch sugar again.” More than 20 million people have watched TikTok videos listing these kinds of rules under the banner of “anti-inflammatory diets.”
The promise is simple: avoid entire food groups and you’ll lose weight, banish bloating and transform your health.
But while the idea of eating to reduce inflammation has a scientific foundation, the social media version strips out nuance and risks becoming unnecessarily restrictive.
Let’s check what’s going on.
What is inflammation?
People often think of inflammation as something to avoid at all costs, but it’s actually a healthy and normal process that helps the body heal and defend itself against infections, injuries, or diseases. Without it, we wouldn’t recover from even small injuries.
Inflammation and the immune system work together: when the body notices injury or infection, the immune system starts to trigger inflammation, which brings immune cells, nutrients and oxygen to the affected area. This helps with healing.
Inflammation can be short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic). Acute inflammation is helpful and part of normal healing. For example, a scraped knee becomes red, swollen and warm as the skin repairs, or a sore throat swells while fighting infection.
Chronic inflammation, on the other hand, can be harmful. It occurs at a low level over time and is often unnoticed, but is linked with many chronic diseases including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer.
What causes chronic inflammation?
Factors such as age, smoking, sedentary behaviour, obesity, hormonal changes, stress and irregular sleep patterns have all been linked with chronic inflammation.
Diet also plays a key role. A typical Western diet, which is high in ultra-processed foods such as packaged baked goods, soft drinks, fast food, processed meats and confectionery, and low in fresh fruits and vegetables, has been strongly linked with higher levels of inflammation.
Can anti-inflammatory diets help?
Yes. What we eat can influence inflammation in the body. Diets rich in fruits, vegetables, wholegrains, legumes and healthy fats – and low in highly processed foods and added sugars – are associated with lower levels of inflammation.
The Mediterranean-style diet is the most researched example. It’s packed with vegetables, fruits, wholegrains, nuts, seeds and olive oil, with moderate amounts of fish, chicken, eggs and dairy, and minimal red or processed meat and added sugars.
In 2022, researchers reviewed the best available evidence and found people following a Mediterranean-type diet had lower levels of inflammatory markers in their blood, suggesting it can help reduce chronic inflammation.
Growing research also suggests diets high in processed foods and low in fibre can change the balance of bacteria in the gut, which may contribute to low-level, chronic inflammation.
Where TikTok gets it right… and wrong
Right: probiotics may help
Many TikTok videos recommend probiotic supplements to lower inflammation, and there is emerging science to support this. A 2020 review of randomised controlled trials (the strongest form of evidence) found probiotics may reduce some inflammatory blood markers in both healthy people and those living with a health condition.
But while promising, researchers caution more studies are needed to determine which strains and doses are most effective.
Wrong: ‘avoid lists’ (gluten, dairy) without a medical reason
TikTok advice to avoid dairy or gluten to reduce inflammation isn’t backed by strong science for most people.
Inflammation from dairy or gluten typically only occurs in those with allergies or coeliac disease, in which case, medical dietary restriction is necessary. Cutting them out without cause risks unnecessary nutrient gaps.
For the general population, systematic reviews show dairy products often have neutral or even protective effects on inflammation.
Plus, foods such as yogurt, kefir and certain cheeses are rich in probiotics, which are helpful in reducing inflammation.
Many people believe cutting out gluten will lower chronic inflammation and avoid it to help with gut issues or fatigue.
But there’s little scientific evidence to back this up. In fact, wholegrain consumption has been shown to positively affect health status by improving inflammation.
A Mediterranean-style diet already avoids most processed, gluten-heavy foods such as cakes, pastries, white bread, fast food and packaged snacks. If you feel sensitive to gluten, this way of eating naturally keeps your intake low, without the need to cut out nutritious wholegrains that can benefit your health.
Who might benefit from an anti-inflammatory diet?
For people with certain medical conditions, an anti-inflammatory eating pattern can play a useful role alongside conventional care.
In these cases, dietary approaches should be guided by an accredited practising dietitian to ensure that changes are safe, balanced and tailored to individual needs.
The bottom line for healthy people
If you’re otherwise healthy, you don’t need to cut out entire food groups to reduce inflammation.
Instead, focus on balance, variety and minimally processed foods: essentially a Mediterranean-style eating pattern. Support your body’s natural defences with a colourful plate full of vegetables and fruit, enough fibre, healthy fats such as olive oil and nuts. No TikTok “avoid list” required.
Alongside a balanced diet, being physically active, getting good-quality sleep, drinking only minimal alcohol and not smoking all help the body keep inflammation in check. These healthy habits work together to strengthen the immune system and lower the risk of chronic disease.
Lauren Ball receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Health and Wellbeing Queensland, Heart Foundation, Gallipoli Medical Research and Mater Health, Springfield City Group. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.
Emily Burch 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.
Medical imaging is one of the biggest contributors of a hospital’s energy use. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) are particularly carbon intensive, partly due to their need to be constantly cooled. Hospital staff typically leave these machines running 24/7 because they’re often needed for emergency scans.
But do all machines really need to be kept on all of the time? Switching off medical imaging equipment when it isn’t needed would be an obvious way to save energy, costs and reduce carbon emissions.
Our study, published today in the Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, shows it’s possible to safely do so, and the energy savings are significant.
What did we do?
To investigate the potential for carbon savings in medical imaging, we partnered with the New South Wales Health Net Zero clinical lead for imaging – a practising radiographer.
Together, we came up with a method to test whether changing which CT scanners are left running at certain times could lead to energy savings without compromising care.
We tested this at a large public hospital with three CT scanners. One of these was largely used only during regular daytime hours, but left on to run continuously for potential emergencies if the other two scanners were in use.
The goal was to see the impact of switching this “surplus” CT scanner off when it wasn’t needed – after hours and on weekends. We compared the scanner’s power use with a control period when it was left running continuously.
With the simple intervention of switching off this CT scanner when not in use, we reduced its energy consumption by 32%. This saved 140 kWh of energy in a single week – slightly more power than it takes to run an average Australian household.
There appeared to be no downsides, either. The radiographers reported no impacts on their workflow and there were also some financial savings for the hospital.
Encouragingly, the staff kept it up after the study. Radiographers at the hospital now regularly switch off the scanner when not in use. And radiographers at two other hospitals in the same local health district are now also switching off scanners overnight when they’re not in use.
In all of these projects we found opportunities to save money and carbon without negatively impacting patient care.
Frontline clinicians can see the unnecessary waste and environmental harm from current healthcare practices. They’re well placed to implement and sustain changes.
By partnering with researchers to generate the evidence base for others to use, we hope to achieve changes at scale. To date, our work has already proven we can move to net-zero health systems that still deliver high quality healthcare but take a smaller toll on the environment.
Katy Bell receives funding from NHMRC. She is an investigator with Wiser Healthcare and the Healthy Environments and Lives (HEAL) Network.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Bird, Industry Fellow, Corporate Governance & Senior Lecturer, Swinburne Law School, Swinburne University of Technology
Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images
Asked today whether Optus’s chief executive should be considering his future after the “completely unacceptable” Triple Zero outage, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told the ABC “I would be surprised if that wasn’t occurring.” Communications Minister Anika Wells has also vowed “Optus will be held to account”.
What does holding Optus “to account” mean, when we still have no clear picture of who’s responsible within the company for stopping things going wrong? Given another chief executive was already appointed since Optus’s 2023 network outage, what difference would yet another replacement make?
Rather than focus on one person, the real question is what can be done to fix the systems beneath them – especially when it comes to delivering faster, more transparent disclosure when things go wrong.
History repeating at Optus
Optus’s 2023 and 2025 failures are strikingly similar. Both were technology-related. Both occurred during routine maintenance or updates. Both resulted in system-wide outages. And in both cases, Optus was far too slow to let the public and responsible authorities know about the outages.
Last Friday, Optus belatedly revealed 600 customers were unable to call 000 for emergency help for half a day – then it was more than a day before Optus publicly revealed it had even happened. It affected people in four states and territories, with at least three deaths during the outage now being investigated.
Emergency call failures create serious regulatory, legal, reputation and customer risks for Optus. However, when it comes to understanding how Optus manages those risks, we’re confronted with a black hole.
Immediately after the November 2023 outage, I wrote about the lack of transparency about how Optus is run. As a private company, it has no legal obligation to publicly disclose its risk management and governance arrangements.
When the then Optus chief executive Kelly Bayer Rosmarin resigned five days later, on November 20 2023, I wrote this was no guarantee of change – because the real decisions at Optus were made by its parent company, Singtel, based in Singapore.
Optus never published the results of its own investigations of its November 2023 Triple Zero outage.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) later fined Optus A$12 million for breaching national Emergency Call Rules.
Today, ACMA said it had started an investigation into last week’s outage. Its findings will be made public.
In May 2024, Optus announced the appointment of industry heavyweight Stephen Rue as its new chief executive, under what it called a “new governance model” (although how it differed from the previous model wasn’t made fully clear).
The Optus website shows it now has a board of seven directors, with a majority of non-executive directors. Previously, the board was made of executives with a non-executive chair. In theory, that change should have improved governance at Optus.
It’s not clear who is currently in charge of risk management at Optus. In June, Optus announced the appointment of a new chief security and risk officer, Pieter van der Merwe, starting later this year.
After the 2023 breach, the regulator ACMA updated the national Emergency Call Service Rules for all telecommunication companies, also including Telstra and TPG. These included four new risk requirements for:
better communication with customers and other stakeholders during an outage
greater oversight of the 000 ecosystem
regular systems testing
and ensuring emergency calls can be carried by other telecommunication companies when needed.
The early signs suggest Optus did not meet these requirements, though we should wait the outcome of ACMA’s newly announced investigation to be definitive.
Like Optus, Telstra was found to be breach of the emergency call rules, and was fined $3 million by ACMA.
However, there were three key differences:
Telstra had a strong record of compliance with the emergency call rules, unlike Optus.
Telstra made considerable efforts to keep the public informed during the outage, no doubt reinforced by its legal obligations to make disclosures as a public company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange.
Telstra also took immediate actions by notifying emergency services of caller details affected by the disruption.
5 steps that would do more than sacking the boss
What does Optus need to do to avoid a third Triple Zero outage?
Five governance improvements would help – especially to deliver improved, more transparent disclosure.
Unlike last time, Optus should publish the full report resulting from its own inquiries into this incident. This should include a list of recommendations and a timeline to action them.
Optus should explain how it follows ACMA’s emergency service rules, including how it will manage future outages.
Optus should carry out a root-and-branch review of its risk management generally and emergency call risks in particular.
Optus needs to explain more clearly on its website how risk management is monitored by its executives and board here in Australia – not by Singtel in Singapore.
If these issues are not addressed, it may be time for the communications minister to add governance conditions on Optus’s carrier licence – which she already has the power to do.
It may be tempting to call for the chief executive to be sacked. However, doing that would let Optus looks like it’s acting, while delaying real action.
It would be better to keep the current chief executive and do what the federal government has pledged: hold Optus to account.
I am a member of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) corporate governance consultative panel. I am a member of the Australian Law Council’s Corporations Law Committee. I am also a director of Market Forces Ltd, a not-for-profit company.
John of Gaunt dining with the King of Portugal, Chronique d’Angleterre, vol 3, late 14 century.Wikimedia Commons
In today’s world, we barely think about picking up a fork. It is part of a standard cutlery set, as essential as the plate itself. But not that long ago, this now-ordinary utensil was viewed with suspicion, derision and even moral outrage.
It took centuries, royal marriages and a bit of cultural rebellion to get the fork from the kitchens of Constantinople (today’s Istanbul) onto the dining tables of Europe.
A scandalous utensil
Early versions of forks have been found in Bronze Age China and Ancient Egypt, though they were likely used for cooking and serving.
Eating with a fork – especially a small, personal one – was rare.
By the 10th century, Byzantine elites used them freely, shocking guests from western Europe. And by around the 11th century, the table fork began to make regular appearances at mealtimes across the Byzantine empire.
Bronze forks made in Persia during the 8th or 9th century. Wikimedia Commons
In 1004, the Byzantine Maria Argyropoulina (985–1007), sister of Emperor Romanos III Argyros, married the son of the Doge of Venice and scandalised the city by refusing to eat with her fingers. She used a golden fork instead.
Later, the theologian Peter Damian (1007–72) declared Maria’s vanity in eating with “artificial metal forks” instead of using the fingers God had given her was what brought about divine punishment in the form of her premature death in her 20s.
Yet by the 14th century, forks had become common in Italy, thanks in part to the rise of pasta.
It was far easier to eat slippery strands with a pronged instrument than with a spoon or knife. Italian etiquette soon embraced the fork, especially among the wealthy merchant classes.
And it was through this wealthy class that the fork would be introduced to the rest of Europe in the 16th century by two women.
Enter Bona Sforza
Born in into the powerful families Sforza of Milan and Aragon of Naples, Bona Sforza (1494–1557) grew up in a world where forks were in use; more, they were in fashion.
Her family was used to the refinements of Renaissance Italy: court etiquette, art patronage, ostentatious dress for women and men, and elegant dining.
When she married Sigismund I, king of Poland and grand duke of Lithuania in 1518, becoming queen, she arrived in a region where dining customs were different. The use of forks was largely unknown.
At courts in Lithuania and Poland, cutlery use was practical and limited. Spoons and knives were common for eating soups and stews, and the cutting of meat, but most food was eaten with the hands, using bread or trenchers – thick slices of stale bread that soaked up the juices from the food – for assistance.
This method was not only economical but also deeply embedded in courtly and noble dining traditions, reflecting a social etiquette in which communal dishes and shared eating were the norm.
Bona’s court brought Italian manners to the region, introducing more vegetables, Italian wine and, most unusually, the table fork.
Though her use of it was likely restricted at first to formal or court settings, it made an impression. Over time, especially from the 17th century onwards, forks became more common among the nobility of Lithuania and Poland.
Catherine de’ Medici comes to France
Catherine de’ Medici (1519–89) was born into the powerful Florentine Medici family, niece of Pope Clement VII. In 1533, aged 14, she married the future King Henry II of France as part of a political alliance between France and the Papacy, bringing her from Italy to France.
Catherine de’ Medici, introduced silver forks and Italian dining customs to the French court.
Like in the case of Bona Sforza, these arrived in Catherine’s trousseau. Her retinue also included chefs, pastry cooks, and perfumers, along with artichokes, truffles and elegant tableware.
Her culinary flair helped turn court meals into theatre.
While legends exaggerate her influence, many dishes now claimed as French, trace their roots to her Italian table: onion soup, duck à l’orange and even sorbet.
Like many travellers, the curious Englishman Thomas Coryat (1577–1617) in the early 1600s brought tales of fork-using Italians back home, where the idea still seemed laughably affected.
But across Europe, change was underway. Forks began to be seen not just as tools of convenience, but symbols of cleanliness and refinement.
In France, they came to reflect courtly civility. In Germany, specialised forks multiplied in the 18th and 19th centuries: for bread, pickles, ice cream and fish.
An etching of an old man and a fork from 1888. Rijksmuseum
As mass production took off in the 19th century, stainless steel made cutlery affordable, and the fork became ubiquitous. By then, the battle had shifted from whether to use a fork to how to use it properly.
Table manners manuals now offered guidance on fork etiquette. No scooping, no stabbing, and always hold it tines down.
It took scandal, royal taste, and centuries of resistance for the fork to win its place at the table. Now it’s hard to imagine eating without it.
Darius von Guttner Sporzynski receives funding from the National Science Centre, Poland as a partner investigator in the grant “Polish queen consorts in the 15th and 16th centuries as wives and mothers” (2021/43/B/HS3/01490).
Should we scrap private health insurance rebates and direct the funding to public hospitals? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Terence C. Cheng, Associate Professor, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University alvaro gonzalez/Getty Images If you’re one of the 45% of Australians with private health insurance, chances are the government pays, or has paid, a proportion of your premiums via rebates. Taxpayer spending on these private health
Parts of NZ could be heading into a wetter summer – a blessing in disguise for allergy sufferers Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rewi Newnham, Professor in Physical Geography, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Getty Images The latest projections suggest New Zealand could be heading into a neutral or La Niña summer, which would bring rainier conditions to the north and east of the country. While the
With 2035 emissions targets set, what Australia does next will help shape global efforts to keep 1.5°C alive Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Burdon, CEO Climate Resource, and Senior Advisor to Melbourne Climate Futures , The University of Melbourne Gabriele Maltinti/Getty This week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will attend the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York. He will bring something important: Australia’s new 2035 emission cut
To save in-person lectures, unis need to provide lessons worth showing up for Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Gundlach, Lecturer in Education, The University of Melbourne Hill Street Studios/Getty Images In-person lectures have been a staple of university learning for centuries. But for more than a decade, there has been increasing debate about the relevance of lectures in modern higher education. Some academics and
Expressing strong opinions can put your job at risk. Clearer laws would help Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giuseppe Carabetta, Associate Professor of workplace and business law, UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney Tracey Nearmy/Getty Images Within days of American conservative Charlie Kirk’s assassination, people posting on social media or commenting on his death – including TV host Jimmy Kimmel, teachers, pilots, a football
New research shows Black Summer’s megafires left lasting scars far beyond property damage Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sonia Akter, Associate Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University Beginning in the second half of 2019, what we now know as the Black Summer fires began devastating eastern Australia. Thousands of homes were destroyed, hundreds of lives were lost (mainly from smoke-induced health impacts)
Criticisms against Spotify keep mounting. Luckily there are alternatives Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael James Walsh, Associate Dean and Associate Professor in Social Sciences, University of Canberra Spotify has been subject to various lingering critiques. These range from criticism of its payment model, to the presence of “fake artists”, the Joe Rogan boycott saga, and controversies around AI-made music. More
The Liberal Party is riven with disagreements and discontent. Can it survive? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marija Taflaga, Senior Lecturer, School of Political Science and International Relations, Australian National University In May, immediately after the 2025 election, debate swirled about whether the Coalition agreement would survive. The consensus was that it would be madness for the Liberals and the Nationals to part ways.
Is Benjamin Netanyahu on a mission to realise a Greater Israel? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Adjunct Professor of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Victoria University, Australian National University Much of the world is focused on a two-state solution in resolving the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears devoted to realising his vision of a
Australia formally recognises Palestine, as Albanese begins US visit Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The Albanese government on Sunday formally recognised Palestine as an independent state. Prime Minister Anothony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong in a statement said that Sunday’s recognition, “alongside Canada and the United Kingdom, is part of a coordinated international
Multiple people have died after a botched Optus network upgrade on Thursday prevented around 600 emergency calls to Triple Zero across Australia.
The deaths currently linked to the outage – which Optus only revealed to the public, emergency services and state/territory leaders on Friday evening at a press conference – include two men, aged 49 and 74, in Western Australia, and a 68-year-old woman in Adelaide.
The outage – plus Optus’s delayed response to it – has sparked fury and condemnation. “I have not witnessed such incompetence from an Australian corporation in respect to communications worse than this,” South Australian premier Peter Malinauskas said.
This isn’t the first time a blunder by Optus has meant people in crisis have been unable to call emergency services. So what exactly went wrong? And what could be done to prevent a similar tragedy occurring again?
What happened?
Telecommunications companies routinely conduct network upgrades. Ideally, the upgrades should include a suite of tests performed beforehand as well as immediately afterwards. These tests can quickly identify any network or system problems. If a problem is identified, the upgrade can be reversed. Alternatively, what’s known as a failover system can be used if the upgrade will take some time to implement. A failover system is one that has not been upgraded.
On Thursday, Optus conducted a network upgrade. In the process of doing so it failed to identify a technical failure, which impacted Triple Zero calls.
Normal calls were still connecting during this Triple Zero outage. That’s because Triple Zero is a cooperative service that involves telecommunications companies, as well as the governments and emergency services in each state or territory. The Triple Zero core components are implemented separately, meaning any issue with them does not affect calls on the normal network.
The Telecommunications (Emergency Call Service) Determination 2019 sets out obligations on telecommunications companies to ensure they have arrangements in place for dealing with emergency calls. For example, they must provide access to the Triple Zero call service free of charge. They must also have what’s known as a “camp-on” mechanism in place. This allows your mobile phone to connect to another network to make Triple Zero calls if your network has failed.
On Friday afternoon, Optus CEO Stephen Rue apologised to the families of the people who died, as well as the broader community, for the outage.
“You have my assurance that we are conducting a thorough investigation and once concluded we will share the facts of the incident publicly”.
Not the first time
That might sound familiar. That’s because this isn’t the first time a telecommunications blunder of this kind has happened.
On March 1 2024, a Telstra network disruption resulted in 127 calls to Triple Zero failing – thankfully without fatal consequences. In that case, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) fined Telstra A$3 million.
On November 8 2023, Optus was responsible for another network meltdown which prevented more than 2,100 people from accessing Triple Zero. Optus also failed to conduct 369 welfare checks on people who had attempted to make an emergency call during the outage.
Nobody died as a result of that failure either. Optus, however, was hit with a A$12 million fine by the ACMA for breaching emergency call regulations. It was also subject to a formal review, commissioned by the Australian government and completed in April, which made 18 recommendations to prevent similar incidents occurring again.
These recommendations included establishing a “Triple Zero custodian” who would have oversight and overarching responsibility for the efficient functioning of the Triple Zero ecosystem. They also included more clearly and explicitly articulating precisely what is expected of network operators in regard to ensuring calls are delivered to Triple Zero, and requiring telecommunications companies to share real time network information detailing outages with emergency services and other relevant parties.
Following the most recent outage, federal Communications Minister Anika Wells said the Australian government has “accepted all recommendations from the previous Optus Outage Review and has fully implemented 12 of the 18 recommendations, with the remaining six underway”.
But the fact three people are dead because they couldn’t reach Triple Zero due to yet another network outage highlights the urgent need for more action.
Encouraging all telcos to lift their game
The federal government should consider even stronger minimum performance standards for telecommunications companies that provide the foundation for enforcement. These standards could stipulate, for example, minimum download and upload speeds. They could also require telecommunications companies to make a public notification about an outage within a specified time period – ideally as soon as they themselves are aware of it.
There should also be a mandated requirement for telecommunications companies to establish reasonable engineering practices to help prevent updates taking out part or the whole network. These practices could include automated testing before and after updates are carried out.
And while the ACMA will soon launch an investigation into this recent outage, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission could also investigate it. Specifically, the commission could look at whether the actions of Optus amounts to unconscionable conduct, and issue more severe fines.
This may serve to encourage Optus and other telecommunications companies to lift their game and better protect public safety.
This article has been amended to update the number of deaths linked to the outage after further investigation occurred over the weekend.
Mark A Gregory has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network grants program and the auDA Foundation. He is a life member of the Telecommunications Association.
If you’re one of the 45% of Australians with private health insurance, chances are the government pays, or has paid, a proportion of your premiums via rebates.
Taxpayer spending on these private health insurance rebates is projected to reach A$7.6 billion in 2025.
The rebates are a key source of revenue for private hospitals. In 2022–23, private health funds contributed $9.7 billion. This is around 45% of the $21.5 billion spent on private hospital services.
But are rebates achieving their aim of reducing pressure on the public hospital system? And if not, should the government scrap them and direct this funding to ailing public hospitals?
Remind me, what are the rebates?
The private health insurance rebate was designed to encourage Australians to purchase private health insurance. The goal was to reduce both cost and capacity pressures on the public health-care system.
The Howard government introduced the rebate in the late 1990s, alongside:
Medicare levy surcharges, a 1–1.5% levy on taxable income for those without private health insurance
Lifetime health cover policies, a 2% loading on premiums (per year for ten years) if you take out private health insurance after you turn 31.
Initially, the private health insurance rebate covered 30% of premiums for all Australians, and subsidies were eventually made higher for people over 65.
Since April 2014, the rebate has been indexed annually, and the government’s contribution has gradually declined as a share of total premiums.
The rebate is also means-tested, with higher-income Australians receiving a smaller subsidy.
Singles under 65 years of age earning less than $97,000 receive a 24.3% rebate. The subsidy gradually phases out to zero for those earning above $151,000.
Why do we subsidise private health insurance?
A justification for the rebates is that higher uptake of private health insurance would reduce pressure on the public healthcare system.
There is good evidence that people with private health insurance are more likely to opt for private care when they need hospital treatment.
A 2018 study showed having private health insurance increased the likelihood of a private hospital admission by 16 percentage points, and reduced the likelihood of a public admission by 13 percentage points.
However, getting more Australians to take out private health insurance doesn’t necessarily ease pressure on the public system in a meaningful way.
A 2024 study of Victoria’s public hospital system found higher rates of private health insurance coverage leads to only marginal reductions in public hospital wait times.
So rather than relying on private insurance, a more direct way to reduce public hospital waiting times would be to increase funding for the public hospital system.
A 2023 review of the private health insurance incentives commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care also found that having rebates results in net savings for the government. In other words, the government saves on health-care costs from people holding private health insurance and the savings outweigh what it spends on subsidies.
The review concluded the policy was “a very good financial deal for the government”.
Conversely, my past research indicated savings from scrapping the rebate would outweigh the additional costs of treating more patients in the public system.
This is likely because there are still significant financial incentives for people to maintain their health cover, especially among people on high incomes who are liable for the Medicare Levy Surcharge.
Another study from 2024 examined the relationship between having private insurance and the choice of private or public care. It concluded that even under optimistic assumptions about substitution, the potential savings in public hospital expenditure could not justify the cost of the rebates.
How can we make sense of these conflicting conclusions?
Part of the answer lies in the fact the studies rely on different assumptions, methodology and data. A key modelling consideration is how responsive consumers are to changes in the price of insurance.
The academic literature generally finds consumers aren’t very sensitive to changes in the price of insurance. As such, a reduction in the rebate would likely lead to only a small decline in private health insurance membership and a limited impact on public hospital use.
Private health insurance rebates are declining over time due to indexation and means-testing, and the government’s contribution to premiums has gradually declined over time.
The available evidence tells us private health insurance does little to relieve pressure on the public system, contrary to the rebate’s intended purpose.
Yet there is no consensus on whether reducing or removing rebates would produce net savings, or end up costing the government more than it saves. This is one area where more independent and rigorous research is needed.
Don’t cut rebates – but don’t expand them either
In the current environment with cost-of-living pressures, increasing private health premiums are placing growing strain on household budgets. In this context, rebates provide some relief and there is a good argument for maintaining them at their current levels.
Some argue rebates should be reinstated to their original 30%. However, since private health insurance does little to relieve pressures on the public system, the evidence doesn’t support expanding the rebates.
Any new funding would be better directed to expanding public system capacity or directly funding elective surgery in private hospitals to reduce public hospital waiting times.
Terence C. Cheng receives funding from the World Health Organisation and the Harvard China Fund.
The latest projections suggest New Zealand could be heading into a neutral or La Niña summer, which would bring rainier conditions to the north and east of the country.
While the prospect of a wet summer might not appeal to most people, for pollen allergy sufferers this could be a blessing in disguise.
Our latest research on pollen levels in Auckland backs up what we have long suspected but haven’t had the data to prove.
Unlike many developed countries, New Zealand doesn’t routinely monitor airborne pollen, and speculation about how La Niña and El Niño summers affect allergy sufferers has been just that. Until now.
With new data, we are able to show the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which brings us changing phases of a natural climate cycle, can have profound effects on pollen allergy levels in Auckland.
For the one-in-five of us who suffer from hay fever or asthma, this has important implications.
Tracking pollen levels
Over the 2023/24 summer – a dry El Niño season – we monitored pollen levels in Auckland each day using equipment located on top of the War Memorial Museum. This was something of a milestone, marking the first time pollen levels have been monitored in the city this century.
We were able to compare our data with results from two previous pollen monitoring projects conducted almost four decades ago. By a stroke of luck, one of these projects monitored pollen levels during a strong La Niña season in 1988/89 and the second during a neutral summer (neither La Niña nor El Niño).
This comparison clearly showed the pollen season during the La Niña summer was much shorter and less severe than during the other two seasons – just as we would have predicted.
The main reason for the differences was rainfall, which is typically higher and more frequent in northern New Zealand during La Niña summers. Grasses, like all plants, need rainfall to survive and grow but they tend not to release pollen on rainy days which can also ‘flush’ already airborne pollen out of the atmosphere.
So, periods of excessive or sustained rainfall in spring and summer can lead to suppressed or shortened pollen seasons. This seems to have been the case in Auckland during the La Niña summer of 1988/89. The grass pollen season in that year lasted 41 days.
During warmer, drier years, pollen counts rise. Supplied by author, CC BY-SA
In contrast, the other two seasons had comparatively moderate rainfall – enough to maintain grass growth and pollen production but with plenty of dry, sunny and windy days for higher levels of pollen to be released and spread.
In the 2023/24 El Niño summer, the grass pollen season lasted 77 days, almost twice as long as that seen in 1988/89.
We must acknowledge that a sample of just three seasons bookending a 35-year interval would not normally be a convincing basis for confident conclusions.
Nevertheless, the consistent pattern observed in this limited dataset is in line with expectations about how contrasting weather patterns affect pollen production and dispersal, and the results shouldn’t be sneezed at.
Advice for allergy sufferers
What does this research mean for those of us who suffer from pollen allergies?
Better understanding of pollen season variability and its causes can inform the two pillars of allergy management: treatment and avoidance of allergy triggers.
Sophisticated predictive models can forecast changing La Niña and El Niño phases many months in advance. Now that we can show these phases affect pollen levels, we can be forewarned about the likely severity of the pollen season ahead.
Above all, our research shows that pollen seasons can be highly variable – from one year to the next and likely between regions due to variations in La Niña and El Niño effects in different parts of the country.
This highlights the importance of continuing pollen monitoring to better understand the causes and consequences of seasonal pollen allergy.
Climate change, and in particular rising temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, altered patterns of precipitation and greater inter-annual variability all likely have an impact on pollen levels in New Zealand.
In the longer term, climate projections suggest Auckland will see increasingly drier and warmer springs and summers – and that’s likely to mean more pollen in the air and more bad news for those with allergies.
Rewi is part of the Aotearora Airborne Pollen Collective, a team of health and environmental researchers aiming to develeop routine airborne pollen monitoring in Aotearoa New Zealand to promote better understanding of allergy health
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Burdon, CEO Climate Resource, and Senior Advisor to Melbourne Climate Futures , The University of Melbourne
This week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will attend the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York. He will bring something important: Australia’s new 2035 emission cut target of 62–70% on 2005 levels.
UN Secretary General António Guterres has invited global leaders to gather to present their new 2035 targets, known formally as Nationally Determined Contributions, ahead of the COP30 climate talks in Brazil in November.
COP30 is shaping up as the most consequential round of climate commitments since the 2015 Paris Agreement. Even as climate damage intensifies, there are worrying signs of backsliding on climate action in some nations.
The United States is focused on increasing fossil fuel production and hobbling clean energy. Other nations are stepping up. China’s clean energy exports are reshaping electricity markets around the world. The UN is hoping more ambitious 2035 targets will build momentum.
What role will Australia play? Our 2035 goal, announced by Albanese last week, will be important in driving the domestic transition to a clean economy. It will also factor into international climate efforts.
Australia’s target is not ambitious enough to be in line with pathways to hold climate change under 1.5°C, but it offers clarity. It also raises the possibility of achieving net zero earlier than 2050 if underpinned by strong, rapid action.
Amid signs of climate backsliding, the UN is trying to rebuild momentum and keep the 1.5°C goal alive. fhm/Getty
How does Australia’s target stack up?
Australia’s 62–70% target range has been critiqued from several sides. Climate advocates wanted more ambition. Some business groups wanted a lower figure, while others called for a 75% target.
In reality, this pathway seeks a balance between pragmatism and higher ambition. The planned emission cuts are actually more ambitious than if Australia were to cut emissions at a steady rate between 2030 and 2050 – the year we need to reach net zero.
Over the past decade, Australia’s emissions outside the land-use sector have been falling slowly. Falling emissions from electricity production have been offset by rising emissions in transport and other sectors.
At present, emissions are about 28% lower than 2005 levels, due largely to changes in land use.
The nation’s 2030 goal is a 43% cut before hitting a minimum of 62% by 2035. Our analysis indicates this will require a sharp acceleration in how fast emissions fall between 2030 and 2035.
To make this steep trajectory less challenging, Australia could go faster in the next five years to make the path to 2035 smoother. If Australia maintained this pace, it could have another benefit: increasing the feasibility of Australia reaching net zero at an earlier date.
Global temperatures are tracking upwards
As global momentum builds ahead of COP30, the choices made by major economies such as Australia will influence whether a 1.5°C pathway remains within reach. As one of the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters, Australia’s decisions on energy and climate policy can shift global markets and boost momentum toward a 1.5°C future.
The Paris Agreement commits countries to hold the increase in global temperature well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.
Some have concluded the 1.5°C goal is already out of reach, but this is premature.
The World Meteorological Organization confirmed 2024 was likely the first year where global average temperatures had risen to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. There’s a 70% chance average warming in the five-year period from 2025–29 will be above 1.5°C.
Despite this, the best estimates of long-term average warming are still below 1.5°C, hovering between 1.34°C and 1.44°C between 2015 and 2034.
Can we still limit warming to 1.5°C?
Every fraction of a degree past 1.5°C adds more risks to food and water security, health and ecosystems, as well as costing more in adaptation and raising chances of irreversible impacts such as sea level rise and species extinctions.
The 1.5°C target is also legally significant. In July, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that states have legal duties under international law to prevent significant harm to the climate, using 1.5°C as a benchmark for responsible action.
The latest figures on the global carbon budget show the remaining volume of carbon dioxide able to be emitted for a 50:50 chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C is now just 130 gigatonnes.
Given the world is still emitting more than 40 gigatonnes a year, this budget will be used up in a little over three years. Global emissions have simply not declined fast enough. They may peak in 2025, but this is still unclear.
As a result, feasible scenarios for limiting end-of-century warming to 1.5°C now involve overshooting this target temporarily while working towards net zero and then bringing it back down. The risk here is that carbon removal techniques and other measures may not be viable on the timelines and scale required.
These 1.5°C scenarios will require strong global action to rapidly phase out fossil fuels, strengthen net zero targets by bringing them forward, and scaling up realistic and sustainable forms of carbon removal.
Damage from extreme weather events is worsening. Pictured: people using a boat to pass a flooded motorway after the Chenab River in Pakistan overflowed. Shahid Saeed Mirza/Getty
What are other countries doing?
As of September 2025, 36 countries have submitted new or updated targets for 2030 or 2035, covering around 23% of global emissions.
This includes major emitters such as the US (under the former Biden administration), Japan, Canada and Brazil, while others such as China and India are yet to submit. The European Union has flagged an indicative 2035 target of 66.3–72.5% below 1990 levels.
If all existing national emission reduction goals and net-zero targets are implemented in full, warming is projected to reach 1.7–2.1°C by 2100.
If countries instead continue to emit at levels in line with their 2030 targets, warming will be well over 2°C.
These estimates may change as leaders announce more 2035 targets. If these targets collectively set the world on a straight line towards net zero – backed by strong implementation – it will mark a decisive shift in global efforts to limit warming and avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Achieving this for the world as a whole means high-income, high-emitting countries such as Australia must be as ambitious as possible in setting targets and taking action. They also have a responsibility to support global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C to ensure a fairer and more climate-resilient future.
Rebecca Burdon also works for Climate Resource, which consults to organisations on NDCs and the warming implications of country targets. No conflicts exist in relation to this article.
If we want to keep the in-person lectures, we need to change the way they are delivered.
What’s happening to lectures?
Changes to in-person lectures were accelerated by COVID lockdowns, where everyone learned from home, alongside the rise of online learning platforms.
In the post-pandemic era, universities have increasingly offered online, “asynchronous” learning. This allows students to choose when they engage with course resources and tasks. There is a growing acceptance of online learning as a preferred option, rather than a lockdown necessity.
There are financial benefits for universities. Online lectures can increase enrolments through people who may not otherwise be able to attend due to where they live, or to work commitments. It also removes class size restrictions.
There can also be reduced overhead costs of in-person facilities.
More controversially, universities might reuse lectures across semesters, employ fewer faculty, or outsource teaching to external providers.
‘Speed-watching’ and learning from home
Online lectures cater to different learning preferences. Recorded lectures allow students, particularly those for whom English is an additional language, to watch with subtitles or transcripts. Students can pause to make notes or check reference material.
Some students “speed-watch” lectures on faster playback speed or listen to them like podcasts while exercising or commuting.
This flexibility is also helpful for students who do not live near their university or who have mobility issues, illnesses, or care responsibilities.
But campus attendance can deprive students of valuable in-person interactions with their peers and teachers. This is particularly crucial for certain fields, such as healthcare, education and service-based industries, where professional socialisation plays a vital role in career preparation.
Research suggests online only courses do not suit students who are weaker academically or who have poor self-discipline or time management.
So there is a difficult balance to strike between convenience and educational quality.
But something else is going on
Beyond the convenience aspects, there could be other reasons lectures are dying out.
Reading dot points on slides, reciting essays, and delivering content in a monotone voice do not cut it in the age of TED talks, TikToks and short format media.
Lectures should not be lonely
I’ve been looking at how students engage with both in-person and online learning as part of a scoping review and routine quality assessment. Academics can see how many students download lectures, which pages they visit, how long they visit for, and how much they contribute in online forums.
Internal data from a number of large higher education institutions indicates up to 60% of students are not attending in-person lectures in some faculties. Despite the accessibility and convenience of online learning, up to 40% of students are not accessing lecture recordings at all. This data aligns with similar studies in the field.
This means students are missing out on opportunities to chat about ideas with classmates and lecturers. They’re missing the chance to make friends and professional contacts in their field. They’re not having their ideas challenged or supported. And they are not being exposed to key curriculum content.
It’s a domino effect. When fewer people engage with lectures, smaller in-person tutorials suffer too, because students do not have the curriculum knowledge to engage at a meaningful level.
For students who do show up, it can feel pretty lonely. Lecturers find it less satisfying too.
How can we encourage students to come back?
So maybe it’s not just about preserving lectures. It’s about reinventing them for today’s students.
Just as the corporate world is facing the challenge of enticing workers back to the office, we need to think about how to attract students to in-person lectures.
Lectures must offer unique experiences that can only be done in-person.
Though university positions are called “lecturers”, let’s reimagine what a “lecture” can be. It may encompass formats such as debates, Q&A sessions, or “Ask Me Anything” formats. It can be case studies, role-plays, mock activities, panels, hands-on workshops, competitions, or pitches. It may even be as simple as using slideshows better.
With students too, some international students come from learning cultures of quiet listening, which is quite different from the less formal, opinionated style we’re used to in English-speaking countries.
But we need to be upfront about what we’re trying to achieve.
Hugh Gundlach 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giuseppe Carabetta, Associate Professor of workplace and business law, UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney
Whether you support or oppose those decisions, it’s striking they occurred in the United States, which has strong constitutional protections for free speech. But even those rights don’t necessarily shield people from workplace consequences when reputational harm or breach of conduct is alleged.
Australians don’t have a constitutional right to free speech. Instead, we rely on a narrow, implied freedom of political communication, which offers limited protection and rarely applies to employment disputes.
Recent high-profile disputes have tested the boundaries of what Australians can say at work and outside it. Think journalist Antoinette Lattouf, rugby player Israel Folau and pianist Jayson Gillham.
Without clearer legal guidance in Australia, disputes over workplace speech — especially on social media — are likely to keep ending up in court.
Lattouf vs the ABC
The Fair Work Act is Australia’s main legislation outlining the rules for employee and employer relationships.
But it offers only limited protection for political opinion. It also lacks a direct or general mechanism for balancing employees’ rights to express personal views with employers’ legitimate interests.
That legal ambiguity has been at the heart of several high-profile cases, most recently a Federal Court decision involving the ABC and Lattouf.
Lattouf was dismissed mid-contract in 2023, after the ABC claimed she breached its social media guidelines and ignored a direction not to post about the conflict in Gaza.
However, in June this year the Federal Court found no such direction had been issued and no actual breach identified. It held her dismissal was unlawful under section 772 of the Fair Work Act, which prohibits termination based on political opinion.
This ruling didn’t break new legal ground. But it was significant for highlighting the fragility of employee protections, when codes of conduct are vague or inconsistently applied.
Other high-profile Australian cases
Lattouf’s case joined a growing list of disputes with a common thread: the lack of consistent standards and guidance on workplace speech.
Israel Folau’s dismissal by Rugby Australia for posting religious views on Instagram sparked national debate on freedom of religion and expression in 2018. His case, settled out of court the following year, left unresolved how far codes of conduct can override statutory protections.
Codes of conduct serve legitimate purposes: preventing harassment or discrimination, ensuring impartiality, and managing safety.
But when used to suppress dissent or punish unpopular views, they risk undermining democratic values.
Does peaceful protest count as ‘political opinion’? The law’s unclear. Tiff Ng/Pexels, CC BY
In the Lattouf vs ABC case, Justice Darryl Rangiah pointed out that section 772 of the Fair Work Act reflects Australia’s international human rights obligations – specifically Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It was a reminder that our employment laws don’t exist in a vacuum.
Yet the Fair Work Act does not define “political opinion”, and courts elsewhere have struggled to apply it.
Does it include attending rallies? Sharing memes? Criticising policy? The answer remains unclear.
Legal solutions could clear up confusion
Legislative reform would help.
One option would be to amend the Fair Work Act to define “political opinion” more clearly. This definition could include not just party membership or views on government policy, but also civic participation – such as protests or petitions – and moral or ideological beliefs with political dimensions.
It could also clarify that political expression includes both verbal and non-verbal acts, such as social media posts or peaceful protest attendance.
But definition alone isn’t enough.
Currently, the Fair Work Act offers limited protection. Employers can often justify disciplinary action by pointing to breaches of workplace policy or failure to follow lawful directions, effectively sidestepping the issue of political belief.
Provisions like section 772 of the Fair Work Act offer no clear framework for weighing an employer’s right to protect its reputation and maintain a safe workplace against an employee’s right to express personal views.
A federal Human Rights Act could offer a more robust solution. There’s also a strong case for an independent oversight body — perhaps a Workplace Rights Commissioner or an expanded Fair Work Ombudsman — to offer guidance, mediate disputes early, and help balance the rights of employees with the needs of employers and others affected.
Legal scholars Joellen Riley Munton and Therese MacDermott have proposed expanding the Fair Work Commission’s unfair dismissal and bullying jurisdictions to handle such disputes.
Reform won’t be easy. But unless we want more workplace conflicts playing out in court for years to come, a clearer legal framework is urgently needed — for everyone’s sake.
Giuseppe Carabetta 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.
Beginning in the second half of 2019, what we now know as the Black Summer fires began devastating eastern Australia.
Thousands of homes were destroyed, hundreds of lives were lost (mainly from smoke-induced health impacts) and smoke blanketed cities for weeks. By summer’s end in 2020, an area estimated to be larger than the United Kingdom had burned.
These fires were not normal. They were megafires: vast, intense blazes that burn for weeks or months. Warming temperatures and prolonged droughts are making such disasters more frequent in Australia, the United States, Canada and southern Europe.
The scale of Black Summer was staggering. So, too, was its uneven impact on different communities, which went beyond damage to property.
Our new research examined the impact of these fires on Australians living through them, in terms of income, housing stress and unpaid work. By focusing on these aspects, and not just property damage, we found the fires made a range of preexisting inequalities worse. Poorer communities, renters and women carried the heaviest burdens after the fires were put out.
This month, Australia’s National Climate Risk Assessmentfound “susceptibility to fire across southern and eastern Australia is projected to increase, due to increases in heat and the frequency of heatwave conditions”.
So, what can we learn from our new research on Black Summer to make future bushfire recoveries fairer for everyone?
Before and after
Our research included thousands of small Australian communities, each with an average of about 400 people. For comparison, we matched burned areas with unburned areas that had similar characteristics prior to the fires.
This allowed us to statistically compare how similar communities in both burned and unburned areas had changed between 2016 and 2021: before and after the Black Summer fires.
By linking fire extent maps to Australian Bureau of Statistics census data, we traced shifts in income, housing and household work.
We found the impacts of the fires differed across location, gender, housing (homeowner or renter) and socio-economic status. All of this affected how quickly households recovered from the Black Summer fires.
Shorter work hours and job losses
Many households’ incomes were hit by the fires. But these losses were concentrated in the most severely burnt areas, especially in “peri-urban” areas, where suburbia meets the bush.
These places offer proximity to nature while also being within a relatively easy commute of jobs, shops and schools. In these locations, we found communities that experienced the highest burn severity had the largest falls in average, weekly personal income.
We looked at both “poor” areas (defined as being in the bottom half of Australia’s Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage Index), where people not only earn less money but also experience other forms of disadvantage, as well as “non-poor” areas (those in the top half).
In poorer burned areas in peri-urban locations, the share of households reporting no or negative income increased, by about 1.3 percentage points compared to unburned areas.
These impacts were likely due to disruptions to local businesses and tourism, meaning shorter work hours and job losses for some.
A housing nightmare
For renters, the fires triggered an even greater housing crisis. Across all burned areas, rents increased compared to those in communities in unburned areas.
Across all burned areas, rents increased by an average of about A$20 per week, or roughly 10%. But in poorer communities, the average rise was even greater: closer to A$26 a week or 13%.
Unsurprisingly, crowding in homes became more common in areas affected by fires. Those without shelter because of fire damage or destruction, or who were simply priced out of the rental market because of reduced supply, most likely moved in with friends or relatives.
Many families also faced long waits to rebuild their homes, or struggled to secure temporary housing. Widespread underinsurance, the slow pace of rebuilding, and surging construction costs all made it worse.
More unpaid labour
Another hidden impact of the fires was an increase in unpaid work. Such work is rarely counted in disaster statistics, but it erodes wellbeing and prolongs recovery.
After the fires, many faced tasks such as repairing damaged homes and making insurance claims. With lower incomes and housing costs rising, poorer households were even less able to hire tradespeople to help in their recovery efforts.
For women in highly burned areas, the share of them spending at least 15 hours a week on unpaid tasks rose by around 1.7 percentage points compared to women in unaffected communities. For men, the increase was smaller, at around 1 percentage point.
What we can learn
Understanding these often overlooked impacts matters in how Australia plans for disasters and designs for recovery. If we prioritise property damage and insured losses, recovery funds flow disproportionately to wealthier households.
This risks leaving poorer communities – with fewer assets but heavier hidden losses – behind.
The Black Summer fires highlight disasters are not “great equalisers”. They widen existing inequalities. Unless disaster planning fully considers these hidden losses, uneven recovery will deepen social and economic divides.
Sonia Akter receives funding from 2023 ANU College Of Science Brooke Bushfire Research Fund.
Quentin Grafton 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael James Walsh, Associate Dean and Associate Professor in Social Sciences, University of Canberra
Spotify has been subject to various lingering critiques. These range from criticism of its payment model, to the presence of “fake artists”, the Joe Rogan boycott saga, and controversies around AI-made music.
More recently, cofounder and chief executive Daniel Ek has come under fire for investing €600 million (more than A$1 billion) in the military AI company Helsing. The news prompted several artists to remove their music from the platform, including King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard, Xiu Xiu, Deerhoof, Wu Lyf and, as of last week, Massive Attack.
To top it all off, Spotify has been steadily raising its prices for premium subscribers.
We’ve seen a spate of headlines targeting users who for one reason or another are considering, or determined to, tune out from the platform. For many, this may not be a hassle-free adjustment – but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
Users are picking up the tab
As of 2022, streaming accounted for 67% of the revenue generated by the music industry.
It’s estimated one in 12 people are regular Spotify users – putting the streaming giant well ahead of its nearest rivals YouTube Music (a Google subsidiary) and the China-domiciled Tencent Music.
While most users access Spotify for free, about 268 million of its 696 million monthly active users pay a premium for ad-free access.
For many years, Spotify kept prices fairly steady as it concentrated on growth. It did not make a profit until 2024. But chief business officer Alex Norström recently said price rises “were part of our toolbox now”.
Spotify has promised price rises will be accompanied by new features. Norström said the platform was developing a feature for “superfans” of popular artists, not to mention introducing (belatedly) “lossless” (higher-quality) sound.
Other music streaming services, such as Amazon Music, are also raising prices, to varying degrees of success.
Why Spotify dominates music streaming
There are several reasons for the dominance of streaming, and the broader dematerialisation of music media. As David Bowie foresaw in 2002: “music itself is going to become like running water or electricity”.
Streaming services such as Spotify avoid the stigmas associated with consuming pirated music recordings. They also remunerate artists (although many would say these payments are inadequate).
Ek made it clear a key aim of the company was to ensure no perceivable “latency” (annoying delays due to buffering) when songs were selected to play.
Spotify has also been at the forefront of leveraging the social dimensions of music streaming. It promotes user-created playlists and wayfinding functions that allow fans to feel like they own “their” music collection, despite not having the physical artefacts such as vinyl or CDs.
From the early days, Spotify sought to present itself in ways that resembled social media. More recently, it has released TikTok-inspired feeds, comments, polls, artist stories, collaborative playlists and a messaging feature.
Calling the tune through algorithms
A significant part of Spotify’s success stems from its continuous development of its interface and recommendation algorithms. These algorithms have become central to how users find, access and listen to music.
Importantly, Spotify caters to what scholars identify as a “lean-back” mentality. Users are encouraged to consume editorial playlists, rather than actively browse for tracks. This increases its power to influence the music with which listeners engage.
It aims to be an easy-to-use, always-convenient service, catering to any moment:
Spotify has a playlist to match your mood. Not only in the morning, but at every moment of your day.
Switching may be hard, but not impossible
The move away from streaming may now be hard to reverse, even as it becomes more expensive. Despite the resurgence of vinyl, many listeners have given up on physical music collections.
Spotify has also developed features to increase “stickiness” for subscribers. Users have created nearly nine billion playlists. As it’s difficult to transfer playlists to another streaming service, it makes users more likely to stick with Spotify.
It also has a reputation for having the most songs available. There is a large chance it will have the song you want to listen to.
Nonetheless, that doesn’t mean alternatives aren’t available. And most of them are cheaper than the A$15.99 per month Spotify charges in Australia.
Apple Music is an audio (and now video) streaming app developed by Apple, and launched in 2015. It promotes spatial and high-resolution music and integrates effectively with iOS devices.
Amazon Music is a music streaming platform included with an Amazon Prime subscription, offering access to songs, podcasts and playlists. It also integrates with Amazon’s Alexa virtual assistant devices.
YouTube Music is available to YouTube Premium subscribers. Succeeding Google Play Music, it offers various playlists and radio station features, with strong integration into YouTube’s video ecosystem.
Tidal is a music streaming service that positions itself as the leader in high-fidelity audio. Alongside Spotify, Tidal was one of the first platforms to allow users to follow selected Facebook friends and receive music recommendations from them.
Anghami, launched in 2012, is the leading music streaming service dedicated to music from the Middle East and North Africa.
There are also third-party apps (both paid and unpaid) you can use to transfer your old Spotify playlists to a new service, such as Free Your Music, Tune My Music, Soundiiz and SongShift (only for iOS).
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marija Taflaga, Senior Lecturer, School of Political Science and International Relations, Australian National University
In May, immediately after the 2025 election, debate swirled about whether the Coalition agreement would survive. The consensus was that it would be madness for the Liberals and the Nationals to part ways. Nonetheless they did so, briefly, before awkwardly reconciling. It was not a convincing display.
Fast forward four months and the Liberals are riven by factional conflicts on net zero and immigration, driven by actors from the National Party, including former leaders Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack, and recent Nationals defector Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. Some who have been touted as future party leaders are threatening to quit the frontbench over a net zero target 25 years away.
Many will be asking how the Liberals got to this point. But I think the more interesting question is where they might be headed.
Internal conflict has a long history
The first thing to note is that conflicts over immigration and climate change are not new.
The Liberal Party is a hybrid conservative-liberal party. This means it’s an awkward coalition of liberal and conservative interests, which united to oppose organised Labor more than a century ago, and have undergone various transformations and iterations since.
From an ideological perspective, some principles these different groups hold are contradictory. These include, for example, how much the state should get involved in people’s private lives, or an ongoing tension between economic or social “progress” and tradition. These differing worldviews can cause problems.
The Nationals add an additional layer of complexity, because the shared Coalition party room allows members of the Liberal Right to form policy coalitions across the party divide, placing additional pressure on the moderate faction.
Within the Liberal Party, ideological differences are usually managed by the disciplining incentive of government or an overwhelming desire to win government. But at times like these, on the back of two catastrophic election losses, those guardrails are nowhere to be found.
Unlike Labor, the Liberal party doesn’t have a formal factional system, which means it doesn’t have a bargaining infrastructure to help manage disputes. This means the way the Liberals resolve internal conflicts is through leadership change and, inevitably, one faction dominating the other.
Again, the Nationals complicate this, because their additional numbers in the Coalition party room create more opportunities for policy entrepreneurs within the Liberal Right to push conservative policy positions. It’s not just numbers, but powers too, as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley is limited in her ability to exercise authority over Nationals members who are not in the shadow cabinet.
In many ways, the events of the past week have a familiar pattern to political observers. But the difference is the overall political landscape.
Australia is undergoing a realignment in how citizens vote. This means Australian voters are no longer as rusted onto a particular party as they have been in the past. It also means the Australian party system, like those in other Western democracies, is in flux.
So, is this the beginning of the end for the Liberal Party?
Unlikely.
Despite all the existential talk about the Liberal Party, there remain significant institutional ballasts and supports. These range from public funding (including payments to help parties run administration and IT security), party infrastructure, volunteer networks, bricks-and-mortar buildings, brand recognition and even exemptions from Australia’s privacy laws.
There are also all the privileges the Liberal Party receives as the official opposition, including additional salaries, staff and resources to assist with policy formation, and the rights and powers of our legislative chambers such as question time or the budget reply.
It is really hard to build a successful new party – most fail – so while the Liberal Party might be in serious institutional decline, it remains worth fighting for.
But something is happening to the Liberals
On top of the advantages listed above, voters think of the Liberals as the natural governing alternative to Labor.
However, as noted above, the Australian party system is in flux. The 2025 election saw the return of most of the teal independents. With each election cycle, the habit of voting Liberal weakens, particularly as fewer voters are switching to conservative parties as they age. The cohort of “rusted-on” Liberals is ageing and is not being replaced at the same rate.
If the Liberals spend multiple cycles not engaging with the median voter, and can’t articulate a credible alternative story about the Australian economy, it does raise the question: who will voters turn to when they decide to throw Labor out?
To be clear, it is healthy for political parties to debate policy. But the crucial thing happening to the Liberal Party while it undertakes these policy debates is that Australians are voting out the moderates from the party. By switching to the teals in the Liberals’ former blue-ribbon seats, voters are removing the traditional elite of the party.
If you don’t believe me, consider the example of the Victorian Liberals, who keep losing to a long-lived and unpopular Labor government. The risk for the Liberals is that there comes a point where there is no viable future for a moderate Liberal in the party. It is no longer worth fighting over the remaining institutional infrastructure and brand advantage. In this situation, those candidates (and their voters) would need to find a new political home.
That could lead to a situation where there are three parties on the right needing to cooperate to form a governing coalition. Another alternative might be a merged National and Liberal Party that would form a coherent conservative party and would seek to work with a new liberal force.
This is why the debate inside the Liberal Party is important. But that’s also why it matters that it does not appear to be happening in a constructive way that would lead to a new consensus. Instead, it looks like a set of factional power plays.
Incidentally, immediately after losing the 2022 election, Scott Morrison advocated for a future in which the Liberals and Nationals merged and a new Liberal force emerged in the centre. Morrison was always highly rated as a numbers man. Perhaps he will be right about the Liberal Party’s future, too.
Marija Taflaga receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Adjunct Professor of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Victoria University, Australian National University
Much of the world is focused on a two-state solution in resolving the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears devoted to realising his vision of a “Greater Israel” instead.
Netanyahu appears to be halfway through achieving this goal, despite all the international condemnation of his war in Gaza and the increasing isolation of Israel.
The two-state solution now seems to be no more than a catchword for governments around the world that want to show their solidarity with the Palestinian cause at a time when Israel is hard at work to ensure the concept becomes totally defunct.
The prospects for creating an independent Palestinian state out of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip to live side-by-side with Israel in peace and security have never been dimmer.
The meeting proved to be very ineffective. The leaders issued a strong condemnation of the strike on Qatar, but no plan for how to prevent Israel from attacking its neighbours or halt what a United Nations commission has now called a genocide in Gaza.
Instead, the leaders offered a tepid statement, saying they would:
take all possible legal and effective measures to prevent Israel from continuing its actions against the Palestinian people.
Middle East leaders know the only power that can rein in Israel is its committed strategic partner, the United States.
Washington does not appear prepared to do that. While President Donald Trump has assured the region Israel will not repeat its attack on Qatar, his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, urgently flew to Israel to reconfirm America’s unshakeable alliance with the Jewish state.
In praying together with Netanyahu at the Western Wall with a kippah on his head, Rubio demonstrated the Trump administration would stand by the prime minister all the way.
And Netanyahu was quick to declare that Israel reserves the right to hit the “Hamas terrorists” anywhere. He has demanded Qatar expel Hamas officials or face Israel’s wrath again.
A vision for a ‘Greater Israel’
Based on the language used by the Israeli leader and his extremist ministers, the creation of “Greater Israel” appears to be a priority.
In recent weeks, Netanyahu has publicly alluded to this, saying he was “very” connected to the idea.
The “Greater Israel” phrase was used after the Six-Day War in 1967 to refer to the lands Israel had conquered: the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula (which has since been returned to Egypt).
This concept was enshrined in 1977 in the founding charter of Netanyahu’s Likud Party, which said “between the [Mediterranean] Sea and the Jordan [River] there will only be Israeli sovereignty”.
Last year, Netanyahu affirmed that Israel must have “security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River”. He added, “That collides with the idea of [Palestinian] sovereignty. What can we do?”
Netanyahu is now firmly in a position to annex the Gaza Strip, followed by formally extending Israeli jurisdiction over all the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, where more than 700,000 settlers live under the protection of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), and potentially annex the entire area.
In addition, Israel has made extraterritorial gains in both Lebanon and Syria after degrading Hezbollah and striking both southern Syria and Iran. He has said the IDF’s footprint in both countries will not be pulled back any time soon.
Arab and Muslim leaders have strongly condemned Netanyahu’s references to a “Greater Israel”. The US also has not publicly endorsed it, though the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has been a supporter of the idea.
What can the world do?
Netanyahu and his colleagues have weathered the international criticism over their catastrophic Gaza operations for nearly two years, with unwavering US security, economic and financial backing.
Equally, Netanyahu’s critics say he has shown little concern about the safety and freedom of the remaining Israeli hostages still in Hamas’s custody. He has brushed off the desires of a majority of Israelis for a ceasefire and release of the hostages.
For Netanyahu and his ruling clique, the end justifies the means. Given this, the expected recognition of the state of Palestine by many Western countries at the UN General Assembly this week will have little or no bearing on Israel or, for that matter, the US. They have both already rejected it as a meaningless and unworthy symbolic exercise.
This begs the question of what needs to be done to divert Israel from its path. The only means that could possibly work would be sanctioning Netanyahu and his government and severing all military, economic and trade ties with Israel.
Anything short of this will allow the Israeli leadership to continue its pursuit of a “Greater Israel”, if this is indeed their ultimate plan.
This would come at a terrible cost not only for the Palestinians and the region, but also for Israel’s global reputation. When Netanyahu eventually leaves office, he will leave behind a state in international disrepute. And it may not recover from this for a very long time.
Amin Saikal 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.
The Albanese government on Sunday formally recognised Palestine as an independent state.
Prime Minister Anothony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong in a statement said that Sunday’s recognition, “alongside Canada and the United Kingdom, is part of a coordinated international effort to build new momentum for a two-state solution”.
The declaration came as Albanese began his United States visit for leaders week at the United Nations in New York.
The prospect of a formal meeting with United States President Donald Trump remained up in the air when Albanese landed in New York on Sunday (Australian time).
The move to recognise the state of Palestine has been condemned in a letter from 25 Republican members of Congress, sent to Albanese as well as the leaders of Canada, France and the United Kingdom.
The letter, copied to Trump, pointed out that going ahead with recognition would put “your country at odds with long-standing US policy and interests and may invite punitive measures in response”.
The Republicans described recognition as a “reckless policy that undermines prospects for peace” and called for the leaders to reconsider their decisions, “especially as Hamas continues to hold Israeli citizens hostage while still refusing to agree to a ceasefire”.
In their statement, Albanese and Wong said: “Today’s act of recognition reflects Australia’s longstanding commitment to a two-state solution, which has always been the only path to enduring peace and security for the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples”.
“The President of the Palestinian Authority has restated its recognition of Israel’s right to exist, and given direct undertakings to Australia, including commitments to hold democratic elections and enact significant reform to finance, governance and education.
“Terrorist organisation Hamas must have no role in Palestine.
“Further steps, including the establishment of diplomatic relations and opening of embassies, will be considered as the Palestinian Authority makes progress on its commitments to reform,” the statement said.
The letter from the Republicans said recognition “sets the dangerous precedent that violence, not diplomacy, is the most expedient means for terrorist groups like Hamas to achieve their political aims.
“This misguided effort to reward terrorism also imperils the security of your own countries. Proposed recognition is coinciding with sharp increases in antisemitic activity in each of your countries.”
While in New York Albanese will address the UN General Assembly, and have discussions on climate issues and on Australia’s proposed ban on young people’s access to social media.
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.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on September 21, 2025.
Keith Rankin Chart Analysis – Structural Recession Analysis by Keith Rankin. Yesterday the provisional Quarterly Economic Growth data was released. It showed that, seasonally adjusted, remunerated output (ie GDP, gross domestic product) fell 0.9% in April-to-June compared to January-to-March. While the resulting media hoo-ha overstated the significance of this result, there was still very little coverage of the underlying problem; New Zealand
Keith Rankin on Nuclear Calculus Analysis by Keith Rankin. Over the last week I have subverted the western geo-cultural tropes of ‘Good versus Evil’ and ‘Beautiful versus Ugly’. (Geopolitical Rugby: Bad plays Evil, for the final World Cup 16 Sep 2025 and Lookism11 Sep 2025; both on Scoop and Evening Report.) Here I consider our new version of the former
Optus Triple Zero outage has left 4 people dead. A telecommunications expert explains what went wrong – and how to fix it Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark A Gregory, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, RMIT University Four people have died after a botched Optus network upgrade on Thursday prevented around 600 emergency calls to Triple Zero across South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. South Australian police have confirmed the deaths linked
Optus Triple Zero outage has left 3 people dead. A telecommunications expert explains what went wrong – and how to fix it Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark A Gregory, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, RMIT University Three people have died after a botched Optus network upgrade on Thursday prevented around 600 emergency calls to Triple Zero across South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. South Australian police have confirmed the deaths linked
Yesterday the provisional Quarterly Economic Growth data was released. It showed that, seasonally adjusted, remunerated output (ie GDP, gross domestic product) fell 0.9% in April-to-June compared to January-to-March. While the resulting media hoo-ha overstated the significance of this result, there was still very little coverage of the underlying problem; New Zealand appears to be at the peak (not the trough) of a structural recession.
I have represented the same latest New Zealand growth data in three charts: biannual (rather than quarterly) economic growth; annual growth, and biennial growth.
Biannual Growth
Chart by Keith Rankin.
In the chart above (and the other two charts, below), the black dot represents the latest datapoint. To the right of the black dots are ‘slightly optimistic’ and ‘slightly pessimistic’ forecasts projected to early 2026.
The first thing to note is that the latest biannual growth datapoint is 0.7%, which translates to annualised growth of 1.4%. The policy target for annualised growth is three percent (equivalent to 1.5% for biannual data, and 0.75% for quarterly data). The 0.7% statistic is the seasonalised GDP for the first half of this year compared to the second half of last year.
In the present scheme of things 0.7% biannual growth is rather good. The most important feature of the data series is the surprisingly high figure for the first quarter of 2025; a bounce-back from the 2024 disaster. The second quarter ‘slump’ does no more than reverse the first quarter rise, suggesting a ‘flat economy’.
The chart shows the data series as released by Statistics New Zealand; that quarterly GDP series begins in the second quarter of 1987, when ‘Rogernomics’ was in full swing. The first available biannual growth datapoint is for the beginning of 1988. We also note that I have omitted the wildly swinging short-term growth data for the two years of the Covid19 lockdowns. The dashed line for 2020 and 2021 indicates average growth for those years.
The chart shows the economic crises of the last 40 years. In doing so it shows that there is a common pattern of above-average growth immediately after a crisis; this is the easy re-employment growth that follows a period of high unemployment. This did not happen so much in the period of the early-2010s, when the New Zealand government pursued a policy – moderate by European Union and United Kingdom standards – of ‘fiscal consolidation’.
We also note that the high bounce-back in 1993, when Ruth Richardson’s ‘dead hand’ was being eased off the tiller, was not enough to prevent – in the election that year – ‘the Right’ suffering its biggest electoral deficit since 1938.
The most recent part of the biannual chart suggests that New Zealand is currently at (or just past) the peak of a structural recession. Biannual growth will be negative for the period April-to-September, even if quarterly growth is positive. We note that the early 2025 growth ‘spurt’, linked to New Zealand’s near-record-high terms of trade (the record was in 2022), is still well below the biannual growth target of 1.5%.
Annual Growth
Chart by Keith Rankin.
The second chart shows the same data, but comparing a whole year with the previous whole year. Here much of the nasty 2024 recession is incorporated into the most recent datapoint. The whole experience looks much like the global financial crisis which troughed in 2009; though this time New Zealand has performed relatively worse compared to other developed nations.
The long structural recession of Rogernomics and Ruthenasia (Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson) remains a standout, however. Those years of the late 1980s and early 1990s represent fiscal and monetary austerity at its silliest.
Biennial Growth
Chart by Keith Rankin.
For some purposes, even annual growth is too ‘short-term’. For fifty-year-plus analysis, I sometimes favour quinquennial growth calculations. But biennial growth gives a good big picture when looking back three to five decades.
Here we can see the substantiality of the Ruthenasia policy crisis and of the global financial crisis; and how a relatively normal crisis such as that of the late 1990s should be placed in context.
Looking at today, even my slightly optimistic projection (of one-half percent biannual growth) shows a structural recession comparable to the global financial crisis. We note that interest rates in most developed countries were reduced to near-zero as a rapid policy response to the 2008/09 global crisis. (Global inflation didn’t happen in the 2010s, as the woe-betiders claimed it would!) We see none of that urgency this time, noting that something like the present New Zealand malaise is emerging in United Kingdom, France, Canada, and especially Germany. Others are likely to follow these.
Reflection
New Zealand’s economy is stuck in a mire. With other major economies following suit, it’s much more likely that things will get worse not better, as the decade progresses. As the first chart shows, the New Zealand economy has recently ‘enjoyed’ a peak – albeit a low peak – not a trough.
Lower interest rates will not solve the problem. That’s like ‘pushing on a string’ as the textbooks used-to-say. Governments need to generate revenue by spending more, not less; more spending means more income means more income tax, and means more investment in the economy rather than in the casino.
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Analysis by Keith Rankin.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Over the last week I have subverted the western geo-cultural tropes of ‘Good versus Evil’ and ‘Beautiful versus Ugly’. (Geopolitical Rugby: Bad plays Evil, for the final World Cup 16 Sep 2025 and Lookism11 Sep 2025; both on Scoop and Evening Report.) Here I consider our new version of the former tripolar world; that tripolar world prevailed from 1945 to 1990. Pole A, essentially the former First World, is now the Western Alliance. Pole B is equivalent to the former Second World; B is, as before, the geopolitical adversary of A. Pole C, the new Third World, is the equivalent of the former non-aligned Third World; yes, that’s the literal meaning of ‘third world’, non-alignment, neutrality.
The emergent new Second World includes the decentralised Muslim world; and has power centres in Beijing and Moscow; thus, its geographical and cultural loci are in Eurasia. The new Second World (pole B) is ‘united’ by comprising the various named enemies of the new First World; with West Europe being the geographical and cultural locus of pole A. West versus East, with substantial nuclear armaments; four nuclear countries in the West, four in the East.
The new Third World is defined neither by its geography nor its economic status. It is the neutral pole; pole C. India – the only nuclear power not in A or B – is potentially the leader of the new Third World, as it was the political leader of the old Third World. India’s future alignment remains the big geopolitical unknown.
Where does Australasia – Australia and New Zealand – fit? Given the geography (literally ‘south of Asia’), the common-sense position would be for Australia and New Zealand to become firm members of the new Third World; strictly non-aligned. But the signs are that Australasia, with only a tiny proportion of the old First World’s population, and on the opposite side of the world from the new First World, will contrive to be a fully aligned far-flung component of the new First World alliance. Though not formal members of Nato.
Nuclear Conflict
The most likely scenario for Nuclear War Two (NW2) would begin with a ‘nuclear attack’ across the present A-B (ie West-East) geopolitical boundary, noting that an important part of that boundary is inside Donetsk province; and also noting that one country – Türkiye – is ambiguously placed and may itself be regarded as a boundary-zone rather than a boundary-line.
(Both the words ‘nuclear’ and ‘attack’ come with some ambiguity. Would a strike on a nuclear power station by conventional weaponry count? Would any breach of airspace or sea-space by a nuclear-armed vehicle count as an attack?)
Any part of the world can be reached by perhaps five countries’ nuclear weapons, either from long-range missiles or launched from naval vessels (especially submarines).
Nuclear calculus is essentially ‘what happens next’, and the associated probabilities of the different scenarios. To keep my argument simple, I will assume that the first strike of NW2 is intentional, targeted, and includes at least one nuclear explosion. Such an explosion may not be on target for a variety of reasons; not least that an attacking missile may be intercepted.
My Scenario One is that of a smallish first strike on the East by the West. As, in my view, the East is more pragmatic than the West, a response would take place, but most likely would be de-escalatory or proportionate in nature; a calculated response, much as the recent responses by Iran to Israel’s provocations. The critical point would then be the next move by the West: escalation or de-escalation. De-escalation should lead to at least a temporary truce.
Escalation by the West would be problematic; presumably, and irrationally, it would target the eastern country which is already involved. Retaliation through nuclear escalation is not rational, in that the expected final outcome would be harmful to all; including harm to the retaliator. Nevertheless, the conventional presumption is that nuclear powers, if subjected to nuclear attack, would to the best of their abilities retaliate through nuclear escalation. The ‘rational’ calculus of the ‘mutually-assured-destruction’ dogma is that attacked countries would respond spitefully rather than rationally; so therefore peace depends on there being no first strike.
My Scenario Two is that of a smallish first strike on the West by one of the East’s nuclear nations. If the West – acting out of contrived fury rather than pragmatism – escalates in response, we are left with essentially the same situation as in Scenario One.
Scenarios Three and Four would be a large-scale first strike, either East on West or West on East. In these scenarios, de-escalation would be seen as capitulation with all the associated consequences of total defeat. Therefore, in these cases the response would almost certainly be proportionate or escalatory.
In all four scenarios we face situations of how to respond to a medium- or large-scale nuclear strike.
If the ‘ball’ is in the West’s court (Scenario Three), then the most likely response I would see would be an equal or larger response onto the Eastern power already involved, in the hope of splitting the East, and achieving a backdown by the East’s belligerent. The East’s non-belligerent powers would at this stage pitch for neutrality; they would ‘align’ with the new non-aligned Third World.
In the other three scenarios, we are faced with the perceived need by the East to respond to the West’s nuclear escalation. The context is the West’s alliances of ‘collective defence’; the legalised geopolitical contract (eg Nato’s Article Five) that an attack on one is an attack on all.
The situation faced by the East when de-escalation is not a realistic option.
There are two other options: escalation or deflection. Escalation, as already noted, is not rational. Its rationale is that of ‘globally-assured-destruction’, given the substantial third-party effects of nuclear warfare.
The other option for a large Asian nuclear superpower would be deflection. Deflection here means a proportionate retaliatory strike on one of the more expendable nations in the Western Alliance. Deflection lessens the probability of continued escalation.
Deflection could mean a significant nuclear strike on a non-nuclear Nato country, with the sense that Nato as-a-whole might renege on its ‘Article Five’ clause. Such a strike might end the war, with both sides preferring to pull-back from the brink; with both sides cutting their losses, so to speak.
A better deflective off-ramp might be a proportionate nuclear strike on a non-nuclear non-Nato country openly allied to Nato. That would further enhance the possibility that the nuclear war would come to an abrupt end. Would it be rational for the United States, United Kingdom, France or Israel to retaliate to a nuclear attack on a small distant non-Nato member of the Western Alliance?
There would be an awareness in all the main nuclear powers’ capital cities that, while distance can no longer prevent a country from being attacked, a nuclear calamity far away from the world’s major population centres would limit global loss of life and limit the impact on global food chains.
The Tyranny of Distance?
In 1966, Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote The Tyranny of Distance. It was about the higher costs of such things as travel, trade and collective defence. Australia – especially White Australia – had a long-lasting neurosis about an East Asian lebensraum. New Zealand was always a bit more relaxed; practically the same distance to western markets and further from any putative East Asian adversary.
Nevertheless, the tyranny of distance did not prevent New Zealand’s ‘second people’ from coming from literally the other side of the world. Maritime geography and geopolitics had its own logic.
The traditional tyranny of distance hypothesis was overstated. In practical terms, in the era of sailing ships and no trains, it was much easier to travel from London to Dunedin than to Vancouver. The costs of long-distance compared to short-distance transport persistently declined. And, from the time of the telegraph coming to Australasia in the 1860s, communication between ‘down-under’ and Europe was hardly any more expensive than over much shorter distances.
But there is a new tyranny of distance for Oceania. We saw it in South Australia in the 1950s with the British nuclear testing at Maralinga. And American and French testing at Bikini and Mururoa. We have seen this tyranny of distance more generally in the mining exploitation of ‘distant’ ‘peripheral’ lands in Africa and South America. These parts of the world, distant from the world’s major population centres, are relatively exploitable and expendable.
The presence of these people in Oceania increases the likelihood of Australasia being a nuclear target. So does Australia’s formal membership of AUKUS. So does New Zealand’s Minister of Defence signalling for Aotearoa to become an ally of Nato (refer: Judith Collins makes secret visit to site of Russian missile attack in Kyiv, TVNZ, 4 Sep 2025).
On Deflection
Far from being the least likely part of the world to become a victim of nuclear war, Oceania may indeed be the most likely venue for a deflective nuclear strike. If Aotearoa New Zealand can stifle its latent militarism (and can instead become an influential advocate for the new Third World), then the far side of Australia might be more at risk; Australia is already firmly in the European geopolitical camp, despite its obvious self-interest to maintain close ties with its Asian neighbours. Nuclear weapons are most likely to be targeted at cities, and any city far away from any other city becomes an excellent candidate for nuclear victimhood.
In the United States in 1945, there was a high-level debate about the best way to use its incipient nuclear weapon. Henry Stimson, United States Secretary for War, said “not Kyoto” (refer The man who saved Kyoto from the atomic bomb, BBC 9 August 2015). Even from the outset, war-torn Europe never looked like a good bet; indeed the July 1944 Bretton Woods Conference was conducted on the basis that allied victory was just a matter of time. The ‘dovish’ option was to perform a ‘demonstration’ drop, to show what might happen if Japan did not immediately capitulate. The problem was that, by July 1945, Japan had already been bombed to smithereens and it had still not capitulated. The alternative to a demonstration drop was a gratuitous drop or two or three on a significant Japanese city. (The next two cities on the nuclear list were Kokura and Niigata; the plan was to bomb them around November 1945, when new warheads had been manufactured.)
In the end, the Americans did do two demonstrations. In August 1945, the value to Americans of a Japanese life was no higher than the value of life of a Gazan is to an Israeli Zionist. The bombs over Japan were demonstration drops; the real audience of the demonstrations was Josef Stalin, not Emperor Hirohito. Japan was a good site for a ‘show and tell’ because it was far from both Europe and North America. Japan – like Bikini and Mururoa, later on – was a Pacific test site.
In the present geopolitical environment, and if a nuclear war starts, a deflective proportionate retaliatory nuclear strike may be the only offramp; a way to avoid assured-global-destruction. From an Eastern standpoint the ideal target would be a place which is overtly allied to its Nato foe (and, to boot, is part of its adversary’s communications network), which can produce rockets and other high-tech componentry for Nato, which is sufficiently far away from major population centres to lessen environmental harm, which has a small (thereby relatively expendable) population, which has minimal anti-missile defences, and which has in its midst a number those enemy billionaires who helped to create the geopolitical problem in the first place.
Conclusion
Nowhere is safe. Rationally, distance may make a place less safe, not more safe, from nuclear destruction. While great-power brinkmanship is far from rational, rational thinking under great pressure will be required to end a nuclear war once started. Even the most rational decision-process will involve many casualties. The frontlines of a nuclear war are not the same as the frontlines of a conventional war.
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Four people have died after a botched Optus network upgrade on Thursday prevented around 600 emergency calls to Triple Zero across South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
South Australian police have confirmed the deaths linked to the outage – which Optus only revealed to the public, emergency services and state/territory leaders on Friday evening at a press conference – included an eight-week-old baby from Gawler West, about 43 kilometres north of Adelaide, and a 68-year-old woman from the Adelaide suburb of Queenstown. Two men, aged 49 and 74, died in Western Australia.
The outage – plus Optus’s delayed response to it – has sparked fury and condemnation. “I have not witnessed such incompetence from an Australian corporation in respect to communications worse than this,” South Australian premier Peter Malinauskas said.
This isn’t the first time a blunder by Optus has meant people in crisis have been unable to call emergency services. So what exactly went wrong? And what could be done to prevent a similar tragedy occurring again?
What happened?
Telecommunications companies routinely conduct network upgrades. Ideally, the upgrades should include a suite of tests performed beforehand as well as immediately afterwards. These tests can quickly identify any network or system problems. If a problem is identified, the upgrade can be reversed. Alternatively, what’s known as a failover system can be used if the upgrade will take some time to implement. A failover system is one that has not been upgraded.
On Thursday, Optus conducted a network upgrade. In the process of doing so it failed to identify a technical failure, which impacted Triple Zero calls.
Normal calls were still connecting during this Triple Zero outage. That’s because Triple Zero is a cooperative service that involves telecommunications companies, as well as the governments and emergency services in each state or territory. The Triple Zero core components are implemented separately, meaning any issue with them does not affect calls on the normal network.
The Telecommunications (Emergency Call Service) Determination 2019 sets out obligations on telecommunications companies to ensure they have arrangements in place for dealing with emergency calls. For example, they must provide access to the Triple Zero call service free of charge. They must also have what’s known as a “camp-on” mechanism in place. This allows your mobile phone to connect to another network to make Triple Zero calls if your network has failed.
On Friday afternoon, Optus CEO Stephen Rue apologised to the families of the people who died, as well as the broader community, for the outage.
“You have my assurance that we are conducting a thorough investigation and once concluded we will share the facts of the incident publicly”.
Not the first time
That might sound familiar. That’s because this isn’t the first time a telecommunications blunder of this kind has happened.
On March 1 2024, a Telstra network disruption resulted in 127 calls to Triple Zero failing – thankfully without fatal consequences. In that case, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) fined Telstra A$3 million.
On November 8 2023, Optus was responsible for another network meltdown which prevented more than 2,100 people from accessing Triple Zero. Optus also failed to conduct 369 welfare checks on people who had attempted to make an emergency call during the outage.
Nobody died as a result of that failure either. Optus, however, was hit with a A$12 million fine by the ACMA for breaching emergency call regulations. It was also subject to a formal review, commissioned by the Australian government and completed in April, which made 18 recommendations to prevent similar incidents occurring again.
These recommendations included establishing a “Triple Zero custodian” who would have oversight and overarching responsibility for the efficient functioning of the Triple Zero ecosystem. They also included more clearly and explicitly articulating precisely what is expected of network operators in regard to ensuring calls are delivered to Triple Zero, and requiring telecommunications companies to share real time network information detailing outages with emergency services and other relevant parties.
Following the most recent outage, federal Communications Minister Anika Wells said the Australian government has “accepted all recommendations from the previous Optus Outage Review and has fully implemented 12 of the 18 recommendations, with the remaining six underway”.
But the fact three people are dead because they couldn’t reach Triple Zero due to yet another network outage highlights the urgent need for more action.
Encouraging all telcos to lift their game
The federal government should consider even stronger minimum performance standards for telecommunications companies that provide the foundation for enforcement. These standards could stipulate, for example, minimum download and upload speeds. They could also require telecommunications companies to make a public notification about an outage within a specified time period – ideally as soon as they themselves are aware of it.
There should also be a mandated requirement for telecommunications companies to establish reasonable engineering practices to help prevent updates taking out part or the whole network. These practices could include automated testing before and after updates are carried out.
And while the ACMA will soon launch an investigation into this recent outage, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission could also investigate it. Specifically, the commission could look at whether the actions of Optus amounts to unconscionable conduct, and issue more severe fines.
This may serve to encourage Optus and other telecommunications companies to lift their game and better protect public safety.
Mark A Gregory has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network grants program and the auDA Foundation. He is a life member of the Telecommunications Association.
Three people have died after a botched Optus network upgrade on Thursday prevented around 600 emergency calls to Triple Zero across South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
South Australian police have confirmed the deaths linked to the outage – which Optus only revealed to the public, emergency services and state/territory leaders on Friday evening at a press conference – included an eight-week-old baby from Gawler West, about 43 kilometres north of Adelaide, and a 68-year-old woman from the Adelaide suburb of Queenstown. The third person who died was from Western Australia, but no further details have yet been released.
The outage – plus Optus’s delayed response to it – has sparked fury and condemnation. “I have not witnessed such incompetence from an Australian corporation in respect to communications worse than this,” South Australian premier Peter Malinauskas said.
This isn’t the first time a blunder by Optus has meant people in crisis have been unable to call emergency services. So what exactly went wrong? And what could be done to prevent a similar tragedy occurring again?
What happened?
Telecommunications companies routinely conduct network upgrades. Ideally, the upgrades should include a suite of tests performed beforehand as well as immediately afterwards. These tests can quickly identify any network or system problems. If a problem is identified, the upgrade can be reversed. Alternatively, what’s known as a failover system can be used if the upgrade will take some time to implement. A failover system is one that has not been upgraded.
On Thursday, Optus conducted a network upgrade. In the process of doing so it failed to identify a technical failure, which impacted Triple Zero calls.
Normal calls were still connecting during this Triple Zero outage. That’s because Triple Zero is a cooperative service that involves telecommunications companies, as well as the governments and emergency services in each state or territory. The Triple Zero core components are implemented separately, meaning any issue with them does not affect calls on the normal network.
The Telecommunications (Emergency Call Service) Determination 2019 sets out obligations on telecommunications companies to ensure they have arrangements in place for dealing with emergency calls. For example, they must provide access to the Triple Zero call service free of charge. They must also have what’s known as a “camp-on” mechanism in place. This allows your mobile phone to connect to another network to make Triple Zero calls if your network has failed.
On Friday afternoon, Optus CEO Stephen Rue apologised to the families of the people who died, as well as the broader community, for the outage.
“You have my assurance that we are conducting a thorough investigation and once concluded we will share the facts of the incident publicly”.
Not the first time
That might sound familiar. That’s because this isn’t the first time a telecommunications blunder of this kind has happened.
On March 1 2024, a Telstra network disruption resulted in 127 calls to Triple Zero failing – thankfully without fatal consequences. In that case, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) fined Telstra A$3 million.
On November 8 2023, Optus was responsible for another network meltdown which prevented more than 2,100 people from accessing Triple Zero. Optus also failed to conduct 369 welfare checks on people who had attempted to make an emergency call during the outage.
Nobody died as a result of that failure either. Optus, however, was hit with a A$12 million fine by the ACMA for breaching emergency call regulations. It was also subject to a formal review, commissioned by the Australian government and completed in April, which made 18 recommendations to prevent similar incidents occurring again.
These recommendations included establishing a “Triple Zero custodian” who would have oversight and overarching responsibility for the efficient functioning of the Triple Zero ecosystem. They also included more clearly and explicitly articulating precisely what is expected of network operators in regard to ensuring calls are delivered to Triple Zero, and requiring telecommunications companies to share real time network information detailing outages with emergency services and other relevant parties.
Following the most recent outage, federal Communications Minister Anika Wells said the Australian government has “accepted all recommendations from the previous Optus Outage Review and has fully implemented 12 of the 18 recommendations, with the remaining six underway”.
But the fact three people are dead because they couldn’t reach Triple Zero due to yet another network outage highlights the urgent need for more action.
Encouraging all telcos to lift their game
The federal government should consider even stronger minimum performance standards for telecommunications companies that provide the foundation for enforcement. These standards could stipulate, for example, minimum download and upload speeds. They could also require telecommunications companies to make a public notification about an outage within a specified time period – ideally as soon as they themselves are aware of it.
There should also be a mandated requirement for telecommunications companies to establish reasonable engineering practices to help prevent updates taking out part or the whole network. These practices could include automated testing before and after updates are carried out.
And while the ACMA will soon launch an investigation into this recent outage, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission could also investigate it. Specifically, the commission could look at whether the actions of Optus amounts to unconscionable conduct, and issue more severe fines.
This may serve to encourage Optus and other telecommunications companies to lift their game and better protect public safety.
Mark A Gregory has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network grants program and the auDA Foundation. He is a life member of the Telecommunications Association.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on September 20, 2025.
New entanglement breakthrough links cores of atoms, brings quantum computers closer Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrea Morello, Professor, Quantum Nanosystems, UNSW Sydney Quantum entanglement — once dismissed by Albert Einstein as “spooky action at a distance” — has long captured the public imagination and puzzled even seasoned scientists. But for today’s quantum practitioners, the reality is rather more mundane: entanglement is a
Hollywood is suing yet another AI company. But there may be a better way to solve copyright conflicts Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wellett Potter, Lecturer in Law, University of New England mo jiaming/Unsplash This week Disney, Universal Pictures and Warner Bros Discovery jointly sued MiniMax, a Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company, over alleged copyright infringement. The three Hollywood media giants allege MiniMax (which operates Hailuo AI and is reportedly
7 things we can do today to meet Australia’s new climate goal Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Skarbek, Climateworks Centre CEO, Monash University The federal government on Thursday announced a 2035 emissions reduction target of 62-70% below 2005 levels. Importantly, it also released a net zero plan and blueprints for six major economic sectors. The target signals Australia is committed to a net
Quantum entanglement — once dismissed by Albert Einstein as “spooky action at a distance” — has long captured the public imagination and puzzled even seasoned scientists.
But for today’s quantum practitioners, the reality is rather more mundane: entanglement is a kind of connection between particles that is the quintessential feature of quantum computers.
Though these devices are still in their infancy, entanglement is what will allow them to do things classical computers cannot, such as better simulating natural quantum systems like molecules, pharmaceuticals or catalysts.
In new research published today in Science, my colleagues and I have demonstrated quantum entanglement between two atomic nuclei separated by about 20 nanometres.
This may not seem like much. But the method we used is a practical and conceptual breakthrough that may help to build quantum computers using one of the most precise and reliable systems for storing quantum information.
Balancing control with noise
The challenge facing quantum computer engineers is to balance two opposing needs.
The fragile computing elements must be shielded from external interference and noise. But at the same time, there must be a way to interact with them to carry out meaningful computations.
This is why there are so many different types of hardware still in the race to be the first operating quantum computer.
Some types are very good for performing fast operations, but suffer from noise. Others are well shielded from noise, but difficult to operate and scale up.
Getting atomic nuclei to talk to each other
My team has been working on a platform that – until today – could be placed in the second camp. We have implanted phosphorus atoms in silicon chips, and used the spin of the atoms’ cores to encode quantum information.
To build a useful quantum computer, we will need to work with lots of atomic nuclei at the same time. But until now, the only way to work with multiple atomic nuclei was to place them very close together inside a solid, where they could be surrounded by a single electron.
We usually think of an electron being far smaller than the nucleus of an atom. However, quantum physics tells us it can “spread out” in space, so it can interact with multiple atomic nuclei at the same time.
Even so, the range over which a single electron can spread is quite limited. Moreover, adding more nuclei to the same electron makes it very challenging to control each nucleus individually.
Electronic ‘telephones’ to entangle remote nuclei
We could say that, until now, nuclei were like people placed in soundproof rooms. They can talk to each other as long as they are all in the same room, and the conversations are really clear.
But they can’t hear anything from the outside, and there’s only so many people who can fit inside the room. Therefore, this mode of conversation can’t be scaled up.
In our new work, it’s as if we gave people telephones to communicate to other rooms. Each room is still nice and quiet on the inside, but now we can have conversations between many more people, even if they are far away.
An artist’s impression of two atomic nuclei entangled via electrons and the ‘geometric gate’. Tony Melov / UNSW Sydney
The “telephones” are electrons. By their ability to spread out in space, two electrons can “touch” each other at quite some distance.
And if each electron is directly coupled to an atomic nucleus, the nuclei can communicate via the interaction between the electrons.
We used the electron channel to create quantum entanglement between the nuclei by means of a method called the “geometric gate”, which we used a few years ago to carry out high-precision quantum operations with atoms in silicon.
Now – for the first time in silicon – we showed this method can scale up beyond pairs of nuclei that are attached to the same electron.
Fitting in with integrated circuits
In our experiment, the phosphorus nuclei were separated by 20 nanometres. If this seems like still a small distance, it is: there are fewer than 40 silicon atoms between the two phosphorus ones.
But this is also the scale at which everyday silicon transistors are fabricated. Creating quantum entanglement on the 20-nanometre scale means we can integrate our long-lived, well-shielded nuclear spin qubits into the existing architecture of standard silicon chips like the ones in our phones and computers.
In the future, we envisage pushing the entanglement distance even further, because the electrons can be physically moved, or squeezed into more elongated shapes.
Our latest breakthrough means that the progress in electron-based quantum devices can be applied to the construction of quantum computers that use long-lived nuclear spins to perform reliable computations.
Andrea Morello receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Department of Defence, and the US Army Research Office.
This week Disney, Universal Pictures and Warner Bros Discovery jointly sued MiniMax, a Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company, over alleged copyright infringement.
The three Hollywood media giants allege MiniMax (which operates Hailuo AI and is reportedly valued at US$4 billion) engaged in mass copyright infringement of characters such as Darth Vader and Mickey Mouse by scraping vast amounts of copyrighted data to train their models without permission or payment.
Disney, Universal Pictures and Warner Bros Discovery have the resources to litigate hard and possibly shape future precedent. They are seeking damages and an injunction against the ongoing use of their material.
Cases like this one suggest the common approach of “scraping first” and dealing with consequences later may be unsustainable. Other methods for ethically, morally and legally obtaining data are urgently needed.
One method some people are starting to explore is licensed use. So what exactly does that mean – and is it really a solution to the growing copyright problems AI presents?
What is licensing?
Licensing is a legal mechanism which allows the use of creative works under agreed terms, often for a fee. It usually involves two key players: the copyright owner (for example, a movie studio) and the user of the creative work (for example, an AI company).
Generally, a non-exclusive licence is where, in return for a fee, the copyright owner gives the user permission to exercise certain rights but retains ownership of the work.
In the context of generative AI use, granting a non-exclusive license could result in AI companies gaining permission for use and paying a fee. They could use the copyright owner’s material for training purposes, rather than simply scraping without consent.
Voluntary licensing happens when a copyright owner directly permits an AI company to use their work, usually for a payment. It can work for large, high-value deals. For example, the Associated Press licensed their archive to OpenAI, the owner of ChatGPT.
However, when there are thousands of copyright owners involved who each own a smaller number of works, this method is slow, cumbersome and expensive.
Another problem is that once a generative AI company has made one copy of a work under license, it is uncertain whether this copy may be used for other tasks. Also, applying voluntary licensing to AI training is hard to scale, because training requires vast datasets.
This makes individual agreements with each copyright owner impractical. It can be complex in terms of determining who owns the rights, what should be cleared and how much to pay. The licensing fee may also be prohibitive to smaller AI firms, and individual copyright owners may not receive much revenue for the use.
Collective licensing allows copyright owners to have their rights managed by an organisation known as a collecting society. The society negotiates with the user and distributes licensing fees to the copyright owners.
This model is already commonly used in the publishing and music industries. In theory, if it is expanded to the AI industry, it could provide AI companies with access to large catalogues of data more efficiently.
However, this model raises questions about fee structures, and the actual use itself. How would fees be calculated? How much would be paid? What constitutes “use” in AI training? It is uncertain whether copyright owners with smaller catalogues would benefit as much as big players.
A statutory (or compulsory) licensing scheme is another option. It already exists in other contexts in Australia such as education and government use. Under such a model, the government could permit AI firms to use works for training without requiring permission from each copyright owner.
A fee would be paid into a central scheme at a predetermined rate. This approach would ensure AI companies access training data while ensuring some remuneration to copyright owners. However, it removes copyright owners’ ability to say no to the use.
A risk of domination
In practice, these licensing models sit on a spectrum with variations. Together, they represent some future ways the rights of creators may be reconciled with AI companies’ hunger for data.
Different forms of licensing offer potential opportunities for copyright owners and AI companies. It is by no means a silver bullet.
Voluntary agreements can be slow, fragmented and not result in much revenue for copyright owners. Collective schemes raise questions about fairness and transparency. Statutory models risk under-valuing creative work and rendering copyright owners powerless over the use of their work.
These challenges highlight a much bigger issue which is raised when copyright is considered in new technological contexts. That is, how to strike a balance between those involved, while still promoting fairness and innovation.
If a careful balance is not struck, there is a risk of domination from a handful of powerful AI companies and media giants.
Wellett Potter is a member of the Copyright Society of Australia and the Asia Pacific Copyright Association.
The federal government on Thursday announced a 2035 emissions reduction target of 62-70% below 2005 levels. Importantly, it also released a net zero plan and blueprints for six major economic sectors. The target signals Australia is committed to a net zero economy. The plans will help guide the way in each sector.
Our work shows Australia has the technologies to meet and exceed its new target. With solutions known and ready, the work now is to ensure they’re deployed at scale.
Creating a safer climate needs more real-world action. So what measures are likely to be first off the rank?
1. Accelerating renewables
Renewable energy is crucial for Australia’s climate action. It cuts emissions by replacing the fossil fuels in the energy sector, the nation’s largest source of carbon pollution. It also helps other sectors decarbonise by, for example, providing clean power to run electric vehicles and industrial processes.
In this vein, the government on Thursday announced a A$2 billion boost for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation – a government entity that invests in renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-emission technologies. This will be especially important for helping industry and transport to access affordable, renewable electricity.
2. Modernising electricity use
Decarbonising energy supplies is important. So too is making shifts in energy demand. This involves changing the way homes and businesses consume electricity and gas – such as by using less, using it at different times, or even generating their own electricity.
The government’s new electricity and energy sector plan committed to guiding these opportunities through a new demand-side roadmap. It will aim to reduce costs, improve reliability and create financial benefits for investors and consumers. It will be produced by governments and the Australian Energy Market Operator.
3. Improving energy efficiency in homes
The government’s sector plan for the built environment will help decarbonise buildings through a range of measures. They include ratings and standards for energy efficient buildings and equipment, and obligations to provide this information when selling or leasing.
The government has also committed $85 million to improve the energy efficiency of homes and buildings.
The next step is ensuring information about these measures is available – and the policies are implemented and enforced. The funding should also be expanded, so all households can become more efficient. Climateworks research shows the right home energy upgrades – such as improvements to insulation and installing double-glazed windows – and appliance electrification can save households up to $2,000 a year.
4. Cleaning up transport
The government’s plan for the transport sector emphasises the role of the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. The standard requires car manufacturers and suppliers to reduce the average emissions of new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles over time.
This will help ensure Australians have access to different types of low- and zero-emissions vehicles. A review of the scheme next year will set targets to 2035. More focus on electrifying freight transport is also needed.
5. Building capacity in exports that matter
Reaching a net zero future requires phasing down fossil fuels. It also requires expanding the extraction and processing of mineral resources needed in a net zero economy – such as lithium, graphite and rare earths for EVs and high-purity silica for solar panels. The government’s plan for the resources sector recognises these realities.
Australia is currently highly dependent on imported oil. Some industrial processes can switch from diesel and petrol to electricity or green hydrogen. However, other sectors – such as aviation and heavy freight – will need alternative fuels. The government this week announced $1.1 billion for local production of low-carbon liquid fuels.
6. Promoting cutting-edge new tech
The government has announced a $5 billion Net Zero Fund to help industry cut emissions and become more energy-efficient, and scale up manufacturing in low-emissions technology. This will kickstart new industrial processes and make investments in clean technologies less risky.
A major next step for the industry sector is the planned 2026 review of the Safeguard Mechanism, which limits emissions from Australia’s largest industrial facilities. It’s vital to ensure the Net Zero Fund and the review complement each other.
7. Using land well
The government’s agriculture and land sector plan recognises the need to scale up carbon storage in the land (for example by protecting forests and increasing vegetation). It also noted these actions should help meet Australia’s commitments to protecting biodiversity, allow for increased food production and involve First Nations people.
Our research shows land-use planning can be aligned to meet food, climate and nature goals.
Australia can go beyond our 2035 targets
The above list is not exhaustive. As the government’s sector plans show, more work will be needed. And participation from across the economy and government is crucial.
The task goes beyond the 2035 targets, to reaching net zero emissions as soon as possible. As Climateworks research shows, Australia’s emissions reductions in past decades have exceeded government targets.
It will take sustained and increasing effort to reach net zero. But the prize is worth it: economic gains, global market advantage, and energy and job security. It’s an investment in a better future for workers, regions, companies and communities.
Anna Skarbek is on the board of the Net Zero Economy Authority, SEC Victoria, the Centre for New Energy Technologies, the Green Building Council of Australia, and the Asia-Pacific Advisory Board of the Glasgow Financial Alliance on Net Zero. She is CEO of Climateworks Centre which receives funding from philanthropy and project-specific financial support from a range of private and public entities including federal, state and local government and private sector organisations and international and local non-profit organisations. Climateworks Centre is a part of Monash University.
Climateworks Centre receives funding from a range of external sources including philanthropy, governments and businesses. Businesses such as mining companies and industry associations have previously co-funded Climateworks’ research on industrial decarbonisation, and may benefit from policies mentioned in this article.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on September 19, 2025.
What you might not know about the AFL’s Brownlow Medal Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vaughan Cruickshank, Senior Lecturer in Health and Physical Education, University of Tasmania The Brownlow Medal is the most prestigious individual award in the Australian Football League (AFL). It has been awarded to the fairest and best player in the AFL – and previously, the Victorian Football League
Does ASMR really help with anxiety? A psychology expert explains the evidence Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Shepherd, Associate Professor of Psychology, Auckland University of Technology PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock Most of us have experienced tingling or “goosebumps” at some point, especially when we feel a strong positive emotion such as awe or excitement. But some people have this response when they listen
Political witch hunts and blacklists: Donald Trump and the new era of McCarthyism Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shannon Brincat, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of the Sunshine Coast A modern-day political inquisition is unfolding in “digital town squares” across the United States. The slain far-right activist Charlie Kirk has become a focal point for a coordinated campaign of silencing critics that
Is it OK to sit on public toilet seats? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lotti Tajouri, Associate Professor, Genomics and Molecular Biology; Biomedical Sciences, Bond University If you’re a parent or have a chronic health condition that needs quick or frequent trips to the bathroom, you’ve probably mapped out the half-decent public toilets in your area. But sometimes, you don’t have
Most donor-conceived children are told about their origins, but many parents wish they had more support Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karyn Anderson, Research Fellow in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Getty Images Most parents (86%) of donor-conceived children tell them about their origins, but same-sex and single parents are more likely to share that information than heterosexual parents, according to our new anonymous
Fewer friends, more time stress: the essential charts from this year’s HILDA survey Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Inga Lass, Senior research fellow, The University of Melbourne Dominic Kurniawan Suryaputra/Unsplash, The Conversation, CC BY-SA Every year, one of Australia’s biggest longitudinal surveys provides a range of insights on how the nation is changing. The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, released today,
Who gets to do science? A demand for English is hurting marginalised researchers Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tatsuya Amano, Associate Professor, School of the Environment, The University of Queensland Nikita Palenov/Unsplash Despite growing calls for diversity, equity and inclusion in science, a new study reveals how deep-rooted disparities continue to shape who gets to contribute to science. We surveyed 908 environmental scientists from eight
Australians are losing more of their income to tax than in decades, new report shows Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roger Wilkins, Professorial Fellow and Co-Director, HILDA Survey, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne chinaface/Getty Australians are now paying the highest average rate of income tax in more than two decades, raising concerns too much of the tax burden may be
1 in 3 Australians in their late 60s are still working, new HILDA survey shows Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kyle Peyton, Senior research fellow, The University of Melbourne Jeff Overs/Getty Images Australia has seen a dramatic transformation of retirement over the past 20 years, with more Australians delaying retirement than ever before, reshaping expectations for later life. This shift matters because it marks a fundamental change
Instant ramen: a short history of a long noodle Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Garritt C. Van Dyk, Senior Lecturer in History, University of Waikato Christian Dala/Unsplash Food prices remain high even as inflation eases, and instant noodles are at the top of the list of cheap options. More than 100 billion servings of instant ramen are consumed each year, making
Friday essay: I loved being a ‘90s rock journalist, but sometimes it was a boys’ club nightmare Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Evans, Adjunct Researcher, English and Writing, University of Tasmania Liz Evans interviewing Ozzy Osbourne in Paris. In the 1990s, I was a rock journalist striving to assert myself as a young woman, working at the heart of the United Kingdom’s male-dominated music press. I loved my
Australians are in more pain – and our new data shows it’s not just due to ageing Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ferdi Botha, Senior Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne The degree of bodily pain reported by Australians has grown over the last two decades, and this increase cannot be attributed only to an ageing population. Pain is a serious
Kate Sheppard’s kitchen: an old recipe sheds new light on the feminist pioneer’s life Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katie Pickles, Professor of History, University of Canterbury Kate Sheppard National Memorial, Christchurch. Michal Klajban via Wikimedia Political and social reformer Kate Sheppard is famous for leading the campaign that saw New Zealand women become first in the world to gain the right to vote on September
Soil erosion is tearing DRC cities apart: what’s causing urban gullies, and how to prevent them Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthias Vanmaercke, Associate professor BOF Faculty of Science, KU Leuven In fast-growing cities like some in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), heavy rains are carving huge scars into the land. Known as urban gullies, these deep erosion channels can swallow homes, destroy roads and displace entire
Grattan on Friday: Albanese government’s 2035 target range is aimed at multiple audiences Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The Albanese government is hoping it can successfully juggle multiple audiences with its 2035 emissions reduction target. With a specific number, no single set of stakeholders could have been fully satisfied without alienating another. In opting for a range, and
Kmart broke privacy laws by scanning customers’ faces. What did it do wrong, and why? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margarita Vladimirova, PhD in Privacy Law and Facial Recognition Technology, Deakin University Steve Christo – Corbis / Getty Images Today the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner found retail giant Kmart breached Australians’ privacy. The company had collected personal and sensitive information through a facial recognition technology
Cut emissions 70% by 2035? There’s only one policy that can get us there Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rod Sims, Professor in Public Policy and Antitrust, The University of Melbourne Hulton Archive/Getty Australia’s new emission reduction target of 62–70% by 2035 is meant to demonstrate we are doing our part to hold climate change well below 2°C. The new target can just about do this
If I use SPF50+ sunscreen every day do I need to take vitamin D? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Neale, Professor and Senior Group Leader, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute Cavan Images/Kathleen Carney/Getty What does wearing SPF50+ sunscreen every day do to your vitamin D levels? Our study, recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, provides some answers. We found using SPF50+ every day,
Could an Apple watch really tell you if you have high blood pressure? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ritu Trivedi, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Health Sciences, University of Sydney Apple has announced a package of health features, alongside the launch of the new Apple Watch Series 11, including an alert that the wearer may have high blood pressure, also known as hypertension. Around 1.3
From a naked rider to icon of resistance, the legend of Lady Godiva lives on Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Reid Boyd, Senior Lecturer School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University Lady Godiva – an icon of protest, myth and sensual defiance – has galloped through centuries of our cultural imagination. She is most widely known for the legend of her naked horse ride, in
It has been awarded to the fairest and best player in the AFL – and previously, the Victorian Football League (VFL) – every year since 1924, except for a break (1942–45) because of the second world war.
The vote count is held on the Monday evening before the Grand Final each year.
He was also a highly respected administrator for more than 40 years, serving in various roles such as Geelong secretary, umpires committee chairman and VFL president.
He is credited with helping to introduce important developments that are still recognisable in modern football, such as boundary umpires, a tribunal, official timekeeping system and numbers on players’ jumpers.
The early days of the Brownlow Medal
The first Brownlow Medal (1924) was won by Geelong player Edward “Carji” Greeves, who also came second in 1925, 1926 and 1928.
Including Greeves, 90 different players have won the Brownlow Medal.
Thirteen players have won it twice and four players have won it three times: Haydn Bunton Sr. (Fitzroy), Dick Reynolds (Essendon), Bob Skilton (South Melbourne) and Ian Stewart (St Kilda/Richmond).
If a player is suspended during the season they are ineligible, even if they receive the highest number of votes.
North Melbourne’s Corey McKernan (1996-equal most votes) and Chris Grant (1997-most votes) from the Western Bulldogs both missed out on a Brownlow because of suspension. Jobe Watson also lost his 2012 Brownlow because of Essendon’s supplement saga.
Brownlow Medal voting
Similar awards in rugby union, rugby league and soccer are commonly voted on by journalists, players and ex-players.
However, the Brownlow is decided by the umpires, who allocate votes to the top three players in each game during the regular season. Three votes are awarded to the best in a game, two votes to the second best, and one vote to the third best.
This voting system has been used for most Brownlow Medal counts. However, there have been different voting systems for short periods in the past:
From 1924 to 1930, only one vote was given in each game. This was changed to the current 3–2–1 system after the 1930 season when three players tied for first and another eight players tied for fourth.
From 1976 to 1977, both field umpires
individually awarded 3–2–1 votes. This system was abandoned in 1978 and the two (now four) field umpires agree on a single set of 3–2–1 votes.
The votes are kept secret until the end of the season, when they are announced and added up. The player with the highest number of votes wins, and there can be joint winners if players have the same number of votes.
Patrick Cripps (Carlton) has the record for most votes in a season in the history of the Brownlow’s 3–2–1 system with 45 in 2024. This was more votes than the entire North Melbourne (42), West Coast (30) and Richmond (19) teams received.
Gary Ablett Jr (Geelong/Gold Coast) has the most career votes (262). Patrick Dangerfield (Adelaide/Geelong) has the most career votes of current players (251).
So, who is likely to win the Brownlow this year?
The 2025 contenders and pretenders
The AFL’s Brownlow predictor is projecting a win for Adelaide captain Jordan Dawson.
Dawson would be the tenth club captain to win in the past 25 years.
Since 2008, every Brownlow medallist has finished inside the league’s top six for contested possessions, making it a possible marker of success. However, Dawson sits 34th, well outside that range.
Greater Western Sydney midfielder Tom Green led the competition in contested possessions this year. If he wins he will be the first Brownlow medallist for the club, which entered the league in 2012.
There are several other interesting stories that could emerge from the AFL Predictor’s top ten.
Gold Coast has two players (Noah Anderson and Matt Rowell) in the top ten. If they finished first and second, it would be just the third time this has ever happened, following players from Melbourne (1926) and West Coast (2005).
The first Indigenous player to win the Brownlow Medal was Gavin Wanganeen (Essendon) in 1993. If his nephew Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera (St Kilda) is victorious this year, he will be just the third Indigenous player to win, following Wanganeen and Adam Goodes (Sydney).
Since then, every winner has been a midfielder or midfielder-forward.
This dominance was on full display in 2024, where the top ten vote-getters were all midfielders, collectively accounting for 24% of the total votes.
Melbourne captain Max Gawn is the only ruckman in the 2025 top ten predictors, and while a win would stop two decades of midfield dominance, his spot in the top six for contested possessions keeps him within other winning trends.
Players such as Nick Daicos (Collingwood), Bailey Smith (Geelong) and Hugh McCluggage (Brisbane) also have the chance to become just the ninth player to win a Brownlow Medal and a premiership in the same year. The last player to do this was Dustin Martin (Richmond) in 2017.
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.
Most of us have experienced tingling or “goosebumps” at some point, especially when we feel a strong positive emotion such as awe or excitement.
But some people have this response when they listen to certain sounds. Online videos which feature sounds of people whispering, crackling packets, and brushing or combing a microphone are all geared towards making you feel this positive tingle – the autonomous sensory meridian response, or ASMR.
Not everyone responds to ASMR content. But many who do say it makes them less anxious and helps them sleep. What does the science say?
What is ASMR?
ASMR is an involuntary emotional and physical response, typically to a sound, which causes a reflexive tingling sensation on the scalp and back of the neck.
This multi-sensory experience can make us feel euphoria and “psychological stability”, meaning we experience less inner turmoil and feel more calm.
However, we still don’t have much evidence about what happens in the brain and the body when this occurs.
Some argue that ASMR is simply an example of frisson (French for “shiver”). This is when an intense emotional stimulus – such as a tender moment in a movie – triggers tingling or gives us “the chills”.
Research suggests these so-called “skin orgasms” are due to a sudden rush of the chemical dopamine in the brain’s reward centres.
However, the sense of awe or inspiration felt during a frisson experience is brief, (typically 4–5 seconds). In contrast, ASMR is usually described as inducing an enduring state of calm.
What triggers ASMR?
Almost everyone will jump out of their skins if they experience a sudden and loud sound. This is because we’ve evolved to fear what is unpleasant or unexpected, to keep us safe from danger.
When it comes to sounds that can make us feel good, it’s not as easy to confirm whether there are universal triggers – that is, sounds that would make most people have the same positive reaction.
Research in ASMR has identified some common triggers, including whispering, tapping and crackling sounds. But we can’t say if these sounds would have the same effect on everyone.
ASMR videos often combine these sounds with video and role play known as “personal attention”. This means treating the camera like it is the viewer, speaking and interacting directly with it, and even simulating activities such as brushing hair or applying makeup to the viewer.
Personal attention ASMR involves role play where the camera is treated as the viewer.
Why doesn’t it affect everyone?
Not everyone responds to ASMR triggers, with some estimates suggesting only one in five people can experience ASMR.
Whether or not you do is likely due to personality type and your predisposition to susceptibility, meaning how easily others can influence you.
Studies have found those who respond are typically younger, experience more negative emotions, and are more introverted and critical. But they also tend to be more open to trying new things.
Some research has suggested “expectancy effects” could play a role. This is like a placebo – people who are invested in ASMR’s potential as a therapeutic tool may be more likely to feel its effects.
However, we still don’t know precisely how ASMR works to induce positive emotions.
More than a dozen studies have reported on how the brain behaves during ASMR. But the findings across them are inconsistent and many have a very small number of participants or no comparison group, so we can’t draw conclusions.
Studies looking at the body’s response during ASMR experiences have had similarly mixed results. Some have found people may experience both increased sweating (linked to the stress response) and decreased heart rate (linked to relaxation).
To describe this apparently contradictory state, some researchers have coined the term “arousing relaxation”.
Another theory is that the social or erotic aspects of ASMR videos are a more important trigger than sounds or other stimuli – basically, that it is a kind of sexual arousal. But we would need more evidence on this.
The bottom line
Without being able to identify universal triggers, it’s also difficult to apply ASMR as an evidence-based tool in therapy. To date, there are no clinical trials that link ASMR with short- or long-term therapeutic effects.
Nevertheless, many people in the “whisper community” – those who produce and consume ASMR content online – claim ASMR helps them to relax, sleep better and reduce stress.
So, there’s no harm in ASMR if it helps you relax. But we would need more research to establish whether it’s effective as a clinical intervention for anxiety, insomnia or other conditions.
Daniel Shepherd 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shannon Brincat, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of the Sunshine Coast
A modern-day political inquisition is unfolding in “digital town squares” across the United States. The slain far-right activist Charlie Kirk has become a focal point for a coordinated campaign of silencing critics that chillingly echoes one of the darkest chapters in American history.
Individuals who have publicly criticised Kirk or made perceived insensitive comments regarding his death are being threatened, fired or doxed.
Journalists have also lost their jobs after making comments about Kirk’s assassination, as has the late-night television host Jimmy Kimmel.
A website called “Expose Charlie’s Murderers” had been posting the names, locations and employers of people saying critical things about Kirk before it was reportedly taken down. Vice President JD Vance has pushed for this public response, urging supporters to “call them out … hell, call their employer”.
This is far-right “cancel culture”, the likes of which the US hasn’t seen since the McCarthy era in the 1950s.
The birth of McCarthyism
The McCarthy era may well have faded in our collective memory, but it’s important to understand how it unfolded and the impact it had on America. As the philosopher George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Since the 1950s, “McCarthyism” has become shorthand for the practice of making unsubstantiated accusations of disloyalty against political opponents, often through fear-mongering and public humiliation.
Joseph McCarthy. Library of Congress/Wikimedia Commons
The term gets its name from Senator Joseph McCarthy, a Republican who was the leading architect of a ruthless witch hunt in the US to root out alleged Communists and subversives across American institutions.
The campaign included both public and private persecutions from the late 1940s to early 1950s, involving hearings before the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Millions of federal employees had to fill out loyalty investigation forms during this time, while hundreds of employees were either fired or not hired. Hundreds of Hollywood figures were also blacklisted.
The campaign also involved the parallel targeting of the LGBTQI+ community working in government – known as the Lavender Scare.
And similar to doxing today, witnesses in government hearings were asked to provide the names of communist sympathisers, and investigators gave lists of prospective witnesses to the media. Major corporations told employees who invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify they would be fired.
The greatest toll of McCarthyism was perhaps on public discourse. A deep chill settled over US politics, with people afraid to voice any opinion that could be construed as dissenting.
When the congressional records were finally unsealed in the early 2000s, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said the hearings “are a part of our national past that we can neither afford to forget nor permit to reoccur”.
Another witch hunt under Trump
Today, however, a similar campaign is being waged by the Trump administration and others on the right, who are stoking fears of the “the enemy within”.
This new campaign to blacklist government critics is following a similar pattern to the McCarthy era, but is spreading much more quickly, thanks to social media, and is arguably targeting far more regular Americans.
Even before Kirk’s killing, there were worrying signs of a McCarthyist revival in the early days of the second Trump administration.
Supporters of the push to expose those criticising Kirk have framed their actions as protecting the country from “un-American”, woke ideologies. This narrative only deepens polarisation by simplifying everything into a Manichean world view: the “good people” versus the corrupt “leftist elite”.
The fact the political assassination of Democratic lawmaker Melissa Hortman did not garner the same reaction from the right reveals a gross double standard at play.
Another double standard: attempts to silence anyone criticising Kirk’s divisive ideology, while being permissive of his more odious claims. For example, he once called George Floyd, a Black man killed by police, a “scumbag”.
In the current climate, empathy is not a “made-up, new age term”, as Kirk once said, but appears to be highly selective.
This brings an increased danger, too. When neighbours become enemies and dialogue is shut down, the possibilities for conflict and violence are exacerbated.
Many are openly discussing the parallels with the rise of fascism in Germany, and even the possibility of another civil war.
A sense of decency?
The parallels between McCarthyism and Trumpism are stark and unsettling. In both eras, dissent has been conflated with disloyalty.
How far could this go? Like the McCarthy era, it partly depends on the public reaction to Trump’s tactics.
McCarthy’s influence began to wane when he charged the army with being soft on communism in 1954. The hearings, broadcast to the nation, did not go well. At one point, the army’s lawyer delivered a line that would become infamous:
Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness […] Have you no sense of decency?
Without concerted, collective societal pushback against this new McCarthyism and a return to democratic norms, we risk a further coarsening of public life.
The lifeblood of democracy is dialogue; its safeguard is dissent. To abandon these tenets is to pave the road towards authoritarianism.
Frank Mols received ARC funding
Gail Crimmins and Shannon Brincat 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lotti Tajouri, Associate Professor, Genomics and Molecular Biology; Biomedical Sciences, Bond University
If you’re a parent or have a chronic health condition that needs quick or frequent trips to the bathroom, you’ve probably mapped out the half-decent public toilets in your area.
But sometimes, you don’t have a choice and have to use a toilet that looks like it hasn’t been cleaned in weeks. Do you brave it and sit on the seat?
What if it looks relatively clean: do you still worry that sitting on the seat could make you sick?
What’s in a public toilet?
Healthy adults produce more than a litre of urine and more than 100 grams of poo daily. Everybody sheds bacteria and viruses in faeces (poo) and urine, and some of this ends up in the toilet.
Some people, especially those with diarrhoea, may shed more harmful microbes (bacteria and viruses) when they use the toilet.
Public toilets can be a “microbial soup”, especially when many people use them and cleaning isn’t frequent as it should be.
What germs are found on toilet seats?
Many types of microbes have been found on toilet seats and surrounding areas. These include:
bacteria from the gut, such as E. coli, Klebsiella, Enterococcus, and viruses such as norovirus and rotavirus. These can cause gastroenteritis, with bouts of vomiting and diarrhoea
bacteria from the skin, including Staphylococcus aureus and even multi-drug resistant S.aureus and other bacteria such as pseudomonas and acinetobacter. These can cause infections
eggs from parasites (worms) that are carried in poo, and single-celled organisms such as protozoa. These can cause abdominal pain.
There’s also something called biofilm, a mix of germs that builds up under toilet rims and on surfaces.
Are toilet seats the dirtiest part?
No. A recent study showed public toilet seats often have fewer microbes than other locations in public toilets, such as door handles, faucet knobs and toilet flush levers. These parts are touched a lot and often with unwashed hands.
Public toilets in busy places are used hundreds or even thousands of times each week. Some are cleaned often, but others (such as those in parks or bus stops) may only be cleaned once a day or much less, so germs can build up quickly. The red flags that a toilet hasn’t been cleaned are the smell of urine, soiled floors and what is obvious to your eyes.
However, the biggest problem isn’t just sitting: it’s what happens when toilets are flushed. When you flush without a lid, a “toilet plume” shoots tiny droplets into the air. These droplets can contain bacteria and viruses from the toilet bowl and travel up to 2 metres.
Here’s what the toilet plume looks like.
Hand dryers blowing air can also spread germs if people don’t wash properly. As well as drying your hands, you might be blowing germs all over yourself, others and the bathroom.
How can germs spread?
You can pick up germs from public toilets in several ways:
skin contact. Sitting on a dirty seat or touching handles spreads bacteria. Healthy skin is a good barrier, but cuts or scrapes can allow germs to enter
touching your face. After using the toilet, if you touch your eyes, mouth, or food before washing your hands, germs can get inside your body
breathing them in. In small or crowded bathrooms, you can breathe in tiny particles from toilet plumes or hand dryers
toilet water splash. Germs can stay in the water even after several flushes.
What can you do to stay safe?
Here are some easy ways to protect yourself:
use toilet seat covers or place toilet paper on the seat before sitting
if the toilet has a lid, wipe it before use with an alcohol wipe and close it before flushing to limit toilet plume exposure. (But note, this doesn’t fully stop the spread)
wash your hands properly for at least 20 seconds using soap and water
carry hand sanitiser or antibacterial wipes to clean your hands afterwards if there isn’t any soap
avoid hand dryers, if you can, as they can spread germs. Use paper towels instead
sanitise your phone regularly and don’t use it in toilet. Phones often pick up and carry bacteria, especially if you use them in the bathroom
clean baby changing areas before and after use, and always wash or sanitise your hands.
So is it safe to sit on public toilet seats?
For most healthy people, yes – sitting on a public toilet seat is low-risk. But you can wipe it with an alcohol wipe, or use a toilet seat cover, for peace of mind.
Most infections don’t come from the seat itself, but from dirty hands, door handles, toilet plumes and phones used in bathrooms.
Instead of worrying about sitting, focus on good hygiene. That means washing your hands, opting for paper towel rather than dryers, cleaning the seat if needed, and keeping your phone clean.
And please, don’t hover over the toilet. This tenses the pelvic floor, making it difficult to completely empty the bladder. And you might accidentally spray your bodily fluids.
Lotti Tajouri is affiliated with Murdoch University and Dubai Police Scientist Council.
Most parents (86%) of donor-conceived children tell them about their origins, but same-sex and single parents are more likely to share that information than heterosexual parents, according to our new anonymous online survey.
Knowledge of biological heritage is important for most people – even more so for people who were conceived using donated sperm, eggs or embryos. Our work shows that knowing your heritage or whakapapa provides people with a stronger sense of identity and better wellbeing.
As of November 2024, more than 3,600 people in Aotearoa New Zealand have been recorded as having been conceived in a fertility clinic with the help of a donor.
A donor of sperm, eggs or embryos may be a person known to an intending parent, such as a friend or family member, or an anonymous person provided by a fertility clinic.
Legislation was introduced in 2004 requiring donor identity to be recorded so that donor-conceived people can access this information through a register once they turn 18.
But this can only happen if their parents share that information.
Of 1,300 people with donor-conceived children between the ages of six and 18 on the register, nearly a third took part in our survey. Our aim was to find out whether parents had shared their children’s conception story, what the experience was like and what support they received.
Half who answered the survey were two-parent heterosexual families. And although most had disclosed, one in five had not. A quarter of the people who responded were single parents and the remainder were gay or lesbian. Nine out of ten in these groups had disclosed.
One obvious reason for the higher rate among single parents and gay or lesbian parents is the need to account for the absence of a parent of a different gender. There was no difference between those who had shared and those who had not in terms of ethnicity, donor type (family, friend or clinic donor) and donation type (sperm, egg).
On average, children were six-and-a-half years old at the time they were first told. This is similar to other international research of the age at which donor conception was shared with children.
It is generally recommended to tell children about being donor-conceived as soon as possible. Of all people who answered the survey, one in ten parents who had not yet shared with their child did plan to do so.
Need for more support for parents
It was encouraging that very few parents were unsure or planned not to share donor conception with their children. Some of the reasons for not sharing included concerns about the effect disclosure would have on the child and or their relationship with their child. Other reasons included being unsure about how to share the information.
Our survey also highlights gaps in the support and counselling for parents. One third of all parents wanted assistance for making contact with the donor. This proportion is even higher for those who used clinic donors (as opposed to known donors), with half indicating they wanted assistance.
Most parents were aware of the legislation and its principles. But a third of the parents who used a donor they didn’t already know were not aware of how to access this information. Only one in five parents with no prior identifying information on the donor had used the registry to access information after donation.
The survey response rate of 28% suggests results could be biased, given parents who have not shared how their child was conceived may be less likely to participate in research exploring disclosure decisions.
We shared these findings at a hui attended by donor-conceived people, researchers and fertility clinic staff. Some people told moving stories about meeting their donors, while others were angry they hadn’t been told of their donor-conceived origins until they were adults.
We recommend fertility clinics follow up with parents after their child has been born to offer support. Some fertility clinics have already started to take steps to improve counselling at the time of the donor treatment, and to provide ongoing support for parents as the child grows up.
Karyn Anderson receives a Senior Health Researcher Doctoral Scholarship from The University of Auckland.
Cynthia Farquhar is employed by Health NZ and The University of Auckland. She has received research funding from Health Research Council, A+ Trust, Ministry of Health. She is is affiliated with the Cochrane Collaboration.
Dominic Kurniawan Suryaputra/Unsplash, The Conversation, CC BY-SA
Every year, one of Australia’s biggest longitudinal surveys provides a range of insights on how the nation is changing.
The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, released today, reveals trends on a wide range of aspects of life in Australia, including household relationships, income, health and wellbeing.
HILDA has been following the same people every year since 2001, with about 16,000 respondents in the latest survey. This makes it possible to examine how the lives of Australians have changed across several aspects. Funded by the Australian government and managed by the Melbourne Institute, the survey is one of Australia’s most valuable social research tools.
So, what are the highlights from the 2025 report?
Friendships are declining
Friendships are clearly important, providing both emotional and practical support to people. However, agreement with the statement “I seem to have a lot of friends” has fallen noticeably from 2010 to 2023. This long-term decline accelerated during the COVID-19 period, when social distancing measures often prevented face-to-face interactions with friends.
The decline in friendships has repercussions for people’s wellbeing. The report shows a low perceived number of friends is associated fewer social activities, greater feelings of loneliness and poorer mental health. This is all the more concerning because it often gets harder to make friends as life goes on.
Time stress is rising again
Time stress – feeling rushed often or almost always – is common for many Australians, especially women. In 2023, 38% of women reported frequent time stress, while only 29% of men did. This gap has persisted over the past two decades. Rates fell sharply in 2020 during the pandemic’s first year but have since returned to pre-pandemic levels for both groups.
Retirement age has seen a big shift
Australia has seen a dramatic transformation of retirement over the past 20 years, retiring later than they used to. In 2003, nearly 70% of women and almost half of men aged 60–64 were fully retired. By 2023, this dropped to 41% for women and 27% for men.
Retirement rates have also declined among those aged 65-69. Over the same period, the Age Pension eligibility age was equalised for men and women at 65 by 2013, then gradually increased to 67 between 2017 and 2023.
The decision to retire is no longer driven purely by personal preference or age alone. It’s increasingly shaped by policy, housing wealth, super balances and whether someone can afford to stop working.
We’re paying more in income tax
Australians are now paying the highest average rate of income tax since the turn of the millennium. But the trend over this period hasn’t always been upwards. Between 2006 and 2011, the average tax rate for full-time workers actually fell, from 19.4% to 15.7%. Since 2011, however, the trend has overwhelmingly been upwards.
Across the population as a whole aged 15 and over, the average share of income paid as income tax rose to 11.7% in the 2022-23 financial year. For full-time workers, the average rate was higher, at 20.3%.
Bodily pain
Pain can severely affect people’s ability to take part in day-to-day activities, work, and lead happy and satisfying lives.
The new data shows the extent of bodily pain Australians report has risen over the last two decades – and it’s not just due to an ageing population.
We asked respondents about whether they experienced pain and how much it affected their day-to-day life, then calculated a score from 0 (no bodily pain) to 100 (severe pain).
The average levels of pain that women reported increased by 5.6% between 2001 and 2003 (from 27 points to 28.5 points). For men, pain increased by 4.8% (27 points to 28.3 points).
Pain scores were slightly higher for women than for men across all years.
We adjusted these scores for age, suggesting the reported rise is not due to ageing but instead other factors, such as an increase in chronic conditions, obesity, and people being more likely to report their pain.
Ferdi Botha receives funding from the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course (CE200100025).
Roger Wilkins receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Inga Lass and Kyle Peyton 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.
