Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hangga Fathana, Assistant Professor of International Relations, Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII) Yogyakarta

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has wasted little time taking his first overseas trip since Labor won a historic victory in Australia’s federal election. He’ll head to Indonesia today to meet the country’s new president, Prabowo Subianto.

With both nations entering new political chapters, the visit carries symbolic weight. But it will also have practical importance.

Despite the two nations’ proximity and strengths, the relationship has often been held back by outdated perceptions and strategic hesitation. This is a timely opportunity to reset the relationship.

Prabowo’s emerging foreign policy

Prabowo succeeded outgoing President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo in October after a decade of his infrastructure-driven and globally engaged leadership.

Prabowo, a former army general and defence minister, had projected a populist and nationalist image during his 2024 election campaign. He frequently emphasised Indonesia’s food self-sufficiency, military strength and national sovereignty.

Since taking office, however, he has moderated his tone. While seen by some in the West as assertive, he has signalled a willingness to strengthen bilateral defence ties with Australia. He also has an interest in modernising Indonesia’s military and engaging more transparently with partners.

Still, questions remain about how he will shape Indonesia’s foreign policy. This includes whether he will maintain Jokowi’s emphasis on multilateralism and economic diplomacy. Both are key to the tone and outcomes of Albanese’s visit.

Prabowo’s leadership style is nuanced. Despite his polarising image, Indonesia’s foreign policy is still shaped by pragmatism and non-alignment. As such, Prabowo will likely focus on balancing relations with China, the United States and Russia, while protecting Indonesia’s sovereignty.

Indonesia’s decision to join BRICS, the economic group that includes both China and Russia, for example, should be seen as a diplomatic hedge, not a new geopolitical alignment.

Other recent decisions, such as providing aid to Fiji, suggest an increasingly outward-facing regional posture.

Albanese should offer Prabowo credible alternatives to Russian and Chinese engagement through trade, technology and education exchanges, rather than reacting to Jakarta’s moves with suspicion.

Opportunities for cooperation

In his election campaign, Albanese reaffirmed his government’s commitment to working closely with Southeast Asia. He also promised a foreign policy grounded in diplomacy, climate cooperation and economic diversification.

This provides a strong incentive for both leaders to deepen ties. For Australia, deepening ties with Indonesia supports its Indo-Pacific strategy. The goal: promoting a stable and inclusive regional order, particularly amid concerns over growing strategic competition between the US and China.

For Indonesia, Australia offers investment, education partnerships, and critical expertise in clean energy and innovation.

A free-trade agreement signed in 2019 provides a platform for deeper integration and less competition in certain industries.

For example, there are huge opportunities to collaborate in clean energy, particularly after the neighbours signed a climate partnership last year. The agreement will secure supplies of lithium for Indonesia’s EV battery production, while Australia will gain more export markets for its critical minerals.

People-to-people ties are also vital, while education remains a longstanding pillar of the bilateral relationship.

Both countries face skills shortages in key sectors. Indonesia needs skilled workers in health care, clean technology and digital literacy. Australia has shortages in critical infrastructure, aged care and engineering.

There are good opportunities here for student exchanges, joint employment training programs and other vocational collaborations.

New Australian university campuses in Indonesia are a positive step, but they remain commercially focused and concentrated in elite, urban areas. With over 4,000 universities across the archipelago, these partnerships could go much further.

Where tensions might arise

The relationship is not without friction. Australia’s involvement in the AUKUS agreement, and its close alignment with the United States and United Kingdom, has raised concerns for Indonesia, which has long championed non-alignment.

Jakarta has voiced unease over the perceived risks of nuclear submarine proliferation in the region.

Albanese’s visit is a key opportunity to clarify that AUKUS involves nuclear-powered — not nuclear-armed — submarines. He should also reinforce Australia’s commitment to transparency over the deal. This is essential to avoiding misunderstandings and building trust.

A more recent flashpoint is speculation around a possible Russian military presence in Indonesia — a claim the Indonesian government has firmly denied.

Indonesia’s response exemplifies its longstanding commitment to strategic autonomy. However, the whole ordeal reveals the complexity of Jakarta’s foreign relations, which often involve balancing ties with competing powers.

For Australia, acknowledging Indonesia’s independent foreign policy — rather than interpreting it through a great-power rivalry lens — is critical to sustaining mutual trust.

A chance to re-anchor the relationship

This moment offers both governments the chance to move beyond symbolic gestures toward a deeper, more inclusive and people-centred partnership.

Amid global fragmentation, trust is not just desirable — it’s essential. And while differences remain, they are not insurmountable when guided by mutual respect, strategic patience and a commitment to genuine cooperation.

For Australia, the challenge is to move past strategic anxiety and invest in a resilient, multidimensional relationship with Indonesia. This visit could be the first step in doing just that.

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

– ref. In Indonesia, Albanese has a chance to reset a relationship held back by anxiety and misperceptions – https://theconversation.com/in-indonesia-albanese-has-a-chance-to-reset-a-relationship-held-back-by-anxiety-and-misperceptions-256321

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Steer, Chair, Australian Centre for Space Governance, Australian National University

You have probably used space at least 20 times today. Satellites let you buy a coffee with your phone, book a rideshare, navigate your way to meet someone, and check the weather.

Satellites are also essential for monitoring floods, cyclones and bushfires, and supporting the people they affect. Farmers depend on satellite data, too, as does everyone trying to understand and tackle climate change, not to mention our military.

Yet Australia’s access to space services depends almost entirely on satellites owned and run by foreign governments and companies. In an increasingly uncertain world, having our own sovereign space technology is becoming even more important for security.

But what exactly do we need to secure? And how can space help us do it? My colleagues and I at the Australian Centre for Space Governance have thought through these questions and presented them in a policy paper series – and we have some recommendations for the government.

Space services are essential

Since 2022, the Australian government has considered space technology to be “critical infrastructure”. In other words, if the space-based services we use were destroyed or disrupted, it “would have a debilitating impact on Australia’s defence and national security, a destabilising effect on the population, and cause significant damage to the economy”.

However, Australia is entirely dependent on foreign partners for space-based services such as communications and Earth observation.

Another crucial kind of satellite-powered service is “position, navigation and timing” – things like GPS, which is owned and operated by the US government. Even a temporary loss of these services could pose significant risks to Australia’s telecommunications and energy systems, as well as disaster response.

According to Australia’s 2024 National Defence Strategy, space capabilities are “equally as important as the maritime, land and air domains”. But we are in many respects simply users of space infrastructure that belongs to partner countries for our military needs. There are opportunities to increase our role in these partnerships if we place more emphasis on how Australia can be a contributor.

An uncertain world

Almost all the satellite data that supports our agriculture, banking, transport, climate monitoring, bushfire and flood response – and connects rural, remote and regional Australians – comes from the US, Europe and Japan. This dependency poses significant risks.

If any of those countries have to prioritise their own national needs in a natural disaster – such as the Sea of Japan earthquake in January last year – we might lose access. Even temporary loss of service can be disruptive, such as the temporary outage in 2023 of a UK satellite that impacted farmers in Australia and New Zealand.

The same might happen if any of those countries stopped providing data for political or national security reasons.

These risks are only increasing as our dependency on satellite services grows, and our relationship with the United States may become less certain.

What do we want from space?

Many of Australia’s international partners are also questioning their dependence on the US, and prioritising their domestic needs. Many have national space policies, or at least a clear idea of what sovereign space capabilities they want to invest in. This is what Australia needs, too.

Greater cooperation on new space technologies could help our shared interests with our neighbours. Obvious areas include regional security, climate response, supporting agriculture, and internet connectivity needs.

One obstacle, as we discovered when we ran a national public opinion survey last year, is that Australia doesn’t have a clear vision of what it wants from space.

In government, too, there is little shared understanding of how satellites and related infrastructure feed in to our national priorities and needs.

At present, thinking about space is usually the domain of specialists in government. But a better option would be “mainstreaming” space – making it part of the everyday, business-as-usual thinking of policymakers across government.

Sovereign satellites

Our country already excels at what’s called the “ground segment” for space – things like satellite dishes and data management. One example is the satellite dish operated by Geoscience Australia in Alice Springs, on land leased from the Indigenous-owned business, the Centre for Appropriate Technology. But we don’t have any sovereign satellites.

In 2023, the government scrapped a billion-dollar project including four Earth-observation satellites, citing budget constraints. In 2024, a planned military-grade satellite communications system worth $7 billion was also cancelled due to lack of cash.

But in 2025, it’s a new term of government. New minister for industry and science Tim Ayres may revisit these decisions. It certainly aligns with his support for a “Future Made in Australia”.

This time around, the space industry and researchers will need to do a better job at communicating why satellites matter so much to our national well-being and security.

Cassandra Steer has received funding in the past from the Department of Defence, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Geoscience Australia and Home Affairs. She is Chair and founder of the Australian Centre for Space Governance.

– ref. From GPS to weather forecasts: the hidden ways Australia relies on foreign satellites – https://theconversation.com/from-gps-to-weather-forecasts-the-hidden-ways-australia-relies-on-foreign-satellites-256440

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Hughes, Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, University of Sydney

Inhalers have been key to asthma management since the 1950s. The most common, salbutamol, comes in a familiar blue-coloured inhaler (or “puffer”).

This kind of “rescue inhaler” brings quick relief from asthma symptoms. You may know these inhalers by their brand names such as Ventolin, Asmol or Zempreon.

But there is growing evidence that using this kind of inhaler without treating the underlying condition may not only be ineffective – it could actually increase the risk of an asthma attack.

Next month, the National Asthma Council is releasing updated guidelines that reflect this shift. Here’s what’s changing and what you need to know.

What is a bronchodilator?

Bronchodilators such as salbutamol act by relaxing smooth muscle in the airways. While they don’t address inflammation, which is the key cause of asthma, bronchodilators are effective at quickly opening up constricted airways.

This means for people experiencing typical asthma symptoms – such as tightness of the chest and shortness of breath – a puff of salbutamol brings relief within ten minutes. The effect can last up to six hours.

Salbutamol is used by people with asthma and other respiratory conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (which includes chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema). As part of a management plan made with a doctor, salbutamol is used to relieve shortness of breath when it occurs.

In Australia, more than 60% of salbutamol is purchased over the counter (without a prescription) in pharmacies. Many of these purchases may be for people with infrequent asthma symptoms, meaning less than twice a month.

However, we now know there are safer and more effective ways for people with infrequent asthma to manage it in the long term.

So, what’s wrong with using salbutamol?

Treating symptoms is only one part of asthma management. Salbutamol doesn’t address the root cause – why the airways of people who get asthma become constricted in the first place.

It’s a bit like taking pain relief for a swollen elbow without treating the tendonitis causing the pain.

In asthma, chronic inflammation is usually a result of genes and environment interacting.

Some people have airways that overreact to triggers in the environment. These triggers include pollens, moulds and dust mites, or air that is cold or humid.

Over the long term, chronic inflammation can lead to changes in the airways. The airway walls become thicker and produce more mucus, allowing less space for air to flow through them.

Using short-acting treatments such as salbutamol without addressing chronic inflammation in the airways poses risks.

Salbutamol can become less effective with regular use. This means people with shortness of breath don’t gain the relief they expect and need, and paradoxically, their airways may become more “twitchy” (sensitive to environmental triggers) and inflamed. One response to this is people use more salbutamol and the problem is compounded.

Strong data links increased use of short-term inhalers such as salbutamol to higher risk of asthma flare-ups, hospital admissions and even death.

Purchasing three or more salbutamol inhalers per year is considered overuse.

According to asthma guidelines in Australia and globally, needing salbutamol for symptom relief on more than two days a week is an indicator of poorly controlled asthma, requiring review and possibly anti-inflammatory treatment.

What do the new guidelines recommend?

In 2019, the Global Initiative for Asthma, an independent not-for-profit organisation, radically changed its recommendations for salbutamol use. This is based on its committee of asthma experts reviewing the evidence.

Australian asthma guidelines from the National Asthma Council are set to follow suit.

The council’s 2025 Australian Asthma Handbook now states that salbutamol alone is inadequate treatment for asthma in adults or adolescents.

Previously, the guidelines recommended people with infrequent symptoms to use salbutamol when needed and “alone” – that is, without an anti-inflammatory preventer.

The new recommendations specifically warn against anyone with asthma using a short-acting bronchodilator such as salbutamol by itself, due to the increased health risks mentioned above.

People with asthma who use salbutamol, for example, should also use an anti-inflammatory treatment that provides preventive cover, such as an inhaled corticosteroid.

The 2025 Australian Asthma Handbook now recommends anti-inflammatory relievers from day one when it comes to asthma treatment in adults and adolescents.

These inhalers contain, in a single dose (one puff), both a bronchodilator (to relieve symptoms) and a low-dose anti-inflammatory corticosteroid (to treat underlying inflammation).

They are recommended instead of salbutamol-only inhalers for symptom relief, even for those whose symptoms are infrequent.

When used in place of salbutamol-only inhalers, anti-inflammatory relievers have demonstrated improvements in quality of life for people with asthma, as well as lower risks of hospitalisations and death.

In the case of children with asthma, global guidelines emphasise the use of anti-inflammatory inhalers and discourage over-reliance on bronchodilators.

Will I need to change my inhaler?

Currently, combination anti-inflammatory relievers are only available with a prescription from a doctor. These prescriptions with repeats can allow people with asthma up to 12 months of treatment.

In Australia you can still buy salbutamol in a pharmacy without a prescription, after consultation with a pharmacist.

However, if you have asthma and you’re concerned about the new guidance, you should speak to your pharmacist or doctor for advice.

Stephen Hughes receives research grant funding from the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care Medical Research Future Fund, The Australian Research Council and Asthma Australia. He is a past Board Member of the National Asthma Council of Australia and current member of its Finance and Risk Management Committee.

Bandana Saini has received funding from 1) Australian Government Department of Health Initiatives (via MRFFs or Community Pharmacy Agreement based investigator initiated grants, 2) National Health and Medical Research Council or from 3) organisations such as Asthma Australia.

– ref. Using a blue inhaler alone is not enough to manage your asthma – https://theconversation.com/using-a-blue-inhaler-alone-is-not-enough-to-manage-your-asthma-250133

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gemma Piercy, Lecturer, Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Waikato

Last week’s move by the government to amend pay equity laws, using parliamentary urgency to rush the reforms through, caught opposition parties and New Zealanders off guard.

Protests against the Equal Pay Amendment Bill have continued into this week, driven to some extent by disappointment that an apparent political consensus on the issue has broken down.

In 2017, the National-led government passed a forerunner to the current legislation for the health sector only, the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act. Later, in opposition, National also supported the Labour government’s Equal Pay Act in 2018, as well as the Equal Pay Amendment Act in 2020.

That legislation was designed to extend a pay equity process to all occupations and create a clearer pathway for making pay equity claims. With both major parties seemingly aligned, some 33 pay equity claims were under way.

Those claims – all halted now – involve the education, health and social services sectors. As such, the government would have to meet the costs of successful claims.

This explains why one rationale for the law change has been that the claims were potentially too expensive. The other rationale (preferred by Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden) is that the existing policy wasn’t sufficiently rigorous in determining the validity of some claims.

In reality, both the cost and the policy framework allowing equity claims to proceed are interrelated: the more permissive the framework, the higher the potential cost to the government and employers.

But while equal pay for equal work is the goal, it’s important to understand that equal pay and pay equity are not the same thing.

Equal pay is about making sure men and women are paid at the same rate in a specific occupation.

Pay equity, on the other hand, involves a more complex process. It aims to establish pay relativities between famale-dominated industries and other sectors using specific criteria. And herein lies the core of the argument.

Comparing different work sectors

According to van Velden, the framework for comparing different kinds of work was too loose, or simply not realistic:

You have librarians who’ve been comparing themselves to transport engineers. We have admin and clerical staff […] comparing themselves to mechanical engineers. We don’t believe we have that setting right.

On the surface, this may seem logical. And previous policy advice provided to the government suggests the recent law change will move New Zealand’s framework into line with other countries.

But using a proxy method of comparison between types of work in different industries or sectors remains central to any pay equity claim.

That’s because pay equity seeks to make visible and fix the deep, structural inequalities that have historically seen women’s work undervalued compared to men’s work. It’s about ensuring jobs that are different but of equal value are paid similarly, as a way to achieve gender equality.

Women’s employment is still concentrated in lower-paying industries and occupations, so comparisons have to be made with other sectors.

The factors used to measure that relativity are known as “comparators”. Rather than using tools developed and tested under the previous legislation, the new system will introduce “a hierarchy of comparators”, with a preference for comparators to be chosen within the same industry or occupation making the pay equity claim.

Comparators are selected to help compare the nature of different kinds of work in male-dominated and female-dominated industries. This is based on an assessment of skills, experience and qualifications, level of responsibilities, types of working conditions and degree of effort.

The assessment is completed through in-depth interviews with workers in comparison occupations. It uses resources such as Employment New Zealand’s skills recognition tool to evaluate the validity of those comparators.

Different kinds of cost

The subjective nature of valuing different kinds of work is part of the problem, of course. But New Zealand research shows only part of the gender pay gap can be attributed to objectively measurable pay differences within specific industries. Pay equity is about addressing both the objective and subjective elements contributing to that gap.

We’ll need to carefully monitor the new system to see whether its narrower comparator requirements affect its capacity to close the gender pay gap.

Treasury’s concerns also need to be considered. The former budget allocation of NZ$17 billion over four years suggests the costs of settling pay equity claims may be considerable.

On the other hand, they may be bearable. Last year in the United Kingdom, for example, Birmingham City Council was effectively bankrupt and feared pay equity claims might be a final straw. In the end, the costs were not as high as initially anticipated.

Finally, focusing exclusively on reducing fiscal cost risks other costs rising instead. Women who are paid less than they should be will struggle to put food on the table, pay back student loans, get onto the property ladder, contribute to Kiwisaver and afford their retirement.

Without pay equity, in other words, there is less economic activity in general.

Gemma Piercy received funding from the Pay Equity Unit (2004-2009), part of the former Department of Labour, now Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Bill Cochrane and Suzette Dyer do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The pay equity puzzle: can we compare effort, skill and risk between different industries? – https://theconversation.com/the-pay-equity-puzzle-can-we-compare-effort-skill-and-risk-between-different-industries-256464

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Kenny, Professor, Australian Studies Institute, Australian National University

As if by visual metaphor, Sussan Ley’s task seemed both obvious and impossible in her first press conference as the new Liberal leader.

Three years ago this month, Ley had done something uncannily similar to what Ted O’Brien was doing now. Then, it had been her standing next to Peter Dutton as his dutiful deputy. The freshly installed pair talked a big game about the contest ahead, assured of the urgency of their mission and the potency of their message.

Ley had enthusiastically supported Dutton’s leadership. But now in 2025, it was Ley fronting the press, this time as the new leader following the catastrophic rejection of that Dutton-Ley project, the Liberal Party’s worst ever defeat.

It was the inexperienced O’Brien at her side, newly elected as her bright-eyed second in command.

Policy rethink?

Sharpening the metaphor, it had been O’Brien who had acted as chief design architect and salesperson for one of the Coalition’s most expensive yet unloved policies in the May 2025 election – nuclear power stations, government built and operated.

Back in 2022, Dutton’s task had seemed difficult, but success was far from unimaginable as he faced a new Labor government elected with a record-low primary vote and a tiny two-seat majority.

Ley’s degree of difficulty three years hence is some orders of magnitude greater, not least because of O’Brien’s nuclear energy policy – which will be high on the list of policies to be reviewed, and presumably ditched, if a Liberal recovery is to occur.

Stripping away unhelpful policy that is nonetheless beloved in sections of the party’s conservative and right wing base, is a threshold challenge for Ley – one of a panoply of traps and trying circumstances she confronts.

Ley’s challenges

First, there’s the simple maths given the Coalition now trails the Labor Party by a staggering 50-plus seats.

Few observers think the Coalition can seriously compete for government at the 2028 election. Thus, Ley needs to keep hope alive among Liberal mps and senators, even when the prize of power seems two terms away.

Then there’s her task of leading the Liberal Party back to the political centre-ground or as she puts it, meeting Australian voters “where they are”. This seems like politics 101. Yet she faces many internal sceptics.

Leadership tightrope

At 29 votes to 25, Ley’s victory against a more right-wing candidate, Angus Taylor was narrow and reportedly relied on the votes of senators whose terms end on June 30.

In other words, even her current majority could evaporate.

It is worth remembering that by December 2009, just two years after the Howard government ended, the Liberal Party was already on to its third opposition leader.

Doing it her way

So what effect will she have on the Liberal Party? In her first press conference she gave several clues.

In contradistinction to Dutton, who avoided Parliament House press conferences and searching interviews, Ley gave a crisp three word answer when asked if she would front up to these rituals of public accountability – “yes, I will”.

She promised to make tax reform and economic policy the “core business” of the party she leads.

There was also a marked, if measured, departure from the bombastic declarative culture war politics of Dutton on matters like standing in front of the Aboriginal flag and welcome to country ceremonies at public events. On both, she expressed a more pragmatic acceptance:

If it’s meaningful, if it matters, if it resonates, then it’s in the right place and as environment minister and health minister I listened carefully and participated in Welcome to Country ceremonies. If it’s done in a way that is ticking a box on a Teams meeting then I don’t think it is relevant.

On other matters, she noted pointedly that RG Menzies had founded the party as the “Liberal” party not the conservative party, while acknowledging a breadth of alternative opinions among her parliamentary colleagues:

Our Liberal Party reflects a range of views from all walks of life that are welcome in our party room and that is one of our great strengths.

Ley the history-maker

That Ley is the first ever woman to lead the federal Liberal Party will pose potential challenges.

To pretend that gender stereotyping will play no role in any undermining by internal critics and media would be to ignore history.

Asked about the exodus of female voters from the Coalition at the election, Ley said, “We did let women down, there is no doubt about that,” as she expressed the need for “genuine, serious” engagement:

I want to say right here and now we need more women in our party. We need more women in the organisation, and we need more women in this party room.

However, she pointedly stopped short of backing affirmative action quotas in the Liberal Party even as she called for more women in the parliament.

Gaza about-face

Perhaps the most telling “real-time” demonstration of the uneasy balance she hopes to achieve as leader of a party that has shifted markedly to the right, was when she as was asked about the Israel-Gaza question.

As a former member of a cross party group called Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, Ley had implored parliament in 2008 to “think not of the Palestinian leadership, think of the people”.

She had described Gaza as “besieged, contained, and on the brink of starvation” while warning that a “crushing economic embargo feeds fury and resentment” both in Gaza and the West Bank:

Israel has many friends in this country and in this parliament. The Palestinians, by comparison, have few. Theirs is not a popular cause […] but it is one I support.

Asked about her view now, Ley felt the need to circle back to stress her principle concern over the rising tide of antisemitism in Australia. She now says the “hideous events” of October 7 has changed her thinking on the matter.

Gaza has given Sussan Ley an early lesson on the difficulties leaders face when it comes to straddling highly contentious issues.

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

– ref. Sussan Ley makes history, but faces unprecedented levels of difficulty – https://theconversation.com/sussan-ley-makes-history-but-faces-unprecedented-levels-of-difficulty-256336

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Burnett, Honorary Associate Professor, ANU College of Law, Australian National University

Australia’s new environment minister, Murray Watt, is reported to be a fixer. That’s good, because there’s a lot to fix.

Being environment minister is a hard gig. It often requires difficult choices between environmental and economic priorities. In cabinet, the minister is often up against a phalanx of ministers with economic portfolios and overriding political imperatives such as jobs and growth. I saw this repeatedly over the 16 years when I held senior leadership roles in environment departments at territory and federal levels.

In Labor’s first term, this tension played out again. Former environment minister Tanya Plibersek came to the role with big ideas. To that end, she tried to make Australia’s national environment laws fit for purpose and introduce a federal environmental protection agency (EPA).

A cumbersome approach to consultation didn’t help, but ultimately it was development concerns led by big mining companies and West Australian Premier Roger Cook that saw the reform can kicked down the road. Perversely, the only legal reform we saw was an amendment to protect not a threatened species, but the salmon farms threatening it.

Now it’s Watt’s turn. He has a reputation for getting things done and may drive a bargain to get some version of the EPA through. But that’s only one piece of the reform jigsaw and he’ll have to return to the mammoth task of reforming Australia’s national environment laws. He will have to push back against efforts by the Greens in the Senate to broaden the agenda to include climate and forests, and weather opposing pressures from industry and environment groups.

Stalled reforms

Watt’s largest challenge will be to revive the stalled Nature Positive Plan. This was the government’s response to the 2020 Samuel Review, which found Australia’s natural environment and iconic places were declining and under increasing threat, while national environmental laws were no longer fit for purpose.

Samuel’s solution was groundbreaking: create new, legally enforceable national environmental standards to deliver better environmental protection. Last term, Labor committed to introducing the standards, reforming laws and introducing an EPA. Unfortunately, Plibersek ran out of time and most of the reforms were put on the backburner.

Plibersek pitched an independent EPA as a tough cop on the beat, but it wasn’t independent enough for many environmentalists.

Industry didn’t like it either. WA miners used their influence to attack the EPA for being unaccountable. Their lobbying worked and the EPA was pushed back. As one mining figure told the Australian Financial Review: “The heat [industry pressure] was no one’s first preference; it was just required because there was no other way to influence the actual policymaking.”

Miners and other big businesses are likely worried the proposed independent EPA would reduce their influence. At present, the environment minister has near-complete discretion over approvals. Much of this discretion — and the political influence associated with it — would disappear with an independent EPA making decisions based on national environmental standards.

More challenges are looming. Here are two:

Gas extraction on the North West Shelf

Watt will soon have to decide on Woodside’s application to expand gas extraction off Australia’s northwest coast. If approved, the North West Shelf Extension Project would be Australia’s largest resource project. Environmentalists hate it, describing it as a climate bomb. The WA government approved it last year.

If Watt follows the pattern of his predecessors, we can expect to see the development approved subject to numerous conditions, pitched as strict environmental safeguards. Despite such safeguards applying to operations in Australia, the real damage done by the project will be global, not local, as the gas will be burned overseas.

Murray-Darling Basin Plan

The delayed ten-year review of the Murray-Darling basin plan is due in 2026. It will reopen old wounds. The basic problem is there’s not enough water for both the environment and irrigators.

When the draft plan was first released in 2010, angry irrigators burned a copy of it. The government backpedalled furiously, eventually approving a plan with a lot less water returned to the environment. Experts say the plan hasn’t actually helped the environment.

Watt is a former agriculture minister and will have insight into both sides. But he’ll need the wisdom of Solomon to come up with a successful approach.

It’s hard to fix systems

Making environmental headway is downright hard. The underlying problem is that politics is about trade-offs, but nature doesn’t negotiate. Nature is a system of systems, and if we take too much from it those systems begin to break down – usually irreversibly.

In previous decades, governments often dealt with environmental problems by creating national parks and World Heritage areas. If only things were still that simple.

Peter Burnett is affiliated with the Biodiversity Council, an independent expert group founded to provide evidence-based solutions to Australia’s biodiversity crisis.

– ref. It’s a hard job being environment minister. Here’s an insider’s view of the key challenges facing Murray Watt – https://theconversation.com/its-a-hard-job-being-environment-minister-heres-an-insiders-view-of-the-key-challenges-facing-murray-watt-256465

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Jean Monnet Chair of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

Defying expectations, the United States and China have announced an important agreement to de-escalate bilateral trade tensions after talks in Geneva, Switzerland.

The good, the bad and the ugly

The good news is their recent tariff increases will be slashed. The US has cut tariffs on Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, while China has reduced levies on US imports from 125% to 10%. This greatly eases major bilateral trade tensions, and explains why financial markets rallied.

The bad news is twofold. First, the remaining tariffs are still high by modern standards. The US average trade-weighted tariff rate was 2.2% on January 1 2025, while it is now estimated to be up to 17.8%. This makes it the highest tariff wall since the 1930s.

Overall, it is very likely a new baseline has been set. Bilateral tariff-free trade belongs to a bygone era.

Second, these tariff reductions will be in place for 90 days, while negotiations continue. Talks will likely include a long list of difficult-to-resolve issues. China’s currency management policy and industrial subsidies system dominated by state-owned enterprises will be on the table. So will the many non-tariff barriers Beijing can turn on and off like a tap.

China is offering to purchase unspecified quantities of US goods – in a repeat of a US-China “Phase 1 deal” from Trump’s first presidency that was not implemented. On his first day in office in January, amid a blizzard of executive orders, Trump ordered a review of that deal’s implementation. The review found China didn’t follow through on the agriculture, finance and intellectual property protection commitments it had made.

Unless the US has now decided to capitulate to Beijing’s retaliatory actions, it is difficult to see the US being duped again.

Failure to agree on these points would reveal the ugly truth that both countries continue to impose bilateral export controls on goods deemed sensitive, such as semiconductors (from the US to China) and processed critical minerals (from China to the US).

Moreover, in its so-called “reciprocal” negotiations with other countries, the US is pressing trading partners to cut certain sensitive China-sourced goods from their exports destined for US markets. China is deeply unhappy about these US demands and has threatened to retaliate against trading partners that adopt them.

A temporary truce

Overall, the announcement is best viewed as a truce that does not shift the underlying structural reality that the US and China are locked into a long-term cycle of escalating strategic competition.

Read more:
Why Trump fails to understand China’s trade war tactics, and what his negotiators should be reading

That cycle will have its ups (the latest announcement) and downs (the tariff wars that preceded it). For now, both sides have agreed to announce victory and focus on other matters.

For the US, this means ensuring there will be consumer goods on the shelves in time for Halloween and Christmas, albeit at inflated prices. For China, it means restoring some export market access to take pressure off its increasingly ailing economy.

As neither side can vanquish the other, the likely long-term result is a frozen conflict. This will be punctuated by attempts to achieve “escalation dominance”, as that will determine who emerges with better terms. Observers’ opinions on where the balance currently lies are divided.

Along the way, and to use a quote widely attributed to Winston Churchill, to “jaw-jaw is better than to war-war”. Fasten your seat belts, there is more turbulence to come.

Where does this leave the rest of us?

Significantly, the US has not (so far) changed its basic goals for all its bilateral trade deals.

Its overarching aim is to cut the goods trade deficit by reducing goods imports and eliminating non-tariff barriers it says are “unfairly” prohibiting US exports. The US also wants to remove barriers to digital trade and investments by tech giants and “derisk” certain imports that it deems sensitive for national security reasons.

The agreement between the US and UK last week clearly reflects these goals in operation. While the UK received some concessions, the remaining tariffs are higher, at 10% overall, than on April 2 and subject to US-imposed import quotas. Furthermore, the UK must open its market for certain goods while removing China-originating content from steel and pharmaceutical products destined for the US.

For Washington’s Pacific defence treaty allies, including Australia, nothing has changed. Potentially difficult negotiations with the Trump administration lie ahead, particularly if the US decides to use our security dependencies as leverage to wring concessions in trade. Japan has already disavowed linking security and trade, and their progress should be closely watched.

The US has previously paused high tariffs on manufacturing nations in South-East Asia, particularly those used by other nations as export platforms to avoid China tariffs. Vietnam, Cambodia and others will face sustained uncertainty and increasingly difficult balancing acts. The economic stakes are higher for them.

They, like the Japanese, are long-practised in the subtle arts of balancing the two giants. Still, juggling ties with both Washington and Beijing will become the act of an increasingly high-wire trapeze artist.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The US and China have reached a temporary truce in the trade wars, but more turbulence lies ahead – https://theconversation.com/the-us-and-china-have-reached-a-temporary-truce-in-the-trade-wars-but-more-turbulence-lies-ahead-256448

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ulrik Egede, Professor of Physics, Monash University

Medieval alchemists dreamed of transmuting lead into gold. Today, we know that lead and gold are different elements, and no amount of chemistry can turn one into the other.

But our modern knowledge tells us the basic difference between an atom of lead and an atom of gold: the lead atom contains exactly three more protons. So can we create a gold atom by simply pulling three protons out of a lead atom?

As it turns out, we can. But it’s not easy.

While smashing lead atoms into each other at extremely high speeds in an effort to mimic the state of the universe just after the Big Bang, physicists working on the ALICE experiment at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland incidentally produced small amounts of gold. Extremely small amounts, in fact: a total of some 29 trillionths of a gram.

How to steal a proton

Protons are found in the nucleus of an atom. How can they be pulled out?

Well, protons have an electric charge, which means an electric field can pull or push them around. Placing an atomic nucleus in an electric field could do it.

However, nuclei are held together by a very strong force with a very short range, imaginatively known as the strong nuclear force. This means an extremely powerful electric field is required to pull out protons – about a million times stronger than the electric fields that create lightning bolts in the atmosphere.

The way the scientists created this field was to fire beams of lead nuclei at each other at incredibly high speeds – almost the speed of light.

The magic of a near-miss

When the lead nuclei have a head-on collision, the strong nuclear force comes into play and they end up getting completely destroyed. But more commonly the nuclei have a near miss, and only affect each other via the electromagnetic force.

The strength of an electric field drops off very quickly as you move away from an object with an electric charge (such as a proton). But at very short distances, even a tiny charge can create a very strong field.

So when one lead nucleus just grazes past another, the electric field between them is huge. The rapidly changing field between the nuclei makes them vibrate and occasionally spit out some protons. If one of them spits out exactly three protons, the lead nucleus has turned into gold.

Counting protons

So if you have turned a lead atom into gold, how do you know? In the ALICE experiment, they use special detectors called zero-degree calorimeters to count the protons stripped out of the lead nuclei.

They can’t observe the gold nuclei themselves, so they only know about them indirectly.

The ALICE scientists calculate that, while they are colliding beams of lead nuclei, they produce about 89,000 gold nuclei per second. They also observed the production of other elements: thallium, which is what you get when you take one proton from lead, as well as mercury (two protons).

An alchemical nuisance

Once a lead nucleus has transformed by losing protons, it is no longer on the perfect orbit that keeps it circulating inside the vacuum beam pipe of the Large Hadron Collider. In a matter of microseconds it will collide with the walls.

This effect makes the beam less intense over time. So for scientists, the production of gold at the collider is in fact more of a nuisance than a blessing.

However, understanding this accidental alchemy is essential for making sense of experiments – and for designing the even bigger experiments of the future.

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

– ref. Physicists at the Large Hadron Collider turned lead into gold – by accident – https://theconversation.com/physicists-at-the-large-hadron-collider-turned-lead-into-gold-by-accident-256478

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justine Bell-James, Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland

Sussan Ley has been elected Liberal leader after defeating rival Angus Taylor in a party room vote on Tuesday. Now the leadership question is settled, the hard work of rebuilding the party can begin.

In the wake of its election loss, the Coalition has foreshadowed a sweeping policy review. Where the Coalition lands on the contentious nuclear energy policy will be keenly watched.

The majority Labor government is likely to easily push legislation through the lower house. However, the Senate numbers mean Labor needs backing from either the Greens or the Coalition to pass bills into law.

So where does Ley stand on nuclear energy and other pressure points across the environment and energy portfolios? Ley’s stance on four key issues, including during her time as environment minister in the Morrison government, provides important insights.

1. Nuclear power and gas

The resounding Coalition election defeat suggest the prospects for nuclear power in Australia are now poor. But the Coalition’s nuclear policy may yet resurface, given the Nationals still support it.

During the election campaign, Ley backed the Liberals’ call for nuclear power in Australia, arguing nuclear can provide a zero-emissions option that’s needed in the shift to renewables.

In a 2023 speech, Ley suggested nuclear power had a big future in Australia, saying:

The fact is the latest technology reactors in nuclear-powered submarines in operation today don’t need to be refuelled for 30 years. And the money being invested into research and development is only going to make these new nuclear technologies even better.

Ley has also argued Australia needs to keep gas in the system for longer, rather than “trying to do everything with renewables”.

2. The energy transition

A second-term Labor government will further progress its existing energy policies, including measures to reach its target of 82% renewable energy in the the National Electricity Market by 2030.

Ley has accepted the need for a renewable energy transition, but says it should be led by nuclear power and gas.

She has suggested enormous wind turbines and large-scale solar farms are dominating the landscape in rural areas. She also claims renewable energy projects generate insurance risks because battery storage increases fire risks.

Ley has consistently voted against increasing investment in renewable energy, and is likely to seek to ensure policy addresses rising energy prices and reliability.

3. Nature law reform

The Albanese government intends to complete reform of Australia’s federal environment laws, known collectively as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (or EPBC Act). Labor’s proposed reforms stalled in the Senate last term.

The independent review that preceded the reform, led by Graeme Samuel, was initiated by the Morrison government under Ley, who served as environment minister from 2019 to 2022.

An interim report from the Samuel review was released in July 2020. Ley seized on recommendations that suited her government’s agenda – notably, streamlining the environmental approvals process to speed up decisions on proposed developments. She vowed to start working on them even before the review was finalised, and before public comment on the draft was received.

Ley put bills to parliament in August 2020 and February 2021 seeking to amend the laws. The first sought to hand powers for environmental approvals to the states. The proposal was criticised for lacking environmental safeguards.

This prompted Ley to introduce a second bill which sought to ensure state agreements were monitored and audited. It also provided for new “national environmental standards” to guide approval decisions.

But both bills lapsed before the 2022 election after failing to secure Senate support.

National environmental standards were a key recommendation from the Samuel review, and also a centrepiece of Labor’s proposed reforms. However, Labor’s proposed standards were more robust and focused on outcomes.

The bills Labor introduced to parliament in 2024 also sought establish Australia’s first national environment protection agency to carry out compliance and enforcement. This body would have had more power than Ley’s proposed commissioner.

So while Labor’s proposed reform package was bolder, both Ley and her then Labor counterpart Tanya Plibersek’s proposals were comprised of similar ingredients. Given Ley has shown support for some elements of Labor’s reform package before, namely devolving powers to states and implementing standards, there may be some grounds for negotiation.

4. Coal and climate change

As environment minister, Ley welcomed the Coalition’s approval of the huge Adani coalmine in central Queensland. She also gave the green light to other coal projects. Plibersek took a similar approach to coal projects in her time as minister.

In 2021, the Federal Court found Ley, as environment minister, owed a duty of care to future generations to avoid causing climate harm through her decisions. Ley successfully appealed the ruling.

Separately, Ley has also claimed climate change is not part of the environment portfolio.

When the Coalition reflects on the resounding defeat at the election, Ley’s hard stance on climate may soften.

Finding common ground

Ley brings a deeper understanding of nature law reform to the position of Liberal leader than her predecessor Peter Dutton. This raises the prospects for overhauling the EPBC Act this term.

However, Ley’s priority is likely to be streamlining the environmental approval process rather than increasing protections afforded to threatened species and ecosystems.

On the topic of gas playing a significant ongoing role in Australia’s energy mix, Ley will find many like minds in the Labor government.

When it comes to the energy transition, much rests on the party room decision on whether to persist with a nuclear power policy. Nevertheless, with or without nuclear, Ley’s previous statements suggest she will continue to argue against wind and solar generation energy on cost and reliability grounds.

Justine Bell-James receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Queensland Government, and the National Environmental Science Program. She is a Director of the National Environmental Law Association and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

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

– ref. From nuclear to nature laws, here’s where new Liberal leader Sussan Ley stands on 4 energy and environment flashpoints – https://theconversation.com/from-nuclear-to-nature-laws-heres-where-new-liberal-leader-sussan-ley-stands-on-4-energy-and-environment-flashpoints-256106

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mahsa Khanpoor Siahdarka, PhD Candidate in Built Environment, RMIT University

The architecture of northern Iran exhibits an extroverted quality. Buildings are designed to let in the sounds of rain, birds and rustling trees, as well as scents of nature.

Architecture in this region is characterised by open structures, deep eaves, elevated wooden houses and interconnected communal spaces that resemble traditional Japanese and Far Eastern designs.

The built environment in the south is introverted. Central Iran, particularly cities like Yazd and Isfahan, is characterised by a harsh arid climate, where architecture has evolved to minimise exposure to extreme heat and sunlight.

Buildings are oriented inward, centred around enclosed courtyards and largely closed off from the street. This prioritises privacy and thermal regulation.

Throughout the country, the intricate relationship between climate and culture has shaped architectural forms in ways that make it difficult to delineate where one influence ends and the other begins.

The houses don’t only reflect their environment – they also reflect the role of women in these communities.

The extroverted north

The north of Iran, between the the Alborz Mountain range and the Caspian Sea, enjoys a humid subtropical micro-climate with dense forests and abundant greenery.

The mountains have historically served as both a climatic and cultural barrier, moderating external influences, including Arab conquests. This allowed the region to maintain unique social and architectural characteristics for centuries.

In the north, nature has always been seen more as a friend than a threat.

The architecture opens itself up with wide verandas, open corridors and spaces that blur the line between inside and out.

With humid climates and communal living traditions, there are strong architectural similarities between northern Iran and East Asia. Both regions incorporate elevated wooden structures, deep eaves and open layouts to enhance airflow and prevent moisture-related decay.

The integration of nature into built spaces, seen in Iranian veranda-like ayvans and Japanese engawa, reflects a philosophical alignment that prioritises harmony between architecture and the environment.

These similarities suggest a convergent evolution. Distinct cultures independently arrived at comparable architectural solutions in response to similar climates and societies.

The emphasis on community-based living and social interaction also reflects the role of women in agricultural, economic and social activities in northern Iran.

The openness of homes, markets and farms contributed to women being active participants in public life.

In more conservative or arid regions, architectural boundaries enforce stricter gender divisions. But here, the architecture facilitated organic interactions across gender and age groups.

Northern Iran’s humid climate, abundant rainfall and fertile land allowed for greater agricultural and pastoral productivity. With easier access to food, water and materials, the domestic burden was reduced. This enabled women to participate more actively in public and economic life, including market trade, rice farming and animal husbandry.

The introverted south

The harsh desert conditions in southern and central Iran were more like an opposing force or army. The climate was something to defend against, unlike the friendlier climate of the north.

In response, the architecture became sheltered and self-contained. Architecture in southern and central Iran relies almost entirely on earth-based materials such as mud brick (khesht), adobe and fired brick.

Building materials are drawn directly from the surrounding soil. The architecture is deeply rooted – both literally and culturally – in its environment.

Domed roofs are not only structurally efficient but also thermally responsive. At any given time, one side of the dome is shaded by its own curve, creating a cooler surface that encourages air movement and passive cooling.

Houses are centred around courtyards that create microclimates within enclosed spaces (Bagh-e-Khaneh). High walls, minimal external windows and windcatchers (badgirs) regulate airflow while limiting solar radiation.

The inward-facing design of these buildings historically reinforced social norms that confined women to private domestic spheres, limiting their visibility in urban life.

The harsh desert climate, combined with cultural norms around modest clothing, often confined women to the interior spaces of the home. Architectural features which were essential for passive cooling and privacy shaped a lifestyle centred around the domestic sphere.

The demanding nature of desert life meant basic tasks like securing water, preserving food and producing textiles required significant domestic labour.

In many desert cities like Yazd or Kashan, domestic architecture was designed to protect not just from heat, but also from public view. This meant women’s daily lives were largely contained within high-walled courtyards, internal corridors, and roofscapes. Here, women could move freely but invisibly.

Architecture built gender segregation into the physical fabric of the city, shaping women’s roles, routines and social interactions for generations.

Climate and culture

The way climate and culture shape Iranian architecture is complex.

In both northern and central Iran, buildings adapt to the environment. The humid north features open, outward-facing structures. The arid central regions rely on enclosed courtyards to manage extreme heat.

However, climate alone does not fully explain these differences.

Architect Amos Rapoport argues that, while climate sets limits, culture, social structures and history play a bigger role in shaping architecture.

In Iran, architecture does not just reflect the climate. It also shapes social spaces and gender roles.

Buildings are more than just shelters. They influence how people live, interact, and define their communities. Understanding this relationship can help us see architecture as an evolving part of society, shaped by both nature and human choices.

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

– ref. The ‘extroverted’ north and ‘introverted’ south: how climate and culture influence Iranian architecture – https://theconversation.com/the-extroverted-north-and-introverted-south-how-climate-and-culture-influence-iranian-architecture-251357

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

The federal Liberal party has elected its first female leader, with Sussan Ley narrowly defeating Angus Taylor, 29-25.

Ley, 63, who was deputy leader to Peter Dutton during the last term, had the support of the moderates in the party.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who defected last week from the Nationals to join a ticket with Taylor, pulled out of the deputy race after Taylor’s defeat. Taylor was supported by the conservatives in the party.

While Price has strong appeal in Liberal branches, the bold move backfired.

The new deputy is Queenslander Ted O’Brien, 51, key architect of the opposition’s controversial nuclear policy, which many considered a serious drag on the Coalition’s election vote. O’Brien defeated Phil Thompson, a fellow Queenslander, 38-16.

The closeness of the leadership vote is a recipe for instability dogging Ley’s leadership. Two of her supporters, Linda Reynolds and Hollie hughes, are leaving the Senate on June 30.

In the Coalition government, Ley variously held the portfolios of health, sport, aged care and environment.

An immediate challenge for Ley will be reshuffling the frontbench, especially what roles Taylor and Price will have.

Ley has held the southern NSW regional seat of Farrer since 2001.

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

– ref. Liberals elect first woman leader, with Ley defeating Taylor 29-25 – https://theconversation.com/liberals-elect-first-woman-leader-with-ley-defeating-taylor-29-25-256459

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ilan Noy, Chair in the Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The number of climate change-related extreme weather events) is on the rise, making it harder for many people to buy affordable home insurance.

The industry has already signalled it is pulling out of some places in Aotearoa New Zealand, leaving the government and homeowners to question what happens next. This is not something that should be ignored, or met with ad-hoc, unplanned responses.

Since insurance is required for residential mortgages, the retreat of insurance companies will have significant consequences for property prices and local economies.

With the retreat of insurance companies a future certainty in some communities, the government must decide how to respond. In our new research), we developed the “trilemma” framework, outlining the policy trade-offs governments face in adapting to climate change.

Deciding between trade-offs

We found effective adaptation policy needs to achieve three goals:

• incentivise risk reduction
• be fiscally affordable
• increase equity and wellbeing and reduce hardship.

But any policy can satisfy only two of these three goals. The government has to make trade-offs.

When it comes to responding to the retreat of private insurance, the options include:

• doing nothing and letting “the market” adjust (with sharp price declines for affected properties)
• replacing private insurance with a publicly-funded alternative
• offering government-funded defences (for example, stopbanks) or buyouts to properties that can no longer be insured.

Each one of these options involves giving up on at least one of the three policy goals.

A world without private insurance

Let us consider “Macondo”, a hypothetical community in a flood-prone area where insurance has “retreated”.

Do nothing

The “do nothing” option is when the government does not take a policy position on flood or storm insurance. This option has little to no cost for the government and, as long as people don’t expect buyouts, would incentivise risk reduction. But it leaves homeowners completely exposed to the increasing risk.

In “Macondo”, some homeowners will have reduced the risk for their own properties (raising their houses, for example). Others won’t be able to do so and remain completely at the mercy of the elements.

Those whose houses have been deemed uninsurable would have their mortgages automatically put into default. Some may have to sell their home at a much lower price and may remain indebted even after the sale.

Local councils might offer to invest in defences for the community by building stopbanks, but that is less likely for poorer and smaller local councils.

When an extreme weather event does happen, causing significant losses, the uninsured who own their homes may be unable to repair or rebuild and will be left destitute.

Public replacement insurance

In 1945, New Zealand’s government introduced public insurance for some natural hazards with the Earthquake and War Damage Commission. This later became the Earthquake Commission (EQC), and more recently, the Natural Hazards Commission (NHC). The commission was established as private insurers withdrew earthquake cover in the 1940s and landslip cover in the 1980s.

The government could choose to extend NHC policies to fully cover weather events such as floods and storms (NHC now provides only partial cover for damage to land from these hazards). Or it could establish a different public insurance scheme to cover these hazards.

When designed well, this option makes fiscal sense. For example, after 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes EQC cover for residential properties didn’t carry extra costs for the government.

Public replacement insurance could also make recovery fairer for everyone. But providing a blanket safety net through a public insurance scheme would discourage risk reduction. With the greater sense of financial safety may come a higher appetite to build on more risky sites, and spend less to defend existing homes. This would result in even more exposure and more damage.

Publicly-funded defences and buyouts

Successive governments across a range of disasters have opted for the ad-hoc approach. This inevitably turns out to be a combination of publicly-funded defences with generously provisioned buyouts.

This combination of defences and buyouts may be the most politically appealing in the short term, but it is also the least affordable and the least efficient option. This option leads to reduced risk (especially if buyouts are used) and can lessen hardship and even inequities.

This policy was used in Westport after its damaging floods in 2021 and 2022. Similarly, the Auckland Anniversary Flood and Cyclone Gabrielle triggered large investments in buyouts and in new flood defences that will end up costing billions.

Unfortunately for the affected residents in both cases, the process was not done preemptively following a carefully designed process. Instead, the response to each event was designed on the fly, was lengthy, and full of frustrating uncertainties, missteps, and missed opportunities.

Proactive response needed

Currently, every successive government in New Zealand chooses to do nothing and then switches to a defence and buyout choice when disaster strikes. This is the worst of all the trilemma policy options.

A more proactive policy, even if well-conceived, cannot achieve all three of the goals we listed. But at least the choice between these trade-offs would be clear and transparent. It would also avoid all the inefficiencies created by the reactive policy choices our elected governments make now.

We are grateful for the contribution of science writer Jo-Anne Hazel to this analysis.

Ilan Noy has received research funding from the New Zealand Natural Hazards Commission (formerly the EQC).

Belinda Storey has received research funding from the New Zealand Natural Hazards Commission (formerly the EQC).

– ref. As insurance gets harder to buy, NZ has 3 choices for disaster recovery – and we keep choosing the worst one – https://theconversation.com/as-insurance-gets-harder-to-buy-nz-has-3-choices-for-disaster-recovery-and-we-keep-choosing-the-worst-one-255713

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olivier Oren, Associate lecturer, hospitality management, Griffith University

For cafe and restaurant workers, getting a free drink or meal at the end of a long shift might feel like a well-deserved reward. But could such perks – common across the industry – be masking deeper issues?

Informal workplace perks have long been a big part of Australian hospitality’s culture. It’s common for restaurants and cafes to provide a free on-shift meal or heavily discounted menu items for their employees. In some bars and pubs, an end-of-shift alcoholic drink is a well-appreciated tradition.

Less well understood is the question of how these widespread perks are interacting with workers’ legal rights.

To investigate, we surveyed 383 Australian hospitality workers. Participants worked across cafes, bars, and hotels (both in large franchises and small businesses) across Australia, with roles such as chefs, bartenders, guest experience attendants, waiting staff, managers and baristas.

We asked them about their employment contracts, their access to legal entitlements like breaks and overtime, and any extra perks they received. We also invited them to share, in their own words, what would make work fairer. The results paint a troubling picture.

Precarious work

More than one in three survey respondents (34%) said they had no written terms of employment, despite this being a legal requirement in Australia.

As one participant explained:

I have only received a written contract and legally required breaks from one employer in my entire career.

Nearly half reported missing out on their rest breaks, an entitlement designed to protect health and safety.

About 12% were being paid less than the minimum wage, and close to half said they did not receive overtime or penalty payments when required. Non-compliance with legal entitlements was widespread across the sector, although more pronounced in smaller venues.

‘Perks’ of the job

At the same time, informal perks remain deeply woven into hospitality work cultures.

Nearly one in two respondents (44.1%) said they received some kind of benefit in addition to their basic pay. The most common types were free or discounted meals (57%) and access to alcoholic drinks (28%).

Some workers described other benefits such as laundry services, transportation, or even Christmas gifts. These freebies were rarely formalised and often dependent on the goodwill of managers.

Such perks can blur the line between appreciation and obligation, which are offered as moral licenses to sidestep legal entitlements. We argue this widespread culture of perks is a distraction from unfair work practices, especially for younger workers who make up most of the hospitality and service workforce.

For inexperienced staff, these “gifts” may indeed feel like part of the job, making it harder to identify when legal rights are being overlooked.

What workers really want

When asked what would make their jobs fairer, respondents overwhelmingly called for written contracts, enforceable pay rates and protection from abuse – not more freebies.

As one chef put it:

Free steak dinners don’t pay my rent or stop my boss docking pay for smoke breaks.

Our data also show that workers with formal agreements were significantly more likely to receive their legal entitlements, including proper rest breaks and overtime pay, compared to those without.

Why does this matter? Because protecting rights is not just about fairness. It is about safeguarding the sustainability of an industry we all rely on.

Research shows when businesses rely on unpaid labour or ignore basic entitlements, they undercut fair competition, contribute to worker burnout and drive talent out of the sector.

This affects service quality, workforce stability and ultimately the experiences of everyone who dines out, travels or enjoys Australia’s tourism offerings.

How we could fix it

Fixing the problem starts with clear, written employment contracts, especially in smaller venues where informal practices are most common. For workers and their families, this means refusing to accept a cold beer in place of job security.

For business owners, many of whom are not acting in bad faith, it means getting support to implement fair practices through accessible tools, templates and clear guidance, such as the Fair Work Ombudsman’s Pay and Conditions Tool and employment contract templates tailored to the industry.

For policymakers, it means strengthening oversight while improving education, ensuring that compliance is not just a box to tick, but a culture shift that makes fair, secure work the industry standard.

Let perks remain perks – and not distractions from rights.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Free food and beer are common perks for hospitality workers – but are they masking unfairness? – https://theconversation.com/free-food-and-beer-are-common-perks-for-hospitality-workers-but-are-they-masking-unfairness-256330

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Brien, Associate Professor, Department of Global Value Chains and Trade, Lincoln University, New Zealand

Last week’s big tourism conference in Rotorua saw plenty of optimism about the industry’s potential, but also warnings that airline capacity is hampering post-COVID growth.

The focus on bringing more foreign tourists to New Zealand is understandable, given the sector accounts for 7.5% of GDP and is our second highest export earner. But there is deeper problem, too. We already struggle to serve current visitor numbers – how will we handle more?

International tourism injected NZ$16.9 billion into the economy in the year to March 2024. Total tourism expenditure (domestic and international) hit a record $44.4 billion, up nearly 15% from the previous year.

The government has responded with a $13.5 million global marketing boost, and business leaders are celebrating. The big question is whether we will have the workforce to match the ambition.

Because right now, the pipeline of skilled, engaged people willing to work, grow and lead in tourism and hospitality isn’t flowing.

Without an industry-led, well-funded campaign to rebuild the perception of tourism and hospitality as credible, rewarding and sustainable career options, New Zealand has a crisis in the making.

Who wants to work in tourism and hospo?

Fewer New Zealanders are choosing tourism and hospitality as a career. With the number of locals studying tourism and hospitality collapsing, both sectors are increasingly dependent on foreign workers.

Tourism education numbers for the past decade show:

• 1,355 equivalent full-time students were enrolled in tourism-related courses in 2024, down from 3,750 in 2015 – a 63% drop

• enrolments in bachelor’s degrees in tourism management fell from 45 in 2015 to 25 in 2024 – a 44% drop

• postgraduate enrolments in tourism management are down 75%, with only 20 in 2024.

The figures for hospitality education paint an even grimmer picture:

• enrolments in hospitality courses fell from from 915 in 2015 to just 250 in 2024 – a 73% drop

• cookery course enrolments fell from 4,125 to 1,140 – a 72% drop

• food and beverage service training fell from 1,445 in 2015 to just 340 in 2024 – a 76% drop

• hospitality management degree enrolments fell from 380 in 2015 to 210 in 2024 – a 45% drop.

These figures do not include actual workplace training, but they still illustrate a clear trend.

The looming workforce shortage

Minister of Tourism and Hospitality Louise Upston recently said, “We need to grow tourism businesses. We need to grow the value from the tourism visitors we have.” She’s right. But without a viable workforce, none of this is possible.

As to why more New Zealanders aren’t keen to work in the sector, Upston said, “I just don’t think the sector’s promoted it well enough.” This is despite many years of industry exhortations to “grow the domestic workforce”, “attract more young people” and “build career pathways”.

COVID-19 certainly hurt the industry’s image as a place to work. But the challenges around neglected workforce development, career promotion and long-term planning predate the pandemic.

Other industries and professions – including construction, agriculture and accounting – have invested heavily in scholarships, internships, mentoring and reputation building. Tourism and hospitality haven’t matched this and now risk losing young people to global demand.

If the pattern continues, there will be a national shortage of qualified staff and competent managers, and greater reliance on short-term and migrant labour. That leads in turn to overworked staff, poorer service, and businesses forced to reduce hours or close altogether.

Investment in the future

In the 1970s and 80s, New Zealand had to import tourism and hospitality talent to grow the industries. Without real change, those days may return.

Apart from what is offered by two major hotel chains, few formal internships exist. Such programmes are not simply part-time jobs, they’re investments in future talent, involving professional guidance and meaningful experience. They take effort, but they work.

Meanwhile, degree-level programmes are already being dropped. If lower-level course enrolments continue to fall, these programmes may close too. The burden then falls on businesses to train and educate staff. But those same businesses say they can’t find enough staff today.

This is more than a workforce problem, it’s a national economic risk. Spending millions on attracting visitors only to deliver a substandard experience is not a good use of taxpayer money.

Without people, there is no hospitality. Without hospitality, there is no tourism. And without a sustainable tourism industry, New Zealand’s economy will suffer.

Anthony Brien is a member of Tourism Industry Aotearoa.

– ref. A looming workforce crisis in NZ tourism and hospitality threatens industry growth plans – https://theconversation.com/a-looming-workforce-crisis-in-nz-tourism-and-hospitality-threatens-industry-growth-plans-256212

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Neil J. Gostling, Associate Professor in Evolution and Palaeobiology, University of Southampton

Over the course of seven decades, Sir David Attenborough’s documentaries have reshaped how we see the natural world, shifting from colonial-era collecting trips to urgent calls for environmental action.

His storytelling has inspired generations, but has only recently begun to confront the scale of the ecological crisis. To understand how far nature broadcasting has come, it helps to return to where it started.

When Attenborough’s broadcasting career began in the 1950s, Austrian filmmakers Hans and Lotte Hass were already pushing the boundaries of what was possible by taking cameras below the sea and touring the world aboard their schooner, the Xafira.

In one of their 1953 Galapagos films, a crewman handled a sealion pup, having crawled across the volcanic rock of Fernandina honking at sealions to attract them. A penguin and giant tortoise were brought on board Xafira. And as Lotte Hass took photographs, she’d beseech some poor creature to “not be frightened” and “look pleasant”.

This is a world away from today’s expectations, where both research scientists and amateur naturalists are taught to observe without touching or disturbing wildlife. When the Hasses visited the Galápagos, it was still five years before the creation of the national park and the founding of the island’s conservation organisation Charles Darwin Foundation. Now, visitors must stay at least two metres from all animals – and never approach them.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Join The Conversation for free today.

At the same time, television was beginning to shape public perceptions of the natural world. In 1954, Attenborough was working as a young producer on Zoo Quest. By chance, he became its presenter when zoologist Jack Lester became ill.

The programme followed zoologists collecting animals from around the world for London Zoo. Zoo Quest was filmed in exotic locations around the world and then in the studio where the animals found on the expedition were shown “up close”.

Attenborough has since acknowledged that Zoo Quest reflected attitudes that would not be acceptable today. The series showed animals being captured from the wild and transported to London Zoo – practices which mirrored extractive, colonial-era approaches to science.

Yet, Zoo Quest was also groundbreaking. The series brought viewers face-to-face with animals they might never have seen before and pioneered a visual style that made natural history television both entertaining and educational. It helped establish Attenborough’s reputation as a compelling communicator and laid the foundations for a new genre of science broadcasting – one that has evolved, like its presenter, over time.

After a decade in production, Attenborough returned to presenting with Life on Earth (1979), a landmark series that traced the evolution of life from single-celled organisms to birds and apes. Drawing on his long-standing interest in fossils, the series combined zoology, palaeobiology and natural history to create an ambitious new template for science broadcasting.

Life on Earth helped cement Attenborough’s reputation as a trusted communicator and became the foundation of the BBC’s “blue-chip” natural history format – big-budget, internationally produced films that put high-quality cinematic wildlife footage at the forefront of the story. The series did not simply document the natural world. It reframed it, using presenter-led storytelling and global spectacle to shape how audiences understood evolutionary processes.

For much of his career, Attenborough has been celebrated for showcasing the beauty of the natural world. Yet, he has also faced criticism for sidestepping the environmental crises threatening it. Commentators such as the environmental journalist George Monbiot argued that his earlier documentaries, while visually stunning, often avoided addressing the human role in climate change, presenting nature as untouched and avoiding difficult truths about ecological decline.

Building on the legacy of Life on Earth, Attenborough’s later series began to respond to these critiques. Blue Planet (2001) expanded the scope of nature storytelling, revealing the mysteries of the ocean’s most remote and uncharted ecosystems. Its 2017 sequel, Blue Planet II, introduced a more urgent tone, highlighting the scale of plastic pollution and the need for marine conservation.

Although Blue Planet II significantly increased viewers’ environmental knowledge, it did not lead to measurable changes in plastic consumption behaviour – a reminder that awareness alone does not guarantee action. The subsequent Wild Isles (2023) continued the shift towards conservation messaging. While the main series aired in five parts, a sixth episode – Saving Our Wild Isles – was released separately and drew controversy amid claims the BBC had sidelined it for being too political. In reality, the episode delivered a clear call to action.

Attenborough’s latest film, Ocean, continues in this more urgent register, pairing breathtaking imagery with an unflinching assessment of ocean health. After decades of gentle narration, he now speaks with sharpened clarity about the scale of the crisis and the need to act.

A voice for action

In recent years, Attenborough has taken on a new role – not just as a broadcaster, but as a powerful voice in environmental diplomacy. He has addressed world leaders at major summits such as the UN climate conference Cop24 and the World Economic Forum, calling for urgent action on climate change. He was also appointed ambassador for the UK government’s review on the economics of biodiversity.

On the subject of environmemtal diplomacy, Monbiot recently wrote: “A few years ago, I was sharply critical of Sir David for downplaying the environmental crisis on his TV programmes. Most people would have reacted badly but remarkably, at 92, he took this and similar critiques on board and radically changed his approach.”

Attenborough not only speaks. He listens. This is part of his charm and popularity. He is learning and evolving as much as his audience.

What makes Attenborough stand out is the way he speaks. While official climate treaties often rely on technical or legal language, he communicates in emotional, accessible terms – speaking plainly about responsibility, urgency and the moral imperative to protect life on Earth. His calm authority and familiar voice make complex issues easier to grasp and harder to dismiss.

Frequently named Britain’s most trusted public figure, Attenborough has become something of an unofficial diplomat for the planet – apolitical, measured, and often seen as a voice of reason amid populist noise. Despite his criticisms, Attenborough’s documentaries walk a careful line between fragility and resilience, using emotionally ambivalent imagery to prompt reflection. He shares his wonder with the natural world and brings people along with him

Ocean shows our blue planet in more spectacular fashion than Lotte and Hans Hass could ever have imagined. But it is also Attenborough’s most direct reckoning with environmental collapse. With clarity and urgency, it confronts the damage wrought by industrial trawling and habitat destruction.

After 70 years of gently guiding viewers through the natural world, Attenborough’s voice has sharpened. If he once opened our eyes to nature’s wonders, he now challenges us not to look away. As he puts it: “If we save the sea, we save our world. After a lifetime filming our planet, I’m sure that nothing is more important.”

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. From Zoo Quest to Ocean: The evolution of David Attenborough’s voice for the planet – https://theconversation.com/from-zoo-quest-to-ocean-the-evolution-of-david-attenboroughs-voice-for-the-planet-251727

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Asher Kaufman, Professor of History and Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

President Donald Trump will sit down with the Saudi crown prince and Emirati and Qatari leaders on May 14, 2025, in what is being heavily touted as a high-stakes summit. Not invited, and watching warily, will be Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Like many other members of his right-wing coalition, Netanyahu appeared delighted at the election of Trump as U.S. president in November, believing that the Republican’s Middle East policies would undoubtedly favor Israeli interests and be coordinated closely with Netanyahu himself.

But it hasn’t quite played out that way. Of course, Washington remains – certainly in official communications – Israel’s strongest global ally and chief supplier of arms. But Trump is promoting a Middle East policy that is, at times, distinctly at odds with the interests of Netanyahu and his government.

In fact, in pushing for an Iran nuclear deal – a surprise reversal from Trump’s first administration – Trump is undermining long-held Netanyahu positions. Such is the level of alarm in Israeli right-wing circles that rumors have been circulating of Trump announcing unilateral U.S. support for a Palestinian state ahead of the Riyadh visit – something that would represent a clear departure for Washington.

As a historian of Israel and the broader Middle East, I recognize that in key ways Trump’s agenda in Riyadh represents a continuation of the U.S. policies, notably in pursuing security relationships with Arab Gulf monarchies – something Israel has long accepted if not openly supported. But in the process, the trip could also put significant daylight between Trump and Netanyahu.

Trump’s official agenda

The four-day trip to the Gulf, Trump’s first policy-driven foreign visit since being elected president, is on the surface more about developing economic and security ties between the U.S. and traditional allies in the Persian Gulf.

Trump is expected to cement trade deals worth tens of billions of dollars between the U.S. and Arab Gulf States, including unprecedented arms purchases, Gulf investments in the U.S. and even the floated Qatari gift of a palatial 747 intended for use as Air Force One.

There is also the possibility of a security alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

So far, so good for Israel’s government. Prior to the Oct. 7 attacks, Israel was already in the process of forging closer ties to the Gulf states, with deals and diplomatic relations established with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain through the Abraham Accords that the Trump administration itself facilitated in September 2020. A potential normalization of ties with Saudi Arabia was also in the offing.

Dealing with Tehran

But central to the agenda this week in Riyadh will be issues where Trump and Netanyahu are increasingly not on the same page. And that starts with Iran.

While the country won’t be represented, Iran will feature heavily at Trump’s summit, as it coincides with the U.S. administration’s ongoing diplomatic talks with Tehran over its nuclear program. Those negotiations have now concluded four rounds. And despite clear challenges, American and Iranian delegations continue to project optimism about the possibility of reaching a deal.

The approach marks a change of course for Trump, who in 2018 abandoned a similar deal to the one he is now largely looking to forge. It also suggests the U.S. is currently opposed to the idea of direct armed confrontation with Iran, against Netanayhu’s clear preference.

Diplomacy with Tehran is also favored by Gulf states as a way of containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Even Saudi Arabia – Tehran’s long-term regional rival that, like Israel, opposed the Obama-era Iran nuclear diplomacy – is increasingly looking for a more cautious engagement with Iran. In April, the Saudi defense minister visited Tehran ahead of the recent U.S.-Iranian negotiations.

Netanyahu has built his political career on the looming threat from a nuclearized Iran and the necessity to nip this threat in the bud. He unsuccessfully tried to undermine President Barack Obama’s initial efforts to reach an agreement with Iran – resulting in 2015’s Iran nuclear deal. But Netanyahu had more luck with Obama’s successor, helping convince Trump to withdraw from the agreement in 2018.

So Trump’s about-turn on Iran talks has irked Netanyahu – not only because it happened, but because it happened so publicly. In April, the U.S. president called Netanyahu to the White House and openly embarrassed him by stating that Washington is pursuing diplomatic negotiations with Tehran.

Split over Yemen

A clear indication of the potential tension between the Trump administration and the Israeli government can be seen in the ongoing skirmishes involving the U.S., Israel and the Houthis in Yemen.

After the Houthis fired a missile at the Tel Aviv airport on May 4 – leading to its closure and the cancellation of multiple international flights – Israel struck back, devastating an airport and other facilities in Yemen’s capital.

But just a few hours after the Israeli attack, Trump announced that the U.S. would not strike the Houthis anymore, as they had “surrendered” to his demands and agreed not to block passage of U.S. ships in the Red Sea.

It became clear that Israel was not involved in this new understanding between the U.S. and the Houthis. Trump’s statement was also notable in its timing, and could be taken as an effort to calm the region in preparation of his trip to Saudi Arabia. The fact that it might help smooth talks with Iran too – Tehran being the Houthis’ main sponsor – was likely a factor as well.

Timing is also relevant in Israel’s latest attack on Yemeni ports. They took place on May 11 – the eve of Trump setting off for his visit to Saudi Arabia. In so doing, Netanyahu may be sending a signal not only to the Houthis but also to the U.S. and Iran. Continuing to attack the Houthis might make nuclear talks more difficult.

Bibi’s political survival-first approach

Critical observers of Netanyahu have long argued that he prioritizes continued war in Gaza over regional calm for the sake of holding together his far-right coalition, members of which desire full control of the Gaza Strip and de-facto annexation of the West Bank.

This, many political commentators have argued, is the main reason why Netanyahu backed off from the last stage of the ceasefire agreement with Hamas in March – something which would have required the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Gaza Strip.

Since the collapse of the ceasefire, Israel’s army has mobilized in preparation for a renewed Gaza assault, scheduled to start after the end of Trump’s trip to the Gulf.

With members of the Netanayhu government openly supporting the permanent occupation of the strip and declaring that bringing back the remaining Israeli hostages is no longer a top priority, it seems clear to me that deescalation is not on Netanyahu’s agenda.

Trump himself has noted recently both the alarming state of the hostages and the grave humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Now, in addition to the release of Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander, the U.S. is also engaged in negotiations with Hamas over ceasefire and aid – ignoring Netanyahu in the process.

The bottom dollar

Current U.S. policy in the region may all be serving a greater aim for Trump: to secure billions of dollars of Gulf money for the American economy and, some have said, himself. But to achieve that requires a stable Middle East, and continued war in Gaza and Iran inching closer to nuclear capabilities might disrupt that goal.

Of course, a diplomatic agreement over Tehran’s nuclear plans is still some way off. And Trump’s foreign policy is notably prone to abrupt turns. But whether guided by a dealmaker’s instincts to pursue trade and economic deals with wealthy Gulf states, or by a genuine – and related – desire to stabilize the region, his administration is increasingly pursuing policies that go against the interests of the current Israeli government.

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

– ref. Trump heads to the Gulf aiming to bolster trade ties – but side talks on Tehran, Gaza could drive a wedge between US and Israel – https://theconversation.com/trump-heads-to-the-gulf-aiming-to-bolster-trade-ties-but-side-talks-on-tehran-gaza-could-drive-a-wedge-between-us-and-israel-256371

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Oates, PhD Candidate, School of Social Sciences, Monash University

TikTok emerged as a key battleground in an election where young voters comprised a dominant share of the electorate. All the prominent political parties used the platform – especially after tactics by Labor contributed to its electoral success in 2022.

With 60% of Gen Z now getting their news primarily from social media, this shift reflects a welcome effort to meet young voters where they are.

But on these platforms, visibility alone isn’t enough. What you say, and how you say it, matters just as much.

Collecting the data

We collected and manually analysed more than 500 TikTok posts from the official accounts of Labor, the Liberals, the Greens and One Nation during the federal election campaign period (March 28 to May 2).

Data was collected using web-scraping software, and included captions, sounds, hashtags and engagement metrics.

Our analysis focused on both the discursive content (what was said) and performative use of the platform (how it was said).

We manually categorised posts by their focus, whether political, apolitical, or blending politics and entertainment (“politainment”). We also grouped them according to their primary purpose:

• promoting the party’s own policies

• attacking opponents

• or shaping their public image to appeal to a TikTok audience.

We also coded posts by topic, including key campaign issues, such as the economy, health, housing and climate.

What we found

Labor had the highest total number of posts, which correlated to the highest views and a fairly strong engagement rate (10.5%). Engagement rates are calculated by the total number of user interactions with a post (comments, likes, shares) relative to how many people viewed the post.

Labor also had a relatively balanced gender reach, skewing young.

The Liberals posted frequently, as well, with an ever so slightly lower engagement rate (10.1%) and a more male-leaning audience.

One Nation, though with far fewer posts, still achieved notable reach.

Despite a smaller post volume than major parties, the Greens stood out for having the highest engagement rate by far (14.4%), along with the highest share of female and young audience followers.

Focus, tone and messaging

Clear differences emerge in how parties used TikTok to communicate.

The Liberals leaned heavily into politainment (75%) and attack ads (nearly 90%). They rarely promoted their own policies, with only 12% of posts being solely focused on their campaign promises.

Their content was strongly centred around the economy (60%) and energy (26%). Three-quarters of their posts were designed to target and appeal primarily to young audiences through the inclusion of informal language, youth-focused policies and youth slang and trends.

One Nation, in contrast, was the most overtly political (94%) and traditional in tone (88% professional language). It directed its messaging to a general audience with a strong focus on attack content (82%).

On the whole, One Nation’s content consisted of long formal news interviews and speeches, and was not well-adapted to suit the TikTok medium.

Labor blended politainment (58%) with substantive political messaging (42%). About 35% of the videos were promoting party policy, while 53% were attack ads. It focused most on Medicare (44%), education, and housing – all issues particularly resonant with younger people (68% of their audience).

The Greens had the highest share of policy-focused content (60%). These posts were strongly youth-oriented (77%), and covered climate change (27%), taxes (27%), and education (23%). Their posts were the most informal, with Greens leaders often using the platform to speak directly to TikTok users in a “selfie” style.

Follow the money

A closer look at the policy messaging on TikTok reveals a strong focus on the economy and health. These are two of the most decisive issues for voters across generations, according to the Australian Election Study.

Given the rising cost of living, it’s no surprise this election played out around hip-pocket concerns. Yet, it’s notable that Labor didn’t lean heavily into economic messaging on TikTok, despite cost of living being the top concern for young people.

The Liberals, by contrast, stuck to their traditional strength, making the economy a central theme of their content.

Did it translate to electoral victory?

Our analysis reveals a highly coordinated Labor campaign on TikTok, backed by serious resourcing and a keen understanding of platform dynamics. From short-form videos to youth-oriented podcasts and influencer briefings, Labor went all-in.

While it’s hard to draw a straight line from TikTok posts to ballots cast, their dominant presence online mirrored their dominant result at the polls.

The Greens, however, present a puzzle. They’ve traditionally performed well with young voters and achieved enviable engagement rates on TikTok: about 14% during the campaign, the kind most influencers dream of.

Their content resonated, especially when it featured positive messaging or direct, informal engagement from party leaders. They didn’t rely on minimising political issues with memes and trends.

But they posted far less than Labor and didn’t invest as heavily in trend-based posting. That likely reflects a smaller budget rather than a flawed strategy, but the result was fewer overall views and reach.

Read more:
Greens’ election hubris – how the minor party lost its way and now its leader

Ultimately, this isn’t a story about young voters being swayed by viral videos. They’re politically engaged, issue-aware, and looking for credibility.

Labor’s full-spectrum campaign was slick, and while they also backed that style with substance, they relied heavily on trends and mass-posting, prioritising quantity over quality.

The Greens’ more quality-focused approach connected with their audience, but led to them being out-performed and far less visible.

Hannah Oates receives funding from the Australian Government in the form of a PhD stipend.

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

– ref. What did the parties say on TikTok in the election, and how? Here’s the campaign broken down in 5 charts – https://theconversation.com/what-did-the-parties-say-on-tiktok-in-the-election-and-how-heres-the-campaign-broken-down-in-5-charts-254793

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joyce Siette, Associate Professor | Deputy Director, The MARCS Institute, Western Sydney University

As public awareness of dementia grows, so too does the appetite for prevention. Global headlines tout the benefits of exercise, diet, brain training and social activity in reducing dementia risk.

In recent years, medical journals have amplified this message to encourage people to take control of their cognitive futures through lifestyle change. Last year, The Lancet estimated up to 45% of dementia cases worldwide could theoretically be delayed or prevented by addressing modifiable risk factors.

These messages are undeniably hopeful. They suggest personal effort, combined with emerging scientific evidence, can help to overcome a disease long seen as inevitable.

But public health messaging that focuses too narrowly on behaviour may be misleading and potentially harmful, as we argue in The Lancet.

This can lead to a two-tiered system, where affluent people are praised for their proactive brain health, while marginalised groups face barriers to participation and are blamed for their perceived inaction.

What is dementia and what causes it?

Dementia is a neurocognitive disorder and describes conditions that affect memory, thinking and the ability to do everyday tasks. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common type, but there are others such as vascular and Lewy body dementia.

It happens when brain cells become damaged and stop communicating properly. This can cause confusion, forgetfulness and changes in behaviour or mood.

Dementia is linked to some of our deepest cultural fears: the limits of autonomy, dependency on others, the stigma of being diagnosed and the unknown.

So, what increases your risk of dementia? Some risk factors can’t be changed. Age is the biggest one. Family history and certain genes, such as APOE-e4, also raise risk.

But many risk factors are modifiable, which means we can do something about them. Obesity, high cholesterol and high blood pressure raise your risk.
Low levels of exercise or education can also increase the chances of developing dementia.

Read more:
These 12 things can reduce your dementia risk – but many Australians don’t know them all

The science behind prevention

The science of dementia prevention has evolved significantly over the past decade. Lifestyle trials, from Finland, France, Australia and the United States are exploring whether combinations of diet, physical activity, cognitive training and managing cardiovascular risk (high blood pressure, cholesterol, obesity and smoking) can reduce dementia risk.

The Finnish study, the most widely cited of these, demonstrated modest but meaningful cognitive benefits in older adults at risk for dementia after a two-year lifestyle intervention.

Its success has spurred a wave of similar studies globally (to date, more than 40 trials). Collectively, these trials provide a scientific foundation for an increasingly popular public health message: brain health tomorrow is linked to healthy behaviours today.

New possibilities for preventing dementia are certainly promising. However, the translation of these findings into broad public campaigns is where complexity, and ethical tension, emerges.

Dementia risk is related to socioeconomic disadvantage

Dementia risk is also determined by a complex array of extrinsic factors – conditions outside our control – that are unevenly distributed across society: air quality, ethnicity, gender, occupation, the built environment.

These factors influence not just if, but when, dementia might develop.

Dementia prevalence is disproportionately higher in communities facing social disadvantage partly because modifiable risk factors such as diabetes, obesity and low education are also more common in these areas.

But there’s another layer: access. The same communities at greater risk often lack access to the very interventions meant to reduce that risk.

Low-income neighbourhoods may have fewer green spaces, safe walking paths, or affordable, healthy food. They also face higher levels of pollution, noise and chronic stress. All of which can damage brain health.

Not everyone can access the kinds of healthy lifestyles to counteract dementia risks. Telling people to eat a Mediterranean diet or join a gym may be a cold comfort for those without the money, time, services or mobility to do so.

Positioning dementia as something people can avoid also risks implying dementia is something individuals can fail to prevent. This could reinforce existing narratives which equate disease in later life to poor lifestyle choices rather than social inequity.

So how do we do better?

First, prevention messaging must be framed within a social and cultural context.

This means acknowledging and addressing barriers such as food insecurity, lack of green space, caregiver stress and health system distrust.

Messages must be co-created with communities, not imposed on them, and have a visual, motivating appeal.

Second, we must shift from individualistic narratives to collective responsibility. Brain health should be supported through public infrastructure, equitable access to care, and culturally sensitive health promotion.

Prevention doesn’t just happen in the home. It also happens in preschools, schools, shopping centres, clinics, parks and policy rooms.

Finally, we need to reframe success. Preventing dementia is a worthy goal, but so is ensuring dignity, inclusion and care for people who live with it. A just approach to brain health must do both.

The next generation of dementia messaging must be not only evidence-based, but also equity-focused. It should strive to educate without shaming, to empower without excluding, and to promote brain health in ways that honour the realities of ageing.

Joyce Siette receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council on a Targeted Call for Research on cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity in dementia research.

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

– ref. Dementia risk depends on more than lifestyle factors. Overstating this can cause stigma and blame – https://theconversation.com/dementia-risk-depends-on-more-than-lifestyle-factors-overstating-this-can-cause-stigma-and-blame-256108

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ganna Pogrebna, Executive Director, AI and Cyber Futures Institute, Charles Sturt University

Range anxiety has long been seen as the main obstacle stopping drivers from going electric.

But range isn’t the real issue. The average range of a new electric vehicle (EV) is more than 450 kilometres, and top models offer more than 700km per charge. By contrast, the average car is driven about 33km per day in Australia as of 2020.

What’s really going on is charger anxiety – the question of whether you can find somewhere reliable to recharge when you’re away from home. Australia’s public chargers are not common enough or reliable enough to give motorists certainty they can find a place to recharge.

This is why many drivers are hedging their bets. Rather than embracing battery-electric vehicles, many Australian drivers are opting for hybrids as well as plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), which couple a smaller battery with an internal combustion engine. Hybrids and PHEVs accounted for almost 20% of new car sales from July–September last year, compared to 6.5% for fully electric vehicles.

Labor’s reelection could lead to better charging infrastructure. Last term, the federal government set a goal of a fast charging station every 150km along major highways, while state governments are also building more. But so far, these efforts aren’t enough to ensure Australia has reliable chargers in the right locations. Until then, cautious drivers will buy hybrids.

Public chargers matter

EV owners charge their cars at home an estimated 70–85% of the time. They use public chargers just 10–20% of the time and workplace charging 6–10% of the time.

This makes sense – home charging is reliable and cheap. But these figures also point to a problem: EV drivers don’t trust public chargers.

At present, Australia has about 3,700 public chargers nationwide. Each charging station typically supports one or two EVs, often offering different charging speeds. By contrast, there are around 6,600 service stations, with the ability to fuel multiple vehicles at once.

Other countries have much larger charger networks. The United Kingdom has more than 40,000 and Canada 16,000. China, the world leader, has almost 10 million.

Outside major Australian cities, chargers are harder to find and are often broken or in use. Chargers are usually not staffed, meaning there’s no one watching to prevent vandalism or organise maintenance.

EV plugs are not yet standardised. Some plugs may not be available, and using chargers isn’t always easy. By contrast, petrol cars use standard nozzles, payment is simpler and staff and CCTV presence discourages vandalism and ensures the pumps work.

If a petrol car runs out of fuel, the problem can be solved with a lift and a jerry can. But if your EV runs flat in a rural area because you can’t find a charger, you may have to get it towed.

This lack of reliability is more than just a logistical hurdle — it’s a psychological barrier.

Psychological roadblocks

A recent study found the fear of running out of charge was a major psychological barrier to buying an EV – particularly for rural and regional Australians, who drive longer distances. As long as chargers remain unreliable or located too far apart, this anxiety will persist.

In Australia, it’s easy to find reports of broken chargers, long queues at charging stations, gaps in the rural network and personal anecdotes of EV owners struggling to find a way to charge.

A 2023 survey found almost 70% of EV owners had come across an inoperable charger at least once over the previous six months.

What can Australia take from overseas experience?

Australia’s government wants to increase EV uptake. While EVs are getting cheaper, the supporting infrastructure isn’t good enough yet to make them the norm.

Across the European Union, chargers are being installed every 60km along major highways and efforts are being made to tackle psychological barriers to uptake.

Federal and state governments in the United States have invested heavily in filling gaps in the charger network and working with consumers to encourage more sustainable commuting.

Choosing a hybrid is rational but not ideal

It should be no surprise more Australians are buying hybrids as a safety net, given there are plenty of service stations and not as many EV chargers. City driving can allow near-total use of the electric motor, while longer trips still require petrol.

The choice is rational. But it’s not ideal from an environmental point of view. Traditional hybrids are still largely powered by an internal combustion engine, while PHEVs can run as electric for longer but still use their combustion engines.

While plug-ins have lower emissions than traditional vehicles, they often fail to deliver the full emissions savings drivers and regulators might hope for. Many drivers don’t charge regularly and rely instead on petrol.

Chargers aren’t the only factor, of course. A tax break for PHEVs boosted their popularity for several years before ending in April, while sales of Tesla EVs have fallen off a cliff due to the unpopularity of owner Elon Musk.

What needs to change?

The solutions are straightforward: expand the charger network, especially in regional and rural areas. Improve maintenance schedules and ensure existing chargers are reliable. Make sure data on their availability is accessible in real time so drivers can avoid anxiety and frustration. Counter EV misinformation and anecdotal biases with information campaigns.

When EV ownership and charging in Australia is practical and low risk, the sluggish EV transition will accelerate. But until then, many drivers will keep buying hybrids as a compromise.

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

– ref. Range anxiety – or charger drama? Australians are buying hybrid cars because they don’t trust public chargers – https://theconversation.com/range-anxiety-or-charger-drama-australians-are-buying-hybrid-cars-because-they-dont-trust-public-chargers-250281

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amitrajeet A. Batabyal, Distinguished Professor, Arthur J. Gosnell Professor of Economics, & Interim Head, Department of Sustainability, Rochester Institute of Technology

President Donald Trump has long been preoccupied by the trade deficit — the gap between what the U.S. sells to the rest of the world and what it buys from it. He recently declared the issue a national emergency and used trade deficit data to calculate so-called “reciprocal tariffs” targeting nearly 100 countries. Although those specific tariffs are now on pause, Trump’s concern with the trade deficit persists.

As an economist, I know there are two basic ways for a country to reduce a trade deficit: import less or export more. While Trump has focused on the former strategy, a more productive path may lie in the latter – especially by looking at untapped opportunities in rural America.

Economists have long studied the differences between rural and urban regions. But while research shows that urban areas tend to be more technologically advanced, fast-growing and economically dynamic, economists have historically paid less attention to how regional differences affect export performance.

New research is starting to fill that gap. Economists recently found that urban businesses export significantly more than rural ones – a difference with significant implications for national trade.

The urban-rural export gap

Looking at data from the Census Bureau’s Annual Business Survey as well as trade statistics from 2017 to 2020, researchers used econometric techniques to measure the urban-rural export gap. They also examined two categories of potential causes – “explained” and “unexplained.”

The first is due to differences in what economists call “endowments” – for example, a region’s digital infrastructure, its access to renewable energy and its opportunities for high-tech employment. These endowments can be observed and therefore explained.

The second is due to what economists call “structural advantage.” This refers to attributes of a region that matter for export performance but can’t be observed and, as a result, remain unexplained.

They found that most of the urban-rural export gap is due to explained differences. That means rural businesses could close the export gap if they were provided with similar endowments – meaning comparable access to renewable energy, similar digital infrastructure and analogous opportunities for high-tech employment – to their urban counterparts.

Even more strikingly, the unexplained component was negative – which means rural businesses outperform expectations given their characteristics. That suggests rural regions have significant untapped export potential.

Several factors collectively account for the urban export advantage. First, urban regions have a greater concentration of highly educated science and technology workers. Urban businesses also tend to be larger and more tech-savvy, and because they have better access to broadband, they use cloud technology more frequently. Urban areas also have more foreign-born business owners who may leverage their international networks.

However, many of these differences suggest possible policy solutions. For instance, since cloud adoption depends on broadband availability, it follows that investing in digital infrastructure could boost rural exports. Also, rural manufacturers, especially in sectors like metals manufacturing, show comparable or higher export intensity per worker than their urban counterparts. So encouraging rural manufacturing would be one way to reduce the urban-rural export gap.

Rethinking trade and rural development

I think this research has important policy implications.

First, it shifts some of the focus away from other countries as the root cause of the trade deficit. And second, it bolsters the case for what economists call “place-based policies” targeting specific geographic areas – as opposed to “people-based policies,” which provide support directly to individuals.

Even though many economists dislike place-based policies, they are increasingly attracting both academic and governmental attention.

During the Biden administration, three major laws – the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act – directed significant federal funds to rural areas. About 43% of funds from those laws – or US$440 billion – was designated as either “rural relevant” or as “rural stipulated,” meaning the funds were either geographically targeted or designed to address disproportionately rural challenges.

Such massive investments in rural regions have led researchers and policymakers to question whether rural export underperformance stems from differences in observable endowments – in other words, things like access to broadband – or from inherent disadvantages that are much harder to deal with.

In my view, this research provides compelling evidence that much of the urban-rural export gap is due to unequal distribution of productive assets, rather than inherent rural disadvantages. With appropriate investments in digital infrastructure, human capital and support for export-capable industries, America’s rural regions could play a much larger role in global trade. These findings also suggest the value of continued federal support for rural development efforts.

In other words, if the U.S. wants to shrink its trade deficit, one answer could be more innovation in rural manufacturing.

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

– ref. If you really want to close the US trade deficit, try boosting innovation in rural manufacturing – https://theconversation.com/if-you-really-want-to-close-the-us-trade-deficit-try-boosting-innovation-in-rural-manufacturing-255851

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

The reshuffle announced by Anthony Albanese is a mix of continuity and change, with those in the government’s top rank staying in their previous ministries, as the prime minister had earlier flagged, but some big movements down the line.

Tanya Plibersek, in the past a left factional rival to Albanese, has received what many see as another hospital pass, moving from environment and water to social services.

But her new portfolio does include domestic violence, a policy passion of hers, and is less tricky in terms of her left-leaning electorate than her previous post.

Plibersek’s former portfolio is taken by Murray Watt, a can-do Queenslander who is likely to speed up development approvals.

His appointment will be welcomed by the development-oriented Western Australian Labor government, which played a key role in frustrating Plibersek’s attempt to get a deal with the crossbench on the “nature positive” legislation.

Watt’s previous post of employment and workplace relations – which he held for less than a year – goes to Amanda Rishworth, formerly in social services.

After the sensational factional removal of Mark Dreyfus, the prized attorney-general position goes to Michelle Rowland, who was communications minister. Rowland was a senior telecommunications lawyer with Gilbert + Tobin, but lacks Dreyfus’ distinguished legal background.

Ed Husic, also the victim of the factional power play in the right, is replaced by Tim Ayres, from the left, in both cabinet and the industry portfolio. Ayres, formerly an assistant minister, is a close confidant of Albanese.

On another front, the Muslim Husic is replaced in cabinet by another Muslim, Anne Aly, promoted from the outer ministry, and taking a grab bag of responsibilities: small business, international development and multicultural affairs.

Aly’s promotion may partially soothe the Muslim voices who have reacted sharply to Husic’s treatment. The Jewish community will be less placated: with the demise of Dreyfus there is no Jew in the ministry. Josh Burns, who is Jewish, has been made a special envoy for social housing and homelessness.

The post of special envoy for social cohesion has been scrapped – Albanese said “we will continue to work as a whole government of social cohesion”.

Sam Rae, a numbers man for Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, whom Marles shoehorned into the ministry, becomes minister for aged care and seniors, a testing job for a man who made his reputation in running Labor campaigning.

One of the most potentially significant moves is the shift of the National Disability Insurance Scheme to come under Health Minister Mark Butler.

In the last term Bill Shorten, father of the scheme, who was responsible for the NDIS and government services, undertook significant reform of the NDIS, which had become a sink for money.

Albanese told his news conference the NDIS belonged with health. The question is whether Butler will continue to drive the reform process, which still has a significant way to go. The junior minister for the NDIS will be Jenny McAllister, praised by Albanese for her grasp of detail.

Anika Wells, who was put in cabinet in January, continues up the escalator, moving from aged care to communications.

She will still hold sport. She comes from Queensland, which is preparing for the 2032 Brisbane Olympics, and Albanese is anxious for continuity in the role. Responsibility for sport is being moved from the Department of Health to the Department of Infrastructure.

Some sources question the linkage of communications and sport as presenting potential conflicts of interest, given the communications portfolio deals with gambling advertising and broadcast rights.

Tony Burke remains in home affairs but will get responsibility for the Australian Federal Police and ASIO, which came under Dreyfus (originally both were in home affairs under the Liberals).

But the attorney-general will be “cross sworn” into both agencies. Albanese said there had been issues about information-sharing during the so-called caravan incident. This was a reference to the criminal hoax involving a caravan found in Sydney filled with explosives, when there were problems in communications between various state and federal agencies.

Newcomer to the ministry Daniel Mulino, from the Victorian right, who has a PhD in economics from Yale, was an obvious choice for assistant treasurer, in the outer ministry. Andrew Charlton, former economic adviser to Kevin Rudd, has been appointed cabinet secretary and an assistant minister.

Another new minister, Jess Walsh, takes early childhood education and youth, in the outer ministry.

The highly qualified Andrew Leigh continues as an assistant minister. His failure to be promoted is the price for not being in a faction. He will be assistant minister for productivity, competition, charities and treasury – dropping employment but adding productivity.

Given treasurer Chalmers’ current emphasis on productivity, this should give some more scope to Leigh.

One notable new special envoy post is for men’s health, which goes to Dan Repacholi, a champion sporting shooter.

Nationals re-elect leader David Littleproud

Nationals leader David Littleproud has retained the leadership, holding off a challenge from Senator Matt Canavan, who called for a drastic realignment of policy including ditching the 2050 net zero emissions commitment.

Kevin Hogan was elected deputy. A supporter of Littleproud, he replaces Perin Davey, who lost her Senate seat at the election.

The Nationals do not release vote numbers.

Bridget McKenzie remains Senate leader of the party.

Littleproud said the party would review “all our policies”.

A major issue is whether it will hold to the 2050 commitment, about which there is considerable internal scepticism.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Albanese shifts Tanya Plibersek from environment, in favour of ‘can-do’ Murray Watt – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-shifts-tanya-plibersek-from-environment-in-favour-of-can-do-murray-watt-255963

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeffrey Craig, Professor in Medical Sciences, Deakin University

An interview with Paula and Bridgette Powers – identical twins who witnessed their mother’s carjacking – recently went viral. The way they spoke and gestured in unison has captivated global audiences.

Genetically, identical twins are clones. They result from the splitting of an early embryo, meaning they share the same genes.

In contrast, fraternal twins are the result of two eggs being fertilised by two different sperm. On average they share 50% of their genes – the same as any siblings who share both their biological mother and father.

So, when identical twins talk and gesture in unison (known as synchrony), is it down to genes? The answer can be complicated.

Genes aren’t the only influence on looks, language and like-minded thinking. Let’s break down the factors that might lead some twins to speak – and apparently think – in unison.

A close bond in a shared environment

Almost all twins, even “identical” ones, show some differences in physical, mental and emotional traits. They also regard themselves as distinct individuals and typically don’t like being referred to as “the twins”.

Yet we know most people naturally mimic the way those close to them speak and move, even without realising it. This phenomenon is called automatic mimicry and may be part of healthy social development, helping people synchronise behaviours and share emotions.

For identical twins who grow up in the same home, school and community, the effect of a shared environment and close bond may be particularly intense.

Paula and Bridgette Powers, for example, have shared an environment: not only the same parents, home and upbringing, but also the same job, running a bird rescue charity.

Twins may know each other so well they can intuitively sense what the other twin is about to say — and may feel like their brains are in sync. The Powers sisters have explained:

our brains must think alike at the same time.

In contrast, twins who grow up apart share many personality traits, but without years of shared interaction they are less likely to develop synchronised speech or mirrored behaviours. However, they do display many of the same unusual habits and idiosyncrasies.

What about genetics?

Studying identical and fraternal twins separated at birth can help us unravel how much of our behaviours – intelligence, personality and temperament – are influenced by genes and environment.

Even when identical twins grow up apart, they tend to closely resemble one another – not only physically, but in their personality, interests and behaviours. Fraternal twins, in general, are much less alike. This tells us genes matter.

One of us (Nancy) was a researcher with the Minnesota Study of Twins Raised Apart, which lasted from 1979 to 1999 and looked at more than 100 sets of twins (and triplets) separated at birth and raised apart. Twins were separated for various reasons, such as the stigma of single motherhood, inadequate family resources and maternal death.

The study comprehensively examined factors affecting a wide range of psychological, physical and medical traits. Researchers wanted to understand the impact of differences in their life histories on both identical and fraternal twins, reared apart and how they affected the current similarities and differences between them.

A striking finding was identical twins raised apart are as similar in personality as identical twins raised together. For example, the Minnesota researchers found little difference in traits such as wellbeing and aggression, whether identical twins were raised together or apart.

This shows genes play an important role in shaping our personality. Genes also affect the way we process speech and language.

Sharing identical genes may mean identical twins also respond to situations in similar ways. This is because their brains lead them to behave in comparable ways. This genetic closeness, which underlies their behavioural resemblance, explains why they may independently say or do the same thing, without any need for a mystical explanation.

The Minnesota study also found when identical twins were reunited they formed closer relationships with each other than reunited fraternal twins did. This suggests perceptions of similarity in behaviour might draw people together and help keep them connected.

We now know genes and environment each account for half the person-to-person differences in personality. However, the life events we individually experience remain the most important factor shaping how our unique traits are expressed and who we ultimately become.

What about a secret ‘twin language’?

Parents of identical twins may be left baffled as their children, even as toddlers, seem to communicate through babbles and gestures that no one else can understand.

Each twin pair has their own way of communicating. Twins’ private speech, also called idioglossia, cryptophasia or a “secret language”, refers to verbal and nonverbal exchanges most other people don’t understand. This is different to synchronised speech.

Private speech is displayed by about 40% of twins. However, estimates vary wildly – ranging from as low as 2% to as high as 47%. That’s mainly because researchers define and measure it differently.

Private speech usually fades as children age, at about three years of age. But some twins continue to use it into early childhood.

Why are we so fascinated by twins?

Twins continue to fascinate us. That is clear in the wealth of media attention they receive, their popularity in scientific studies, and their presence in myths and legends across all continents.

Perhaps it is because when we see identical twins who look and act so much alike, it challenges our belief that we are all unique.

But even identical twins are not exact replicas of one another. Genetic changes, events in the womb, and/or life experiences can conspire to create differences between them.

Nevertheless, most identical twins are more alike and socially closer than any other pair of people on the planet.

Bridgette and Paula Powers appear in an episode of Australian Story airing on Monday on ABCTV and ABC iview.

Jeffrey Craig has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. He is the Patron of the Australian Multiple Birth Organisation, and a Member of the International Society of Twin Studies.

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

– ref. Genes, environment or a special bond? Why some twins talk and think in unison – https://theconversation.com/genes-environment-or-a-special-bond-why-some-twins-talk-and-think-in-unison-256099

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niro Kandasamy, Lecturer in History, University of Sydney

S. Shakthidharan is one of Australian theatre’s most prominent writers and directors. His Counting and Cracking (2019) and The Jungle and the Sea (2022) received critical acclaim and toured internationally.

These plays focused on armed conflict and displacement in Tamil Eelam, Sri Lanka. Shakthidharan’s new play shifts settings across the Palk Strait to the contemporary struggles of a remote Indian village fending off the ravages of modernity.

The Wrong Gods, directed by Shakthidharan with Hannah Goodwin, is an ambitious play with an all-female and brown cast. It traces the triumphs and tribulations of single mother Nirmala (Nadie Kammallaweera), fighting to protect her family and valley from the “new” world built on the promise of progress.

In an era of multiple crises, the play draws attention to global Indigenous connections to the natural world – in striking contrast to the extractive and capitalist logics of most modern development.

The ‘old’ and the ‘new’

Nirmala is worried as her daughter, Isha (Radhika Mudaliyar), is loosing interest and confidence in Indigenous practices. Nirmala is determined to ensure Isha not only remembers what to do in the valley but understands why.

Isha is a curious girl with a soaring imagination. Her dreams appear wild: she wants to finish school and become a scientist. A few school lessons in the city open Isha to a new world, to “new gods”, unlike the gods she’s used to of the river and her natural surroundings.

When Lakshmi (Vaishnavi Suryaprakash) arrives uninvited, Nirmala and Isha are cautious and weary. But Lakshmi has big plans for the valley. She introduces Nirmala to new farming methods and crop varieties. To sweeten the deal, Lakshmi offers to pay for Isha’s university education.

Nirmala and Isha are both initially doubtful about Lakshmi’s intentions. To mark their differences, Isha points out to Lakshmi she is an upper caste woman from the city whose entire world view is different to hers.

This is the only reference to caste in the play, and its introduction here feels tokenistic. The reference points to longstanding social inequalities in which lower caste groups have been denied greater access to employment, education and cultural capital, but Shakthidharan passes over it too quickly. This aspect of the plot warranted further attention.

Nirmala accepts Lakshmi’s offer. Isha is overwhelmed with joy at the thought of pursuing an education. Armed with enthusiasm and a thirst for “new” knowledge, she immediately departs for the city.

Personal and political battles

The Wrong Gods speaks to the harms of “saviours” whose actions are masked under the guise of progress and empowerment.

Nirmala and her village are viewed by Lakshmi as backward, vulnerable and in need of protection. Lakshmi is cast in a paternalist role: she sees her intervention not only as justified economically, but as the morally correct thing to do.

Lakshmi’s words – however promising and life changing they sound – reproduce elite and exclusionary ideas that ignore ways of living that have survived thousands of years.

After several years, Isha returns to the valley as the scientist for the organisation her mother has been mobilising against. With Lakshmi by her side, Isha tells her mother the dam project will flood the valley and displace the farmers. Nirmala is devastated and furious.

After a few tense moments that see Nirmala and Isha locked in an aruval (machete variety) battle, they realise Lakshmi had known about this outcome from the beginning. This realisation is far too late.

Nirmala decides to stay in the valley and fight – even if it means dying. She tells her daughter to return to the city to inform people about their plight and prevent the further depletion of native lands and waterways.

‘Development’ for whom?

The Wrong Gods is a critique of progress and modernity, and Shakthidharan carefully strikes the right balance between the personal, structural and political.

As Nirmala’s protest actions grow stronger, she must face the reality her daughter is trying to negotiate the needs of two worlds. The interactions between characters and their competing views moves seamlessly across the unfolding scenes, while the audience gets a clearer sense of the entanglements of the challenges playing out in Nirmala and Isha’s lives.

Costumes by Keerthi Subramanyam, who also designed the set, contribute to the play’s critique of progress. Nirmala wears a saree and carries a small purse for food. While Lakshmi wears a churidar set during her first meeting when she is trying to woo favour, she wears a suit on her second visit. Like Lakshmi, Isha returns to the valley wearing a power suit, evoking a sense of authority and upward economic mobility.

The Wrong Gods grapples with the more-than-human worlds at stake amid multiple crises. Through his play, Shakthidharan suggests we should begin addressing the growing needs of our planet by overcoming structural challenges. Doing so may prevent us from reaching solutions which do not displace people or deplete natural resources. Brilliant acting by the cast makes clear the profound emotions of bearing witness to an environmental destruction that is entirely preventable.

We must prioritise and embed local knowledges to address some of the biggest challenges facing us today. Failure to do so will only worsen both man-made and natural crises – and there will be no gods, right or wrong, to save us.

The Wrong Gods is at Belvior Theatre, Sydney, until May 31, then Melbourne Theatre Company from June 6 to July 12.

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

– ref. S. Shakthidharan’s ambitious play The Wrong Gods is a profound critique of progress and modernity – https://theconversation.com/s-shakthidharans-ambitious-play-the-wrong-gods-is-a-profound-critique-of-progress-and-modernity-255512