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

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Howard, Senior Lecturer, Discipline of English and Writing, University of Sydney

Samuel Beckett is justly regarded as one of the greatest playwrights of the 20th century – and unquestionably one of the most demanding. Few of his works illustrate this more clearly than Happy Days, first performed in 1961, and currently playing at the Sydney Theatre Company.

The premise of this visually arresting two-act play – notable as Beckett’s first play to feature a central female character – is simple and simultaneously astonishing.

A middle-aged woman, Winnie, is buried in a low mound of scorched earth in a barren, sun-blasted landscape. She is buried up to her waist in the first act, and up to her neck in the second.

Her near-silent and largely unseen husband, Willie, isn’t buried himself but appears to lack the means (and possibly the desire) to dig her out. No explanation is ever given for Winnie’s predicament.

Each day starts and ends with the piercing ring of a bell. These are Winnie’s only markers of time. She fills the interminable hours with relentless chatter: an increasingly hopeless attempt to hold despair at bay, while clinging desperately to a sense of routine.

She rations out her dwindling resources and ritually inspects her few remaining possessions: a toothbrush, a lipstick, a mirror, a parasol, a magnifying glass, a comb and, more disturbingly, a small revolver.

Tackling a psychologically complex character

Beckett’s authorised biographer, James Knowlson, points out that when Happy Days premiered, its “starkness and boldness” surprised and bewildered audiences more accustomed to naturalistic forms of theatre.

Critics were initially divided on the play. But with its existential exploration of universal themes such as isolation, time and endurance, it has since become regarded as not only one of the most significant works in Beckett’s oeuvre, but one of the greatest achievements in theatre history.

Indeed, the esteem in which Happy Days is now held can be seen in comparisons made between Winnie and Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

This parallel isn’t nearly as far-fetched as it might seem at first. For one thing, Winnie directly quotes from Shakespeare’s famous tragedy early in the first act.

Also, much like Hamlet, she is a character of great psychological complexity, prone to lengthy reflections on the nature of existence, the passage of time and mortality. Her monologues, like Hamlet’s, are freighted with irony, melancholy and flashes of mordant humour.

That such a link can be made speaks not only to the strength of Beckett’s writing, but also to the extraordinary challenge – and opportunity – presented by the role of Winnie, for any actor brave enough to take it on.

Pamela Rabe delivers a truly mesmeric performance as Winnie in the Sydney Theatre Company’s outstanding rendition of Happy Days. She seems highly aware of the role’s magnitude:

People talk about it being the kind of female Hamlet. I think, well, Jesus, in Hamlet there’s at least another 12 people on the stage.

Initially approached by former artistic director Kip Williams, Rabe was hesitant to take on the part. She admits playing Winnie was “definitely not on my bucket list”. However, the challenge ultimately proved irresistible.

Rabe described the process of getting to grips with Beckett’s “meticulous” dramatic prescriptions and constructing Winnie’s world as

part maths, part archaeology, part slapstick, and very much a privilege. She’s endearing, mercurial, resourceful, wilful, occasionally a bit silly but always full of life.

A contemporary spin with wit and pathos

The production, conceived and directed by Rabe and renowned lighting designer Nick Schlieper, does justice to Beckett’s original vision, while offering a new spin on this most canonical of plays.

Consider, for instance, the creative team’s striking decisions when it came to set design and staging. While their choices honour Beckett’s stated demand for “maximum simplicity”, they also depart in key visual respects. Gone are the “scorched earth” and “blazing sun” Beckett called for in his original stage directions.

Instead, Schlieper offers us something approximating a post-apocalyptic tableau: the stage is framed by a narrow proscenium-like window, behind which Winnie, and occasionally Willie (played excellently by Markus Hamilton) appear. This window is set against a monochromatic and featureless void.

The ash-coloured mound, which brings to mind Mark Rothko’s desolate final abstract expressionist canvases, is amorphous and otherworldly – a monstrous fusion of congealed lava and nuclear slag. Everything is beautifully rendered and deeply unsettling.

These eerie abstractions heighten the play’s existential stakes, forcing the audience to reckon with the sheer horror of Winnie’s situation, while showcasing the talents of an actor capable of infusing the bleakest of scenarios with wit and pathos.

They also ensure the production feels contemporary and resonant – particularly in an age haunted by environmental catastrophe and ecological collapse – without retroactively imposing present day values and concerns onto the past.

Something tells me Beckett, who consistently eschewed easy and all too often reductive interpretations of his work, would have approved.

Alexander Howard 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. Pamela Rabe shines in this hypnotic revival of Samuel Beckett’s classic play Happy Days – https://theconversation.com/pamela-rabe-shines-in-this-hypnotic-revival-of-samuel-becketts-classic-play-happy-days-254068

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lynda Goldsworthy, Research Associate, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania

President Donald Trump has begun eroding the United States presence in Antarctica by announcing deep funding cuts to his nation’s science and logistics on the icy continent.

The Trump administration has significantly reduced funding for both Antarctica’s largest research and logistics station, McMurdo, and the National Science Foundation which funds US research in Antarctica.

More cuts are foreshadowed. If carried through, US science and overall presence in Antarctica will be seriously diminished – at a time when China is significantly expanding its presence there.

Since 1958, the US has been a leader in both Antarctic diplomacy and science. Shrinking its Antarctic presence will diminish US capacity to influence the region’s future.

Why the US matters in Antarctica

The US has historically focused its Antarctic influence in three key areas:

1. Keeping Antarctica free from military conflict

The US has built considerable Antarctic geopolitical influence since the late 1950s. Under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, it initiated (and later hosted) negotiations that led to the development of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty.

It was also key to establishing the fundamental principles of the treaty, such as using the Antarctic region only for peaceful purposes, and prohibiting military activities and nuclear weapons testing.

2. Governing Antarctica together

The US was influential in developing the international legal system that governs human activities in the Antarctic region.

In the 1970s, expanding unregulated fishing in the Southern Ocean led to serious concerns about the effects on krill-eating species – especially the recovery of severely depleted whale populations.

The US joined other Antarctic Treaty nations to champion the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CAMLR), signed in 1980. It prioritises conservation of Southern Ocean ecosystems and all species, over maximum fish harvesting.

The US also contributed to the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection. Among other measures it prohibits mining and designates Antarctica as “a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science”.

3. Scientific research and collaboration

The US operates three year‑round Antarctic research stations: Palmer, Amundsen-Scott and McMurdo.

McMurdo is Antarctica’s largest research station. Amundsen-Scott is located at the South Pole, the geographic centre of Antarctica, and the point at which all Antarctic territorial claims meet. The South Pole station is thus important symbolically and strategically, as well as for science.

The US has the largest number of Antarctic scientists of any nation in the continent.

US scientific work has been at the forefront of understanding Antarctica’s role in the global climate system, and how climate change will shape the future of the planet. It has also played a major role in Southern Ocean ecosystem and fisheries research.

This research has underpinned important policies. For example, US input into models to predict and manage sustainable krill yields has been pivotal in regulating the krill fishery, and ensuring it doesn’t harm penguin, seal and whale populations.

The US has also been a staunch supporter of a comprehensive network of marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean. The Ross Sea Region Marine Protected Area proposed by the US and New Zealand is the largest in the world.

A broad ripple effect

The US influence in Antarctica extends beyond the list above. For example, the US has a significant Antarctic-based space program. And US citizens make up most Antarctic tourists, and the US plays a significant role in regulating tourism there.

The full extent of the Trump administration’s cuts is still to play out. But clearly, if they proceed as signalled, the cuts will be a major blow not to just US interests in Antarctica, but those of many other countries.

The US has the best-resourced logistics network in Antarctica. Its air transport, shipping and scientific field support has traditionally been shared by other countries. New Zealand, for instance, is closely tied with the US in resupply of food and fuel, and uses US air and sea logistics for many operations to the Ross Sea region.

And joint research programs with the US will be affected by reduced funding in Antarctica directly, and elsewhere.

For example, reported cuts to the climate programs of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may hamper satellite coverage of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean. This would affect Australian scientists collecting data on ocean temperature, sea-ice state and other metrics used in climate research and weather forecasting.

Worrying times ahead

China has signalled its intention to be a key geopolitical player in Antarctica and has greatly expanded its Antarctic presence in recent years.

China has five Antarctic research stations. Its sixth summer station is due for completion in 2027. China also operates two icebreaker ships, helicopters and a fixed-wing aircraft in Antarctica and is building new, large krill trawlers.

Both China and Russia, are increasingly active in their opposition to environmental initiatives such as marine protected areas.

A smaller US presence creates greater opportunities for others to shape Antarctica’s geopolitics. This includes pressure to erode decades-long protection of the Antarctic environment, a push for more intensive fish and krill harvesting, and potentially reopening debate on mining in the region.

Lynda Goldsworthy and Tony Press co-authored the chapter Power at the Bottom of the World in the new book Antarctica and the Earth System.

Lynda Goldsworthy, research associate with IMAS, UTAS, undertakes occasional contract work with the Deep Sea Conservation, is a member of AFMA’s SouthMac advisory group ) and of CSIRO National Benefit Advisory Committee.

Tony Press receives funding from the Australia-Japan Foundation (Department of .Foreign Affairs and Trade)

– ref. As Donald Trump cuts funding to Antarctica, will the US be forced off the icy continent? – https://theconversation.com/as-donald-trump-cuts-funding-to-antarctica-will-the-us-be-forced-off-the-icy-continent-254786

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael J. I. Brown, Associate Professor in Astronomy, Monash University

There’s a blaze of light across the sky! A fireball is seen by thousands, and mobile phone and dashcam footage soon appears on social media.

But what have people just seen? A mix of social media hashtags suggests confusion about what has streaked overhead. Was it a Soviet Venus probe? Was it one of Elon Musk’s satellites or rockets? Was it a meteor? Was it a comet?

While these objects have some similarities, there are crucial differences that can help us work out what just passed over our heads.

Shooting stars, meteors and comets

Shooting stars can often be seen on dark, clear nights in the countryside as brief flashes of light travelling across the sky. Usually, they are gone in just a second or two.

Shooting “stars” are not stars, of course. They are produced by dust and pebbles burning up high in the atmosphere, typically above 50km in altitude. Comets are often a source of this dust, and regular showers of shooting stars happen when Earth travels through comets’ orbits.

Sometimes shooting stars burn with colours that reflect their composition – including iron, magnesium and calcium.

Meteors and shooting stars are actually the same thing. But when people talk about meteors, they often mean bigger and brighter events – bolides. Bolides result from rocks and boulders plunging into Earth’s atmosphere, resulting in bright flashes of light that can outshine all the stars and planets in the night sky.

Bolides can reach the lower atmosphere and sometimes produce audible sonic booms. Occasionally pieces of the bolide – meteorites – even make it to Earth’s surface.

While bolides can survive longer than shooting stars, they also don’t last for long. As they are initially travelling at tens of kilometres per second, they don’t take long to traverse the atmosphere.

The Chelyabinsk meteor, the largest bolide known to impact Earth in over a century, shone brightly for only 20 seconds or so.

If you see something blaze across the sky, it almost certainly isn’t a comet. Comets are so far away from us that their vast speeds are imperceptible to the human eye. Furthermore, while comets are sometimes depicted as fiery, their glow is more subtle.

Space junk

Maybe the bright flash you just saw was space junk? Perhaps. The number of orbital rocket launches and satellites has increased rapidly in recent years, and this has resulted in some spectacular reentries, which are often discarded rocket stages.

Like meteors, space junk travels at vast speeds as it travels through the atmosphere and it begins burning up spectacularly. Also like meteors, you can see colours indicative of the materials burning up, such as steel and aluminium. However, there are a few things that distinguish space junk from meteors.

When rockets and satellites are launched into orbit, they typically travel along paths that roughly follow Earth’s curvature. So when space junk begins to enter the atmosphere, it’s often travelling almost horizontally.

Space junk also travels at slower speeds than shooting stars and meteorites, entering Earth’s atmosphere at roughly 8km/s rather than tens of kilometres per second.

Because of these factors, space junk can take minutes to enter the atmosphere and travels hundreds of kilometres in the process. Over this time, the space junk will slow down and break up into pieces, and the more solidly constructed parts might make it down to Earth.

The slower pace of space junk fireballs gives people time to grab phones, take footage and post on social media, perhaps with a little colourful commentary added for good measure.

Rockets

While space junk can produce a light show, rockets can also put on amazing displays. If you happen to be near Cape Canaveral or Vandenberg Space Force Base in the United States, or Wairoa in Aotearoa New Zealand, then it’s not unexpected to see a rocket launch. You get smoke, flames and thundering noise.

But in other parts of the world you may get a different view of rockets.

Rockets that bring satellites into our orbit accelerate to 8km/s. As they do, they travel many hundreds of kilometres at over 100km altitude. American satellite launches often travel near the coast, passing major cities including Los Angeles.

As rockets approach orbit, they are more subtle than the flames and noise of liftoff. Rockets produce plumes of exhaust gases that rapidly and silently expand in the vacuum of space.

While these plumes are typically seen near launch sites, they can be visible elsewhere, too.

Sometimes rocket engines are ignited after reaching an initial orbit to boost satellites to higher orbits, send probes into the Solar System or slow rockets down for reentry. Rockets may also vent excess fuel into space, again producing plumes or spirals of gases. While not necessarily a common occurrence, these have been seen all over the world.

Do look up

There’s a lot to see in the night sky – the familiar Moon, stars and planets. But there’s the unexpected, too – something blazing across the sky in minutes or even mere seconds. While fireballs may be puzzling at first, they are often recognisable and we can figure out what we’ve just witnessed.

Have you had the good fortune to see a fireball for yourself? If not, pop outside on a clear dark night. Perhaps you will see something unexpected.

Michael J. I. Brown receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and Monash University.

– ref. Comet, rocket, space junk or meteor? Here’s how to tell your fireballs apart – https://theconversation.com/comet-rocket-space-junk-or-meteor-heres-how-to-tell-your-fireballs-apart-213083

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Coates, Program Director, Housing and Economic Security, Grattan Institute

The federal election campaign was dominated by the housing crisis. But the real power to solve it rests with the states.

In Victoria, reforms are underway that promise a bigger boost to the housing aspirations of younger generations than anything that occurs in the federal parliament.

Yet these reforms are now under threat of being killed off in the Victorian parliament. If that happens, Victoria will have fewer homes and they will be more expensive, and many more younger Melburnians will be locked out of home ownership.

We need to build more homes

At the heart of our housing problem is the fact we just haven’t built enough homes.

Australia has among the least housing stock per person in the developed world. This is especially true in places where people most want to live: close to jobs, transport, schools and parks.

The reason is simple: we’ve made it hard to build more townhouses and apartments in the most desirable parts of our biggest cities.

Like in other states, Victorian state and local governments have long restricted medium- and high-density developments to appease local opposition. The Neighbourhood Residential Zone – the most restrictive residential zone in Victoria – covers more than 42% of residential land within ten kilometres of the Melbourne CBD.

And the politics of land-use planning – what gets built and where – favour those who oppose change. The people who might live in new housing in established suburbs – if it were to be built – don’t get a say.

The result is a vast “missing middle”: prime inner-city land, close to jobs and transport, with housing rising only one or two storeys. Melbourne, like Sydney, is one of the least-dense cities of its size in the world, despite the city’s population having risen by 875,000 in the past decade alone. That is the equivalent of almost two Canberras.

It’s a myth that most Victorians want a quarter-acre block if that means living a long way from jobs, transport, shops and parks. Research by both Grattan Institute and Infrastructure Victoria shows there is substantial demand for townhouses and apartments in established suburbs, if only we built more of them.

If Melbourne’s middle suburbs – those between two and 20 kilometres from the CBD – were as dense as those of Toronto, that increase in density alone could accommodate all of the 800,000 extra homes the state government plans to build over the next decade.

The flow-on effect is high prices and rents, a stagnating economy because fewer people can live close to jobs, and further expensive and environmentally damaging sprawl into farmland and floodplains.

Recent research showed that 8,000 completed apartments in Melbourne remain unsold. Yet this is less than 3% of all apartments in Melbourne, and is unsurprising given past sharp rises in interest rates and increased barriers in selling to foreign buyers.

That some newly built homes have taken longer to sell is not a reason to prevent the building of those extra homes that so many future Melburnians want to live in.

Victoria’s planning reforms are our best chance

Housing can become more affordable if we allow more homes to be built where residents most want to live.

The Victorian government’s recent reforms, like those in NSW, do just this. Its “activity centre” program will allow more apartments around 60 rail stations and other transport hubs.

Victoria’s new Townhouse and Low-Rise Code will streamline development approval processes for developments of three storeys or less in residential zones across the state. Where developments meet the code, those new homes will no longer need a planning permit and will be exempt from third-party appeals. This is already the case for knock-down rebuilds.

These reforms have the potential to unlock hundreds of thousands of extra homes in the coming decades in areas with some of the best infrastructure, amenities and public spaces.

Similar reforms in Auckland, starting in 2016, contributed to a home building boom that reduced rents by at least 14%. Most of this new stock was townhouses and small apartment buildings, rather than high rises.

Urban density, if done well, can add to neighbourhood amenity while preserving local green space. Several cities with similar populations but higher densities – such as Toronto and Berlin – match or outrank Melbourne on quality-of-life measures.

These reforms are now under threat

These changes do not dictate where housing must be built in Melbourne: they simply permit more housing where demand is highest.

Yet these reforms are now under threat. The Victorian Liberals and the Greens have teamed up to launch an inquiry into the state Labor government’s reforms. The inquiry is scheduled to report on Tuesday, just one day before the deadline for disallowing the reforms lapses.

Together, the Liberals and the Greens have the power to revoke the changes in the upper house of the Victorian parliament. That would be a disaster for housing affordability in Victoria.

The Victorian parliament shouldn’t stand in the way of young families who want to buy a townhouse in the suburb they grew up in, or seniors downsizing to an apartment in their local neighbourhood.

These reforms are about allowing more homes, and creating a better, healthier, and more vibrant Melbourne.

Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the federal and Victorian governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities, as disclosed on its website.

Joey Moloney and Matthew Bowes 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. Victoria’s planning reforms could help solve the housing crisis. But they are under threat – https://theconversation.com/victorias-planning-reforms-could-help-solve-the-housing-crisis-but-they-are-under-threat-255967

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Harcourt, Industry Professor and Chief Economist, University of Technology Sydney

Every now and then, so-called “code wars” erupt between the major Australia winter football codes: the National Rugby League (NRL) and the Australian Football League (AFL).

This animosity likely stems from a phenomenon known as “the Barassi Line”, a cultural and geographical divide based on football preference which runs from Eden, NSW, through Canberra and up to Arnhem Land.

Read more:
The Barassi Line: a globally unique divider splitting Australia’s footy fans

Recently, NRL chair Peter V’Landys claimed victory over the AFL in a strongly worded salvo:

Rugby league has reaffirmed its standing as the No. 1 sporting code in Australia and the Pacific after the Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) announced record-breaking attendances, TV audiences, participation, revenue and assets.

But is he right to state the NRL as Australia’s No. 1 sport?

A uniquely Australian battle

The battleground in Australia is unique: most nations have only one major football code, soccer. Australia though has four – Australian rules football (AFL), rugby league (NRL), soccer and rugby union.

More competition is good for the consumer and, in this case, the consumer is the Aussie sports fan.

The way these fans watch, play and pour money into each sport is closely tracked by each league. And the competition for talent, fans, sponsors and eyeballs via TV, digital media and streaming grows every year.

Thanks to Australian sports media experts SportsIndustryAU, we can now make a direct comparison between the codes.

What the numbers say

It’s important to note the NRL’s recent chest-beating refers to audiences in Australia and the Pacific, explaining the code’s push into Papua New Guinea (PNG) and potentially further expansion in New Zealand.

Read more:
Sports diplomacy: why the Australian government is spending $600 million on a new NRL team in PNG

In terms of revenue, the AFL earned 39% more than the NRL in 2024: $1.04 billion compared to the NRL’s $744.8 million.

In terms of profit, the NRL’s was 51% higher than the AFL in 2024. This was in large part due to the NRL having only half the operational expenses of the AFL.

However, if we look at operating profit (gross profit minus operating expenses), the AFL was 13% higher than the NRL before it made its annual distributions to clubs. The AFL distributes its profits among its 18 clubs, with smaller clubs receiving more than the more powerful teams.

In terms of net assets (the value of an organisation’s assets minus its liabilities), the AFL is also richer: it has net assets of $482.3 million compared to $322.4 million for the NRL. The AFL owns Marvel Stadium and a share in the sports data and analytics company Champion Data. By comparison, the NRL has shares in many hotels.

In terms of TV audience, the NRL was 10% larger in terms of average aggregated audiences for free-to-air and paid subscription services in 2024: 153.7 million to the AFL’s 140.3 million. However, AFL matches go longer and the season features more games than the NRL. Also, these figures do not include streaming numbers, which will be part of future broadcast deals.

In terms of attendance and membership, the AFL is a clear winner.

The AFL welcomed 8.4 million fans through the gate in 2024, compared to 4.3 million for the NRL.

For membership, the AFL’s clubs boasted 1.32 million collectively in 2024. In the NRL, there are slightly more than 400,000 club members (based on club data – the NRL does not release membership data).

In terms of participation, Ausplay – a national tracking survey led by the Australian Sports Commission – estimates 641,390 Aussie rules players, compared to 531,323 for rugby league (which includes touch football and Oztag).

No clear-cut answer

While more of the numbers point to an AFL advantage, this heavyweight battle will never be completely settled, and both codes’ future expansion plans will further muddy the waters.

The NRL has just announced the Perth Bears will join in 2027 or 2028. This team revives the old North Sydney Bears with a new Western Australia base. This will bring the number of NRL clubs to 19.

A possible 20th team is slated for New Zealand, or Ipswich in the western Brisbane corridor.

Similarly, the AFL is expanding, first to Tasmania, which is set to become its 19th club in 2028.

Beyond that, it’s possible the league will look to the Northern Territory, Canberra or another team in Western Australia or South Australia to join as the 20th team.

One key advantage for the NRL is its international appeal.

For two years, it has hosted games in Las Vegas. And after the NRL’s successful Magic Round in Brisbane, CEO Andrew Abdo floated the possibility of taking the event overseas, with Hong Kong and Dubai reportedly expressing interest.

Of course, as a domestic game, Australian rules football cannot logically expand beyond our shores.

But whether beyond our boundaries or within, the NRL vs AFL rivalry will continue, and an unequivocal winner will never really be settled on.

Tim Harcourt 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. Footy’s ‘code wars’ are back, but which is actually the No. 1 Australian sport: the NRL or AFL? – https://theconversation.com/footys-code-wars-are-back-but-which-is-actually-the-no-1-australian-sport-the-nrl-or-afl-256088

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Winter, Associate Professor in Political Theory, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s recent announcement that the government would reinstate a total ban on prisoners voting was in keeping with the coalition’s overall tough-on-crime approach.

The move was called “ridiculous” and “stupid” by opposition spokespeople, largely because it contradicted findings by the Supreme Court and the Waitangi Tribunal.

But behind those concerns about the ban placing an “unreasonable limit on the electoral rights guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act” lies a broader constitutional question to do with parliament’s relationship with the courts.

In short, removing prisoner voting rights will damage a critical but fragile check on government power – what is known as the “judicial declaration of inconsistency”.

An ‘executive paradise’

New Zealand has been described as an “executive paradise” by constitutional lawyer and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer. There is no upper house, no federal structure, and the courts lack the power to strike down unconstitutional legislation.

The constitution itself is a collection of statutes and conventions that, for the most part, can be changed by a simple parliamentary majority. The 1990 Bill of Rights Act is a cornerstone of that constitution, but is an ineffectual check on government power.

When parliament considers a bill that is potentially inconsistent with “the human rights and fundamental freedoms” set out in the Bill of Rights, the attorney-general delivers a report explaining the inconsistencies.

This is supposed to be a deterrent, and one might think it would be the end of the matter. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Adverse attorney-general reports have appeared regularly (there have been 15 since 2021) without blocking legislation.

Parliament’s habit of passing legislation that does not comply with the Bill of Rights is why the recently developed judicial declaration of inconsistency is constitutionally important.

The declaration is a “soft” legal power. It doesn’t strike down laws or rewrite them. Rather, it is a “weak form” of review that enables affected citizens to petition the court to declare a law inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. This should then spur parliament to fix the problem.

The declaration aims to start a constitutional dialogue between the two branches of government. Enabling citizens to hold parliament accountable, it is a vital instrument in a system otherwise heavily dominated by the executive branch.

Constitutional dialogue in action

The High Court issued the first such declaration in the case of Taylor vs Attorney-General in 2015, declaring a total ban on prisoners voting was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The government appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the declaration in a landmark 2018 decision.

What happened next, however, was just as important. If the declaration was to initiate a constitutional dialogue, it was up to parliament to respond – which it did. In 2020, it rescinded the ban on voting for prisoners incarcerated for less than three years.

Then, in 2022, it amended the Bill of Rights to require the attorney-general to notify parliament when a superior court issues a declaration of inconsistency. And it required a ministerial report to parliament on the government’s response within six months.

Those measures put in place a framework for constitutional dialogues. And this process played out in the next (and to date only) declaration of inconsistency. This was in 2022, when the Supreme Court declared prohibiting 16-year-olds from voting was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

In 2023, the government tabled its response and introduced a bill to enable 16-year-olds to vote in local elections. The government initially announced it would do the same for parliamentary elections. But that idea was dropped when it became clear this wouldn’t get the necessary super-majority support of 75% of MPs.

An over-powered parliament

Although modest, parliament’s responses were constitutionally important because they modelled a new framework for accountability. Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann suggested the process illustrated how courts and parliament could work together in the “gradual and collaborative elaboration” of New Zealand’s constitution.

An evolving constitutional dialogue would enable the courts to pose a modest check on New Zealand’s over-powered parliament. So, those who hoped they were seeing the dawn of a new constitutional convention will be disheartened by the move to ban all prisoners from voting.

The current government has already terminated the bill enabling 16-year-olds to vote, without mentioning this contradicted the Supreme Court’s declaration of inconsistency.

Should parliament now ban prisoner voting, it will have nullified all substantial responses to declarations of inconsistency. That would be a profound constitutional setback.

Parliament regularly flouts the Bill of Rights. We are now seeing it double down by rolling back its previous responses to judicial declarations.

New Zealanders already have comparatively little constitutional protection from parliament. Reinstating a total ban on prisoner voting will undermine the practice of constitutional dialogue between the two branches of government. And it will weaken a fragile check on government power.

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

– ref. A prisoner voting ban shows again how few checks there are on parliamentary power – https://theconversation.com/a-prisoner-voting-ban-shows-again-how-few-checks-there-are-on-parliamentary-power-256226

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Farah N. Jan, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

India and Pakistan have seen the scenario play out before: a terror attack in which Indians are killed leads to a succession of escalatory tit-fot-tat measures that put South Asia on the brink of all-out war. And then there is a de-escalation.

The broad contours of that pattern have played out in the most recent crisis, with the latest step being the announcement of a ceasefire on May 10, 2025.

But in another important way, the flare-up – which began on April 22 with a deadly attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir, in which 26 people were killed – represents significant departures from the past. It involved direct missile exchanges targeting sites inside both territories and the use of advanced missile systems and drones by the two nuclear rivals for the first time.

As a scholar of nuclear rivalries, especially between India and Pakistan, I have long been concerned that the erosion of international sovereignty norms, diminished U.S. interest and influence in the region and the stockpiling of advanced military and digital technologies have significantly raised the risk of rapid and uncontrolled escalation in the event of a trigger in South Asia.

These changes have coincided with domestic political shifts in both countries. The pro-Hindu nationalism of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has heightened communal tensions in the country. Meanwhile Pakistan’s powerful army chief, Gen. Syed Asim Munir, has embraced the “two-nation theory,” which holds that Pakistan is a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims and India for Hindus.

This religious framing was even seen in the naming of the two countries’ military operations. For India, it is “Operation Sindoor” – a reference to the red vermilion used by married Hindu women, and a provocative nod to the widows of the Kashmir attack. Pakistan called its counter-operation “Bunyan-un-Marsoos” – an Arabic phrase from the Quran meaning “a solid structure.”

The role of Washington

The India-Pakistan rivalry has cost tens of thousands of lives across multiple wars in 1947-48, 1965 and 1971. But since the late 1990s, whenever India and Pakistan approached the brink of war, a familiar de-escalation playbook unfolded: intense diplomacy, often led by the United States, would help defuse tensions.

In 1999, President Bill Clinton’s direct mediation ended the Kargil conflict – a limited war triggered by Pakistani forces crossing the Line of Control into Indian-administered Kashmir – by pressing Pakistan for a withdrawal.

Similarly, after the 2001 attack inside the Indian Parliament by terrorists allegedly linked to Pakistan-based groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage engaged in intense shuttle diplomacy between Islamabad and New Delhi, averting war.

And after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which saw 166 people killed by terrorists linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, rapid and high-level American diplomatic involvement helped restrain India’s response and reduced the risk of an escalating conflict.

As recently as 2019, during the Balakot crisis – which followed a suicide bombing in Pulwama, Kashmir, that killed 40 Indian security personnel – it was American diplomatic pressure that helped contain hostilities. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo later wrote in his memoirs, “I do not think the world properly knows just how close the India-Pakistan rivalry came to spilling over into a nuclear conflagration in February 2019.”

A diplomatic void?

Washington as peacemaker made sense: It had influence and a vested interest.

During the Cold War, the U.S. formed a close alliance with Pakistan to counter India’s links with the Soviet Union. And after the 9/11 terror attacks, the U.S. poured tens of billions of dollars in military assistance into Pakistan as a frontline partner in the “war on terror.”

Simultaneously, beginning in the early 2000s, the U.S. began cultivating India as a strategic partner.

A stable Pakistan was a crucial partner in the U.S. war in Afghanistan; a friendly India was a strategic counterbalance to China. And this gave the U.S. both the motivation and credibility to act as an effective mediator during moments of India-Pakistan crisis.

Today, however, America’s diplomatic attention has shifted significantly away from South Asia. The process began with the end of the Cold War, but accelerated dramatically after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. More recently, the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have consumed Washington’s diplomatic efforts.

Since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, the U.S. has not appointed an ambassador in New Delhi or Islamabad, nor confirmed an assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian Affairs – factors that must have hampered any mediating role for the United States.

And while Trump said the May 10 ceasefire followed a “long night of talks mediated by the United States,” statements from India and Pakistan appeared to downplay U.S. involvement, focusing instead on the direct bilateral nature of negotiations.

Should it transpire that Washington’s role as a mediator between Pakistan and India has been diminished, it is not immediately obvious who, if anyone, will fill the void. China, which has been trying to cultivate a role of mediator elsewhere, is not seen as a neutral mediator due to its close alliance with Pakistan and past border conflicts with India. Other regional powers like Iran and Saudi Arabia tried to step in during the latest crisis, but both lack the power clout of the U.S. or China.

This absence of external mediation is not, of course, a problem in itself. Historically, foreign interference – particularly U.S. support for Pakistan during the Cold War – often complicated dynamics in South Asia by creating military imbalances and reinforcing hardline positions. But the past has shown external pressure – especially from Washington – can be effective.

Breaking the norms

The recent escalation unfolded against the backdrop of another dynamic: the erosion of international norms since the end of the Cold War and accelerating after 2001.

America’s “war on terror” fundamentally challenged international legal frameworks through practices such as preemptive strikes against sovereign states, targeted drone killings and the “enhanced interrogation techniques” of detainees that many legal scholars classify as torture.

More recently, Israel’s operations in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria have drawn widespread criticism for violations of international humanitarian law – but have resulted in limited consequences.

In short, geopolitical norms have been ebbed away and military actions that were once deemed red lines are crossed with little accountability.

For India and Pakistan, this environment creates both opportunity and risk. Both can point to behaviors elsewhere to justify assertive actions that they have undertaken that, in previous years, would have been deemed a step too far – such as attacks on places of worship and sovereignty violations.

Multi-domain warfare

But what truly distinguished the latest crisis from those of the past is, I believe, its multi-domain nature. The conflict is no longer confined to conventional military exchanges along the line of control – as it was for the first five decades of the Kashmir question.

Both countries largely respected the line of control as a de facto boundary for military operations until the 2019 crisis. Since then, there has been a dangerous progression: first to cross-border airstrikes into each other’s territories, and now to a conflict that spans conventional military, cyber and information spheres simultaneously.

Reports indicate Chinese-made Pakistani J-10 fighter jets shot down multiple Indian aircraft, including advanced French Rafale jets. This confrontation between Chinese and Western weapons represents not just a bilateral conflict but a proxy test of rival global military technologies – adding another layer of great-power competition to the crisis.

In addition, the use of loitering drones designed to attack radar systems represents a significant escalation in the technological sophistication of cross-border attacks compared to years past.

The conflict has also expanded dramatically into the cyber domain. Pakistani hackers, claiming to be the “Pakistan Cyber Force,” report breaching several Indian defense institutions, potentially compromising personnel data and login credentials.

Simultaneously, social media and a new right-wing media in India have become a critical battlefront. Ultranationalist voices in India incited violence against Muslims and Kashmiris; in Pakistan, anti-India rhetoric similarly intensified online.

Cooler voices prevailing … for now

These shifts have created multiple escalation pathways that traditional crisis management approaches weren’t designed to address.

Particularly concerning is the nuclear dimension. Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is that it will use nuclear weapons if its existence is threatened, and it has developed short-range tactical nuclear weapons intended to counter Indian conventional advantages. Meanwhile, India has informally dialed back its historic no-first-use stance, creating ambiguity about its operational doctrine.

Thankfully, as the ceasefire announcement indicates, mediating voices appear to have prevailed this time around. But eroding norms, diminished great power diplomacy and the advent of multi-domain warfare, I argue, made this latest flare-up a dangerous turning point.

What happens next will tell us much about how nuclear rivals manage, or fail to manage, the spiral of conflict in this dangerous new landscape.

Farah N. Jan 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. India-Pakistan ceasefire shouldn’t disguise fact that norms have changed in South Asia, making future de-escalation much harder – https://theconversation.com/india-pakistan-ceasefire-shouldnt-disguise-fact-that-norms-have-changed-in-south-asia-making-future-de-escalation-much-harder-256285

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Forstenzer, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Co-Director of the Centre for Engaged Philosophy, University of Sheffield

Homer’s Iliad is one of the foundational stories of European civilisation. The Iliad is a long poem – an epic – thought to have first been put down in writing in the eighth century BC, though the story is set several hundred years before, perhaps as early as the 12th or 13th century BC.

It explores a few crucial violent weeks within a much longer war between an alliance of Greek city-states and the city of Troy over Helen, the most beautiful woman in the world. In it, we find ancient Greek gods and humans sharing a common reality. They concurrently star as the central characters of both a mythological and an earthly dramatic encounter, on which the fate of a people rests.

In his work, public philosopher Cornel West argues that there is a “gangster” inside all of us. The challenge, West teaches, is to learn to keep these “gangster elements” in check so that we can still live with decency and integrity in an often violent and unjust world. This struggle, I contend, is at the heart of both Homer’s Iliad and the art of battle rap.

This article is part of Rethinking the Classics. The stories in this series offer insightful new ways to think about and interpret classic books and artworks. This is the canon – with a twist.

Battle rap is an art form where two or more MCs confront one another in a freestyle rap that includes boasts, insults, wordplay and disses (related to but not to be confused with rap beefs like the Kendrick Lamar and Drake feud).

The history of this kind of verbal jousting goes back at least to flyting – poetic duels usually involving rhyming insults, widespread in northern Europe in the late medieval era. (See Assassin’s Creed Valhalla for its recent reimagining.) And it also has African roots. But its latest iteration is thought to have emerged in the hip-hop scene in New York in the 1980s. The 1981 Busy Bee versus Kool Moe Dee battle at the Harlem World club in New York is an important part of hip-hop lore.

Read more:
A brief history of the diss track – from the Roxanne Wars to Megan Thee Stallion

It was arguably the 2002 film 8 Mile, however, that starred real battle rap legend, Eminem, that made the art form well known beyond hardcore rap aficionados. Today it is a pop culture streaming event, with millions of followers and official leagues.

The object of a battle rap is to display flow, braggadocio and quick wit. Humour is often a plus, but lyrically dexterous, rhythmic, creative “burns” are the name of the game.

So what do the Iliad and battle rap have in common?

Both art forms encourage us, the listeners, to react, reflect and ultimately select with which speaker to side. We are thrust into the centre of the action without much of a narrator to explain things.

Both the Iliad and rap battles are part of the oral poetic tradition, since we think the Iliad was orally recited for generations before it was put down in writing. They are therefore both addressed to a live audience.

The Iliad is a story of war between Greeks and Trojans, but also of “beefs”. Menelaus versus Paris over the hand of Helen. Achilles versus Agamemnon, the king of the Greeks who wrongs him by expropriating one of his slaves. And Achilles versus Hector, the Trojan prince who kills Patroclus, Achilles’s closest friend.

The high moment of the poem is arguably the encounter between Achilles and Hector. Before they battle to the death, Hector offers Achilles a deal: whoever wins won’t disrespect the other’s body.

In response, Achilles belows: “Curse you, Hector, and don’t talk of oaths to me. Lions and men make no compacts, nor are wolves and lambs in sympathy: they are opposed, to the end. You and I are beyond friendship: nor will there be peace until one or the other dies.”

Achilles is calling out Hector’s attempt at showing nobility of character, because Hector tries to separate the duty to wage conflict from rage and disrespect of his enemy. Achilles flatly rejects the proposal. For him, the only reason to fight is to satiate his grief-induced rage and so no respect can be given even after death.

Ultimately, Achilles kills Hector and desecrates his body, but Hector was clearly the better man. Two worldviews collide. Which one should we side with?

In a battle rap, the question of how we judge which MC to be victorious is always at stake. Do we side with the MC who best “rocks the mic” by pleasing the audience, or the one who more lyrically and intelligently cuts the opponent to the bone?

Here are five more themes shared by The Iliad and battle rap.

1. The pursuit of fame

Battle rap has made gifted MCs into street rap legends. Long before record deals were the prize, MCs battled for respect and street fame.

This pursuit of legendary status also lies at the very heart of The Iliad, as Achilles is warned by his mother, the goddess Thetis, that he will die if he fights in the Trojan war, but in return his “glory never dies”.

2. Communal belonging

Battle rappers and the warriors in The Iliad act in their own name but they also represent wider groups heralding from different places. They all, in some way, carry responsibility for and aim to bring reflected fame to their respective communities.

3. Displaying skill

Most battle raps take the form of a take down of the opponent, but the real object is to demonstrate verbal prowess. Simply entertaining will not cut it. “You now have to make sense of what you say, in order for us to give you the power,” summarises hip-hop legend KRS-One.

The Iliad opens with a muse telling the audience that the epic will recount the “wrath of Achilles”, but in fact we find skilful interventions in speech that make us wonder whether the reasons for conflict can ever justify the grief it causes.

4. An honour code

What is truly worth living and dying for are central themes in The Iliad, as in battle rap. There we find talk of loyalty, honour, respect, courage, friendship and fame.

The overt answers given can be taken as embraces of a certain kind of toxic masculinity where dominance, rage, cunning and violence are celebrated, but maybe these answers subtly point to their ultimate hollowness.

Lurking behind the repeated injunction to “be the best”, battle rap and Homer’s epic invite the question of what is truly worth admiring: skill, dominance, wealth, integrity, courage, beauty, truth, justice, love or glory? They provide no singular answer.

5. Creativity and living within the ‘funk’ of life

Instead, we are left to sit within what West calls the “funk of life” – the mess of it all. From there, we can see that the stories we tell ourselves have the power to shape and define our actions and our very lives.

So the main question becomes: at a time when simplistic stories of violence and domination are presented to us as easy answers to complex social realities, can we create new and richer stories of our own?

Joshua Forstenzer’s work receives funding from the Yale Center for Faith and Culture as part of its Templeton-funded Life Worth Living project (https://lifeworthliving.yale.edu/).

– ref. Homer’s Iliad is a rap battle – https://theconversation.com/homers-iliad-is-a-rap-battle-252562

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Beverland, Professor of Brand Management, University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex

Whatever you think of his personality or politics, it’s impossible to deny the success of Donald Trump as a brand. Supporters and detractors across the world are transfixed by his second term as US president.

And so far, many corporate brands appear keen to get alongside him. The leaders of Tesla, Amazon and Meta were all prominent guests at Trump’s inauguration in January 2025.

By then, Mark Zuckerberg had already shifted company policy on fact checking to be more aligned with the political wind. Weeks later, retail giants Walmart and Target had rolled back diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Even the NFL, which had so infuriated Trump in his first term with its support for diversity, has come to heel.

So now that Trump is back in town, is the only option available to big US organisations to swing to the right? Well, not necessarily.

Our research suggests that the rise of populism actually represents an opportunity for brands to rebuild a sense of shared national identity.

And the most well-known brands are the best placed to do this. Their familiar place in people’s everyday lives gives them huge power as non-political agents of collective identity which can cross divides of race, class, geography and age.

A great example of this was during the presidential election campaign when Trump’s team wanted to organise a publicity stunt involving the Republican candidate “working” at a branch of McDonald’s in Pennsylvania.

Trump’s love of the golden arches is well known, but McDonald’s is a strongly non-political brand. So what should it do? Refuse and risk a backlash, or accept and be accused of taking sides?

In the end, the company’s response was a masterclass in neutrality.

McDonald’s told its employees that the company was neither red (Republican) nor blue (Democrat), but golden. Referring to both presidential candidates’ love of McDonald’s, the company made it clear that the permission granted to Trump illustrated one of their core values, stating: “We open our doors for everyone”.

The plan worked. And this was partly down to McDonald’s being widely thought of as an authentic brand which connects people.

Research has shown that people really value a company’s place in local communities. And McDonald’s is a place which hosts children’s birthday parties, where you can catch up with friends, where you might even have had your first ever job.

This kind of power to unify is something other brands can do too. As something our earlier research shows, brands can benefit from bringing people together, by creating a sense of shared identity.

Brand new

In New Zealand for example, ANZ Bank was widely applauded for a campaign featuring Indian immigrants. The advert tells the story of a father and son and their mixed cricketing loyalties (the parent to India, the child to New Zealand).

It is a tale of immigrants achieving their version of the national dream, through hard work and trademark Kiwi humour. This kind of narrative-driven campaign does not pitch one side against another, but instead highlights the things that bind people together.

Similarly in the UK, the department store John Lewis has become a seasonal advertising staple as it reminds customers of their shared rituals over Christmas. And Kraft’s “How do you love your Vegemite” campaign allowed new immigrants to participate in local snacking rituals, helping them feel Australian.

In the US, a 1971 Coca Cola commercial (one of the most lauded adverts ever) presented a united multi-cultural collection of young people as a response to the anti-Vietnam war counter-culture.

So far, American brands have struggled to navigate the ever-shifting pronouncements coming from the White House in Trump’s second term. Amazon for example, quickly went back on its decision to list the cost of tariffs on products after it was branded a “hostile move”.

But one brand does stand out. And that’s Ford.

Perhaps it was inevitable that the car maker which came to symbolise successful 20th century American manufacturing would get this right. And the company’s decision to extend employee discounts to all consumers in what it describes as “unprecedented times” is a clever move.

Some might call it a cynical tactic to embrace Trump’s tariffs and encourage Americans to buy American. But the firm (which will likely take a huge hit from more expensive imported parts and materials) is doing much more than that.

Its new campaign (with the slogan “From America for America”) reminds US citizens that the brand is part of their lives, regardless of their political home. Supportive full-page print ads go further, setting out the firm’s long history spent backing the people of America.

One Ford executive says that the campaign is about “authenticity” and Ford being a brand “that all consumers can rely on, especially in these uncertain times”.

Authenticity is much prized when the political landscape is so polarised. And while divisions cannot be healed solely by brands, they can help to remind us of shared values and a sense of community. And in doing so, dial down those political tensions.

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. Major brands don’t need to kowtow to Trump: they have the power to bring people together – https://theconversation.com/major-brands-dont-need-to-kowtow-to-trump-they-have-the-power-to-bring-people-together-249401

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Mason, PhD candidate in Conservation Biology, Deakin University

Killing carnivores to protect livestock, wildlife and people is an emotive and controversial issue that can cause community conflict. Difficult decisions about managing predators must be supported by strong scientific evidence.

In Australia, predators such as dingoes and foxes are often shot or poisoned with baits to prevent them from killing sheep and cattle. Feral cats and foxes are also killed to protect native wildlife.

But research elsewhere suggests public perceptions of how predators affect ecosystems and livestock are not always accurate.

Our recent study sought to shed light on these controversies. We examined the scat, or poo, left behind by dingoes, foxes and cats. We focused on the mallee region of Victoria and South Australia where there are calls to resume dingo culling to stop them killing livestock.

A contentious issue

Our study took place in the Big Desert-Wyperfeld-Ngarkat reserve complex in the semi-arid mallee region of Victoria and South Australia. This continuous ecosystem comprises about 10,000 km² of protected native mallee bushland, and is entirely surrounded by crop and livestock farming areas.

Fox-baiting is conducted along the boundaries of Victorian-managed reserve areas. Dingo baiting occurs in the South Australian-managed section of the park.

Since March 2024, the small dingo population has been protected in Victorian-managed areas due to their critically low numbers in the region.

Prior to the change, Victorian farmers and authorised trappers could control dingoes on private land and within public land up to 3km from farms. Farmers say they have lost livestock since dingoes were protected.

What are predators eating in the mallee region?

We collected and analysed 136 dingo, 200 fox and 25 cat scats to determine what each predator in the area was eating and how their diets differed.

Livestock was not a major part of the diet of dingoes, foxes or cats. Some 7% of fox scats contained sheep or cattle remains. This was more than that of dingoes, at 2% of scats. No feral cat scats contained livestock remains.

The dingo diet was dominated by kangaroos, wallabies and emus, which comprised more than 70% of their diet volume.

Cats and foxes consumed more than 15 times the volume of small native mammals compared with dingoes, including threatened species such as fat-tailed dunnarts.

Our data must be interpreted with caution. Scat analysis cannot differentiate between livestock killed by predators and those that are scavenged. It also can’t tell us about animals that a predator killed but did not eat.

In 2022–23, when we collected the scats, rainfall in the area was high and prey was abundant. So, while we found livestock were not likely to be a substantial part of these predators’ diets at the time of our research, this can change depending on environmental conditions.

For example, fire and extended drought may force predators to move further to find food and water. They may move from conservation areas to private land, where they could prey on livestock.

A taste for certain prey

A predator’s poo doesn’t tell the full story of how it affects prey populations.

To understand this further, we used motion-sensing wildlife cameras to assess which prey were available in the ecosystem. We compared it to the frequency they occurred in predator’s diets. This allowed us to determine if dingoes, foxes or cats target specific prey.

We found foxes and cats both consumed small mammals proportionally more than we expected, given the prey’s availability in the study area. Cats consumed birds at a higher rate than expected, and dingoes consumed echidnas more than expected.

Further intensive monitoring work is needed to determine how these dietary preferences affect the populations of prey species.

Embracing the evidence

The findings build on a substantial previous research suggesting foxes and cats pose a significant threat to native mammals, birds, reptiles and other wildlife, including many threatened species. Our results suggest foxes may cause more harm to sheep than dingoes overall – a finding consistent with research elsewhere in Victoria.

Dingoes were the only predator species that regularly preyed on kangaroos and wallabies. These species are abundant in the region. They can also compete with livestock for grazing pastures, consume crops and degrade native vegetation.

Currently, dingoes are killed on, or fenced out of, large parts of Australia due to their perceived threat to livestock.

Lethal control of invasive species remains important to protect native wildlife and agriculture. But such decisions should be based on evidence, to avoid unforeseen and undesirable results.

For example, fox control can lead to increased feral cat numbers and harm to native prey. Fewer dingoes may mean more feral goats and kangaroos.

Non-lethal and effective alternatives exist to indiscriminately killing predators to protect livestock, such as protection dogs and donkeys. These measures are being embraced by farmers and graziers globally, often with high and sustained success.

In Australia, governments should better embrace and support evidence-based and effective approaches that allow farming, native carnivores and other wildlife to coexist.

Rachel Mason conducted this research with grant funding from the Victorian Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. She is a current member of the Australian Mammal Society, the Australasian Wildlife Management Society, and the Ecological Society of Australia.

Euan Ritchie receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Action. Euan is a Councillor within the Biodiversity Council, a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and the Australian Mammal Society, and President of the Australian Mammal Society.

– ref. Farmers fear dingoes are eating their livestock – but predator poo tells an unexpected story – https://theconversation.com/farmers-fear-dingoes-are-eating-their-livestock-but-predator-poo-tells-an-unexpected-story-254787

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

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s confirmation she will run for Liberal deputy has put the members of an already shell-shocked party into a new spin.

Tuesday’s leadership contest, where the numbers are said to be tight, is a battle for the direction of the party as much as one between the two personalities.

It’s essentially a contest between the moderates and the conservatives. Sussan Ley, deputy for the past three years, carries the flag for the moderates (although she is aligned to the old Scott Morrison faction, which is led by Alex Hawke, one-time Morrison numbers man).

Her opponent, Angus Taylor, who’s been shadow treasurer, leads the conservatives.

Neither Ley nor Taylor has impressed during the last term, but that’s become beside the point.

Taylor has embraced the ambitious Price, who has defected (amid great bitterness) from the Nationals, to boost his support as part of a joint ticket.

Whether the combination will work for or against Taylor’s chances remains to be seen. There are fears in the Ley camp it may attract some undecideds, but it possibly could frighten off others.

Price was elevated spectacularly to national prominence as the most effective “no” campaigner against the Voice. She is forceful and articulate, and the conservative base of the Coalition loves her.

But, leaving aside the complication that she’s a senator, her performance in the Voice campaign doesn’t automatically translate into qualifications for deputy which, if done properly, is a demanding, multi-faceted job.

The Liberal deputy needs deep roots in the party, not having just arrived in controversial circumstances. They have to do a lot of work with the party organisation, not just the parliamentary party.

In the latter, the deputy is there in part to protect the leader’s back and to keep track of the mood of colleagues, which requires having long-standing relationships of familiarity and trust with them.

Some would argue the ideal deputy is a person who does not have their eyes on the leadership, which Price clearly has.

The deputy needs a broad grasp of policy areas, because they will be a high profile public spokesperson for the party, and will be hit with questions on every issue that’s running.

The deputy also has to be comfortable with media across the spectrum, because that’s part of the job. Price’s natural home has been on Sky News. On Sunday, she appeared on Sky’s highly opinionated program Outsiders.

If the Liberals are to get themselves back into shape, they must seek to regain their appeal in the urban areas that went teal in 2022, and to women. Indeed, they have to tap into professional women in those places. It is unlikely Price, unless she undergoes a major political makeover, would be attractive to that constituency.

In their bid for the support of women, the Liberals need a root-and-branch debate about how to get more women candidates, but Price is already totally against quotas.

If Price becomes deputy it will be a wild ride for the party – and for its leader.

Other names mooted as possible deputies are Dan Tehan, from Victoria, who’s been immigration spokesman, and Queenslander Ted O’Brien, the energy spokesman. Either would be less fraught for the party than Price. O’Brien would have the problem of being welded on to the nuclear policy, which will be at least overhauled and perhaps ditched by the Liberals.

Ley is set to have a running mate, but the name has not yet been disclosed.

Another option would be for the loser out of Ley and Taylor to become deputy. Awkward, but perhaps the cleanest way forward. Ley is used to the role; Taylor would be entitled to stay shadow treasurer and would be at the centre of things (what things are left).

Nationals’ identity battle

In the Nationals, the leadership contest – to be decided Monday – is also a battle over identity.

The Nationals under David Litteproud held almost all their seats at the election but one-time resources minister Matt Canavan – a Barnaby Joyce supporter back in the day – says they need a new direction.

Critical to his pitch are energy and climate issues. The Nationals signed up reluctantly to net zero emissions by 2050 in the Morrison prime ministership, when Joyce was leader (although he indicated he personally didn’t favour doing so). They were dragged to the deal with great reluctance.

Canavan, who is a senator, said in his leadership pitch, “We should scrap the futile and unachievable goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Net zero makes everything more expensive and it is not helping the environment given that the US, China and India are no longer even paying lip service to it.”

Littleproud, describing the challenge as “healthy for our democracy”, is favoured to see off the Canavan bid. Regardless, it is a reminder the Nationals remain a divided party, as they have been for years.

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: if Jacinta Nampijinpa Price became Liberal deputy it would be a wild ride – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-if-jacinta-nampijinpa-price-became-liberal-deputy-it-would-be-a-wild-ride-255964

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

Industry Minister Ed Husic, dumped from the frontbench ahead of Anthony Albanese’s announcement of his new ministry, has made an excoriating attack on Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, describing him as a “factional assassin”.

Marles, chief of the Victorian right, in large part drove factional changes which saw Husic, from the New South Wales right, and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, from the Victorian right, pushed out of the lineup for the revamped ministry.

In the shakeout, Marles’ numbers man, Sam Rae, will be elevated from the backbench to the ministry, despite having only been in parliament for a single term.

Husic said on Sunday, “I think when people look at a deputy prime minister, they expect to see a statesman, not a factional assassin”.

Asked on the ABC whether that meant he was saying Marles had put his own ambition to boost his numbers ahead of the good of the party, Husic said, “I think a lot of people would draw that conclusion”.

“I think he needed to exercise leadership, he’s part of the leadership group. We’ve got to be able to manage these things in an orderly way.”

“There will be a lot of questions put to Richard about his role, and that’s something that he will have to answer and account for.”

Husic said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had called him on Saturday – it had been only a brief call – and they will meet on Monday. He looked forward to that being a constructive discussion about the role he could keep playing.

Husic, the only Muslim in cabinet, in part blamed his outspokenness on Gaza for his demotion.

“You can’t celebrate diversity and then expect it to sit in a corner, silent.

“You need to speak up when you bring those different views to either a cabinet table or to a caucus.

“I certainly took the view that you need to speak up to the communities that you care about. I certainly tried to help us navigate wretchedly difficult issues such as what we’re seeing has unfolded in Gaza post the horrors of October 7.

“I don’t think I could ever stay silent in the face of innocent civilians being slaughtered in their tens of thousands and being starved out of Gaza.

“So I tried to find the way to be able to speak at the cabinet table and speak elsewhere, to be able to make sure that communities we represent know that their voices are heard.

“You should have the ability to speak up on the issues that you believe in. You should have the ability to question.

“I would hate to think we get to a situation like Trump Republicans who know something’s wrong and and don’t speak. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but there’s a role, a value in questioning,” he said.

Husic is reported to have clashed with Foreign Minister Penny Wong in cabinet over the Middle East issues. He also had differences with Treasurer Jim Chalmers on some economic issues.

Husic said he would have liked Albanese to have intervened over his demotion but the PM had declined to get involved.

He blamed Marles for putting Albanese into such a position. It was “especially disrespectful of the deputy prime minister to put the prime minister in a terrible place where he was being asked to intervene”. But if Albanese had exercised the great authority he had coming out of the election, “no one would have quibbled”.

“We’ve obviously got to be able to avoid these type of episodes […] the factional grubbiness,” Husic said.

Because of the factional numbers after the election, the NSW right was due to drop a minister. Husic said he chose not to push it to a factional vote to decide who went. “I did not want to put my colleagues through a national ballot.”

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. Dumped minister Ed Husic labels Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles ‘factional assassin’ – https://theconversation.com/dumped-minister-ed-husic-labels-deputy-prime-minister-richard-marles-factional-assassin-255962

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

I previously wrote about the Senate the morning after the election. About half the Senate is elected at each House of Representatives election. Those up for election include six senators out of 12 for every state and all four territory senators. So 40 of the 76 senators were up for election.

State senators elected at this election will start their six-year terms on July 1, while territory senators are tied to the term of the lower house.

At a double dissolution election, all senators are up for election, and this truncates the terms of senators. With Labor and the Greens so dominant at this election, the Coalition may try a double dissolution if they win the next election.

Senators are elected by proportional representation in their jurisdictions with preferences. At a half-Senate election, with six senators in each state up for election, a quota is one-seventh of the vote, or 14.3%. For the territories, a quota is one-third or 33.3%. Half a quota on primary votes (7.1% in a state) is usually enough to give a party a reasonable chance of election.

It’s likely to take at least another three weeks to get final Senate results. All votes need to be data entered into a computer system, then a button is pressed to electronically distribute preferences. It’s only after this button press that we know final outcomes and margins.

At the 2019 election (the last time these state senators were up for election), the Coaliition won 17 of the 36 state senators, Labor 11, the Greens six, One Nation one and Jacqui Lambie one. The right won by 18–17, with one for Lambie.

Queensland’s senators split 4–2 to the right, Tasmania 3–2 to the left with one for Lambie and the other states were tied at 3–3.

The four senators from the ACT and Northern Territory were last up for election in 2022. At that election, left-wing independent David Pocock and Labor won both ACT seats, while the NT went one Labor, one Country Liberal Party (CLP).

At this election, it’s likely Labor will gain a senator in every mainland state at the expense of the Coalition, while the Greens, One Nation, Lambie and Pocock will hold their existing seats.

The most likely outcome of this half-Senate election is 18 Labor out of 40 (up five), 13 Coalition (down five), six Greens (steady), and one each for One Nation, Lambie and Pocock (all steady). This would give the left a 25–14 win with one for Lambie.

In 2022, the 36 state senators (not up for election in 2025) were 14 Coalition, 13 Labor, six Greens and one each for One Nation, the United Australia Party (UAP) and Tammy Tyrrell. During the last term Lidia Thorpe defected from the Greens, Fatima Payman from Labor and Tyrrell from the Jacqui Lambie Network.

If Labor wins 18 seats at this half-Senate election, they will have 30 total senators out of 76, the Coalition 27, the Greens 11, One Nation two, and one each for Pocock, Lambie, the UAP, Thorpe, Payman and Tyrrell. Labor and the Greens alone would have 41 of the 76 senators, above the 39 needed for a majority.

Counting Thorpe and Payman with the left, and the UAP with the right, the left would have an overall 44–30 majority with two others (Lambie and Tyrrell).

National Senate votes and a state by state breakdown

With 74% of enrolled voters counted nationally for the Senate, Labor has 35.5% of Senate votes (up 5.4% since 2022), the Coalition 29.9% (down 4.4%), the Greens 11.7% (down 0.9%), One Nation 5.6% (up 1.3%), Legalise Cannabis 3.4% and Trumpet of Patriots (ToP) 2.6%.

The national House primary votes are currently 34.7% Labor, 32.2% Coalition, 11.8% Greens, 6.3% One Nation and 1.9% ToP. Usually major parties get a lower Senate vote than a House vote owing to more parties who run in the Senate. I believe Labor is benefiting in the Senate from the lack of a viable Teal option.

In very late counting for both the House and Senate, the Greens usually gain at the Coalition’s expense as absent votes that are counted late are poor for the Coalition and good for the Greens. This would provide a further boost to Labor’s chances of gaining five senators.

In New South Wales, with 79% of enrolled counted, Labor has 2.65 quotas, the Coalition 2.08, the Greens 0.78, One Nation 0.42, Legalise Cannabis 0.23 and ToP 0.16. Labor’s third candidate is 0.23 quotas ahead of One Nation and should win.

In Victoria, with 71% of enrolled counted, Labor has 2.44 quotas, the Coalition 2.20, the Greens 0.88, One Nation 0.31, Legalise Cannabis 0.25, ToP 0.17, Family First 0.13 and Victorian Socialists 0.11. One Nation has the best chance to win outside Queensland, but Socialists’ preferences will flow strongly to Labor.

In Queensland, with 71% of enrolled counted, Labor has 2.16 quotas, the Liberal National Party 2.15, the Greens 0.74, One Nation 0.49, Gerard Rennick 0.34, ToP 0.25 and Legalise Cannabis 0.24. Labor will win two, the LNP two, the Greens one and One Nation will probably win the final seat.

In Western Australia, with 68% of enrolled counted, Labor has 2.57 quotas, the Liberals 1.83, the Greens 0.92, One Nation 0.40, Legalise Cannabis 0.28 and the Nationals 0.24. The Liberals will soak up right-wing preferences that would otherwise go to One Nation, so Labor should win the last seat.

In South Australia, with 78% of enrolled counted, Labor has 2.70 quotas, the Liberals 1.94, the Greens 0.89, One Nation 0.37, ToP 0.20 and Legalise Cannabis 0.19. Labor’s third candidate has a 0.33 quota lead over One Nation.

In Tasmania, with 84% of enrolled counted, Labor has 2.49 quotas, the Liberals 1.66, the Greens 1.14, Lambie 0.51, One Nation 0.36 and Legalise Cannabis 0.23. It’s likely Tasmania will be a status quo result: two Labor, two Liberals, one Green and one Lambie. If this occurs, Tasmania would be the only state without a loss for the Coalition.

In the ACT, with 79% of enrolled counted, Pocock has easily retained with 1.19 quotas and Labor is certain to win the second seat with 0.95 quotas. The Liberals won just 17.2% or 0.52 quotas and the Greens 0.23 quotas.

Turnout is relatively low in the NT. With 57% of enrolled counted, Labor has 1.03 quotas, the CLP 1.02, the Greens 0.33 and One Nation 0.24. Labor and the CLP will hold their two seats.

Close seats in the House

Since my last update on Wednesday, the ABC has called Melbourne, Menzies, Fremantle and Bendigo for Labor, taking Labor’s seat total to 91 of 150. The Coalition has won 40 seats, the Greens zero and all Others ten, with nine seats remaining undecided.

In the undecided seats, Labor is the clear favourite in Bullwinkel and Calwell, and currently just behind in Bean and Longman but with a good chance of overturning those deficits. The Liberals are the favourites in Flinders, Monash and Bradfield, the Greens are favourites to hold one seat (Ryan) and Teal Monique Ryan should hold Kooyong.

Read more:
Explore the new House of Representatives

Adrian Beaumont 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. Labor likely to gain 5 senators, cementing the left’s Senate dominance – https://theconversation.com/labor-likely-to-gain-5-senators-cementing-the-lefts-senate-dominance-256207

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

Glyn Davis, Anthony Albanese’s hand-picked Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, will leave the post on June 16.

Albanese paid tribute to Davis for rebuilding the public service.

“One of the key priorities of our government’s first term was rebuilding the capacity of the Australian Public Service,” the PM said in a statement.

“This included rebuilding the confidence of people who worked in the APS, making sure they understood that the government valued their ideas, respected their hard work and recognised their vital role in our democracy.”

Albanese said Davis had “worked calmly and steadily to reassert the purpose of the public service”.

He described Davis as “a man of unique strengths: an intellectual who embraces the practical, an institutionalist who champions reform.

“To his enduring credit, he leaves a great national institution in far better shape than he found it, to the benefit of all Australians.”

Davis, who has written extensively on public policy, had a long career in academia before taking the PM&C post. He was vice-chancellor of the University of Melbourne, where he undertook major reform.

Earlier, he had served the Queensland Labor governments of Wayne Goss and Peter Beattie.

His wife, Margaret Gardner, is former vice-chancellor of Monash University, and presently is Governor of Victoria.

Among the Albanese government’s public service reforms has been stripping back the use of consultants, bringing more work in-house.

The public service became a frontline issue at the election with the opposition promising a big cut to its size.

Davis said on Friday that he planned to take “a break, some time to think and write, some more involvement in the arts, and a moment to reflect on how best to contribute”.

He remains a visiting professor in the Blavatnik School at Oxford and hopes to spend some time there. “And I will get involved in some research projects at Melbourne also.” But he was not leaving one role for another, he added.

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. Glyn Davis to quit as the prime minister’s top public servant – https://theconversation.com/glyn-davis-to-quit-as-the-prime-ministers-top-public-servant-255961

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

This year, for many Australians, it feels like summer never left. The sunny days and warm nights have continued well into autumn. Even now, in May, it’s still unusually warm.

Much of the southern half of the continent is experiencing both unseasonable warmth and dry conditions. This is linked to persistent high atmospheric pressure (called “blocking”) to the south and southeast of Australia.

While temperatures will fall across southern Australia as we approach the winter solstice, early indications are that this winter will be a warm one. Rainfall predictions are less certain.

The extra warmth we’ve experienced raises obvious questions about the influence of human-caused climate change. The warming signal is clear and it’s a sign of things to come.

A warm and dry autumn for many

March and April brought unseasonal heat to much of Australia.

March was widely hot, with temperatures several degrees above normal across much of the country. But April’s heat was largely restricted to the southeast.

Victoria had its warmest April on record, and parts of the state experienced temperatures more than 3°C above normal across both March and April.

Temperatures normally fall quite quickly over the southeast of Australia during April and May as the days shorten and the continent’s interior cools. But this year, southern Australia was unusually warm at the start of May. Some locations experienced days with maximum temperatures more than 10°C above normal for the time of year.

Records were broken in Hobart and parts of Melbourne, which had their warmest May nights since observations began.

While Queensland and the New South Wales coast have had very wet spells, including downpours from Tropical Cyclone Alfred at the start of March, other parts of Australia have been quite dry.

The area between Adelaide and Melbourne has been exceptionally dry. A drought is unfolding in the region after a severe lack of rainfall, with deficits stretching back over the past year or so. Western Tasmania is also suffering from a severe lack of rainfall since the start of autumn, although welcome rain fell in the past week.

And it’s not just on land that unusual heat has been observed. The seas around Australia have been warmer than normal, causing severe coral bleaching to the west and east of the continent, harmful algal blooms and other ecosystem disruptions.

Blocking highs largely to blame

A high pressure system has dominated over the south and southeast of Australia over the past few months.

High pressure in the Tasman Sea can sometimes get stuck there for a few days. This leads to what’s known as “blocking”, when the usual passage of weather systems moving from west to east is obstructed. This can lock in weather patterns for several days or even a week.

Repeated blocking occurred this autumn. As winds move anticlockwise around high pressure systems in the Southern Hemisphere, blocking highs in the Tasman Sea can bring moist, onshore winds to the New South Wales and Queensland coasts, increasing rainfall. But such high pressure systems also bring drier conditions for the interior of the southeast and much of Victoria and South Australia.

Often, these high pressure systems also bring northerly winds to Victoria, and this can cause warmer conditions across much of the state.

High pressure systems also tend to bring more clear and sunny conditions, which increases daytime temperatures in particular. Air in high pressure systems moves down towards the surface and this process causes warming, too.

Australia sits between the Pacific and Indian Oceans and is subject to their variability, so we often look there to help explain what’s happening with Australia’s climate. In autumn though, our climate influences, such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Indian Ocean Dipole, are less active and have weaker relationships with Australian climate than at other times of year. Neither of these climate influences is in a strong phase at the moment.

A warm winter on the cards

One big question is how long the heat will last. In parts of southeast Australia, including Melbourne, average temperatures drop quickly at this time of year as we approach the winter solstice.

However, the seasonal outlook from the Bureau of Meteorology points to a high likelihood of a relatively warm winter.

Australians rarely escape having a winter without any significant cold spells, but the long-range forecast suggests we should anticipate above-normal temperatures on average. Both daytime maximum temperatures and nighttime minimum temperatures are expected to be above average generally this winter.

Global warming is here

The elephant in the room is climate change. Human-caused climate change is increasing autumn temperatures and the frequency of late season heat events. As greenhouse gas emissions continue at a record pace, expect continued warming and a greater chance of autumn heatwaves in future.

The effect of climate change on rainfall is less clear though. For the vast majority of Australia, there is high uncertainty as to whether autumn will become wetter or drier as the world warms.

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

– ref. It’s almost winter. Why is Australia still so hot? – https://theconversation.com/its-almost-winter-why-is-australia-still-so-hot-256071