Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Bridges, Senior Lecturer in Public Relations and Director of Academic Program – Communication, Creative Industries, Screen Media, Western Sydney University

For new parents struggling with challenges such as breastfeeding and sleep deprivation, social media can be a great place to turn for advice. Digital platforms such as Facebook and Reddit host a range of groups that offer peer support and information.

Research shows connecting with other new parents can also foster a sense of community.

But there is growing concern businesses and influencers may also be using groups to push certain products and services.

In recent media reports, new parents have described feeling misled, after discovering the parent support group they thought was founded by a local mum was run by a media company owner and monetised through advertising.

So how can you identify when commercial interests are involved?

Here’s what to look out for to get the best from online parenting groups.

How can social media groups help?

In Australia, closed Facebook groups are a popular choice for parents accessing free peer support and information online. Closed groups are not public – they are run by administrators and moderators who can approve requests from other users for membership.

These groups are often started by not-for-profit organisations or parents themselves and have a number of benefits. Parents can connect with others, share experiences, seek advice and learn about different parenting approaches.

This can be particularly useful for people in remote and regional areas who may find it harder to access in-person support, and was essential during COVID lockdowns.

My research with colleagues has revealed the important role these groups can play.

In several studies we have looked at how parents use closed Facebook groups facilitated by the Australian Breastfeeding Association.

Over four weeks, we tracked the frequency and type of posts, the number and nature of the comments, and how parents felt about the support they received in these groups.

We found they provided information and emotional support group members could trust because they were facilitated by trained peer breastfeeding counsellors and other mothers.

This is significant because we know lack of breastfeeding support is often cited by mothers as one of the key reasons for premature weaning.

The group administrators played an important role responding to queries and making sure discussions stuck to the association’s code of ethics.

This code encourages mutual respect, sharing evidence-based information, and co-operation with health professionals. It also discourages the promotion of products and services.

Our research has shown the value of accessing trusted information and sharing experiences in a supportive community, where human connection is centred rather than products.

What’s the problem with monetising groups?

When access to parenting support and information is limited or biased, it can have serious consequences for those already facing challenges with parenting.

Let’s imagine an example. A group member is posting about birth trauma. But in responding, other members aren’t allowed to mention local service providers – for example, counselling – because they are not paid sponsors of the group.

This means advice is skewed towards organisations that can afford to pay for sponsorship and be mentioned.

As a result, new parents might not find out about the range of not-for-profit support groups that can help them with important challenges like breastfeeding and postpartum mental health.

This deceptive practice can erode trust within online communities. Users may perceive the platform as prioritising profit over the wellbeing of its members, which can reduce engagement and the overall quality of the group.

It may also leave new parents – who are particularly vulnerable to unethical marketing – open to exploitation.

What can we do?

Protecting parents from commercialised social media groups requires a multifaceted approach.

First, regulation is crucial, such as ensuring that social media groups are transparent about any commercial interests, and commercial entities are marketing their products ethically.

Second, we need public awareness campaigns to educate parents about the potential biases and risks associated with commercialised platforms. This includes fostering media literacy skills to critically evaluate information and identify reliable sources.

Finally, collaboration between policymakers, researchers, industry representatives, and parent advocacy groups is vital to develop effective solutions that address these challenges.

What should I look out for?

To protect yourself from misinformation in online parenting groups, it’s crucial to be critical of information sources. It’s a good idea to:

• watch out for warning signs like excessive product promotion, lack of transparency about group affiliations, and a primary focus on selling. For example, when joining a closed Facebook group, read the page’s “about” section. If there is mention of advertising or sponsorship, this is a red flag

• look at who the “admins” are. If listed admins include business names that can also be a cause for concern

• check out the list of “members”. If the group accepts “pages” (which are often run by businesses) in addition to individual people, this is also a sign that commercial interests are at play.

• look for groups focused on sharing experiences, offering support, and building authentic relationships

• observe how members interact and how heavily the groups are moderated and censored, and seek out groups with diverse perspectives

• when you join the group, carefully consider the group rules that you are agreeing to and what they say about mentioning support services, and the promotion of commercial products. Will this mean that you may be censored or receive censored information?

Always cross-reference information with reputable sources like government organisations (such as the Raising Children Network or Australian Breastfeeding Association) and compare information from multiple sources to get a balanced perspective.

Finally, trust your instincts. If a group feels “off” or overly promotional, don’t hesitate to leave.

Nicole Bridges is a volunteer breastfeeding counsellor and educator with the Australian Breastfeeding Association.

– ref. Social media groups can offer support to new parents. Here’s how to tell if there’s marketing involved – https://theconversation.com/social-media-groups-can-offer-support-to-new-parents-heres-how-to-tell-if-theres-marketing-involved-247212

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scott French, Senior Lecturer in Economics, UNSW Sydney

US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have stated an exemption for Australia from Trump’s executive order placing 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminium imported into the US is “under consideration”. But prospects remain uncertain.

Albanese would do well to secure an exemption using similar arguments as then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull did in 2018.

If Australia cannot obtain a carve-out from the tariffs, the main group affected will be the Australian producers of steel and aluminium. But the size of the hit they will take is difficult to predict.

Regardless of whether Australia gets an exemption, the world economy – and Australians – will be affected by Trump’s latest round of tariffs.

Producers will be hit

If ultimately imposed by the US, these tariffs will make steel and aluminium produced in Australia more expensive for US manufacturers relative to domestically produced alternatives. This will certainly result in reduced demand for the Australian products.

However, three factors will help limit the effects:

1. The price of metals produced in the US will rise

It will take time to ramp up US production to fill the gap of reduced imports, and the extra production will likely come from less efficient domestic producers. This means that US manufacturers will continue to buy imported metals, despite the higher prices.

2. The US is not a huge market for Australian steel and aluminium

Australia produced A$113 billion of primary and fabricated metal in the 2022-23 financial year, according to the ABS.

By comparison, less than $1 billion of steel and aluminium was exported to the US in 2023, according to data from UN Comtrade, consisting of about $500 million of aluminium and less then $400 million of steel. Exports to the US account for about 10% of Australia’s total exports of these metals.

3. Major markets

If major markets such as China and the European Union enact retaliatory tariffs on US metals, this could make Australian metals more competitive in these markets.

Some stand to benefit

While workers in Australian steel and aluminium plants will be watching the news with trepidation, some of Australia’s biggest manufacturing companies may be less concerned.

For example, BlueScope Steel has significant US steel operations, and saw its share price increase on news of the tariffs.

US-based Alcoa, which owns alumina refineries in Western Australia and an aluminium smelter in Victoria, will also expect to see its US operations benefit.

And Rio Tinto will be most concerned about its substantial Canadian operations. Its Canadian hub is responsible for close to half of its global aluminium production.

Demand for iron ore could fall

The US tariffs will also have wider ranging effects on the Australian economy, regardless of whether Australia’s products are directly targeted.

While aluminium is Australia’s top manufacturing export, it still makes up only about 1% of total exports, and steel makes up less than half that.

Iron ore, by contrast, makes up more than 20% of Australia’s exports, with aluminium ores making up an additional 1.5%.

This means the effect of the tariffs on demand for the raw materials to make steel and aluminium may have the largest detrimental effect on the Australian economy.

Because the tariffs will make steel and aluminium more expensive to US manufacturers, they will seek to reduce their use of them. This means global demand for the metals, and the ores used to produce them, will decline.

Investors appear to be betting on this, with shares of Australian miners like Rio Tinto and BHP falling since Trump announced the tariffs.

Imported goods will become more expensive

Many of the things Australians buy are likely to get more expensive.

All US products that use steel and aluminium at any stage of the production process will also become more expensive. Tariffs will raise the cost of steel and aluminium for US manufacturers, both directly and by reducing overall productivity in the US.

About 11% of Australia’s imports come from the US. And about half of this consists of machinery, vehicles, aircraft, and medical instruments, which typically contain steel and aluminium. Further, these goods are used by manufacturers around the world to produce and transport many of the other things Australians buy.

Scott French 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. Whether we carve out an exemption or not, Trump’s latest tariffs will still hit Australia – https://theconversation.com/whether-we-carve-out-an-exemption-or-not-trumps-latest-tariffs-will-still-hit-australia-249493

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Strangio, Emeritus Professor of Politics, Monash University

Is history repeating itself in Labor’s fortress state of Victoria?

At the 1990 federal election, Bob Hawke’s Labor government had a near-death experience when it lost nine seats in Victoria. A furious Hawke laid the blame squarely at the feet of John Cain’s state Labor government, which was listing badly in its third term due especially to a series of financial calamities.

Less than six months later, a broken Cain, one of Victoria’s great reformist premiers, resigned. His successor was Joan Kirner, the state’s first woman leader. Despite battling gamely, she was unable to avert a landslide Labor defeat in 1992.

Wind forward to the present and there are some eerily similar dynamics. Anthony Albanese’s government will shortly head to the polls at a time when Jacinta Allan’s ageing Labor administration is in deep political strife in a state groaning under mountainous public debt.

Labor decline

Saturday’s twin byelection results highlight state Labor’s parlous position. In the inner urban seat of Prahran, the ALP was so accepting of its lack of competitiveness that it didn’t field a candidate.

The Liberal Party achieved a modest primary vote swing of 4.8%, which was enough to snatch the decade-long held Greens seat.

In the outer western suburban seat of Werribee, Labor’s primary vote collapsed by more than 16%. But the Liberal Party only increased its first vote by a relatively paltry 3.7%. To put that in perspective, the Victorian Socialists enjoyed an equivalent lift in support.

Inevitably, much ink is being spilt trying to divine what these byelection results portend for the Albanese government. In short, whether the unpopularity of the Allan government threatens to unseat federal Labor and open the door to a Peter Dutton prime ministership.

State stronghold

Victoria has been a citadel for the ALP, both state and federal, for decades. John Howard’s dubbing of the state as the “Massachusetts of Australia” has become almost cliched so often it is invoked by journalists as a shorthand way of describing Victoria’s predisposition for left-of-centre voting behaviour. It is a label first ascribed to Victoria in the 19th century showing how long it has been known for its progressive political temperament. It is a trait coiled in the state’s political DNA.

Following the 2022 federal election, the Coalition held only 11 out of 39 seats in Victoria. The Liberals were nearly banished entirely from metropolitan Melbourne, where they now hold just two electorates, Deakin and Menzies (the fringe outer suburban seats of Casey and La Trobe are classified by the AEC as rural and provincial respectively).

To compound matters, boundary redistributions have since wiped out the Liberals’ margin in Deakin and turned Menzies into a notional Labor seat. All of this means that the federal Coalition must perform substantially better in Victoria, and specifically Melbourne, if its to have a viable path to power.

State Labor’s political doldrums have offered some hope to Dutton, who is targeting four seats in Victoria, and at a stretch, five: Aston, Chisholm, Goldstein (held by the Teal, Zoe Daniel), McEwen and Dunkley. Notably, only three of those seats – Aston, McEwen and Dunkley – are outer suburban. And the latter is considered the least likely to fall.

Dutton’s pitch to the suburbs

Nonetheless, the outer suburbs are a key to Dutton’s election strategy. It’s where he is seeking a major realignment of Australia’s electoral politics by pillaging traditional Labor working class and lower middle class voters.

This strategy isn’t unprecedented. The so-called “battler” vote was a component, albeit exaggerated, of John Howard’s formula for electoral success as he reoriented the Liberal Party towards conservative populism. Dutton is aggressively doubling down on that pivot.

The Werribee result, however, can hardly be construed as a harbinger of Liberals storming the ramparts of the outer suburbs. The party’s primary vote in the byelection was only 29%, indicating voters in such areas, which are characterised by breakneck growth and a tsunami of demographic change, are still wary of the local Liberals.

That scepticism is understandable. For years now, the Victorian Liberal party has been deeply dysfunctional. It has been consumed by ideological and personal feuds, out of sync with the state’s progressive attitudes, low on talent, and seemingly habituated to reposing in opposition rather than presenting as a serious alternative government.

But, even allowing for such Victorian specific factors (and it is far from the only under-performing Liberal division across the country – think of South Australia and Western Australia), the Werribee result suggests Dutton’s outer suburban focus will not easily yield sizeable dividends, and certainly not in one electoral cycle. It will be a slow burn at best.

In the meantime, if the Liberals are to win government, they will need to make up ground in inner and middle metropolitan electorates, including Teal-held seats, to which Dutton is far less attuned.

Major party disenchantment

What Saturday’s byelections mostly underscored is the dissatisfaction with all of the established parties, including the Greens, whose vote flat-lined in both Prahran and Werribee.

The disenchantment was expressed in the approximate one third of votes that went to a melange of other parties or independent candidates. This is consistent with the trend that so dramatically materialised at the 2022 federal election when a fractious public voted along increasingly fragmented lines.

Rather than any party enjoying a grand sweep of the outer suburbs or elsewhere, that is what we can expect at the impending federal election: volatility and unpredictability which is confirmed as the new normal.

In the past, Paul Strangio received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Byelections show Labor is in trouble in Victoria – but how much will Peter Dutton benefit? – https://theconversation.com/byelections-show-labor-is-in-trouble-in-victoria-but-how-much-will-peter-dutton-benefit-249479

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Nissen, HERA Program Director – Health Workforce Optimisation Centre for the Business & Economics of Health, The University of Queensland

If you’ve tried to get an appointment to see a GP or specialist recently, you will likely have felt the impact of Australia’s doctor shortages.

To alleviate workforce shortages, the Queensland government is considering introducing health workers called physician assistants more widely to the state’s health system.

But the medical body representing physicians, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, has warned thorough consultation with medical experts is needed first.

So what exactly are physician assistants? And are they the solution to our workforce issues we’ve been looking for? Let’s look at what the evidence says – and the lessons from abroad.

What is a physician assistant?

Physician assistants, also known as physician associates, are trained health professionals who work under the supervision of a doctor. They undertake a variety of tasks including:

• examining patients
• ordering and interpreting blood tests
• assisting in surgery
• prescribing medicines.

In general practice, physician assistants may also provide preventative health care such as giving vaccinations and providing health advice.

Physician assistants commonly complete postgraduate-level university education and a hands-on training program. They may also need to have completed a health-based undergraduate degree.

In most countries, physician assistants work under a “delegation” model. This means the treating doctor and physician assistant together determine the tasks the physician assistant can undertake, depending on their competence. As their skills and knowledge increase, the level of supervision changes accordingly.

When were they first used?

Similar roles have been used throughout history, including in the military. As early as the 1800s, trained assistants known as feldshers (or feldschers) provided basic medical care during times of war, for example in Russia, Bulgaria and Poland.

The contemporary physician assistant role evolved in the 1960s in the United States. It was initially designed to use the skills of medically trained military servicemen.

Since then, it has become an accepted and well established part of the health care team in the US, where the medical profession supports the physician assistant role and contributes to its regulation.

There are currently more than 178,000 physician assistants practising in the US, across a wide range of settings. Around one-quarter work in family/general medicine and one-fifth in rural and medically under-served areas.

Physician assistants can be found in many countries, including Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands.

Australia previously trialled physician assistant in two states, Queensland and South Australia. Like other countries, the role was found to be effective and acceptable.

What does the research say about their use?

Most research about physician assistants originates from the US. Studies spanning several decades show physician assistants provide safe and appropriate care. They can competently undertake consultations, perform complex procedures, provide preventative health care, treat non-complex patients in the emergency department and provide a wide range of services in rural areas.

Most studies have reported patient satisfaction with the physician assistant role.

Research has found it’s cost-effective to use physician assistants, including for complex patients.

Physician assistants can improve the continuity of patient care in hospitals, as they remain with their supervising doctor rather than moving between hospital areas as trainee doctors do. This enables them to maintain consistent contact with patients, their families and other members of the health-care team.

Using physician assistants in emergency departments enables doctors to review more complex patients.

In surgery, physician assistants can reduce the workload on resident doctors. They can prepare patients for surgery, review them afterwards and perform some surgical procedures. They can also reduce the time patients stay in hospital.

Physician assistants can also provide care in rural and remote areas and have worked with Aboriginal health workers in remote areas of Australia.

What do Australian policymakers need to consider?

Like many other countries, the Australian health workforce is under pressure. Recent reviews have highlighted the need to examine how the health system and workforce can more effectively meet the needs of the community. This includes making better use of all current health professions by enabling them to perform the tasks they have been trained to do.

Health professionals must ensure their care keeps patients safe and aligns with public expectations. This relies on appropriate education and training, funding and payment policies, governance and regulation. Effective regulation ensures health professionals are held accountable for their practice, according to defined professional practice expectations.

Despite physician assistants being trialled in Queensland and SA, the role did not gain the support of the medical profession. As a result, only a small number of physician assistants are currently practising. And Australia no longer provides education programs for physician assistants.

Several factors affected the acceptance of the physician assistant role.

Their skills and competence weren’t widely understood or recognised. This meant their scope of practice was poorly defined, which may have been confusing for both patients and health professionals.

The profession was also unable to access Medicare rebates or Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme subsidies for patient consultations or scripts. This limited their full involvement in some health services such as general practice.

What could we do better?

Australia needs to learn from the available evidence when considering a possible role for physician assistants.

In the US and Canada, for example, a close relationship between the medical and physician assistant professions has provided guidance and support for the role, and ensured physician assistants are accountable for their practice, through the development of “expected standards” of practice.

As demand for health services increases, it makes sense to explore the addition of physician assistants to Australia’s health-care workforce, if safety and quality can be assured, and health care teams function optimally.

Lisa Nissen receives funding from the Commonwealth Department and Aging and jurisdictional health departments for research related to Health Workforce Optimization and team based care.

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

– ref. What are physician assistants? Can they fix the doctor shortage? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-physician-assistants-can-they-fix-the-doctor-shortage-247560

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Orr, Veterinarian, Southern Cross University

Late last year, rumours swirled online that HomeSafeID, a private Australian pet microchip registry, had stopped operating.

On Feburary 5 2025, a notice appeared on the HomeSafeID website, ostensibly from the site’s administrator. It states the website “is likely to go offline” soon due to unpaid bills. This means the database of information stored on HomeSafeID would also go offline.

There has been no official word from HomeSafeID as to the status of the company. HomeSafeID did not respond when The Conversation reached out for comment.

According to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), the company is still registered and no insolvency notice has been published. However, it’s possible HomeSafeID has stopped operating or will do so in the near future.

If this happens, any pet with a HomeSafeID registered microchip would no longer have searchable microchip details. If these pets become lost, vets and shelters will have no way of finding or verifying their owner.

The situation is a symptom of a bigger problem with pet microchip registries in Australia – a lack of national oversight.

Why should you microchip your pet?

If your pet goes missing, their microchip is key to you being reunited. Vets and shelters can scan a stray animal’s microchip, search one of the seven microchip registries in Australia, find the pet owner’s details and contact them. Pet microchips significantly increase the likelihood lost pets will be reclaimed by their owners.

In fact, microchipping pets is a legal requirement in all states and territories of Australia except the Northern Territory, although it is required in the City of Darwin. In New South Wales, fines for failing to microchip your pet range from A$180 to $880.

If HomeSafeID does go offline, many pets will have microchips that don’t connect to a database any more, making them essentially useless.

It’s difficult to estimate the scale of the problem, but it could affect hundreds of thousands of pets, including ones adopted from RSPCA Queensland.

According to ASIC, RSPCA Queensland was a part-owner of HomeSafeID until 2020. A spokesperson for the charity told The Conversation it has no current partnership with HomeSafeID, and “don’t know the extent of how many animals are affected”. Yesterday, RSPCA Queensland issued advice for pet owners to check their registration details.

Where are microchip details stored?

There are currently seven registries in Australia. Five are privately owned, including HomeSafeID, and two are owned by state governments, in NSW and South Australia. Pets microchipped in those states are meant to be registered with the state registry.

The five private registries jointly fund a website called Pet Address, which allows you to search the five private databases to find where your pet’s details are stored.

However, Pet Address doesn’t cover the state registries – these have to be searched separately. Only NSW vets and “authorised identifiers” (such as shelters) can access the pet owner details stored in the NSW registry.

If a pet is moved to another state but their owner doesn’t update the registry, their microchip won’t be readable in the new location by non-NSW vets and shelters.

There are currently no rules, regulations or even guidelines around how private pet microchip registries should operate in Australia. If a microchip database were to cease operating, there is no safety net to ensure information is automatically moved to another database.

What can I do to make sure my pet’s microchip is up to date?

Given current uncertainty around the HomeSafeID registry, pet owners across Australia should check their pets’ microchip numbers and find out which database they’re registered in.

If you don’t already know your pet’s microchip number, vets and shelters can use a microchip scanner to find that number for you. Then, you can run it through Pet Address or the SA and NSW registries where relevant, to find out which database the number is registered on.

If your pet’s microchip is currently with HomeSafeID, it might be prudent to move your pet’s details to another database. You can do this by contacting one of the other microchip registries and applying to register with their database (this may involve a small fee).

Australia needs national coordination on pet microchipping

Given it’s mandatory to microchip dogs and cats, it might seem strange there are no regulations or guidelines around how microchip registries should operate. However, this is a symptom of a much bigger issue.

There is almost no national leadership or collaboration on companion animal issues in Australia. Pets are firmly the domain of state governments, with the federal government only really involved in the export and import of companion animals.

There are, however, avenues for national coordination. The renewal of the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy is one, and the national Animal Health Committee is another.

Regardless of who takes responsibility, it’s clear a round table on pet microchipping is urgently required to prevent hundreds of thousands of pets walking around with microchips that don’t work anymore.

Otherwise, lost pets may find themselves at shelters and pounds unnecessarily, and animals that might have otherwise been returned home could end up being adopted, or worse, euthanised.

Bronwyn Orr is a Director of the Walk In Clinic For Animals and Veterinary Support Group.

– ref. Thousands of Australian pets may soon have ‘useless’ microchips. It’s a symptom of a bigger problem – https://theconversation.com/thousands-of-australian-pets-may-soon-have-useless-microchips-its-a-symptom-of-a-bigger-problem-249492

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

US President Donald Trump has agreed to “consider” exempting Australia from the 25% tariff he has imposed on imports of steel and aluminium to the US.

Trump gave the undertaking during a wide-ranging 40-minute conversation with Anthony Albanese early Tuesday morning (Australian time). The prime minister, speaking to a news conference soon afterwards, stressed that Trump had agreed on the precise words to be used to describe the outcome.  

“I presented Australia’s case for an exemption and we agreed on wording to say publicly, which is that the US president agreed that an exemption was under consideration in the interests of both of our countries.”

Albanese gave no indication of when he expects a decision.

Meanwhile, Trump has signed the executive orders for the 25% tariffs on steel and aluminium without exemptions.

The Australian government might be able to take heart from Trump’s later comments on the discussion.

The president described Albanese as a “very fine man”.

“We have a surplus with Australia, one of the few, and the reason is they buy a lot of airplanes. They’re rather far away and they need lots of airplanes. We actually have a surplus. It’s one of the only countries which we do. I told him that that’s something that we’ll give great consideration to,” he told the media.

Pressed on whether he was confident of an exemption, Albanese would not speculate beyond the agreed words. “The words that I’ve used are the words that I’ll stick to,” he said.

“It’s appropriate when you’re dealing with the president of the United States to not speak on his behalf. And those are the words that were agreed.”

“We’ll continue to engage diplomatically.” Albanese said, “Australia will always stand up for Australia’s interests […] We’ll continue to put the case.”

The prime minister described the call as “constructive and warm” and posted on social media that it was a “great conversation”.

Outlining Australia’s argument for an exemption Albanese said the US had a trade surplus with Australia of about two to one, and steel supplier BlueScope had extensive production in the US.

“When you look at the imports of these products into the US, it’s about 1% of imports of steel, 2% of aluminium,” he told his news conference.

“Our steel is an important input to US manufacturing. BlueScope is the US’s fifth largest steelmaker. They’ve invested $5 billion in the US across a range of states. I think there’s more than 30 different investments there.

“Of course the major export is Colorbond there, for roofs in California on the west coast. And it plays an important role.

“Aluminium is a critical input for manufacturing in the United States and our steel and aluminium are both key inputs for the US-Australian defence industries. in both of our countries.”

Albanese said that in the conversation, “We spoke about a range of other things as well, including the fact that Jordan Mailata is a Super Bowl champion and I did point out that he was a South Sydney junior”.

The call, which was in train before the tariff announcement, also canvassed critical minerals and AUKUS.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton again criticised Albanese over his past comments about Trump. But the opposition leader told a news conference: “What’s important now is the Trump administration hears there is a bipartisan position in Australia to stand up for our national interest and that national interest is best served by a removal of the tariff as it applies to Australia.”

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. Trump agrees to consider Australian exemption from tariffs, describing Albanese as ‘very fine man’ – https://theconversation.com/trump-agrees-to-consider-australian-exemption-from-tariffs-describing-albanese-as-very-fine-man-248886

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Ogden, Associate Professor in Global Studies, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Donald Trump is moving rapidly to change the contours of contemporary international affairs, with the old US-dominated world order breaking down into a multipolar one with many centres of power.

The shift already includes the US leaving the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Accords, questioning the value of the United Nations, and radical cuts to the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Such a new geopolitical age also involves an assertion of raw power, with Trump using the threat of tariffs to assert global authority and negotiating positions.

While the US is not significantly less powerful, this new era may see it wield that power in more openly self-interested and isolationist ways. As new US Secretary of State Marco Rubio put it in January, “the post-war global order is not just obsolete – it is now a weapon being used against us”.

With global democracy in retreat, the emerging international order looks to be moving in an authoritarian direction. As it does, the position of New Zealand’s vibrant democracy will come under mounting pressure.

But world orders have come and gone for millennia, reflecting the ebb and flow of global economic, political and military power. Looking back to previous eras, and how countries and cultures responded to shifting geopolitical realities, can help us understand what is happening more clearly.

An evolving world order

Previous orders have often focused on specific centres – or “poles” – of power. These include the Concert of Europe from 1814 to 1914, the bipolar world of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, and the unipolar world of American dominance after the end of the Cold War and since the September 11 attacks in 2001.

Periods of single-power dominance (or hegemony) are referred to as a “pax”, from the Latin for “peace”. We have seen the Pax Romana of the Roman Empire (27 BCE to 180 AD), multiple Pax Sinicas around China (most recently the Qing Dynasty 1644 to 1912), Pax Mongolica (the Mongol Empire from 1271 to 1368) and Pax Britannica (the British Empire from 1815 to 1924).

It is the Pax Americana of the US, from 1945 to the present, that Trump seems bent on dismantling. We now live in an international order that is visibly in flux. With autocracy on the rise and the US at is vanguard, a “Pax Autocratica” is emerging.

This is accentuated by the rapid rise of Asia as the main sphere of economic and military growth, particularly China and India. The world’s two most populous countries had the world’s largest and third largest economies respectively in 2023, and the second and fourth highest levels of military spending.

The simultaneous rise of multiple power centres was already challenging the Pax Americana. Now, a new international order appears to be a certainty, with Trump openly adapting to multipolarity. Several major powers now compete for global influence, rather than any one country dominating.

China’s preference for a multipolar international order is shared by India and Russia. Without one dominant entity, it will be the political and social basis of this order, as determined by its major actors, that matters most – not who leads it.

Pax Democratica

The current (now waning) international order has been underpinned by specific social, political and economic values stemming from the national identity and historical experience of the US.

According to US political expert G. John Ikenberry, former president Woodrow Wilson’s agenda for peace after the first world war sought to “reflect distinctive American ideas and ideals”.

Woodrow imagined an order based on collective security and shared sovereignty, liberal principles of democracy and universal human rights, free trade and international law.

As its dominance and military strength increased in the 20th century, the US also provided security to other countries. Such power enabled Washington to create open global trade markets, as well as build core global institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, United Nations and NATO.

For Ikenberry, this Pax Americana (we might call it a Pax Democratica) rested on consent to the US’s “provision of security, wealth creation, and social advancement”. This was aided by the its more than 800 military bases in over 80 countries.

The democratic deficit

Trump undercuts the central tenets of this liberal world order and accelerates a slide towards authoritarianism. Like Russia, India and China, the US is also actively constraining human rights, attacking minorities and weakening its electoral system.

This democratic retreat leaves a country such as New Zealand in a global minority. If Trump targets the region or country with economic tariffs, that precariousness might increase.

On the other hand, previous world orders have not been truly hegemonic. Pax Britannica did not encompass the entire world. Nor did Pax Americana, which didn’t include China, India, the former Soviet bloc, much of the Islamic world and many developing countries.

This suggests pockets of democracy can survive within a Pax Autocratica, especially in a multipolar world which is more tolerant of political independence.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2023 Democracy Index ranked New Zealand, the Nordic countries, Switzerland, Iceland and Ireland highest because their citizens

choose their political leaders in free and fair elections, enjoy civil liberties, prefer democracy over other political systems, can and do participate in politics, and have a functioning government that acts on their behalf.

It is these countries that can be at the vanguard of democratic resilience.

Chris Ogden is a Senior Research Fellow with The Foreign Policy Centre, London.

– ref. As Trump abandons the old world order, NZ must find its place in a new ‘Pax Autocratica’ – https://theconversation.com/as-trump-abandons-the-old-world-order-nz-must-find-its-place-in-a-new-pax-autocratica-249358

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ronnie Das, Associate Professor in Data Analytics, The University of Western Australia

In the recent Border-Gavaskar series against India, Steve Smith agonisingly missed out reaching 10,000 Test runs in front of his home crowd at the Sydney Cricket Ground, falling short by just one run.

However he entered the “10K club” in style after hitting his 35th century against Sri Lanka in the series won by Australia, 2-0.

Smith is now the 15th batsman to join the exclusive club and the fourth Australian to do so, after Allan Border, Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting.

The illustrious group of players who have reached 10,000 is headed by Indian legend Sachin Tendulkar (15,921 runs) with Ponting (13,378) second and South African Jacques Kallis (13,289) third.

Among this group, Tendulkar, the West Indies’ Brian Lara and Sri Lanka’s Kumar Sangakkara were fastest to 10,000 in terms of innings batted (195), just ahead of Ponting (196). Smith was fifth fastest (205 innings).

But where does Smith sit among this group of truly elite batsmen? How does he compare to his fellow Australians? And can he eventually reach the pinnacle and overtake Tendulkar at the top of the mountain?

The challenges of modern cricket

Modern day cricket is physically, emotionally and psychologically demanding.

The physical demands, coupled with fixture congestion, make it tough on athletes’ bodies. Research also suggests psychological pressures have a heightened impact on players’ thinking, feeling and overall performances.

The evolution of lucrative Twenty20 games has also meant cricketers often play in these shorter-format leagues instead of resting between Test series.

Smith is one of many elite cricketers still playing all three formats of the sport.

While some batsmen continue to score well into their late 30s, more often than not performance declines in these twilight years of a batter’s career.

Smith turns 36 in June.

Judging the best

The 10,000 run club is the hallmark of batting excellence in Test cricket.

It is regarded as the pinnacle of a batsman’s career achievement.

Together (at the time of writing) the players in the 10K club have scored 181,947 runs, with 541 centuries and 818 half centuries.

The highest individual score belongs to Lara, who scored 400 (not out) against England in 2004.

Lara also maintained a very high strike rate (60.51) throughout his career.

A strike rate is a batsman’s run scoring efficiency per 100 balls – the higher the strike rate, the faster the batter scores. A higher strike rate puts more pressure on opposition bowlers and when a batter scores quickly, it allows more time for their team’s bowlers to take the 20 wickets required for a Test victory.

Only Ponting (a strike rate of 58.72 per 100 balls) closely matches Lara’s calibre, but England’s Joe Root (57.47) is enjoying a late-career renaissance and is closing the gap.

Compare that to the Border and Sunil Gavaskar era (late 1970s–early 1990s) when runs were not as easy to come by – these two ended their career with low (41.09 and 43.35 respectively) strike rates.

What about Smith?

In his second match, his strike rate was an exceptionally high 75.75 but, since then it has dipped to 53.58 as Smith has become a more balanced batsman.

Another way to judge a batter’s impact is their centuries per innings rate.

Smith has the highest century per innings rate (17.48%) among the 10K club.
He recently scored his 36th century, matching his modern-day peer, Root. But Root has played 72 additional innings.

In terms of overall centuries, Tendulkar leads the way having scored a staggering 51 centuries during his Test career (six more than Kallis, in second). However, Tendulkar did it over a mammoth 329 innings – 38 more than anyone else on the list.

How the Australians compare

Across generations, the four Australians have shown different styles of play in achieving the landmark.

Data shows Border was the most consistent player among them, with his average remaining relatively steady through his career, while Waugh improved his performance after a lacklustre start to his career.

Smith hit his peak at around his 75th match and Ponting around his 115th match, before their run scoring dropped.

In terms of batting positions, data suggests Smith has scored most of his runs coming in at number four. Border was most dominant coming in at four and five.

Ponting dominated as a number three batsman, while Waugh was very consistent at number five.

How far can Smith go?

Considering Smith’s age (35), current form and the physical demands of modern cricket, our findings suggest it will take him at least another three to four years to surpass Ponting.

That may be achievable but Smith’s year-long ban after the 2018 “sandpapergate saga” makes reaching Tendulkar’s mark extremely unlikely.

However, there is a chance Smith ends up with the best average in the club.

His batting average currently sits at 56.74, with only Sangakkara (57.4) higher.

Considering his current form, with four centuries in his past five Test matches, there’s every chance this modern-day great retires atop the tree in that metric at least.

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. Is Steve Smith set to become the best? What data says about Test cricket’s elite 10,000+ run club – https://theconversation.com/is-steve-smith-set-to-become-the-best-what-data-says-about-test-crickets-elite-10-000-run-club-248891

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zena Assaad, Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, Australian National University

Last week, Google quietly abandoned a long-standing commitment to not use artificial intelligence (AI) technology in weapons or surveillance. In an update to its AI principles, which were first published in 2018, the tech giant removed statements promising not to pursue:

• technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm
• weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people
• technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms
• technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.

The update came after United States President Donald Trump revoked former President Joe Biden’s executive order aimed at promoting safe, secure and trustworthy development and use of AI.

The Google decision follows a recent trend of big tech entering the national security arena and accommodating more military applications of AI. So why is this happening now? And what will be the impact of more military use of AI?

The growing trend of militarised AI

In September, senior officials from the Biden government met with bosses of leading AI companies, such as OpenAI, to discuss AI development. The government then announced a taskforce to coordinate the development of data centres, while weighing economic, national security and environmental goals.

The following month, the Biden government published a memo that in part dealt with “harnessing AI to fulfil national security objectives”.

Big tech companies quickly heeded the message.

In November 2024, tech giant Meta announced it would make its “Llama” AI models available to government agencies and private companies involved in defence and national security.

This was despite Meta’s own policy which prohibits the use of Llama for “[m]ilitary, warfare, nuclear industries or applications”.

Around the same time, AI company Anthropic also announced it was teaming up with data analytics firm Palantir and Amazon Web Services to provide US intelligence and defence agencies access to its AI models.

The following month, OpenAI announced it had partnered with defence startup Anduril Industries to develop AI for the US Department of Defence.

The companies claim they will combine OpenAI’s GPT-4o and o1 models with Anduril’s systems and software to improve US military’s defences against drone attacks.

Defending national security

The three companies defended the changes to their policies on the basis of US national security interests.

Take Google. In a blog post published earlier this month, the company cited global AI competition, complex geopolitical landscapes and national security interests as reasons for changing its AI principles.

In October 2022, the US issued export controls restricting China’s access to particular kinds of high-end computer chips used for AI research. In response, China issued their own export control measures on high-tech metals, which are crucial for the AI chip industry.

The tensions from this trade war escalated in recent weeks thanks to the release of highly efficient AI models by Chinese tech company DeepSeek. DeepSeek purchased 10,000 Nvidia A100 chips prior to the US export control measures and allegedly used these to develop their AI models.

It has not been made clear how the militarisation of commercial AI would protect US national interests. But there are clear indications tensions with the US’s biggest geopolitical rival, China, are influencing the decisions being made.

A large toll on human life

What is already clear is that the use of AI in military contexts has a demonstrated toll on human life.

For example, in the war in Gaza, the Israeli military has been relying heavily on advanced AI tools. These tools require huge volumes of data and greater computing and storage services, which is being provided by Microsoft and Google. These AI tools are used to identify potential targets but are often inaccurate.

Israeli soldiers have said these inaccuracies have accelerated the death toll in the war, which is now more than 61,000, according to authorities in Gaza.

Google removing the “harm” clause from their AI principles contravenes the international law on human rights. This identifies “security of person” as a key measure.

It is concerning to consider why a commercial tech company would need to remove a clause around harm.

Avoiding the risks of AI-enabled warfare

In its updated principles, Google does say its products will still align with “widely accepted principles of international law and human rights”.

Despite this, Human Rights Watch has criticised the removal of the more explicit statements regarding weapons development in the original principles.

The organisation also points out that Google has not explained exactly how its products will align with human rights.

This is something Joe Biden’s revoked executive order about AI was also concerned with.

Biden’s initiative wasn’t perfect, but it was a step towards establishing guardrails for responsible development and use of AI technologies.

Such guardrails are needed now more than ever as big tech becomes more enmeshed with military organisations – and the risk that come with AI-enabled warfare and the breach of human rights increases.

Zena Assaad 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. Google has dropped its promise not to use AI for weapons. It’s part of a troubling trend – https://theconversation.com/google-has-dropped-its-promise-not-to-use-ai-for-weapons-its-part-of-a-troubling-trend-249169

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenainn Simpson, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland

About 400 kilometres northwest of Sydney, just south of Dubbo, lies a large and interesting body of rock formed around 215 million years ago by erupting volcanoes.

Known as the Toongi deposit, this site is rich in so-called rare earths: a collection of 16 metallic elements essential for modern technologies from electric cars to solar panels and mobile phones.

Efforts are under way to mine this deposit, but the demand for rare earths in the coming decades is likely to be enormous.

To find more, we need to understand how and why these deposits form. Our latest research on Australian volcanoes, published in Nature Communications Earth and Environment, shows how tiny crystals formed inside volcanoes offer clues about the formation of rare earth deposits – and how we can find more of them.

Rare earths and the melting mantle

The formation of rare earth element deposits begins with partial melting of Earth’s mantle which lies deep below the crust.

Earth’s mantle is dominated by minerals that are rich in iron and magnesium. These minerals also contain small amounts of other elements, including the rare earth elements.

When the mantle melts to form magma, the rare earth elements move easily into the magma. If the amount of melting is small, the magma has a higher proportion of rare earth elements than if the amount of melting is large – for example, at a mid-ocean ridge where vast amounts of magma rush to the surface and form new oceanic crust.

As this magma migrates towards Earth’s surface, it cools down and new minerals begin to form. These minerals are mostly composed of oxygen, silicon, calcium, aluminium, magnesium and iron.

This means the leftover magma contains a higher concentration of rare earth elements. This residual liquid will continue to ascend through the crust until it solidifies or erupts at the surface.

From Greenland to central New South Wales

If the magma cools and crystallises in the crust, it can form rocks containing high levels of critical metals. One place where this has happened is the Gardar Igneous Complex in Southern Greenland, which contains several rare earth element deposits.

In central New South Wales in Australia, magmas enriched in rare earth elements erupted at the surface. They are collectively given the geological name Benolong Volcanic Suite.

Within this suite is the Toongi deposit – a part of the ancient volcanic plumbing system. This is an “intrusion” of congealed magma containing very high levels of critical metals.

Magmas enriched in rare earth elements are uncommon, and those that are enriched enough to be productively mined are rarer still, with only a few known examples worldwide. Even with all we know about how magmas form, there is much more work to be done to better understand and predict where magmas enriched in critical metals can be found.

Crystals record volcanic history

You may have wondered how scientists know so much about what happens kilometres (sometimes tens of kilometres) below our feet. We learn a lot about the interior of the Earth from studying rocks which make their way to the surface.

The processes that occur in a magma as it rises from Earth’s interior leave clues in the chemical composition of minerals which crystallise along the way. One mineral in particular – clinopyroxene – is particularly effective at preserving these clues, like a tiny crystal ball.

Fortunately, there are crystals of clinopyroxene within many of the rocks in the Benolong Volcanic Suite. This allowed us to examine the history of the non-mineralised rocks and compare it with the mineralised Toongi intrusion.

What’s different about the rocks at Toongi

We found that the Toongi rocks have two important differences.

First, the clinopyroxenes in the non-mineralised volcanic suite contain a lot of rare earth elements. This tells us that for most rocks in the volcanic suite, critical metals were “locked up” within clinopyroxene, rather than remaining in the residual melt.

In contrast, clinopyroxene crystals from Toongi show low levels of rare earth elements. Here, these elements are contained in a different mineral, eudialyte, which can be mined for rare earth elements.

Second, and most interesting, the clinopyroxenes from Toongi have an internal crystal structure that resembles an hourglass shape. This is caused by different elements residing in some parts of the crystal. It’s an exciting observation because it suggests rapid crystallisation occurred due the release of gas while the crystals were forming.

In contrast, we found no evidence of rapid crystallisation in the rocks without high levels of rare earths.

Our work means we can now track the composition and zoning of clinopyroxene in other extinct volcanoes in Australia and beyond to find out which ones may accumulate relevant rare earth element deposits.

This study adds another piece of the puzzle for understanding how critical metals accumulate, and how we can find them to power green, renewable energy sources for a sustainable future.

Brenainn Simpson works for the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Geological Survey of New South Wales and publishes with the permission of the Chief Geoscientist and Head of the Geological Survey of New South Wales.

Carl Spandler receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Teresa Ubide works for The University of Queensland. She receives research funding from the Australian Research Council, and infrastructure funding from NCRIS AuScope.

– ref. Where should we look for new metals that are critical for green energy technology? Volcanoes may point the way – https://theconversation.com/where-should-we-look-for-new-metals-that-are-critical-for-green-energy-technology-volcanoes-may-point-the-way-248659

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mareike Riedel, Senior lecturer in law, Macquarie University

The dramatic rise in antisemitic incidents has dominated headlines in Australia in recent months, with calls for urgent action to address what many are calling a crisis.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry tallied more than 2,000 antisemitic incidents in 2024, including physical assaults, attacks on synagogues, vandalism and graffiti. This is a 316% increase over the previous year.

These alarming events have sparked a heated political debate, with the opposition accusing the federal government of not taking the issue seriously enough.

However, focusing only on overt acts of antisemitism risks seeing it as an exceptional phenomenon or a problem limited to fringe extremist groups. This can obscure the more subtle and structural forms of antisemitism that perpetuate stereotypes about Jews and entrench discrimination in society.

How laws ingrain structural antisemitism

In my research, I examine how certain forms of antisemitism persist in Western societies with a Christian tradition.

While laws explicitly targeting Jews are largely a relic of the past, subtler forms of exclusion and discrimination remain. These often stem from perceptions that Jews deviate from dominant cultural norms.

For instance, Jewish communities frequently encounter resistance to the building of an eruv. This is a symbolic demarcation of a public space that enables Jews to observe Shabbat, a day when work is prohibited. It can sometimes involve stringing a wire between poles to create a boundary where people can do things they aren’t normally able to do, such as push a pram or carry shopping bags.

When an Orthodox Jewish community in Sydney sought permission to construct an eruv in the 2010s, local residents opposed it. Many arguments invoked stereotypes of Jews as clannish, intrusive and conspiratorial.

There have been similar disputes over eruvs in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. In many cases, local councils have sided with opponents, meaning Orthodox Jewish communities have had to go to court to seek approval.

In Europe, bans on religious slaughter have also singled out Jews and Muslims as cruel and fundamentalist, despite the widespread use of factory farming in Western societies.

There have also been calls to outlaw infant male circumcision in the name of children’s rights in many European countries and parts of the US.

These campaigns have, at times, tapped into longstanding antisemitic ideas about Jews as barbaric, bloodthirsty and backward.

These legal conflicts or campaigns reveal the structural dimensions of antisemitism. Similar to other forms of structural racism, structural antisemitism normalises majoritarian norms, perceptions and practices.

In turn, it marginalises and denigrates Jews as foreign, threatening and a problematic “other”.

Institutions, including schools, workplaces and local councils, can perpetuate these biases when they legitimise such exclusionary norms without critical reflection.

Read more:
The long, dark history of antisemitism in Australia

Challenging majority cultural norms

Understanding structural antisemitism also requires examining the Christian heritage of Western societies. In particular, there is a need to reflect on the legacy of Christian anti-Judaism.

Historically, the Christian belief in “supersessionism” referred to idea that Christianity has superseded Judaism and that Christians have replaced Jews as the people of God. Alongside the stereotype of Jews as the killers of Christ, this belief has contributed to stereotypes of Jews as inferior to Christians and being archaic, unenlightened, exclusive and ritualistic.

As the legal conflicts over eruvs, religious slaughter and circumcision suggest, such views continue to subtly influence attitudes towards Jews, even in modern secular societies.

For example, popular references to Judeo-Christian values signal the equality of Jews and Christians in society. However, this glosses over the fact that the acceptance of Jews can be contingent on conforming with majority norms.

This legacy also normalises Christian privilege. While Christians may face discrimination in certain contexts, they also enjoy inherent advantages in societies shaped by Christian traditions.

National calendars, weekly rhythms and public holidays align with Christian practices, while minorities need to seek accommodations to observe their own traditions.

For example, Western cities are filled with Christian symbols, such as churches and annual Christmas decorations. Several Australian parliaments and local councils also still begin meetings with Christian prayers.

What might seem like benign cultural traditions can signal exclusion to minority communities, including Jews. Implicit Christian norms can also create pressure to assimilate, especially given the long history of Christian societies’ attempts to convert or assimilate Jews.

However, these dynamics are rarely acknowledged in public debates about the discrimination of Jews and can also fly under the radar of the law.

In 1998, for instance, a Jewish father in New South Wales brought racial discrimination complaints against the education department over Christian activities at his children’s public school. These included nativity plays, Christmas carols and exchanging Easter eggs. The complaints were dismissed because they did not constitute discrimination on the basis of race.

The law in NSW does not prohibit religious discrimination (although the state now has religious vilification laws).

This gap exists in federal discrimination law, as well. It leaves minority religious groups with limited legal options to challenge the dominance of Christian norms. The NSW example demonstrates this and suggests there may be a case for a new federal religious discrimination law.

The question of what constitutes antisemitism remains a vexed question, including among Jews. Violent antisemitic attacks demand urgent attention. Yet, public discussions of antisemitism must also address these subtler forms of exclusion and the structural dimensions of antisemitism.

Mareike Riedel 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. Antisemitism goes beyond overt acts of hate – subtle forms of bias take their toll, too – https://theconversation.com/antisemitism-goes-beyond-overt-acts-of-hate-subtle-forms-of-bias-take-their-toll-too-249023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane McAdam, Scientia Professor and ARC Laureate Fellow, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Sydney

For a long time, it seemed refugee law had little relevance to people fleeing the impacts of climate change and disasters.

Nearly 30 years ago, the High Court of Australia, for instance, remarked that people fleeing a “natural disaster” or “natural catastrophes” could not be refugees.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Canada had said “victims of natural disasters” couldn’t be refugees “even when the home state is unable to provide assistance”.

It was back in 2007 that I first started considering whether international refugee law could apply to people escaping the impacts of drought, floods or sea-level rise. At the time, I also thought refugee law had limited application. For a start, most people seeking to escape natural hazards move within their own country and don’t cross an international border. That fact alone makes refugee law inapplicable.

Refugee law defines a refugee as someone with a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group.

So one challenge was in classifying supposedly “natural” events as “persecution”, which requires an identifiable human actor.

It was also widely thought such events were indiscriminate and couldn’t target people on account of their race, religion or one of the other five grounds. This is partly why some advocates called for an overhaul of the Refugee Convention to protect so-called “climate refugees”.

However, we have learned a lot in the intervening years.

A new approach

It’s become clear the impacts of climate change and disasters interact with other social, economic and political drivers of displacement to create risks for people.

This is what some legal experts have called the “hazard-scape”.

And the impacts of climate change and disasters are not indiscriminate – they affect people in different ways. Factors such as age, gender, disability and health can intersect to create particular risk of persecution for particular individuals or communities.

For example, a person who is a member of a minority may find their government is withholding disaster relief from them. Or, climate or disaster impacts may end up exacerbating inter-communal conflicts, putting certain people at heightened risk of persecution.

Now, we have a much more nuanced understanding of things. Refugee law (and complementary protection under human rights law) do have a role to play in assessing the claims of people affected by climate change.

No such thing as a ‘climate refugee’ under the law

There isn’t a legal category of “climate refugee” – a popular label that has caused confusion. However, there are certainly people facing heightened risks because of the impacts of climate change or disasters. These impacts can generate or exacerbate a risk of persecution or other serious harm.

This means that when it comes to the law, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel.

Instead, by applying existing legal principles and approaches, it’s clear some people impacted by climate change already qualify for refugee status or complementary protection (under human rights law).

One instructive case, heard in New Zealand, involved a deaf and mute man from Tuvalu who was seeking to avoid deportation on humanitarian grounds. He was found to be at heightened risk if a disaster struck because he could not hear evacuation or other warnings. He also didn’t have anyone who could sign for him or ensure his safety.

In another case, an older couple from Eritrea were found to be especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change because of “their elderly status and lack of family support”, in circumstances where they would be exposed to “conditions of abject poverty, underdevelopment and likely displacement”. This, in addition to other conditions in Eritrea, meant that there was “a real chance they would suffer cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by way of starvation and destitution”. They were granted complementary protection.

A practical way forward

New Zealand has led the way on showing how existing international refugee and human rights law can provide protection in the context of climate change and disasters. It’s time for the rest of the world to catch up.

With colleagues from Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, I’ve helped create a practical toolkit on international protection for people displaced across borders in the context of climate change and disasters.

This is a detailed resource for legal practitioners and decision-makers tasked with assessing international protection claims involving the impacts of climate change and disasters.

It shows when, why and how existing law can apply to claims where climate change or disasters play a role.

Inaccurate but popular labels aren’t helpful

Inaccurate but popular labels – such as “climate refugee” – have caused confusion and arguably hampered a consistent, principled approach.

Some judges and decision-makers assessing refugee claims may be spooked by “climate change”. They may think they need specialist scientific expertise to grapple with it.

The new toolkit shows why international protection claims arising in the context of climate change and disasters should be assessed in the same way as all other international protection claims. That is, by applying conventional legal principles and considering the facts of each case.

The toolkit stresses that it’s important to assess the impacts of climate change and disasters within a broader social context.

That includes examining underlying systemic issues of discrimination or inequity that may impact on how particular people experience harm.

The toolkit also shows why a cumulative assessment of risk is necessary, especially since risks may emerge over time, rather than as the result of a single, extreme event.

And it emphasises the need to look at the “hazard-scape” as a whole in assessing the future risk of harm to a person.

We hope the toolkit helps to debunk some common misunderstandings and charts a clear way forward. Our ultimate ambition is that people seeking international protection in the context of climate change and disasters will have their claims assessed in a consistent, fair and principled way.

Jane McAdam receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the expert sub-committee of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration. She thanks the Open Society Foundations (OSF) for its generous support of this project and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for its endorsement.

– ref. Climate impacts are forcing people from their homes. When, how and why do they have valid refugee claims? – https://theconversation.com/climate-impacts-are-forcing-people-from-their-homes-when-how-and-why-do-they-have-valid-refugee-claims-248865

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maggie Kirkman, Senior Research Fellow, Global and Women’s Health, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

You’ve heard of the gender pay gap. What about the gap in medical care?

Cardiovascular diseases – which can lead to heart attack and stroke – are one of the leading causes of death for women in Australia.

But women are less likely than men to receive preventive care for heart disease, such as appropriate medication. One study in New South Wales showed women admitted to hospital for a stroke were more likely to be first told by paramedics it was a migraine, headache, anxiety or nausea.

Despite these differences, official guidelines in Australia too often ignore the impact of sex and gender on health care. For example, a guideline on atrial fibrillation (irregular and often fast heartbeat) has limited information on sex and nothing on gender.

“Sex” refers to various biological characteristics by which at birth we are identified as female, male or intersex. “Gender” is a social and cultural concept in which people understand themselves to be a woman, a man or non-binary.

Our recent study reviewed 80 clinical guidelines. We found very few define sex and gender and the majority don’t mention gender at all. This has serious consequences for everyone, but especially for women, girls and gender-diverse people.

What are clinical guidelines for?

Clinical guidelines are recommendations about how to diagnose and treat a medical condition, based on research and usually developed by a team of specialists. Clinicians and other health workers are expected to use them to guide day-to-day health care.

For example, there are guidelines for physiotherapists on how to provide the best rehabilitation for someone after a heart attack. Other guidelines outline what a GP should do if a patient discloses intimate partner violence.

Because clinical guidelines are based on research, they can report only what has been studied and published in peer-reviewed journals. This means where there are gaps in research, clinical guidelines are usually silent.

What we did

As part of a larger project, the federal government asked our team to examine whether there are still clinical guidelines that do not take into account sex and gender differences.

There is no central database of Australia’s clinical guidelines. But in a comprehensive search, we found 80 published from January 2014 to April 2024.

These encompassed guidelines for conditions including various cancers, diabetes and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, designed for a range of health professionals such as general practitioners, medical specialists, physiotherapists and paramedics.

We searched every document for the following words:

• sex
• gender
• female
• male
• women
• men
• girl
• boy

If none of these words were found, we looked for “psychosocial” and “cultural”, to see if gender was considered without being named directly. We also read the text around each relevant word to understand its context and meaning.

What we found

Clinical guidelines in Australia too often do not offer guidance on incorporating sex and (especially) gender into health care.

We found:

• 15% of guidelines didn’t mention sex or gender at all. This includes recommendations about acute coronary syndrome from the National Heart Foundation and on e-mental health by the peak body for GPs. These guidelines did not even give the most basic information on sex differences in occurrence (of heart disease or mental health problems)

• only four guidelines (5%) defined the terms “sex” and “gender”

• 19% made no reference to clinical practice concerning sex. That is, there was no information on how symptoms and treatments might vary among biologically female, male and intersex bodies

• the majority (58%) ignored the role gender can play in clinical practice and how it might shape what treatment is most effective. For example, some women may be more comfortable being seen by a female doctor, for a range of personal or cultural reasons

• most (81%) did acknowledge biological sex in some way. But among those 65 guidelines there was great variation, ranging from a single statement about whether a condition (such as lung cancer) occurred more often in women or men, to detailed risk factors, prevalence, treatment and management, such as for advanced life support by paramedics.

Why does this matter?

The male body has historically been considered the “standard” human. With hormonal changes and pregnancies, women’s bodies have been seen as too complicated to be included in clinical research.

This means research has been conducted on men and then applied to women, ignoring the differences that excluded them from the research in the first place.

If the standard body is implicitly that of a (white) male, discrimination against all other bodies is inevitable.

The Australian Institute of Sport’s guideline on concussion and brain health is one of just four guidelines that define sex and gender.

This is crucial, given growing evidence women footballers are at greater risk of concussion than men. But their approach is far from mainstream.

Gender-diverse people also require distinct health care and support, based on inclusive and non-discriminatory practice and policy. There is clear evidence the mental health of gender-diverse people is profoundly affected by how sensitive – or discriminatory – their health care is.

Eliminating discrimination

Discrimination can be explicit and overt.

But it can also simply come from a lack of imagination, based on the assumption some kinds of health care are sex- and gender-neutral.

For example, the treatment of skin – dermatology – could appear neutral, as everyone has skin. Yet social expectations about clothing, make-up and appearance are highly gendered, and these can influence how skin conditions develop and are treated.

Guidelines that offer detailed information on sex- and gender-aware practice, such as those by GP Supervisor Australia, can contribute to challenging both explicit and implicit discrimination.

Ultimately, we hope this leads to equitable health care for people of all sexes and genders.

We recommend all developers of clinical guidelines look for evidence concerning sex and gender and, when they find none, say so. Funding bodies should also demand inclusion of sex and gender as a criterion to award money for medical research.

Silence on sex or gender implies that the topics aren’t important. This is far from the truth.

We acknowledge the contribution of the other members of our research team: Tomoko Honda, Steve McDonald, Sally Green, Karen Walker-Bone, and Ingrid Winship.

Maggie Kirkman received funding from the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care to conduct this research.

Jane Fisher receives funding from:

The National Health and Medical Research Council, The Australian Research Council, The Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, VicHealth, The Ramsay Hospital Research Foundation, The Paul Ramsay Foundation, The Human Safety Net, The LEGO Foundation, The Jasper Foundation, The National Center for Healthy Ageing

– ref. Australia’s clinical guidelines shape our health care. Why do so many still ignore sex and gender? – https://theconversation.com/australias-clinical-guidelines-shape-our-health-care-why-do-so-many-still-ignore-sex-and-gender-237400

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Iain White, Professor of Environmental Planning, University of Waikato

Urban planning has a long history of promoting visionary ideas that advocate for particular futures. The most recent is the concept of the 15-minute city, which has gained traction globally.

But empirical evidence on public preference for what people want is surprisingly thin on the ground.

To help address this gap, we conducted a national survey (1,491 responses) in Aotearoa New Zealand to find out what amenities people want to have easy access to, how much time they prefer to spend getting there, and how this differs between different groups in the population.

Our recently published research provides more depth. The headline messages have significant implications for politicians, policy-makers and others interested in planning cities to better meet the needs of citizens.

People want green space and local shops

The first message is that visions such as 15-minute cities tend to promote the idea of livability connected to easy access to multiple amenities – from education to employment and culture.

However, when we asked what amenities people prefer the most, two things came out far above others: local nature and local shops.

This finding is important as it allows cash-strapped local authorities to prioritise and sequence spending. It also supports the agenda of those who are advocating for an increase in urban green space or local living.

A complete shift to a 15-minute city can be daunting, but investment in these two specific areas could be an excellent first step in improving livability in a way that reflects what citizens want from planning.

We also asked people for their preferred maximum travel time to their most preferred amenity for a one-way trip, using different modes. Nationally, the data were consistent, identifying around 20 minutes as a good rule of thumb for maximum preferred travel time.

Importantly, this time was broadly similar regardless of the transport mode chosen. Whether walking, cycling or travelling by micro-mobility modes such as e-scooters, people wanted to spend no more than 20  minutes doing so – even though the distances vary.

It is important to acknowledge this time is a maximum, not a preference. It is better understood as a threshold or decision point after which people are much more likely to drive or choose not to travel.

This evidence has a wider resonance.

First, it strongly reinforces the 15-minute city or 20-minute neighbourhood as accurately reflecting public preferences for travel time to reach destinations, especially as this figure was consistent regardless of the travel mode.

Second, people are willing to walk further than we typically plan for.

For example, planners may typically apply a walkable catchment of an 800-metre radius around the central business district or transit nodes to allow for higher-density zoning. This distance is a walk of about ten minutes. Our data suggest this area could be expanded and more opportunities created to increase housing volume and diversity.

One size does not fit all

One crucial aspect for improving livability is recognising differences in people’s ability or willingness to walk, cycle or use micro mobility. To explore this, our survey asked people how comfortable they were using each active travel mode after dark.

We reveal a strong gender difference. For example, 41% of people said they were uncomfortable walking after dark. Of this group, 86% were female.

For all travel modes, there was a similar story with females more likely to change travel behaviour, mostly due to safety concerns. The survey also revealed that people with a disability are significantly less comfortable travelling after dark than those without.

This finding is useful for those concerned with equity. Citizen movement is typically modelled on the idea of an able-bodied person who feels equally comfortable in all urban spaces at all times of day or night.

Without considering difference across populations, advocates may promote an equitable 15-minute city during the day and an inequitable car-dependent one after dark.

This also highlights that any new urban strategy or investment needs to understand existing behaviour and the risks of making current disadvantages worse.

Agendas such as 15-minute cities hold significant value in planning for wellbeing and health, economic activity or decarbonisation. They also hold potential for planners to engage with communities to explain the value of planning, the kind of lifestyle citizens can expect in the future, and why authorities are spending public money.

But urban researchers also need urban concepts to be grounded in evidence to avoid becoming the next urban imaginary accused of failing to be transformative.

Our research helps provide some clarity. The general message is that people want easy access to green spaces and local shops more than anything else and they want to spend no more than 20 minutes getting there.

It also highlights context and differences between groups. We need to marry promising urban concepts to empirical research designed to support people’s preferences and encourage movement and equity.

Iain White receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Endeavour Fund and from the Natural Hazards Commission. He is New Zealand’s national contact point for the Horizon Europe program for the climate, energy and mobility research cluster.

Silvia Serrao-Neumann receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Endeavour Fund and from the Natural Hazards Commission.

Xinyu Fu receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Endeavour Fund and from the Natural Hazards Commission.

– ref. Nature and shops: here’s what people told us they want most from urban planning – https://theconversation.com/nature-and-shops-heres-what-people-told-us-they-want-most-from-urban-planning-247994

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

Earth is crossing the threshold of 1.5°C of global warming, according to two major global studies which together suggest the planet’s climate has likely entered a frightening new phase.

Under the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, humanity is seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep planetary heating to no more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial average. In 2024, temperatures on Earth surpassed that limit.

This was not enough to declare the Paris threshold had been crossed, because the temperature goals under the agreement are measured over several decades, rather than short excursions over the 1.5°C mark.

But the two papers just released use a different measure. Both examined historical climate data to determine whether very hot years in the recent past were a sign that a future, long-term warming threshold would be breached.

The answer, alarmingly, was yes. The researchers say the record-hot 2024 indicates Earth is passing the 1.5°C limit, beyond which scientists predict catastrophic harm to the natural systems that support life on Earth.

2024: the first year of many above 1.5°C

Climate organisations around the world agree last year was the hottest on record. The global average temperature in 2024 was about 1.6°C above the average temperatures in the late-19th century, before humans started burning fossil fuels at large scale.

Earth has also recently experienced individual days and months above the 1.5°C warming mark.

But the global temperature varies from one year to the next. For example, the 2024 temperature spike, while in large part due to climate change, was also driven by a natural El Niño pattern early in the year. That pattern has dissipated for now, and 2025 is forecast to be a little cooler.

These year-to-year fluctuations mean climate scientists don’t view a single year exceeding the 1.5°C mark as a failure to meet the Paris Agreement.

However, the new studies published today in Nature Climate Change suggest even a single month or year at 1.5°C global warming may signify Earth is entering a long-term breach of that vital threshold.

What the studies found

The studies were conducted independently by researchers in Europe and Canada. They tackled the same basic question: is a year above 1.5°C global warming a warning sign that we’re already crossing the Paris Agreement threshold?

Both studies used observations and climate model simulations to address this question, with slightly different approaches.

In the European paper, the researchers looked at historical warming trends. They found when Earth’s average temperature reached a certain threshold, the following 20-year period also reached that threshold.

This pattern suggests that, given Earth reached 1.5°C warming last year, we may have entered a 20-year warming period when average temperatures will also reach 1.5°C.

The Canadian paper involved month-to-month data. June last year was the 12th consecutive month of temperatures above the 1.5°C warming level. The researcher found 12 consecutive months above a climate threshold indicates the threshold will be reached over the long term.

Both studies also demonstrate that even if stringent emissions reduction begins now, Earth is still likely to be crossing the 1.5°C threshold.

Heading in the wrong direction

Given these findings, what humanity does next is crucial.

For decades, climate scientists have warned burning fossil fuels for energy releases carbon dioxide and other gases that are warming the planet.

But humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase. Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its first report in 1990, the world’s annual carbon dioxide emissions have risen about 50%.

Put simply, we are not even moving in the right direction, let alone at the required pace.

The science shows greenhouse gas emissions must reach net-zero to end global warming. Even then, some aspects of the climate will continue to change for many centuries, because some regional warming, especially in the oceans, is already locked in and irreversible.

If Earth has indeed already crossed the 1.5°C mark, and humanity wants to get below the threshold again, we will need to cool the planet by reaching “net-negative emissions” – removing more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than we emit. This would be a highly challenging task.

Feeling the heat

The damaging effects of climate change are already being felt across the globe. The harm will be even worse for future generations.

Australia has already experienced 1.5°C of warming, on average, since 1910.

Our unique ecosystems, such as the Great Barrier Reef, are already suffering because of this warming. Our oceans are hotter and seas are rising, hammering our coastlines and threatening marine life.

Bushfires and extreme weather, especially heatwaves, are becoming more frequent and severe. This puts pressure on nature, society and our economy.

But amid the gloom, there are signs of progress.

Across the world, renewable electricity generation is growing. Fossil fuel use has dropped in many countries. Technological developments are slowing emissions growth in polluting industries such as aviation and construction.

But clearly, there is much more work to be done.

Humanity can turn the tide

These studies are a sobering reminder of how far short humanity is falling in tackling climate change.

They show we must urgently adapt to further global warming. Among the suite of changes needed, richer nations must support the poorer countries set to bear the most severe climate harms. While some progress has been made in this regard, far more is needed.

A major shift is also needed to decarbonise our societies and economies. There is still room for hope, but we must not delay action. Otherwise, humanity will keep warming the planet and causing further damage.

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

Liam Cassidy 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. Earth is already shooting through the 1.5°C global warming limit, two major studies show – https://theconversation.com/earth-is-already-shooting-through-the-1-5-c-global-warming-limit-two-major-studies-show-249133

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flavio Macau, Associate Dean – School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

Coles is reducing its product range by at least 10%, a move that has sparked public backlash and renewed discussions about the role of supermarkets in the cost-of-living crisis.

In cutting the range of items on offer Coles is moving closer to Aldi and Costco’s strategy to grow exclusive brands and limit product range.

The goal is to boost profitability by reducing costs, increasing sales, and increasing control over the supply chain.

Coles is unlikely to cut traditional brands, especially those from companies with significant market power like Coca-Cola or Nestle. In a battle between giants, the status quo is likely to prevail.

Smaller suppliers are likely to bear the load as they struggle to renew contracts and face increased competition from home brands.

To fully understand the reasons behind this move and its impact on the cost of living, insights from psychology, finance, and supply chain management come in handy.

Why cut back on brands?

The Coles move is all about profitability.

Over the past decade, competition in the Australian supermarket sector has intensified. Coles’ market share declined from 31% to 25% between 2013 and 2023, while Woolworths’ share fell from 41% to 37%.

This shift reflects the rise of Aldi, which now holds approximately 10% of the market, and its strong position in the home brand space.

To boost profitability with a smaller customer base, Coles needs to find ways to enhance its earnings. This can be achieved by raising prices, cutting costs, or increasing the market share of its home brands.

Raising prices vs cutting costs

Raising prices is not a viable option, as consumers are already struggling with high food prices inflation and the rising cost-of-living. However, there is room to cut costs.

One approach is to squeeze suppliers, but again this is unlikely to be effective. The consumer watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), is holding an inquiry into concerns that the supermarkets are using their market power to the disadvantage of their suppliers and consumers.

Additionally, as producers exit unprofitable businesses, supermarkets risk supply chain disruptions due to increased market concentration among surviving suppliers.

Another strategy is to reduce complexity. The more product variety there is, the more complicated and expensive it becomes to manage. Tasks such as stocking shelves, adjusting prices, maintaining inventory, managing delivery schedules, and disposing of expired products all contribute to higher costs.

Anna Croft, Coles’ operations and sustainability officer, explained the strategy when telling investors in November that 13 basic table salts could be cut to five.

Simplifying the product range can also boost sales. When faced with too many options, consumers can experience “choice overload”. A widely recognised study in psychology found that people are more likely to make a purchase when presented with a limited selection rather than an extensive array of choices.

Shifting to home brands

Simplifying the range will likely focus on items where Coles has a home brand. Home brands now account for 33.5% of Coles’ sales, with 6,000 products. About 1,100 were added over the past year.

This move is a response to competitors like Aldi and Costco. While Coles and Woolworths manage over 25,000 items in their stores, Aldi limits its offering to about 1,800 products.

Coles is focusing on its home brands to better compete with non-branded offerings from Aldi. In its report to the ACCC, the supermarket highlights its investment in expanding its own-brand range to provide more affordable prices, up to 40% cheaper than similar proprietary brands.

While consumers may have fewer choices, it is expected that they will benefit from better prices.

This shift towards home brands is not exclusive to Australia. In the United States, private label sales hit a record in 2023 across a range of items from beauty products to general merchandise. In the United Kingdom, home brand products now account for over half of supermarket sales.

Have we been here before?

Almost 10 years ago, Woolworths and Coles started a significant move to adjust their price positioning in response to the competition. Along with Metcash (IGA), they reduced product ranges in 2015–16 by 10% to 15% to simplify the weekly grocery shop for consumers.

At that time, the culling of products put suppliers under pressure (as now) while consumers were ambivalent: some wanted more brand variety and others preferred less.

As history repeats itself, it will be interesting to see if Woolworths and Metcash will follow the latest move from Coles and how customers, suppliers, and the ACCC will react this time.

A/Prof Flavio Macau is affiliated with the Project Management Institute (PMI)

– ref. As Coles slashes its product range, will well-known brands disappear from supermarket shelves? – https://theconversation.com/as-coles-slashes-its-product-range-will-well-known-brands-disappear-from-supermarket-shelves-249274

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacinta Humphrey, Research Fellow in Urban Ecology, RMIT University

Golf courses are sometimes seen as harmful to the environment. According to the popular notion, the grass soaks up too much water, is cut too short and sprayed with dangerous chemicals. But in reality, golf courses can act as safe havens for native wildlife, especially in cities.

Cities are home to a wide range of plants and animals, including 30% of Australia’s threatened species. But ongoing population growth and urban development threatens this biodiversity. We’re still losing green space and tree cover, leaving less habitat and resources for native birds, bats, possums, lizards, frogs, beetles and butterflies.

This is where golf courses can play a role. Australia is one of the golfing capitals of the world, with more than 1,800 active courses. These courses represent large, continuous green spaces often with native vegetation, mature trees, lakes and wetlands. Given their ubiquity, golf courses could help conserve urban biodiversity.

This week, the annual LIV Golf tournament returns to Grange Golf Club in South Australia. Grange is one of 30 Australian golf courses certified for its commitment to sustainability, partly due to its extensive woodland, natural habitats and wildlife. So what makes a golf course good or bad for biodiversity?

The gold in the rough

From a biodiversity perspective, the most valuable part of a golf course is the area all golfers seek to avoid: the “rough”. These spaces between the green, manicured fairways can include remnant or restored bushland with dense leaf litter, long grass, thick shrubs, and both living and dead trees. This vegetation is often native and features a diversity of plant species.

Collectively, this can provide a range of resources for native wildlife including food, shelter and tree hollows for nesting. In Melbourne, research found golf courses provided better habitat for wildlife than nearby suburban streets and parklands. They were also home to a greater diversity of birds and bats.

Golf courses also have relatively little human activity. Golfers are only allowed on the course during certain hours of the day. Courses usually do not allow dogs. And there are few cars and roads, so there’s less noise and light pollution than in other urban areas. This makes golf courses pretty attractive to native animals looking for somewhere to live.

Many golf courses are heavily irrigated to ensure high-quality playing surfaces. This ample water supply (typically from recycled sources) is fantastic for wildlife, especially in warmer and drier climates. Birds are known to flock to water resources during drought – a behaviour likely to become more common under future climate change.

Much-feared water hazards for golfers, such as lakes and ponds, actually provide valuable habitat for aquatic birds, frogs, fish and insects. These water bodies are particularly important in cities where wetlands are regularly cleared to make way for new houses, shops and roads.

Importantly, once constructed, golf courses are rarely threatened by clearing or development. In Perth, research found golf courses helped protect native vegetation as development spread through surrounding suburbs. The mere existence of a golf course can help secure a home for native species for many decades to come.

Golf courses are not a perfect solution

However, not all land on golf courses is valuable for wildlife. Large open areas such as fairways typically only benefit species adapted to life in cities such as the aggressive noisy miner.

Golf courses can also harbour pests such as cane toads, rats and common mynas. These undesirable species may pose a threat to native biodiversity.

The use of pesticides and fertilisers can affect soil quality, contaminate water sources, and make frogs sick.

Frequent lawn mowing can reduce insect diversity, particularly among bugs, bees, wasps and ants. This is likely to have flow-on effects for animals that feed on insects, and for flowering plants that depend on insects for pollination and seed dispersal.

Some urban golf courses may also be physically isolated from other suitable habitats, making it hard for wildlife to safely move around to find food, water and a mate. To get in and out, animals may need to cross busy roads or move through dangerous areas where they are exposed to predators such as cats and foxes.

So, how can we best manage golf courses for biodiversity?

In an ideal world, golf courses should only be constructed in developed areas. That’s because constructing courses in natural, undisturbed areas is likely to involve clearing vegetation for fairways, greens, car parks and club houses.

As a result, the biodiversity value of a golf course increases the closer it is to a city.

Existing golf courses can help protect biodiversity by retaining and restoring diverse bushland patches in the rough. Important conservation areas can also be fenced off and deemed “out of bounds” to golfers.

The use of harsh chemicals should be reduced to minimise risks to soil, water and wildlife. “Organic golf courses” overseas are already making progress in this space, but they are far from mainstream.

Finally, efforts must be made to connect golf courses to nearby parks and reserves through wildlife corridors, road underpasses, and special crossing structures such as rope bridges. This will enable animals to safely move around the urban landscape.

Many golf courses now have biodiversity management plans and are working hard to make their practices more sustainable. In other cases, disused golf courses are even being converted into conservation reserves, such as the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve in Elsternwick, Melbourne.

While golf courses cannot replace natural habitats, they can provide a useful alternative for many species that call our cities home.

Jacinta Humphrey receives funding from the Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment, the Ecological Society of Australia, BirdLife Australia, Australian Wildlife Society, and the Field Naturalists Club of Victoria.

– ref. Golf courses can be safe havens for wildlife and beacons of biodiversity – https://theconversation.com/golf-courses-can-be-safe-havens-for-wildlife-and-beacons-of-biodiversity-246673

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

The Albanese government is set to mount a major effort to win an exemption from a proposed 25% tariff on steel and aluminium imports to the United States foreshadowed by President Donald Trump.

Assuming Trump follows through on the move, it will put major pressure on the prime minister to match the success of the Turnbull government in 2018 when Trump put a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminium in his first administration.

Speaking to reporters travelling on Air Force One, Trump flagged he would make the tariff announcement on Monday (Washington time). He said the tariffs would start “almost immedciately” on all foreign steel and aluminium imports.

The Australian government on Monday was scrambling to put together its response, although government sources insisted it was not surprised and was well prepared.

Cabinet met on Monday morning where the Trump comments were presumably discussed.

Trade Minister Don Farrell said on Monday:

We have consistently made the case for free and fair trade, including access into the US market for Australian steel and aluminium.

Our bilateral economic relationship is mutually beneficial – Australian steel and aluminium is creating thousands of good paying American jobs, and are key for our shared defence interests too.

Sources said the government had been making representations on steel and aluminium for months.

Last week, Farrell said he was seeking talks with incoming US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, but that would have to wait until he was confirmed.

In the lobbying for special treatment, the government will stress that the US has a trade surplus with Australia.

In 2023-24, the US imported about 240,000 tonnes of steel products from Australia, valued at US$250 million (A$400 million).

US imports of Australian aluminium peaked in 2019 at about 270,000 tonnes and declined to around 83,000 in 2024. The three-year average imports from Australia were 167,000 tonnes per year, valued at US$496 million (A$791 million).

Nationals leader David Littleproud said the issue was a test for Anthony Albanese and Australia’s ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd.

Littleproud said:

When you make disparaging comments about leaders in other parts of the world sometimes it comes back to bite you.

And unfortunately it could be the Australian economy that gets the bite.

This is a test to see whether Anthony Albanese’s previous remarks and Kevin Rudd’s previous remarks about President Trump has done this nation harm.

Littleproud said if Rudd was “not the right person to have these discussions, then we should be mature enough as a country to send someone who can have those discussions to get that carveout”.

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles has just returned from Washington.

At a news conference there, he was asked whether Australia was concerned about direct reciprocal tariffs or a flow-on effect from them.

Marles said:

We obviously are engaging with the United States in respect of our bilateral relationship in respect to tariffs.

We’ll obviously press Australia’s interest in our case in respect of that. But none of this is a surprise. We know what President Trump’s platform was as he went into the American election.

He’s been very clear about his policy direction. And so I think we all understand that is going to see changes in American policy in relation to this. From an Australian point of view, we will continue to press the Australian case around the question of trade.

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. Trump is now flagging tariffs on steel and aluminium. Can Albanese win an exemption for Australia? – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-now-flagging-tariffs-on-steel-and-aluminium-can-albanese-win-an-exemption-for-australia-249476

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katrina McFerran, Professor and Head of Creative Arts and Music Therapy Research Unit; Director of Researcher Development Unit, The University of Melbourne

Many of us take pleasure in listening to music. Music accompanies important life events and lubricates social encounters. It represents aspects of our existing identity, as well as our hopes and dreams. It expresses emotions that cannot be explained with words. Music also distracts us from boredom and difficulty and helps us escape into another world.

Music seems to have a magical power: a wand to be waved that makes life feel better. But what if the power was not in the music itself? In fact, the power of music comes from our choices in what to listen to and the human agency we express in this act.

It can be seen as a placebo effect where the music is endowed with special powers by our minds. The qualities of the music are important. But as with all art, it is how we uniquely perceive the song that makes our experience powerful.

My research has shown most of us operate on autopilot when it comes to choosing music, often assuming previous music selections will have the same effect even under very different circumstances.

Stepping out of autopilot and being more intentional in the songs we chose can move from hoping the music will make you feel good, to knowing it will and seeing how it does.

Choose the right music for you

The way we experience music is personal. There is no one song that is going to make everyone feel the same.

Think about trying to pick a song to make you feel happy, or to listen to when you’re happy. If the power was in the musical qualities of the song itself, Pharrell Williams’ Happy might work. The song has several uplifting musical features: a simple but catchy melody; an energising rhythm emphasised by the singer clicking along; a lively tempo; and words that repeat the key idea.

It’s similar to Psy’s Gangnam Style, Katrina and the Waves’ Walking on Sunshine or ABBA’s Waterloo.

But just because these songs sound happy, do they make you feel happy? Would they make it into your personal top five pleasure-inducing tracks?

Your song selections are different to your friends because of the personal associations you have with them, including your personal taste. That’s why AI can’t generate the right songs for you if you ask it for “happy songs”.

You would be better off to start by looking at your own playlists and frequently played tracks to identify which ones actually make you feel good, personally.

Understanding meaning

It’s important to distinguish between pleasure-inducing tracks and meaningful songs.

Meaningful songs are linked to a range of emotions, identities, histories and social connections – but only some of those are pleasure inducing. Others connect to poignant and beautiful feelings such as grief and loss, whether that is missing home or missing people and creatures we love. This poignancy is distinct from hedonism, which is happiness without negative affect.

If you’re experiencing grief, for example, there may be a beauty in remembering your loved one, but it is connected to the pain of their absence. Choosing pleasure-inducing songs operates as an aesthetic distraction to take our mind away from the pain, which is a different (not necessarily worse or better) choice.

Sometimes meaning doesn’t come with a beautiful purpose. Like the love song that becomes the breakup song. Or the favourite artist whose death renders a song poignant rather than uplifting. Then the song may help with emotional processing, or it may not, it can just fulfil a desire for rumination – a thought we keep circling around without discharging the intensity or our perspective on it.

It might seem obvious that these events will change the way we feel when we listen to a song. But it can be surprisingly difficult to let go of music we love.

Sad songs can be enjoyable and/or a beautiful way of connecting to emotional experiences. But they can also intensify our negative emotions, which doesn’t always lead to resolution.

Being conscious and intentional in music choices is important, especially if you’re tending to ruminate. During down times in life, it is worth checking in after listening to make sure the song is helping you process and resolve, and not just intensify and maintain a negative state you would rather leave behind.

Finding what you love

But most days you are safe to let your instincts guide you. After all, there’s nothing more pleasurable than spending time listening to a banger.

In technical speak, we call these “preferred songs” – songs that might not be personally meaningful, or fill you with joy exactly, but they are just great tracks. Music you love, appreciate and rate.

But even identifying preferred songs is still personal. Despite what many people think, it’s very difficult to get agreement about what makes a good song. But it’s not difficult to identify the songs that you think are great. In fact, it’s a super fun thing to do.

Katrina McFerran has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the University of Melbourne to investigate this topic. She is a registered music therapist with the Australian Music Therapy Association.

– ref. Different songs for different days: why it’s important to actively choose the music for your mood – https://theconversation.com/different-songs-for-different-days-why-its-important-to-actively-choose-the-music-for-your-mood-246233

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katrina McFerran, Professor and Head of Creative Arts and Music Therapy Research Unit; Director of Researcher Development Unit, The University of Melbourne

Many of us take pleasure in listening to music. Music accompanies important life events and lubricates social encounters. It represents aspects of our existing identity, as well as our hopes and dreams. It expresses emotions that cannot be explained with words. Music also distracts us from boredom and difficulty and helps us escape into another world.

Music seems to have a magical power: a wand to be waved that makes life feel better. But what if the power was not in the music itself? In fact, the power of music comes from our choices in what to listen to and the human agency we express in this act.

It can be seen as a placebo effect where the music is endowed with special powers by our minds. The qualities of the music are important. But as with all art, it is how we uniquely perceive the song that makes our experience powerful.

My research has shown most of us operate on autopilot when it comes to choosing music, often assuming previous music selections will have the same effect even under very different circumstances.

Stepping out of autopilot and being more intentional in the songs we chose can move from hoping the music will make you feel good, to knowing it will and seeing how it does.

Choose the right music for you

The way we experience music is personal. There is no one song that is going to make everyone feel the same.

Think about trying to pick a song to make you feel happy, or to listen to when you’re happy. If the power was in the musical qualities of the song itself, Pharrell Williams’ Happy might work. The song has several uplifting musical features: a simple but catchy melody; an energising rhythm emphasised by the singer clicking along; a lively tempo; and words that repeat the key idea.

It’s similar to Psy’s Gangnam Style, Katrina and the Waves’ Walking on Sunshine or ABBA’s Waterloo.

But just because these songs sound happy, do they make you feel happy? Would they make it into your personal top five pleasure-inducing tracks?

Your song selections are different to your friends because of the personal associations you have with them, including your personal taste. That’s why AI can’t generate the right songs for you if you ask it for “happy songs”.

You would be better off to start by looking at your own playlists and frequently played tracks to identify which ones actually make you feel good, personally.

Understanding meaning

It’s important to distinguish between pleasure-inducing tracks and meaningful songs.

Meaningful songs are linked to a range of emotions, identities, histories and social connections – but only some of those are pleasure inducing. Others connect to poignant and beautiful feelings such as grief and loss, whether that is missing home or missing people and creatures we love. This poignancy is distinct from hedonism, which is happiness without negative affect.

If you’re experiencing grief, for example, there may be a beauty in remembering your loved one, but it is connected to the pain of their absence. Choosing pleasure-inducing songs operates as an aesthetic distraction to take our mind away from the pain, which is a different (not necessarily worse or better) choice.

Sometimes meaning doesn’t come with a beautiful purpose. Like the love song that becomes the breakup song. Or the favourite artist whose death renders a song poignant rather than uplifting. Then the song may help with emotional processing, or it may not, it can just fulfil a desire for rumination – a thought we keep circling around without discharging the intensity or our perspective on it.

It might seem obvious that these events will change the way we feel when we listen to a song. But it can be surprisingly difficult to let go of music we love.

Sad songs can be enjoyable and/or a beautiful way of connecting to emotional experiences. But they can also intensify our negative emotions, which doesn’t always lead to resolution.

Being conscious and intentional in music choices is important, especially if you’re tending to ruminate. During down times in life, it is worth checking in after listening to make sure the song is helping you process and resolve, and not just intensify and maintain a negative state you would rather leave behind.

Finding what you love

But most days you are safe to let your instincts guide you. After all, there’s nothing more pleasurable than spending time listening to a banger.

In technical speak, we call these “preferred songs” – songs that might not be personally meaningful, or fill you with joy exactly, but they are just great tracks. Music you love, appreciate and rate.

But even identifying preferred songs is still personal. Despite what many people think, it’s very difficult to get agreement about what makes a good song. But it’s not difficult to identify the songs that you think are great. In fact, it’s a super fun thing to do.

Katrina McFerran has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the University of Melbourne to investigate this topic. She is a registered music therapist with the Australian Music Therapy Association.

– ref. Different songs for different days: why it’s important to actively chose the music for your mood – https://theconversation.com/different-songs-for-different-days-why-its-important-to-actively-chose-the-music-for-your-mood-246233

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Suvradip Maitra, PhD Student, Australian National University

Late last year, ChatGPT was used by a Victorian child protection worker to draft documents. In a glaring error, ChatGPT referred to a “doll” used for sexual purposes as an “age-appropriate toy”. Following this, the Victorian information commissioner banned the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in child protection.

Unfortunately, many harmful AI systems will not garner such public visibility. It’s crucial that people who use social services – such as employment, homelessness or domestic violence services – are aware they may be subject to AI. Additionally, service providers should be well informed about how to use AI safely.

Fortunately, emerging regulations and tools, such as our trauma-informed AI toolkit, can help to reduce AI harm.

How do social services use AI?

AI has captured global attention with promises of better service delivery. In a strained social services sector, AI promises to reduce backlogs, lower administrative burdens and allocate resources more effectively while enhancing services. It’s no surprise a range of social service providers are using AI in various ways.

Chatbots simulate human conversation with the use of voice, text or images. These programs are increasingly used for a range of tasks. For instance, they can provide mental health support or offer employment advice. They can also speed up data processing or help quickly create reports.

However, chatbots can easily produce harmful or inaccurate responses. For instance, the United States National Eating Disorders Association deployed the chatbot Tessa to support clients experiencing eating disorders. But it was quickly pulled offline when advocates flagged Tessa was providing harmful weight loss advice.

Recommender systems use AI to make personalised suggestions or options. These could include targeting job or rental ads, or educational material based on data available to service providers.

But recommender systems can be discriminatory, such as when LinkedIn showed more job ads to men than women. They can also reinforce existing anxieties. For instance, pregnant women have been recommended alarming pregnancy videos on social media.

Recognition systems classify data such as images or text to compare one dataset to another. These systems can complete many tasks, such as face matching to verify identity or transcribing voice to text.

Such systems can raise surveillance, privacy, inaccuracy and discrimination concerns. A homeless shelter in Canada stopped using facial recognition cameras because they risked privacy breaches – it’s difficult to obtain informed consent from mentally unwell or intoxicated people using the shelter.

Risk-assessment systems use AI to predict the likelihood of a specific outcome occurring. Many systems have been used to calculate the risk of child abuse, long-term unemployment, or tax and welfare fraud.

Often data used in these systems can recreate societal inequalities, causing harm to already-marginalised peoples. In one such case, a tool in the US used for identifying risk of child mistreatment unfairly targeted poor, black and biracial families and families with disabilities.

A Dutch risk assessment tool seeking to identify childcare benefits fraud was shut down for being racist, while an AI system in France faces similar accusations.

Read more:
Algorithms that predict crime are watching – and judging us by the cards we’ve been dealt

The need for a trauma-informed approach

Concerningly, our research shows using AI in social services can cause or perpetuate trauma for the people who use the services.

The American Psychological Association defines trauma as an emotional response to a range of events, such as accidents, abuse or the death of a loved one. Broadly understood, trauma can be experienced at an individual or group level and be passed down through generations. Trauma experienced by First Nations people in Australia as a result of colonisation is an example of group trauma.

Between 57% and 75% of Australians experience at least one traumatic event in their lifetime.

Many social service providers have long adopted a trauma-informed approach. It prioritises trust, safety, choice, empowerment, transparency, and cultural, historical and gender-based considerations. A trauma-informed service provider understands the impact of trauma and recognises signs of trauma in users.

Service providers should be wary of abandoning these core principles despite the allure of the often hyped capabilities of AI.

Can social services use AI responsibly?

To reduce the risk of causing or perpetuating trauma, social service providers should carefully evaluate any AI system before using it.

For AI systems already in place, evaluation can help monitor their impact and ensure they are operating safely.

We have developed a trauma-informed AI assessment toolkit that helps service providers to assess the safety of their planned or current use of AI. The toolkit is based on the principles of trauma-informed care, case studies of AI harms, and design workshops with service providers. An online version of the toolkit is about to be piloted within organisations.

By posing a series of questions, the toolkit enables service providers to consider whether risks outweigh the benefits. For instance, is the AI system co-designed with users? Can users opt out of being subject to the AI system?

It guides service providers through a series of practical considerations to enhance the safe use of AI.

Social services do not have to avoid AI altogether. But social service providers and users should be aware of the risks of harm from AI – so they can intentionally shape AI for good.

The project was funded by the Notre Dame-IBM Technology Ethics Lab.

Suvradip Maitra is funded by an Australian Government Research Training Program Domestic Scholarship.

Lyndal Sleep was funded by the University of Notre Dame for this research. She is affiliated with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society.

Paul Henman receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC). He is affiliated with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society.

Suzanna Fay received funding from the Notre Dame-IBM Technology Ethics Lab for this project.

– ref. AI is being used in social services – but we must make sure it doesn’t traumatise clients – https://theconversation.com/ai-is-being-used-in-social-services-but-we-must-make-sure-it-doesnt-traumatise-clients-248555

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niven Winchester, Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology

Donald Trump has already made good on his threat to impose an additional 10% tax on Chinese goods, and is due to announce a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminium imports into the United States.

While he has paused proposed 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports for the time being, a trade war between the US and the rest of the world remains a real possibility.

Mexico, Canada and China responded to Trump’s tariff plans by drafting retaliatory tariffs and countermeasures. But Trump’s threatened tariffs extend well beyond North America and China.

During his 2024 election campaign he said all trading nations could expect similar treatment, and he explicitly stated his intention to target the European Union (EU):

They don’t take our cars, they don’t take our farm products, they take almost nothing and we take everything from them. Millions of cars, tremendous amounts of food and farm products.

While it’s true the EU exports more to the US than it imports, it’s simplistic to use bilateral trade balances as a gauge of the overall economic benefits. International trade allows countries to concentrate on producing the goods and services they do well, and to exchange them for ones more costly to produce domestically.

Ultimately, trade allows everyone to consume more. A trade war therefore makes nations worse off: tariffs divert trade flows and reduce the exchange of goods. And, of course, this filters down to affect ordinary household incomes.

Households worse off

The impact of a trade war on any given country will depend on several factors, including the share of a nation’s exports exposed to new tariffs, and the importance of trade to each economy.

Small countries tend to trade more than large ones because they specialise in producing a relatively small number of goods, and rely on trade to consume a variety of products.

To quantify the impacts of a trade war, I consider a scenario where the US imposes additional tariffs of 25% on all merchandise imports (the figure Trump has consistently used), and all other countries respond with similar tariffs on US goods.

I simulate the tariffs in a global model of production, trade and consumption similar to that used by the New Zealand Productivity Commission’s inquiry into improving economic resilience. The model uses input-output tables that describe production of 32 commodities in each country, and data on bilateral trade in each commodity between nations.

National-level impacts are measured by calculating the equivalent impact on aggregate household income. This metric converts the effects from the tariffs – including changes in product prices, wages and business profits – into changes in household income.

In New Zealand, the trade war decreases aggregate household income by 0.1% or NZ$322 million per year. Divided among the country’s nearly two million households, this means each household is worse off by NZ$163 per year.

Global income declines

The impacts of the simulated trade war are larger in North America. It decreases US annual aggregate household income by 1.5%, which equates to US$262 billion, or US$2,963 per household.

In Canada and Mexico, for which the US is both a major export market and source of imports, average household income decreases by 3.6% (US$2,963) and 4.6% (US$1,192), respectively, each year.

Across all nations, the tariff war results in an equivalent decrease in aggregate household income of 0.7% (US$414 billion) per year.

The simulated tariff war also results in a reshuffling of trade. New Zealand merchandise exports to the US decrease by NZ$4.4 billion, but exports to other nations increase by a similar amount (due to their price advantage relative to US goods).

Likewise, New Zealand merchandise imports from the US decrease by NZ$4.7 billion and imports from other nations increase by about the same amount. As a result, the trade war has little impact on New Zealand’s total exports and imports.

Aggregate trade changes are largest in the US, which imposes new tariffs on all its imports and faces new tariffs in all export markets. US merchandise exports and imports both decrease by around US$565 billion (NZ$1 trillion).

Overall, the modelling confirms the well known result that trade wars decrease global economic activity and routinely make all nations worse off.

Niven Winchester has previously received funding from the Productivity Commission and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to estimate the impacts of potential trade policies. He is affiliated with Motu Economic & Public Policy Research.

– ref. NZ households will be slightly worse off if Trump triggers a trade war – new modelling – https://theconversation.com/nz-households-will-be-slightly-worse-off-if-trump-triggers-a-trade-war-new-modelling-249120

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natarsha McPherson, PhD Candidate in Spatial Ecology, University of Adelaide

On the vast expanse of the Nullarbor Plain in South Australia, two very different creatures live side by side – but not always peacefully.

One is the southern hairy-nosed wombat, a slow-moving nocturnal digger that loves its underground burrows. The other is the European rabbit: a small and speedy invader that has spread across the continent, often wreaking environmental havoc and creating its own networks of tunnels.

How do we know where these semi-subterranean creatures live, and how many there are? The answer is from the sky.

In new research published in Australian Mammalogy, we show a way to detect wombats and rabbits using satellites that take pictures of our planet from space. By studying high-resolution images from the likes of Google Earth and Bing Maps, we can spot the telltale signs of the burrows and warrens these creatures dig into the ground.

Why is it any of our business where wombats and rabbits live?

Knowing where wombats and rabbits live is important for conservation.

Wombats are unique Australian marsupials that need protection. Rabbits are an invasive species that often damage the land, eating too much vegetation and eroding soil.

Finding their warrens can help scientists and wildlife managers to understand where they live. This in turn helps to make better decisions about protecting native species and controlling pests.

How do you spot a warren?

Imagine looking down at the world from the window of an aeroplane. You might easily see rivers and roads, and even buildings.

But would you spot a hole in the ground? That’s the challenge we faced in our study of satellite images.

As it turns out, wombat warrens are relatively easy to spot. They are quite large and have clear trails leading in and out. The digging leaves mounds of lighter-coloured soil.

Rabbit warrens are trickier to find. They are smaller, lack trails, and can blend in with bare patches of dirt.

How well did we do?

By comparing satellite images with surveys conducted on the ground, we figured out we could accurately detect about 82% of wombat warrens from the photos. We weren’t quite as good at rabbit warrens: we could only spot 49%. Small rabbit warrens were particularly easy to miss.

One complicating issue was the fact that wombats and rabbits sometimes share the same burrow. Usually it’s the smaller, sneakier rabbits taking advantage of the large and sturdy tunnels dug by wombats.

This makes it even harder to figure out exactly who is living where. We could recognise shared warrens when we inspected them on the ground, but so far we can’t distinguish them from satellite photos.

What’s next?

Our research shows we can use satellites to map burrowing animal populations without ever setting foot in the outback. This saves time and money, and also reduces the the risk of disturbing wildlife while conducting research.

In the future, with higher-resolution satellite images and better software – using tools like machine learning – we may be able to detect and count burrows and warrens automatically. This could be a big change for wildlife conservation and pest control.

So next time you look up at the sky, remember that somewhere out there a satellite might be taking a picture of a sleepy wombat’s home – or a rabbit plotting its next move.

Natarsha McPherson received funding from the Australian Wildlife Society’s University Research Grant.

– ref. The Nullarbor is riddled with wombat and rabbit warrens. Scientists are watching them from space – https://theconversation.com/the-nullarbor-is-riddled-with-wombat-and-rabbit-warrens-scientists-are-watching-them-from-space-249359

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Neera Bhatia, Associate Professor in Law (Health Law), Deakin University

People looking for a sperm donor can go to a fertility clinic, ask a friend to donate or look for a donor online, including on an app or via social media.

Women in same-sex relationships, single women and others are choosing the online option for a number of reasons.

But this brings with it various challenges and risks. Here’s what to know first.

It’s a popular choice

Up to 4,000 children are estimated to have been born over the past ten years via one Australian sperm donation website alone.

In just 2022, sperm sourced via one private Facebook group reportedly resulted in 692 births.

Some donors and recipients choose to use online platforms because they want to form connections and friendships with the other party early on. In some cases, donors choose to remain in the lives of the recipient and any child born from their donation.

But some sperm donors go online to remain anonymous, an option not usually possible when donating through a fertility clinic.

Some people might use online sperm donation because the cost of accessing donor sperm at fertility clinics is too high in Australia. Some clinics charge a sperm donation management fee of about A$2,000. This allows people to access information about the donors they can choose from. Then there is the cost of insemination and of the sperm itself, which is about $2,500 out-of-pocket per cycle. Online sperm donation in Australia tends to be altruistic and does not cost anything.

People in rural or regional areas may live far from fertility clinics, making access challenging.

Then there’s often a shortage of donor sperm at clinics. In particular, there’s a lack of ethnic and cultural diversity in donors.

Whatever the reason for seeking sperm online, here are some issues to consider first.

1. Medical unknowns

Sperm donors at fertility clinics undergo medical, physical and psychological screening to reduce the risk of transmitting disease to a child.

However, online sperm donors may provide people with unscreened sperm that might be carrying sexually transmitted infections or inheritable genetic conditions.

This puts the recipient and the potential child at risk because of the lack of medical information about the donor.

2. Psychological, personal, social risks

People might be placed at risk when they agree to meet a potential online sperm donor in person. There have been reported cases where potential donors have pressured people into natural insemination (sexual intercourse) once they meet. This is despite donors initially agreeing to provide sperm for home insemination (using a syringe to inject the donor sperm into the vagina).

These safety and exploitation concerns are especially pertinent in cases of same-sex female couples and people who are same-sex attracted who might feel coerced or compelled to have sexual intercourse with a man to try to conceive a child.

In fertility clinics, state laws limit the number of individuals or families that can use a single donor’s sperm (from five to ten families depending on the state).

The nature of online sperm donation means there are no records kept about the number of children a donor contributes to conceiving. With no formal record keeping, one donor could potentially provide sperm to hundreds of people. This increases the chances of donor-conceived siblings unknowingly having children together later in life.

There might be cases where donors do not tell the truth about their identity or background, as happened in a case in Japan when a donor allegedly lied about his identity and education.

There might also be psychological harm when an agreement has been made about contact between the parties and that agreement is later disputed or disregarded.

3. Legally, it’s a grey area

A man who donates sperm to a fertility clinic has no legal rights or obligations to a child born as a result of this donation in Australia.

However, conceiving a child using informally donated sperm can be legally precarious. We are not aware of any reported cases in Australia of legal disputes about parentage that have involved online sperm donation. However, if the practice continues to grow, the courts may need to intervene if a donor is seeking to exercise some rights relating to the donor-conceived child against the mother’s wishes.

There was, however, a 2019 case that relates to sperm donation by a friend. Here, the High Court ruled a man who donated sperm informally to his friend was deemed the legal parent of a child. This resulted in the mother and her same-sex partner being prevented from relocating to New Zealand with the child and their sibling.

As each potential case will depend on its own set of unique circumstances, it’s best to take legal advice first.

4. What’s best for the child?

Many donor-conceived people want information about, and contact with, their donor. A lack of information, including medical information, can contribute to psychological, medical and social harms.

So people should carefully consider how this arrangement might impact any child conceived. This includes their potential desire to meet any siblings conceived using the same donor’s sperm.

Where to from here?

The decision to have a child using donor sperm is complex. When deciding how to access donor sperm, people may benefit from speaking to an accredited fertility counsellor about their options.

This may include accessing donor sperm through a fertility clinic, which are strictly regulated and licensed, and need to comply with state laws and ethical guidelines.

While accessing donor sperm through a regulated fertility clinic may be more costly and time-consuming, it is also markedly safer than online sperm donation.

However, some people may not want to access donor sperm through a fertility clinic, or this might not meet their needs. We need to understand why so we can try to do something about it.

If a person decides to access donor sperm online, they should have open and honest discussions with the potential donor about:

• their medical history

• what role they envisage in the future life of a child born using their sperm

• how all parties can keep records and contact information.

Before seeing a potential donor in person, they should also tell a family member, close friend or someone they can confide in about the meeting to ensure they are safe.

Taking these measures may help make accessing donor sperm online a positive experience for all involved.

Neera Bhatia receives funding from the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council for an unrelated project.

Catherine Mills has received industry research funding from Monash IVF, Ferring Pharmaceutical and Illumina. She is a bioethics consultant for VitroLife. She has received Australian government research funding from the ARC, NHMRC and MRFF. She does not receive private remuneration from any industry body.

Giselle Newton is a donor-conceived woman and is a member of Donor Conceived Australia.

Molly Johnston has received research funding from Monash IVF Group and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and honoraria and travel fees from Gedeon Richter.

Karin Hammarberg 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. Looking for a sperm donor online? 4 things to think about first – https://theconversation.com/looking-for-a-sperm-donor-online-4-things-to-think-about-first-246888

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John White, Associate Professor in Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Deakin University

Fire broke out in the Grampians National Park (Gariwerd) in December and raged for weeks. Then lightning strikes ignited fresh blazes late last month, which merged to form a mega-fire that’s not out yet.

This 168,000-hectare reserve, about 200km west of Melbourne, is a significant ecological and cultural landscape. Its ancient sandstone mountains and valleys maintain eucalypt woodlands and heathlands that support a rich diversity of plants and animals, making it a key conservation asset in Victoria.

Since 2008, our team has been monitoring mammal species annually in the Grampians. This long-term effort has allowed us to learn how species respond to wildfires, droughts and floods.

We commenced our research just two years after big fires swept through the park in 2006. We also witnessed the changes following more fires in 2013 and 2014.

So while many animals have lost much of their habitat to fire this summer, we know recovery is possible. But some may need help to cope with challenges ahead.

A terrible summer as multiple fires rage

The massive December wildfire in the park’s east burned for weeks, forcing evacuations in towns such as Halls Gap, and upending Christmas for many residents. By early January, that fire was contained – but only after burning about 76,000 hectares of the park and surrounding areas.

Then, on January 27, lightning strikes in the west ignited four fires that eventually merged, burning through the entire Victoria Range and some rural properties.

The full extent of damage is not yet known. But it’s already clear the fires have been devastating. They burned much of the same areas affected by the 2006 wildfires in the east and 2013 fires in the west, as well as long-unburned areas.

Combined, fires this big have not been observed in this landscape in the past 50 years.

What is the extent of the damage to the environment?

It’s difficult to determine how much of the park has burned so far this summer, because the shaded area on the state emergency map extends beyond the park’s borders. But a rough, conservative estimate suggests at least 110,000 hectares of the 168,000 hectare park has burned since December. This is a deeply troubling scenario.

The Grampians is an isolated landscape – an “island” of native vegetation surrounded by a sea of agricultural land. So animals can’t easily migrate from other parts of Victoria to repopulate the area. Recovery largely depends on the landscape’s own ability to regenerate after fire.

Populations of small carnivorous marsupials often peak in areas that haven’t burned for 10–20 years.

So for many species, most of their habitat has been lost to fire. This includes endangered mammals such as the smoky mouse, heath mouse, brush-tailed rock wallaby, southern brown bandicoot and long-nosed potoroo. These species in particular will need considerable help for the next few years.

Recovery will happen over time

Many animals likely perished in the blaze and more will die in coming months.

Unfortunately, most native small mammals struggle to survive in freshly burned habitats. Fire depletes their food sources and strips away the vegetation that provides cover and protection from predators.

But there is hope. Our previous research shows some animals do survive. These survivors can eventually breed, sparking the slow recovery of the landscape and helping reestablish populations over the next decade or two.

The rate of recovery will be driven by rainfall. So if drought hits, recovery will be slow. But if we have wet years, recovery will accelerate.

Many native plants in the national park are more resilient to fire than the animals, so recover faster. Native heathland plants such as Australian grass trees have evolved in the presence of fire and often reshoot pretty quickly. Seeds also germinate after fires. But it takes a few years after the plants come back before many native animal species fully recover.

So the first few years after fire are usually tough for native species. From a conservation perspective this is manageable in a patchy landscape — where some areas burned recently and others haven’t burned in decades. However, the current situation is different. This year, most of the landscape burned and almost no long-unburned habitat remains.

What are the threats?

The main challenge to recovery in the coming months and years is introduced species, especially foxes and cats. Foxes are particularly problematic, because they are drawn to recently burned areas where hunting is much easier.

To give native mammals a fighting chance, it is essential to ramp up fox management efforts for at least the next year. This will allow surviving native mammals time to recover and for vegetation to regrow, providing necessary cover.

In addition, Parks Victoria and the Victorian Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action are erecting artificial shelters in ecologically sensitive areas. These provide temporary refuge for animals, giving them a better chance to evade predators.

What about the role of climate change?

In recent decades, the Grampians have experienced a general decline in rainfall, coupled with a significant increase in wildfires since the early 2000s.

We’re now witnessing a cycle where large fires are followed by droughts, and then wet periods such as the recent La Niña years.

During these wetter periods, vegetation flourishes. But when the inevitable dry spells return, that vegetation dries out, creating ideal conditions for wildfires. So the good years, while offering relief to the landscape, are setting the stage for the next fire. This leaves the landscape constantly vulnerable.

What can people do to help?

Fire is a natural process – albeit one increasingly driven by climate change. As climate change worsens, landscapes like the Grampians will face more frequent, large wildfires.

We should approach our natural landscapes with care, acknowledging climate change is fundamentally altering how these ecosystems function.

The best action we can take is to pressure governments to seriously address climate change and implement meaningful solutions.

John White receives funding from Parks Victoria to support his long-term mammal research in the Grampians,

– ref. Grampians National Park is still burning – here’s what we can expect will survive and recover – https://theconversation.com/grampians-national-park-is-still-burning-heres-what-we-can-expect-will-survive-and-recover-249147

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karley Beckman, Senior Lecturer in Digital Technologies for Learning, University of Wollongong

If you are a parent of a school student, you may have received a form seeking permission to use your child’s image on school social media accounts.

It’s very common for schools to share photos of smiling students on platforms such as Facebook and Instagram. This may be to celebrate the start of term, student achievements, or performances and events at the school.

Schools need permission from parents to publish or disclose students’ personal information, including photos and videos, on any online platform.

But research suggests families can lack support and information to provide fully informed consent.

Read more:
Is your child’s photo on their school Facebook page? What does this mean for their privacy?

Why do schools post photos online?

Our recent study showed one of main reasons schools post on social media is they believe it is what parents want. This is part of marketing their school as a positive place to learn.

But some parents take a more cautious approach to social media and don’t necessarily want photos of their children made public online.

There is significant community concern about children’s online privacy and their digital footprint or the information trail about them.

Last month, the Australian Federal Police warned parents about sharing images of their children online, especially back-to-school photos. It recommended parents blur or obscure the logo of the child’s school. Police also noted how background features can identify a school or child’s location.

The AFP has seen non-explicit pictures of children and young people become the target of highly sexualised and inappropriate comments or role play.

The risks also go beyond other people identifying your child online. Photos of children shared online can be used to train AI models or create deepfakes that are increasingly being used in cases of cyber bullying and cyber abuse.

What are the rules in Australia?

The Australian Privacy Act and related Australian Privacy Principles, say consent to share personal information should be current, clearly explained and specific.

This is why schools need to ask parents at the start of each year, but how they do this will depend on the state education department or individual school.

Here are three questions to consider before you sign.

1. What is the school asking you for?

While approaches vary, it is common for schools to ask for several types of permission in one bundle.

For example, they may ask if they can use photos and videos of your child in the school newsletter, school website, annual report, online learning platforms, traditional news media as well as social media.

So the locations where your child’s information and photo may be shared are quite different in terms of privacy and your child’s digital footprint.

For example, this could involve a photo of your child doing a class activity shared on a secure education app, or a video of your child on a public Facebook page.

Parents have the right to consent and/or decline the use of their children’s information for specific purposes. If you can’t do this on the form, you can contact the school.

2. What does the school post?

Before providing or declining consent, you may want to take a closer look at the kinds of posts the school shares. This includes:

• the quantity of information shared (number of photos or videos shared, and how often)

• strategies used to protect children’s privacy (no names or locations, or photos in which children are not clearly identifiable or faces are obscured)

• the purpose of the posts (can you see the value and benefit of sharing information?).

Think about whether the school’s approach fits with your family’s approach to social media and what you share.

3. How does your child feel?

Research shows children as young as eight are developing an understanding of the risks of sharing personal information online.

Understanding how your child feels about their school’s social media is important in making an informed decision about consent. It also helps teach them about making decisions about their digital footprint.

You could ask your child:

• are they aware of the school social media sites?

• how does having their photo taken, or not, at school make them feel?

• are they asked when their photo is taken, and are they told where it will be used or shared?

These forms can seem routine or presented as if it’s not a big deal. But if you have any questions or concerns you should talk to your school. Schools can help you with more information and can also forward feedback to education departments. This is particularly important as we navigate the changing nature of social media and the potential impacts on children.

Karley Beckman is an Associate Investigator with the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child.

Tiffani Apps is an Associate Investigator with the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child

– ref. Schools need parent permission to put students’ photos on social media. 3 questions to ask before you say yes – https://theconversation.com/schools-need-parent-permission-to-put-students-photos-on-social-media-3-questions-to-ask-before-you-say-yes-249273

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Garritt C. Van Dyk, Senior Lecturer in History, University of Waikato

The day he took office for his second term, United States President Donald J. Trump unveiled his “America First” trade policy, including tariffs on imported goods from Mexico, Canada (both of which have since been paused) and China.

President Trump’s reasoning for the tariffs included revitalising the American economy by bringing manufacturing and business back within US borders. Essentially, pushing the country towards greater self-sufficiency.

Considering the cost of the tariffs, a number of countries have begun to question their dependence on foreign trade. But there are very clear hurdles including access to precious metals and raw materials.

In a global market that relies on international trade, is it possible to be totally self-sufficient?

The history of self-seficiency

The economic term for self-sufficiency is “autarky”, borrowed from the ancient Greek word autarkeia, meaning “to suffice”. Ideally, this meant that a state could supply the needs of its people without foreign trade. Autarky, in its purest form, isolates the state from foreign economic, political and cultural influence.

There are numerous historical examples of attempts to achieve complete economic autonomy.

In 17th century Japan the Tokugawa Shogunate closed the borders to foreigners and prohibited Japanese from travelling abroad.

There was limited private trade with China through Nagasaki and with Europe through Dutch merchants. They were confined to an artificial island, Deshima, off Nagasaki, to ensure their isolation. These restrictions remained for 265 years, until the threat of US gunboats forced Japan to sign a trade treaty in 1854.

Self-sufficiency was also a goal of Benito Mussolini’s fascist dictatorship, aiming to lift Italy’s post-war economy in the 1920s. One initiative was the “Battle for Wheat”, an attempt to produce enough wheat to meet domestic demand and “free the Italian people from the slavery of foreign bread”.

Italy imported more than one third of the flour needed to make bread and pasta, the two main foodstuffs. Pasta was targeted as a “backwards” food to promote consumption of local rice and reduce agricultural imports.

Tariffs were levied on all imported goods in 1931. These were raised again in 1935 after sanctions were imposed on Italy following the invasion of Ethiopia. Mussolini declared in 1935 that Italy “would manage alone”.

While imports of food, machinery and raw materials dropped, oil imports increased. Mussolini recognised the limits of autarky in 1934:

Let us not delude ourselves about autarky. All the modern nations, thanks to the prodigious development of the sciences, can move towards a partial autarky. But we, until the contrary is proven, will have to import liquid combustibles.

A modern push to self-sufficiency

Even with reduced reliance on fossil fuels, the scarcity of some natural resources, such as rare earth minerals, still poses a challenge to achieving autarky.

Even the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), a centrally planned economy subject to United Nations Security Council sanctions for its nuclear and ballistic missile testing since 2006, is not completely self-sufficient.

China is North Korea’s largest trading partner, with plastics, tobacco, soybean oil, rubber tires and packaged medicines as the top imports. The economic isolation of North Korea also makes it more vulnerable to global price fluctuations, as the movements are magnified due to the limited number of trading partners.

Supply chain disruptions were highlighted during the pandemic, continued in 2021 with shortages in microchips, followed by Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Some nations, such as the US and the United Kingdom, have responded to this logistical risk by shifting to local production, or reshoring, of certain critical industries, such as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.

This inward turn requires significant investment and lead time and may involve higher local energy and labour costs, or additional environmental restrictions. For industries that involve national security or essential goods, reducing dependence on potential adversaries may be necessary. But for other sectors the higher costs will create inflationary pressure.

There are also implicit costs in cutting economic ties with the outside world. Foreign investment is reduced and innovation lags as there are fewer incentives for the cross-border flow of ideas.

Embracing friendshoring

As the push for self-reliance increases, vulnerable countries will need new strategies to remain resilient.

Identifying alternative supply chain relationships and increasing inventory stockpiles in advance will minimise disruptions.

Another tactic is “friendshoring” – relocating supply chains to countries where the risk of disruption from political chaos is low.

It is likely that geopolitical instability will increase and global fragmentation will continue. While straightforward autarky may not be possible, countries will need to consider how to survive the political and economic volatility of the next four years – and beyond.

Garritt C. Van Dyk 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. ‘America First’ trade policy is pushing economic self-sufficiency – but history shows this is harder than it seems – https://theconversation.com/america-first-trade-policy-is-pushing-economic-self-sufficiency-but-history-shows-this-is-harder-than-it-seems-248530

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack McGrath, Lecturer in Animation, University of Newcastle

The 2025 Academy Awards could shape up to be a big one for stop-motion animation. Australian director Adam Eliott’s Memoir of a Snail (2024) has raked in a nomination for Best Animated Feature Film, alongside Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl (2024).

Read more:
Overtly handmade and so very moving: Adam Elliot’s Memoir of A Snail is a stop motion triumph

Coincidentally, this recognition comes in what is already an historic year for stop motion. A century ago, on February 8 1925, The Lost World hit cinemas. This film is widely considered the first feature-length stop-motion production, as well as the first “creature feature”.

Audiences were captivated as they watched animated dinosaurs share the screen with live actors. The animators positioned and photographed miniature dinosaurs made of rubber, one frame at a time, to create moving sequences that accompanied full-scale shots with human actors.

This method drew from earlier works such as Georges Méliès’s 1902 short film A Trip to the Moon (Le voyage dans la lune).

Dynamation: the beginnings

After animating on The Lost World, stop-motion pioneer Willis O’Brien went on to animate King Kong (1933) and the lesser-known Mighty Joe Young (1949), where he mentored Ray Harryhausen.

Harryhausen himself would later design and animate some of the most celebrated stop-motion sequences of all time, including the famous skeleton fight in Jason and the Argonauts (1963) and the fictional Rhedosaurus from The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953).

The blend of animated miniatures and live actors become known as Dynamation, as Harryhausen pushed to create ever-more integrated and dynamic sequences in which animated puppets “interacted” with real actors.

Back then it wasn’t possible to review animation as it was being shot; you could only see the puppet as it was in the moment. Sequences were shot on celluloid film, and animators had to wait for the film to develop before they could see the results.

The famous skeleton fight in Jason and the Argonauts required Harryhausen to remember the movements of seven skeletons and line up a fight sequence with two pre-recorded actors, one frame at a time. He would often work for months before being able to review his work.

In Eastern Europe, filmmakers such as Karel Zeman were also combining live action with miniature special effects and stop motion – extending a long history of Eastern European puppet theatre into cinema.

In 1958, Zeman brought Jules Vernes’ whimsical vehicles and underwater worlds to the screen in his feature film Invention for Destruction (Vynález zkázy).

Zeman’s work went on to influence famous animators such as Jan Švankmajer and Terry Gilliam.

Technology advances

In the 1970s, Phil Tippet and others working at Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) – a studio founded by George Lucas – pushed the medium further through the development of “go-motion”.

This invention used a custom-made control rig that precisely moved a puppet while it was being photographed – resulting in a subtle motion blur that emulated live-action movement.

This technique allowed for more realistic animation and was used in productions such as Dragon Slayer (1981) and Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980).

In the 1980s, however, Star Wars began a trend towards photorealism and audiences became more scrutinising of visual effects. Harryhausen’s creatures in Clash of the Titans (1981) appeared especially hammy and outdated even for the time.

The CGI scare

In the early 90s, Phil Tippet and colleagues at ILM, in the pursuit of perfecting the craft, developed test dinosaur sequences for Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park (1993). Tippet animated the original test sequences in stop motion.

Also at ILM, Dennis Muren was experimenting with a new kind of animation for creatures made entirely using computer software. These were the early days of computer-generated imagery (CGI).

When Tippet saw an early Jurassic Park test of CGI dinosaur footage, he said to Steven Spielberg “I’m extinct”.

Nonetheless, once it was decided the dinosaurs would be created with CGI, Tippet continued working on the film. He used a dinosaur-shaped physical rig, which allowed changes to the rig’s position to translate to CGI movements onscreen. Stop-motion animators were helpful in this process because “CGI animators” as we know them didn’t yet exist.

Amid a CGI-induced scare, Tim Burton and Henry Selicks’ The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) became the first fully stop-motion animated feature to be produced by a major studio. This film proved stop motion could be achieved at a Hollywood scale.

Stop motion took a backseat to CGI in the years that followed. Pixar’s Toy Story (1995), the world’s first fully CGI animated feature, cemented CGI as the way of the future.

The only other noteworthy stop-motion cinematic release came at the turn of the century, when DreamWorks teamed up with Aardman Animations to produce Chicken Run (2000), following a number of successful stop motion shorts, starting with Wallace and Gromit’s A Grand Day Out in 1989.

The comeback

Eventually, innovations in digital cameras and motion control paved the way back to stop motion, giving us films such as Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005) and The Corpse Bride (2005).

Working on Coraline (2008), Laika studios introduced 3D printing technology for a sophisticated form of replacement animation, in which different body and facial pieces are swapped to create character movements and expressions.

Traditionally, this technique was achieved by carving individual wooden models and swapping them out between capturing frames. This is how filmmaker George Pal made his Puppetoons films in the 1930s.

Embracing new tech brought stop motion back onto the world stage, with studios such as Laika leading the charge. Since then, we’ve seen the release of features including ParaNorman (2012), The Boxtrolls (2014), Kubo and the Two Strings (2016), Missing Link (2019) and Guillermo del Toro’s Academy Award-wining Pinnoccio (2022).

A new era of stop-motion features

Despite huge developments in CGI, audiences still appreciate the painstaking work of bringing inanimate objects to life frame by frame.

There are more stop motion films being made than ever before, with independent filmmakers and students creating quality sequences for a fraction of what it cost 30 years ago.

Some directors use the medium for its connection with real materials, and out of respect for the art form. Phil Tippet spent more than 30 years on his stop motion feature Mad God (2021) – an experimental and intense horror magnum opus that embodies the materiality of stop motion.

Wes Anderson says his approach to stop motion in Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) was “very much about bringing to life the [characters’] performance.”

In Pinocchio (2022), Guillermo del Toro tells the touching story of a puppet, using real puppets, in which imperfection and human frailty are emphasised.

We’re also seeing the return of stop-motion creature effects, such as with Disney’s Star Wars series Skeleton Crew (2024–25), in which live action is once again integrated with stop-motion puppets.

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) is now pushing audiences and creators to question what they value in animation, cinema and art more generally.

If AI could generate high-quality films with a stop-motion aesthetic, would we value them as much as those productions that were laboured over for years on end? The recent Oscar nominees may hold the answer.

Jack McGrath 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 century in motion: how stop-motion films went from obscure ‘creature features’ to winning Oscars – https://theconversation.com/a-century-in-motion-how-stop-motion-films-went-from-obscure-creature-features-to-winning-oscars-248008