Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Conrad Pilditch, Professor of Marine Sciences, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

For the past fortnight, the city of Nice in France has been the global epicentre of ocean science and politics.

Last week’s One Ocean Science Congress ended with a unanimous call for action to turn around the degradation of the ocean. And this week, the United Nation’s Ocean Conference agenda focused on better protection of marine biodiversity, sustainable fisheries and emissions cuts.

The message is clear. With only five years to the UN’s 2030 target for its sustainable development goal – to conserve the oceans, seas and marine resources – and the Global Biodiversity Framework requirement to protect 30% of the ocean, we need to make significant progress.

We all attended last week’s meeting, together with more than 2,000 marine scientists from 120 countries. Here, we reflect on New Zealand’s role and obligations to contribute to these global goals.

Legal imperatives

Globally, the ocean is warming and acidifying at accelerating rates. New Zealand’s waters are not immune to this, with more marine heatwaves which further stress our threatened marine biodiversity.

We depend directly on these ocean ecosystems to provide the air we breathe, moderate the impacts of climate change and feed millions of people.

New Zealand has significant influence on ocean policy – from Antarctica to the sub-tropical Pacific, and within its sea territory, which is 15 times the size of its landmass and spans 30 degrees of latitude.

The government is required by law to take action to secure a healthy ocean.

A recent advisory opinion from the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea unanimously found that states, including New Zealand, have obligations under international law to reduce the impacts of climate change on marine areas, to apply an ecosystem approach to marine law and policy, reduce pollution and support the restoration of the ocean.

New Zealand courts have recognised the need to take a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach to marine management, based on science, tikanga and mātauranga Māori. These legal cases are part of a global upswell of strategic environmental and climate litigation.

If New Zealand does not comply with these marine legal obligations, it may well find itself before the courts, incurring significant legal and reputational costs.

International agreements

In 2022, New Zealand was one of 196 countries that committed to protecting at least 30% of the world’s coastal and marine areas by 2030 under the Global Biodiversity Framework. New Zealand was an enthusiastic supporter, but only 0.4% of its marine territory is fully protected in no-take marine reserves.

Former prime minister Helen Clark has criticised the current government for lagging behind on marine protection, especially in failing to ban bottom trawling.

At this week’s UN ocean summit, a further 18 countries have ratified an agreement known as the High Seas Treaty, bringing the total to 50, still short of the 60 nations needed for it to enter into force.

New Zealand signed this treaty just before the last general election, but is yet to ratify it. Foreign Minister Winston Peters represented New Zealand at the UN ocean conference, but focused mainly on issues in the Pacific.

Meanwhile, the government announced sweeping changes to the national direction on environmental policy, including reworking the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement to better enable the use and development of the coastal environment for “priority activities” such as aquaculture, resource extraction, infrastructure and energy.

Oceanic environmental change is real and accelerating

Some countries showed that effective leadership can help navigate to a safe future for the oceans. For example, China’s commitment to clean energy has seen carbon dioxide emissions begin to fall for the first time despite higher power consumption.

At the UN ocean summit, French Polynesia’s president announced his administration would establish one of the world’s largest networks of marine protected areas.

The cost of inaction far outweighs the economics of the status quo. Ongoing ocean warming is already affecting weather patterns, with more extreme storms.

It is possible for marine ecosystems to recover quite rapidly if they are protected, at least temporarily. Yet this year, New Zealand’s government found itself in hot water (once again) with both conservationists and Māori for its management of fisheries.

We argue New Zealand has an opportunity and responsibility to demonstrate it can shift the downward spiral of oceanic degradation.

The overwhelming message at the half-way point of the UN Ocean Decade is that for marine science to transform the state of our oceans it needs to include Indigenous peoples who have routinely been sidelined from ocean policy discussions despite their longstanding rights and relationships with the ocean.

New Zealand already has a foundation of transdisciplinary and Indigenous ocean research to develop ocean policies that are fit for local purposes and to answer global calls to action. We have a unique window of opportunity to lead the changes needed.

Conrad Pilditch currently receives funding from the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment.

Elizabeth Macpherson receives funding from Te Apārangi The Royal Society.

Karin Bryan receives funding from the Marsden Fund, the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment, the George Mason Centre for the Natural Environment and Waikato Regional Council.

Simon Francis Thrush receives funding from ERC, Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and the Auckland Foundation

Joanne Ellis, Karen Fisher, and Rachael Mortiaux 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. NZ has a vast sea territory but lags behind other nations in protecting the ocean – https://theconversation.com/nz-has-a-vast-sea-territory-but-lags-behind-other-nations-in-protecting-the-ocean-258470

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacob Ware, Adjunct Professor of Domestic Terrorism, Georgetown University

The U.S. Army will celebrate its 250th birthday on Saturday, June 14, 2025, with a parade in Washington, D.C., in which about 6,600 soldiers and heavy pieces of military equipment will roll through the streets. The parade aims to display the Army’s history and power.

“It’s going to be incredible,” President Donald Trump recently said. Trump’s 79th birthday also occurs on June 14.

Despite the festivities, however, the parade will occur amid bleak times for the U.S. military, as it experiences a multiyear decline in recruitment numbers. In the face of a pandemic and a strong civilian job market, the Army, Air Force and Navy all missed their recruitment goals in 2022 and 2023. In 2022, the Army missed its quota by 25%.

In 2024, the U.S. military met its recruitment target, which supports the argument that the bump is not due to Trump, as recruitment levels began to rise again before his reelection. But in some cases, the U.S. military has met its recruitment goals by lowering target numbers.

And as a scholar of terrorism and targeted violence, I believe a close reading of available data on military recruitment suggests U.S. gun violence may be largely to blame for the lack of interest in joining the military.

Gun violence data

Regardless of one’s personal politics, the data on U.S. gun violence makes for painful reading.

Almost 47,000 Americans died from gun-related injuries in 2023. In 2022, there were 51 school shootings in which students were injured or killed by guns. And gun injuries are the leading cause of death for Americans between ages 1 and 19.

Data about the perceptions of gun violence is equally staggering, especially among American youth between ages 14 and 30.

Four out of five American youth believe gun violence to be a problem, and 25% have endured real active-shooter lockdowns, according to data compiled by Everytown for Gun Safety, where I serve as a survivor fellow, the Southern Poverty Law Center and American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab.

Moreover, these perceptions have considerable impacts on youth mental health and their sense of safety. Studies have linked concern over school shootings among adolescents with higher rates of anxiety and trauma-related disorders.

As Arne Duncan, who served as President Barack Obama’s secretary of education during the Sandy Hook tragedy, said in 2023: “Unfortunately, what’s now binding young people across the country together is not joy of music, or sports, or whatever, it’s really the shared pain of gun violence – and it cuts through race and class and geography and economics.”

National security threat

In the past couple of years, polls taken of Generation Z youth, born between 1997 and 2012, suggest mental health and mass shootings are among the most important political issues motivating this band of voters.

Gun violence, in other words, is a national security emergency, undermining the U.S. government’s ability to protect its citizens in their schools, places of worship and communities.

As former Marine Gen. John Allen wrote in 2019: “Americans today are more likely to experience gun violence at home than they might in many of the places to which I deployed in the name of defending our nation.”

Rewriting American culture

Accordingly, gun violence has undercut American patriotism, corroding the U.S. government’s soft power within its own borders. Generation Z, termed by some as the “lockdown generation,” is often derided as less patriotic than its predecessors.

Also, the belief in American exceptionalism is dropping among millennials, born between 1981 and 1996. That perception is combined with less confidence in U.S. global engagement and the efficacy of military solutions.

American culture has long inspired military service, with recruits seduced by action movies and promises of heroic returns to the U.S. But American culture today is being rewired into one of suffering, pain and victimhood.

A fear of violence

Gun violence destroys youth tolerance for the violence that defines a career in the U.S. military.

Internal U.S. military surveys of young Americans show that “the top three reasons young people cite for rejecting military enlistment are the same across all the services: fear of death, worries about post-traumatic stress disorder and leaving friends and family — in that order.”

Generations already suffering a shattered sense of safety and place do not see the military as a viable option.

The explanations the U.S. Defense Department gives for dismal recruitment levels focus on the younger generation’s supposed lack of backbone or hatred of America.

Republicans, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, have blamed alleged “wokeness” for low recruitment levels.

And the Trump administration’s statements about improving recruitment numbers over the past several months overlook both a late Biden-era surge after a pandemic slump as well as the reality that numbers remain depressed due to military services repeatedly lowering their recruitment goals.

Very rarely are introspective questions publicly debated today about the objective attractiveness of military service or the appetite for violence among young people. The problem, I believe, is not that young people are insufficiently patriotic – it’s that they have already been fighting a war, daily, for their entire lives.

In reversing the slide in recruitment, then, the military could improve its sensitivity to these important concerns.

Highlighting the range of careers within the services that do not involve front-line combat and physical danger could encourage more reluctant would-be recruits to volunteer.

Mental health support also could be made an essential element of military training and lifestyle − not a resource only for those bearing the hidden side-effects of life in the ranks. Encouraging those suffering from treatable mental health issues to seek meaning in service could also boost recruitment numbers.

Jacob Ware is a gun violence survivor and serves as a Survivor Fellow at Everytown for Gun Safety.

– ref. US Army’s image of power and flag-waving rings false to Gen Z weary of gun violence − and long-term recruitment numbers show it – https://theconversation.com/us-armys-image-of-power-and-flag-waving-rings-false-to-gen-z-weary-of-gun-violence-and-long-term-recruitment-numbers-show-it-257090

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Duygu Yengin, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Adelaide

For the first time in its 124-year history, Treasury will be led by a woman.

Jenny Wilkinson’s appointment is historic in its own right. Even more remarkable is the fact she joins Michele Bullock at the Reserve Bank and Danielle Wood at the Productivity Commission.

Australia’s three most powerful economic institutions are now led by women economists. In economics, this is not normal. But it certainly does matter.

Stubbornly male

Imagine if only 17% of economics professors were men. It would feel unusual; people would ask why the field was so heavily skewed. But the reality is the opposite: 83% of economics professors in Australia are male.

And yet, this imbalance is almost invisible. Women make up just about one-third of secondary pupils studying economics and 40% of students enrolled in economics courses at university.

In the private sector, women economists are roughly one in three.

So while the appointments of Wilkinson, Bullock and Wood feels groundbreaking, the profession as a whole remains stubbornly male. Still, the leadership story is worth celebrating. When young women see leaders who look like them, they’re more likely to imagine themselves in those roles too.

As women increasingly take the helm, the old stereotype of a suit-clad man with a briefcase gives way to a broader, more inclusive image of what an economist can be.

The public service is leading the charge. As of 2023, women held 53% of senior executive service positions in the Australian Public Service, up from 46% in 2019.

Merit and diversity

Thankfully, unlike other parts of the world, we live in a country where these appointments haven’t triggered claims of so-called “diversity hires”. To be clear: these female pioneers weren’t appointed because they are women.

Each has decades of experience, technical firepower, and deep policy credentials. Wilkinson has led the Department of Finance and the Parliamentary Budget Office. Bullock has held almost every senior role at the Reserve Bank. Wood has shaped public debates on intergenerational equity and tax reform with clarity and rigour.

The idea that diversity is somehow in tension with merit is a false binary. Diverse groups make better decisions and are more creative, especially in high-stakes settings.

Decades of economics and business research has shown that incorporating diverse perspectives into decision-making only strengthens the outcomes. Decisions made and executed by diverse teams delivered 60% better results than those by non-diverse teams.

Merit isn’t just what’s on paper, it’s shaped by how we judge it.

When men and women perform equally well, success is more often credited to skill for men and to luck for women. Swap a male name for a female one on a CV, teaching evaluation or reference letter, and perceptions of competence, leadership and hireability start to shift.

These unconscious biases don’t just affect who gets ahead; they shape how we define merit in the first place.

Will it make a difference?

Economics often prides itself on being objective and neutral. While the economic models may be technically gender-blind, the questions we ask and investigate rarely are.

This is where gender diversity matters – not just in who holds the top jobs, but in what gets researched and how decisions are made. There’s growing evidence male and female economists don’t just ask different questions, they also approach problems differently.

One study found female central bankers tend to act with greater independence and deliver lower inflation. A United States study and another in Europe showed striking gender differences in how economists think about a range of areas, including labour markets, taxation, health and the environment, and more broadly on public spending – everything from welfare to the military.

Having more diverse perspectives doesn’t dilute economics – it deepens it. It makes the discipline more responsive to the diversity of the real-world challenges it’s meant to address.

Economic policies impact the whole society. So does the composition of economists.

So, what’s next?

Of course, three women in top economic roles won’t create miracles overnight – they all operate within existing systems and structures.

So, what can we expect from Wilkinson’s leadership? Her time at the Department of Finance suggests a steady, pragmatic hand: consultative, strategic and deeply experienced.

Wilkinson brings bipartisan credibility, a sharp grasp of fiscal discipline, and the capacity to act decisively in a crisis, as we saw during COVID. She won’t remake Treasury overnight, but she’s well placed to lead it with rigour, integrity and a long-term view.

This moment matters for women in economics. It shows change is possible in the profession, and it could mark the start of economic policy that truly reflects the diversity of the people it serves.

Duygu Yengin is affiliated with the University of Adelaide, Women in Economics Network, and the Economic Society of Australia.

– ref. It took more than a century, but women are taking charge of Australia’s economy – here’s why it matters – https://theconversation.com/it-took-more-than-a-century-but-women-are-taking-charge-of-australias-economy-heres-why-it-matters-258680

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Tidwell, Director, Center for Australian, New Zealand and Pacific Studies, Georgetown University

Since 2018, the United States has worked, albeit often haltingly, to regain its footing with Pacific Island countries. It’s done this largely by reflecting a sentiment familiar in Pacific capitals: the region is not a geopolitical backwater, but a crucial strategic zone in the 21st century.

Spurred by China’s strategic expansion – security deals, port access, political influence – the first Trump presidency and then the Biden administration renewed the US focus on the Pacific.

Washington was also prodded by regional allies, including New Zealand. In 2018, Foreign Minister Winston Peters said: “We unashamedly ask for the United States to engage more and we think it is in your vital interests to do so. And time is of the essence.”

Building on the tentative steps of its predecessor, the Biden administration acted. It opened new embassies, invited Pacific leaders to the White House, unveiled a dedicated strategy for the Pacific Islands, and committed to recognising the Cook Islands and Niue.

It also negotiated more funding for the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and Palau. Along with the 2022 Pacific Islands Summit, it all signalled Washington’s desire to be a better partner.

Crucially, the Biden administration recognised climate change and the economy, not great-power rivalry, as the region’s defining security concerns. Now, much of that progress is being eroded.

The second Trump administration has gutted key international development agencies, with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation shuttered.

More than mere symbols, these agencies were tools of statecraft, facilitating Washington’s capacity to compete with China’s “no questions asked” development model. Their removal leaves a vacuum, which Beijing will happily fill.

China pressing the advantage

Other signs of retreat are equally troubling. Congressional funding for the South Pacific Tuna Treaty – which pays for access for US fishing fleets and is the primary multiparty agreement the US has with the Pacific Islands – was tripled by Biden, but remains incomplete.

Trump recently signed an executive order opening the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument, a 1,282,534 square kilometre protected marine zone, to commercial fishing. This might be welcomed by the US tuna fleet, but it raises questions about Washington’s commitment to the tuna treaty.

Hoped-for expansion of US consular access, especially vital for Pacific Islanders who must travel long distances for basic services such as visa applications, is in limbo. The US embassy in Vanuatu, damaged by the earthquake in 2024, remains closed, leaving diplomats to work out of their hotel rooms.

China, by contrast, has not slowed down. Its security pact with Solomon Islands, its police training efforts in Samoa and Kiribati, and its growing intelligence presence across the region show a clear pattern of assertiveness.

Beijing has proven adept at offering timely, visible assistance. Its diplomats show up. Its companies build. Its promises, however opaque, are matched with resources.

The result has not necessarily meant Pacific nations have “chosen” China. Rather, most revert to the longstanding posture of “friend to all, enemy to none”.

In a region where non-alignment is both a survival strategy and a principle of sovereignty, the perception of US unreliability makes China’s attentions all the more welcome, or at least tolerable.

Not a binary contest

The US now appears to be abandoning efforts to break this cycle, and the Trump administration risks a genuine strategic error rather than a mere diplomatic misstep.

More than distant dots on a map, the Pacific Islands control vast stretches of ocean, including key shipping lanes and undersea cables. Their diplomatic weight matters in the United Nations.

And the region matters to Taiwan, which is recognised by 12 countries globally, three of which are in the Pacific.

Some argue the US should press Pacific nations to “choose” between Washington and Beijing. But that approach is shortsighted and counterproductive.

Most have no interest in being drawn into a binary contest. They seek concrete benefits – resilience funding, fair trade, visa access – not ideological alignment. Framing relationships as zero-sum contests misunderstands the region’s diplomatic logic.

Listening to Pacific leaders

To revive the relationship, the US will need to show up, follow through and demonstrate its partnership offers more than rhetoric.

This would involve restoring some elements of foreign assistance, fully funding the South Pacific Tuna Treaty obligations, opening and staffing embassies, and supporting Pacific regional organisations such as the Pacific Islands Forum with meaningful recognition and resources.

But the US review of Pacific foreign assistance (a small portion of US development aid formerly administered by USAID) has been delayed once again, and likely won’t emerge until mid-July.

More importantly, the US will have to listen to Pacific leaders, who have articulated their priorities clearly. They do not want to be sites of contest; they want to be agents of their own futures.

In short, the US will have to treat the Pacific Islands as sovereign equals.
When Trump returned to the White House, he found a workable policy architecture for the Pacific. Its core elements could still be rescued.

But continued neglect, mixed signals and cost-cutting risk hastening the outcome China seeks – a region that finds Washington unreliable. Winston Peters, now foreign minister in a new government, might want to update his 2018 call for US engagement in the Pacific – with the emphasis on reliability.

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

– ref. With Trump undoing years of progress, can the US salvage its Pacific Islands strategy? – https://theconversation.com/with-trump-undoing-years-of-progress-can-the-us-salvage-its-pacific-islands-strategy-258679

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra

As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers turn their attention to improving productivity growth across the economy, it will be interesting to see what the business community brings to a planned summit in August.

Labour productivity (output per hour worked) has barely grown this decade.

Much of the focus in the current debate has been on the role of workers (labour) and industrial relations. Less discussed has been low business investment (capital).

Labour will be more productive if each worker can use more capital: machinery, equipment and technology. Over the medium term, providing workers with more capital – “capital deepening”, in the jargon – tends to be the main contributor to labour productivity growth.

But business investment as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) is currently at its lowest level since the mid-1990s.

Investment is low in both the mining and non-mining sectors. In the latest national accounts report for the March quarter, business investment in machinery and equipment fell 1.7%.

The average worker now uses less capital equipment – machines and computers – than a decade ago. Investment just hasn’t kept pace with growth in employment.

Read more:
‘Hard to measure and difficult to shift’: the government’s big productivity challenge

Why is investment so weak?

One possible reason was put forward by then Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe in 2023. He suggested that, during the COVID pandemic, firms concentrated on surviving. Seeking out more efficient ways to produce was a lower priority. But post-pandemic, firms seem to have been slow to pivot back to an efficiency focus.

Another reason may be that, until recently, wage growth has been slower than the growth in prices of goods and services produced. This may have reduced the incentives for firms to invest in the equipment needed to boost labour productivity.

A key driver of investment is profitability. Firms are more likely to fund investment from retained earnings than by borrowing or raising capital. But the share of corporate profits in the economy has been quite high in recent years. So this does not explain low investment.

The ‘animal spirits’ are lacking

Business confidence – what economist John Maynard Keynes famously called “animal spirits” – is another important driver.

Share prices, both in Australia and the rest of the world, have grown strongly in recent years. The S&P/ASX 200 index of Australian share prices is close to its all-time high. This would suggest financial markets are very optimistic about the prospects of Australian companies.

Direct surveys of Australian businesses from National Australia Bank suggest conditions (the current situation) and confidence (about the future) are around their long-term average level. So this also does not explain the low investment.

One contributor to low investment may be that firms are applying inappropriately high “hurdle rates”. These refer to the minimum return firms expect from an investment before they will undertake it.

Hurdle rates tend to be “sticky” over time, meaning they do not move much. Many companies still apply hurdle rates of over 12%. These were appropriate back when interest rates and inflation were much higher, but seem too high now as borrowing costs have fallen with interest rate cuts.

The Productivity Commission has suggested one contributor to low investment could be a higher risk premium. Since the global financial crisis in 2007-08, companies and investors may have become more cautious about taking on risk.

Another factor could be growing market power of Australian companies that dominate a sector, making them complacent rather than striving to improve their performance.

The high degree of uncertainty

The Reserve Bank recently compiled two measures of uncertainty. One is derived from stock markets. The other is based on the number of news articles about policy uncertainty.

Both show the current environment is as uncertain now as it was during the early stages of the global financial crisis in 2007–08 and the COVID pandemic.

A common response to uncertainty is to defer decisions on both investment and hiring new workers until the outlook is clearer. A study by the Reserve Bank found that greater uncertainty did indeed reduce investment. But the size of the impact was – you guessed it – uncertain.

What can be done?

Business lobbies often attribute low rates of investment (and anything else they think people may not like) to “excessively high” corporate tax rates. But at 30% for large companies and 25% for small, the company tax rate is low by historical standards.

Some multinational firms may be deterred from entering the Australian market as our company tax rate is above that in some other jurisdictions. It is hard to tell how important this effect is. Company tax is only one of many factors that affect the comparative risk and return of Australia as an investment destination.

The Productivity Commission is investigating whether the corporate taxation system could be made more efficient rather than just lowering rates.

In the meantime, however, firms may be encouraged to invest more by a more stable domestic economic outlook. Inflation is back within the central bank’s 2-3% target range. Employment is around an all-time high proportion of the working age population. The election has removed some political uncertainty with a government holding a clear majority.

Businesses should stop whingeing and start providing workers with the tools they need to become more productive.

This article is part of The Conversation’s series, The Productivity Puzzle. Read the previous article here.

John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist in the Reserve Bank and the Australian Treasury.

– ref. Workers need better tools and tech to boost productivity. Why aren’t companies stepping up to invest? – https://theconversation.com/workers-need-better-tools-and-tech-to-boost-productivity-why-arent-companies-stepping-up-to-invest-257806

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

Tasmanian politics has been thrown into chaos after a Labor motion of no confidence forced Premier Jeremy Rockliff to either resign or call for a new election. The premier opted for the latter, with Tasmanians to vote on July 19, only something over a year into the four-year term.

In Tasmania, Australia’s smallest state in terms of both size and population, local issues dominate. Labor homed in on economic mismanagement.

But there is controversy over the Macquarie Point Hobart AFL stadium (which the major parties support) as well as the state’s important salmon industry, which saw a lot of attention federally in the lead-up to the last election.

To talk all things Tasmanian, we’re joined by Independent Tasmanian Senator Tammy Tyrrell. She was elected in 2022 under the banner of the Jacqui Lambie Network a former member of the party but left last year. We talk about the state election, as well as federal issues and the new Senate.

Tyrrell laments Tasmanians’ being made to vote again so soon,

I was out and about on the northwest coast of Tasmania all day yesterday and everybody was like, what the heck is going on? They don’t want to go to an election, the people of Tasmania, they want the parliament to actually be grown ups and sort it out amongst themselves.

The budget in Tasmania is in a shambles and we’re so far in the red that we can’t see any way out of it. But really? There’s no way that the Labor [party] is going to form government unless they form a minority government and no Tasmanian will support a Labor-Greens government again in a hurry. But I really think that the Liberal government should have elevated somebody else from within to be the leader, to be the premier.

On her former boss Jacqui Lambie whose party has now collapsed, Tyrrell says it’s because of the kind of person she is,

[In] the federal election, Jacqui focused outside of Tasmania. She focused on expanding the network. And it didn’t work for her because she didn’t campaign enough here in Tasmania.

It’s a shame that she’s not supporting the candidate that is still sitting with her under the network. […] I think she should have stuck by Andrew Jenner and supported him through this [Tasmanian] election because he has shown loyalty to her and he has stuck it through thick and thin. So I believe he should be able to run back under the banner.

Jacqui is a strong person and the network had every chance to be a strong network, but Jacqui [is] not really a team player. She’s more of a single athlete because she’s so determined and strong of her opinion and it’s hard to take a group forward when you’ve got such a strong force that does not communicate sideways very well. She is a strong human being and I still believe in Jacqui but it makes it hard for her to have a team.

On the salmon farming industry, while Tyrrell voices her support, she agrees that environmental concerns do matter,

I support any industry that puts jobs and money into small rural and regional communities in Tasmania. I agree that they need to be as eco and as green friendly as possible and I know that the salmon industry is doing things to be clean and as green as possible. But I also believe that we need to look after the people who live and work in Tasmania.

We can’t sacrifice an industry completely just to satisfy the people that don’t like the salmon industry. I will always support the people of Tasmania and encourage industry and business to be as eco-friendly as possible, which is why we’re encouraging as many biofuels and eco-green fuel companies as possible to come to Tasmania, and thrive here.

On reports that the Nationals approached her to join their party. Tyrell says while she didn’t seriously consider it, she took it as a “compliment”,

It was a big compliment though. The Nats represent rural and regional Australia beautifully, by speaking their voice and for them to see that I am representing the people of Tasmania in a good light. It was a huge compliment to be approached to join them. But I’d already been in a relationship and I’m quite happy being a single divorcee.

It’s amazing being an independent, it means that I can say and do what my community wants me to in their voice without having to agree to broad-sweeping politics or legislative ideas that I don’t agree with fundamentally.

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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Senator Tammy Tyrrell on wild days in Tasmania – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-senator-tammy-tyrrell-on-wild-days-in-tasmania-258802

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

Former prime minister Paul Keating famously used to say the resident galah in any pet shop was talking about micro-economic policy. These days, if you encounter a pet shop with a galah, she’ll be chattering about productivity.

Productivity is currently the hot topic for a conversation on economic reform. Australia, like many other countries, has a serious problem with it. Our productivity hasn’t significantly increased for more than a decade (apart from a temporary spike during the pandemic).

Now Treasurer Jim Chalmers has named productivity as his priority for Labor’s second term; assistant minister Andrew Leigh, part of the government’s economic team, has had it inserted into his title; the Productivity Commission has put out 15 potential reform areas for discussion, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a roundtable to canvass the way ahead.

The roundtable appears to be a prime ministerial initiative. Announcing it at the National Press Club on Tuesday, Albanese made a point of saying he had asked Chalmers to convene it. Perhaps it’s a case of the prime minister emulating his forerunner Bob Hawke, with his penchant for summits, while Chalmers seeks to be a contemporary Keating, as he searches for reforms to promote.

It would be a major achievement if people were able to remember the second-term Albanese government for paving the way for a significant lift in Australia’s productivity. It would probably also be an economic and political miracle.

Let’s never knock a summit, but let’s not be taken in by the suggestion that the planned August meeting, involving employers, unions and the government, will mark some breakthrough moment. Business representatives are approaching it with a degree of cynicism; they saw the 2022 jobs and skills summit as preparing the ground for the new government to meet union demands.

This summit is expected to have fewer participants than the 2022 meeting, and may be briefer. Albanese described it as “a more streamlined dialogue than the jobs and skills summit, dealing with a more targeted set of issues”. Chalmers will announce more details next week. We can expect the government will package a collection of initiatives at least for further work, and perhaps a few for early action.

While many stakeholders give lip service to improving productivity, there are huge obstacles to actually doing so.

There’s perennial talk about tax reform – from business and economists, rather than the government. But serious change produces winners and losers, and having “losers” has become a political no-no, especially when there is not enough money to compensate them.

The housing crisis could be eased, with more homes built faster, if there were less onerous regulations, notably at state and local level. Governments are working around the edges of this, but attempting to seriously slash regulation immediately runs into opposition from those who, variously, argue that will harm city-scapes, the environment, safety or the like.

Red tape hampers big projects, but interest groups concerned about fauna, flora or the climate defend extensive hurdles and appeals processes as important for other priorities.

We’d be more productive if people with skills (whether immigrants or those moving between states) faced fewer complexities in getting their credentials recognised. But critics would point to the risk of underqualified people getting through.

Regulations are both barriers and protections. Whether you see particular regulations as negative or positive will depend where you are coming from. Less regulation can enhance productivity – but in certain cases the trade-off can be less protection and/or more risk. We have, for good or ill, become a more risk-averse community.

Employers say various industrial relations laws and regulations restrict changes that could boost productivity. A Labor government interlocked with the union movement is going to listen to its industrial base on that one. Asked on Tuesday whether his message to business groups going to the summit was, “don’t waste your breath if you’re going to raise IR” Albanese said, “People are entitled to raise whatever they want to raise. But I’m a Labor prime minister.”

Artificial Intelligence presents great opportunities to advance productivity. But it will cost some jobs and produce dislocation. Industry Minister Tim Ayres said recently, “I will be looking in particular at how we can strengthen worker voice and agency as technology is diffused into every workplace in the Australian economy. I look forward to working with our trade union movement on all of this.” Employers’ ears pricked at the union reference.

While the government is signalling it wants to do something meaningful on productivity, the prime minister is also highly cautious when it comes to getting ahead of what he considers to be the government’s electoral mandate. Nor is he one to gamble political capital.

He is not like, for example, John Howard, who before the 1996 election said he would “never ever” have a GST, then brought forward an ambitious GST package that he took to the 1998 election. That package had plenty of compensation for losers but Howard, who had a big parliamentary majority, was nearly booted out of office.

Reform is more difficult than it was in the Hawke–Keating era – though it wasn’t as easy then as is often portrayed now. The voters are less trusting of government, and less willing to accept the downsides of change.

The voices of those wanting to say “no” to various proposed changes are greatly amplified, in a highly professionalised political milieu and ubiquitous media opportunities. In the era of the “permanent campaign”, opinion polling has become so constant that politicians are always measuring their support in the moment, making a government hyper-nervous.

Progress on productivity is also harder these days because the easier things have been done, and because changes in our economy – especially the growth of the care economy – mean in some sectors efficiencies are not so readily available, or measurable.

We don’t actually need more inquiries, or a roundtable, to come up with ideas for what could or should be done on productivity. There have been multiple reports and thousands of recommendations. What is required is for the government to devise a bold program, have the will and the skill to implement it, and the ability to sell it to the public. But that runs into the problem of not having sought permission from the voters – which forces the government back to incrementalism.

Whatever the problems, it is not too fanciful to see Chalmers hanging his hat on the productivity peg in his longer-term bid to be the next Labor prime minister. We’ll see how he goes.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: the galahs are chattering about ‘productivity’, but can Labor really get it moving? – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-the-galahs-are-chattering-about-productivity-but-can-labor-really-get-it-moving-257337

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

For the first time in memory, an Australian prime minister is approaching a prospective meeting with a US president with a distinct feeling of wariness.

Of course Anthony Albanese would deny it.

But it’s undeniable the government is relieved that Albanese’s coming trip (for which he leaves Friday) won’t feature a visit to Washington with a meeting in the Oval Office. Having seen what happened publicly to some other leaders in such encounters, Albanese has at least avoided any such risk. Instead, Albanese and President Donald Trump are expected to meet on the sidelines of the G7 in Canada.

Think about this. Normally, an Australian prime minister heading to North America would be deeply disappointed at not receiving an invitation to Washington, especially when he had not yet met the president face to face (although Albanese and Trump have had phone calls).

The non-Washington encounter, expected on the sidelines of the G7, is less hazardous but still highly unpredictable for Albanese.

It could go swimmingly. But that will depend on Trump’s mood on the day and what briefings he has had. And who can make sound predictions about any of that? Australian officials find the White House difficult to deal with or read.

Now, on the cusp of Albanese’s trip, a US review of AUKUS has become public.

The story appeared in the Financial Times, which quoted a Pentagon spokesperson saying the departmental review was to ensure “this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president’s ‘America First’ agenda”. The spokesperson noted US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had “made clear his intent to ensure the [defence] department is focused on the Indo-Pacific region first and foremost”.

The review is to be led by the undersecretary of defence for policy, Elbridge Colby, who months ago flagged the US wanted Australia to be spending some 3% of GDP on defence. This was upped to 3.5% in a recent meeting between Defence Minister Richard Marles and Hegseth.

The Australian government is playing down the AUKUS review as being more or less routine. Marles said he has known about it for some time. He told Sky, “I am comfortable about it and I think it’s a pretty natural step for an incoming government to take and we’ll have an opportunity to engage with it”.

Nevertheless, the fact of the review and the timing of the report about it will turn the screws on Albanese over defence spending.

The prime minister makes two points on this – that Australia takes its own decisions, and that defence spending should be set on the basis of the capability needed rather than determined by a set percentage.

But there is a general view among experts that Australia will need to boost substantially its spending. Albanese won’t want to capitulate on the issue, but he will need some diplomatic lines. He could point out Australia has its next Strategic Defence Review in 2026. This is more an update on delivery than a fundamental review but could give an opportunity for a rethink.

On AUKUS, Albanese will want to reinforce its mutual benefits and importance. He canvassed AUKUS in his first call with Trump, after the presidential election.

The president may or may not be briefed on the latest attacks on the pact by two former prime ministers, triggered by the review.

Paul Keating, an unrelenting critic of the agreement, said in a statement the AUKUS review “might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself”.

Malcolm Turnbull said in a social media post that the United Kingdom and the United States are conducting reviews of AUKUS but “Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review”.

The Trump–Albanese conversation could be complicated by the Australian government’s imposition this week of sanctions on two hardline Israeli ministers for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

This action, in concert with the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Norway, was immediately condemned by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who called for the sanctions to be withdrawn.

All this before we even get to the issue of tariffs, and Australia offering a deal on critical minerals to try to get some concessions.

There is a lot of scripting prepared before such meetings. Albanese will have his talking points down pat. But with Trump being an “off-script” man, it is not an occasion for which the PM can be confident ahead of time that he is fully prepared.

But Albanese has one safeguard, in domestic political terms. If things went pear-shaped Australians – who have scant regard for Trump – could be expected to blame the president rather than the prime minister.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Is the US playing cat and mouse ahead of expected Albanese-Trump talks? – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-is-the-us-playing-cat-and-mouse-ahead-of-expected-albanese-trump-talks-257336

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Linda Shearwin, Researcher, Comparative Genome Biology Laboratory, University of Adelaide

For decades, scientists have known that platypuses and echidnas – Australia’s unique egg-laying mammals – have another developmental quirk: they don’t use the same genetic toolkit as other mammals to develop male and female embryos.

What’s more, just how they do it has been a mystery. Until now.

In a recent study published in Genome Biology, our research team has found strong evidence that monotreme sex comes down to a single gene – one that’s much more like what we see in some fish and amphibians than other mammals.

The search for the secret of monotreme sex

The Australian platypus and echidna are monotremes, the most ancient living group of mammals. These unique creatures are famously the only mammals to lay eggs, and they also have other reptile-like features.

Humans and many other mammal species have two sex-determining chromosomes, X and Y. An embryo with an XX pair of chromosomes will develop as female, while an XY pair leads to a male embryo.

In many mammals, the process that makes an embryo develop as male is triggered by a gene called SRY on the male Y chromosome. However, the SRY gene in monotremes has never been found.

About 20 years ago, it was discovered that monotremes have an entirely different system that uses multiple X and Y chromosomes. Scientists assumed the Y chromosomes must still hold a gene that determined sex, but very little was known about what it might be.

In 2008 a full genome sequence of a platypus was published, which was a step in the right direction. However, the genome was from a female so it had no information about Y chromosomes.

By 2021, a new and improved platypus genome and a first echidna genome included sequences of multiple Y chromosomes. A gene emerged as the frontrunner for the role of sex determination in monotremes: the anti-Muellerian hormone (or AMH), which is involved in the sexual development in many animals.

A 100-million-year-old change

Our new research provides the first real evidence that an adapted version of AMH found on one of the monotreme Y chromosomes (dubbed AMHY) is the sex determination gene in monotremes.

We showed that changes in the AMH gene long ago, early in the evolution of monotremes, could explain how AMHY arose and took on a role in male sexual development.

This event would have set the stage for the evolution of the novel sex chromosome system in the ancestor of today’s platypus and echidna, about 100 million years ago when the AMH gene on the XY chromosomes embarked on separated paths.

We showed that although the AMHY gene has changed significantly from the original AMH gene (AMHX), it has retained its essential features. Importantly, we could show for the first time that AMHY is turned on in the right tissue and at the right time to direct development of the testes during male development, which was an important missing piece of the puzzle.

A first for mammals

Unlike the other mammal sex determination genes, which act directly on the DNA to switch on other genes that lead to male development, AMHY is a hormone. It does not interact with DNA, but instead acts at the surface of cells to turn genes on or off.

There is growing evidence that AMHY also plays a role in sex determination in a number of fish and amphibian species. However, AMHY in monotremes would be the first known example of a hormone playing a sex-determining role in mammals.

What’s next? Our ongoing research investigate in detail how AMHX and AMHY work differently in monotremes compared to other mammals.

The work discussed in this article was carried out by researchers from the University of Adelaide, the University of Melbourne, the University of Queensland, Monash University and Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary.

Linda Shearwin receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

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

– ref. In most mammals, one gene determines sex. But 100 million years ago, platypuses and echidnas went their own way – https://theconversation.com/in-most-mammals-one-gene-determines-sex-but-100-million-years-ago-platypuses-and-echidnas-went-their-own-way-258801

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hilary Bowman-Smart, Research Fellow, Australian Centre for Precision Health, University of South Australia

Monash IVF CEO Michael Knaap has resigned after one of the company’s Melbourne clinics mistakenly transferred the wrong embryo to a patient. The patient wanted her partner’s embryo, but instead her own embryo was transferred.

It is the second time this year Monash IVF has made such an announcement. In April, the company revealed a clinic in Brisbane had mixed up two different couples’ embryos.

IVF is big business in Australia. When Monash IVF was listed on the stock exchange in 2014, it raised more than A$300 million, with financial analysts noting the potential for massive profits, as “people will pay almost anything to have a baby”.

Total annual revenue in Australia from the IVF industry is more than $800 million. But what does the booming IVF industry mean for patients?

Strong regulation is crucial

In Australia, regulation of the IVF industry largely happens at the state and territory level. This leads to variation, such as restrictions on single women accessing IVF in Western Australia, which other states do not have.

Victoria passed legislation in 2008, with a guiding principle to safeguard children born through assisted reproduction. However, until recently, Queensland largely relied on industry self-regulation.

The Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand, the peak body for reproductive medicine, has called for a national regulatory framework to address the current “patchwork” of legislation.

Commercialisation is not necessarily a bad thing for patients. It can lead to innovation that improves the chances of successfully having a baby.

However, clinicians, ethicists and patients have raised concerns about the effects of commercialisation on the quality and cost of service provision in IVF.

With the rapid growth of the sector and high-profile incidents such as those at Monash IVF, stronger and more comprehensive regulation at the national level can help ensure quality and safety for patients.

High costs can lead to inequities in access

Most IVF in Australia occurs in private practice, not the public system. While Medicare rebates are available, there is usually a significant out-of-pocket expense. This can range from a few hundred dollars to many thousands for each cycle. IVF can therefore be a big financial decision. Financial expense is one of the biggest barriers, which leads to inequities in access between those who can afford it and those who can’t.

The costs stack up even more if you want non-essential “add-ons”, such as pre-implantation genetic testing, acupuncture, or embryo time-lapse imaging. A study in 2021 found 82% of women using IVF in Australia had used an add-on during their IVF treatment.

Many IVF clinics offer these add-ons, which are promoted as improving patient experience, or the chance of a successful birth. Add-ons are offered as a point of difference on the market.

However, the evidence for these claims is often weak or non-existent. They also come with significant costs and can potentially take advantage of people’s hopes, if they are willing to pay “whatever it takes” to have a baby.

Read more:
IVF add-ons: why you should be cautious of these expensive procedures if you’re trying to conceive

Patients or customers?

Commercial providers in the IVF industry can help provide choice, particularly as it is difficult to get IVF in the public system.

However, when health care becomes a business, a risk is that the relationship between the patient and doctor can be affected: a patient seeking treatment becomes a “customer” buying a product.

The therapeutic relationship should be about enhancing patients’ health and wellbeing, relieving suffering, and promoting human flourishing.

When we talk about “choice” in medicine, we often think about ideas such as informed consent, autonomy and the best interests of the patient. However, if we think of patients as customers, “choice” may become more about being free to purchase what you want to.

The commercialisation of the sector can also increase the risk of over-servicing, where financial incentives may shape medical decision-making.

This doesn’t necessarily mean clinics are making deliberate decisions or misleading patients for financial benefit. However, it can mean doing more IVF cycles, even as success becomes increasingly unlikely.

We need to ensure doctors don’t feel pressure – directly or indirectly – to provide particular treatments just because a patient is willing to pay for it.

Medical professionals’ obligations

Doctors and other healthcare professionals have special responsibilities and moral obligations because of their role. They serve an essential human need in society because of their particular expertise in health and wellbeing. And they often have a monopoly on the essential services they offer.

Without patients’ trust that clinicians are being guided by medical reasons instead of financial ones, their special and privileged role to promote human flourishing can be undermined.

This special role is not necessarily incompatible with business. However, it is essential we allow doctors to maintain their focus on patient wellbeing. This is reflected in the doctors’ code of conduct, which notes their “duty to make the care of patients their first concern”.

What happens next?

Much public and media discourse has framed the embryo mix-up primarily as a reputational and financial risk to Monash IVF – but it is about patients. It’s not (just) an error of corporate governance, it’s about the special trust that we as a society place in medical practice.

IVF is expensive, and can be tough both emotionally and physically. One of the ways we can ensure trust in IVF services is by moving towards consistent and improved regulation at the national level. This might include more uniform standards and policies around who is eligible for IVF.

IVF industry regulation is on the agenda for the federal and state health ministers tomorrow. While there is still much to be done, a review of the regulation and processes in this sector could help prevent more embryo mix-ups from happening in the future.

Read more:
Why do women get ‘reassurance scans’ during pregnancy? And how can you spot a dodgy provider?

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. IVF is big business. But when patients become customers, what does this mean for their care? – https://theconversation.com/ivf-is-big-business-but-when-patients-become-customers-what-does-this-mean-for-their-care-258585

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robin Smit, Adjunct Professor of Transport, University of Technology Sydney

Emission control systems in modern cars have slashed air pollutants such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.

But these systems face two major challenges: carmakers cheating on pollution tests and owner tampering. Cheating means high-polluting cars can be sold when they shouldn’t be, while tampering can increase some pollutants up to 100 times.

In our new research review, we found the impacts of cheating and tampering on emissions of pollutants are substantial across the globe. For instance, researchers in Spain found almost half the diesel trucks had been tampered with, while the Volkswagen Dieselgate cheating scandal uncovered in 2015 led to an estimated A$60 billion in health costs in the European Union. In California, researchers found one in 12 trucks had a damaged or malfunctioning diesel particulate filter – and these high-emitting trucks contributed 70% of the entire fleet’s emissions of tiny particulate matter.

The solutions? Better detection of tampering, cheating and malfunctioning emission systems – and vigilance to get high polluting cars off the road.

How did we get here?

From the 1950s onwards, smog, air pollution and health issues from car exhausts led many regulators to require carmakers to reduce dangerous air pollutants.

These days, modern combustion-engine cars are complex computer-controlled systems optimised to balance engine performance, durability and emission control. When working properly, new vehicles can reduce air pollutant emissions by 90% or more. However, they can increase carbon dioxide emissions by using slightly more fuel.

But these pollutants can soar if emissions control systems malfunction – or suffer from intentional cheating or tampering.

Cheating and tampering are not new. Cheating was first reported in the 1970s and it’s still happening. Tampering, too, dates back to the 1970s.

Both issues worsen air quality. These excess air pollutants have substantial costs to human health, as they can trigger respiratory conditions and can cause disability and premature death.

While the numbers of electric vehicles are rising, they’re only about 5% of the global fleet – about 60 million compared to about 1.5 billion cars powered by petrol, diesel and gas.

Because cars have relatively long lifespans, many fossil-fuel powered cars will still be in use in 2050, now just 25 years away. Many will be exported from rich countries to developing economies. That means effective pollutant control still matters.

Cheating by manufacturers

It’s well established combustion engine cars produce substantially more emissions and pollutants during real-world driving than they do in regulatory tests.

There are many reasons for this, including natural wear and tear. But one big reason may be cheating.

Authorities in many nations rely on testing to see if a new model is emitting at rates low enough to meet emission standards.

Manufacturers can take advantage of the known quirks of official tests and intentionally alter how their vehicles operate during testing. To do this, they may install a “defeat device”, usually deep in the car’s engine or its computer code.

These devices shift the car to a special low-emissions mode if testing is detected. They’re typically easy for the automaker to install and difficult to detect.

Defeat devices are mainly found in diesel cars and trucks, since diesel emissions control systems are more complicated and expensive than petrol or LPG. Adding an emission control system to meet Euro 6 standards costs about $600 for a petrol car. For diesel, the cost can be three to five times higher.

In 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the state of California announced Volkswagen had been using a software-based defeat device to make its diesel cars appear substantially cleaner. The scandal drew worldwide attention and cost the company about $50 billion.

For those caught, large fines and mandatory recalls have followed. But this hasn’t been enough to stop the practice.

The way these tests are conducted usually has to be disclosed by law to ensure transparency and make results comparable and repeatable. Unfortunately, having detailed knowledge of the tests makes it easier to cheat.

Tampering by car owners

Tampering is largely done by owners of diesel cars and trucks. Owners can tamper with emission control systems to improve performance, rebel against laws they don’t agree with or avoid extra costs such as Adblue, a liquid needed to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions from diesel trucks.

Tampering is usually illegal. But that hasn’t stopped the production of aftermarket tampering devices, such as software which deactivates emission control systems. It’s not necessarily illegal to sell these devices, but it is illegal to install and use them.

In the road freight sector, the use of aftermarket tampering by vehicle owners also acts as an unfair economic advantage by undercutting responsible and law-abiding operators.

What should be done?

Combustion engine cars and trucks will be on the world’s roads for decades to come.

Ensuring they run as cleanly as possible over their lifetime will require independent and in-service emissions testing. Authorities will also need to focus on enforcement.

Creating an internationally agreed test protocol for the detection of defeat devices will also be necessary.

Combating tampering by owners as well as malfunctioning emissions systems will require better detection efforts, either through on-road emissions testing or during a car service.

One approach would be to add telemetry to the onboard diagnostics systems now common in modern cars. Telemetry radio transponders can report emissions problems to the owner and relevant authorities, who can then act.

Shifting to EVs offers the most robust and cost-effective way to combat fraud and cut exhaust pollutants and carbon emissions from road transport. But this will take decades. Authorities need to ensure diesel and petrol vehicles run as cleanly as possible until they can be retired.

Robin Smit is the founding Research Director at the Transport Energy/Emission Research (TER) consultancy.

Alberto Ayala 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. Cheating by car makers, tampering by owners: crucial car pollution control is being sabotaged – https://theconversation.com/cheating-by-car-makers-tampering-by-owners-crucial-car-pollution-control-is-being-sabotaged-255882

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janet Ransley, Professor, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University

Laws just passed in Queensland give police unprecedented powers to scan people with a handheld wand and potentially search them in all public places, without needing a warrant or reasonable suspicion.

Earlier versions of “Jack’s Law” were copied in other jurisdictions, such as New South Wales, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Queensland’s expanded laws may flow on to them now, too.

However, while the newly expanded Jack’s Law may detect more weapons, there’s no evidence it reduces violent crime. It may, in fact, do more harm than good, while putting human rights at risk.

What is Jack’s Law?

Jack’s Law is named after 17-year-old Jack Beasley who was stabbed to death outside a convenience store in Surfers Paradise in 2019.

Passed in 2021, the law resulted in a time-limited trial allowing officers to “wand” people with metal detectors in some entertainment precincts.

Since then, the trial was expanded twice to include public transport, stations, shopping centres and licensed entertainment venues.

In a little more than two years, Queensland police conducted 116,287 scans and removed 1,126 weapons – a detection rate of about 0.9%.

The majority of charges that followed were for minor drug offences, or breaches of knife-carrying bans.

The trial was set to expire on October 30, 2026 after another mandatory review.

Instead, the law has now been made permanent with the scope extended again to allow wanding in all public places.

The changes also remove safeguards, such as the need for senior officer oversight, reporting requirements and a further review of the impact of wands on crime and on civil liberties.

Our research into Jack’s Law

Our review of the 12-month trial of Jack’s Law on the Gold Coast in 2021–22 is the only publicly available evidence about the impact of metal detector wanding on knife violence in Queensland.

We found there was no reduction in violence as a result of the use of the hand-held scanners.

There’s also potential for bias when officers using the wands are influenced by factors that aren’t related to evidence. This includes the unfair targeting of minorities. More people could also be caught up in the justice system for minor, non-violent breaches.

What’s needed to reduce knife violence are evidence-based programs addressing underlying causes such as mental health, poverty, child maltreatment and domestic and family violence.

Wanding has no impact on these underlying causes and diverts resources and police attention from where they’re really needed.

Does the law reduce knife crime?

While the intention behind Jack’s Law is to enhance public safety by deterring knife-related crimes, the evidence suggests this is unlikely to happen.

Our study found that although the use of metal-detecting wands can lead to increased detection of weapons, there is no evidence this in turn reduces violent crimes involving knives.

Confiscated knives are easily replaced and we found no evidence that scanning deterred people from carrying weapons.

This is consistent with research from the UK showing “stop and search” laws had no effect on violent crime, and Victorian research showing no effect of similar stop and search laws on violent crimes.

Concern over human rights

The expansion of police powers under Jack’s Law raises human rights concerns.

The ability to stop and search people without reasonable suspicion may lead to racial profiling and erode public trust in law enforcement.

A 2022 independent inquiry into the Queensland Police Service highlighted issues of systemic racism and sexism within the force, underscoring the potential risks of granting broader discretionary powers without adequate oversight.

Our review also found evidence of police wanding decisions being based on discriminatory stereotypes. This makes the removal of oversight and review mechanisms of particular concern.

Additionally, searches for knives following wanding have led to a rise in minor drug charges. This funnels more young people into the criminal justice system, which increases their risk of re-offending and also places more pressure on an already overburdened criminal justice system.

While the expansion of Jack’s Law is a visible response to public concerns about knife crime, it is essential to recognise such measures are not a silver bullet.

Further erosion of the already tenuous trust in the police service among minority communities in Queensland, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, could lead to reduced public trust and have long-term negative impacts on public safety.

Why a holistic approach is needed

Addressing the root causes of knife violence requires a comprehensive approach that includes investment in support services and community programs.

We also need to recognise around 50% of serious violent crime occurs in the context of domestic and family violence, in private settings. Wanding does nothing to help those victims.

Understanding why people carry knives and implementing targeted prevention strategies are crucial steps toward creating a safer society.

While Jack’s Law serves as a symbolic gesture honouring the memory of Jack Beasley, its efficacy in reducing knife crime remains unlikely and will now not be reviewed.

Policymakers must balance the desire for immediate action with evidence-based strategies that address underlying factors contributing to violence.

Only through a holistic approach can we hope to achieve lasting change and truly honour the lives lost to such senseless acts.

Janet Ransley receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Paul Ramsay Foundation. The Queensland Police Service funded the research referred to in this article.

– ref. The Jack’s Law expansion is a symbolic step – it’s not a solution to knife crime – https://theconversation.com/the-jacks-law-expansion-is-a-symbolic-step-its-not-a-solution-to-knife-crime-258804

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jadey O’Regan, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary Music, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney

Brian Wilson, leader, songwriter and producer of the Beach Boys, has passed away at age 82.

He leaves behind a legacy of beautiful, joyous, bittersweet and enduring music, crafted over a career spanning six decades.

While this news isn’t unexpected – Wilson was diagnosed with dementia last year and entered a conservatorship after the loss of his wife, Melinda – his passing marks the end of a long and extraordinary chapter in musical history.

A life of music

Formed in the early 1960s in Hawthorne California, the Beach Boys were built on a foundation of family and community: brothers Brian, Dennis and Carl Wilson, their cousin Mike Love, and school friend Al Jardine.

Growing up, the Wilson household was a turbulent place; their father, Murry Wilson, was strict and at times violent. Music was the one way in which the family could connect.

During these early years Brian discovered the sounds that would shape his musical identity: Gershwin, doo wop groups, early rock and roll, and, a particular favourite, the vocal group the Four Freshmen, whose tight-harmony singing style Wilson studied meticulously.

It was an unexpected combination of influences for a pop band. Even from the Beach Boys’ earliest recordings – the surf, the cars, the girls – the stirrings of the complexity and musical adventurousness Wilson is known for is audible. Listen to the unexpected structure of The Lonely Sea (1962), the complex chords of The Warmth of the Sun (1963), or the subtle modulation in Don’t Worry Baby (1964).

These early innovations hinted at a growing creativity that would continue to evolve over the rest of the 1960s, and beyond.

A story of resilience

In later years, Brian Wilson often appeared publicly as a fragile figure. But what stands out most in his story is resilience.

His ability to produce such an expansive and diverse catalogue of work while navigating difficult family relationships, intense record label pressures, misdiagnosed and mistreated mental health conditions, addiction and much more, is extraordinary. Wilson not only survived, but continued to create music.

He eventually did something few Beach Boys’ fans would have imagined – he returned to the stage.

Wilson’s unexpected return to public performance during the Pet Sounds and SMiLE tours in the early 2000s began a revival interest in the Beach Boys, and a critical reconsideration of their musical legacy. This continues with a consistent release of books, documentaries, movies and podcasts about Wilson and the legacy of the Beach Boys’ music.

The focus of a thesis

I grew up near Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast in Queensland. Their early songs about an endless summer had a particular resonance to my hometown, even if, like Brian Wilson, I only admired the beach from afar.

I chose to study the Beach Boys’ music for my PhD thesis and spent the next few years charting the course of their musical development from their early days in the garage to creating Pet Sounds just five years later.

I was fascinated by how a band could create such a groundbreaking volume of work and progress so quickly from the delightful, yet wobbly Surfin’ to the complex arrangements of God Only Knows.

To understand their music, I spent years listening to Beach Boys’ tracking sessions, take after take, to hear how their songs were so cleverly and delicately put together.

What struck me just as powerfully as the music itself was the sound of Brian Wilson’s voice in those recordings. Listening to Wilson leading hours of tracking sessions was to hear an artist at the top of their game – decisive, confident, funny, collaborative and deeply driven to make music that would express the magic he heard in his mind, and connect with an audience.

One of the more unexpected discoveries in my analysis of the Beach Boys’ music came from their lyrics. Using a word frequency tool to examine all 117 songs in my study, I found that the most common word was “now”.

In many cases, it appears in a conversational sense – “Well, she got her Daddy’s car, and she cruised through the hamburger stand now” – but on a broader level, it perfectly encapsulates what Brian Wilson’s music offered so many listeners.

He created an endless present: a world where the sun could always be shining, where you could feel young forever, and you could visit that world any time you needed to.

In 2010, I had the remarkable experience of meeting Brian Wilson in his dressing room before his performance at the Enmore Theatre in Sydney. He was funny and kind. He sat at a small keyboard, taught me a harmony and for a moment, we sang Love and Mercy together.

It was one of the most magical moments of my life. It is also one of Wilson’s most enduring sentiments: “love and mercy, that’s what we need tonight”.

Farewell and thank you, Brian. Surf’s up.

Jadey O’Regan 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. How visionary Beach Boys songwriter Brian Wilson changed music – and my life – https://theconversation.com/how-visionary-beach-boys-songwriter-brian-wilson-changed-music-and-my-life-258794

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth McLindon, Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

When it comes to domestic violence, cases involving catastrophic physical violence are the ones that most often make it into the media.

But our new research shows there are often signs of trouble long before such tragic outcomes – before couples move in together or get married.

We asked a large group of women about how domestic violence (also known as intimate partner violence) they’d experienced had started and escalated.

A general pattern emerged. First came psychological abuse, then physical abuse, then sexual abuse.

So if women, health workers and others can recognise the signs of psychological abuse early on, there’s a chance to intervene before abusive behaviour progresses.

How does this relate to coercive control?

The types of psychological abuse women told us about indicate they’d experienced coercive control.

Coercive control is defined as a pattern of restrictive, manipulative and dominating behaviours used to undermine a partner’s autonomy and freedom. While it can occur in any type of relationship, it is most commonly perpetrated by men against women partners and is underpinned by inequitable gender roles and misogynistic attitudes.

Another way of describing coercive control is a pattern of behaviours that aim to prevent a partner from being in charge of their life. For instance, this could mean controlling who a partner can see, what they can wear, or where they can go. Or it could mean questioning a partner’s sanity when they raise concerns about abusive behaviour.

There’s been growing awareness of the impact of coercive control and domestic violence more broadly on women’s health and wellbeing. There’s also growing awareness that coercive control can escalate to catastrophic abuse against women and children, including homicide.

So, Australian states and territories have scrambled to tackle the issue legally. Queensland recently joined New South Wales in making coercive control a standalone criminal offence.

What we did and what we found

We wanted to know more about the progression of domestic violence and if there were key stages to intervene to help prevent the worst harms.

So we surveyed a nationally representative sample of 815 Australian women who had experienced domestic violence in the past five years and asked them to create a timeline of their relationship.

Women started with the earliest warning signs that something was wrong and then added what happened around important life events, such as moving in together, having children, seeking help or leaving. Women could describe their experiences in their own words.

When we analysed all the timelines together, we created a summary of the general sequence of abuse over time.

First, there were attacks to a survivor’s mind, then her physical body, then her sexual self.

Psychological abuse an early sign

Psychological abuse was present in almost all relationships early in the timeline. It usually emerged before moving in together or getting married.

The earliest indicator of abuse was being isolated from others, as one woman said:

He stopped me from talking to male colleagues.

Controlling a woman’s day-to-day activities happened next. One survivor told us how her money and car were used against her:

He kept my belongings from me […] to prevent me from leaving.

Then, as one woman said, there was other emotional abuse:

If I said anything he didn’t like, a brick wall would be erected […] I wouldn’t be spoken to for two to three days.

Another said:

He called me crazy when he had done something wrong.

On average, women told us physically abusive behaviours first appeared after a major life commitment, such as marriage or moving in together.

In general, sexual abuse by a partner first emerged after the psychological and physical abuse started.

For survivors who had a child during the relationship and whose partner was sexually abusive, the worst of that sexual violence generally came sometime after giving birth.

For many survivors, a growing concern about the impact of abuse on their children occurred around the same time as leaving their relationship and trying to get help.

What next?

This research sets out clear opportunities for prevention and early intervention.

We need to train health professionals to look for signs and ask about psychological abuse when their patients are contemplating life transitions. This includes raising awareness and targeted resources for staff working in pregnancy care.

Future research should see if these patterns of abuse apply in different diverse groups of survivors.

We also need better community education, particularly for young women, about the features of psychological abuse that occur early in relationships, before physical and sexual abuse.

As one participant told us:

More domestic violence campaigns should focus on emotional abuse. We focus so much on the physical, but I can feel immediately when I am hit. It takes longer to feel gaslighting, manipulation and other emotionally heavy abuse. It lingers with you. It alters the way you think and traps you far worse than the physical does.

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Service – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

Elizabeth McLindon received funding from Oak Foundation for this research. She is affiliated with The Royal Women’s Hospital, Victoria, where she is the Deputy Director of the Centre for Family Violence Prevention.

Kelsey Hegarty receives funding from Oak Foundation, Medical Research Futures Fund, and National Health and Medical Research Council.

– ref. ‘He stopped me from talking to male colleagues’: new research shows how domestic violence so often starts with isolation and control – https://theconversation.com/he-stopped-me-from-talking-to-male-colleagues-new-research-shows-how-domestic-violence-so-often-starts-with-isolation-and-control-257457

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

The Pentagon has announced it will review the massive AUKUS agreement between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to ensure it’s aligned with US President Donald Trump’s “America first” agenda.

The US undersecretary of defence for policy, Elbridge Colby, is reportedly going to oversee the review.

The announcement has raised concern in Australia, but every government is entitled to review policies that their predecessors have made to consider whether or not there’s a particular purpose.

The UK has launched a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS too, so it’s not actually unreasonable for the US to do the same.

There’s a degree of nervousness in Australia as to what the implications are because Australia understandably has the biggest stake in this.

But we need to consider what Colby has articulated in the past. In his book, The Strategy of Denial: American Defence in the Nature of Great Power Conflict, he made the case the US could “prepare to win a war with China it cannot afford to lose – in order to deter it from happening”.

So, with a deterrent mindset, he sees the need for the US to muscle up militarily.

He’s spoken about the alliance with Australia in very positive terms on a couple of occasions. And he has called himself an “AUKUS agnostic”, though he has expressed deep concern about the ability of the submarine industrial base in the US to manufacture the ships quickly enough.

And that leads to the fear the US Navy would not have enough submarines for itself if Washington is also sending them to Australia.

As part of the deal, Australia would eventually be able to contribute to accelerating the production line. That involves Australian companies contributing to the manufacture of certain widgets and components that are needed to build the subs.

Australia has already made a nearly A$800 million (US$500 million) down payment on expanding the US industrial capacity as part of the deal to ensure we get some subs in a reasonable time frame.

There’s also been significant legislative and industrial reforms in the US, Australia and UK to help facilitate Australian defence-related industries unplug the bottleneck of submarine production.

There’s no question there’s a need to speed up production. But we are already seeing significant signs of an uptick in the production rate, thanks in part to the Australian down payment. And it’s anticipated the rate will significantly increase in the next 12–18 months.

Even still, projects like this often slide in terms of timelines.

Why the US won’t spike the deal

I’m reasonably optimistic that, on balance, the Trump administration will come down on the side of proceeding with the deal.

There are a few key reasons for this:

1) We’re several years down the track already.

2) We have more than 100 Australian sailors already operating in the US system.

3) Industrially, we’re on the cusp of making a significant additional contribution to the US submarine production line.

And finally, most people don’t fully appreciate that the submarine base just outside Perth is an incredibly consequential piece of real estate for US security calculations.

Colby has made very clear the US needs to muscle up to push back and deter China’s potential aggression in the region. In that equation, submarines are crucial, as is a substantial submarine base in the Indian Ocean.

China is acutely mindful of what we call the “Malacca dilemma”. Overwhelmingly, China’s trade of goods and fossil fuels comes through the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia’s island of Sumatra. The Chinese know this supply line could be disrupted in a war. And the submarines operating out of Perth contribute to this fear.

This is a crucial deterrent effect the US and its allies have been seeking to maintain. And it has largely endured.

Given nobody can predict the future, we all want to prevent a war over Taiwan and we all want to maintain the status quo.

As such, the considered view has been that Australia will continue to support the US to bolster its deterrent effect to prevent such a scenario.

Could Trump be angling for a deal?

As part of the US review of the deal, we could see talk of a potential slowdown in the delivery rate of the submarines. The Trump administration could also put additional pressure on Australia to deliver more for the US.

This includes the amount Australia spends on defence, a subject of considerable debate in Canberra. Taking Australia’s overall interests into account, the Albanese government may well decide increasing defence spending is an appropriate thing to do.

There’s a delicate dance to be had here between the Trump administration, the Australian government, and in particular, their respective defence departments, about how to achieve the most effective outcome.

It’s highly likely whatever decision the US government makes will be portrayed as the Trump administration “doing a deal”. In the grand scheme of things, that’s not a bad thing. This is what countries do.

We talk a lot about the Trump administration’s transactional approach to international relations. But it’s actually not that different to previous US administrations with which Canberra has had to deal.

So I’m reasonably sanguine about the AUKUS review and any possible negotiations over it. I believe the Trump administration will come to the conclusion it does not want to spike the Australia relationship.

Australia has been on the US side since federation. Given this, the US government will likely make sure this deal goes ahead. The Trump administration may try to squeeze more concessions out of Australia as part of “the art of the deal”, but it won’t sink the pact.

However, many people will undoubtedly say this is the moment Australia should break with AUKUS. But then what? What would Australia do instead to ensure its security in this world of heightened great power competition in which Australia’s interests are increasingly challenged?

Walking away now would leave Australia more vulnerable than ever. I think that would be a great mistake.

From 2015 to 2017 John Blaxland received funding from the US Department of Defense Minerva Research Initiative (subsequently disbanded by the Trump administration). This was used to write a book (with Greg Raymond) entitled “The US Thai Alliance and Asian International Relations” (Routledge, 2021). John currently is a fulltime employee of the ANU.

– ref. Trump may try to strike a deal with AUKUS review, but here’s why he won’t sink it – https://theconversation.com/trump-may-try-to-strike-a-deal-with-aukus-review-but-heres-why-he-wont-sink-it-258798

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chloe Wilkins, Associate Lecturer and PhD Candidate, Solar Physics, University of Newcastle

If you live in the southern hemisphere and have been stopped in your tracks by a recent sunset, you may have noticed they seem more vibrant lately. The colours are brighter and bolder, and they linger longer in the sky.

Why are sunsets “better” at some times of the year compared to others? We can use science to explain this.

There are many ingredients for a “good” sunset, but the main three are clear skies, low humidity, and the Sun sitting low in the sky.

From light to colour

To understand why we get such vibrant sunsets in the colder months of the year, we first need to know how colours appear in the sky.

All visible light is actually energy that travels in waves; the length of those waves determines the colour that our eyes see.

Although sunlight might look white to us, it’s actually a mix of different wavelengths of light that make up all the visible colours – from fiery reds and oranges (longer wavelengths) to deep blues and purples (shorter wavelengths).

These individual colours become visible when sunlight is “scattered”, which is precisely what happens when it passes through the invisible gas molecules in Earth’s atmosphere – mostly nitrogen and oxygen.

When sunlight hits these molecules, it’s absorbed and shot back out (scattered) in different directions. Blue and violet light is scattered more strongly than red and orange light – this is also why the sky looks blue during the day.

The path of the Sun

In the middle of the day when the Sun is high in the sky, sunlight travels a more direct path through the atmosphere.

But when the Sun is closer to the horizon, the path is less direct. This means that during sunrises and sunsets, sunlight travels through more of Earth’s atmosphere. And more atmosphere means more scattering.

In fact, during sunsets, the blue and violet light encounters so many oxygen and nitrogen molecules that it is completely scattered away. What we’re left with is the longer wavelengths of light – the reds and oranges. In other words, more atmosphere means more fiery sunsets.

But why are sunsets especially magnificent during winter? One reason is the Sun’s position in the sky during different times of the year.

Earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours, giving us day and night. But this axis isn’t perfectly “upright” relative to the Sun – it’s tilted at an angle of about 23.5 degrees. This tilt is why we have seasons. The southern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun around the start and end of the calendar year (southern summer), and away from the Sun around the middle of the year (southern winter).

Because of this tilt, the Sun sits lower in the sky during winter, which is why the days are shorter. And because the Sun sits lower, it spends more time near the horizon as it rises and sets. That’s why winter sunsets often seem to last longer.

The quality of the air

Humidity and air quality also play a big role when it comes to vibrant winter sunsets.

In winter, humidity is typically much lower than in the warmer summer months, meaning there’s less moisture in the air. Humid air often contains tiny water droplets, which can scatter incoming sunlight. This scattering is slightly different to how the oxygen and nitrogen molecules scatter light – here, even red and orange light can be affected.

When humidity is high, the extra scattering by these small water droplets can cause sunsets to appear softer or more washed out.

In drier winter air, with fewer of these water droplets in the way, sunlight can travel through the atmosphere with less interference. This means the colours can shine through more vividly, making for crisper and more vibrant sunsets.

If you’re looking to a catch a spectacular sunset, you’ll want to wait for a nice, clear winter’s evening. Cloud cover and air pollution can block the sunlight and mute the colours we see.

So the next time you find yourself wrapped up in a warm jumper at dusk, be sure to look up – there could be a spectacular light show playing out just above you.

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

– ref. Why are sunsets so pretty in winter? There’s a simple explanation – https://theconversation.com/why-are-sunsets-so-pretty-in-winter-theres-a-simple-explanation-258192

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hortle, Deputy Director, Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania

The Tasmanian government has called a state election for July 19, the fourth in a little over seven years.

Following days of high drama, Governor Barbara Baker finally granted Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff’s election request, saying there was no other course of action to break the deadlock gripping Tasmanian politics:

I make this grant because I am satisfied there is no real possibility that an alternative government can be formed.

The ballot will be the second state election in just 16 months.

So how did we get here? And what happens next?

Dark political mofo

The Dark Mofo festival kicked off last week, bringing to Hobart its usual mix of weird, dark, and violent modern art. But in the halls of Tasmanian parliament, a similarly macabre and vicious spectacle was playing out.

I have written a more detailed analysis of events previously, but here’s the quick version.

On June 3, the Labor opposition moved a motion of no confidence in Rockliff. After two days of acrimonious parliamentary debate, the motion passed on the casting vote of the speaker.

An election looked inevitable because Rockliff refused to step aside and Opposition Leader Dean Winter ruled out doing a deal with the Greens to govern in minority.

Parliament returned briefly to pass emergency supply bills, which were needed after the no confidence motion derailed the recent state budget.

Shortly afterwards, Rockliff asked the governor to dissolve parliament and call an election. This request has now been granted after a few days of deliberation.

How did it come to this?

It’s been a rocky road for the Liberal government since the
last state election in March 2024. Holding only 14 of the House of Assembly’s 35 seats, it has governed in minority thanks to confidence and supply deals with five crossbenchers.

This tenuous arrangement was under constant pressure. Labor and the crossbench installed Michelle O’Byrne as speaker, and in the second half of 2024 passed three pieces of legislation against the government’s will.

In August 2024, the implosion of the Jacqui Lambie Network and the forced resignation of Michael Ferguson as deputy premier and treasurer added further complications.

Against this backdrop, the government has faced a rapidly
deteriorating fiscal situation. This is partly the legacy of the COVID pandemic, compounded by recent global uncertainty. However, as economist Saul Eslake notes, the roots of the problem can be found in the policy choices made by previous state Liberal governments.

Policy setbacks

Even considering the challenging context, the government has
done itself few favours. The ongoing project to replace the ageing Spirit of Tasmania ferries has been mired in cost blowouts and poor planning.

An abrupt about-face on nation-leading gambling reforms, tentative explorations of privatising state assets – since abandoned – and radical changes to the planning system also caused concern.

And of course, there is the saga over the highly contentious $945 million stadium to support a Tassie team in the AFL.

Most importantly, though, there has been little progress on the deep structural reforms needed to address the state’s poor health and education outcomes, housing crisis, cost-of-living challenges, and worsening budget situation.

On the positive side, the government points to achievements recruiting much-needed frontline healthcare workers, increasing the supply of social and affordable housing, and a historically low unemployment rate.

What happens now?

The campaign will be a political version of a classic children’s party game: pin the blame on the party.

Liberal and Labor will both claim the early election is the fault of the other, while the debate over the stadium will likely continue to distract from Tasmania’s other, far more important challenges.

The election result is hard to predict. In the past, Tasmanians
have punished minority governments at elections, and in the latest available polling, support for the Liberal Party was at a 16-year low of 29%.

But the circumstances of this election mean we can’t rely too much on previous trends. The drop in Liberal support is partly driven by northern Tasmanians’ dislike of the Hobart stadium. However, that won’t necessarily help Labor, because they also remain committed to the project.

Labor will be energised by the federal party’s recent victory. But the most recent polling shows the state branch is barely more popular than the Liberals. Winter lags Rockliff as preferred premier 44%-32%, with a high “never heard of” rating of 24%.

The Greens could benefit from being the only notable party opposed to the stadium, but will be fighting relentless Labor and Liberal warnings about the perils of forming another minority government.

None of this points to the July 19 election producing a stable majority government. In fact, there is a strong likelihood the Tasmanian electorate – grumpy about being forced to the polls in mid-winter – will punish both major parties.

This could result in an even larger and more diverse crossbench, requiring deft and collaborative negotiations to stitch together the numbers to form government.

While the theatre of the campaign plays out, the ambitious structural reforms that Tasmania desperately needs seem further away than ever.

The drama is worthy of Dark Mofo, but Tasmanians are already tired of the performance.

Robert Hortle 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. After weeks of confusion and chaos, Tasmania heads back to the polls on July 19 – https://theconversation.com/after-weeks-of-confusion-and-chaos-tasmania-heads-back-to-the-polls-on-july-19-258597

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Beeson, Adjunct professor, Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney

Even the most ardent supporters of the alliance with the United States – the notional foundation of Australian security for more than 70 years – must be having some misgivings about the second coming of Donald Trump.

If they’re not, they ought to read the two essays under review here. They offer a host of compelling reasons why a reassessment of the costs, benefits and possible future trajectory of the alliance is long overdue.

Review: After America: Australia and the new world order – Emma Shortis (Australia Institute Press), Hard New World: Our Post-American Future; Quarterly Essay 98 – Hugh White (Black Inc)

And yet, notwithstanding the cogency and timeliness of the critiques offered by Emma Shortis and Hugh White, it seems unlikely either of these will be read, much less acted upon, by those Shortis describes as the “mostly men in suits or uniforms, with no democratic accountability” who make security policy on our behalf.

White, emeritus professor of strategic studies at the ANU, was the principal author of Australia’s Defence White Paper in 2000. Despite having been a prominent member of the defence establishment, it is unlikely even his observations will prove any more palatable to its current incumbents.

Shortis, an historian and writer, is director of the Australia Institute’s International & Security Affairs Program. She is also a young woman, and while this shouldn’t matter, I suspect it does; at least to the “mostly men” who guard the nation from a host of improbable threats while ignoring what is arguably the most likely and important one: climate change.

The age of insecurity

To Shortis’s great credit, she begins her essay with a discussion of a “world on fire” in which the Trump administration is “locking in a bleaker future”.

This matters for both generational and geographical reasons. While we live in what is arguably the safest place on the planet, the country has the rare distinction of regularly experiencing once-in-100-year floods and droughts, sometimes simultaneously.

If that’s not a threat to security, especially of the young, it’s hard to know what is. It’s not one the current government or any other in this country has ever taken seriously enough.

White gives a rather perfunctory acknowledgement of this reality, reflecting an essentially traditional understanding of security – even if some of his conclusions will induce conniptions in Canberra.

While suggesting Trump is “the most prodigious liar in history”, White thinks he’s done Australia a favour by “puncturing the complacency” surrounding the alliance and our unwillingness to contemplate a world in which the US is not the reliable bedrock of security.

Shortis doubts the US ever was a trustworthy or reliable ally. This helps explain what she calls the “strategy of pre-emptive capitulation”, in which Australian policymakers fall over themselves to appear useful and supportive to their “great and powerful friend”. Former prime minister John Howard’s activation of the ANZUS alliance in the wake of September 11 and the disastrous decision to take part in the war in Iraq is perhaps the most egregious example of this unfortunate national proclivity.

White reminds us that all alliances are always transactional. Despite talk of a “history of mateship”, it’s vital to recognise if the great power doesn’t think something is in its “national interest”, it won’t be doing favours for allies. No matter how ingratiating and obliging they may be. While such observations may be unwelcome in Canberra, hopefully they won’t come as a revelation.

Although White is one of Australia’s most astute critics of the conventional wisdom, sceptics and aspiring peace-builders will find little to cheer in his analysis.

A good deal of his essay is taken up with the strategic situations in Europe and Asia. The discussion offers a penetrating, but rather despair-inducing insight into humanity’s collective predicament: only by credibly threatening our notional foes with nuclear Armageddon can we hope to keep the peace.

The problem we now face, White argues, is the likes of Russia and China are beginning to doubt America’s part in the “balance of resolve”. During the Cold War both sides were confident about the other side’s ability and willingness to blow them to pieces.

Now mutual destruction is less assured. While some of us might think this was a cause for cautious celebration, White suggests it fatally undermines the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.

Even before Trump reappeared, this was a source of angst and/or uncertainty for strategists around the world. The principle underpinning international order in a world in which nuclear weapons exist, according to White, is that

a nuclear power can be stopped, but only by an unambiguous demonstration of willingness to fight a nuclear war to stop it.

Trump represents a suitably existential threat to this cheery doctrine. Europeans have belatedly recognised the US is no longer reliable and they are responsible for their own security.

Likewise, an ageing Xi Jinping may want to assure his position in China’s pantheon of great leaders by forcibly returning Taiwan to the motherland. It would be an enormous gamble, of course, but given Trump’s admiration for Xi, and Trump’s apparent willingness to see the world carved up into 19th century-style spheres of influence, it can’t be ruled out.

Australia’s options

If there’s one thing both authors agree on it’s that the AUKUS nuclear submarine project, the notional centrepiece of Australia’s future security is vastly overrated. It’s either a “disaster” (Shortis) or “insignificant” (White).

Likewise, they agree the US is only going to help Australia if it’s judged to be in America’s interest to do so. Recognising quite what an ill-conceived, ludicrously expensive, uncertain project AUKUS is, and just how unreliable a partner the US has become under Trump, might be a useful step on the path to national strategic self-awareness.

Shortis thinks some members of the Trump administration appear to be “aligned with Russia”. Tying ourselves closer to the US, she writes, “does not make us safer”. A major rethink of, and debate about, Australia’s security policy is clearly necessary.

Policymakers also ought to take seriously White’s arguments about the need to reconfigure the armed forces to defend Australia independently in an increasingly uncertain international environment.

Perhaps the hardest idea for Australia’s unimaginative strategic elites to grasp is that, as White points out,

Asia’s future, and Australia’s, will not be decided in Washington. It will be decided in Asia.

Former prime minister Paul Keating’s famous remark “Australia needs to seek its security in Asia rather than from Asia” remains largely unheeded. Despite plausible suggestions about developing closer strategic ties with Indonesia and even cooperating with China to offer leadership on climate change, some ideas remain sacrosanct and alternatives remain literally inconceivable.

Even if we take a narrow view of the nature of security – one revolving around possible military threats to Australia – US Defence Secretary Pete Hesgeth’s demands for greater defence spending on our part confirm White’s point that,

it is classic Trump to expect more and more from allies while he offers them less and less. This is the dead end into which our “America First” defence policy has led us.

Quite so.

Australia’s strategic elites have locked us into the foreign and strategic policies of an increasingly polarised, authoritarian and unpredictable regime.

But as Shortis observes, we cannot be confident about our ability, or the world’s for that matter, to “just ride Trump out”, and hope everything will return to normal afterwards.

It is entirely possible the international situation may get worse – possibly much worse – with or without Trump in the White House.

The reality is American democracy may not survive another four years of Trump and the coterie of startlingly ill-qualified, inhumane, self-promoting chancers who make up much of his administration.

A much-needed national debate

Both authors think attempts to “smother” a serious national debate about defence policy in Australia (White), and the security establishment’s obsession with secrecy (Shortis), are the exact opposite of what this country needs at this historical juncture. They’re right.

Several senior members of Australia’s security community have assured me if I only knew what they did I’d feel very differently about our strategic circumstances.

Really? One thing I do know is that we’re spending far too much time – and money! – acting on what Shortis describes as a “shallow and ungenerous understanding of what ‘security’ really is”.

We really could stop the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza if Xi had a word with Putin and the US stopped supplying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the weapons and money to slaughter women and children. But climate change would still be coming to get us.

More importantly, global warming will get worse before it gets better, even in the unlikely event that the “international community” (whoever that may be) agrees on meaningful collective action tomorrow.

You may not agree with all of the ideas and suggestions contained in these essays, but in their different ways they are vital contributions to a much-needed national debate.

An informed and engaged public is a potential asset, not something to be frightened of, after all. Who knows, it may be possible to come up with some genuinely progressive, innovative ideas about what sort of domestic and international policies might be appropriate for an astonishingly fortunate country with no enemies.

Perhaps Australia could even offer an example of the sort of creative, independent middle power diplomacy a troubled world might appreciate and even emulate.

But given our political and strategic elites can’t free themselves from the past, it is difficult to see them dealing imaginatively with the threat of what Shortis calls the looming “environmental catastrophe”.

No wonder so many of the young despair and have little confidence in democracy’s ability to fix what ails us.

Mark Beeson 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. Goodbye to all that? Rethinking Australia’s alliance with Trump’s America – https://theconversation.com/goodbye-to-all-that-rethinking-australias-alliance-with-trumps-america-258066

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Historian, Australian Catholic University

For two centuries, scholars have sparred over the roots of the Piasts, Poland’s first documented royal house, who reigned from the 10th to the 14th centuries.

Were they local Slavic nobles, Moravian exiles, or warriors from Scandinavia?

Since 2023, a series of genetic and environmental studies led by molecular biologist Marek Figlerowicz at the Poznań University of Technology has delivered a stream of direct evidence about these enigmatic rulers, bringing the debate onto firmer ground.

Digging up the dynasty

Field teams have now opened more than a dozen crypts from the Piast era. The largest single haul came from Płock Cathedral in what is now central Poland.

The exhumed bones were dated between 1100 and 1495, matching written records. Genetic analysis showed several individuals were close relatives.

“There is no doubt we are dealing with genuine Piasts,” Figlerowicz told a May 2025 conference.

The Poznań group isolated readable DNA from 33 individuals (30 men and three women) believed to span the dynasty’s full timeline.

Surprise on the Y chromosome

The male skeletons almost all carry a single, rare group of genetic variants on the Y chromosome (which is only carried and passed down by males). This group is today found mainly in Britain. The closest known match belongs to a Pict buried in eastern Scotland in the 5th or 6th century.

These results imply that the dynasty’s paternal line arrived from the vicinity of the North Atlantic, not nearby.

The date of that arrival is still open: the founding clan could have migrated centuries before the first known Piast, Mieszko I (who died in 992), or perhaps only a generation earlier through a dynastic marriage. Either way, the new data kill the notion of an unbroken local male lineage.

Yet genetics also shows deep local continuity in the wider population. A separate survey of Iron Age cemeteries across Poland, published in Scientific Reports, revealed that people living 2,000 years ago already shared the genetic makeup seen in early Piast subjects.

Another project that sequenced pre-Piast burials drew the same conclusion: local Poles were part of the broader continental gene pool stretching from Denmark to France.

In short, even if the Piasts were exotic rulers, they governed a long-established community.

A swamp tells its tale

While the DNA work progressed, another Poznań team dug into the history of the local environment via samples from the peaty floor of Lake Lednica near Poznań, the island-ringed stronghold often dubbed the cradle of the Piast realm.

Their study of buried pollen, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows an abrupt switch in the 9th century: oak and lime pollen plummet, while cereal and pasture indicators soar. Traces of charcoal and soot point to widespread fires.

The authors call the shift an “ecological revolution”, driven by slash-and-burn agriculture and the need to feed concentrated garrisons of soldiers guarding local trade routes carrying amber and slaves.

Modelling boom and bust

Using this environmental data, historians and complexity scientists constructed a feedback model of population, silver paid as tribute to rulers, and fort-building. As fields expanded, tributes rose; as tributes rose, chiefs could hire more labour to clear more forest and build forts.

The model reproduces the startling build-out of ramparts at Poznań, Giecz and Gniezno around 990. It also predicts collapse once the silver stopped flowing.

Pollen data indeed show the woodlands recovered to some extent after 1070, while archaeological surveys record abandoned hamlets and shrinking garrisons.

The early Piast state rode a resource boom as the Piasts controlled part of the amber and slave trade routes that linked the shores of the Baltic Sea to Rome.

The impact of Mieszko’s conversion to Christianity on that lucrative trade remains subject to scholarly debate.

Reconciling foreigners and locals

How do these strands fit together? Evidence of a Scottish man in the Piast paternal line does not necessarily imply a foreign conquest. Dynasties spread by marriages as well as by swords.

For example, Świętosława (the sister of the first Piast king, Bolesław the Brave), married the kings of both Denmark and Sweden, and her descendants ruled England for a time. The networks of Europe’s nobility were highly mobile.

Conversely, the stable genetic profile of ordinary folk suggests that, whoever sat on the ducal bench, most people remained where their grandparents had farmed.

The broader research engine

None of this work happens in isolation. Poland’s National Science Centre has bankrolled a 24-person team across archaeology, palaeoecology and bioinformatics since 2014, generating 16 peer-reviewed papers and a public database of ancient genomes.

Conferences at Lednica and Dziekanowice now bring historians and molecular biologists to the same table. The methodological pay-off is clear: Polish labs can now process their own ancient DNA rather than exporting it to Copenhagen or Leipzig.

What still puzzles researchers

Three questions remain. First, does that British-leaning male line really start with a Pict? The closest known match to the Piasts may change as new burials are sequenced.

Second, how many commoners carried the same genetic variant? Spot samples from Kowalewko and Brzeg hint that it was rare among locals, but the data set is small.

Third, why did the silver dry up so fast? Numismatists suspect a shift in Viking routes after 1000 AD, yet the matter is far from settled.

A balanced verdict

Taken together, the evidence paints a nuanced picture. The Piasts were probably not ethnic Slavs in the strict paternal sense, yet they ruled, and soon resembled, an overwhelmingly Slavic realm.

Their meteoric rise owed less to outsider brilliance than to the chance alignment of fertile soils, cheap labour, and an export boom in amber and captives.

As geneticists conduct more DNA sequencing of remains, such as those of princes in crypts at Kraków’s Wawel castle, and palaeoecologists push their lakebed pollen samples back to 7th century, we can expect further surprises.

Darius von Guttner Sporzynski receives funding from the National Science Centre, Poland as a partner investigator in the grant ‘The “Chronicle of the Poles” by Bishop Vincentius of Cracow also known as Kadłubek. First critical Latin-English Edition.’ (2022/47/B/HS3/00931).

– ref. Were the first kings of Poland actually from Scotland? New DNA evidence unsettles a nation’s founding myth – https://theconversation.com/were-the-first-kings-of-poland-actually-from-scotland-new-dna-evidence-unsettles-a-nations-founding-myth-258579

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sean Docking, Research Fellow, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

Timely access to high-quality medical imaging can be lifesaving and life-altering. Radiology can confirm a fractured bone, give us an early glimpse of our baby or detect cancer.

But behind the x-ray, ultrasound, CT and MRI machines is a growing, highly profitable industry worth almost A$6 billion a year.

Corporate ownership dominates the sector. In our new study, we show how for-profit corporations own about three in every five private radiology clinics.

As radiology becomes an increasingly attractive target for investors, are we letting business interests reshape a key part of our health-care system?

30 million scans and counting

In 2023–24, two in five Australians had an x-ray, ultrasound, CT scan or MRI. That’s about 30.8 million scans in total (individuals may have two or more scans).

Medicare funds most of this imaging. In fact, imaging is now Medicare’s second-largest area of spending, behind only GP visits.

But a growing number of scans are not bulk billed and patients are out of pocket on average about $125 per scan. An estimated 274,000 Australians are delaying or forgoing scans each year because of the cost.

There have also been dramatic changes behind the scenes. Since the early 2000s, for-profit corporations have been buying small radiologist-owned clinics.

Today, 65% of private radiology practices are owned by publicly listed shareholders or private investors, including private equity firms. This marks a significant shift from clinician-led to investor-driven health care.

Why should we care?

Advocates of corporate ownership suggest this business-focused approach can make the system more efficient through economies of scale. They say this allows consolidation of administration tasks and a reduction in overheads.

Easy access to finance can help buy expensive imaging machines. It can also provide investment towards new technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

Yet, there are three main reasons why corporate ownership of the radiology sector may be cause for concern.

1. It reduces competition

Large corporations buying up a bunch of smaller practices ultimately leads to less competition. In Tasmania, for example, 11 of the 17 private radiology clinics are owned by one company, significantly limiting patient choice.

We also found limited competition among radiology providers in South Australia, the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory.

When a single company dominates a local market, it creates the conditions for higher fees and reduced incentives to bulk bill. However, objective data on the impact of reduced competition on the affordability of scans is scarce.

2. It may lead to too many expensive scans

High-cost scans, such as MRIs and CTs, are lucrative. Medicare expenditure on MRI scans alone has doubled since 2012.

This may reflect improved access and a recommended shift towards more sensitive tests for some conditions. However, for-profit corporations now own about 76% of MRI machines in private clinics. These corporations may be financially incentivised to offer more costly imaging over equally effective, lower-cost options.

With profits tied to the number of scans, there’s growing unease financial motives may be influencing when and how often these scans are used.

While radiology corporations are not the ones requesting scans, there is little incentive for them to address overuse of radiology services, an issue for high-income countries such as Australia.

Low-value imaging may also generate overdiagnosis (when something shows up on imaging but will never cause the patient any health issues, for example). It can lead to unnecessarily exposing patients to radiation and cause unwarranted patient (and doctor) anxiety. This can ultimately lead to more tests and unnecessary treatment.

3. Radiology clinics become an asset

Private equity firms view radiology clinics as a commodity to be bought, their value increased, then sold over a relatively short time frame (typically three to seven years).

These firms generate profit not from delivering care, but from boosting the clinic’s value and charging them annual “management fees”.

A prime example is unfolding. I-MED, Australia’s largest radiology provider, is considering listing the business on the Australian Stock Exchange after failing to sell at a reported $3 billion. Its UK private equity owner bought I-MED for about $1.26 billion in 2018. If sold, this would be the latest of multiple owners since delisting from the stock exchange in 2006.

If there are debts, health-care companies can collapse, as we’ve seen recently with hospital chain Healthscope, which is owned by a Canadian-based private equity firm.

Experience of private equity’s role in health care in the United States also offers a cautionary tale. Reductions in the quality of care, asset stripping and ultimately the closure and bankruptcy of vital health-care providers have prompted Congressional investigations. The state of Oregon is on the verge of blocking private equity firms from controlling health-care providers.

What next?

As radiology becomes an increasingly attractive target for investors, questions are mounting about whether this profit-driven model can coexist with the public’s need for affordable, accessible health care.

Medicare was designed to guarantee affordable access to quality health care for all Australians, not guarantee revenue for corporations.

While unwinding corporate participation in the radiology sector is near impossible, there is still time to implement safeguards that prevent wealthy investors from prioritising financial gain over Australians’ health and wellbeing.

Stronger oversight and greater transparency from these corporations are needed to ensure Medicare dollars deliver real value for patients and the public.

We would like to acknowledge Jenn Lacy-Nichols (University of Melbourne) and Martin Hensher (University of Tasmania) who co-authored the paper mentioned in this article.

Sean Docking is a member of UniSuper (Industry Super Holdings Pty Ltd) as part of his superannuation; Unisuper is an investor in PRP Diagnostic Imaging. He has no direct investments in any diagnostic imaging companies.

Rachelle Buchbinder has received grant funding from NHMRC, MRFF, Arthritis Australia and HCF Foundation. She receives royalties from UpToDate for writing and editing ‘Plantar fasciitis’. She also receives royalties for her book entitled ‘Hippocrasy: How doctors are betraying their oath’. She has not received funding from for-profit industry, including from radiology companies.

– ref. Medical scans are big business and investors are circling. Here are 3 reasons to be concerned – https://theconversation.com/medical-scans-are-big-business-and-investors-are-circling-here-are-3-reasons-to-be-concerned-257820

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Leslie, Lecturer in Curriculum and Pedagogy with a focus on Educational Psychology, University of Southern Queensland

Bullying is sadly a common experience for Australian children and teenagers. It is estimated at least 25% experience bullying at some point in their schooling.

The impacts can be far-reaching and include depression and anxiety, poorer school performance, and poorer connection to school.

The federal government is currently doing a “rapid review” of how to better prevent bullying in schools. This do this, we need a clear understanding of the full spectrum of aggressive behaviours that occur in schools.

We already know bullying can be physical, verbal and social, and can occur in person and online. But there is less awareness among educators and policymakers of “microaggressions”. These can be more subtle but are nonetheless very damaging.

Read more:
With a government review underway, we have to ask why children bully other kids

What’s the difference between bullying and microaggressions?

Bullying is unwanted aggressive behaviour by a person or group against a targeted victim, with the intent to harm. The behaviour is repeated and there is a power imbalance between the perpetrator and victim.

Microaggressions are a form of aggression that communicate a person is less valued because of a particular attribute – for example, their race, gender or disability.

Microaggressions are repeated, cumulative and reflect power imbalances between social groups. A key difference with traditional bullying is microaggressions are often unconscious on the part of the perpetrator – and can be perpetrated with no ill intent.

For example, traditional bullying could include a child always excluding another child from the group, always pushing them when they walk past them, or calling them a rude name.

Microaggressions could include:

• saying “you don’t look disabled” to a student with an invisible disability

• mispronouncing a student’s name with no attempt to correct the pronunciation

• saying to a student of colour, “wow, you’re so articulate”, implying surprise at their language skills

• minimising a student with disability’s experience by saying “it can’t be that difficult. Just try harder.”

We don’t have specific statistics on prevalence within Australia, although there is ample research to say those from minority groups frequently experience microaggressions.

For example, studies of young people in the United States found incidents of microaggressions, often focused on racism, homophobia, transphobia and fat stigma. Students who held more than one identity (for example, a minority race and sexual orientation), were more likely to be targets.

Microaggressions in schools

My 2025 research on microaggressions towards dyslexic students in Australia found both students and parents can be on the receiving end. Teachers, school support officers and other students could be perpetrators.

These interactions minimised the students’ experiences of dyslexia and made them feel like second class students compared to their peers.

Some of the children reported comments from peers such as “oh yeah, reading, writing is hard already” which minimised the difficulties caused by dyslexia. Another student recalled how a peer had corrected her spelling “by snatching my book and re-writing it”, assuming she couldn’t do it herself. One student was made to feel bad for using a laptop in class as “someone said it was cheating”.

The impact of microaggressions

Schools where microaggressions occur are not safe spaces for all students.

This can have serious implications for students’ school attendance, harm their mental health and ability to learn and socialise.

Research on US university students, showed students may also become hypervigilant waiting for future microaggressions to occur.

One Australian study found microaggressions can be so bad for some school students, they change schools in search of environments where staff and peers are more accepting.

How to address microaggressions

Research suggests addressing microaggressions can work as a prevention strategy to reduce other forms of bullying before it starts.

Studies also show teacher awareness of microaggressions is key to preventing and addressing incidents.

So a first step step is to make sure schools, teachers and students are aware of microagressions. Teachers should be educated about the relationship between microaggressions and bullying.

Schools need to create environments where microaggressions are understood, recognised and addressed. All students need to be taught how to respond appropriately as bystanders if they see microaggressions happening in the classroom, playground or online.

If a student feels that they or a friend has been made to feel less because of their identity, then they should be encouraged to seek help from an appropriate adult.

Schools also need proactive programs to foster inclusion in schools. Research shows school psychologists can help by delivering programs in mental health and social and emotional development.

Just as schools, teachers and school psychologists can be proactive in addressing microaggressions, so too can the federal government – by including microaggressions in its anti-bullying review.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800.

Rachel Leslie is a committee member for the Australian Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools association.

– ref. ‘Microaggressions’ can fly under the radar in schools. Here’s how to spot them and respond – https://theconversation.com/microaggressions-can-fly-under-the-radar-in-schools-heres-how-to-spot-them-and-respond-258684