Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine Kent, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Wollongong

Around one in eight (1.3 million) Australian households experienced food insecurity in 2023. This means they didn’t always have enough money to buy the amount or quality of food they needed for an active and healthy life.

The data, released on Friday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), show food insecurity is now a mainstream public health and equity challenge.

When funds are tight, food budgets suffer

The main driver of food insecurity in Australia is financial pressure.

Housing costs and energy bills expenses consume much of household income, leaving food as the most flexible part of the budget.

When money runs short, families cut back on groceries, buy cheaper but less nutritious food, skip meals, or rely on food charities.

These strategies come at the expense of nutrition, health and wellbeing.

Inflation has added further pressure. The cost of food has risen substantially over the past two years, with groceries for a family of four costing around $1,000 per fortnight.

Who is most affected?

Not all households are affected equally. Single parents face the highest rates of food insecurity, with one in three (34%) struggling to afford enough food.

Families with children are more vulnerable (16%) than those without (8%).

Group households, often made up of students or young workers, are also heavily affected at 28%.

Rates are even higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households, where 41% report food insecurity.

Income remains a defining factor. Nearly one in four (23.2% of) households in the lowest income bracket experience food insecurity, compared with just 3.6% in the highest.

These headline numbers are only part of the story. Past research shows higher risks of food insecurity for some other groups:

• rural and remote communities face higher food prices and limited outlets. Some areas are becoming “food deserts” where affordable, nutritious food simply isn’t available

• university students and young adults juggle unstable work and housing costs while studying

• temporary residents are often excluded from available supports

• culturally and linguistically diverse households can struggle to access affordable, culturally appropriate food.

While the ABS survey can not provide local breakdowns, it will also be important to know which states and territories have higher rates of food insecurity, to better inform state-level responses.

What are the impacts?

Food insecurity is both a symptom and a cause of poor health.

It leads to poorer quality diets, as households cut back on fruit, vegetables and protein-rich foods that spoil quickly. Instead, they may rely on processed items that are cheaper, more filling and keep for longer.

The ongoing stress of worrying about not having enough food takes a toll on mental health and increases social isolation.

Together these pressures increase the risk of chronic diseases including diabetes, heart disease and some cancers.

For children, not having enough food affects concentration, learning and long-term development.

Breaking this cycle means recognising that improving health depends on improving food security. Left unaddressed, food insecurity deepens existing inequalities across generations.

What can we do about it?

We already know the solutions to food insecurity and they are evidence-based.

Strengthening income support by increasing the amount of JobSeeker and other government payments is crucial. This would ensure households have enough money to cover food alongside other essentials.

Investment in universal school meals, such as free lunch programs, can guarantee children at least one nutritious meal a day.

Read more:
Australian kids BYO lunches to school. There is a healthier way to feed students

Policies that make healthy food more affordable and available in disadvantaged areas are also important, whether through subsidies, price regulation, or support for local retailers.

Community-based approaches, such as food co-operatives where members share bulk-buying power and social supermarkets that sell donated or surplus food at low cost can help people buy cheaper food. However, they cannot be a substitute for systemic reform.

Finally, ongoing monitoring of food insecurity must be embedded in national health and social policy frameworks so we can track progress over time. The last ABS data on food insecurity was collected ten years ago, and we cannot wait another decade to understand how Australians are faring.

The National Food Security Strategy is being developed by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry with guidance from a new National Food Council. It provides an opportunity to align these actions, set measurable targets and ensure food security is addressed at a national scale.

Food insecurity is widespread and shaped by disadvantage, with serious health consequences. The question is no longer whether food insecurity exists, but whether Australia will act on the solutions.

Katherine Kent is a member for the National Committee for Nutrition.

– ref. 1 in 8 households don’t have the money to buy enough food – https://theconversation.com/1-in-8-households-dont-have-the-money-to-buy-enough-food-264685

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Basil Tucker, Senior Lecturer in Management Accounting, University of South Australia

Since the early days of human space exploration, the endeavour has been haunted by a very good question: why spend so much on space when there are so many urgent problems here on Earth?

It’s a valid concern, and one that resonates with many people. The cost of living is rising, housing remains out of reach for growing numbers of people, healthcare systems are stretched, and education and climate change demand urgent action.

Against this backdrop, space exploration can seem like a luxury and an unnecessary detour when attention is needed here at home.

However, looking at space exploration purely as a question of dollars and cents may miss the bigger picture. As experts in accounting, we argue that asking only for the financial return on space investments risks overlooking the wider and often more profound benefits that space spending provides.

The limits of cost–benefit analysis

Historically, governments have justified space programs by quantifying their economic output. These calculations look neat on paper: dollars spent versus benefits gained.

But this narrow approach struggles to capture the full value of space-related technologies and their impacts.

For example, GPS was space technology invented for military purposes, but it has become a cornerstone of modern life.

Similarly, weather satellites, another spin-off of space research, help us predict and prepare for natural disasters, improving food security as well as saving lives.

These are tangible outcomes. But they didn’t come with a guaranteed return when they were first funded.

That’s because some of the most important innovations begin as long bets, driven by vision and the desire to explore more than certainty.

Intangible benefits

Even more, space exploration offers intangible benefits that are no less important. For many people, there’s something inherently inspiring about venturing beyond Earth. It signals boldness, curiosity, and a willingness to stretch human limits.

Space missions inspire young people to pursue careers in science, technology and engineering. They reinforce national pride and position countries as leaders on the global stage.

This is why space investment can’t be judged only by immediate fiscal outcomes. We need a broader lens, one that includes questions of ethics, identity, foresight and governance.

Instead of asking only “is this profitable?” we should ask:

• how does space exploration reflect our values and aspirations as a society?

• who ensures transparency and accountability in large-scale programs?

• how do we strike a balance between urgent needs today and bold investments for tomorrow?

• who benefits from these ventures, and who might be left behind?

These are not just economic questions. They speak to how we define progress, whom we include in our vision for the future, and how we steward public resources responsibly.

Beyond spreadsheets

When people raise objections to space funding, they may not just be talking about money. They’re expressing deeper concerns about equity, opportunity and unmet needs closer to home.

Instead of countering with spreadsheets, governments and policymakers would do well to engage with those deeper values. The job is not just to convince the public that space investment is worth it. This job is to make sure the result actually is worth it, in a way that reflects collective priorities.

This mindset is helpful far beyond the space sector. Public investment in healthcare, education, defence and agriculture also involves complex trade-offs. Each decision carries consequences – some visible, others subtle.

Whether funding a new hospital or researching future space habitats, the same questions should apply. Is this project aligned with our broader goals? Is it fair, transparent and forward-thinking?

As humanity’s ambitions stretch further, from revisiting the Moon to planning Mars missions to contemplating deep-space hibernation, these questions grow more urgent.

Should taxpayer money support the development of technologies for interplanetary travel? Who decides whether such work is visionary or indulgent? These are questions about who we are and want to be.

A broader view of value

We are not making a call to spend blindly. Like all public investments, space programs deserve rigorous scrutiny. Transparency, equity and sound governance are essential.

However, those discussions should be grounded in a well-rounded view of value. It can’t just be limited to costs and cash flow.

Backing space science doesn’t come at Earth’s expense. It often drives innovation that helps us here at home. It’s also about imagining what’s possible when we look beyond our planet while remaining rooted in the challenges we face right here.

The best public investments combine bold vision with a commitment to shared wellbeing. Space can do both if we approach it wisely.

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

– ref. Is space worth the cost? Accounting experts say its value can’t be found in spreadsheets – https://theconversation.com/is-space-worth-the-cost-accounting-experts-say-its-value-cant-be-found-in-spreadsheets-262694

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Graffam-O’Meara, PhD Candidate in Theatre, Monash University

It’s an enticing proposition for a play: an aged barkeep shares snatches of memories as the small, inner-city Melbourne pub she’s inhabited since birth is slated for demolition.

Daniel Keene’s new play The Lark centres 75-year-old Rose Grey (played by beloved Australian actor Noni Hazlehurst) at this critical moment of closure and change.

Keene, Hazlehurst and director Matt Scholten are also the team behind Mother, a production that has been touring for the past decade.

Stories of loss, punctuated by humour

Memories shape the dramaturgical patchwork quilt of Keene’s new play.

Rose directly addresses the audience as she shares fragments of stories. She inherited the pub from her father after his retirement, and it is her entire life.

The lingering effects of an abandoning mother are seeded early and tighten the bond between Rose and her father – a bond which is transferred to the pub upon his death.

His death is a spectre that haunts the play. But there are small moments of humour, punctuated by Hazlehurst’s sharp delivery.

Throughout the play, Rose introduces the audience to memorable characters from the pub in short narrative bursts. People appear, have an impact on Rose, and just as quickly disappear. These are endearing, humour-filled stories that resonate strongly with the audience.

At the age of 19, Rose makes a break for it, to get away from the pub and the all-consuming relationship with her father. She makes it as far as Warrnambool before making the slow, embarrassing train ride back through the western suburbs to the inner north.

Rose’s whole life plays out in the pub. She relays the details of losing her virginity, forming friendships with other local women, and ultimately becoming the publican as her father falls ill.

His death is a slow and agonising process. Decades later, Rose still grapples with this debilitating loss, while facing the razing of the pub and the realities of her own decline.

Keene crafts lyrically beautiful lines within these short, fragmented narratives.

Heavy-handed design elements

However, while the proposition for intimate and humorous storytelling by a witty, aged barkeep is enticing – and possibly successful in Keene’s writing – Scholten’s direction ultimately stifles the production’s tone.

A very literal decrepit pub forms the main part of Emily Barrie’s set design. Hazlehurst moves between this space, a small table and chair near the front of the stage, and standing directly in front of the audience.

The performer shines when seated downstage or standing close to the audience. This proximity allows for intimate connection with the audience, and forces greater nuance in her delivery. The large, drab pub is an unnecessary and burdensome visual crutch.

Richard Vabre’s lighting also does little to create dynamics or changes in the energy and mood until a few rather lovely moments toward the end of the play. In some key moments, Hazlehurt’s face is cast in shadow – an effect no actor appreciates when working hard to convey complex emotion.

Sound design by Darius Kedros blankets the play in silence, adding weight to what are already grief-laden scenes. The repeated use of a cinematic-inspired soundscape underneath Rose’s dialogue about her father becomes predictable, and ultimately undermines the emotional nuance it seems intended to stir.

Hazlehurst, for the most part, remains behind the action of the dialogue rather than steering it. Between Scholten’s paint-by-numbers approach to directing movement and the lacklustre design elements the talented performer is inhibited.

Hazlehurst and Keene shine

Keene’s writing and Hazlehurst’s turn as Rose are the real forces of power in this production.

Scholten’s direction suffocates the delicacy of what Keene tries to balance in the dialogue: a coexistence of beauty, humour, pain and loss.

Heavy-handed design elements seem to favour imposing mood over complementing the complex character study Hazlehurst attempts to bring to life onstage. As a result, the production collapses with a profound sense of grief.

The Lark is at Fairfax Studio, Arts Centre Melbourne until September 28.

Jonathan Graffam-O’Meara 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. Noni Hazlehurst stars in world premiere of The Lark, a play that fails to take flight – https://theconversation.com/noni-hazlehurst-stars-in-world-premiere-of-the-lark-a-play-that-fails-to-take-flight-262221

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dat Tien Doan, Senior Lecturer, School of Future Environments, Auckland University of Technology

The government’s proposed shake-up of New Zealand’s building consent system will be the biggest reform in the sector since 2004. Essentially, the changes will spread liability for building failures across all involved parties, reducing the potential risk faced by councils granting those consents.

At present, homeowners can claim the full cost of repairs from any one party, but councils often end up paying when builders collapse financially. Under the new model, each party will pay only for its share of the problem.

In theory, this will speed up the consenting process because councils will be less risk averse, meaning construction activity in general will be freed from bottlenecks. In practice, however, a crucial question remains: how will homeowners be protected if things go wrong?

Part of the answer lies in other proposals contained in the reform package, such as mandatory home warranties and professional indemnity insurance, similar to schemes in Australia and the United Kingdom.

Consolidation of the country’s 67 building consent authorities, which often interpret the Building Act and Building Code differently, is also being considered.

But when it comes to failures in building design and construction, the devil is always in the detail – and in New Zealand it is often still contained in unreliable paper trails. As the leaky homes crisis showed, if accountability is also not watertight the costs can be enormous.

A comprehensive, reliable and accessible record of the entire consent process is needed to trace and assign liability. The proposed reforms are therefore about more than just simplifying things. They are a chance to modernise the entire system through digital accountability.

Closing the accountability gap

Think of the consent-and-build record as a secure digital logbook. Every inspection, approval and change can be time-stamped and stored to create a clear record of who did what, and when.

For homeowners, that means being able to check years later who signed off their foundations, for example. The UK already does this through its “golden thread” requirement for higher-risk buildings. This ensures information is digital, up to date and accessible throughout a building’s life.

Digital tools can also improve efficiency in three main ways:

1. Digital “twins” and 3D models create virtual versions of a building. Approvals can be embedded directly into the design, so compliance is visible from the start. The UK’s building information modelling framework shows how digital information can be managed consistently across projects.

2. Online national portals would replace New Zealand’s patchwork of separate council systems, which often cause delays and inconsistencies. A single secure entry point would let builders submit and track applications in one place. Singapore’s regulatory approval process for building works, CORENET X, already shows how this works in practice.

3. Remote inspections use video calls, photos or drones instead of requiring inspectors to visit in person. This can shorten approval times and reduce bottlenecks. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment already provides guidance on remote inspections.

The integration of digital tools in building approval systems, as shown in the UK and Singapore, makes construction more transparent and efficient. By contrast, New Zealand still relies heavily on paper-based trails and inconsistent council practices.

Restore trust and improve productivity

The proposed reforms should make the consent process fairer and more efficient. But without digital accountability, the risk remains that home or building owners still end up bearing the costs when things go wrong and blame can’t be clearly assigned.

For the reforms to succeed, these three steps will be vital:

• mandatory digital record-keeping for all approvals and inspections

• integration of design, approval and compliance data on shared national platforms

• and clear standards for data storage and homeowner access, ensuring records remain usable for decades.

Without these safeguards, proportionate liability risks leaving homeowners in limbo. With them, New Zealand can finally build a system that is fair, fast and future-proof.

The changes being signalled are an opportunity to seize the moment and properly digitise the system. This would protect homeowners, restore trust and help close the productivity gap that has dogged the construction sector for decades.

Handled well, the reforms could turn the consent system from a bottleneck into a platform for transparency and innovation. But digital accountability can’t be treated as an afterthought, it must be built into the system from the very beginning.

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. Building consent reform: how digital technology can make new liability rules watertight – https://theconversation.com/building-consent-reform-how-digital-technology-can-make-new-liability-rules-watertight-264190

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katie Attwell, Professor, School of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia

When it comes to the future of childhood immunisations, all eyes are on Robert F. Kennedy Jr, US Secretary of Health and Human Services, and his audacious attempt to discredit vaccinations with misinformation and dodgy “science”.

But state governments have their own weapons to destroy vaccine uptake in line with the MAHA (make America healthy again) agenda. Children in the United States are currently required to be vaccinated against a range of infectious diseases, including measles, to attend school and kindergarten. This week, Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis announced the state will scrap all vaccine mandates for children attending school, describing them as “slavery”.

With strong support from the Surgeon General of Florida to abolish vaccine mandates, and with the Florida State Senate and House of Representatives both controlled by Republicans, the measure is likely to proceed.

Why mandate vaccines?

High vaccination coverage rates protect individuals directly. They can also protect the community against diseases such as measles. “Herd immunity” shields people who can’t be protected directly by vaccines.

This is why high vaccination rates are everybody’s business.

Read more:
What is herd immunity and how many people need to be vaccinated to protect a community?

Governments use various levers to promote vaccine acceptance. They need to be free, accessible, and promoted well to achieve high uptake.

But when governments do this poorly, they may rely on mandates to prompt people to get vaccinated. US states are heavily reliant on vaccine mandates because of the country’s under-resourced and privatised health system, which can make it difficult for some families to access vaccines.

Removing mandates is risky

Experts have mixed views on vaccine mandates. But almost all agree governments should enable voluntary vaccination in the first instance.

Most would also agree that whatever you think of mandates, removing them is risky business.

In most US states, tensions around mandating vaccines are managed through religious and/or personal belief exemptions. These non-medical exemptions allow parents to opt out after following a bureaucratic process, such as completing a form with a clinician or participating in education.

The design of these policies is influential – easily accessible exemptions result in lower coverage and more outbreaks.

What’s been happening in the US?

The Florida proposal joins a long history of state legislators seeking to make school vaccine mandates more restrictive or more permissive. Republicans led efforts to loosen mandates, but both Democrats and Republicans led efforts to make them stricter.

These efforts in both directions have grown more extreme in recent years. The party distinction has solidified, and the courts got involved.

In 2015, California became the first state to remove non-medical exemptions entirely. This Democrat-led measure was a response to community concerns about vaccine refusal and disease outbreaks.

In 2023, a Mississippi judge introduced a religious exemption to that state’s mandate. Previously, Mississippi was one of the few states that allowed exemptions only on medical grounds.

Applying more coercive policy to vaccine refusers seems to have backfired, and is in part responsible for shifting pre-existing political polarisation about vaccine mandates to vaccines themselves.

The proposed Florida policy is just a more extreme form of this: Republicans are no longer tinkering with vaccine mandates but removing them altogether.

What happens if Florida goes ahead?

Without a lever to prompt vaccination, some parents in Florida will stop vaccinating their children.

They won’t all be vaccine refusers. Many will be poor, disadvantaged or busy parents who need the prompt of the school enrolment routine.

Some will also take the cue from federal and state governments that vaccination isn’t important or valuable. Worse, they may internalise RFK Jr’s messaging that it’s dangerous.

Childhood vaccination rates have already fallen by 2.5 percentage points in the US since the pandemic.

In Florida, where parents can currently access religious and medical exemptions, the coverage rate for kindergarteners fell even more – from 93.8% before the pandemic to 88.7% in 2025 – leaving thousands of children unprotected.

This rate will decline even further without mandates.

And the damage won’t be limited to Florida. Mobile Americans will spread disease to other states and other countries. Even a visit to Disney World will come with increased risks.

In the longer term, other Republican-led states are likely follow suit. In each of them, we can expect to see more outbreaks, suffering and death, and likely more cases elsewhere in the US, Canada and around the world.

Could this happen in Australia?

Vaccination and vaccine policy is not politicised in Australia in the same way.

There is strong, bipartisan support for vaccine mandates; both Labor and Coalition governments introduced “No Jab, No Play” and “No Jab, No Pay” policies for children to attend early education, and for families to receive government benefits.

There is also strong support for childhood vaccination and vaccine mandates among those who vote for the major parties.

The greatest risk we face is from adjacent developments in the United States. RFK Jr is distorting vaccine information and sponsoring questionable science.

This attempt to make anti-vaccination messaging mainstream will affect vaccine confidence in Australia, and potentially vaccination rates – but we don’t know how much.

Most Australian parents support vaccination. But we can’t afford to lose any more people who vaccinate because our coverage has already fallen since the pandemic.

To prepare for these threats, we need to ensure our own house is in order. The federal government’s new National Immunisation Strategy aims to improve access, strengthen the workforce, use data more effectively to guide us and increase community confidence.

The strategy also promises to look into a no-fault compensation scheme for rare vaccine injuries.

We need to see this bold agenda implemented well, with sufficient budget, and with a strong role for our new Centre for Disease Control, which will start in 2026.

We also need to continue to strengthen capacity and support for our regional neighbours, where low and declining coverage has led to large outbreaks.

Read more:
In the rare event of a vaccine injury, Australians should be compensated

Katie Attwell receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund of the Australian Government. She has previously received research funding from the Australian Research Council of the Australian Government and the Health Department, Government of Western Australia. She is a board member of Eviva Partners, a not-for-profit organisation focused on addressing threats to public health.

Julie Leask receives research funding from NHMRC, WHO, and the NSW Ministry of Health. She received funding from Sanofi for travel to an overseas meeting in 2024. She has received consulting fees from RTI International and the Task Force for Global Health.

Nancy Baxter receives funding from the NHMRC and CIHR.

– ref. Can Florida really end vaccine mandates? What would this mean for the US and countries like Australia? – https://theconversation.com/can-florida-really-end-vaccine-mandates-what-would-this-mean-for-the-us-and-countries-like-australia-264583

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Koplin, Lecturer in Bioethics, Monash University & Honorary fellow, Melbourne Law School, Monash University

What do world leaders talk about when they think we’re not listening? This week it was the idea of living forever.

Russian president Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping were caught off-guard at a military parade in Beijing discussing the possibility of using biotechnology to pursue immortality. In particular, Putin suggested repeated organ transplants could keep a person young forever.

There’s a lot to unpack here. The idea of lifespan extension is less outlandish, and less objectionable, than it might seem. But as a bioethicist, I do have some concerns.

Could transplants allow us to live forever?

Putin’s suggestion that we can achieve immortality via repeated organ transplants is almost certainly false.

One obvious question is where these organs would come from. Transplantable organs are a scarce medical resource. Using them to sustain the life of an ageing autocrat would deprive others of life-saving transplants.

However, Putin may have been envisaging lab-grown organs created using stem cells. This approach would not deprive others of transplants.

Unfortunately for Putin, while scientists can grow miniature “organoids” that model some aspects of human tissues, creating full-size transplantable organs remains far beyond current capabilities.

Even if, hypothetically, we had access to limitless replacement organs, ageing erodes our body’s general resilience. This would make recovering from repeated transplant surgeries – which are significant operations – increasingly unlikely.

Our ageing brains present an even deeper obstacle. We can replace a kidney or a liver without any threat to our identity. But we cannot replace our brains; whoever inhabits our bodies after a brain transplant would not be us.

Read more:
An artificial heart may save your life. But it can also change you in surprising ways

Other approaches

There may be better routes to increasing longevity.

Scientists have prolonged the lives of laboratory animals such as monkeys, mice and fruit flies through drugs, genetic alterations, dietary changes and cellular reprogramming (which involves reverting some of the body’s cells to a “younger”, more primitive state).

It’s always challenging to translate animal studies to humans. But nothing suggests human ageing is uniquely beyond modification.

In 2024, Putin launched a national project to combat ageing. Could Russia deliver the necessary scientific breakthrough?

Perhaps, though many experts are doubtful, given Russia’s fragile research infrastructure.

But Putin is not alone in funding longevity research. Breakthroughs might come from elsewhere – including, potentially, from major investments in anti-ageing biotechnologies from billionaires in the West.

Anti-ageing research could bring benefits

Whether they are authoritarian presidents or Silicon Valley billionaires, it’s easy to sneer at wealthy elites’ preoccupation with lifespan extension.

Death is the great leveller; it comes for us all. We understandably distrust those who want to rise above it.

But we need to disentangle motives and ethics. It is possible to pursue worthwhile projects for bad reasons.

For example, if I donate to an anti-malaria charity merely to impress my Tinder date, you might roll your eyes at my motivations. But the donation itself still achieves good.

The same applies to lifespan extension.

Anti-ageing research could have many benefits. Because ageing raises the risk of almost every major disease, slowing it could make people healthier at every age.

If we value preventing diseases such as heart disease, cancer and dementia, we should welcome research into slowing ageing (which could in turn help to reduce these problems).

Is seeking longer lives ethical?

Putin and Xi might seem less concerned with improving population health than with postponing their own deaths. But is it wrong to want longevity?

Many of us dread death – this is normal and understandable. Death deprives us of all the goods of life, while the prospect of dying can be frightening.

Nor is it suspect to want more than a “natural” lifespan. Since 1900, life expectancy in wealthy countries has risen by more than 30 years. We should welcome further improvements.

The most serious ethical concern about lifespan extension is that it will result in social stagnation.

Our views become increasingly rigid as we age. Young minds often bring new ideas.

If Taylor Swift is still topping the charts in 2089, many other musicians will miss out. And we will miss out on enjoying the evolution of pop music.

Music is one thing; morals are another. The 21st century is raising many new challenges – such as climate change and AI developments – that may benefit from fresh moral perspectives, and from the turnover of political power.

A Russia still ruled by Putin in 2150 will strike many as the starkest version of this worry. Fortunately, we need not be too concerned about a 200-year-old Putin. He is no longer young, and significant lifespan extension is probably decades away.

Still, the prospect of ageless autocrats should give us pause. We should welcome technologies that slow ageing and help us stay healthier for longer, while remembering that even good technologies can have bad effects.

If we succeed in dramatically extending lifespans, we will need to work out how to prevent our societies from becoming as static as some of the elites who lead them.

Julian Koplin 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. No, organ transplants won’t make you live forever, whatever Putin says – https://theconversation.com/no-organ-transplants-wont-make-you-live-forever-whatever-putin-says-264573

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kit MacFarlane, Lecturer, Creative Writing and Literature, University of South Australia

Andrew Lloyd Webber’s extravagant 1986 musical version of The Phantom of the Opera will celebrate its 40th anniversary at the Sydney Opera House in 2026. But an even more enduring anniversary takes place in September 2025: 100 years since Hollywood’s first film version of The Phantom of the Opera.

Officially released on September 6 1925 in New York, and directed by New Zealand-born Rupert Julian, the film remains an iconic symbol of silent cinema, with plenty of spectacle and intrigue for modern viewers.

And even a century on, it presents some puzzles.

From novel to 1925 blockbuster

Gaston Leroux’s Phantom of the Opera was published in France in 1909-1910, first serialised, and then as a novel.

In the story, a mysterious figure lurks in the Paris Opera House. This “Phantom” has an obsessive interest in a young singer, Christine, and manipulates her life and career from the darkness. The results include abduction, murder, nasty letters, and a chandelier-related disaster.

The 1925 silent film, produced by Universal, is the earliest surviving film adaptation we have of the novel. It was a large and costly production, with huge sets, spectacular colour sequences, and tumultuous edits and re-shoots before the official release.

It also had an extraordinary star in Lon Chaney. By the 1920s, Chaney had established a unique stardom, frequently focused on macabre roles and physical transformations. He was responsible not only for performing as the Phantom but also for his legendary makeup.

So, 100 years later, what is Lon Chaney’s silent Phantom like?

Tragic or toxic?

A key question for any adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera is how it asks us to feel about the Phantom himself by the end. After all, he’s a violent, obsessive man manipulating a vulnerable young woman.

Lloyd Webber’s musical leans heavily into the original tale’s elements of unrequited love and gothic romance. This can leave us wondering if we’re being invited to romanticise dangerously toxic traits.

In 1925, horror hadn’t yet been cemented as a film genre the way it is today. The studio was also keen on romance.

Various endings were filmed, including ones that would approximate Leroux’s ending, wherein the Phantom gives his blessing for Christine’s departure and gains some sympathy from the audience in his death.

But none of those made it to the final version. The ending that was ultimately used frames the Phantom as a clear villain, terrorising Christine until he’s killed and thrown in the Seine by a crowd of angry Parisians.

This enduring villainy – and comeuppance – may be particularly refreshing for those who find the idea of a “romantic” Phantom more tiresomely toxic than tragic.

A tangled release history

The 1925 film of The Phantom of the Opera is in the public domain, which means it’s not restricted by copyright. A simple online search will lead to no shortage of options to celebrate the film’s centenary.

But there is a hitch: there are many different versions of the film circulating online. The most common versions you’ll find are actually from a somewhat confusing studio re-edit from 1929.

It includes alternate takes, changes in the story and scene order, missing scenes, new scenes, and even new characters. A rediscovered original colour sequence was also added into many of these versions much later.

As a result, the version most fans have been watching for the last century isn’t the same one viewers saw in 1925.

This is a shame, since the 1929 version is regularly seen as inferior to the original. While the official 1925 version (or close to it) still exists, it remains overshadowed by the ubiquitous 1929 re-edit.

This is just one of the many complexities of the film’s tangled release history, which includes a “talkie” version with sound added.

Trying to make sense of the various versions, and why they exist, is a great way to understand some of the difficulties film historians often face.

A great pathway into silent cinema

The silent Phantom of the Opera still has plenty to offer.

Despite its enduring popularity, the film isn’t necessarily regarded as one of the great films of the silent era, or even one of the best films of 1925. Nevertheless, it remains an iconic film from the silent era, and a formative part of The Phantom of the Opera’s cultural history.

It is still screened, circulates online and on blu-ray, and has new musical scores composed for it. Fans and film historians still discuss the puzzle of its various versions and work on restorations, making it a very living part of film culture.

It’s also a fun and easy way to start exploring silent cinema. This is the silent movie that got me started!

In the film’s 100th year, we can still hope there will one day be a fully-restored version of the official 1925 release to celebrate its legacy and untangle its complicated history once and for all.

Kit MacFarlane 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 Hollywood’s first iconic Phantom of the Opera film is still puzzling us, 100 years on – https://theconversation.com/why-hollywoods-first-iconic-phantom-of-the-opera-film-is-still-puzzling-us-100-years-on-262324

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

The global trading system that promoted free trade and underpinned global prosperity for 80 years now stands at a crossroads.

Recent trade policy developments have introduced unprecedented levels of uncertainty – not least, the upheaval caused by United States President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff regime.

This is presenting some fundamental changes to the way nations interact economically and politically.

The free trade ideal

Free trade envisions movement of goods and services across borders with minimal restrictions. That’s in contrast to protectionist policies such as tariffs or import quotas.

However, free trade has never existed in pure form. The rules-based global trading system emerged from the ashes of the second world war. It was designed to progressively reduce trade barriers while letting countries maintain national sovereignty.

This system began with the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was signed by 23 countries in Geneva, Switzerland.

Through successive rounds of negotiation, this treaty achieved substantial reductions in tariffs on merchandise goods. It ultimately laid the groundwork for the establishment of the World Trade Organization in 1995.

‘Plumbing of the trading system’

The World Trade Organization introduced binding mechanisms to settle trade disputes between countries. It also expanded coverage of rules-based trade to services, intellectual property and investment measures.

Colloquially known as “the plumbing of the trading system”, this framework enabled global trade to expand dramatically.

Merchandise exports grew from US$10.2 trillion (A$15.6 trillion) in 2005 to more than US$25 trillion (A$38.3 trillion) in 2022.

Yet despite decades of liberalisation, truly free trade remains elusive. Protectionism has persisted, not only through traditional tariffs but also non-tariff measures such as technical standards. Increasingly, national security restrictions have also played a role.

Trump’s new trade doctrine

Economist Richard Baldwin has argued the current trade disruption stems from the Trump administration’s “grievance doctrine”.

This doctrine doesn’t view trade as an exchange between countries with mutual benefits. Rather, it sees it as as a zero-sum competition, what Trump describes as other nations “ripping off” the United States.

Trade deficits – where the total value of a country’s imports exceeds the value of its exports – aren’t regarded as economic outcomes of the trade system. Instead, they’re seen as theft.

Likewise, the doctrine sees international agreements as instruments of disadvantage rather than mutual benefit.

Read more:
No, that’s not what a trade deficit means – and that’s not how you calculate other nations’ tariffs

The US retreats from leadership

Trump has cast himself as a figure resetting a system he says is rigged against the US.

Once, the US provided defence, economic and political security, stable currency arrangements, and predictable market access. Now, it increasingly acts as an economic bully seeking absolute advantage.

This shift – from “global insurer to extractor of profit” – has created uncertainty that extends far beyond its relationships with individual countries.

Trump’s policies have explicitly challenged core principles of the World Trade Organization.

Examples include his ignoring the principle of “most-favoured nation”, where countries can’t make different rules for different trading partners, and “tariff bindings” – which limit global tariff rates.

Some trade policy analysts have even suggested the US might withdraw from the World Trade Organization. Doing so would complete its formal rejection of the global trading rules-based order.

China’s challenge and the US response

China’s emergence as the world’s manufacturing superpower has fundamentally altered global trade dynamics. China is on track to produce 45% of global industrial output by 2030.

China’s manufacturing surpluses are approaching US$1 trillion annually (A$1.5 trillion), aided by big subsidies and market protections.

For the Trump administration, this represents a fundamental clash between US market-capitalism and China’s state-capitalism.

How ‘middle powers’ are responding

Many countries maintain significant relationships with both China and the US. This creates pressure to choose sides in an increasingly polarised environment.

Australia exemplifies these tensions. It maintains defence and security ties with the US, notably through the AUKUS agreement. But Australia has also built significant economic relationships with China, despite recent disputes. China remains Australia’s largest two-way trading partner.

This fragmentation, however, creates opportunities for cooperation between “middle powers”. European and Asian countries are increasingly exploring partnerships, bypassing traditional US-led frameworks.

However, these alternatives cannot fully replicate the scale and advantages of the US-led system.

Alternatives won’t fix the system

At a summit this week, China, Russia, India and other non-Western members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization voiced their support for the multilateral trading system. A joint statement reaffirmed World Trade Organization principles while criticising unilateral trade measures.

This represents an attempt to claim global leadership while the US pursues its own policies with individual countries.

The larger “BRICS+” bloc is a grouping of countries that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and Indonesia. This group has frequently voiced its opposition to Western-dominated institutions and called for alternative governance structures.

However, BRICS+ lacks the institutional depth to function as a genuine alternative to the World Trade Organization-centred trading system. It lacks enforceable trade rules, systematic monitoring mechanisms, or conflict resolution procedures.

Where is the trading system headed?

The global trading system has been instrumental in lifting more than a billion people out of extreme poverty since 1990. But the old system of US-led multilateralism has ended. What replaces it remains unclear.

One possible outcome is that we see a gradual weakening of global institutions like the World Trade Organization, while regional arrangements become more important. This would preserve elements of rules-based trade while accommodating competition between great powers.

“Coalitions of like-minded nations” could set high policy standards in specific areas, while remaining open to other countries willing to meet those standards.

These coalitions could focus on freer trade, regulatory harmonisation, or security restrictions depending on their interests. That could help maintain the plumbing in a global trade system.

Nathan Howard Gray receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Peter Draper 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. As Trump abandons the rulebook on trade, does free trade have a future elsewhere? – https://theconversation.com/as-trump-abandons-the-rulebook-on-trade-does-free-trade-have-a-future-elsewhere-264338

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melek Cigdem-Bayram, Ronald Henderson Senior Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

Following last month’s economic reform roundtable, Treasurer Jim Chalmers said all attendees agreed “higher living standards is the holy grail, and a more productive economy is how we deliver it”.

This signalled the government’s understanding that leaving no one behind can unlock greater prosperity and productivity for everyone.

But for all the discussion about improving living standards, there was little explicit mention of poverty. This is despite evidence that, by some estimates, one in seven Australians is living in poverty.

One reason the issue didn’t get a lot of airtime may be because Australia doesn’t have official measures of poverty.

We’ve researched effective ways of measuring poverty and what they reveal about standards of living. We’ve found if Australia tracked poverty properly, we’d likely find out not only how many Australians are struggling, but also why. This insight can help governments, business and the community to formulate better responses.

Half a century of trying

There have been efforts over the decades to try to track poverty in Australia, starting with the government’s Commission of Inquiry into Poverty in 1975.

Chaired by Ronald Henderson, the so-called “Henderson report” became a landmark piece of research.

The inquiry established the Henderson Poverty Line: an unofficial, income-based poverty line.

Today, the Henderson Poverty Line continues to be updated by the Melbourne Institute, but it no longer reflects contemporary living standards. It’s been largely superseded by the approach of the OECD, which defines poverty as 50% of median household disposable income.

Perhaps most enduring, however, was the inquiry’s recognition that housing costs are central to the household budget and should therefore be factored into poverty measurement. This practice remains an international standard.

Australia left behind

Despite the legacy of the Henderson report, Australia has been leapfrogged by the rest of the world in measuring poverty. In lacking official poverty measures, we’re an international outlier.

Almost 160 countries have official poverty measures. These are either a monetary measure, which is based on income, consumption or expenditure, or it’s a multidimensional measure that captures non-monetary aspects such as health, education and employment. Some countries use both, which is best practice.

Australia has neither. In Australia, unofficial income-based indicators continue to dominate the poverty framework.

This recent paper shows under the OECD measure, around 12% of Australians were in poverty in 2022 before housing costs.

When housing costs, such as rent and mortgage repayments, are included, the rate rises above 13%. This signals the growing role of housing in driving inequality.

However, as Henderson observed and is now internationally recognised, poverty cannot be measured by monetary indicators alone. Wellbeing is about economic factors, but also about freedom, and people having choices and opportunities in their lives.

Addressing poverty now requires more comprehensive measurement tools. Failing to do this places us increasingly out of step with international approaches to poverty measurement.

As recognised earlier this year by the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, looking at both monetary and multidimensional measures would make for better policies and services.

What could poverty look like in Australia?

Today, multidimensional approaches are used in 84 countries, including Canada and New Zealand. International organisations such as UNICEF, the European Union and the World Bank also use them.

More than half of these countries apply the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), developed by researchers Sabina Alkire and James Foster in 2011. This measures the incidence and intensity of poverty across multiple areas.

Our team worked alongside Alkire to apply the MPI method to Australia to track deprivations across the following five areas:

• housing

• employment

• health

• education and skills

• and social connection.

Each dimension is weighted equally and represented by two indicators.

In this illustrative example, which uses HILDA Survey data, people are identified as multidimensionally poor if deprived in at least one-third of the weighted indicators.

The chart shows the percentage contribution of each indicator to total multidimensional poverty between 2003 and 2023. The wider the colour, the larger the contribution to poverty.

The chart highlights areas where progress is being made. For instance, it shows improvements in educational attainment and unemployment (the latter likely a result of temporary pandemic supports such as JobKeeper).

But the chart also highlights new risks, including mounting housing stress, increases in poor mental health and deepening social isolation.

These patterns are largely invisible in standard income-based measures which, while essential for showing how many people are in poverty, do not reveal why they are in poverty or the depth of their disadvantage.

The MPI fills this gap and, when coupled with income-based measures and developed using official ABS data, will provide a more complete picture of poverty.

A poverty-free economy, measured in both monetary and non-monetary terms, is one in which all citizens can reach their full capabilities and productivity is maximised.

To achieve this, governments must track poverty comprehensively over time and adopt official poverty measures.

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of researchers Nicole Bieske, Cara Nolan and Ismo Rama to this article.

Melek Cigdem-Bayram receives funding from Paul Ramsay Foundation

The Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL) receives funding and partners with organisations across government, business, philanthropy and the community to advance our vision and purpose. The demonstration multi-dimensional poverty index is being supported by the Paul Ramsay Foundation, and developed by the BSL team in partnership with the Melbourne Institute and the University of Oxford. BSL colleagues Nicole Bieske, Ismo Rama, and Cara Nolan continue to play a key role in this work and are co-authors of this article.

– ref. We can’t fix what we don’t track. That’s why Australia needs an official poverty measure – https://theconversation.com/we-cant-fix-what-we-dont-track-thats-why-australia-needs-an-official-poverty-measure-263724

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ken M.P. Setiawan, Senior Lecturer in Indonesian Studies, The University of Melbourne

During Indonesia’s recent mass protests, the looted homes of politicians in Jakarta revealed unexpected victims: cats reportedly left behind or stolen as their owners fled for safety.

The cats have gone viral on social media. Their politician owners – celebrities-turned-MPs Uya Kuya and Eko Patrio of the National Mandate Party (PAN) – were accused of “abandoning” their pets. This is a framing they reject, arguing they just didn’t have any opportunity to collect them before fleeing looters.

Wherever the truth lies, images of these frightened cats rescued by concerned citizens have struck a deep chord in cat-obsessed Indonesia.

Protesters and netizens quickly came to view these incidents as symbolic of politicians’ betrayal of their duty toward society’s most vulnerable.

Pets are political

Cats are hugely popular in Indonesia, which boasts the highest rate of cat ownership in the Asia-Pacific.

Indonesia is a majority Muslim country, and the high status of cats in Islam may help explain why cats are so popular there.

Beyond the cultural significance of cats, however, the recent incidents also offer insights into the nature of political image-making in Indonesia.

The phenomenon of politicians using cats and other animals to bolster their popularity is of course not new, nor is it uniquely Indonesian.

From Winston Churchill’s wartime cat Nelson, to Bill Clinton’s cat Socks or Downing Street’s “chief mouser” Larry, politicians have long used pet cats to carefully curate their public images as warm, approachable, relatable and humane.

The prime example from Indonesia is President Prabowo Subianto and his rescue tabby cat Bobby Kertanegara.

Bobby boasts almost 1 million followers on Instagram. Images of Prabowo feeding, playing with, and cuddling him helped transform the former army general’s public image in the lead-up to last year’s presidential election. He went from strongman with a questionable human rights record to a cuddly, sweet, animal-loving grandpa.

Now Indonesia’s “first cat” Bobby gets wheeled around in a luxury pet stroller and has his own security detail. He makes appearances at state functions where he receives gifts from foreign leaders. This includes a bespoke scarf Bobby recently received from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka and former Jakarta governor and 2024 presidential candidate Anies Baswedan have also used their pets to bolster their public image in Indonesia.

The recent protests

The recent protests in Jakarta were triggered by a proposed rise in MP allowances but also by general resentment towards the political class.

Anger has intensified over coverage of politicians’ lavish lives, as ordinary Indonesians struggle with high living costs and youth unemployment rates.

During the recent protests, several high-profile politicians had their houses looted.

Kuya and Patrio were reported to have left behind their cats, some of which were taken by looters or rescued by concerned citizens.

While many of these claims have been disputed by the politicians, commentary on viral posts have asked: if politicians can’t take responsibility for their own pets, how can they be trusted to care for the citizens they are supposed to represent?

Political image-crafting

Social media attention for these cats soon triggered a response from their owners.

Both Kuya and Patrio refuted claims the cats were “abandoned”. They argue there was no opportunity to grab the cats when their homes were targeted for looting, with the animals fleeing on their own.

Both have appealed for their pets to be returned, which has received some support from netizens.

The damage to the politicians’ reputations, however, has been done.

In the age of social media, pets have proven to be a double-edged sword.

Once used to soften politicians’ images and generate public support, these cats have now been drawn into a narrative that positions politicians as uncaring and out of touch. They have become metaphors for what some see as the elites’ betrayal of the people.

These cat incidents also reveal the precarious nature of political image-crafting in the age of social media.

Where once social media enabled political pets to be used to drive public adoration, it has now become a vehicle for backlash.

Ken M.P. Setiawan receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Board Member of EngageMedia, a nonprofit organisation that promotes digital rights, open and secure technology, and social issue documentary in the Asia-Pacific.

Charlotte Setijadi has previously received research funding from Singapore’s Ministry of Education and the Singapore Social Science Research Council. She is currently one of the co-convenors of the University of Melbourne’s Indonesia Forum.

Elisabeth Kramer receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the Australia-based Indonesia Council and the Australian Consortium for In-Country Indonesian Studies (ACICIS).

– ref. How MPs’ ‘abandoned’ cats became the unexpected symbol of Indonesia’s protests – https://theconversation.com/how-mps-abandoned-cats-became-the-unexpected-symbol-of-indonesias-protests-264511

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jake Newman-Martin, PhD Candidate in Palaeontology, Curtin University

You are probably familiar with kangaroos. Wallabies too, and most likely quokkas as well.

Less famous are their small endangered cousins, the bettongs. These little marsupials love to dig and have a thing for mushrooms.

Because of their size and relative scarcity, it has always been hard to work out exactly how many different species of bettongs there are and where they all live.

Scientists have believed there are five living species of bettongs – but our new research, published today in Zootaxa, changes our understanding of the diversity of these creatures. And knowing that might help us understand why many efforts to protect them have failed, and how we can do better in future.

A small hopping engineering crew

A single bettong weighs just a couple of kilos, but can move tonnes of earth each year in an effort to find food. This makes them “ecosystem engineers”, turning the soil over and improving ecosystem health as they forage.

There have long been five acknowledged living species of bettong: the boodie, the woylie, the northern bettong, the rufous rat-kangaroo, and the eastern bettong. There are also a few subspecies that are thought to have gone extinct due to feral cats and foxes.

But our new study changes things.

Bones and teeth

We measured the skulls and teeth of 193 bettongs from museums across Australia, as well as in the Natural History Museum of London and the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. We also looked at their arm and leg bones, to determine how the shape and function of their limbs can be used to tell between species, something that had not been done in detail previously.

The aim of our investigation was to better understand the woylie. It has always been difficult to identify woylie bones in fossil beds, so our work would also help palaeontologists in the field.

Our analysis surprisingly showed that what we have been calling a woylie was actually three separate species.

Meet the family

It was previously believed there were two subspecies of woylie.

The first is what we generally call a woylie: Bettongia penicillata ogilbyi, a living species found in Western Australia. The second is extinct: Bettongia penicillata penicillata (the brush-tailed bettong), once found in South Australia and New South Wales.

However, our study indicates there are enough differences in the teeth and skull to recognise these as two separate species.

We also identified an extinct third species, Bettongia haoucharae or the “little bettong”. Its partially fossilised remains were located in the Great Victoria Desert and Nullarbor Plain, indicating that it was well adapted for the arid outback.

Once we were able to split the woylie (Bettongia ogilbyi) from the brush-tailed bettong (Bettongia penicillata) we could look more closely at the populations within the southwest.

From here we identified that the living woylies of the southwest are made up of two subspecies, both critically endangered. These are Bettongia ogilbyi sylvatica, or the “forest woylie”, and Bettongia ogilbyi ogilbyi, the “scrub woylie”.

The forest woylie is found throughout the cool wet forests southwest of Western Australia, particularly the Jarrah forest, while the scrub woylie is found in more open scrub habitats. Some individuals of scrub woylies were recorded as far as Shark Bay in Western Australia’s arid Gascoyne region. The scrub woylie was better adapted to dry conditions than the forest woylie, but was not a true desert dweller like the extinct little bettong.

So why does this matter?

The woylie is critically endangered, with about 12,000 individuals thought to remain. Conservation efforts have been focused on moving individuals to areas where they were thought to have previously occurred.

At least 4,000 woylies have been moved into different habitats during conservation efforts. However, our new study shows woylies were always restricted to southwest Western Australia and so were unsuited to some of the areas they were moved to. The bettongs that once lived in those other areas were very likely different species, with different adaptations.

Woylies eat fungi, which are known to grow in damp places on the forest floor. The northern bettong is also a fungi specialist, and it faces a threat as temperature increases make mushrooms less available.

When woylies are moved out of the southwest they no longer have access to their fungi food sources. Some previous attempts to move individuals have failed – and researchers have been unsure of why the woylies could not survive where they were thought to have previously lived.

According to our research, the woylie actually was never present in these environments. It was instead another kind of bettong that was better adapted to live in these arid habitats.

Moving individual animals can be a useful tool for both species conservation and ecosystem management. If a species becomes extinct, it may be substituted with a similar species that performs the functions previously carried out by the extinct species.

In the case of bettongs, it’s about finding which species can do that job and thrive in these arid ecosystems. This is worth doing as the ecosystems are suffering in their absence.

With the brush-tailed bettong elevated to full species and the description of the little bettong, our findings add two new extinct species to the ever-growing list of extinct mammal species in Australia.

Our work further highlights the terrible loss of unique marsupial species across Australia that we were not even aware of, and the urgency of protecting what remains.

Kenny Travouillon works for the Western Australian Museum. He received funding from the Australian Biological Resource Study.

Milo Barham has received funding from the Minerals Research Institute of Western Australia.

Natalie Warburton currently receives funding from the Australia and Pacific Science Foundation and has previously received funding from Australian Research Council.

Alison Blyth and Jake Newman-Martin 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. Australia has some new marsupial species – but they’re already extinct – https://theconversation.com/australia-has-some-new-marsupial-species-but-theyre-already-extinct-261572

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dragan Rangelov, Senior Lecturer in Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Swinburne University of Technology

Imagine a game show where the host asks the contestant to randomly pick one option out of three: A, B or C.

After the contestant chooses, say, option B, the host reveals one of the remaining choices (say C) does not contain the prize. In the final step, the contestant is asked whether they want to change their mind and select the remaining option A or stick with their original choice, B.

Dubbed the Monty Hall problem after an American game show host, this famous puzzle has entertained mathematicians for decades. But it can also tell us something about how the human mind and brain function.

Why do some people choose to change their minds while others stick with their first choice? What would you do and what might your choice reveal about your mind?

Choosing when to change

Research on changes of mind uses the concept of “metacognition” to explain when and how mind changes occur. Broadly speaking, metacognition refers to psychological and biological processes that inform us about how well we are doing the task.

In a sense, metacognition is that inner voice telling us we are either on track or that we should try harder.

Intuitively, changes of mind may be triggered by low confidence in our initial choice. Yet, when my colleagues and I reviewed the research on changes of mind about a range of different kinds of decisions, we found many studies showing people change their minds less often than you might think. This was surprising, given how often we feel uncertain about our choices.

On the other hand, when people do choose to change their mind, it is often for the better. This ability to accurately gauge whether to change your mind is referred to as metacognitive sensitivity.

Our research has found people often make better decisions about whether to change their minds when they are put under time pressure.

Understanding more about how we decide to change our minds may lead to ways to train our minds to make better choices.

Our brains show when we will change our minds

Another interesting question about changes of mind is when do people choose to change their minds. The answer to this question might seem obvious, as people can change their minds only after they have made the first choice.

To find out more about this process, we measured people’s brain activity before they even made their initial choice in a laboratory task that involved answering questions about moving images on a screen. We successfully predicted changes of mind seconds before they took place.

These findings suggest brain activity that predicts changes of mind could be harnessed to improve the quality of the initial choices, without needing a change of mind later. Training based on this brain activity may help people in sensitive professions such as health or defence make better choices.

Why don’t we change our minds more often?

Research on metacognition has provided robust evidence that changes of mind tend to improve choice outcomes. So why are people so reluctant to change their minds?

There are at least two possible reasons. First, deciding to change your mind is typically a result of making extra cognitive effort to analyse the quality of the initial choices. Not every decision requires that effort, and most everyday choices can be good enough rather than perfect.

For example, choosing a wrong brand of orange-flavoured soft drink will probably not significantly impact our wellbeing. In fact, consumer research shows buyers tend to report higher product satisfaction when offered fewer choices, a phenomenon called “the paradox of choice”. This suggests having more choices and, therefore, greater opportunity to change one’s mind may be more cognitively effortful.

Second, frequent changes of mind may signal personality traits that are not socially desirable. Meaningful and fulfilling interpersonal relationships rely on the ability to predict and rely on another person’s actions.

Erratic and frequent changes of mind could negatively impact relationships and people may avoid doing this to improve their social integration.

The future of changing your mind

The science of changes of mind is an exciting field of research, developing at a fast pace.

Future developments in the field might focus on identifying specific brain activity markers of subsequent correct changes of mind. If reliable and valid markers are found, they could be harnessed to help people become experts on when they should change their minds to achieve better professional and social outcomes.

Oh, and coming back to the Monty Hall problem: if you ever do find yourself offered this choice by a game show host, you should definitely change your mind. In this scenario, for mathematical reasons, switching away from your first pick will double your chances of winning.

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

– ref. What actually happens in your brain when you change your mind? – https://theconversation.com/what-actually-happens-in-your-brain-when-you-change-your-mind-263907

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kali Middleby, Postdoctoral research fellow, Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD)

How do you cool yourself on a hot day? Perhaps you find shade, switch on a fan or retreat to air conditioning? But spare a thought for tropical forest trees. As the climate warms, they must either adjust to the heat, adapt over generations, or begin a slow decline toward death.

In full sun, tropical leaves can become much hotter than the surrounding air – hot enough to slow – or even stop – the life-sustaining process of photosynthesis.

So how can trees keep their leaves within safe temperature limits? And are some species better at this than others? Our new research examined that question.

We found some tropical tree species have ways to cope with damaging temperatures in warmer parts of their range. This could give them an advantage over competitors as the climate continues to warm.

The cooling strategies of leaves

In warmer climates, plants may cool their leaves and avoid heat damage by evaporating water through their “stomata” – tiny pores on the surfaces of leaves and stems.

Or they might develop narrower, smaller leaves. These can shed heat more effectively than large leaves because wind passes closer to the leaf surface, breaking up the thin layer of still air that insulates the leaf.

Leaves may also change their orientation to absorb less radiation from the Sun.

Yet we don’t know what species are best at making these shifts, which are collectively known as “thermoregulation”. We also don’t know if this ability evolved over generations or if trees have adjusted during their lifetime. Our new study sought to shed light on these questions.

What the study involved

First, we tested how various characteristics of leaves influence how hot they get. To do this, we sampled trees from 16 forest sites across the Wet Tropics of Queensland, from hot lowlands to cool mountaintops.

The sampling involved three species: Darlingia darlingiana (silky oak), Elaeocarpus grandis (blue quandong) and Cardwellia sublimis (bull oak).

We trekked into remote forests to locate our study species. Then we used a giant slingshot to knock down branches from high in the canopy.

We measured the leaves according to factors that influence how hot they become: width and thickness, chemical composition, the use of stomata to expel water for cooling, and colour and reflectivity.

These field measurements were entered into a computer model. We asked the model to predict how the temperature difference between leaves and air changed across the habitats where the species grew.

The modelling showed two of the three studied species – silky oak and blue quandong – were clearly able to “self cool” in hotter environments. They did this by increasing the activity of their “stomata” and by having narrower, smaller leaves.

Was this evidence of climate adaptation?

But why were some tree populations able to avoid damaging temperatures? Did the genes of those populations evolve from one generation to the next to become better suited to a warmer world? Or was another factor at play?

To answer these questions, we examined the DNA of the varying populations of all three species. We were looking for small differences linked to the climates in which individual trees grew.

We found signals in all three species associated with both temperature and rainfall. This suggests climate history has shaped their genetic responses – but not always with the same outcome.

For example, although bull oak showed signs of adaptation, this may not help with temperature regulation, but instead influence the plant’s function in other ways.

To test the idea, we ran a glasshouse experiment using common garden plantings of blue quandong seedlings, collected from different populations. The plants were exposed to warmer or cooler temperatures in separate glasshouse chambers to mimic the current conditions of the uplands and lowlands.

Seedlings of blue quandong, grown from populations originating in different climates, showed the same variation in leaf-to-air temperature differences that we observed in the field. This occurred regardless of whether they were grown in the cooler or warmer glasshouse chambers.

It suggests genetic adaptation is helping some tree populations keep their leaves cooler. This could guide conservation managers when choosing where to collect seeds for rainforest restoration in a warming world.

Different species, different strategies

Tropical rainforests are vital for biodiversity, and for tackling climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But heatwaves and droughts are pushing many tree species to their limits.

Our study shows variation within species that can buffer some risk from rising temperatures. But not all tree species have these strategies to cope with heat.

As we’ve shown, some tropical trees may be more vulnerable to a warming world. As heatwaves become more frequent and intense, trees that can’t adjust their leaf temperatures may face higher risks of tissue damage, reduced growth or even local extinction.

Understanding how tropical trees have adapted to temperature rises is crucial for evaluating their resilience to global warming – and helping to protect them.

Kali Middleby received funding from James Cook University, the Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment, and Skyrail Rainforest Foundation.

Lucas Cernusak receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Some tropical trees cool their leaves to survive the heat — but not all species have ways to cope – https://theconversation.com/some-tropical-trees-cool-their-leaves-to-survive-the-heat-but-not-all-species-have-ways-to-cope-264117

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Melser, Senior Research Fellow, Monash University

Buying a house is one of the most high-stakes decisions many people will make in their lives. Yet many households are investing millions without an adequate understanding of a property’s exposure to growing climate risks.

In Australia, perhaps the starkest climate hazard is flood. Flooding ranks as one of the most financially damaging weather-related disasters, with costs rising sharply over the past five years.

So, how do you find out a given property’s flood risk? This information certainly exists. It is embedded in the insurance premiums we are charged.

But in Australia, unlike many comparable countries, this information is not readily available to all households. Changing that would help them make smarter, more informed decisions – and could benefit us all.

The growing threat of floods

Flooding is a growing problem for households across the nation, and forecast to grow as the climate changes. Yet, flood risk is not always easy to identify. It reflects the complex interplay of two key elements.

The first is topography, the layout of natural and built features on the land, such as hills, rivers, roads, and buildings. The second is hydrology, the way water sources including rainfall, rivers and groundwater are distributed and interact with the environment and human systems.

Efforts to create a unified flood risk map have been limited by fragmented data ownership, proprietary licensing and poor coordination.

Some detailed resources do exist. Queensland, for example, has developed a Property Level Flood Information Portal, currently available to 39 eligible local governments. It’s part of an opt-in program requiring councils to voluntarily participate.

Scaling this kind of initiative to a national level would require collaboration across hundreds of councils, each with varying priorities, resources and technical capacities.

Other public resources, such as the Australian Flood Risk Information Portal (AFRIP), provide metadata that can help identify where flood studies have been done, but do not offer consistent, property-level flood risk data.

Helpful insights, hidden

Australia does, however, have a National Flood Information Database (NFID). This estimates flood risk for approximately 14 million Australian homes and is used by insurers to assess and price flood risk.

It was constructed by the Insurance Council of Australia over many years, by integrating and harmonising much of the flood mapping undertaken by local and state governments in Australia.

Currently, this data is proprietary – meaning insurers who pay can access it to set premiums, but Australian households can’t due to commercial licensing and data ownership restrictions.

This sits awkwardly with the fact that much of National Flood Information Database is based on mapping and studies commissioned by local and state governments.

Lagging the world

Australia is an outlier among comparable countries in not having reliable public data on property-level flood risk. On this front, the Netherlands is widely considered to be the gold standard.

National flood maps are made accessible to households through a government website that allows households to view flood risk information tailored to individual addresses.

This includes information about possible flood depth, what to expect in a flood event and how to stay safe. Information is presented in plain language and with simple infographics.

Elsewhere around the world, the United States has long provided national flood maps in relation to its National Flood Insurance Program. There are also laws in many US states requiring flood risk disclosures when a property is sold.

One of the US’ largest real estate listing websites, Zillow, includes detailed information on an individual property’s exposure to the full range of climate hazards.

And in the United Kingdom, the government produces national maps of flood risk and makes them publicly available.

How we could benefit

In fighting climate change, we need to understand the flood risk to reduce exposure and vulnerability as much as possible.

One key federal government initiative is the Disaster Ready Fund. This supports a variety of programs, from investments in physical and social infrastructure to nature-based solutions and research.

While this holistic approach is important, a much more structured one is needed, especially around flood risk mitigation.

Providing Australians with greater transparency around a home’s flood risk would enable households to make more informed decisions about the properties they purchase or rent.

It would also limit insurance bill shock and better align households’ expectations with the reality of the climate risks they face.

Most importantly, it would provide a much-needed climate signal to property owners and may encourage many to undertake measures to reduce damage in the event of a flood.

More informed discussions

Having reliable and consistent publicly shared flood data information will also support community discussions on what is an acceptable level of risk and guide decisions on where and how to mitigate or relocate.

Making the data we already have on property-level flood risk available for general consumption is a no-brainer. But it is the thin end of the wedge. We also need better data to begin with.

In many areas, the current flood maps are outdated. This introduces additional uncertainty, which is priced into insurance premiums.

This problem calls on Australia to raise the bar, improving the quality and updating the frequency of flood mapping to better inform decisions and debate.

The taxpayer spending required to do this is hard to justify if this data remains locked up within the insurance industry – but it makes more sense if there are wider public benefits, such as for households.

Daniel Melser receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

This article has been produced by Daniel Melser in his role as a Senior Research Fellow at Monash University and is wholly independent of his work in the banking sector.

Francesca Perugia receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW).

Antonia Settle 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. Insurers have detailed data on your home’s flood risk. So, why don’t you? – https://theconversation.com/insurers-have-detailed-data-on-your-homes-flood-risk-so-why-dont-you-264110

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Meade, Adjunct Associate Professor, Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research, Griffith University

Competition is seen as a panacea in electricity markets: if only we had more, prices would be lower, and investment and supply security would be higher.

Politicians love this story because it offers respite when electricity prices rise. Just unleash regulators and competition authorities to “fix” competition barriers – problem solved (for now).

Encouraging retail competition becomes a priority. Consumers are slow to change retailers, even if they could save hundreds of dollars a year, which is seen as a brake on competition.

Regulators and policymakers therefore champion price comparison services and other measures to encourage electricity customers to shop around.

Also, standalone retailers often protest they can’t access generation from their rival “gentailers” – firms that combine electricity generation and retailing – on fair terms.

If only they could – and customers more keenly switched providers – retail-only companies could provide stiffer competition. Their solutions include lobbying for gentailers to be broken up, or forced to supply retailers on the same terms as the gentailers’ own retail arms.

The trouble is, if we misidentify the causes of lacklustre electricity market competition, our solutions may only make things worse.

Rather than the lack of competition being about too little customer switching and barriers to retailers entering the market, the more likely cause is too much of both.

Hit-and-run retailers

For the big gentailers (such as New Zealand’s Mercury, Meridian, Contact and Genesis) to face more competition, we need either more gentailers or other ways to achieve the benefits of gentailing. Those benefits are twofold:

• combining generation with retailing effectively manages the huge risks standalone generators or retailers face when they buy and sell on wholesale markets, where prices are highly volatile and can rise to levels that kill businesses; in turn, this helps gentailers finance investment in generation

• and gentailers only need to add one profit margin to their generation cost when setting retail prices; separated generators and retailers add separate margins, which can accumulate to more than what gentailers alone charge.

Separating generation from retailing is therefore a bad idea – if you want lower prices and better investment, you probably want more gentailing.

But why can’t separated generators and retailers replicate these gentailing advantages through long-term contracts? Because generators incur large investment costs to be recovered over many years, so to finance their investments they need long-term revenue security.

Standalone retailers can’t credibly sign contracts offering that security. If they do, new retailers (which can be set up relatively cheaply) can steal their customers when wholesale prices fall below the level of those long-term contracts.

If retailers do sign long-term contracts with generators, they risk failing when exposed to such “hit and run” competition by rival retailers – or they renege on those contracts to survive.

Generation investors see this coming, so don’t contract long-term with standalone retailers. Result: lack of viable investment and competition by separated generators and retailers.

The right kind of competition

To resolve this, we would need to eliminate hit-and-run retail entry – first, by making it harder for customers to change retailers if wholesale prices fall below long-term contracted prices.

This could be achieved by requiring retail customers to sign up to long-term retail contracts themselves, rather than being able to flexibly change retailer. Ironically, price comparison websites take us in the wrong direction.

Second, new retailers could be required to have either their own generation – be gentailers, in other words – or have long-term supply contracts in place with generators.

Counterintuitively, this actually makes it easier – or at least more sustainable – for retailers to enter the market, because they know they won’t face hit-and-run competition if they do.

This also means generators can more confidently sign long-term contracts with retailers. Retailers wouldn’t then need to convince regulators to force gentailers to supply them, as they can secure their own supply through contracting.

Standalone retailers might object that they would do this now if they could. But generators can’t supply standalone retailers given the current long-term contracting uncertainty.

Fix that uncertainty – by increasing the ability of retailers to commit to long-term contracts – and both generators and retailers win. Ultimately, this means gentailers face more credible competition, which also means consumers win.

By discouraging the wrong kind of competition (rather than promoting it), genuine competition can be made more durable and effective. That would support long-term investments by generators, and also investments by retailers in innovative services that benefit consumers.

Neither is possible when customers can change retailers with ease, and retailers face hit-and-run competition. If we want more competitive electricity markets, we need to encourage the right type of competition – by discouraging the wrong type.

Richard Meade was funded in 2021 by an industry body representing New Zealand electricity retailers to survey the economic literature on vertical integration versus vertical separation in electricity sectors. In 2025 he submitted on his own account to the Electricity Authority on its proposal to force generator-retailers to offer supply to rivals on non-discriminatory terms.

– ref. To fix broken electricity markets, stop promoting the wrong kind of competition – https://theconversation.com/to-fix-broken-electricity-markets-stop-promoting-the-wrong-kind-of-competition-264572

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

Despite he and his government being in an overwhelmingly dominant position politically, Anthony Albanese sounded quite tetchy at times this week.

He argued the toss on the ABC when pressed, reasonably enough, for detail on the expensive deal for Nauru to take former immigration detainees. Later in the week, a brief Senate inquiry revealed the 30-year agreement could cost up to $2.5 billion.

Albanese dismissed as “not accurate” a story about officials helping the return to Australia of so-called “ISIS brides” and their families, when a fuller response would have been wiser. It emerged that while the government is not facilitating the repatriation, New South Wales and federal police are making arrangements for if and when the people arrive.

Albanese was on the back foot over issues of the government’s lack of transparency,  highlighted by aspects of new freedom of information legislation introduced this week. Although some changes are reasonable, the new regime will further restrict public access to information relating to decision-making at senior levels of government. Former crossbench senator Rex Patrick, who constantly runs FOI cases, describes it as an “Albanese counterrevolution” that “strips away citizens’ right to access important information”.

Perhaps the prime ministerial mood was darkened this week by his good political friend, former Victorian premier Dan Andrews, being caught up in a firestorm of criticism for attending China’s enormous military parade in Beijing on Wednesday.

Andrews is a private citizen now, but his presence in the “family photo” with the who’s who of the world’s dictators dismayed many people in Labor.

The parade highlighted the delicate diplomatic dance the Albanese government finds itself in with China. The show of strength sent unmistakable messages to the world. The Australian government kept its distance from the spectacle; embassy officials attended but Australia’s ambassador was in another part of China.

Albanese knew the presence of Andrews was unfortunate, although he held back from robust criticism. On Thursday, he told parliament, “I am not responsible for what every Australian citizen does”. (Andrews said in a Thursday statement the occasion had been a chance to “engage with regional leaders”.)

On the other side of politics, the opposition remains in a world of pain, deeply divided over net zero and with members breaking ranks, in comments or votes, apparently whenever they feel like it. This week several senators, including Nationals frontbenchers Bridget McKenzie and Ross Cadell, crossed the floor to support a motion moved by One Nation’s Pauline Hanson on immigration. So much for the Nationals’ agreement to accept the principle of shadow cabinet solidarity.

Separately, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, damaged the Liberals with an inflammatory comment about Indian immigration.

But amid her deep troubles, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley had a useful win this week. On Monday and Tuesday the opposition in question time targeted the new Minister for Aged Care Sam Rae over the unacceptably long waiting list for home care packages, and the delay of the roll-out of planned aged care reforms, from July to November.

Rae, it will be remembered, owed his elevation to the ministry after the election to being a factional numbers man for Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles. Labor observers felt he held his own under the attack, but the government found itself in an untenable position.

The opposition had leverage because the government needed to get its latest aged care legislation through the Senate this week. On Wednesday morning, the Senate passed an amendment to bring forward a batch of home packages, when a rare combination of the Coalition, Greens and crossbenchers imposed an equally rare defeat on Labor. Although there was no division, the government registered its opposition.

Then almost immediately, Minister for Ageing Mark Butler announced the government would indeed bring forward the packages.

In the post-election Senate, the government typically only needs either the Greens or the Coalition to pass legislation – and they are usually on different sides of issues. But the unusual alignment this week shows that the Senate, although easier for the government than in its first term, retains the ability to embarrass.

Albanese, like some of his prime ministerial predecessors, tends to find sitting weeks trying. As one Labor man puts it, “Parliament is the home ground for the opposition.” Albanese would prefer to be out and about, dashing around the country – although that does come with a level of exhaustion.

Those around the prime minister would dispute the assessment of his mood as peevish. The alternative interpretation is that he’s showing some second-term arrogance. There was a whiff of this at the end of Thursday’s question time when he advised the opposition, “that they go touch grass during the break and get in touch, and get in touch with what Australians are concerned about”.

Albanese has a strong belief, reinforced by the election, in his own political judgement. He’s irritated by assessments his has been a don’t-rock-the-boat government. We don’t know directly but he must be particularly frustrated by the constant refrain from some commentators that he should be using his large majority to be more radical and reformist.

This week, for example, the respected Nine newspapers’ economics writer Ross Gittins declared that if he “can’t bring himself to govern”, Albanese should retire. “No shame in being past it,” Gittins added, twisting the knife. Galling for a leader who turned a likely minority government into one with a massive majority.

With the pesky parliament now away for a month, Albanese enters international summit season. Next week he’ll be at the Pacific Islands Forum in the Solomon Islands.

Leaders there will be curious for a clue about the government’s proposed level of ambition in its 2035 emissions reduction target under the Paris agreement. This will be announced later this month, before Albanese goes to the United Nations leaders’ week in New York, which starts on September 22. The target is set to be a band, within the broader range of 65-75% reduction on 2005 levels. Energy Minister Chris Bowen indicated this week the government might not legislate the target if there was too much parliamentary opposition.

Summit season includes a clutch of forums, but for Albanese his most important trip is the September one to the United States.

Preparations appear to be on course for a much-anticipated meeting with President Donald Trump then, either in New York or in Washington. The question on the day of that meeting will not be about Albanese’s mood, but what might be the frame of mind of the volatile, unpredictable president.

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: Dan Andrews’ red carpet walk in Beijing puts Albanese on the spot – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-dan-andrews-red-carpet-walk-in-beijing-puts-albanese-on-the-spot-263911

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greg Barton, Chair in Global Islamic Politics, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

What sort of legislation do we need to stop neo-Nazis marching through our streets and threatening our social cohesion?

It certainly makes sense to consider incremental changes such as banning the Nazi swastika and the wearing of full-face masks when protesting.

But really, the question is not what sort of legislation we need. The question is what sort of legislature – sort of parliament – will keep us safe?

It is reasonable to adjust laws to respond to changing threats, but we need to recognise we can’t legislate our way to safety. Australia already has some of the most extensive counterterrorism legislation in the world. Any changes we make now will bring – at best – incremental gains. And nothing we do is without cost and risk. If we succumb to the temptation to broaden the meaning of terrorism in the law, we will almost certainly weaken our counterterrorism apparatus and discredit it in the process.

Lessons from Germany

Instead of focusing on improving legislation, our focus needs to be on strengthening democracy. The experience of two leading Western democracies serve as salient reminders of the challenge we’re facing.

Probably no Western democracy has done more to counter Nazi and neo-Nazi ideas and their expression than modern Germany. If ever tighter legislation was going to keep us safe from the rise of fascism, it would have done so in Germany.

Sadly, that is not the case. Germany faces a massive problem of neo-Nazi recruitment in the ranks of the uniformed services and across German society, despite all the carefully constructed barriers against it.

Even more worrying is the rise of support for far-right politics in Germany. Every year the extremist Alternative Für Deutschland (AfD) party steadily gains ground, and were it not for the “firewall” designed to keep parties such as the AfD out of governing coalitions, the strength of its popular support would surely have earned it a place in government by now.

In fact, it is looking increasingly difficult to see how AfD can be kept out of power in Germany. And while it denies its clear neo-Nazi heritage, the party openly campaigns on ideas associated with white supremacists and “Germany for Germans”.

An alternative: strengthening democracy

Even more worrying than the case of Germany is that of the United States and the great Republican elephant in the room. In his first term as president, Donald Trump’s administration was divided and reluctant to implement his radical agenda. But in his second presidency, a very different administration team is working with a worrying sense of sycophantic purpose to bring about a radical reinvention of US politics and the end of US democracy as we have known it.

The Republican Party in Congress no longer works to block the president’s radical agenda. Instead, we are witnessing the implementation at scale and at a rapid pace of the radical Project 2025 plans that were carefully drawn up before Trump’s remarkable electoral victory.

The fact that court after court has declared his actions illegal does little to impede the project. The flood-the-zone strategy is clearly working and the guardrails of tradition and public expectation have shown themselves to be disturbingly weak or non-existent.

The nature of this radical agenda is seen most sharply in the ideas, and now fully implemented policy, of Trump’s homeland security advisor Stephen Miller. He has been behind the expansion and aggressive implementation of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) campaign of arrest and deportation. It may not be legal for unidentified, masked ICE officers to profile Latino and other brown Americans then violently apprehend them and bundle them into unmarked vans, and disappear them to remote detention sites for weeks at a time. But that is exactly what ICE is doing.

It would be inaccurate to call Miller a neo-Nazi. But what is not debatable is that he is openly supporting, and implementing, white supremacist “great replacement” ideas without any sense of shame or any level of accountability. Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill expanded the ICE budget to the point it is larger than all but a few of the world’s national militaries.

The campaigning ahead of the 2025 federal elections in Australia saw some political actors promoting a narrative based on the politics of fear. They were spectacularly unsuccessful, and that that should give us confidence in our democratic system.

But we cannot afford to take it for granted that we will not quickly face the sort of problems currently seen in Germany and the US. Australia has a long history of institutionalised racism, from the frontier wars through the decades of the white Australia policy, and the demonising of asylum seekers arriving by boat.

At the same time our social cohesion holds strong. Each week, thousands take to the street to protest peacefully. So far, the extremist elements who would seek to take advantage of this have gained little traction.

As ugly and pathetic as the sight of neo-Nazis grandstanding in public places is, we must not let their attention-seeking define our framing of the problem. In an open society, there will always be fringe elements saying and doing things that lie on the very edge of the law and that challenge mainstream sensibilities.

In the weeks before the recent anti-immigration marches, Australians of colour experienced the chilling fear that can come from these kinds of political stunts.

But the real risk in Australia comes not from the shrill voices of fascist extremists prancing in public places. Rather, it comes from a slide into the wholesale demonising of migrants in our public discourse. If we can address this, not only will we see fewer Australians drawn to the ugly intolerance and open racism of neo-Nazism, we will be doing the one thing that can really make us safer: strengthening our democracy.

Greg Barton receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is engaged in a range of projects funded by the Australian government that aim to understand and counter violent extremism in Australia and in Southeast Asia and Africa.

– ref. When it comes to neo-Nazis, we can’t legislate our way to safety – https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-neo-nazis-we-cant-legislate-our-way-to-safety-264576

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

The federal government has reached a $475 million compensation settlement in an appeal case from the Robodebt class action.

The settlement of the appeal, which is still to be approved by the federal court, would be the largest class action settlement in Australian history.

It is for compensation for the harm caused by the Robodebt scheme, which was found to have been illegal. The scheme and the ministers and public servants involved in it were strongly condemned by a royal commission set up by the Labor government. Robodebt ran between 2015 and 2019.

The scheme involved using automated processes for levying debts, many of which were non-existent or calculated wrongly. The scheme traumatised thousands of welfare recipients.

Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, said the settlement would be in addition to what was paid after the original Robodebt case action settlement in 2020. That comprised interest and repayments of wrongfully-raised debts. It amounted to a $1.2 billion payout.

The latest agreement also allows the court to determine separate amounts for the applicants’ “reasonable legal costs” and for the reasonable costs of administering the settlement scheme.

Rowland said, “Today’s settlement demonstrates the Albanese Labor government’s ongoing commitment to addressing the harms caused to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Australians by the former Liberal government’s disastrous Robodebt Scheme”.

“The Royal Commission described Robodebt as a ‘crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal’. It found that ‘people were traumatised on the off chance they might owe money’ and that Robodebt was ‘a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms’.

“Settling this claim is the just and fair thing to do,” Rowland said.

She said class action members did not have to take any action at this stage other than ensure their contact details were up to date with Services Australia.

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

– ref. Government settles Robodebt class action appeal for $475 million in compensation – https://theconversation.com/government-settles-robodebt-class-action-appeal-for-475-million-in-compensation-263918

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tan Nguyen, Casual Research Fellow in Oral Health, Deakin University

Just over half of Australian adults saw a dental practitioner in the past 12 months, most commonly for a check-up.

But have you been told you should get a check-up and clean every six months? Perhaps your dental clinic’s or health insurance policy’s default is to ask you to book these services twice a year.

Let’s look at whether this advice is based on evidence or opinion.

Why do you need regular check-ups and cleans?

A regular oral health checkup usually involves a dentist or oral health practitioner (dental therapist, dental hygienist, oral health therapist) examining the teeth, gums and surrounding structures of the mouth. This helps identify signs of tooth decay or gum disease, in addition to any changes to soft tissues.

In most instances, you will have your teeth professionally cleaned in the same visit, with a “scale and clean”, along with dental x-rays to identify issues that aren’t visible to the eye.

Regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste and cleaning between teeth (for example, by flossing) at home can’t reach all the surfaces of the teeth and gums. Professional cleaning is needed to remove the remaining plaque and tartar (calcified dental plaque) and the bacteria they contain, which cause tooth decay and gum disease.

What does the research evidence say?

Not all research is equal: some types of evidence are more reliable than others.

Cochrane systematic reviews are the most trusted because they use rigorous methods to collect and evaluate all available research evidence on a specific health question. These reviews judge how strong the evidence is and whether the studies might be affected by bias.

For adult oral health check-ups, a 2020 Cochrane review found strong evidence that six-monthly check-ups did not offer any additional benefit in preventing tooth decay or gum bleeding, compared to those whose frequency of check-ups was risk-based.

Risk-based means dental practitioners set the time between dental check-ups depending on the individual’s risk of dental disease.

The review, which looked at data over four years, also found there wasn’t enough good research to know how different dental check-up schedules affected children’s and teenagers’ teeth and gums.

On the issue of six-monthly professional cleaning, a 2018 Cochrane review found strong evidence that having regular professional cleaning made little or no difference to signs of gum disease (gingivitis or bleeding gums), or to levels plaque deposits, compared to adults with less regular professional cleaning.

There was a small reduction in tartar levels, however it’s unclear if this is meaningful to consumers and dental practitioners.

Participants who had six- or 12-monthly cleans reported their teeth felt cleaner than those who didn’t have scheduled cleans, but there was no difference between groups in reports of quality of life.

Based on these reviews, six-monthly visits and cleans don’t seem to consistently lead to better oral health for adults compared to check-ups and cleans based on individual risk.

So can you forgo six-monthly visits?

Regular professional dental check-ups are important throughout life, starting from the eruption of the first tooth.

But everyone has different oral health needs and risk levels which should be reflected in the frequency of their check-ups.

Some people who are at high risk of oral disease do need to see a dental practitioner more regularly: every six months or even more often – such as every three months – to treat severe gum disease or tooth decay.

Those with good oral health might only need to visit a dental practitioner every year or two years.

Others still may be willing to pay for six-monthly check-ups and cleans for peace of mind, despite their lower oral health risk profile.

How else can I keep my teeth and gums healthy?

Maintain your oral health by brushing twice a day with fluoridated toothpaste. The evidence shows children and adults who brush less than twice daily are at high risk of tooth decay.

Cleaning between your teeth can also help reduce gum problems and dental plaque – more than brushing alone. You can use traditional dental floss or a flossing tool. Interdental brushes, which have a tiny bristled head that fits between teeth, can also be more effective than flossing.

For people who lack manual dexterity and for children, water flossers can be an effective alternative to traditional flossing.

Finally, avoiding sugars added to foods and drinks, as well as the sugars naturally found in honey, syrups and fruit juices, helps protect teeth from tooth decay.

Tan Nguyen receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council. He is employed by Oral Health Victoria (formerly Dental Health Services Victoria), is the Co-convenor for the Public Health Association of Australia, and a dental practitioner member on the Dental Board of Australia.

Santosh Tadakamadla receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship (APP1161659) from 2019 to 2023.

– ref. Do you really need a dental check-up and clean every 6 months? – https://theconversation.com/do-you-really-need-a-dental-check-up-and-clean-every-6-months-263259

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability, Curtin University

Some 15 people have died after the Gloria funicular railway car in Lisbon, Portugal, derailed and crashed on Wednesday local time.

Emergency services have also confirmed that more than 18 people were also injured, five of them seriously, in the tragedy, which occurred at the start of the evening rush hour.

It follows another accident on the same line in May 2018, when one of the cars derailed due to flaws in the maintenance of its wheels. No one was killed in that incident.

The exact cause of the most recent accident is not yet known. Witnesses have reported that the yellow-and-white tram appeared out of control as it sped downhill, before derailing as it rounded a bend and crashing into a building. Photos of the aftermath show a crumpled heap of cables and steel.

These cable car–like transport systems are rare relics of the 19th century, found in only a few very hilly places around the world. So how do they work? And why are they still in use?

How do funicular railways work?

Trains and trams typically only work on flat terrain. That’s because their steel wheels can’t get enough traction on steel rails on steep hills. As a workaround, railway engineers often build tunnels through steep mountainsides.

Funicular railways, however, can go up very steep hills.

They usually feature two counterbalanced cars that are attached via a haulage cable.

As one car descends, it helps pull the ascending car up the hillside. The weight of the ascending car also prevents the descending one from careening out of control. Some now have electric motors to help power them and some are able to engage a one-way mechanical drive just for steep hills.

Even though funicular systems are typically quite slow and clunky, they are still popular with both tourists and residents in the places where they’re found.

Where are they found?

The Gloria funicular railway line in Lisbon opened in 1885. One of three funicular lines in Lisbon, it connects the city’s downtown area with the Bairro Alto (Upper Quarter).

But there are other examples of these transport relics around the world.

Switzerland has several funicular railways. The most notable is the Stoosbahn – the steepest funicular in the world. It covers a total ascent of around 744 metres, reaching a gradient of 47 degrees. It is a very popular tourist trip.

In Hong Kong, the Peak Tram is a funicular railway that has operated since 1888 and takes people to near the top of Hong Kong Island.

Last year, there was also some discussion about installing a new funicular railway system in the Blue Mountains in New South Wales, Australia, that would travel 14 metres every second.

The rise of trackless trams

Funicular railways still serve a purpose for people living in – or visiting – steep areas where they’re found. However, newer technology means more conventional forms of rail transport are now far less limited in travelling up and down hills.

For example, trackless trams are kind of a combination between a tram and a bus. They use GPS and digital sensors to move precisely along an invisible track and have rubber wheels, enabling them to ascend gradients of up to 15%. However, these have not yet been built for steeper hills.

I have enjoyed riding such funicular trams in a range of hilly cities, but this crash is likely to take the shine off the tourist experience. It’s about time we had a 21st-century option that is clearly safer.

Peter Newman receives funding from the CRC RACE.

– ref. Tragedy has struck Lisbon’s funicular railway. A transport expert explains how these old-fashioned trains work – https://theconversation.com/tragedy-has-struck-lisbons-funicular-railway-a-transport-expert-explains-how-these-old-fashioned-trains-work-264574

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria O’Sullivan, Associate Professor of Law, Member of Deakin Cyber and the Centre for Law as Protection, Deakin University, Deakin University

The issue of open government and Freedom of Information (FOI) is again in the news, after the federal government proposed major reforms to the system.

FOI laws allow people to access government documents (subject to exceptions) and are routinely used by journalists, academics and the general public.

The reforms, which are going to a parliamentary committee for review, raise important questions about how we modernise these decades-old laws while ensuring government is transparent and can be easily held to account.

This proposed reform, which severely threatens government transparency, is not the way to do it.

What is the government proposing?

The government says the FOI Amendment Bill will introduce measures to modernise the FOI system and make it more efficient.

Changes include introducing fees for certain applications, a ban on anonymous FOI requests and stronger powers to deter vexatious, abusive and frivolous requests.

The amount of the application fee is not yet clear, but according to media reports, it is expected to be between A$30 and $58 per application.

This would be in addition to the current costs that people may incur from the department as they gather relevant information.

Personal information requests (where people request information about their own government files) will be exempt from this charge.

In addition, the government is proposing substantial changes to provisions relating to “deliberative” processes and cabinet documents.

Attorney-General Michelle Rowland has stated these changes are necessary due to resourcing pressures being placed on the FOI system. In particular:

modern technology has made it possible to create large volumes of vague, anonymous, vexatious or frivolous requests.

As an example of the resources necessary to operate the FOI system, Rowland said public servants spent “more than a million hours processing FOI requests” in 2023-24.

The changes have therefore been largely justified as a means of addressing frivolous and automated requests.

Is the FOI system being misused?

It is true that various reports by parliamentary inquiries and public organisations have indicated there are shortcomings in the current FOI regime.

For instance, in 2023, a Senate inquiry received evidence suggesting the FOI regime was under-resourced, leading to extensive delays in the processing of requests.

It described the federal FOI system as “dysfunctional and broken”.

However, there does not appear to be specific, concrete evidence that artificial intelligence (AI) bots are being used at scale to overwhelm the system. Nor is there evidence that the ability for people to submit an application under a pseudonym has caused integrity problems in the system.

The latter will significantly affect how people use important FOI help platforms, such as The Right to Know.

As I have argued elsewhere, the FOI system should be reformed to reflect the technological advances that have occurred since the legislation was first introduced in 1982.

The government has said some agencies, such as the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, have received hundreds of automated FOI requests. This is undoubtedly a problem.

But because large changes are now being proposed to limit access to information, citing chatbots and automation as some of the reasons, it would be good to see more evidence of the system being misused in this way.

Secret cabinet business

A substantive change to the exemption of cabinet documents from FOI disclosure requirements also raises some concerns.

Under the current FOI laws, documents that have the “dominant purpose” of going before cabinet for discussion are exempt from being disclosed.

The proposed change alters the wording from “dominant purpose” to “substantive purpose”. This will allow more cabinet documents to be exempt from FOI’s transparency regime.

Unsurprisingly, leading organisations such as the Centre for Public Integrity have raised concerns. Indeed, this is one of the most troubling parts of the current FOI reform package.

The move is in direct conflict with the 2023 Robodebt Royal Commission report. It recommended the cabinet exemption in the FOI be repealed entirely.

The commission made this recommendation because it found affected people and advocacy groups faced significant difficulties in obtaining information about the operation of the Robodebt scheme through FOI.

Despite this, the Albanese government refused to implement this change. It said:

Cabinet must have the benefit of frank and fearless advice from Ministers and senior public servants.

Read more:
Governments are becoming increasingly secretive. Here’s how they can be made to be more transparent

While recognising the importance of cabinet confidentiality, I and other experts have recommended the cabinet confidentiality exemption in the FOI act be narrowed, not expanded.

Another recommendation, from the Centre for Public Integrity, is cabinet documents should only be exempt for 30 days (unless another valid exemption applies).

Getting the balance right

One of the major obstacles facing people wishing to use Australia’s FOI system is the delay in processing applications and reviews. Greater efficiencies are necessary and welcome.

Against this backdrop, the introduction of a modest application fee for some applicants may be justified as a control mechanism.

Similarly, the strengthening of processes to deal with vexatious applications may improve aspects of the system (where that is warranted).

Of greater concern is the ban on anonymous requests and the expansion of the cabinet document exemption. These changes will make information less accessible to journalists and members of the public.

In addition, there are other means of improving the FOI system which have not been addressed.

For instance, the 2023 Senate report into FOI
recommended greater use of proactive disclosure. It recommended personal information could be released directly to the people to which the information pertains, without requiring applicants to use the FOI regime.

This would clearly take some resourcing pressure off public servants.

Australia’s FOI system is a fundamental part of our democracy. It allows journalists, public interest organisations and the Australian people to find out how decisions are being made and hold government accountable.

The current reform package rightly notes that aspects of our FOI regime require modernising. But that shouldn’t come at the expense of a culture of open government and accountability.

Maria O’Sullivan is part of a Public Intoxication Reform Evaluation which is funded by the Victorian Department of Justice. She also serves as a member of the Human Rights Advice Panel for the Queensland Parliament.

– ref. Yes, freedom of information laws need updating, but not like the government is proposing – https://theconversation.com/yes-freedom-of-information-laws-need-updating-but-not-like-the-government-is-proposing-264474