Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claudia Sandberg, Senior Lecturer, Technology in Culture and Society, The University of Melbourne

Foreign audiences often associate German cinema with tragedy, trauma and death. Certainly, major historical events such as the second world war and the Fall of the Berlin Wall — cornerstones of German film — are present in this year’s selection at the 2025 German Film Festival.

Alongside these themes is a variety of contemporary topics, innovative fictional formats and strong documentary work. The increased presence of women in directing and producing roles also brings female experiences sharply into focus.

Here are my highlights from this year’s programme.

Riefenstahl (2024)

Leni Riefenstahl (1902–2003), Hitler’s favourite filmmaker, has been a subject of controversy for decades – explored in documentaries such as The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl (1993).

Now, with access to new material from Riefenstahls’ private archive, director Andres Veiel and journalist Sandra Maischberger cast a fresh eye over this complex figure.

Using extensive visual materials, they trace Riefenstahl’s journey from dancer to actress, to filmmaker and photographer – capturing everything from her pioneering cinematic techniques to her entanglement with political power and personal vanity. And they are not afraid to confront uncomfortable aspects of her past.

Her claim to have endured an unwanted romantic pursuit by Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels (first made in her 1987 memoir) appears in new light as an older Riefenstahl faces questioning from aggressive TV interviewers. She unflinchingly and fiercely maintains her version of events.

Is Leni Riefenstahl a creative genius, a political victim, or an ignorant perpetrator? This film invites audiences to grapple with this old question anew — and perhaps come to their own conclusion.

Montages depict Riefenstahl’s life from youth to old age, culminating in an image of an elderly lady who, even late in life, manipulates camera angles and lighting to ensure a more flattering appearance.

Two to One (2024)

Some German films such as Balloon (2018) or The Last Execution (2022) have a tendency to explore East Germans as either victims of oppression, or complicit with the regime of the German Democratic Republic.

But there are also films that rebel against such simplification – such as Beauty and Decay (2019), Dear Thomas (2021) and Someday We’ll Tell Each Other Everything (2023) – to powerfully present the many dimensions of former East Germany and its people.

Among them is Two to One, a thoughtful picture by director Nadja Brunckhorst, which fluctuates between thriller, comedy and melodrama. Based on a true story, this film remembers the delirious time between the Fall of the Berlin Wall and Reunification.

It is July 1990, and just days after the deadline for exchanging East German marks to more valued West German marks at the exchange rate of 2:1. This halved the life savings of many East Germans.

We follow a Hausgemeinschaft (community of renters) who discover millions of East German mark bills in an underground bunker. They cleverly use the more privileged members of their old and new worlds – sleek Western sales representatives and former East German diplomats – to transform the worthless bills into West mark and buy goods for everyone.

Two to One stars Ronald Zehrfeld (also in the festival opener Long Story Short), Sandra Hueller and Peter Kurth in top form.

Dying (2024)

As a contender in the 2024 Berlin Film Festival (where it won best screenplay), and winner of the 2024 German Film Award, Dying comes highly recommended.

Versatile German actor Lars Eidinger is cast as Tom, a youth orchestra conductor trying to pull off his best friend’s composition “Dying”. Not only does the performance never please the composer, his private world is also a mess.

Tom is raising someone else’s child. His father (Hans-Uwe Bauer) suffers dementia. His sister Ellen (Lilith Stangenberg) can’t keep up with the expectations of their estranged parents. And his mother’s (Corinna Harfouch) thinly veiled contempt for her own son is visible in a breathtaking scene involving the seemingly innocent ritual of coffee and cake.

But despite its weighty subject matter, humour appears in the most unexpected places.

There is Ellen’s affair with her boss, a dentist, who ends up drunk in a bar — where she pulls one of his teeth. There is also the quietly absurd scene of her ageing parents trying to drive home from the supermarket: one nearly blind, the other unable to remember where they live.

A film that uses absurdity and tenderness to break through emotional tension with surprising charm, Dying is a must see.

I Want It All (2025)

Singer and actress Hildegard Knef would have turned 100 this year.

Knef was one of the most prominent and daring post-WWII West German female artists. Driven from a young age to become successful, she began her career in the 1946 rubble film, The Murderers Are Among Us.

In her 2025 documentary I Want It All, director Luzia Schmidt captures Knef in rehearsals, at home, in the recording studio and through press photos. The film is a vivid portrait of an unapologetic woman constantly under scrutiny, as the German public seemed entitled to access every corner of her life.

Knef comes across as sharp but self-aware. The artist discusses her stage fright and the art of holding an audience’s attention. Her candid remarks about undergoing plastic surgery, as a female artist navigating the ruthless entertainment industry, remain just as relevant today.

Arguably the greatest assets of the film are the reflective comments from Knef’s daughter, Tinta, who speaks with empathy and kindness about her mother’s ambition and vulnerabilities.

I Want It All is a treat for anyone who is familiar with Knef, and for those who want to know more about this grand dame of German culture.

Cicadas (2025)

An idyllic countryside in summer: a paradise retreat for some, and a prison for others.

Isabell is the daughter of an architect, who is paralysed by a stroke. His beautifully designed house is in disrepair and no one can pay for it, but Isabell can’t get him to sell it. Meanwhile, Isabell’s marriage to her needy French husband Philippe is strained by a shared trauma.

Anja, a single mum to young Greta, navigates a fragile existence. In a region with weak infrastructure, she moves between low-paying jobs, barely making ends meet.

When the two women meet, their bond forms cautiously. Both are shaped by differences in class, age and life experience, yet there is a connection that bridges these divides.

Carried by compelling performances by Saskia Rosenthal and Nina Hoss (the latter of whom had worked with director Ina Weisse in The Audition (2019)), Cicadas is a quiet drama about vulnerability and loss of control that evolves in the open landscapes of the Brandenburg region.

Claudia Sandberg 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. Unexpected humour and reflections on a complex past: my top 5 films from the 2025 German Film Festival – https://theconversation.com/unexpected-humour-and-reflections-on-a-complex-past-my-top-5-films-from-the-2025-german-film-festival-254788

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bethan Greener, Associate Professor of Politics, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

With US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “proud” cancellation this week of the military’s Women, Peace and Security (WPS) program, the “war on woke” has found its latest frontier – war itself.

Stemming from a United Nations Security Council resolution in 2000, the WPS initiative aimed to increase the participation of women in public institutions, including in the security sector and in peace-making roles.

The WPS agenda aims to better understand how women, men, boys and girls experience war, peace and security differently. It increases operational effectiveness and supports the underlying goal of gender equality, described by the UN as the “number one predictor of peace”.

In the military context, it emphasises the need to increase the participation of women and to better protect non-combatant women in war, particularly from the prevalence of conflict-related sexual violence.

The decision to end the program as part of a wider war on diversity, equity and inclusion seems to assume national security and military power are incompatible with the promotion of racial and gender equality.

In other words, it assumes certain types of people aren’t really cut out to be “warfighters”. And it asserts that anything other than basic skill (such as weapons handling) undermines readiness and ability in warfare.

History and the available evidence suggest both ideas are wrong.

The archetypal warrior envisaged by Hegseth and others is one who relies on very traditional concepts of what constitutes a warrior and who that might be: not female, definitely not transgender, ideally also not gay.

Recent bans on transgender personnel in the US military, the removal of mandatory mental resilience training, and the
“disappearance” from US museums and memorials of the records of the military contribution of women and minorities, reinforce these ideas.

The ideal soldier, according to the new doctrine, is straight, white, physically fit, stoic and male. Yet people of all stripes have served their countries ably and with honour.

Hard-won progress in retreat

Military service is allocated a privileged kind of status in society, despite (or perhaps because of) the ultimate sacrifice it can entail. That status has long been the preserve of men, often of a particular class or ethnicity.

But women and minorities around the world have fought for the right to enter the military, often as part of broader campaigns for greater equality within society in general.

But there remains resistance to these “interlopers”. No matter their individual capabilities, women are painted as too physically weak, as a threat to combat unit cohesion, or a liability because of their particular health needs.

Women, in particular, are often perceived as being too emotional or lacking authority for military command. Minorities are seen as requiring distracting rules about cultural sensitivity, presenting language challenges, or are stereotyped as not cut out for leadership.

But problem solving – a key military requirement – is best tackled with a range of views and approaches. Research from the business world shows diverse teams are more successful, including delivering higher financial returns.

At a more granular level, we also know that minority groups have often outperformed other military units, as exemplified by the extraordinary feats of the New Zealand Māori Pioneer Battalion in World War I and the 28th Māori Battalion in World War II.

Women, too, have proved themselves many times over, most recently in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As well as matching the skills of their male counterparts, they also had different, useful approaches to roles such as intelligence gathering in conflict zones.

The ‘woke warrior’

The competence of military personnel is not determined by sex, gender, sexuality or ethnicity. Rather, competence is determined by a combination of learned skills, training, education, physical ability, mental agility, resilience, experience, interpersonal skills and leadership qualities.

Any suggestion that military units are best served by being made up of only heterosexual men with “alpha” tendencies is undermined by the evidence. In fact, a monocultural, hypermasculine military may increase the potential for harrassment, bullying or worse.

Modern military roles also involve a much wider range of skills than the traditional and stereotypically male infantry tasks of digging, walking with a pack, firing guns and killing an enemy.

In modern warfare, personnel may also need to engage in “hearts and minds” counterinsurgency, or in “grey zone” tactics, where specialisations in intelligence, cyber or drone piloting are more highly prized. Militaries are also much more likely to be deployed to non-warfighting roles, such as humanitarian aid and disaster relief.

This isn’t to say “controlled aggression” and other traditionally alpha-male attributes don’t have their place. But national military strategies increasingly stress the need to train ethical and compassionate soldiers to successfully carry out government objectives.

The evolution of war requires the evolution of the military forces that fight them. The cancellation of the Women, Peace and Security program in the US threatens to put a stop to this process, at least in that country.

Despite Pete Hegseth’s claim to be increasing “warfighting” capability, then, there is a real chance the move will decrease operational effectiveness, situational awareness and problem solving in conflict situations.

Far from being peripheral, the Women, Peace and Security program is central to the future of all military activity, and to developing conceptions of war, peace and security. Hegseth’s “proud moment” looks less like winning a “war on woke” and more like a retreat from an understanding of the value a diverse military has created.

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

– ref. How the US ‘war on woke’ and women risks weakening its own military capability – https://theconversation.com/how-the-us-war-on-woke-and-women-risks-weakening-its-own-military-capability-255710

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phoebe Williams, Paediatrician & Infectious Diseases Physician; Senior Lecturer & NHMRC Fellow, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney

So far in 2025 (as of May 1), 70 cases of measles have been notified in Australia, with all states and territories except Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory having recorded at least one case. Most infections have occurred in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia.

We’ve already surpassed the total number of cases recorded in all of 2023 (26 cases) and 2024 (57 cases).

Measles outbreaks are currently occurring in every region of the world. Most Australian cases are diagnosed in travellers returning from overseas, including popular holiday destinations in Southeast Asia.

But although Australia eliminated local transmission of measles in 2014, recently we’ve seen measles infections once again in Australians who haven’t been overseas. In other words, the virus has been transmitted in the community.

So with measles health alerts and news reports popping up often, what do you need to know about measles? We’ve collated a list of commonly Googled questions about the virus and the vaccine.

1. What is measles?

Measles is one of the most contagious diseases known to affect humans. In fact, every person with measles can infect 12 to 18 others who are not immune. The measles virus can survive in the air for two hours, so people can inhale the virus even after an infected person has left the room.

Measles predominantly affects children and those with weaker immune systems. Up to four in ten people with measles will need to go to hospital, and up to three in 1,000 people who get measles will die.

In 2023, there were more than 100,000 deaths from measles around the world.

Read more:
Travelling overseas? You could be at risk of measles. Here’s how to ensure you’re protected

2. What are the symptoms of measles?

The signs and symptoms of measles usually start 7–14 days after exposure to the virus, and include rash, fever, a runny nose, cough and conjunctivitis. The rash usually starts on the face or neck, and spreads over three days to eventually reach the hands and feet. On darker skin, the rash may be harder to see.

Complications from measles are common, and include ear infections, encephalitis (swelling of the brain), blindness and breathing problems or pneumonia. These complications are more likely in children.

Pregnant women are also at greater risk of serious complications, and measles can also cause preterm labour and stillbirth.

Even in people who recover from measles, a rare (and often fatal) brain condition can occur many years later, called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis.

3. What’s the difference between measles and chickenpox?

Measles and chickenpox are caused by different viruses, although both commonly affect children, and vaccines can prevent both diseases. Chickenpox is caused by the varicella zoster virus, which is also transmitted through the air, and can cause fever, rash and rare (yet serious) complications.

The chickenpox rash is different to the rash seen in measles. It often starts on the chest or back, appearing first as separate red bumps that evolve into fluid-filled blisters, called vesicles. Chickenpox can also appear later in life as shingles.

4. Can you get measles twice?

The simple answer is no. If you contract measles, you should have lifelong immunity afterwards.

In Australia, people born before 1966 would have most likely been infected with measles, because the vaccine wasn’t available to them as children. They are therefore protected from future infection.

Measles infection however can reduce the immune system’s ability to recognise infections it has previously encountered, leaving people vulnerable to many of the infections to which they previously had immunity. Vaccination can protect against this.

5. What is the measles vaccine, and at what age do you get it?

The measles vaccine contains a live but weakened version of the measles virus. In Australia, measles vaccinations are given as part of a combination vaccine that contains the measles virus alongside the mumps and rubella viruses (the MMR vaccine), and the chickenpox virus (MMRV).

Under the national immunisation program, children in Australia receive measles vaccines at 12 months (MMR) and 18 months of age (MMRV). In other countries, the age of vaccination may vary – but at least two doses are always needed for optimal immunity.

Measles vaccines can be given earlier than 12 months, from as early as six months, to protect infants who may be at higher risk of exposure to the virus (such as those travelling overseas). Infants who receive an early dose of the measles vaccine still receive the usual two recommended doses at 12 and 18 months old.

Australians born between 1966 and 1994 (those aged roughly 20–60) are considered to be at greater risk of measles, as the second dose was only recommended from November 1992. Australia is seeing breakthrough measles infections in this age group.

An additional measles vaccine can be given to these adults at any time. It’s safe to get an extra dose even if you have been vaccinated before. If you are unsure if you need one, talk to your GP who may check your measles immunity (or immunisation record, if applicable) before vaccinating.

However, as the measles vaccine is a live vaccine, it’s not safe to give to people with weakened immune systems (due to certain medical conditions) or pregnant women. It’s therefore important that healthy, eligible people receive the measles vaccine to protect themselves and our vulnerable population.

6. How long does a measles vaccine last?

The measles vaccine is one of the most effective vaccines we have. After two doses, about 99% of people will be protected against measles for life.

And the measles vaccine not only protects you from disease. It also stops you from transmitting the virus to others.

Phoebe Williams receives research funding focused on reducing antimicrobial resistance and neonatal sepsis from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Gates Foundation.

Archana Koirala is the chair of the Vaccination Special Interest Group and a committee member of the Australian and New Zealand paediatric infectious diseases network with Australasian Society of Infectious Diseases. Her vaccine and seroprevalence research has been funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care and NSW Health.

– ref. What are the symptoms of measles? How long does the vaccine last? Experts answer 6 key questions – https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-symptoms-of-measles-how-long-does-the-vaccine-last-experts-answer-6-key-questions-255496

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maldwyn John Evans, Senior Research Fellow, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University

Following the end of native logging in Victoria on January 1 2024, the state’s majestic forests might be expected to regenerate and recover naturally. But our new research shows that’s not always the case.

We quantified the extent of regeneration following logging in the eucalypt forests of southeastern Australia between 1980 and 2019. This included nearly 42,000 hectares of logged mountain ash forest in Victoria’s Central Highlands.

We analysed satellite data, logging records, on-ground surveys and drone photography, and discovered that nearly 20% of logged areas failed to regenerate. This represents more than 8,000 hectares of forest lost. All that remains in these areas are grassy clearings, dense shrublands or bare soils.

We also found the rate of regeneration failure has increased over the past decade. While failure was rare in the 1980s, it became much more common over time – affecting more than 80% of logged sites by 2019.

These regeneration failures weren’t random. They were found mostly in close proximity to each other, on areas with steep slopes, relatively low elevation, and where the area of clear-felled forest was long and narrow.

Our research shows more needs to be done to restore Victoria’s forest after logging.

Restoring majestic forests and their vital services

Victoria is home to some of the most spectacular forests on the planet. They include extensive stands of mountain ash, the tallest flowering plant on Earth, which can grow to almost 100 metres in height. Alpine ash, another giant, can grow up to 60m tall.

These forests have great cultural significance to Indigenous people and support many recreational and tourism activities.

Healthy forest ecosystems also deliver clean water and carbon storage services. In fact, mountain ash forests contain more carbon per hectare than most other forests around the world.

But Victoria’s forests have long been logged for timber and pulp. The main method of logging – clearfelling – scars the landscape, leaving large areas devoid of trees if natural tree regeneration fails.

Mountain ash is especially vulnerable

Our research revealed 19.2% of areas logged between 1980 and 2019 in our study area (8,030ha out of 41,819ha cut) failed to regenerate naturally.

We also found strong evidence of a significant increase in the extent of failed regeneration over 40 years, increasing from less than two hectares per cutblock in 1980 (about 7.5%) to more than nine hectares per cutblock in 2019 (about 85%), on average.

We found regeneration failure was more likely in mountain ash forests compared with other forest types.

This adds to the case for listing the mountain ash forests of the Central Highlands of Victoria as a threatened ecological community.

A responsibility to restore

Under Victoria’s Code of Forest Practice for Timber Production, logged native forests must be properly regenerated within two to three years of harvest.

That’s because it is nearly impossible for the native forest to regenerate after three years without human intervention. The young trees face too much competition from grass and shrubs.

These degraded areas no longer hold the value they once did and they cannot provide the same level of ecosystem services such as carbon storage, water purification, or habitat for wildlife.

With no current government restoration plan, these landscapes will remain degraded indefinitely. The Victorian government retains legal responsibility to restore these degraded forests, but currently lacks any large-scale restoration strategy, making action urgently required.

A way forward: using green bonds to fund regeneration

Our research shows the regeneration of forests after logging is not guaranteed. Nature often needs a helping hand. But we need to find ways to fund these projects.

Globally, governments have used “green bonds” to lower the cost of borrowing tied explicitly to measurable environmental results.

Victoria already has green bonds “to finance new and existing projects that offer climate change and environmental benefits”. But funds are typically used to finance investments in transport, renewable energy, water and low carbon buildings.

As part of a coalition of researchers, environmental organisations, and finance sector partners we proposed a A$224 million green bond for forest regeneration. This proposal was put to the Victorian government via the Treasury Corporation of Victoria.

Green bond funding would help leverage co-investment from the Commonwealth government and philanthropic partners to improve monitoring and biodiversity outcomes in native forests.

As part of the proposed green bond, areas of logged forest where natural regeneration has failed would be restored.

Other investments under the green bond could include creating tourism ventures (and associated jobs), controlling feral animals such as deer, and biodiversity recovery – creating habitat for endangered species such as the southern greater glider and Leadbeater’s possum, for example.

The $224 million required for the ten years of the green bond — or around $22.4 million per year — is less than the substantial losses Victoria incurred on its investment in VicForests over the past decade.

Our research suggests leaving nature to its own devices would mean losing a fifth of the forests logged over the past 40 years. Bringing the trees back has multiple benefits and would be well worth the investment.

Maldwyn John Evans receives funding from the Australian Government.

David Lindenmayer receives funding from The Australian Government, the Australian Research Council and the Victorian Government. He is a Councillor with the Biodiversity Council and a Member of Birdlife Australia.

Chris Taylor 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. Logging devastated Victoria’s native forests – and new research shows 20% has failed to grow back – https://theconversation.com/logging-devastated-victorias-native-forests-and-new-research-shows-20-has-failed-to-grow-back-254465

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristin R. Laurens, Professor, School of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology

The school curriculum has changed a lot from when many parents and grandparents were at school.

Alongside new approaches to learning maths and increasing attention on technology, there is a compulsory focus on social and emotional skills.

Children start developing these skills by watching and observing others as babies. But they also need to be taught about them more actively – think about parents telling kids to say “thank you” or making sure they take turns when playing with friends.

How do schools teach social and emotional skills? And why is it important? Our new research shows how these lessons can improve students’ wellbeing and lead to better academic results.

What do schools teach about social and emotional skills?

As the Productivity Commission noted in 2023, schools should support students’ social and emotional wellbeing to help them “cope with the various stresses of life”. It also found strong social and emotional skills support students’ ability to engage and learn at school.

Since 2010, social and emotional skills have been a compulsory part of the Australian Curriculum. This involves four key strands for students from the first year of school to Year 10:

1. self-awareness: understanding your strengths and limitations and having confidence you can achieve goals

2. self-management: identifying and managing your emotions, thoughts and behaviours in different situations. This includes managing stress and controlling impulses

3. social awareness: understanding other perspectives, empathising with others from different backgrounds and cultures and understanding social expectations for behaviour

4. relationship skills: forming and maintaining healthy relationships, communicating and cooperating. This also includes responsible decision-making and understanding morals and consequences.

How are these skills taught?

Teaching these skills can be done in two ways.

The first is by incorporating them into core academic subjects. For example, an English teacher might ask students to discuss the emotions, behaviours and relationships of characters in a novel. Teachers should also model the skills in their interactions with students.

To do this effectively, teachers need specific knowledge of how to teach these skills. Busy schools may not prioritise this professional development for teachers because, unlike academic knowledge, these skills are not assessed.

The second approach is to use a structured program designed to develop these skills. These programs can particularly help teachers with less training in social and emotional teaching.

However, we know these programs are not always available or implemented adequately in schools. For example, in 2015 we surveyed 600 public, Catholic and independent NSW primary schools. Fewer than two-thirds (60%) taught social and emotional skills using formal programs. And of the programs used, one in three (34%) had either never been tested or showed no positive effects on students’ social-emotional skills.

Why is this important?

But research tells us formal programs can work. Our 2025 study looked at the social and emotional skills of 18,600 Year 6 students in NSW government and non-government primary schools. We also used data from their school leaders about the types of social and emotional skills programs they used – or did not use.

We found students who received structured, evidence-based programs (on average, over three to four years) had better social and emotional skills on our self-report survey than those who did not.

Students who received these programs had social and emotional skills that were 7-10 percentile points better than those who did not. That is, in a group of 100 students, they ranked 7-10 places higher.

But it showed there was only a benefit if programs were evidence-based – this means they had been formally tested to check they could be taught effectively by teachers in the classroom.

There are academic benefits as well

In another 2025 study, we followed students as they went to high school. We wanted to see how their social and emotional skills in primary school related to their later academic achievement.

We linked our survey data on NSW Year 6 students’ self-awareness and self-management skills with their NAPLAN reading and numeracy scores in Year 7. We could do this for almost 24,000 students who participated in our survey and in NAPLAN.

We found increases in these skills were linked to increases in NAPLAN scores. Standard gains ranged between 8–20 percentile points.

This fits with other research which shows students with strong self-awareness and self-management are more confident about achieving academic goals and more engaged and focused on their learning. This in turn helps them engage and persevere with challenges, so they achieve more academic learning.

What now?

Our research shows how programs teaching social and emotional skills can give young people fundamental skills to navigate learning and life beyond school. But implementation is patchy and not always based on evidence. School today involves more than reading, maths and facts. This means all schools need resources and access to effective programs to teach social and emotional skills.

Kristin R. Laurens received funding for this research from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

Emma Carpendale received an Australian Government Research Training Program Stipend scholarship and a Queensland University of Technology Faculty of Health Excellence Top-Up scholarship.

– ref. Schools today also teach social and emotional skills. Why is this important? And what’s involved? – https://theconversation.com/schools-today-also-teach-social-and-emotional-skills-why-is-this-important-and-whats-involved-253342

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Josephine Goldman, Sessional Academic, School of Languages and Cultures, Discipline of French and Francophone Studies, University of Sydney

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s promise to power Australia with nuclear energy has been described by experts as a costly “mirage” that risks postponing the clean energy transition.

Beyond this, however, the Coalition’s nuclear policy has, for many First Nations peoples, raised the spectre of the last time the atomic industry came to Australia.

Indigenous peoples across Oceania share memories of violent histories of nuclear bomb testing, uranium mining and waste dumping – all of which disproportionately affected them and/or their ancestors.

Two sides of the same coin

While it may be tempting to separate them, the links between military and civilian nuclear industries – that is, between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy plants – are well established. According to a 2021 paper by energy economists Lars Sorge and Anne Neumann: “In part, the global civilian nuclear industry was established to legitimatise the development of nuclear weapons.”

The causative links between military and civilian uses of nuclear power flow in both directions.

As Sorge and Neumann write, many technologies and skills developed for use in nuclear bombs and submarines end up being used in nuclear power generation. Another expert analysis suggests countries that receive peaceful nuclear assistance, in the form of nuclear technology, materials or skills, are more likely to initiate nuclear weapons programs.

Since the first atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945, Indigenous peoples across the Pacific have been singing, writing and talking about nuclear colonialism. Some were told the sacrifice of their lands and lifeways was “for the good of mankind”.

Today, they continue to use their bodies and voices to push back against the promise of a benevolent nuclear future – a vision that has often been used justify their and their ancestors’ suffering and displacement.

Black mist and brittle landscapes

In 2023, Bangarra Dance Company produced Yuldea. This performance centres on the Yooldil Kapi, a permanent desert waterhole.

For millennia, this water source sustained the Aṉangu and Nunga peoples and a multitude of other plant and animal life across the Great Victorian Desert and far-west South Australia.

In 1933, Yuldea became the site of the Ooldea Mission. Then, in 1953, when the British began testing nuclear bombs at nearby Emu Field (1953) and Maralinga (1956–57), the local Aṉangu Pila Nguru were displaced from their land to the mission.

Directed by Wirangu and Mirning woman Frances Rings, Yuldea tells the story of this Country in four acts: act one, Supernova; act two, Kapi (Water); act three, Empire; and act four, Ooldea Spirit.

The impacts of nuclear testing are directly confronted in a section titled Black Mist (in act three, Empire). Dancers’ bodies twist and spasm as a black mist falls from the sky, representing the fog of radioactive particles that resulted from weapons testing. In reality, this fog could cause lifelong injuries when inhaled or ingested, including blindness.

But Yuldea is more than just a story of destruction. By exploring Aṉangu and Nunga relationships with Country before and after nuclear testing, it affirms their enduring presence in the region. This is captured in the opening prose:

We are memory.
Glimpsed through shimmering light on water.
A story place where black oaks stand watch.
Carved into trees and painted on rocks.
North – South – East – West.
A brittle landscape of life and loss.

To acknowledge is to remember

The podcast Nu/clear Stories (2023-), created by Mā’ohi (Tahitian) women Mililani Ganivet and Marie-Hélène Villierme, uses storytelling to grapple with the consequences of colonial nuclear testing.

Ganivet and Villierme address the memories of French nuclear testing on the islands of Moruroa and Fangataufa in Mā’ohi Nui (French Polynesia) from 1963 to 1996.

Rather than using a linear understanding of time, which keeps the past in the past and idealises a future of “progress”, Nu/clear Stories draws on Indigenous philosophies of cyclical or spiral time to insist that by turning to the past, we can understand how history shapes the present and future.

As Ganivet says when introducing the first episode, Silences and Questions:

We are part of a long genealogy of people who found the courage to speak before us. […] To acknowledge them here is to remember that without them we would not be able to speak today. And so today, we stand on their shoulders, with the face firmly turned towards the past, but with our eyes gazing deep into the future.

Stories in the Tomb

In her 2018 poem video Anointed, Part III of the series Dome, Marshall Islander woman Kathy Jetn̄il-Kijiner pays homage to Runit Island. This island in the Enewetak Atoll was transformed into a dumping site for waste from US nuclear bomb tests between 1946 and 1958.

A huge concrete dome was built on Runit Island in the 1970s to cover about 85,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste. The island became known as “the Tomb” to the Enewetak people – a tomb that still leaks nuclear radiation into the ocean today.

However, like the creators behind Yuldea and Nu/clear Stories, Jetn̄il-Kijiner refuses to remember Runit Island as only a nuclear graveyard. Instead, she approaches it like a long-lost family member or ancestor who she hopes will be full of stories.

Jetn̄il-Kijiner speaks to the island through her poem, drawing a devastating contrast between what it once was and what it is now:

You were a whole island, once. You were breadfruit trees heavy with green globes of fruit whispering promises of massive canoes. Crabs dusted with white sand scuttled through pandanus roots. Beneath looming coconut trees beds of ripe watermelon slept still, swollen with juice. And you were protected by powerful irooj, chiefs birthed from women who could swim pregnant for miles beneath a full moon.

Then you became testing ground. Nine nuclear weapons consumed you, one by one by one, engulfed in an inferno of blazing heat. You became crater, an empty belly. Plutonium ground into a concrete slurry filled your hollow cavern. You became tomb. You became concrete shell. You became solidified history, immoveable, unforgettable.

While Jetn̄il-Kijiner describes herself as “a crater empty of stories”, she continues to find stories in the Tomb: namely, the legend of Letao, the son of a turtle goddess who turned himself into fire and, in the hands of a small boy, nearly burned a village to the ground.

Juxtaposing this fire with the US’s nuclear bombs, she ends her poem with “questions, hard as concrete”:

Who gave them this power?
Who anointed them with the power to burn?

The link between past and future

In their book Living in a nuclear world: From Fukushima to Hiroshima (2022), Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and others explore how “nuclear actors” frame nuclear technology as “indispensable”, “mundane” and “safe” by neatly severing nuclear energy from nuclear history.

This framing helps nuclear actors avoid answering concrete questions. It also helps to hides the colonial history of nuclear technologies – histories which leak into the present. But not everyone accepts this framing.

Indigenous artists remind us the nuclear past must be front-of-mind as we look to shape the future.

During her PhD thesis – funded by the Australian Government Research Training Program – Josephine worked on photographic works by Marie-Hélène Villierme. She has also interviewed Villierme in the past, and worked with her collaboratively on a book chapter on her work (published in Francophone Oceania Today (2024)).

– ref. As Dutton champions nuclear power, Indigenous artists recall the profound loss of land and life that came from it – https://theconversation.com/as-dutton-champions-nuclear-power-indigenous-artists-recall-the-profound-loss-of-land-and-life-that-came-from-it-249371

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

When we look back, we can see the road to election day has had a multitude of signposts, flashing red lights, twists, turns and potholes. Some came before the formal campaign; others in the final countdown days; some have been major, others symbolic.

The importance of certain markers has been obvious in the moment; the significance of others became clear in retrospect. Here is a recap of a few of those that have shaped this campaign and its battle for votes.

1. Anthony Albanese’s January 6 $7.2 billion announcement to upgrade the Bruce Highway

Why start here? Because this was the prime minister jumping out of the blocks at the start of January, with multiple announcements over the summer. Albanese laid down policy groundwork in these weeks, giving voters time to absorb the initiatives.

In contrast, Peter Dutton, although he had a “soft” launch on January 12, was running slowly, believing voters weren’t yet paying attention.

2. Donald Trump’s inauguration

January 21 unleashed a tsunami; its waves would wash over the coming months, and profoundly affect the election. At first, the Coalition thought – wrongly – that the election of Trump would favour it, but Labor became the beneficiary. Many Australians (including Dutton) were appalled at the way Trump and Vice President JD Vance treated Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Later, Trump’s tariffs hit Australia (although not as hard as many countries).

Dutton argued he’d be better able than Albanese to handle the capricious president, but it became a spurious debate. Labor painted Dutton as Trump-lite and some of his decisions played into its hands, notably appointing in late January Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price to a Musk-like role to pursue efficiencies in government. She later made the comparison even more obvious by saying the Coalition would “make Australia great again”.

But the central factor was this: suddenly, the world had become more uncertain and many voters would think it wasn’t the time to change.

3. The Reserve Bank’s cut in interest rates on February 18

The amount was modest, 25 basis points, but the psychology was the thing. The cut reinforced Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ argument that the worst was over and the outlook was positive. In the campaign’s final week, just at the right time for the government, inflation figures pointed to another expected cut in May.

4. Cyclone Alfred’s March 7 election delay

Albanese appeared set to call an April 12 poll, when the approaching winds blew the plan off course. The prime minister was able to put himself at the middle of the response to the cyclone, projecting himself as a national leader as distinct from a partisan one; he appeared with Queensland LNP Premier David Crisafulli, and at the Canberra National Situation Room.

The election delay meant Labor had to bring down the March 25 budget. Many in the government had wanted to avoid a budget, because of its deficits into the distance. But the budget became a useful frame for the start of the formal campaign, with Albanese going to Government House at the end of budget week.

5. Dutton’s budget reply

The opposition leader’s reply contained his proposal to cut petrol excise but did not include tax cuts. The opposition had already voted against the government’s budget tax cut package, and committed to repealing it.

The excise move was popular – Dutton would visit countless service stations over coming weeks – but the government was able to say a Coalition government would raise taxes.

At his campaign launch subsequently, Dutton promised a $1,200 tax offset, despite earlier flagging he would not be able to announce any income tax relief during the campaign. The tax offset was an attempt to rectify what had been the mistake of thinking that the Coalition – traditionally committed to lower taxes – could go to the election on the wrong side of the tax argument.

6. Dutton’s April 7 backtrack on working from home

The opposition policy to get public servants back into the office all week was a disaster-in-the-making from the start. Workers in the private sector would, rightly, see it as sending a signal to non-government employers.

Women hated the policy, and it would further alienate the female vote. Dutton had to ditch the idea and apologise. Finance spokeswoman Jane Hume didn’t help the retreat by saying it was a good policy that hadn’t found its appropriate time.

7. News on April 15 that the Russians wanted to base planes in Papua

The story appeared on the respected military site Janes, and Dutton rushed to pick it up, but went off half-cocked, declaring wrongly that the Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto had announced the Russian request. It was symptomatic of Dutton being under-prepared. He had to make another apology.

8. Neo-Nazis heckle during the Welcome to Country at the Melbourne Shrine of Remembrance Anzac Day Dawn Service

This led to Dutton launching into “culture wars” in the final days of the campaign. In criticising the disruption, he at first said, “We have a proud Indigenous heritage in this country and we should be proud to celebrate it as part of today”.

Subsequently he said most veterans didn’t want the Welcome to Country as part of the Anzac Day ceremonies, although it was a matter for the organisers. In general, he believed Welcome to Country ceremonies were used too frequently.

Dutton segued the controversy back to criticism of the Voice, and seized on confusing remarks by Foreign Minister Penny Wong to claim Labor was still committed to bringing in a Voice, something Albanese flatly denied.

9. The price of eggs

In the last of the four debates neither leader could specify the cost of a dozen eggs. Dutton was way out ($4.20); Albanese rather closer (“$7, if you can find them.”. It was a small moment but sent the message that even in a cost-of-living election, the leaders do live in bubbles.

10. Dutton comments on Thursday

Almost at the road’s end, the opposition leader appealed to voters to overlook a flawed campaign. “This election really is a referendum not about the election campaign but about the last three years.”

Asked if there was anything he could have done differently, he said “we should have called out Labor’s lies earlier on”.

It was as though he was speaking to a postmortem, while praying for a miracle.

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: Key markers on the bumpy road to this election – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-key-markers-on-the-bumpy-road-to-this-election-255613

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shawna Mastro Campbell, Assistant Professor Clinical Psychology, Bond University

If you live with young children, there’s a good chance you’ve been on the receiving end of a child yelling, screaming, crying, throwing or hitting things.

But how do parents know what is typical and age-related boundary pushing, what is a tantrum and what is a meltdown?

What’s the difference anyway?

What’s a tantrum?

In general, a tantrum is considered behavioural. The child has learned that the behaviour (like screaming or crying in defiant protest) can help them get what they want.

The behaviour may be a natural reaction for a child who is still learning how to regulate their emotions.

Sometimes, the outcome a child wants is a parent’s attention. So if a parent yells and negotiates with their child, this can reinforce tantrums and make them more likely in the future.

Once a child has obtained the desired outcome, the behaviour can decrease in the short term. But as the child has learned a tantrum is an effective way to get what they want, this may contribute to further tantrums in the long term.

What’s a meltdown?

A meltdown relates to having difficulty in regulating (usually distressing) emotions. We may still see the same types of behaviours and emotional outbursts as those in a tantrum. But a dysregulated child in a meltdown typically cannot de-escalate quickly, and offering a desired outcome is of little comfort.

Usually, a meltdown happens because a child’s brain is overwhelmed, overloaded or under-resourced (for instance, if they are tired, hungry and don’t have skills to stay regulated). Their nervous system kicks into an “out of control” state of emotional dysregulation. In this situation, their brain is not yet able to learn, engage in rational discussion, or meaningfully apologise.

Sometimes behaviours start as tantrums, quickly spiral into a feeling of being emotionally out of control, before a shift to “meltdown”.

This can be especially relevant for children who are neurodevelopmentally divergent, such as autistic children or children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), who may have less capacity to regulate their emotions.

How to react?

Dealing with tantrums and meltdowns involves parents being responsive, and labelling and understanding their child’s emotions.

Empathy is the key to defusing big emotions and strengthening relationships. An empathetic response allows your child to feel connected to an understanding parent, which can de-escalate a conflict.

For instance, if your child is crying and yelling after you tell them to power off the iPad before dinner, you might say:

I can see you were enjoying watching that. It’s really tricky to stop doing something we like, like watching Bluey. I struggle to switch off my favourite show, too. But, it is time for dinner, so we will turn off the iPad now.

How we hold boundaries is also important. For example, you might respond to a meltdown that includes hitting or throwing things with:

You are allowed to be upset but you are not allowed to hurt me, hurt yourself, or our house.

Not all behaviour is dangerous – such as swearing, using a silly voice, or using toilet-talk (saying things like “poo”). So it’s OK to pick your battles and ignore those behaviours by looking or turning away and not responding.

However, if you are worried your child might harm themselves or someone else – perhaps by running away, or climbing on a table – an appropriate reaction is to ensure physical safety and say:

It is my job to help you keep your body safe, so I’m going to help you make a safe choice.

What not to do

Being harsh to yourself or worrying about strangers judging your parenting won’t help end the tantrum or meltdown any quicker.

Distracting your child is rarely effective while a tantrum or meltdown is happening. This might even give children the impression they should avoid their feelings.

Decades of research has also shown using forms of physical punishment such as smacking does not deter problematic behaviour, and contributes to worsening mental health in the short and long term.

How about preventing tantrums and meltdowns?

We cannot avoid tantrums or meltdowns entirely. Having intense emotions is part of normal child development. It is also not possible to always respond perfectly. Trying to meet your child’s needs for connection and boundary setting most of the time is “good enough”.

But praising appropriate behaviour is the key preventative buffer against tantrums and meltdowns. You can also admire the unique and special qualities in your child.

Both increase the quality of your relationship, let your child know what types of behaviour are appropriate, and makes them feel good about themselves – and you.

Are you overwhelmed?

Having patience for children having a tantrum or meltdown while their brain develops can be a challenge. But in the short term, you can be empathetic towards your child and yourself by saying:

My child is learning, and so am I.

For a longer-term perspective, say:

This is a phase.

If you feel overwhelmed, quick strategies can mean the difference between responding with empathy and boundaries, or reacting with accidental reinforcement, such as yelling or giving in. Try:

• taking a few deep, slow breaths

• counting to five before reacting

• taking a break – make a cup of tea, get a drink of water

• checking if you are tired, hungry, or have an unmet need

• saying nothing if you have nothing nice to say

• labelling your own feelings, and describing what you are going to do to calm down.

Susan Rowe is a current member of the Gold Coast Primary Health Network Clinical Advisory Council.

Shawna Mastro Campbell 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’s the difference between a tantrum and a meltdown? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-tantrum-and-a-meltdown-245762

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jan Cattoni, Lecturer, Screen Production, CQUniversity Australia

Australian reality TV debuted in 2006 with Bondi Rescue. The show featured a winning formula of sun, surf, heroes and danger. It sparked many similar programs featuring police, helicopter crews and paramedics.

Paramedics (2018–), as the title suggests, follows Australian paramedics at work, and airs on Nine. Previous seasons focused on staff of Ambulance Victoria and SA Ambulance. The latest season, being filmed now in Perth, follows paramedics of St John Ambulance Western Australia.

Last week, the ABC reported WA Health has issued a directive that filming must end “at the time of entering a hospital ramp” and no filming is to happen at hospitals.

They also stipulate “vision that is used to negatively portray the WA Health system, including but not limited to perceived capacity constraints, is not permitted to be used”.

This move drew criticism from WA Shadow Health Minister, Libby Mettam, and WA president of the Australian Medical Association, Michael Page, who claimed it amounts to censorship of healthcare delivery issues, in particular issues of “ramping” – ambulances waiting outside emergency departments until space becomes available.

I created and directed the reality series Chopper Rescue (2009–11) for ABC, following real rescue helicopter crews saving lives in regional and remote north Queensland. Here’s what to consider when it comes to obtaining permissions to record factual television shows like these.

Sharing stories

These shows occupy a complex position between service provision and entertainment, creating inherent conflicts of interest.

I developed the concept for Chopper Rescue from dual perspectives: as a filmmaker and as an experienced PICU (paediatric intensive care unit) nurse who had participated in many retrievals.

I wanted to share stories of the incredible rescue crews: unassuming individuals undertaking extensive training, available 24/7. They might just happen to be the person sitting on the train opposite you travelling home after an all night saga.

I wanted audiences to appreciate how lucky we are to have such services.

From my first experience retrieving a child from a small regional clinic in the middle of the night, I was struck by the human drama and visual spectacle. Flying low at dawn over a sleeping city and safely delivering a sick child to expert care adhered to a perfect narrative structure.

The success of shows like Chopper Rescue and Paramedics depends on the willingness of professionals to share their knowledge, and of those being rescued agreeing to have their stories aired. The most successful shows are a partnership, where those in front of the camera are able to exercise some agency in how they are represented on screen.

By the time viewers see such content, multiple layers of permission have been negotiated.

Seeking consent

The most complex negotiation is the access agreements with organisations who have jurisdiction over the entities involved. For Paramedics, agreements would have been negotiated with St John’s Ambulance and WA Health.

Such agreements always include conditions to protect individuals and professional reputations.

Production companies must obtain signed consent from everyone identifiable onscreen. This is a complicated process when filming in emergency departments where multiple personnel might be attending to critically unwell patients.

Production release forms typically assign worldwide rights to use recordings, while indemnifying the company against claims. Individuals can request variations, such as viewing content before release, but this requires understanding this option exists. Ethical documentary practice would explore individuals’ options at the time of signing the release.

If someone doesn’t consent, their face is typically blurred. This highlights the tension between legal and ethical practice: blurring of identity meets legal requirements, but overlooks an individual’s choice not to participate.

Then there is the case of organisational access agreements. Post production facilities are intense spaces where editors, directors and producers make decisions about episodes, creating perfect cuts and dramatic effects. What’s often missing in the edit suite is professional knowledge to determine whether a scene, while being dramatically successful, might contain actions by a professional that could be viewed critically by peers.

There is little scope for the acknowledgement of human error once a show is aired, but human error occurs – particularly in high stakes situations.

Access agreements and filming protocols ensure edited content is reviewed by those familiar with the setting. In the case of the new season of Paramedics, this responsibility will fall to WA Health.

Is this censorship? Yes. Is it necessary? I would say yes, given these shows offer entertainment, not expository documentaries.

Our human vulnerability

There is another hidden risk for those being rescued: the presence of cameras capturing professionals at work.

Awareness that millions might be watching on can potentially distract paramedics, doctors and pilots – with potentially disastrous consequences.

And what about patients’ rights to receive assistance without the presence of microphones and cameras? Can we assume that patients are informed in advance that they may be filmed and have the option to decline? Clear protocols for filming are essential to ensure such patient rights are protected.

As a filmmaker, I recognise the appeal of these shows. Viewers access normally restricted spaces, witnessing emergency calls and human drama. Such moments can be potent, allowing reflection on our human vulnerability. The educational potential is also significant, sharing important information about health conditions and interventions.

It is unclear whether similar restrictions were requested in other states, but there is nothing unusual in WA Health seeking conditions to film in their facilities.

However, to specifically exclude ambulance ramping has potentially left them vulnerable to criticism, rather than requesting general content approval.

Jan Cattoni 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. Is WA Health having final say over edits of Paramedics ‘censorship’? Yes. But it’s necessary – https://theconversation.com/is-wa-health-having-final-say-over-edits-of-paramedics-censorship-yes-but-its-necessary-255417

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Farrugia, ARC Future Fellow, School of Education, Deakin University

Is a “side hustle” really the only thing separating you from the life you desire? Listening to some influencers on social media could certainly have you thinking so.

Side hustles encompass a range of self-directed entrepreneurial activities undertaken while also working a job. For young people with limited access to capital, they’re the most accessible opportunity to engage in entrepreneurship.

Yet, we still know very little about who takes them on and why, and what kind of impact they have on working life in economies like Australia.

Our new report – Side Hustles – How Young People Are Redefining Work – presents the first wave of findings from an ongoing three-year, mixed-methods study that seeks to answer these questions.

In our first year of data collection, we surveyed 1,497 side hustlers aged 18-34 and interviewed a further 68. Our findings raise questions about the merits of entrepreneurship as a solution to youth unemployment or a pathway to financial freedom.

What makes a side hustle?

To be included in our project, a young person had to be employed, but also carrying out some form of entrepreneurship.

We defined entrepreneurship as self-directed economic activity, where the side hustler has some measure of control over when they work, who they work for and what they charge.

The most popular side hustle among participants was selling goods (42.9%). Others included:

• services such as gardening, dog-walking or moving furniture (29.2%)
• creating media content (16.5%)
• creative work such as graphic design or photography (11.3%).

Side hustling could include some “gig work” through online platforms, but only when these platforms allow workers to negotiate prices with clients and make choices about their work. As such, we excluded rideshare and food delivery drivers from the project.

Projects for the privileged

While some people may assume that young people start a side hustle out of financial stress, we found side hustlers are actually a relatively privileged cohort.

They are a well-educated group. Almost two-thirds of our sample had university degrees and many of the remainder were studying. They also generally report their financial wellbeing as comfortable.

Why is this? Side hustles often don’t make much money, cost money to set up, and carry risk – all of the hallmarks of entrepreneurship.

Median hourly earnings from their side hustles are less than what they would make working in retail or hospitality, and on average they are about 50% what they make in their main job.

As one e-commerce side-hustler put it:

If I really put my time and energy into the consideration, I would say we’re not making much money at all […] It’s just something I enjoy doing in my free time.

Their side-hustle earnings are also uncertain: 65% say they are unsure what their earnings will look like in three months.

In other words, you need to be financially secure already to even contemplate a side hustle.

Passion over pay

Side hustles don’t make enough to help someone who is really financially struggling, and they are unlikely to be a pathway out of the employment “rat race”.

Despite this, our participants are overwhelmingly satisfied with their side hustles and say they have good work-life balance. So what motivates them?

The top motivation reported in our study is passion and enjoyment. Side hustlers say they want work that relates to their interests and enjoy the autonomy and flexibility that a side hustle allows.

Even though side hustles are often less profitable than a second job, the second-highest motivation was still money.

That’s likely because they offer a way of making some supplementary income in a way that is flexible and autonomous.

They’re often a source of “play money”. One 33-year-old man with an e-commerce side hustle told us:

If I was to pick up a second job, like […] Uber driving at night time, I won’t be happy, I’ll be tired, I’ll be stressed out trying to do that

Whereas, I think because I’ve got the passion for it here, I’m happy to do it because, like I said, I’m doing it at my own pace.

Pressure to be productive

Our research suggests that rather than being a pathway out of unemployment, side hustles actually represent a broader social and economic trend: more and more of young people’s lives are being encompassed by work.

Interviewees frequently talked about feeling like they needed to make their time outside of work productive in some way. For some, it was as though they could not justify leisure time unless it was financially profitable.

One participant told us:

You obviously want to enjoy life and have a bit of a chill time, but some days you just go like, “What am I doing? Just sitting at home and just relaxing watching Netflix or whatever. I should probably be out there making more money”.

Blurring work life boundaries?

Most participants were also not very concerned about growing their side hustles into businesses.

Instead, they aspired for balanced working lives with a side hustle offering passion, flexibility and autonomous work, and paid employment supporting them financially and offering the option of a traditional career.

They also did not necessarily see the time spent on their side hustles as work, being much more personally invested and self-directed in their side hustles than in their paid jobs.

But this means that much of their “leisure” time looks very much like work, and more and more of their lives are dedicated to being productive.

David Farrugia receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Brendan Churchill receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Kim Allen receives funding from the ESRC

Stephanie Patouras 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. Are side hustles really a way to escape the rat race, or just passion projects for a privileged few? – https://theconversation.com/are-side-hustles-really-a-way-to-escape-the-rat-race-or-just-passion-projects-for-a-privileged-few-255002

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexa Scarlata, Lecturer, Digital Communication, RMIT University

It’s May! Where did the year go? It must be all the amazing TV we’re watching that’s making the time whiz by. This month’s lineup of expert picks is packed with standout shows across all genres.

Whether you’re in the mood for laugh-out-loud comedies, powerful historical fiction, or sci-fi that will leave your brain rattling for days, there’s something binge-worthy waiting for you.

MobLand

Paramount+

Lately, I’ve found myself counting down the days each week for a new episode of MobLand to drop on Paramount+ on Sunday afternoon. The crime series is executive produced (and the first two episodes directed) by Guy Ritchie, and stars Tom Hardy, Pierce Brosnan and Helen Mirren – along with a heavyweight supporting cast – in a story about two rival mob families in London.

When tensions escalate after a night out, Hardy’s “fixer” character, Harry, works to keep the peace between the Harrigans and the Stevensons – be it with a quiet word or brutal force.

MobLand is as twisty, gruesome and fun as we’ve come to expect from Ritchie’s popular gangster titles. But while others have been regularly criticised for their lack or limited portrayal of female characters, MobLand benefits from the scheming and swearing of the inimitable Helen Mirren as matriarch Maeve Harrigan, and the quiet fury of Joanne Froggatt as Harry’s wife, Jan, as she tries to force the enforcer into marriage counselling.

The series has been a huge success for Paramount+ in Australia – becoming the largest launch in the platform’s history. And while some may find the weekly episode drop frustrating, for me it adds to the suspense.

– Alexa Scarlata

The Residence

Netflix

Faced with Donald Trump, show makers turn to alternative visions of leadership. The latest: a gay president, who is only a bit of a player, in a ridiculously entertaining picture of a crime within the White House.

At a US state dinner for visiting Australian Prime Minister Stephen Roos (Julian McMahon), the dead body of the chief usher is discovered, and the world’s greatest detective, Cordelia Cupp (Uzo Aduba), is called in. Not only is Cupp an avid bird-watcher, she is also an Agatha Christie devotee who likes to assemble all her suspects for a prolonged denouement.

The Residence is full of oblique references to current US politics. One former senator, Al Franken, plays a fictional senator named Aaron Filkins. And Tripp Morgan (Jason Lee), US President Perry Morgan’s odious brother, has several real-life precursors.

The series is also a guide to the White House itself, complete with the sort of lavish detail we’d expect from Shondaland productions. And it’s nice to see Netflix acknowledging Australians. Even if they couldn’t persuade Hugh Jackman to actually show up, there’s plenty of other home-grown talent – including cameos by Kylie Minogue.

– Dennis Altman

Last One Laughing UK

Prime Video

Last One Laughing is a battle royale for stand-ups. Ten comedians, one room, surrounded by cameras. Laugh once and they’re warned. Laugh again, and they’re out. Last comic left wins.

An international TV phenomenon in 29 countries, the latest season is from the United Kingdom, hosted by Jimmy Carr and featuring comedians like Bob Mortimer, Sara Pascoe and Joe Lycett.

Comedy takes time, but laughter can take less than a moment. Richard Ayoade nearly catches out two players when, asked what his childhood hobbies were, he replies: “I don’t know. I cried a lot?”

Last One Laughing doubles our laughs. We watch the actual joke, we get it, we laugh. And then we see comedians desperately trying not to laugh – but we know that they get the joke too! And so we get an unexpected second look at the joke.

Last One Laughing helps us understand why we laugh at our own jokes, why we can’t always explain what’s funny, and why gags don’t need words. We’re watching professional comedians get the joke (as we do!) without laughing (as we expect?) but we know that it’s all OK. And, however briefly, we glimpse the world anew.

– Fergus Edwards

Read more:
We’re hardwired to laugh – this is why watching comedians try to be the ‘Last One Laughing’ is so funny

Dying for Sex

Disney+

Based on a popular podcast by Molly Kochan and Nicki Boyer, Dying for Sex is a funny, raunchy, heartfelt exploration of pleasure and death.

When Molly (Michelle Williams) finds out her cancer is back and this time it is terminal, she seeks out sexual desire and satisfaction in unusual places, making profound discoveries along the way.

The show is rated R for good reason: the depiction of sexual acts is graphic, but not exploitative or voyeuristic. Rather it embraces the messiness of having a body that is dying but seeking joy.

While Molly’s sexual adventures feature heavily (and explicitly), the heart of the show is Molly’s friendship with Nicki (Jenny Slate), which feels achingly real. Molly and Nicki are long-term friends, as such they adore and encourage each other’s idiosyncrasies and perceived flaws.

Williams is luminous and well-matched with Slate, who brings a levity and longing to caring for her best friend and supporting her new goals. Despite its relatively short runtime of just eight 30 minute episodes, we are treated to nuanced renderings of Molly’s complex relationships with her mother (Sissy Spacek), husband (Jay Duplass) and neighbour (Rob Delaney).

Dying for Sex is infuriating and heartbreaking, as well as absurdly funny – kinda like death.

– Jessica Ford

Black Mirror, season seven

Netflix

The seventh season of Black Mirror is an ominous return to the dark world of modern technology. This season comprises six new episodes, two of which are sequels to episodes from previous seasons.

Common People is a powerful opening to the season, starring two of the most famous actors to appear throughout. Amanda (Rashida Jones) and Mike (Chris O’Dowd) are an ordinary suburban couple struck by tragedy in the form of a serious medical emergency – a narrative turn that is compounded by an unexpected departure from Jones and O’Dowd’s comedic reputations. The collapse of their life reaches greater and greater depths, before culminating in a horrifying final scene.

The other five episodes of the season are not as dismal. USS Callister: Into Infinity, in particular, provides some resolution that the earlier episode USS Callister had not. Plaything, the sequel to the interactive film Bandersnatch, echoes USS Callister’s interest in video gaming, but takes its invasion of human life to an even more powerful conclusion. Bête Noire similarly toys with the idea of mind control.

Hotel Reverie and Eulogy are quieter episodes, and not as overtly critical of technological advance as the others. Both are very moving, and like Common People, are interested in the lengths one might go to for the people they love.

Black Mirror’s seventh season is both a warning and a guide for how to be human – and how not to.

– Jessica Gildersleeve

The Wheel of Time, season three

Prime Video

The Wheel of Time is Prime’s most recent entry into the increasingly popular epic fantasy genre. Despite a lacklustre first two seasons, season three finally rewards fans for their patience.

Adapted from Robert Jordan’s sprawling 14-book series, the new season begins full throttle with a violent battle between the all-female One Power-wielding Aes Sedai. While some episodes lag due to overly complicated exposition and agonising character development (just embrace the wolf already, Perrin), for the most part showrunner Rafe Judkins maintains the propulsive momentum established in the spectacular opening.

Episode four, The Road to the Spear, is a standout sure to please die-hard Jordan fans and new audiences alike. Cinematic in scope, the episode faithfully recounts Rand (Josha Stradowski) and Moiraine’s (Rosamund Pike) journey to Rhuidean in the Aiel Waste where Rand is confirmed as the Dragon Reborn.

Pike continues to provide much-needed gravitas as the steely Moiraine and Stradowski is a revelation. It doesn’t hurt that the episode makes good use of its deliciously vampy leather-clad villain Lanfear (Natasha O’Keeffe).

No doubt references to Jordan’s expansive lore might continue to baffle some viewers. However, the sumptuous costumes, increasingly assured performances and modernised relationships suggest the series has finally found its footing.

Long may The Wheel of Time continue to turn.

– Rachel Williamson

The Narrow Road to the Deep North

Prime Video

The Narrow Road to the Deep North stands as some of the most visceral and moving television produced in Australia in recent memory, marking a new accessibility and confidence to director Justin Kurzel.

Dorrigo Evans (Jacob Elordi/Ciarán Hinds) is a doctor sent to World War II. Captured during the Battle of Java he is taken as a prisoner of war (POW), where he is forced to lead his Australian soldiers on the building of the Burma-Thailand Railway.

Rather than an executor of violence, he is a pacifist and victim. Ultimately he has to make peace with his own trauma and guilt of survival when many around him perished – some of whom he knowingly sent to their inevitable death to ensure his own survival.

Faithfully adapted from Richard Flanagan’s novel in a screenplay by Shaun Grant, this production effectively creates interchanging timelines (seamlessly edited by Alexandre de Francesch) including prewar, war and postwar, and then flashes forward to Dorrigo in his mid-70s.

Structurally immaculate, The Narrow Road to the Deep North is not defined by its brutal torture of the POWs or comradeship of the starving soldiers (though they are powerful to watch). Instead, it points us towards the quieter visions of characters having to sit alone with their distorted memories.

Contemporary television is rarely this good.

– Stephen Gaunson

Read more:
Contemporary television is rarely as good as The Narrow Road to the Deep North

Andor, season two

Disney+

Andor returns for a second season, as we follow the early days of the Rebel Alliance leading up to events in Rogue One.

One year after the events of season one, we open with Cassian (Diego Luna) impersonating an Imperial test pilot so he can steal a prototype Imperial ship. After stealing the ship, he must navigate a ragtag brigade whose infighting becomes violent.

Elsewhere on planet Mina-Rau, Bix (Adria Arjona) and other undocumented farm workers await Cassian’s arrival with the ship. Over on Chandrila, Imperial Senator Mon (Genevieve O’Reilly) navigates the diplomacy of her daughter’s wedding while continuing to discreetly support the rebellion.

The most chilling scenes in the opening episodes are perhaps those that show Imperial supervisor Dedra Meero (Denise Gough) attend a top-secret meeting where they strategise how best to cleanse the population of Gorman so they can mine a rare mineral.

As film academic Daniel Golding notes in an article about how Andor takes on the era of Trump 2.0, showrunner Tony Gilroy takes inspiration from several real world revolutionary events. Given Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s assault on Gaza and Trump’s increasing authoritarianism, it will be interesting to see how the revolution in this season continues to reflect real-world precarity.

I recommend refreshing your memory of season one before diving in, as the new season’s complexity relies on considerable assumed knowledge.

– Stuart Richards

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. Feuding mob families, mind control and a murder at the White House: what to watch in May – https://theconversation.com/feuding-mob-families-mind-control-and-a-murder-at-the-white-house-what-to-watch-in-may-255222

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Bayne, Professor of Philosophy, Monash University

“Theories are like toothbrushes,” it’s sometimes said. “Everybody has their own and nobody wants to use anybody else’s.”

It’s a joke, but when it comes to the study of consciousness – the question of how we have a subjective experience of anything at all – it’s not too far from the truth.

In 2022, British neuroscientist Anil Seth and I published a review listing 22 theories based in the biology of the brain. In 2024, operating with a less restrictive scope, US public intellectual Robert Kuhn counted more than 200.

It’s against this background that Nature has just published the results of an “adversarial collaboration” from a group called the Cogitate Consortium focused on two prominent theories: global neuronal workspace theory and integrated information theory.

Two big theories go head to head

With so many ideas floating around and inherently elusive subject matter, testing theories has been no easy task. Indeed, debate between proponents of different theories has been vigorous and, at times, acrimonious.

At a particularly low point in 2023, after the initial announcement of the results Cogitate has formally published today, many experts signed an open letter arguing that integrated information theory was not only false but doesn’t even qualify as scientific.

Nevertheless, global neuronal workspace theory and integrated information theory are two of the “big four” theories that dominate current discussions of consciousness. (The others are higher-order representation theories, and the local re-entry – or recurrency – theory.)

The theories are hard to summarise, but both tie consciousness to the activity of neurons in different parts of the brain.

Advocates of these two theories, together with a number of unaligned theorists, generated predictions from the two theories about the kinds of brain activity one would expect to be associated with consciousness.

Predictions and results

The group agreed that integrated information theory predicts conscious perception should be associated with sustained synchronisation and activity of signals in a part of the brain called the posterior cortex.

On the other hand, they said global neuronal workspace theory predicts that a process of “neural ignition” should accompany both the start and end of a stimulus. What’s more, it should be possible to decode what a person is conscious of from activity in their prefrontal cortex.

These hypotheses (among others) were tested by “theory-neutral” teams from across the globe.

The results were not decisive. Some were in line with predictions of one or other of the theories, but other results generated challenges.

For example, the team failed to find sustained synchronisation within the posterior cortex of the kind predicted by integrated information theory. At the same time, global neuronal workspace theory is challenged by the fact that not all contents of consciousness could be decoded from the prefrontal cortex, and by the failure to find neural ignition when the stimulus was first presented.

A win for science

But although this study wasn’t a win for either theory, it was a decisive win for science. It represents a clear advance in how the consciousness community approaches theory-testing.

It’s not uncommon for researchers to tend to look for evidence in favour of their own theory. But the seriousness of this problem in consciousness science only became clear in 2022, with the publication of an important paper by a number of researchers involved in the Cogitate Consortium. The paper showed it was possible to predict which theory of consciousness a particular study supported based purely on its design.

The vast majority of attempts to “test” theories of consciousness have been conducted by advocates of those very theories. As a result, many studies have focused on confirming theories (rather than finding flaws, or falsifying them).

No changing minds

The first achievement of this collaboration was getting rival theorists to agree on testable predictions of the two theories. This was especially challenging as both the global workspace and integrated information theories are framed in very abstract terms.

Another achievement was to run the the same experiments in different labs – a particularly difficult challenge given those labs were not committed to the theories in question.

In the early stages of the project, the team took advice from Israeli-US psychologist Daniel Kahneman, the architect of the idea of adversarial collaborations for research.

Kahneman said not to expect the results to change anyone’s mind, even if they decisively favoured one theory over another. Scientists are committed to their theories, he pointed out, and will cling to them even in the face of counter-evidence.

The usefulness of irrationality

This kind of irrational stubbornness may seem like a problem, but it doesn’t have to be. With the right systems in place, it can even help to advance science.

Given we don’t know which theoretical approach to consciousness is most likely to be right, the scientific community ought to tackle consciousness from a variety of perspectives.

The research community needs ways to correct itself. However, it’s useful for individual scientists to stick to their theoretical guns, and continue to work within a particular theory even in the face of problematic findings.

A hard nut to crack

Consciousness is a hard nut to crack. We don’t yet know whether it will yield to the current methods of consciousness science, or whether it requires a revolution in our concepts or methods (or perhaps both).

What is clear, however, is that if we’re going to untangle the problem of subjective experience, the scientific community will need to embrace this model of collaborative research.

I’m a co-director with Liad Mudrik of CIFAR’s “Brain, Mind, and Consciousness” program.

– ref. How does consciousness work? Duelling scientists tested two big theories but found no winner – https://theconversation.com/how-does-consciousness-work-duelling-scientists-tested-two-big-theories-but-found-no-winner-255610

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Biddle, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University

Minority governments have been part of Australia’s political history since Federation.

In the country’s early decades, Prime Ministers Edmund Barton, Alfred Deakin, Chris Watson, George Reid and Andrew Fisher all led without commanding a majority in the House of Representatives. Since the second world war, majority governments have become the norm at the national level, underpinned by the two-party system of Labor and the Liberal-National Coalition.

Minority government has been rare, with the notable exception of Julia Gillard’s Labor government from 2010 to 2013. However, at the state/territory level, minority governments are far more common.

The 2025 federal election could mark another shift. While Labor has pulled ahead in the polls over the course of the campaign, a minority government remains a real possibility.

Even if a slim majority is achieved, the trend of falling primary votes for both major parties suggests minority governments could become more common in the years ahead.

We have examined new data from more than 3,600 respondents in the March/April wave of the 2025 Election Monitoring Survey Series (EMSS) from the School of Politics and International Relations (SPIR) at the ANU. The results shed light on how Australians feel about the prospect of minority government, and how these attitudes could shape political expectations.

Australians are more accepting of minority governments

When respondents were asked whether they found the idea of a minority government acceptable, more said they did (39.3%) than said they did not (32.6%).

This pattern is especially strong among Labor voters, minor party supporters, and those undecided about their vote. Only among Liberal voters was a minority government viewed more negatively, with a majority (51.8%) saying it would be unacceptable.

These findings suggest that minority government does not present the widespread illegitimacy and inefficiency to the electorate that is sometimes claimed by political leaders.

Fears of instability, but hopes for accountability

Despite growing acceptance, Australians are divided about the likely consequences of a minority government.

When asked whether a minority government would make politics more unstable or more representative and accountable, the country was split. About 42.7% expected more instability, while 37.6% expected greater representativeness. Another 19.6% believed it would make no real difference.

Again, partisan divides are stark. Coalition voters overwhelmingly expect instability (62.3%), whereas minor party supporters are more optimistic about minority government delivering better accountability.

These mixed expectations suggest while many suspect minority government will be a rocky ride, most expect little to no change. This is in contrast to recent claims a return to minority government would either further damage democracy or revitalise it by forcing change.

Public supports reforms to make minority government work

If a minority government emerges post-election, institutions will need to adapt. Some changes will be legislative, others cultural, some political.

Recognising the challenges that minority governments can bring, Australians are supportive of modest reforms to help them function more effectively.

Nearly half (47.6%) support establishing an independent body to oversee power-sharing agreements between major parties and crossbench MPs. A significant share (42.7%) also back requiring minority governments to sign formal agreements with the independents or minor parties they rely on.

These preferences suggest Australians are pragmatic: if minority governments are to become more common, they want safeguards and structures to ensure stability and transparency.

Trust varies across parties – and independents score well

Australians remain relatively confident in key institutions, particularly when compared to the polarisation in other democracies. Trust is also a key factor in how Australians view different political actors in a minority government setting.

When asked how much trust they have in different groups to act responsibly in a minority parliament, Labor emerges with the highest broad trust levels (50.4%), compared to the Liberal Party (43.0%). The Greens are the least trusted (35.7%). Trust in Independents is relatively high (45.7%).

It is also interesting to note recent research tracking trends in non-major party voting. These find the Greens are increasingly likely to win seats from the ALP, while the Independents are more likely to win seats from the LNP.

This matters. Who holds the balance of power has implications for maintaining trust in government. These results would indicate that if independents hold the balance of power, it may not undermine, but may actually contribute to, broader trust.

A preference for majority rule remains

Despite growing openness to minority governments, Australians still show a strong attachment to the traditional model of majority government in the House of Representatives.

When asked whether “stable and effective government requires a majority of seats for one of the two major parties within the House of Representatives”, 53.8% agreed or strongly agreed. Only 16% disagreed.

Support for this statement was strongest among Coalition voters (70.9%), but even a majority of Labor voters (54.7%) agreed. Only among minor party voters was disagreement more common.

This result is not unexpected. Both major parties assertively campaign that major party majority provides the continuity, the stability and the certainty the country needs. It is worth noting these results were recorded in the lead up to a federal election.

This result should also be set against over three decades of minority in the Senate.

These findings suggest Australians prefer majority government (qualified by a desire for accountability) over minority government (particularly if that majority is led by their own party!).

It will be interesting to track these attitudes in future EMSS should a minority government occur after May 3.

What it means for the 2025 election – and beyond

The 2025 federal election could be a turning point. If Labor wins a majority, it may delay a broader shift toward minority government politics. But if another minority parliament emerges, it will test the resilience of Australia’s political institutions and the evolving attitudes of voters.

Australians appear ready to give minority government a chance – but they want it to work.

Our only concrete reference point is the Gillard government. It was recognised for its negotiation, legislative success and running full term, but widely viewed as a political failure. What this revealed is the importance of minority government that adopts a pragmatic, inclusive and flexible approach to governance.

Whatever the result, Australian electoral trends tell us minority governments are no longer the outlier they once were in Australian politics. Voters, political leaders, and importantly public institutions may need to adapt to a new norm in Australian politics.

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. Australians are warming to minority governments – but they still prefer majority rule – https://theconversation.com/australians-are-warming-to-minority-governments-but-they-still-prefer-majority-rule-255416

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

Donald Trump is everywhere, inescapable. His return to power in the United States was always going to have some impact on the Australian federal election. The question was how disruptive he would be.

The answer is very – but not in the ways we might have thought.

As soon as Trump was elected president, the political debate in Australia focused on whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese or Opposition Leader Peter Dutton would be best suited to managing him – and keeping the US-Australia security alliance intact.

Initially, at least, this conversation was predictable.

The Coalition looked set to continue an ideological alignment with Trumpism that had flourished under the prime ministership of Scott Morrison. Dutton prosecuted the argument that given his party’s experience with the first Trump administration, it would be better placed than Labor to handle the second.

Albanese, meanwhile, appeared caught off guard by Trump’s victory and timid in his response.

But as has become all too clear, the second Trump administration is radically different from the first. That has rattled the right of Australian politics and worked to Labor’s advantage.

A turning point at the White House

In January, the Coalition announced that NT Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price had been appointed shadow minister for government efficiency – a direct importation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) being led by Elon Musk in the US.

In a barely disguised imitation of the Trump administration’s attacks on “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) measures, members of the Coalition, including Price, singled out Welcome to Country ceremonies as evidence of the kind of “wasteful” spending it would cut.

When the Coalition seemed to be riding high in the polls, Dutton, too, nodded at “wokeism” and singled out young white men feeling “disenfranchised”.

Soon after, however, this began to change. The first few weeks of Trump’s second term were marked by a cascade of executive actions targeting trans people, climate action and immigration. Trump and his new appointees began the process of radically reshaping the United States and its role in the world.

In February, polling by the independent think tank The Australia Institute found Australians saw Trump as a bigger threat to world peace than Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

And then Volodymyr Zelensky went to the White House.

The Ukrainian president was humiliated in an Oval Office meeting with Trump and Vice President JD Vance, laying bare how the administration was willing to treat the leader of an ally devastated by a war it hadn’t started.

Trump’s territorial threats towards Canada and Greenland, in addition to his dismissive statements about European allies, shattered the long-held assumptions about the US as a force for stability in the world.

MAGA ideology isn’t ‘pick and choose’

After this incident, Dutton was careful to distance himself from Trump’s abandonment of Ukraine. He even went so far as to say that leadership might require “standing up to your friends and to those traditional allies because our views have diverged”.

Similarly, influential Coalition powerbroker Peta Credlin wrote in The Australian:

it’s hard to see America made great again if the Trump administration’s message to the world is that the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.

Therein lies the bind for the Coalition – an ideological alignment with “Make America Great Again” cannot be fully reconciled with a nationalism that puts Australian interests first.

MAGA ideology is all-or-nothing, not pick-and-choose.

During the election campaign, the Coalition attempted to walk the path of “pick-and-choose”. And Labor quite successfully used this against them. Assertions the opposition leader was nothing but a “Temu Trump”, or “DOGE-y Dutton”, stuck because they had at least a ring of truth to them.

The opposition’s pledge to dramatically reduce the size of the public service, for example, was clearly linked to Musk’s efforts at DOGE to take a chainsaw to the public service in the US. This idea has been deeply unpopular with Australian voters, and the Coalition has faced innumerable questions about it.

For all the talk of “shared values” and how essential the US alliance is to Australian security, this campaign shows that Australia is not like America.

Most Australians concerned about Trump’s impact

When Trump’s tariffs arrived on “Liberation Day” in early April, both leaders claimed they were best placed to negotiate.

Albanese insisted Australia had got one of the best results in the world, while Dutton asserted, without evidence, that he would be able to negotiate a better one.

More broadly, the Trump tariffs have contributed to a growing sense of unease in the electorate.

A recent YouGov poll found that 66% of Australians no longer believe the US can be relied on for defence and security. According to Paul Smith, the director of YouGov, this is a “fundamental change of worldview”.

In the same poll, 71% of Australians also said they were either concerned or very concerned Trump’s policies would make Australia worse off.

While neither party has signalled it would make a fundamental shift in Australia’s alliance with the US if elected, that doesn’t mean changes aren’t possible.

Independents and minor parties may well play a significant role in the formation of the next government. Some, like Zoe Daniel and Jacqui Lambie, are increasingly vocal about the risks the Trump administration poses to Australia.

A limit to Trumpism’s appeal

As election day approaches, many of the assumptions driving conventional Australian political thinking are under pressure.

Labor’s recovery in the polls, and the Liberals’ election win in Canada, suggest assumptions about the dangers of incumbency might have been misplaced. The dissatisfaction with incumbent governments last year may have had more to do with unresponsive political parties and systems.

There’s evidence emerging, instead, that in more responsive democracies with robust institutions like Australia and Canada, Trumpism does not have great appeal.

The idea that “kindness is not a weakness” may yet prove to be a winning political strategy.

Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

– ref. Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australian election. Will it prove decisive? – https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-has-cast-a-long-shadow-over-the-australian-election-will-it-prove-decisive-255422

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Isaacs, Lecturer, Anthropology, University of Waikato

Seeing is no longer believing in the age of images and videos generated by artificial intelligence (AI), and this is having an impact on elections in New Zealand and elsewhere.

Ahead of the 2025 local body elections, voters are being warned by overseas politicians and local experts not to automatically trust that what they are looking at is real.

Deepfakes – images or video created with the use of AI to mislead or spread false information – were used in last year’s United States presidential election. Early in the campaign, a deepfake voice clip impersonating then president Joe Biden told voters not to cast a ballot vote in New Hampshire’s primaries.

There have also been concerns about the role of deepfakes on the campaign trail in Australia. The Labor Party, for example, released an AI-generated video of opposition leader Peter Dutton dancing on its TikTok account.

But the worry is not just that deepfakes will spread lies about politicians or other real people. AI is also used to create “synthetic deepfakes” – images of fake people who do not exist.

Using artificially generated images and videos of both real and fake people raises questions around transparency and the ethical treatment of cultural and ethnic groups.

Cultural offence with AI isn’t a hypothetical concern. Australian voters have found some AI used in political advertising to be “cringe” and culturally clumsy, with one white female politician using auto-tuned rapping in her campaign.

Australians have also reported an increase in deepfake political content. The majority were unable to detect AI content.

Several countries including Australia and Canada are considering laws to manage the harms of AI use in political messaging.

Others have already passed legislation banning or limiting AI in elections. South Korea for example, banned the use of deepfakes in political advertising 90 days before an election. Singapore has banned digitally-altered material misrepresenting political candidates.

While New Zealand has several voluntary frameworks to address the growing use of AI in media, there are no explicit rules to prevent its use in political campaigns. To avoid cultural offence and to offer transparency, it is crucial for political parties to establish and follow clear ethical standards on AI use in their messaging.

Existing frameworks

The film industry is a good starting point for policymakers looking to establish a clear framework for AI in political messaging.

In my ongoing research about culture and technology in film production, industry workers have spoken about New Zealand’s world-leading standards on culturally aware film production processes and the positive impact this had on shaping AI standards.

Released in March 2025, the New Zealand Film Commission’s Artificial Intelligence Guiding Principles takes a “people first” approach to AI which prioritises the needs, wellbeing and empowerment of individuals when developing and implementing AI systems.

The principles also stress respect for matauranga Māori and transparency in the use of AI so that audiences are “informed about the use of AI in screen content they consume”.

The government’s Public Service AI framework, meanwhile, requires government agencies to publicly disclose how AI systems are used and to practice human-centred values such as dignity and self-determination.

AI in NZ politics

Meanwhile, the use of AI by some of New Zealand’s political parties has already raised concerns.

During the 2023 election campaign, the National Party admitted using AI in their attack advertisements. And recent social media posts using AI by New Zealand’s ACT party were criticised for their lack of transparency and cultural sensitivity.

An ACT Instagram post about interest rate cuts featured an AI generated image of a Māori couple from the software company Adobe’s stock photo collection.

Act whip Todd Stephenson responded that using stock imagery or AI-generated imagery was not inherently misleading. But he said that the party “would never use an actor or AI to impersonate a real person”.

My own search of the Adobe collection came up with other images used by ACT in its Instagram posts, including an AI generated image labelled as “studio photography portrait of a 40 years old Polynesian woman”.

There are two key concerns with using AI like this. The first is that ACT didn’t declare the use of AI in its Instagram posts. A lack of transparency around the use of deepfakes of any kind can undermine trust in the political system. Voters end up uncertain about what is real and what is fake.

Secondly, the images were synthetic fakes of ethnic minorities in New Zealand. There have long been concerns from academics and technology experts that AI generated images reproduce harmful stereotypes of diverse communities.

Legislation needed

While the potential for cultural offence and misinformation with faked content is not new, AI alters the scale at which such fakes can be created. It makes it easier and quicker to produce manipulative, fake and culturally offensive images.

At a minimum, New Zealand needs to introduce legalisation that requires political parties to acknowledge the use of AI in their advertising. And as the country moves into a new election season, political parties should commit to combating misinformation and cultural misrepresentation.

Bronwyn Isaacs is a member of the Association of Social Anthropologists of Aotearoa/New Zealand.

– ref. Playing politics with AI: why NZ needs rules on the use of ‘fake’ images in election campaigns – https://theconversation.com/playing-politics-with-ai-why-nz-needs-rules-on-the-use-of-fake-images-in-election-campaigns-255415

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

When it comes to our health, we’re constantly being warned about being taken in by misinformation. Yet for most of us what we believe ultimately comes down to who we trust, including which “experts” we trust.

The problem is that not everyone who presents themselves as an expert is actually an expert. And an expert in one area isn’t necessarily an expert in everything.

The reality is that we often rely on superficial cues to decide who to trust. We’re often swayed by how confidently someone speaks, their perceived authority, or how compelling their story sounds. For some, it’s simply the loudest voice that carries the most weight.

Even if we feel we have some understanding of science, few of us have the time or the capacity to verify every claim made by every so-called “expert”.

So how can we distinguish credible experts from those that are not? Here are four things I look out for.

1. Dodgy experts don’t acknowledge uncertainty

One thing that separates trustworthy experts from dodgy ones, is their humility. They have a healthy respect of the limitations of science, the gaps in the evidence, and even the limitations of their own expertise.

And importantly, they communicate this clearly.

Read more:
Uncertain? Many questions but no clear answers? Welcome to the mind of a scientist

In contrast, one of the most common characteristics of the dodgy expert is they are misleadingly certain. They often present issues in overly simplistic, black-and-white terms, and they draw conclusions with misplaced confidence.

This, of course, is part of their appeal. A neat clear-cut message that downplays uncertainty, complexity and nuance can be persuasive – and often even more persuasive than a messy but accurate message.

One of the clearest examples of unfounded certainty was the confident claim by some “experts” early in the pandemic that COVID was no worse than the flu, a conclusion which ignored uncertainties in the emerging data.

2. The dodgy experts doesn’t strive to be objective

Credible experts follow a well-established and disciplined approach when communicating science. They present their understanding clearly, support it with evidence, and endeavour to remove emotion and bias from their thinking.

A core principle of scientific thinking is striving for objectivity – and language reflects this. Experts generally aim to provide high-quality information to assist the public to make informed decisions for themselves, rather than manipulating them to reach specific conclusions.

Dodgy experts often rely on overly emotional language, inject political agendas, or resort to personal attacks against critics in order to elicit strong emotions. This is a powerful tool for manipulating opinions when the evidence is lacking.

One of the most harmful examples of this is the use of emotional testimonials by dodgy experts who claim people have “beaten cancer naturally”, offering false hope and often leading patients to abandon proven treatments.

3. Dodgy experts cherry-pick evidence

Despite what those seeking to mislead you would have you believe, scientists only reach consensus when a large body of high-quality evidence points in the same direction.

So one of the most crucial skills experts possess is the ability to critically evaluate evidence. That means understanding its strengths and weaknesses, assessing its reliability, and synthesising what the full evidence base indicates. This task requires a deep understanding of their area of expertise.

Dodgy experts don’t do this. They tend to dismiss inconvenient evidence that contradicts their narrative and readily embrace flawed, or even discredited, studies. In short: they often cherry-pick evidence to suit their position.

Unfortunately, this tactic can be hard to spot if you don’t have an understanding of the full evidence base, which is something dodgy experts exploit.

A red flag that you are being misled by a dodgy expert is when there is a clear over-reliance on a single study, despite its low quality.

Perhaps the most well-known example of cherry-picking is the way dodgy experts rely on a single, discredited study to push the false claim that the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine causes autism, while ignoring the vast body of high-quality evidence that clearly shows no such link.

Read more:
Monday’s medical myth: the MMR vaccine causes autism

4. Dodgy experts don’t change their mind when the evidence changes

Dodgy experts are often rigidly attached to their beliefs, even when new evidence emerges.

In contrast, genuine experts welcome new evidence and are willing to change their views accordingly. This openness is often unfairly portrayed as weakness, but it reflects an expert’s desire to understand the world accurately.

A striking example of this is the shift in our understanding of stomach ulcers. For years, ulcers were blamed on stress and spicy food, but that changed when Australian gastroenterologist and researcher Barry Marshall, in a bold move, swallowed Helicobacter pylori to demonstrate its potential role.

His self-experiment (which is generally not recommended!) was the first step in a broader body of research that ultimately proved bacteria, not lifestyle, was the primary cause of ulcers. This ultimately led to Marshall and his colleague pathologist and researcher Robin Warren being awarded a Nobel Prize.

As this example highlights, when presented with the evidence, clinicians and scientists acknowledged they’d got the underlying cause of stomach ulcers wrong. Clinical practice subsequently improved, with doctors prescribing antibiotics to kill the ulcer-causing bacteria.

This is how science informs practice so we can continually improve health outcomes.

In a nutshell

True expertise is marked by intellectual humility, a commitment to high-quality evidence, a willingness to engage with nuance and uncertainty, flexibility, and a capacity to respectfully navigate differing opinions.

In contrast, dodgy experts claim to have all the answers, dismiss uncertainty, cherry-pick studies, personally attack those who disagree with them, and rely more on emotion and ideology than evidence.

Hassan Vally 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. When it comes to health information, who should you trust? 4 ways to spot a dodgy ‘expert’ – https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-health-information-who-should-you-trust-4-ways-to-spot-a-dodgy-expert-253437