In an election pitch last week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced new incentive payments of $10,000 for eligible apprentices in residential construction.
The federal government has committed to an ambitious target of building 1.2 million new homes over the next five years through the National Housing Accord. That means it urgently needs to boost Australia’s construction workforce.
But a recent strategic review into incentives for Australian apprentices and trainees found cost-of-living pressures were a major barrier to apprenticeship entry and completion.
Only about half of apprentices currently finish their apprenticeships.
The new program has been touted as the federal government’s initial response. It will target 62,690 apprentices and cost $627 million.
But previous attempts to attract new apprentices with cash payments have had mixed results. A similar 2023 scheme to get more tradies into “green jobs” only attracted about 2,200 sign-ups in the first year.
There are also concerns the new scheme may have unintended consequences, such as diverting talent from important sectors of the new economy – including the previous “green jobs” scheme.
From July 1, eligible apprentices in the new Housing Construction Apprenticeship Program will receive five payments of $2,000 each: after six, 12, 24 and 36 months, and upon completion. The payments are staged to encourage apprentices to complete their training.
Cash payments won’t be the only new financial incentive. There’ll also be a boost to the Living Away From Home Allowance to help cover the costs of relocating, while an increase in the Disability Australian Apprentice Wage Support payment provides financial support to employers who hire apprentices with disability.
The government’s previous attempts to address chronic labour shortages through cash incentives have had mixed results.
Introduced in 2023, the New Energy Apprenticeships Program also offers $10,000 in staged payments to apprentices in priority green roles, such as electric vehicle technicians.
Despite 2,200 apprentices joining in the first year, the program was deemed too restrictive by the industry. That was despite employers themselves receiving $15,000 per apprentice (which is also what is proposed for the construction scheme).
As part of the strategic review, the Centre for International Economics was commissioned to conduct an international literature review. It found that financial incentives such as wage or training subsidies and incentives were only “somewhat relevant” to the Australian context, and there was mixed support, at best, for their effectiveness.
A major factor behind the mixed results may be the crowding-out effect in economic theory.
This suggests that increasing public spending (by giving financial incentives) could undermine the intended effect by reducing or even eliminating private-sector investment. And it does not address apprehension among employers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, about taking on more apprentices.
More than six months after the government expanded eligibility for clean energy work, the green energy sector continues to face significant skills shortages.
While these payments may help in the long run, their staggered nature over three years won’t provide immediate relief.
The plan will likely only contribute to the government’s home-building targets by 2029, if and when more Australians enrol and complete their apprenticeships in the construction sector.
Will this have effects outside the construction industry?
More strategically, by shifting the focus from “new economy” industries outlined in the Future Made in Australia policy, this scheme risks weakening efforts to transform Australia’s economy.
The cash incentive for apprentices in home-building comes at a time when there is intense global competition for skills in “new industries”.
However, despite the many state and federal government initiatives for fee-free TAFE courses since the COVID pandemic, recently released data indicates a continued trend of long-term decline in Vocational Education and Training (VET) enrolments.
Albanese was asked about the government’s commitment to technology and digital innovation, with increasing global competition in artificial intelligence.
He responded by discussing the government’s commitment to the “new economy”.
However, the construction sector has until now not been identified as an essential part of the new economy’s priority industries by the government.
Instead, expanding incentives to construction apprentices marks a shift away from the priorities on green energy and new industries, and towards more traditional trades.
So, despite the lack of evidence that cash incentives work, and the fact they may cause unintended effects, the proposed incentive payments appear to be a pitch addressing cost-of-living/cost-of-building concerns for the upcoming election.
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.
This week the World Health Organization (WHO) released new guidelines recommending people switch the regular salt they use at home for substitutes containing less sodium.
But what exactly are these salt alternatives? And why is the WHO recommending this? Let’s take a look.
A new solution to an old problem
Advice to eat less salt (sodium chloride) is not new. It has been part of international and Australian guidelines for decades. This is because evidence clearly shows the sodium in salt can harm our health when we eat too much of it.
Excess sodium increases the risk of high blood pressure, which affects millions of Australians (around one in three adults). High blood pressure (hypertension) in turn increases the risk of heart disease, stroke and kidney disease, among other conditions.
The WHO estimates 1.9 million deaths globally each year can be attributed to eating too much salt.
The WHO recommends consuming no more than 2g of sodium daily. However people eat on average more than double this, around 4.3g a day.
In 2013, WHO member states committed to reducing population sodium intake by 30% by 2025. But cutting salt intake has proved very hard. Most countries, including Australia, will not meet the WHO’s goal for reducing sodium intake by 2025. They WHO has since set the same target for 2030.
The difficulty is that eating less salt means accepting a less salty taste. It also requires changes to established ways of preparing food. This has proved too much to ask of people making food at home, and too much for the food industry.
The main lower-sodium salt substitute is called potassium-enriched salt. This is salt where some of the sodium chloride has been replaced with potassium chloride.
Potassium is an essential mineral, playing a key role in all the body’s functions. The high potassium content of fresh fruit and vegetables is one of the main reasons they’re so good for you. While people are eating more sodium than they should, many don’t get enough potassium.
The WHO recommends a daily potassium intake of 3.5g, but on the whole, people in most countries consume significantly less than this.
Potassium-enriched salt benefits our health by cutting the amount of sodium we consume, and increasing the amount of potassium in our diets. Both help to lower blood pressure.
Switching regular salt for potassium-enriched salt has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke and premature death in large trials around the world.
Modelling studies have projected that population-wide switches to potassium-enriched salt use would prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths from cardiovascular disease (such as heart attack and stroke) each year in China and India alone.
The key advantage of switching rather than cutting salt intake is that potassium-enriched salt can be used as a direct one-for-one swap for regular salt. It looks the same, works for seasoning and in recipes, and most people don’t notice any important difference in taste.
In the largest trial of potassium-enriched salt to date, more than 90% of people were still using the product after five years.
If fully implemented, this could be one of the most consequential pieces of advice the WHO has ever provided.
Millions of strokes and heart attacks could be prevented worldwide each year with a simple switch to the way we prepare foods. But there are some obstacles to overcome before we get to this point.
First, it will be important to balance the benefits and the risks. For example, people with advanced kidney disease don’t handle potassium well and so these products are not suitable for them. This is only a small proportion of the population, but we need to ensure potassium-enriched salt products are labelled with appropriate warnings.
A key challenge will be making potassium-enriched salt more affordable and accessible. Potassium chloride is more expensive to produce than sodium chloride, and at present, potassium-enriched salt is mostly sold as a niche health product at a premium price.
If you’re looking for it, salt substitutes may also be called low-sodium salt, potassium salt, heart salt, mineral salt, or sodium-reduced salt.
A review published in 2021 found low sodium salts were marketed in only 47 countries, mostly high-income ones. Prices ranged from the same as regular salt to almost 15 times higher.
An expanded supply chain that produces much more food-grade potassium chloride will be needed to enable wider availability of the product. And we’ll need to see potassium-enriched salt on the shelves next to regular salt so it’s easy for people to find.
In countries like Australia, about 80% of the salt we eat comes from processed foods. The WHO guideline falls short by not explicitly prioritising a switch for the salt used in food manufacturing.
Stakeholders working with government to encourage food industry uptake will be essential for maximising the health benefits.
Bruce Neal receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and MTP Connect, for research on potassium-enriched salts. All funds are administered by UNSW Sydney and The George Institute for Global Health.
Xiaoyue (Luna) Xu 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.
In a fervent appeal to the global community, Prime Minister James Marape of Papua New Guinea has called on US President Donald Trump to “rethink” his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and current global climate initiatives.
Marape’s plea came during the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting held in Davos, Switzerland, on 23 January 2025.
Expressing deep concern for the impacts of climate change on Papua New Guinea and other vulnerable Pacific Island nations, Marape highlighted the dire consequences these nations face due to rising sea levels and increasingly severe weather patterns.
“The effects of climate change are not just theoretical for us; they have real, devastating impacts on our fragile economies and our way of life,” he said.
The Prime Minister emphasised that while it was within President Trump’s prerogative to prioritise American interests, withdrawing the United States — the second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide– from the Paris Agreement without implementing measures to curtail coal power production was “totally irresponsible”, Marape said.
“As a leader of a major forest and ocean nation in the Pacific region, I urge President Trump to reconsider his decision.”
He went on to point out the contradiction in the US stance.
US not closing coal plants “The United States is not shutting down any of its coal power plants yet has chosen to withdraw from critical climate efforts. This is fundamentally irresponsible.
“The science regarding our warming planet is clear — it does not lie,” he said.
Marape further articulated that as the “Leader of the Free World,” Trump had a moral obligation to engage with global climate issues.
PNG Prime Minister James Marape’s plea to President Trump. Video: PNGTV
“It is morally wrong for President Trump to disregard the pressing challenges of climate change.
He must articulate how he intends to address this critical issue,” he added, stressing that effective global leaders had a responsibility not only to their own nations but also to the planet as a whole.
In a bid to advocate for small island nations that are bearing the brunt of climate impacts, PM Marape announced plans to bring this issue to the upcoming Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).
He hopes to unify the voices of PIF member countries in a collective statement regarding the US withdrawal from climate negotiations.
US revived Pacific relations “The United States has recently revitalised its relations with the Pacific. It is discouraging to see it retreating from climate discussions that significantly affect our region’s efforts to mitigate climate change,” he said.
Prime Minister Marape reminded the international community that while larger nations might have the capacity to withstand extreme weather events such as typhoons, wildfires, and tornadoes, smaller nations like Papua New Guinea could not endure such impacts.
“For us, every storm and rising tide represents a potential crisis. Big nations can afford to navigate these challenges, but for us, the stakes are incredibly high,” he said.
Marape’s appeal underscores the urgent need for collaborative and sustained global action to combat climate change, particularly for nations like Papua New Guinea, which are disproportionately affected by environmental change.
Dotted across northern Australia are 21 saltwater crocodile farms, home to around 130,000 crocodiles. Their skins are turned into crocodile leather, long sought for use in luxury handbags, belts and other items.
While fur lost favour due to welfare concerns about animals such as mink, chinchillas and arctic foxes raised for their skins, crocodile leather has kept selling. Australia dominates the global market of saltwater crocodile skins, producing almost 60% of all such skins traded internationally.
But the industry now faces real headwinds. Major retailers and fashion events in Australia and internationally are phasing out or banning crocodile and other exotic skins due to growing concerns over animal welfare.
The Northern Territory government’s crocodile farming plan acknowledges shifting consumer demand and increasing scrutiny as the industry’s largest threat.
Early animal rights activists in the 19th century focused on feathers due to concern about the enormous environmental damage done by plume hunters killing ostriches and egrets. Only later did activists turn their focus to fur.
In the early 20th century, countries such as the United States and Britain enacted bans or restrictions on feathers. In this century, sentiment has largely turned against wearing real fur, though faux fur and vintage fur are still popular.
But even as feathers went out of fashion, new animal products were arriving. By 1928, exotic skins such as crocodile, alligator and snake began commercialisation in Europe and the US. By the 1970s, they were widely used in fashion.
That looks to be changing.
By 2026, department store David Jones will phase out all exotic skins, including ostrich, crocodile, alligator, lizard and snake. The move builds on the company’s existing animal welfare policies, which already prohibit the sale of fur, angora rabbit wool and foie gras (duck or goose liver).
The 2025 Melbourne Fashion Festival will also ban exotic leathers, while London Fashion Week will be the first of the “Big Four” fashion weeks to follow suit.
In recent years, the kangaroo leather industry has also come under pressure due to concerns over animal welfare. California banned it altogether, and a full US ban is under consideration.
Feathers are also under increasing scrutiny, with fashion weeks in Copenhagen, Helsinki and Melbourne announcing feather bans starting this year.
These decisions reflect a growing shift toward ethical fashion, driven by consumer demand and rising awareness of animal welfare.
Crocodile leather is described as an “exotic” skin, even though saltwater crocodiles are native to Australia.
Two-thirds of Australia’s skins come from the Northern Territory, while Queensland and Western Australia have smaller industries.
Crocodile farms operate by harvesting eggs from the wild and raising the animals in captivity. In the wild, they are protected from hunting. But in farms, they are legally considered stock or production animals, which means they lose these protections.
When we farm animals, it’s common to think of them as resources waiting to be used for our purposes.
But the fashion backlash suggests another way of thinking is emerging. My research points to a more animal-centric perspective on how animal-derived materials are produced for fashion.
Crocodile farms emerged as a way to protect these reptiles from being hunted to extinction. But the industry is now under increasing scrutiny. RWK007/Shutterstock
From unregulated hunting to farmed crocodiles
Skin hunters nearly drove the saltwater crocodile to extinction in Australia. An estimated 300,000 animals were killed for their skins between 1945 and 1970. Saltie populations fell as low as 3,000 animals before authorities acted.
Freshwater crocodiles, too, were hunted for their skins from 1959. After both species were protected in the 1970s, their populations rebounded.
But this agreement doesn’t rule out uses for fashion. As crocodile experts at the International Union for Conservation of Nature write:
[…] crocodile farming was seen not only as a way to reduce pressure on the wild populations, but also as a means through which commercial incentives for the conservation of crocodilians could be generated.
As the website of one Australian crocodile farm states, crocodiles are a “natural renewable resource with considerable potential for sustainable commercial use”.
By 2018, the crocodile farming industry was worth A$26.7 million to the Northern Territory’s economy. Around 100,000 juvenile crocodiles are raised annually on farms. The NT industry plans to expand in coming years, with a target of 50,000 skins annually.
Trends in fashion heavily influence how crocodiles are farmed. While saltwater crocodiles can live up to 70 years in the wild, it takes three to four years for a crocodile to reach 1.5 metres, at which point their skins can make larger fashion items.
But in recent years, crocodiles have been slaughtered at around two years. Their smaller skins are used for smaller accessories.
Welfare concerns
The crocodile farming industry promotes its sustainability and positive economic impacts on First Nations communities. But this has come under question in recent years, with the release of documentaries featuring ex-crocodile farm workers, while activists from the Farm Transparency Project flew drones over crocodile farms and released footage of slaughtering practices in an effort to increase scrutiny and draw media coverage.
This image of a crocodile in a Northern Territory farm was taken by activists using a drone. Farm Transparency Project, CC BY
Animal welfare organisations such as the RSPCA have long opposed the practice.
In 2023, the federal government announced an update of the code of humane treatment of wild and farmed crocodiles to incorporate new science and techniques, according to Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek. The updated code was expected late last year but has not been released.
In response, NT Crocodile Farmers Association chief Jodi Truman said the industry “supports independent audits to ensure humane treatment”. She added:
[…] animal rights activists have made clear that they are against all farms and the farming of all animals.
This drone image taken by animal activists shows the slaughter of crocodiles at a NT farm. Farm Transparency Project, CC BY
What’s likely to happen?
While commercial operators and governments plan to expand, there are now real barriers to the industry’s growth.
For decades, animal derived products such as fur, feathers and leather have been prized in fashion. But consumers are increasingly less comfortable with how these products are made. That’s the thing about fashion – it changes.
The author has previously been a member and lower-house candidate for the Animal Justice Party in Victoria.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Dahlen, Professor of Midwifery, Associate Dean Research and HDR, Midwifery Discipline Leader, Western Sydney University
A vaginal birth after caesarean (known as a VBAC) is when a woman who has had a caesarean has a vaginal birth down the track.
In Australia, about 12% of women have a vaginal birth for a subsequent baby after a caesarean. A VBAC is much more common in some other countries, including in several Scandinavian ones, where 45-55% of women have one.
So what’s involved? What are the risks? And who’s most likely to give birth vaginally the next time round?
What happens? What are the risks?
When a woman chooses a VBAC she is cared for much like she would during a planned vaginal birth.
However, an induction of labour is avoided as much as possible, due to the slightly increased risk of the caesarean scar opening up (known as uterine rupture). This is because the medication used in inductions can stimulate strong contractions that put a greater strain on the scar.
In fact, one of the main reasons women may be recommended to have a repeat caesarean over a vaginal birth is due to an increased chance of her caesarean scar rupturing.
This is when layers of the uterus (womb) separate and an emergency caesarean is needed to deliver the baby and repair the uterus.
Uterine rupture is rare. It occurs in about 0.2-0.7% of women with a history of a previous caesarean. A uterine rupture can also happen without a previous caesarean, but this is even rarer.
However, uterine rupture is a medical emergency. A large European study found 13% of babies died after a uterine rupture and 10% of women needed to have their uterus removed.
The risk of uterine rupture increases if women have what’s known as
complicated or classical caesarean scars, and for women who have had more than two previous caesareans.
Most care providers recommend you avoid getting pregnant again for around 12 months after a caesarean, to allow full healing of the scar and to reduce the risk of the scar rupturing.
National guidelines recommend women attempt a VBAC in hospital in case emergency care is needed after uterine rupture.
During a VBAC, recommendations are for closer monitoring of the baby’s heart rate and vigilance for abnormal pain that could indicate a rupture is happening.
If labour is not progressing, a caesarean would then usually be advised.
There are also risks with repeat caesareans. These include slower recovery, increased risks of the placenta growing abnormally in subsequent pregnancies (placenta accreta), or low in front of the cervix (placenta praevia), and being readmitted to hospital for infection.
Women reported birth trauma and post-traumatic stress more commonly after a caesarean than a vaginal birth, especially if the caesarean was not planned.
Women who had a traumatic caesarean or disrespectful care in their previous birth may choose a VBAC to prevent re-traumatisation and to try to regain control over their birth.
We looked at what happened to women
The most common reason for a caesarean section in Australia is a repeat caesarean. Our new research looked at what this means for VBAC.
We analysed data about 172,000 low-risk women who gave birth for the first time in New South Wales between 2001 and 2016.
We found women who had an initial spontaneous vaginal birth had a 91.3% chance of having subsequent vaginal births. However, if they had a caesarean, their probability of having a VBAC was 4.6% after an elective caesarean and 9% after an emergency one.
We also confirmed what national data and previous studies have shown – there are lower VBAC rates (meaning higher rates of repeat caesareans) in private hospitals compared to public hospitals.
We found the probability of subsequent elective caesarean births was higher in private hospitals (84.9%) compared to public hospitals (76.9%).
Our study did not specifically address why this might be the case. However, we know that in private hospitals women access private obstetric care and experience higher caesarean rates overall.
What increases the chance of success?
When women plan a VBAC there is a 60-80% chance of having a vaginal birth in the next birth.
The success rates are higher for women who are younger, have a lower body mass index, have had a previous vaginal birth, give birth in a home-like environment or with midwife-led care.
For instance, an Australian study found women who accessed continuity of care with a midwife were more likely to have a successful VBAC compared to having no continuity of care and seeing different care providers each time.
An Australian national survey we conducted found having continuity of care with a midwife when planning a VBAC can increase women’s sense of control and confidence, increase their chance to be upright and active in labour and result in a better relationship with their health-care provider.
With the rise of caesareans globally, including in Australia, it is more important than ever to value vaginal birth and support women to have a VBAC if this is what they choose.
Our research is also a reminder that how a woman gives birth the first time greatly influences how she gives birth after that. For too many women, this can lead to multiple caesareans, not all of them needed.
Hannah Dahlen receives funding from NHMRC, ARC and MRFF.
Hazel Keedle and Lilian Peters 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.
As rising seas lap at its shore, Tuvalu faces an existential threat. In an effort to preserve the tiny island nation in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, its government has been building a “digital twin” of the entire country.
Digital twins are exactly what they sound like – a virtual double or replica of a physical, real-world entity. Scientists have been creating digital twins of everything from molecules, to infrastructure, and even entire planets.
It’s also now possible to construct a digital twin of an individual person. In other words, a “digital doppelganger”.
A doppelganger is someone who looks spookily like you but isn’t. The word originated in German, and literally means a “double walker”. A number of industries are now using digital doppelgangers for a range of reasons. These include enhancing athletic performance, offering more personalised healthcare and improving workplace safety.
But although there are benefits to this technology, there are significant risks associated with its development. Having digital doppelgangers also forces us to reflect on which of our human attributes can’t be digitally replicated.
Modelling complex systems
The development of digital twins has been enabled by advances in environmental sensors, camera vision, augmented reality and virtual reality, as well as machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI).
A digital twin allows us to build and test things in cyberspace – cheaply and without risk – before deploying in the real world.
For example, we can build and stress-test infrastructure such as bridges or water supply pipes under a variety of conditions. Once built, we can use digital models to maintain the infrastructure proactively and prevent disastrous and costly structural breakdowns. This technology is a game-changer for planning and engineering, not only saving billions of dollars, but also supporting sustainability efforts.
Of course, replicating individual humans requires much more complex modelling than when building digital twins of bridges or buildings.
For a start, humans don’t live in a structured world, but rather inhabit complex social and physical environments. We are variable, moody and motivated by any number of factors, from hunger to tiredness, love to anger. We can change our past patterns with conscious thought, as well as act spontaneously and with creativity, challenging the status quo if needed.
Because of this, creating perfect digital twins of humans is incredibly challenging – if not impossible. Nevertheless, digital doppelgangers are still useful for a number of purposes.
The digital patient
Clinicians increasingly use scans to create virtual models of the human body, with which to plan operations or create artificial body parts.
By adding extra biometric information (for example, blood chemistry, biomechanics and physiological responses), digital models can also mirror real-world bodies, live and in real time.
Creating digital patients can optimise treatment responses in a move away from one-size-treats-all healthcare. This means drugs, dosages and rehabilitation plans can be personalised, as well as being thoroughly tested before being applied to real people.
Digital patients can also increase the accessibility of medical expertise to people living in remote locations. And what’s more, using multiple digital humans means some clinical trials can now be performed virtually.
Scaled up further, this technology allows for societal-level simulations with which to better manage public health events, such as air pollution, pandemics or tsunamis.
The digital athlete
Imagine being able to train against a digital replica of an upcoming opponent.
Sports scientists are increasingly working with digital athletes to trial and optimise strength and conditioning regimes, as well as test competitive play. This helps to increase the chances of winning as well as prevent injuries.
Researchers at Griffith University have been pioneers in this space, creating models of real athletes. They have also trialled wearable sensors in patches or smart clothing that can measure a range of biomarkers: blood pressure and chemistry, temperature, and sweat composition.
As well as building virtual replicas of sports people, scientists at CSIRO have also being building virtual simulations of employees in various workplaces, including offices and construction sites.
This is helping them analyse movements, workflows and productivity – with the broader aim of preventing workplace injuries. For example, scientists can use a model of a digital worker to assess how heavy items are lifted in order to better understand how this puts strain on different parts of the body.
With 6.1 million Australians impacted by musculoskeletal conditions, preventing workplace injuries can not only improve lives, but save the economy billions of dollars.
Building a digital doppelgangers requires a lot of very personal data. This can include scans, voice and video recordings, or performance and health data.
The power of this technology is inspiring. But ensuring a future in which we live happily alongside our digital doppelgangers will require governments, technology developers and end-users to think hard about issues of consent, ethical data management and the potential for misuse of this technology.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Professor (Practice), Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Monash University
In a major setback in the fight against gender-based violence, Argentinian President Javier Milei’s government has announced it will repeal the crime of femicide from the penal code.
In a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, Milei dismissed femicide laws as a product of “woke” culture and called “radical feminism” a distortion of the concept of equality.
Repealing the law could have a ripple effect across the region, encouraging other countries to weaken their legal protections. This would be devastating for women and girls across Latin America.
Efforts to end violence against women and girls must remain a priority — in Argentina and around the world.
In 2023 alone, an estimated 85,000 women and girls were intentionally killed worldwide. Of these, 60% were murdered by an intimate partner or family members.
This equates to one woman or girl killed every ten minutes at the hands of someone they know and likely trusted.
Why femicide laws are important
Femicide is broadly defined as the gender-based killing of women or girls, typically due to misogyny, discrimination or intimate partner violence. It differs from other homicides due to its roots in systemic gender inequality and the intent to exert control or punishment over women.
At least 18 of the 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have adopted femicide laws since 2007.
Before these laws were enacted, the killing of women and girls were treated under the broad category of homicide in many of these countries, with a focus on intent rather than the gendered nature of the crime.
These broader laws fail to recognise how inequality, abuse and power dynamics often fuel violence against women. They often render patterns of abuse invisible.
Femicide laws sought to change that. They explicitly recognise when women are killed because of their gender and acknowledge these crimes as part of a broader pattern of violence rooted in inequality.
These laws have often been introduced in response to public outrage following the killing of women and an acknowledgement of widespread inaction by authorities.
This has been seen a vital step toward justice, particularly in a region where violence against women has long been treated with relative impunity.
What countries have a femicide law?
The laws vary significantly across Latin America.
In Chile, for example, femicide applies to killings by a current or former partner.
In Costa Rica, it is similarly limited to only include killings involving a victim and perpetrator who are married or related by common law.
Ecuador, by contrast, defines femicide more broadly, focusing on power dynamics and the gendered nature of the crime, regardless of the relationship between the victim and perpetrator.
In Argentina, femicide is an aggravated form of homicide, defined as a murder committed by a man against a woman in the context of gender-based violence.
Countries beyond Latin America have been slower to adopt specific femicide laws, despite advocacy efforts for them to follow suit. In recent years, Croatia, Malta and Cyprus have all introduced specific femicide laws.
The effectiveness of femicide laws continues to be the subject of debate. There have been few comprehensive evaluations of their impact.
A 2024 report on Mexico’s femicide law highlighted that legislation alone will not prevent gender-related killings.
The report also noted that, in practice, femicide laws often focus predominantly on killings committed by intimate partners or family members. While this focus is critical, it has inadvertently led to the under-reporting and invisibility of femicides occurring in other contexts.
These include the killing of older women and deaths linked to female genital mutilation and organised crime. The killing of Indigenous women also continues to be unreported and under-investigated.
Such recognised limits do not support the repeal of femicide laws but rather underline the need for more effective implementation and embedding of these laws in society.
The benefit of femicide laws
While challenges remain in implementation and enforcement, femicide laws have brought critical change in countries where violence against women has long been ignored. By explicitly acknowledging gender, power and control as a factor in these killings, the laws send a powerful message this violence requires targeted solutions.
In several countries, for example, the introduction of femicide laws has led to the creation of specialised police units, judicial training programs and harsher penalties for these acts of violence.
Femicide laws have also improved data collection. With these laws in place, governments can better understand the scope of the issue and direct resources towards evidence-based prevention, early intervention and response mechanisms.
Without such laws, these crimes are not tracked or are misclassified.
Beyond the legal and systemic benefits, femicide laws have driven cultural change and public awareness. They have elevated the discourse on gender-related killings and reinforced the urgent need for systemic change to protect women and girls.
A step backward
Repealing Argentina’s femicide law would risk undoing years of progress. It would make these crimes less visible and send a message that tackling the crisis of violence against women and girls is not a priority. This can have a direct impact on dissuading victims from seeking justice and emboldening perpetrators.
Femicide laws represent more than legal protections. They are a commitment to accountability in societies where women’s lives have too often been disregarded.
This is not “woke”. It is a matter of justice, safety and human rights.
Kate has received funding for family violence and femicide-related research from the Australian Research Council, Australian Institute of Criminology, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, the Victorian, Queensland and ACT governments, the Commonwealth Department of Social Services and the Victorian Women’s Trust. This piece is written by Kate Fitz-Gibbon in her role at Monash University and is wholly independent of Kate Fitz-Gibbon’s role as chair of Respect Victoria.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicola Gaston, Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau
Billed as the most significant change to the science system in 30 years, last week’s announcement of major structural changes to scientific research institutions was objectively a big deal.
But the devil will be in the details. The proposed reforms are focused on the economic impact of the science sector and are based on the first of two reports from the Science System Advisory Group (SSAG).
Success will depend on how they are implemented and, most of all, on the sector receiving sufficient funding.
The government’s reforms include:
the merger of seven public Crown Research Institutes to create three larger Public Research Organisations (PROs)
the creation of a fourth new PRO focused on “advanced technology” such as artificial intelligence, synthetic biology and potentially cleantech
the disestablishment of Callaghan Innovation and the creation of a new agency called “Invest New Zealand” to target international investment
the creation of a new national intellectual property policy, meaning scientists working in PROs and in the university system are on a level playing field when it comes to commercialisation
the establishment of a Prime Minister’s Science, Innovation and Technology Advisory Council to provide strategic direction and oversight.
As the reforms move forward, the government will have to answer several questions. For example, how will the expertise relating to advanced technologies, much of which currently sits within our university sector, be moved into the new PRO?
And how will the funding model be changed as these new PROs are established?
Long running issues
Overall, the higher level changes are positive. Reforms have been a long time coming and are based on years of discussion within the crown research sector.
But we need to look at the reforms in the context of the science advisory group’s first report.
The report is strongly and deliberately focused on the potential economic impact of science and research. The authors outline how this must be supported by a properly functioning system.
According to the authors, a lack of strategy from the highest level of government is a barrier for the sector.
It is clear the advisory group recommends structural change (such as the PRO model). But it is also explicit that sufficient research funding is a necessary condition for these reforms to work:
The SSAG stands firmly of the view that our parsimonious attitude to research funding is a core reason that New Zealand has become an outlier in performance on productivity growth.
Barriers to progress
The advisory group identified certain cultural attitudes, such as New Zealand’s “number-eight wire” thinking, as a reason the country doesn’t value research as it should. The group also strongly advocated for bipartisan agreement on funding systems and investment levels.
The group had strongly positive things to say about research in the social sciences and mātauranga Māori through the lens of economic growth.
There is no debate that research into Māori culture and knowledge is an obligation of the New Zealand research system and that this should be largely determined by experts in mātauranga Māori. We will be recommending a distinct funding stream in the proposed National Research Foundation.
Unfortunately, this government’s defunding of the social sciences and humanities, announced in December, suggests it has already made its mind up on the value of these disciplines.
Missing the bigger picture
Reading the full report, there is the sense that while the government announcement has taken the most visible recommendations for change, it has missed the bigger picture: the need for sufficient funding to strengthen the sector as a whole and help New Zealand become internationally competitive.
This means we need to benchmark ourselves against other countries and their economic and scientific performance. According to the report:
The international analysis is clear: we are spending significantly less than comparable countries spend from the public purse on [research and development].
The authors emphasise that for countries with low expenditure, improved research and development activity is especially important for GDP growth. New Zealand should take note – it is an outlier both as a low investor and a poor economic performer.
These messages are not new.
Steven Joyce, science minister in the National-led government between 2011 and 2016, advocated for the National Science Challenges as a way to justify increased government investment to the sector. But issues with the implementation costs effectively killed off his promise of increased funding.
Labour’s science minister between 2022 and 2023, Ayesha Verrall, had a similar argument about needing to establish research “priorities” in order to justify increased spending. Again, it never happened.
It is possible the current reforms will be more effective in providing justification for increased investment.
But this time we need to put the horse before the cart by investing money in the system – one that has been underfunded for years and which has only recently seen further funding cuts and job losses.
And this has to happen before the system absorbs the implementation costs of these reforms.
Nicola Gaston receives funding from TEC as Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, and from the Marsden fund administered by the Royal Society Te Apārangi.
What does it mean to tell the truth? And how do we, as consumers of media, differentiate truth from fabrication? Optics, a new comedy series from the ABC, asks these questions through the setting of a public relations firm.
The show expertly balances humour with quick-wit, social media vernacular, and a level of marketing wordsmithing that make you question if the news has ever told you a true story.
The show is based in the PR firm Fritz & Randell and opens with the death of its aging CEO Frank Fritz (Peter Carroll), in a men-only board meeting no less.
After Frank’s death, the son of the cofounder, Ian Randell (Charles Firth) makes a bid for top spot. But the owner of the firm, Bobby Bahl (Claude Jabbour) is concerned with “optics”, so he puts two young women in charge instead.
Each episode follows a PR scandal, and we watch as the new heads of the company – Greta Goldman (Vic Zerbst) and Nicole Kidman (Jenna Owen) – grapple with difficult clients and, occasionally, even more difficult coworkers.
Greta and Nicole are put in charge in every way, other than with the official promotion attached.
Their young, spunky attitude and social media prowess is seen as a massive advantage. And it is. But it soon becomes apparent this move is much more than a feminist fresh-take for the firm – and is rather a bid to push some skeletons further back in the closet.
With outrageous lines such as “is there an emoji for miscarriage”, you are guaranteed an entertaining watch.
A familar cast
You will probably recognise the show’s characters, either from your own office experiences, or your friend’s stories: the ageing CEO, people who act like they know more than they actually do, and young people talking about trends who may as well be speaking a different language.
Ian, who wants to appear as if he has all the answers, seems to have no idea how to say a politically correct sentence. Greta and Nicole have such a deep knowledge of social media trends and memes that their quick banter leaves Ian with whiplash.
The PR scandals that form the basis of each episode will feel relatable to a broad Australian audience. These characters – and the bizarre situations they find themselves in – effectively parody Australian contemporary media.
Perfect timing
It should be no surprise Vic Zerbst (playing Greta), Jenna Owen (playing Nicole) and Charles Firth (playing Ian) put on a consistently convincing and funny performance.
The release of the show is also poetically timed with global conversations around online censorship, content moderation, algorithms and reliable news sources.
While focusing on a variety of PR emergencies, Optics takes us on a riveting exploration of marketing and language. For instance, one crisis involving an AFL player who drunkenly punches a priest is flipped into him learning a lesson about toxic masculinity.
We see Greta and Nicole craft apology video scripts and find convenient medical explanations for workplace outbursts.
As a social media researcher and user, their approach to an apology video felt particularity familiar to me. Their redemption strategy is one I have seen used a thousand times by social media stars and celebrities.
Two sides to each story
The show’s writers balance ideas of truth and fabrication in a way that’s not only hilarious, but also very believable. When Greta and Nicole meet with Qualitus, an airline accused of scamming their customers, the Qualitus team presents them with an alternate story of clever marketing.
In the captain’s lounge, surrounding by celebrities and the elite, Greta and Nicole negotiate deals and flip the narrative on Qualitus’ scams, helping the airline evade public scrutiny.
Optics pays homage to the work PR professionals do everyday to save reputations and negotiate what information is shared with the public and what never sees the light of day.
The show will have you questioning the stories you yourself are presented through news outlets. Further still, it will make you wonder how many hands those stories passed through before they hit the papers and screens.
Optics is streaming now on ABC iView.
Edith Jennifer Hill 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.
In October 2020, a van-sized robotic spacecraft briefly touched down on the surface of Bennu, a 525-metre-wide asteroid 320 million kilometres from Earth.
As part of NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission, the spacecraft not only spent two years orbiting and imaging the asteroid, it also collected a precious sample of dust and small rocks from Bennu’s rubbly surface.
In September 2023, a capsule containing the pristine asteroid sample returned to Earth, landing in the Utah desert in the United States.
Since then, an international team of scientists – of which we are members – have been busy studying the roughly 120 grams of material collected from Bennu.
Our findings are revealed in two new papers published in Nature and Nature Astronomy today. They indicate that water may have once been present on Bennu’s parent body, and offer new insights into the chemistry of the early Solar System.
Pristine remnants of rocks from deep time
Asteroids are fragmentary remnants of pre-existing parent bodies from early in our Solar System’s history that have since been destroyed by collisions with other objects. They orbit the Sun and come in many different shapes, sizes and chemical compositions.
Asteroid Bennu was targeted for the OSIRIS-REx mission because remote sensing observations from Earth indicated it as a B-type asteroid. These asteroids are rich in carbon and hydrated clay minerals, possibly sharing similarities to the most primitive group of meteorites on Earth, known as carbonaceous chondrites.
Unlike meteorite samples, samples collected from asteroids have not been physically or chemically modified by Earth’s atmosphere and biosphere. This allows us to tackle key questions about the evolution of the early Solar System, planet formation, and the ingredients for life.
Another aim of the OSIRIS-REx mission is to link findings from samples in the laboratory to those from remote sensing techniques. This helps us corroborate astronomical observations of asteroids to improve our surveys of the Solar System.
Curation teams process the sample return capsule from NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission in a cleanroom. Keegan Barber/NASA
Tiny crystals of salt minerals
To prevent contamination, the sealed capsule containing the sample was stored and handled in a huge glass box when it was returned to Earth. This tank had rubber gloves feeding into it from the side so scientists could handle the samples without directly touching them. It had also been purged with nitrogen to keep out moisture and oxygen from Earth’s atmosphere.
When we analysed the interior of Bennu’s dust particles, we were surprised to find tiny crystals of the salt minerals known as halite and sylvite.
This was a breakthrough discovery.
Halite is extremely rare in meteorites. It has only been found in three out of hundreds of thousands of known meteorites on Earth. We also know that halite is highly soluble. It can degrade quickly when exposed to air or water on Earth.
Other members of the OSIRIS-REx sample analysis team identified a variety of other salt minerals in the Bennu sample. These included sodium carbonates, phosphates, sulphates and fluorides.
These minerals can form by the evaporation of brines – similar to deposits that form in Earth’s salt lakes.
By comparing these results with the chemical makeup of salt lakes on Earth, a picture began to emerge of brines evaporating on the parent body of asteroid Bennu, leaving behind salts as evidence.
Tiny crystals of several minerals including sodium carbonate (pictured here) were found in samples of the asteroid Bennu. Timothy McCoy/Smithsonian
A variety of organic compounds
This discovery provides a new insight into water activity during the earliest times in our Solar System. But the presence of salt minerals is significant for another reason.
On Earth, these minerals are a catalyst for the formation of organic compounds such as nucleobases and nucleosides – the prebiotic building blocks of terrestrial biology.
And indeed, in a separate analysis of the Bennu sample, other colleagues on the OSIRIS-REx mission identified a wide variety of organic compounds present on the carbon- and nitrogen-rich asteroid.
These compounds include 14 of the 20 amino acids we also find in Earth’s biological processes. They also include several amino acids that are absent in known biology, ammonia, and all five nucleobases found in RNA and DNA.
Even though no life was detected on Bennu, the two new studies show that a briny, carbon-rich environment on Bennu’s parent body was suitable for assembling the building blocks of life.
In September 2023, a capsule containing the pristine sample from Bennu returned to Earth, landing in the Utah desert in the United States. Keegan Barber/NASA
Ongoing investigations
The findings from returned samples of asteroid Bennu may provide researchers insight into what happens on distant icy bodies in our Solar System.
Some of these bodies include Saturn’s moon Enceladus and the dwarf planet Ceres in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
Both Enceladus and Ceres have subsurface brine oceans. Could they possibly harbour life?
We are continuing to investigate Bennu using the pristine samples collected back in 2020. We are currently researching the timing of the Bennu parent body breakup event and looking for evidence of impacts recorded by various minerals in the samples.
The authors of this article acknowledge the contribution of the following people to the research at Curtin University: Fred Jourdan, Steven Reddy, David Saxey, Celia Mayers, and Xiao Sun, as well as the entire OSIRIS-REx team.
William Rickard receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australia Government
Nick Timms and Phil Bland 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.
Democracies worldwide are suffering from legitimacy problems. This is reflected in low levels of public trust in key political institutions, the polarisation of politics, and the erosion of public confidence in the capacity of governments to address societal concerns.
According to the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, only 50% of people worldwide trust their government, and the tally is even lower in many developed countries such as the United States and United Kingdom. A study by the Pew Research Center found only 20% of Americans trust their national government to do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time”.
Citizens almost everywhere view their elected officials and public institutions with suspicion. They believe decisions are made to serve special interests rather than the common good. This culture of discontentment is leading to reduced civic engagement, increased polarisation, the rise of identity politics, and a general sense of disillusionment with the political process. It has also sparked an upsurge in speculation as to whether democracy is dying, in recession or crisis.
The findings of the New Democratic Audit of Australia have just been published. They provide a timely and comprehensive evaluation of the current state of Australian democratic life.
The audit promises to bridge significant gaps in our understanding of Australia’s democracy.
A team of leading academics from universities in every state and territory deploys an audit approach to assess the democratic performance of federal, state and territory-level political institutions. It then examines how they have enabled or undermined Australian political life.
For instance, the monopoly of Australian governance by Coalition and Labor parties has only just begun to adjust to growing disillusionment with the two-party system.
To date, Australia has successfully avoided both rancorous populist politics (as in the US) and serious governance decline (as in the UK). However, the Voice to Parliament referendum and continued pandering to regressive immigration policies suggests populism could well be on the rise.
So what did the New Democratic Audit find?
Democracy under stress
1. Declining public trust in government. Trust in Australian political institutions is in decline. Only 30% of Australians report trust in government officials, according to the Australian Election Study.
The main concerns driving the decline in trust are lack of transparency in decision-making, perceptions of public sector inefficiency, political corruption, and the disconnection between politicians and citizens. Australians also express concerns about poor communication of policies. Furthermore, they believe governments have failed to deliver solutions to pressing issues such as the cost of living, wage stagnation and climate action.
A significant proportion of the population believes the country has become more divided. Major sources of division are the perception of the rich and powerful as a major dividing force (72%), followed by hostile foreign governments (69%), journalists (51%), and government leaders (49%).
2. Strong public satisfaction with democracy. Despite low trust in government, the 2024 World Values Survey shows that support for democratic values in Australia — such as free and fair elections, the rule of law, and representative democracy — remains strong. There is also a growing emphasis post-pandemic on the need for governments to address long-term challenges such as climate change and income inequality.
3. Australia is viewed internationally as a leading liberal democracy. Despite the challenges, Australia is assessed in most global rankings as one of the leading liberal democracies, with continuous economic growth, a strong federal system, and competitive elections. Its institutions have generally performed well, even in the face of global challenges such as the COVID pandemic. Australia is classed as one of only 24 “full democracies”.
4. The “protective power of democracy” is under pressure. The audit emphasises economist Amartya Sen’s concept of the “protective power of democracy as critical to achieving high quality democratic governance”. This relies on four components: electoral integrity, participatory opportunities, liberal values and good democratic governance.
5. Electoral integrity. Australia’s elections are free and fair, thanks to an independent election commission. However, concerns about government advertising and political donations undermine the fairness of elections, giving incumbent governments an advantage.
6. Public participation. Australia performs poorly in facilitating citizen participation beyond voting. Opportunities for civil society engagement, through localism, citizen juries or assemblies, are limited. Parliaments at various levels are not adequately representative in terms of gender and ethnicity, and regional policy concerns are often ignored.
7. Liberal values. Australia has made improvements in protecting civil rights, especially concerning LGBTQ+ issues and gender equality. But there remain significant gaps in protecting the rights of the most vulnerable groups, including Indigenous communities, differently abled people, and refugees. Australia lacks a comprehensive charter of human rights, and there are ongoing issues with the erosion of civil liberties.
8. Good democratic governance. This component refers to the instrumental importance of governments being responsible and accountable, responsive to the needs of the citizenry in service terms, and free from corruption. This is where the performance or supply of government matters most.
The audit finds Australia’s institutions are generally effective and adaptive, as seen in responses to the bushfires and the COVID pandemic. However, the federal government wields disproportionate power, which undermines traditional checks and balances. Public perception of corruption in politics and the public sector is also a growing public concern.
Reimagining Australian democracy
The audit concludes that Australia remains a full democracy, but faces critical challenges that require reflection and reinvention.
To renew its democracy, Australia must make its system of government more representative, accountable and responsive to the needs of citizens. There is a need for a stronger focus on integrity in politics, ensuring governments act transparently, empathetically and in ways that deliver tangible outcomes for the public. Public dissatisfaction with political corruption, inefficiency and a lack of responsiveness must be addressed to restore trust in political institutions.
While Australia continues to be a leading democracy, it faces pressing challenges that could undermine the sustainability of its democratic institutions if not addressed. The audit calls for a period of democratic reinvention, with an emphasis on improving governance to better serve citizens and maintain public trust in democracy.
The New Democratic Audit is free for download at: https://press.lse.ac.uk/site/books/e/10.31389/lsepress.ada/
Mark Evans has received funding and in-kind support to complete democratic audits in the United Kingdom (Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust) and Australia (Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House, Canberra).
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karin Hammarberg, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Global and Women’s Health, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University
Every now and then we see media reports about celebrities in their mid 40s having surprise pregnancies. Or you might hear stories like these from friends or relatives, or see them on TV.
Menopause signals the end of a woman’s reproductive years and happens naturally between age 45 and 55 (the average is 51). After 12 months with no periods, a woman is considered postmenopausal.
While the chance of pregnancy is very low in the years leading up to menopause – the so called menopausal transition or perimenopause – the chance is not zero.
So, what do we know about the chance of conceiving naturally after age 45? And what are the risks?
Is there a spike in fertility before menopause?
The hormonal changes that accompany perimenopause cause changes to the menstrual cycle pattern, and some have suggested there can be a “surge” in fertility at perimenopause. But there’s no evidence this exists.
In the years leading up to menopause, a woman’s periods often become irregular, and she might have some of the common symptoms of menopause such as hot flushes and night sweats.
This might lead women to think they have hit menopause and can’t get pregnant anymore. But while pregnancy in a woman in her mid 40s is significantly less likely compared to a woman in her 20s or 30s, it’s still possible.
The stats for natural pregnancies after age 45
Although women in their mid- to late 40s sometimes have “miracle babies”, the chance of pregnancy is minimal in the five to ten years leading up to menopause.
The monthly chance of pregnancy in a woman aged 30 is about 20%. By age 40 it’s less than 5% and by age 45 the chance is negligible.
We don’t know exactly how many women become pregnant in their mid to late 40s, as many pregnancies at this age miscarry. The risk of miscarriage increases from 10% in women in their 20s to more than 50% in women aged 45 years or older. Also, for personal or medical reasons some pregnancies are terminated.
According to a review of demographic data on age when women had their final birth across several countries, the median age was 38.6 years. But the range of ages reported for last birth in the reviewed studies showed a small proportion of women give birth after age 45.
Having had many children before seems to increase the odds of giving birth after age 45. A study of 209 women in Israel who had conceived spontaneously and given birth after age 45 found 81% had already had six or more deliveries and almost half had had 11 or more previous deliveries.
There’s no reliable data on how common births after age 45 are in Australia. The most recent report on births in Australia show that about 5% of babies are born to women aged 40 years or older.
However, most of those were likely born to women aged between 40 and 45. Also, the data includes women who conceive with assisted reproductive technologies, including with the use of donor eggs. For women in their 40s, using eggs donated by a younger woman significantly increases their chance of having a baby with IVF.
What to be aware of if you experience a late unexpected pregnancy
A surprise pregnancy late in life often comes as a shock and deciding what to do can be difficult.
Depending on their personal circumstances, some women decide to terminate the pregnancy. Contrary to the stereotype that abortions are most common among very young women, women aged 40–44 are more likely to have an abortion than women aged 15–19.
This may in part be explained by the fact older women are up to ten times more likely to have a fetus with chromosomal abnormalities.
There are some extra risks involved in pregnancy when the mother is older. More than half of pregnancies in women aged 45 and older end in miscarriage and some are terminated if prenatal testing shows the fetus has the wrong number of chromosomes.
This is because at that age, most eggs have chromosomal abnormalities. For example, the risk of having a pregnancy affected by Down syndrome is one in 86 at age 40 compared to one in 1,250 at age 20.
Apart from the increased risk of chromosomal abnormalities, advanced maternal age also increases the risk of stillbirth, fetal growth restriction (when the unborn baby doesn’t grow properly), preterm birth, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes and caesarean section.
However, it’s important to remember that since the overall risk of all these things is small, even with an increase, the risk is still small and most babies born to older mothers are born healthy.
Multiple births are also more common in older women than in younger women. This is because older women are more likely to release more than one egg if and when they ovulate.
A study of all births in England and Wales found women aged 45 and over were the most likely to have a multiple birth.
The risks of babies being born prematurely and having health complications are higher in twin than singleton pregnancies, and the risks are highest in women of advanced maternal age.
What if you want to become pregnant in your 40s?
If you’re keen to avoid pregnancy during perimenopause, it’s recommended you use contraception.
But if you want to get pregnant in your 40s, there are some things you can do to boost your chance of conceiving and having a healthy baby.
If you get good news, talking to a doctor about what to expect and how to best manage a pregnancy in your 40s can help you be prepared and will allow you to get personalised advice based on your health and circumstances.
Karin Hammarberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A golden bandicoot (_Isoodon auratus_)Colleen Sims/Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, CC BY-SA
Before species go extinct, their populations often shrink and become isolated. Healthy populations tend to have a large gene pool with many genetic variants circulating. But the path to extinction erodes genetic diversity, because a species’ gene pool shrinks as the population declines. Losing genetic diversity limits the ability of populations to adapt to threats such as disease and climate change.
So, what is the state of genetic diversity in animals, plants, fungi and algae worldwide? And how could focusing on this crucial level of biodiversity help build resilience in the face of global change? We explore these questions in our new study, published today in Nature.
Our team of 57 scientists from 20 countries trawled through more than 80,000 scientific articles across three decades to summarise evidence of genetic change in populations in 141 countries.
Alarmingly, we found genetic diversity is being lost globally across many species, especially birds and mammals. This loss was most severe in studies reporting changes in habitat, new diseases, natural disasters, and human activities such as hunting or logging.
But there’s hope. Our study suggests conservation strategies can help maintain or even increase genetic diversity.
Isolated populations of the endangered Scandinavian arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) have become inbred. Jonatan Pie, Unsplash
What is genetic diversity and why does it matter?
At the core of every cell lies a copy of the instruction manual for living things. This is the genetic code, made up of DNA molecules. But its sequence varies enormously, separating a moth from a tree from a bacterium. Even within a species, we see distinct genetic differences between individuals. These genetic differences contribute to differences in their traits, which is why we get individuals who are taller or shorter, faster or slower, bolder or more cautious.
This genetic diversity stems from mutations. Often, these mutations are not helpful. But at times, they can enable populations to adapt to change.
For example, golden kelp (Ecklonia radiata) likes colder water. But in a population, some individuals will have mutations suited for warm water. When a devastating marine heatwave hit the West Australian coast in 2011, individuals with warm-water mutations were more likely to survive and reproduce. This genetic diversity enabled the kelp population to adapt to the warmer conditions.
This is why genetic diversity is so important – it gives species more resilience in a rapidly changing world. This priority has been recognised in Australia’s Strategy for Nature, and in goals and targets discussed at the United Nations biodiversity summit COP16.
How can we safeguard or restore genetic diversity for threatened species?
To answer this question, we used a technique called meta-analysis to look for patterns. From more than 80,000 published articles, we identified 882 studies which measured changes in genetic diversity over time. These studies came from right around the globe and across the entire “tree of life”.
They show there are many ways to conserve genetic diversity. Here are five promising strategies to help keep species resilient.
Scientists from 20 countries came together to read thousands of papers and collect data on genetic diversity during in-person and online workshops. Robyn Shaw
Action 1: Adding individuals
Adding individuals to an existing population is known as supplementation. Our research found supplementation was the only action linked to a significant increase in genetic diversity, especially in birds.
Supplementation can help reduce the harmful effects of inbreeding, which is common in small, isolated populations. For example, conservationists working to safeguard New Zealand’s South Island robins (Petroica australis) moved female birds between isolated islands. The offspring of parents from different islands had stronger immune systems, higher survival rates, and improved reproductive health compared to their inbred counterparts.
Supplementation is key for boosting genetic diversity, improving population health and building resilience.
Action 2: Population control
Doing the opposite – removing individuals – can actually improve outcomes for the population as a whole in some circumstances, by, for instance, reducing competition.
But genetic diversity results varied a lot in studies using population control. So how can this strategy be used effectively?
In one case, conservationists in the United States used population control of coaster brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in a hatchery to prevent any single family from breeding too much. This meant multiple genetic lineages were maintained, increasing genetic diversity.
Action 3: Restoration
Ecosystem restoration can include planting trees, rehabilitating wetlands or restoring natural patterns of fire and water. We found genetic diversity was often maintained over time when ecological restoration was used.
Restoration efforts, alongside supplementation, are important to the survival of the greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), which had lost much habitat. Researchers report restoring and expanding suitable habitat is proving crucial to sustain genetic diversity and achieving long-term recovery.
Found in the US and Canada, greater prairie-chickens are known for their courtship dance. Danita Delimont/Shutterstock
Action 4: Control of other species
Feral, pest or overabundant species can outcompete, eat, or graze on species under threat. Controlling these species was linked to maintenance of genetic diversity in the studies we analysed overall.
For example, control of red fox numbers helped the Arctic fox(Vulpes lagopu) recover in Sweden. The technique reduced competition over resources such as food while new foxes from Norway were added to the wild population. Inbreeding was reduced, and survival improved.
Action 5: Conservation introductions and reintroductions
Establishing new populations at new sites is known as a conservation introduction, while a reintroduction means restoring populations where they previously existed.
We found mixed results for genetic diversity when these actions were reported. So, what factors contribute to success?
In Western Australia, a large number of golden bandicoots (Isoodon auratus) from a robust island population were reintroduced to three sites. After six generations, genetic diversity at these sites remained similar to the original source population. Success came from careful planning to ensure the new populations had a large gene pool to start from.
Overall, our study revealed many cases of genetic diversity loss. But we also found evidence that conservation action – especially supplementation – can improve the genetic health of a species.
Researchers, conservation managers and volunteers helped grow seedlings and establish new populations of the critically endangered feather-leaved banksia near Albany in Western Australia. David Coates
What can you do?
Supporting genetic diversity can be done at home.
If you have a garden, you can plant native species to support habitat connectivity.
Growing heirloom vegetables and rare fruit trees, or breeding heritage chooks can maintain genetic diversity in our food system.
Join community or botanic garden groups, or work with conservation groups to improve habitat or bolster numbers of threatened species.
While enjoying nature, avoid accidentally moving plants, seeds, or soil to new areas to reduce the spread of pests and diseases.
These small actions add up, helping to safeguard biodiversity at all levels – including genetic diversity.
Robyn Shaw was supported during the study by funding from the Australian Research Council. The project workshop was sponsored by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology Action ‘Genomic Biodiversity Knowledge for Resilient Ecosystems’. She is a member of the Coalition for Conservation Genetics and the IUCN Conservation Genetics Specialist Group.
Catherine Grueber’s research into the conservation genetics of threatened species receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the University of Sydney (Robinson Fellowship). She is a member of the Coalition for Conservation Genetics, and the IUCN Conservation Genetics Specialist Group.
Katherine Farquharson was supported during the study by funding from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Innovations in Peptide and Protein Science. She is affiliated with Koala Conservation Australia.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darcy Watchorn, Threatened Species Biologist, Wildlife Conservation & Science Department, Zoos Victoria, and Visiting Scholar, School of Life & Environmental Science, Deakin University
Darcy Watchorn
It’s a cold, drizzly night in a forest west of Melbourne. I’m sitting on a damp log, clutching a thermos of lukewarm tea and watching a koala snooze on a branch above me. Suddenly, it lifts its head. I sit up straight, pen poised to record what happens. But the koala simply yawns and resumes the blob position. I sigh and take another sip of tea.
Why am I doing this? To research the social behaviour of koalas and hopefully learn more about what they do at night, when they are most active.
After many nights, and many sips of tea, I witness something truly unexpected: male koalas engaging in affectionate behaviours with each other, such as play and grooming. I was shocked. Adult koalas are normally solitary, so observations such as this are exceedingly rare.
My new research paper presents these findings. It provides the most detailed account of these behaviours to date, and offers a unique glimpse into how social dynamics between koalas may change when they are forced to live in close quarters.
An adult female koala (right) and her very large joey (left) on a tree in Cape Otway, Victoria Darcy Watchorn
Why are these behaviours so surprising?
Most animals exhibit some type of social behaviour. These can include mating, vocalising to communicate, or defending their territory. But some highly social, group-living animals – such as wolves, primates and dolphins – will also display friendly and peaceful acts between individuals, such as grooming each other and playing.
These are known as “affiliative” behaviours, and they are key to social relationships between animals, and to maintaining complex social hierarchies.
Adult koalas, though, are generally solitary (except, obviously, when mating). They are usually widely spread over an area and rarely come face-to-face, instead interacting over long distances by vocalising and leaving their scent.
And when male koalas do physically interact, it is usually a violent affair. More than once, I’ve seen male koalas scratched and bloodied — missing chunks of fur and even a claw — after fighting with a rival male.
That’s why my observations of affection between young male koalas were so surprising.
What I saw after dark
Over three painstaking weeks, I studied a koala population in the woodlands of Cape Otway, southern Victoria. Each night, I went out between 9pm and 2am to track and observe the males. I used a red-light spotlight to avoid disturbing them. If I saw something interesting, I filmed it. You can watch the video below.
After two weeks, I observed three males engaging in unexpected “affiliative” behaviours. They were grooming each other, sniffing each other’s genitals and vocalising to each other in soft, high-pitched calls, similar to the sounds baby koalas make.
They also appeared to be playing. They would gently — but perhaps provocatively — bite one another on the arm and ear, a bit like cheeky puppies do.
These interactions weren’t brief, either. I watched the koalas for two hours before finally giving in to sleep. When I went back at lunchtime the next day, they were still at it.
What’s behind these affectionate behaviours?
This type of social interaction between wild koalas had only been observed once before, more than 30 years ago, in a high-density koala population on French Island off Victoria.
Like that earlier observation, the koalas I recorded were young adult males, roughly aged between three and five years. Hormonal activity can surge at this life stage, leading to an increase in social behaviours such as play and boldness.
But if the affectionate behaviours were solely the result of teenage hormones, you’d expect it to be observed more often in many koalas in this age group. But that’s not the case.
Instead, these behaviours are most likely a result of the large koala populations.
Typically, fewer than two koalas are found per hectare. At Cape Otway, there were 15 koalas per hectare. This number can reach up to 20 in parts of South Australia and Victoria.
This high density means the home ranges of koalas are more likely to overlap and their interactions will be more frequent. It also means competition for food, space and mates can be especially high.
So young males might use affectionate behaviours — such as grooming and playing — to reduce conflict and manage stress. It may help individuals become familiar with their neighbours, establish hierarchies and avoid aggressive encounters.
Genetics may also play a role. Like many high-density koala populations, this population had low genetic diversity, meaning there was a high degree of relatedness among individuals.
The causes of low genetic diversity in high-density koala populations are complex. The species was almost hunted to extinction. This meant a vastly reduced number of koalas could pass on their genes to the next generation. To make matters worse, habitat destruction can prevent koalas from dispersing over a wide area.
Koalas are listed as endangered in New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT. But high-density koala populations, such as the one I observed in Cape Otway, also present major conservation challenges.
Too many koalas feeding in an area puts pressure on preferred tree species. This can result in mass tree death, and habitat loss for koalas and other species. In some cases, koalas can starve.
Unfortunately, there are no quick and easy solutions to this issue. Moving koalas from crowded areas to places where they are endangered often isn’t possible, due to differences in climate and the unique gut bacteria koalas need for their local food trees.
Other interventions, such as fertility control, can be effective. But this takes many years of intensive effort and significant funding, making it vulnerable to budget cuts and shifting priorities.
Some experts say culling could be used to control koala numbers and conserve the surrounding habitat, as it is for kangaroos. However, this is likely to draw widespread public opposition.
These complex challenges offer an unexpected silver lining, however. As my experience shows, high-density koala populations provide unique opportunities to observe rare social behaviours in this iconic species. All you need is curiosity, a big cup of tea, and patience.
Darcy Watchorn works for Zoos Victoria, a not-for-profit zoo-based conservation organisation. He is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia, the Australian Mammal Society, and the Society for Conservation Biology.
The start of the school year means some parents will asking a big question: is it time for a child’s first phone?
Safety concerns, particularly around travel to and from school, or being home after school without a parent, often drive this decision. There can also be huge social pressure if many of a child’s friends have a phone.
But it doesn’t have to be inevitable. How can you tell if your child is ready for a smartphone? What are the alternatives? And how do you set achievable, healthy boundaries if your child does get a phone?
Why a phone is a big decision
Many parents will be aware of the concerns about children’s wellbeing around technology, including potential harms to mental health, if they are exposed to inappropriate content, bullying or simply use the phone too much.
Having a phone can pose risks to your child if they are not ready for it. Body Stock/ Shutterstock
How do you know if your child is ready for a phone?
Appropriate phone ownership does not necessarily depend on a child’s age but on a child’s readiness and family circumstances.
Recent studies show children who receive phones based on readiness rather than age show better long-term digital habits. These include managing the constant distraction of phones and good judgement around the content they regularly browse and engage with.
You can look at a child’s child’s readiness for a phone in several ways:
how responsible are they with the technology they already use?
do they follow family guidelines around screen time?
how willing are they to discuss their online experiences with you? Do they come to you if there is a problem or something they don’t understand?
do they have a basic understanding of digital privacy and security?
what’s their decision-making like offline? What are they like with family, friends and other responsibilities?
Non-phone options
If you decide yes, your child is ready, they don’t necessarily have to go straight to a smartphone with all the bells, whistles and apps.
For basic safety requirements, such as travel to school, a smartwatch or basic phone can allow your child to receive and make calls and texts, but without accessing the internet.
If you want to prioritise social connection (so a child isn’t left out with friends), you could might start with a shared family tablet featuring supervised messaging apps. This allows children to maintain friendships within set boundaries.
Instead of a smart phone for your child you could start with a smart watch. NADKI/ Shutterstock
How to manage the transition to a phone
As children demonstrate growing independence and digital maturity, they can progress to restricted smartphones with parental controls, gradually earning more privileges through demonstrated responsibility.
Or your child you have a smartphone with regular “check ins”. Here parents and the child discuss and review common challenges such as managing notifications, apps the child is permitted to use and where the phone can be used.
This approach acknowledges full smartphone access isn’t an immediate necessity but rather the final stage in a thoughtful digital progression.
Research indicates families who implement this graduated approach report fewer conflicts around technology as well as better long-term digital habits in their children.
The key lies in matching technology access to genuine needs rather than perceived social pressure, while maintaining clear boundaries and open communication.
3 vital ‘new phone’ conversations to have
Even though many schools now have phone restrictions during school hours, planning for healthy use outside of school is extremely important.
There are three vital “new phone” conversations to have with your child, to make sure things get off to the right start.
1. Friend requests: these can be over the top and often overwhelm children and parents. You do not have to say yes to all of them. Decide how to manage the continuous stream of requests and how to cull unnecessary contacts.
2. Screen time: there will likely be a “screentime spike” when your child gets their own device. This is exacerbated by the constant temptation to just zone out and browse content. Decide together on workable “no-tech” times and zones in the home. For example, no phones in the car and no phones after 9pm, or restrictions on browsable content such as YouTube or Tiktok. Parents can assist children to use in-built screentime features in the phone that shut down such apps during restriction times.
3. Notifications: because of multiple group chats and new friends, there will be never-ending pings and notifications. This will encourage even more screen time, sometimes well into the night. Go into the phone settings with your child and together decide which notifications to turn off (ideally, most of them). This will mean children have fewer distractions and more sleep, and the entire household will be more peaceful.
Joanne Orlando receives funding from eSafety Commissioner.
During the pandemic, midwives faced what researchers call a “pragmatic paradox” – a situation where contradictory demands are imposed on individuals who can neither refuse nor fulfil the demands.
Midwives needed to care for women and babies despite the risk of infecting them with the virus. Their experiences shed important light on how we can think about no-win situations in the workplace.
In our recently published research, we surveyed 215 New Zealand midwives about their experiences of working through COVID lockdowns and how they coped with what felt at times like a no-win situation.
The absurdity of contradictory demands
Pragmatic paradoxes place workers in absurd, no-win situations. They can occur simply because of leadership issues or glitches in management bureaucracies. They can also happen during unique crises – such as the pandemic.
But many workers are so used to feeling powerless that they may not recognise – much less question – the absurdity of contradictory demands.
When the pandemic struck, midwives’ professional roles suddenly entailed an inherent contradiction they had no opportunity to question.
They were contractually obligated to protect societal wellbeing by providing ongoing maternity services. Yet due to the fast evolving situation and initial shortages of safety equipment, providing those services entailed risking public wellbeing by exposing themselves and their clients to the virus.
As one of our research participants explained:
I felt that I was in a very difficult situation. I was connecting with multiple “bubbles” on a daily basis. I was scared that I could be in a position to pass COVID on to vulnerable people.
As expected, most midwives in our study felt disempowered by the tensions of this situation:
I felt extremely vulnerable. As a lead maternity carer midwife, considered an essential service, I had no control over whether I could just not work.
But surprisingly, a small number of midwives were seemingly motivated by it. As one explained,
[My family] thought I was “brave” and “courageous” to keep working – but this was simply my job! I felt like I had a duty to pregnant women to front up and continue as per normal.
During the pandemic, midwives faced a pragmatic paradox – they were expected to enter multiple people’s homes while also preventing the spread of COVID-19. metamorworks/Shutterstock
Recognised and supported?
Why would some midwives feel motivated by their contractual obligations to fulfil contradictory demands?
The crux, we found, was not whether they were aware of the contradiction inherent in their situation, but whether that awareness was accompanied by a sense of professional recognition and support.
If midwives felt like they were recognised and supported in their ongoing efforts – like valuable members in the “team of five million” – they framed and accepted their contradictory situation as part of a societal duty.
Midwives placed particular importance on recognition and support from the government and the public. As one explained,
I felt the love. Heading out on the motorway I would see the sign thanking essential workers. And the government was always mentioning us and thanking us.
In contrast, if they felt like health system leaders and the public were oblivious to their situation, they interpreted contradictory work demands as stressful and disempowering.
Another midwife said,
I became very angry and felt midwives were like lambs to the slaughter – we had no PPE, we were being told to carry on working, in the media we were invisible. Our professional body seemed to put the women we cared for ahead of our wellbeing.
Managing pragmatic paradoxes
There are two ways to look at the implications of our findings. One is to suggest pragmatic paradoxes are not as bad as they initially seem.
Contradictions abound in contemporary society, so it may be inevitable people face conflicting yet unrefusable demands in their jobs. But if leaders and managers can motivate workers to embrace those demands – or at least recognise the difficulty of the tasks – the outcome can be positive.
An alternative reading is workers who feel motivated by pragmatic paradoxes are casualties of something akin to gaslighting. According to this logic, contradictory demands are imposed by those at the top of their respective organisations and societies, so that’s where the demands ought to be dealt with.
For example, the government could have minimised the risks midwives faced during the pandemic by better access to protective equipment, thereby resolving their contradictory situation. Suggesting contradictory demands should be passed down to lower-level workers is therefore equivalent to accepting a certain level of oppression.
Whichever interpretation resonates more, our research underscores the importance of communication as a means of ensuring workers are not disempowered by pragmatic paradoxes.
Over the course of the pandemic, healthcare workers worldwide eventually improved their contradictory situation by posting on social media and talking to the press. Political leaders and health management recognised the workforce needed greater support to navigate the contradictory demands of risking wellbeing to protect wellbeing.
The broader lesson is when people face contradictory directives, they should be able to discuss and challenge them.
Research suggests that in interpersonal situations, humour may be an effective means of doing so without directly threatening the power or competence of those in charge.
Of course, this brings us to one final paradox: that encouraging humour and employee voice requires fostering the type of environment where pragmatic paradoxes are unlikely to thrive in the first place.
Tago Mharapara receives funding from Auckland University of Technology
James Greenslade-Yeats 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.
So what is vitamin B6, where is it found and how much is too much? Here’s what you need to know about this essential nutrient.
What is vitamin B6?
Vitamin B6 (also known as pyridoxine) is a group of six compounds that share a similar chemical structure.
It is an essential nutrient, meaning we need it for normal body functions, but we can’t produce it ourselves.
Adults aged 19–50 need 1.3mg of vitamin B6 per day. The recommended dose is lower for teens and children, and higher for those aged 51 and over (1.7mg for men and 1.5mg for women) and people who are breastfeeding or pregnant (1.9mg).
Most of us get this in our diet – largely from animal products, including meat, dairy and eggs.
The vitamin is also available in a range of different plant foods, including spinach, kale, bananas and potatoes, so deficiency is rare, even for vegetarians and vegans.
The vitamin B6 we consume in the diet is inactive, meaning the body can’t use it. To activate B6, the liver transforms it into a compound called pyridoxal-5’-phosphate (PLP).
In this form, vitamin B6 helps the body with more than 140 cellular functions, including building and breaking down proteins, producing red blood cells, regulating blood sugar and supporting brain function.
Despite being readily available in the diet, vitamin B6 is also widely included in various supplements, multivitamins and other products, such as Berocca and energy drinks.
Vitamin B6 toxicity is extremely rare. It almost never occurs from dietary intake alone, unless there is a genetic disorders or disease that stops nutrient absorption (such as coeliac disease).
This is because all eight vitamins in the B group are water-soluble. If you consume more of the vitamin than your body needs, it can be excreted readily and harmlessly in your urine.
However, in some rare cases, excessive vitamin B6 accumulates in the blood, resulting in a condition called peripheral neuropathy. We’re still not sure why this occurs in some people but not others.
Peripheral neuropathy occurs when the sensory nerves – those outside our brain and spinal cord that send information to the central nervous system – are damaged and unable to function. This can be caused by a wide range of diseases (and is most well known in type 2 diabetes).
The most common symptoms are numbness and tingling, though in some cases patients may experience difficulty with balance or walking.
We don’t know exactly how excess vitamin B6 causes peripheral neuropathy, but it is thought to interfere with how the neurotransmitter GABA sends signals to the sensory nerves.
Vitamin B6 can cause permanent damage to nerves. Studies have shown symptoms improved when the person stopped taking the supplement, although they didn’t completely resolve.
What is considered excessive? And has this changed?
Until 2022, only products with more than 50mg of vitamin B6 were required to display a warning about peripheral neuropathy. But the Therapeutic Goods Administration lowered this and now requires any product containing more than 10mg of vitamin B6 to carry a warning.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration has also halved the daily upper limit of vitamin B6 a product can provide – from 200mg to 100mg.
These changes followed a review by the administration, after receiving 32 reports of peripheral neuropathy in people taking supplements. Two thirds of these people were taking less than 50mg of vitamin B6.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration acknowledges the risk varies between individuals and a lot is unknown. Its review could not identify a minimum dose, duration of use or patient risk factors.
But I thought B vitamins were good for me?
Too much of anything can cause problems.
The updated guidelines are likely to significantly lower the risk of toxicity. They also make consumers more aware of which products contain B6, and the risks.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration will continue to monitor evidence and revise guidelines if necessary.
While vitamin B6 toxicity remains very rare, there are still many questions about why some people get peripheral neuropathy with lower dose supplements.
It could be that some specific vitamin B compounds have a stronger effect, or some people may have genetic vulnerabilities or diseases which put them at higher risk.
So what should I do?
Most people don’t need to actively seek vitamin B6 in supplements.
However, many reports to the Therapeutic Goods Administration were of vitamin B6 being added to supplements labelled as magnesium or zinc – and some weren’t aware they were consuming it.
It is important to always check the label if you are taking a new medicine or supplement, especially if it hasn’t been explicitly prescribed by a health-care professional.
Be particularly cautious if you are taking multiple supplements. While one multivitamin is unlikely to cause an issue, adding a magnesium supplement for cramping, or a zinc supplement for cold and flu symptoms, may cause an excessive vitamin B6 dose over time, and increase your risk.
Importantly, pay attention to symptoms that may indicate peripheral neuropathy, such as pins and needles, numbness, or pain in the feet or hands, if you do change or add a supplement.
Most importantly, if you need advice, you should talk to your doctor, dietitian or pharmacist.
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.
The Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company DeepSeek has rattled the tech industry with the release of free, cheaply made AI models that compete with the best US products such as ChatGPT.
Users are rushing to check out the new chatbot, sending DeepSeek’s AI Assistant to the top of the iPhone and Android app charts in many countries.
However, authorities have sounded a note of caution. US officials are examining the app’s “national security implications”. Australia’s former cybersecurity minister said national security agencies will soon issue formal guidance for users.
Why are governments and security experts so concerned? The main issue is the app is made in China and stores data there – but that doesn’t mean all the worry is just xenophobia.
What information does DeepSeek record?
DeepSeek does not appear to be spyware, in the sense it doesn’t seem to be collecting data without your consent. However, like many online services, it clearly tells you it will record a lot of data about you and your behaviour.
Specifically, the company’s privacy policy says it collects three categories of information.
First, there is information you provide directly, such as your name and email address and any text you type in or files you upload.
Next, there is automatically collected information, such as what kind of device you are using, your IP address, details of how you use the services, cookies, and payment information.
Finally, there is information from other sources, such as Apple or Google login services, or third-party advertising and analytics companies.
This is broadly similar to the data collected by ChatGPT and Claude.
What does DeepSeek do with the information?
DeepSeek says it uses this information for a range of purposes: to provide services, enforce terms of use, communicate with users, and review and improve performance.
The policy also contains a rather sweeping clause saying the company may use the information to “comply with our legal obligations, or as necessary to perform tasks in the public interest, or to protect the vital interests of our users and other people”.
DeepSeek also says it may share this information with third parties, including advertising and analytics companies as well as “law enforcement agencies, public authorities, copyright holders, or other third parties”.
DeepSeek will also keep the information “for as long as necessary” for a broad range of purposes.
Again, this is all fairly standard practice for modern online services.
Causes for concern
Much of the cause for concern around DeepSeek comes from the fact the company is based in China, vulnerable to Chinese cyber criminals and subject to Chinese law.
DeepSeek stores the information it collects “in secure servers located in the People’s Republic of China”. The company says it maintains “commercially reasonable technical, administrative, and physical security measures” to protect the information.
However, we should keep in mind that China is one of the most cyber crime-prone countries in the world – ranking third behind Russia and Ukraine in a 2024 study.
So even if DeepSeek does not intentionally disclose information, there is still a considerable risk it will be accessed by nefarious actors.
China is home to a sophisticated ecosystem of cyber crime organisations that often build detailed profiles of potential targets. Microsoft and others have accused the Chinese government of collaborating with cybercrime networks on cybercrime attacks.
These organisations can use personal information to craft convincing targeted phishing attacks, which try to trick people into revealing more sensitive information such as bank details.
Should you download DeepSeek?
So, should you download DeepSeek?
If you are an experienced user who is familiar with online privacy and the capabilities of modern AI systems, go ahead – but proceed with caution and be very wary about what information you share.
And if you’re less experienced – if you’re a casual user who is less internet-savvy – my expert advice is to stay well away. DeepSeek won’t give you much you can’t get from other chatbots such as ChatGPT or Claude, and it might make your data vulnerable to Chinese cyber criminals and subject to Chinese law.
Mohiuddin Ahmed 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.
Tens of thousands of fish have died off northwestern Australia, as a large and long-lasting marine heatwave intensifies.
The fish kill at Gnoorea Beach near Karratha is concerning our team of scientists, as the hot mass of water heads south towards Ningaloo Reef and the seagrass gardens in Shark Bay. That’s because we’ve seen this before. An enormous marine heatwave in 2010-11 devastated fisheries and ecosystems further down the WA coast.
This marine heatwave began in September, with temperatures up to 3°C warmer than usual off Broome. There’s no end in sight.
The heatwave comes as oceans worldwide experience recordbreaking heat, driven by climate change. More than 90% of all heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the oceans.
The fish kill is a visible way to glimpse a disaster often out of sight and out of mind. But these marine heatwaves do much more, from wiping out seagrass meadows and kelp beds to trashing fisheries.
Marine heatwaves are periods of at least five consecutive days when ocean temperatures are significantly higher than the long-term average for the region and season.
Since September 2024, temperatures off Australia’s northwest coast have been high enough to be considered a heatwave.
In late December, the area of hotter water expanded southward along the Pilbara coast and became more intense. Temperatures hit 4–5°C above normal at the surface. Our research group has gathered data from satellite measurements, which tells us it’s hotter than usual. Data from autonomous ocean gliders also show unusual levels of heat as far down as 200 metres.
In January, this heatwave has become bad enough to be classified in some areas as a severe marine heatwave.
There’s no relief in sight yet. The Bureau of Meteorology forecasts marine heatwave conditions to continue through February.
On the left, the marine heatwave on the Northwest Shelf is visible in dark red. On the right, the intensity of the heatwave is shown over time on the Northwest Shelf and further south in Central Western Australia. Author provided, CC BY
Will it be worse than the 2010 heatwave?
The current marine heatwave is, so far, the second-worst in Western Australia’s recorded history.
Over the 2010–11 summer, a severe marine heatwave devastated seas off the state. Temperatures hit up to 5°C above average, peaking in February and March.
The worst-hit areas were seas off the central West Australian coastline, leaving those to the north largely unaffected. But the heatwave stretched 2,000 kilometres, from the Pilbara all the way down to Denmark in the southwest.
The reason the 2010 heatwave spread so far south was due to the Leeuwin Current, which was stronger than usual due to weak southerly winds linked to a low pressure system off the coast.
The 2010-11 marine heatwave hit Central West Australian waters hardest. The Leeuwin Current ferried heat southward. Author provided, CC BY
The heat led to local extinction of kelp species along a 100km stretch of coastline. Scallop and blue swimmer crab fisheries had to close. Seagrass meadows in Shark Bay collapsed. Tropical species were sighted in new areas. And coral bleached at Ningaloo.
By contrast, this current marine heatwave has concentrated on the northern coastline, but may spread south in coming weeks.
Unfortunately, there are strong similarities between the 2010–11 heatwave and this one. Both occurred during a La Niña year.
A similar low pressure system in December 2024 weakened southerly winds during this heatwave, though not as pronounced as in 2010-11. We can expect to see the Leeuwin Current intensify and carry more warm water than usual south, but perhaps not as far as in 2010–11.
Weather systems at present are developing slightly differently to 2010–11, but they could still lead to weaker southerly winds and produce a stronger current channelling heat.
What does this mean for ocean life?
Marine heatwaves at this size and intensity can profoundly damage marine ecosystems and fisheries. The Karratha fish kill is the most visible sign of ecosystem distress.
We have already seen signs of bleaching in the coral reefs of the Kimberley region, while corals are experiencing heat stress at world-famous Ningaloo Reef.
The heat is now affecting the Gascoyne region between Carnarvon and Exmouth, and is likely to head further south.
Damage from the heatwave could threaten valuable industries such as the rock lobster fishery and marine tourism on the Coral Coast.
Bleached corals in Cygnet Bay north of Broome. Photo taken on 16th January. Kayleigh Foste, CC BY
More heatwaves will come
As the climate changes, modelling indicates marine heatwaves will hit more often and to intensify.
Worldwide, marine heatwaves have devastated ecosystems. One of the worst, the Pacific “blob” heatwave of 2014-2016, killed an estimated 100 million Pacific cod and four million birds from a single seabird species, as well as contributing to the starvation of about 7,000 humpback whales. The intense heat killed off cold-loving species and paved the way for tropical species to enter and even thrive.
While there is a clear link between the 2010-11 marine heatwave and climate change, we cannot conclusively say this current heatwave off Western Australia is linked to climate change.
That’s because we don’t have enough data about what’s happening under the surface. Temperatures in the ocean vary greatly by depth, and a hot surface doesn’t always mean heat has reached deeper water.
So while we know a marine heatwave is in progress, we don’t know how bad it is or how far down the heat has reached in different regions. We need better ways to measure temperatures at depth, to be able to gauge how bad a heatwave is. Installing more temperature sensors along the WA coastline would allow us to better monitor and respond to temperature extremes.
The earlier we know about a heatwave, the more we can do to prepare. The 2010-2011 heatwave made many people aware of what damage heat can do to an ocean, as fishing boats sat idle and tourists steered clear of dying coral.
More, and worse, is likely to come. Better conservation and management of our oceans can help. But tackling the root cause of intensifying heat – unchecked greenhouse gas emissions – is still far and away the most important challenge.
Matt Rayson receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Western Australian government. .
Nicole L. Jones receives funding from Australian Research Council and the Western Australian government.
Sina Pinter 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.
A Twenty20 cricket contest featuring a women’s team made up of refugees from Afghanistan who now live in Australia may “only” be an exhibition game, but it could be the beginning of something much more.
It is the first time the women will play as a team since migrating to Australia after the Taliban takeover in 2021. The group has since settled in Canberra and Melbourne.
Regardless of the result, it could be a step towards Afghanistan’s women’s team entering international cricket.
Before I explain why, though, it’s important to rewind a bit.
International cricket and Afghanistan
The International Cricket Council (ICC) claims it has “one of the toughest” policies on anti-discrimination in world sport.
promote and encourage participation at all levels regardless of race, colour, religion, descent, culture, ethnic origin, nationality, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability, marital status and/or maternity status and to ensure that there is no discrimination in the sport.
In the case of its member federation, the Afghanistan Cricket Board, the ICC’s refusal to uphold its own policy is providing both actual and implied support to the Taliban’s gender apartheid regime.
The ICC admitted Afghanistan as a full voting member in 2017, despite being “the only full member to have received that status without having an operational women’s team in place.”
As a full member, Afghanistan was, according to the ICC’s funds disbursement model: “expected to get around $US40 million ($A64 million) for the 2016-23 commercial rights cycle based on projected ICC revenues of $US2.7 billion ($A4.32 billion).”
Meanwhile, the other ICC, the International Criminal Court, recently issued arrest warrants against two of the Taliban leaders for crimes against women.
The Taliban’s policies against women go far beyond sport and make it more reason for the International Cricket Council to act.
On any reading, the ICC’s membership rules on governance ethics requirements in relation to Afghanistan are in breach.
From Afghanistan to Australia
Ironically, it was the Afghanistan Cricket Board’s reluctant and token measure taken to build a women’s team, by issuing contracts to 25 women in 2020, that has allowed them to now play cricket in Australia.
In August 2021, the Taliban took over Afghanistan and banned women’s sports. Athletes were intimidated, harassed and warned of ramifications if they continued playing.
That situation sparked action from a handful of passionate volunteers, including myself, ex-Australian cricketer Mel Jones, and Emma Staples (formerly the head of diversity and community engagement at Cricket Victoria). We knew we needed to get these women out of Afghanistan.
We applied to the Australian government to issue emergency humanitarian visas to the contracted women’s cricketers, with the applications granted.
Now, all they want is a chance to represent their country as a team, and to send a message of hope back to their sisters suffering under the oppression of Afghan gender apartheid.
Put simply, the Afghan women’s team is desperate to be given the same opportunities as its male counterparts.
It’s not clear what its terms of reference are, or if they have even met.
Possible solutions
Cricket Australia has chosen not to play bilateral matches against Afghanistan, citing the Taliban’s human rights restrictions for women and girls since returning to power.
But boycotts often impact athletes more than government policies.
Instead, the focus should be on supporting Afghan women who want to play cricket. The ICC could implement targeted actions including:
replacing Afghanistan’s cricket board with ICC-appointed administrators, including women
adjusting Afghanistan’s funding to reflect they are only developing cricket for less than half the population
setting up a global development fund for Afghan girls and women to identify talent and to provide coaching.
There are several international sport models – for example, FIFA’s Normalisation Committees and the IOC’s independence requirements – that could serve as models for the ICC requiring Afghanistan’s Cricket Board to comply with the its anti-discrimination policies.
A chance to compete
On Thursday, these Afghan women finally get to play as a team, in the exhibition game organised by Cricket Australia.
The team is keen for this to be an ongoing opportunity to develop skills and represent their nation, not just a one-time event.
The Olympic movement’s model of refugee teams could inspire the creation of a refugee team for Afghan women in cricket, allowing them to participate in future youth and summer Olympic Games and other competitions.
Catherine Ordway voluntarily represented the Afghan women’s cricket team to evacuate them to Australia following the Taliban re-occupation in August 2021, and continues to provide ongoing support to the women, the staff and their families.
The release of the new DeepSeek-R1 artificial intelligence (AI) model has shocked the tech world.
Launched on January 20 with little fanfare, the Chinese AI model was reportedly developed at only a fraction of the cost of OpenAI’s GPT-4o, and over a much shorter period of time. One Chinese commentator has called its release a “Pearl Harbor attack” on the AI world.
Though the reference to an “attack” may be a strong word, it alludes to the growing competition between the United States and China over dominance in the AI sphere, which the US had been leading thus far.
Indeed, people across China were celebrating a homegrown success story on Wednesday, as DeepSeek’s AI app soared to the top of the Apple and Google stores in the US.
So, what does the emergence of DeepSeek’s model say about US-China competition in this space?
Chinese government control
First, DeepSeek’s success is undoubtedly sending a message to the Chinese government that excessive control kills innovation.
Until mid-2023, enthusiasm for innovation in China’s tech companies had been stifled by increasingly restrictive regulations. The Chinese government had embarked on a sweeping crackdown of tech companies like Alibaba and others in order to prevent the spread of rampant entrepreneurial capitalism in China.
The launch of ChatGPT in 2023 promised to open up exciting new frontiers for the development of AI in the West. But it must have come as a rude shock to China’s tech companies. The Chinese government changed tact and reassured them that it recognised the crucial role of the digital economy as a key driver of economic growth. It soon began to relax its tight grip over the sector.
But the elephant in the room is how DeepSeek – and China’s AI companies in general – will deal with censorship.
As it stands, politically sensitive words and questions seem to be no-go areas for DeepSeek. When asked what happened on June 4 1989 in Tiananmen Square (the site of the government’s crackdown on democracy protesters), the chatbot’s answer was along the lines of, “Sorry, that’s beyond my current scope. Let’s talk about something else.”
This raises the question: can a Chinese AI tool be truly competitive in the global tech race without a solution to the challenge of censorship?
US efforts to contain Chinese tech development
Meanwhile, the US has adopted a wide array of measures aiming at curbing China’s AI development over the past few years. These included the Biden administration’s attempts to restrict China’s access to the advanced chips needed for AI, as well as the export of chip-making equipment and other technology to China.
The US has also blacklisted a large number of Chinese entities that it has identified as having both military and commercial technology.
The launch of DeepSeek raises questions over the effectiveness of these US attempts to “de-risk” from China in relation to scientific and academic collaboration.
For one, DeepSeek was able to evade US restrictions on advanced chips by stockpiling downgraded chips made by Nvidia before the Biden administration moved to ban them.
Western observers have often portrayed China’s AI initiatives as limited due to these US controls. However, these observers have somehow failed to take seriously the emergence of a new generation of Chinese entrepreneurs who prioritise foundational research and long-term technological advancement over quick profits.
DeepSeek is a good example of this approach. It has embraced open-source methods, pooling collective expertise and fostering collaborative innovation. This approach not only mitigates resource constraints, but also accelerates the development of cutting-edge technologies.
Another common assumption in the West is that Chinese companies are mere followers or imitators. DeepSeek’s achievements likewise challenge this perception. As the company’s chief executive, Liang Wenfeng, said to one Chinese media outlet:
Innovation such as ours happens all the time in the US. The Americans are surprised by us, mainly because we are a Chinese company, and we are entering their game as an innovator with original contribution, not as followers.
DeepSeek’s success also calls into question the legislation supported by both the Biden and Trump administrations that aims to prevent Chinese graduate students from attending universities in the US.
The assumption behind what researchers call “STEM talent de-coupling” is that the Chinese government may use some of these students to engage in knowledge and technology transfer when they return to China.
Liang, however, never studied outside China. And he recruited graduates and students from top Chinese universities to staff his research team. None studied overseas.
These developers belong to a generation of young, patriotic Chinese who harbour personal ambition, as well as a broader commitment to advancing China’s position as a global innovation leader.
What does this mean for Australia?
In Australia, the initial reaction to DeepSeek’s AI chatbot has been one of
caution, even concern. Clare O’Neil, the former cyber security minister, said the government would examine more closely how the app works before providing guidance to Australians on potential data security concerns.
But DeepSeek may also be a reminder that Australia’s scientific collaborations should be guided primarily by research excellence rather than geopolitical considerations. To stay competitive and reduce its reliance on external technology providers, Australia needs to invest in its own AI research infrastructure and build its own talent pool.
A narrow focus on political alignments and a growing paranoia about partnering with Chinese researchers means that Australia risks missing out on the next wave of breakthrough technologies.
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.
A national Palestine advocacy group has hit back at critics of its “genocide hotline” campaign against soldiers involved in Israel’s war against Gaza, saying New Zealand should be actively following international law.
“Why is concern for the sensitivities of soldiers from a genocidal Israeli campaign more important than condemning the genocide itself?,” asked PSNA national chair John Minto in a statement.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters, the Chief Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow and the New Zealand Jewish Council have made statements “protecting” Israeli soldiers who come to New Zealand on “rest and recreation” from the industrial-scale killing of 47,000 Palestinians in Gaza until a truce went into force on January 19.
“We are not surprised to see such a predictable lineup of apologists for Israel and its genocide in Gaza from lining up to attack a PSNA campaign with false smears of anti-semitism,” Minto said.
He said that over 16 months Peters had done “absolutely nothing” to put any pressure on Israel to end its genocidal behaviour.
“But he is full of bluff and bluster and outright lies to denounce those who demand Israel be held to account.”
Deny illegal settler visas Minto said that if Peters was doing his job as Foreign Minister, he would not only stop Israeli soldiers coming to Aotearoa New Zealand — as with Russian soldiers in the Ukraine war — he would also deny visas to any Israeli with an address in an illegal Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
“Our campaign has nothing to do with Israelis or Jews — it is a campaign to stop Israeli soldiers coming here for rest and recreation after a campaign of wholesale killing of Palestinians in Gaza,” Minto said.
“To imply the campaign is targeting Jews is disgusting and despicable.
“Some of the soldiers will be Druse, some Palestinian Arabs and others will be Jews.”
The five-year-old Palestinian girl Hind Rajab, shot 355 times by Israeli soldiers on 29 January 2024. Image: @Onlyloren/Instagram
Israeli soldiers are facing a growing risk of being arrested abroad for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza, with around 50 criminal complaints filed so far in courts in several countries around the world.
Earlier this month, a former Israeli soldier abruptly ended his holiday in Brazil and was “smuggled” out of the country after a Federal Court ordered police to open a war crimes investigation against him. The man fled to Argentina.
A complaint lodged by the Belgium-based Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) included more than 500 pages of court records linking the suspect to the demolition of civilian homes in Gaza.
‘Historic’ court ruling against soldier The foundation called the Brazilian court’s decision “historic”, saying it marked a significant precedent for a member country of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to enforce Rome Statute provisions domestically in the 15-month Israeli war on Gaza.
The foundation is named in honour of five-year-old Palestinian girl Hind Rajab who was killed on 29 January 2024 by Israel soldiers while pleading for help in a car after her six family members were dead.
According to The New Arab, the foundation has so far tracked and sent the names of 1000 Israeli soldiers to the ICC and Interpol, and has been pursuing legal cases in a number of countries, including Belgium, Brazil, Cyprus, France, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.
In November, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, together with a former Hamas commander, citing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Minto accused the New Zealand Jewish Council of being “deeply racist” and said it regularly “makes a meal of false smears of anti-semitism”.
“It’s deeply problematic that this Jewish Council strategy takes attention away from the real anti-semitism which exists in New Zealand and around the world.
“The priority of the Jewish Council is to protect Israel from criticism and protect it from accountability for its apartheid policies, ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Australia’s headline inflation rate dropped to a three-year low of 2.4% in the December quarter, according to the Consumer Price Index, adding to pressure for an interest rate cut by the Reserve Bank as soon as next month.
Since it peaked at 7.8% in December 2022, inflation has now fallen for seven out of eight quarters.
The closely watched core inflation measure dropped sharply to 3.2% from 3.6%, below market expectations, but the central bank is concerned about how sustainable the fall in inflation will be. Strength in the labour market is also weighing against the need for a cut in interest rates.
The long-running quarterly measure of the CPI is a better indicator than the more volatile monthly version. But the monthly rate is currently very similar; it ended the year at 2.5%.
Why did inflation fall?
A main reason headline inflation fell was the electricity rebates, which led to the price of electricity falling by 25.2% during 2024.
The fall in global oil prices, which led to petrol prices dropping 7.9% during 2024, also contributed to the decline in inflation.
The rental market is easing, with rents slowing from growth of 7.3% during 2023 to 6.4% during 2024. Increases in Commonwealth Rent Assistance contributed to the deceleration. This still leaves a lot of families facing rental stress.
Home builders offering discounts have moderated the “new dwellings” component of the CPI. It increased by only 2.9% during 2024, a marked deceleration from the growth rates of around 20% seen in 2022.
Urban transport fares also fell during 2024.
Working against the downward trend were increases to the tobacco excise, in addition to the standard indexation, which led to tobacco prices rising by 12.2% during 2024.
Insurance costs continue to rise, increasing by 11% during 2024. If the Californian fires lead to insurers revising up their assessment of the risks posed by climate change, insurance premia could rise further.
The decline in the Australian dollar, while not as alarming as some media reports would suggest, would have added to the price of some goods, particularly those imported from the United States or whose price is denominated in US dollars.
The “underlying” rate of inflation, which looks through temporary measures such as the electricity subsidies and is the preferred measure of the central bank, has also declined. It is now 3.2%.
Australia’s inflation performance is similar to that in comparable countries. It is slightly lower than inflation in the United Kingdom (2.5%) and the same as in the euro area. It is higher than in New Zealand (2.2%) and Canada (1.8%).
The fall in inflation to a rate significantly below the 3.5% at which wages are increasing means that the cost of living crisis is abating, although not yet over.
The quarterly increases in the CPI during 2024 were 1.0% in March and June and 0.2% in September and December. As the large increases in the first half of 2024 are replaced, the annual rate should drop further in coming quarters.
What does it mean for interest rates?
The current Reserve Bank board meets next on February 18. By the following meeting, on April 1, the decisions will be taken by the new monetary policy board, which will have two new members.
This is the second consecutive quarter that inflation has been within the Reserve Bank’s medium-term target band of 2–3%. It is now just below the mid-point of the band.
Inflation is also below the Bank’s latest forecasts of 2.6% (and 3.4% for the “underlying” rate).
But the bank has stated it will only cut interest rates when “members are confident that inflation is moving sustainably towards target”.
Inflation that is low just because of temporary electricity subsidies may not be regarded as ‘sustainable’. That is why the Bank places more emphasis on the underlying inflation measure. While not yet within the target band, underlying inflation has been steadily heading there and is now only just above it. This may be enough to give the Bank board members the confidence they seek. Financial markets now think so.
The government would dearly like to see rates coming down before the election, likely to be in April or May. It faces a nervous wait.
John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist at the Reserve Bank and Treasury.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Hurley, Lecturer in Criminology. Police and policing. Dept of Security Studies & Criminology, Macquarie University
When you watch the news, one phrase usually comes up as soon as crime is mentioned: “police have established a crime scene”.
If you’re a fan of the forensics crime drama CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, it will conjure up images of police waving a blue, fluorescent UV light in a darkened room looking for blood, saliva, fingerprints, footprints or tooth impressions.
CSI has influenced an entire generation – this year, the franchise will celebrate its 25th anniversary. But the reality of crime scene investigation is far more complex.
As a criminology lecturer and ex-police officer, I know a thing or two about crime scenes, having managed hundreds of them. I have even been a crime scene myself. Here’s what they really entail.
There’s usually more than one crime scene
In the early 20th century, French forensic science pioneer Edmond Locard noted it’s impossible for criminals to act “without leaving traces of this presence”. No matter where a criminal steps or what they touch, they leave behind, even unconsciously, evidence that serves as a silent witness against them.
The idea that criminals will leave something behind at the crime scene while taking something with them is known today as Locard’s principle.
Crime scenes are incredibly diverse. They don’t just involve the physical location. A person’s body and any objects found in relation to the crime are also part of a crime scene.
The primary crime scene is where the event took place – for example, where a murder, arson attack or drive-by shooting occurred.
There will be several additional crime scenes, too. In the course of the investigation, a second crime scene might be established where the criminal planned the crime. If they dumped a getaway vehicle, that’s a third crime scene. If they stashed a weapon, clothes or other objects in a safe house after the crime, that’s a fourth crime scene.
A fifth crime scene will be established when the criminal is arrested – they themselves are also a crime scene. Their hair, clothing and fingernails will be tested for various residues, such as the skin or blood of a victim, or even illicit substances if the crime involves drug trafficking.
Lastly, the victim is a crime scene, too. They may have body fluids, skin, hair and other material from the criminal on them.
In my detective career, I myself have been a crime scene when I found a badly injured abduction victim who collapsed in my arms. At that point, traces of the offender’s blood and hair transferred onto my clothing. I had to take the clothes off and they were kept as evidence.
Shows like CSI often portray crime scenes as neat and clear cut, with evidence easily obtained.
In reality, crime scenes are chaotic. They are full of clutter and the police don’t know what’s relevant and what’s not.
During a crime scene search, police have to speculate about what happened, as often there are no eyewitnesses. A bullet casing or a bloody knife would be obvious. But what of the more common household items in the house or room? Who owns the shirt or jumper? Why is the bedroom in disarray, is that normal? What did the criminal touch or not touch? Was there just one criminal or two? What belongs to the victim?
Unlike on TV, police don’t always know what they are looking for because often they don’t know how the crime occurred. The cause of a death can be obvious, but how it unfolded is not.
Crime scenes are fragile
With a murder on a TV show, the CSI team usually arrives at a home or an outdoor crime scene, surrounded by crime scene tape. The first thing they do is lift the tape and walk straight to the body.
This is the worst possible crime scene practice.
The detectives would be walking directly on and over the same entry or exit path the offenders used. This would destroy fragile microscopic residues of blood, dirt or plant vegetation.
In reality, walking in and out of a crime scene this way does not happen. Prior to entering any crime scene, police look around and try to figure out which way the offender may have come and gone.
Once weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of each option, they’ll pick a specific entry and exit point, and stick to that until the scene has been completely examined.
Lifting the police tape and walking straight to the body is bad practice – the tape is there for a reason. Gordenkoff/Shutterstock
A systematic search – and not just for DNA
Crime scenes are also searched in different ways.
One way to ensure no evidence is missed is with a “grid and height” search. This means searching one square metre at a time. As the police get closer to the walls of the room, they start looking from the floor up to the height of their knees.
Once this is done, they go from their knee to their waist, then from their waist to their shoulder, then their shoulder to the top of their head, and then from the top of their head to a metre above it – until they reach the ceiling. Then they examine the ceiling.
Police don’t look solely for the holy grail of DNA. Rather, they are trying to piece together a jigsaw puzzle of what happened, why it happened, and what the criminal unintentionally left behind.
Decades of forensic TV dramas have resulted in the “CSI effect” – the idea that finding, collecting and analysing evidence at a crime scene is straightforward, and that the evidence is infallible. This is not so. But shows like CSI have also spawned a generation of people interested in becoming real crime scene investigators and forensic scientists.
Vincent Hurley 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.
US President Donald Trump isn’t happy about the way some countries are taxing American citizens and companies. He has made clear he’s willing to retaliate, threatening to double taxes for their own citizens and companies.
Can Trump really do that, unilaterally, as president? It turns out he can, under a 90-year-old provision of the US tax code – Section 891.
In an executive memo signed on January 20 outlining his “America First Trade Policy”, Trump instructed US Treasury to:
investigate whether any foreign country subjects United States citizens or corporations to discriminatory or extraterritorial taxes pursuant to Section 891 of Title 26, United States Code.
A sweeping power
Section 891 of the US Internal Revenue Code is short, but it is in sweeping terms.
If the president finds that US citizens or corporations are being subjected to “discriminatory or extraterritorial taxes” under the laws of any foreign country, he “shall so proclaim” this. US income tax rates on the citizens or corporations of that country are then automatically doubled.
The extra tax that could be collected is capped at 80% of the US taxable income of the taxpayer. The president can revoke a proclamation, if the foreign country reverses its “discriminatory or extraterritorial” taxation.
Section 891 is an extraordinary provision – but it has never been applied. As far as I know, no other country has legislated such a rule. Importantly, it would only apply to a person or business subject to income taxation by the US.
Take, for example, a foreign national earning a wage in the US. If this individual’s home country became subject to a proclamation under Section 891, their individual tax rate in the US would be doubled – to as much as 74%.
A foreign company earning taxable profits in the US would face a doubling of the company tax rate from 21% to 42%.
A bit of history
A version of Section 891 has been in the US tax code since 1934, an earlier troubled time of tax disputes and economic depression.
It was signed into law by Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt on May 10 1934, amid a tax dispute between the US and France.
US President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Section 891 into law in 1934, putting pressure on France to end a tax dispute. Vincenzo Laviosa/Wikimedia Commons
According to US tax historian Joseph Thorndike, the move followed attempts by France to levy additional taxes on US companies operating there, beginning in the mid-1920s.
France had tried to use an 1873 law to tax US companies operating in France on profits earned in the parent company back in the US, and in other subsidiaries around the world, not just the French company profits.
The aim was to counter international profit-shifting, which could be used to reduce the tax payable by US subsidiaries operating in France by claiming deductions or shifting income to other group companies outside France.
The dispute was long-standing and France tried to assess taxes going back decades for some US companies. The potentially massive tax bill (it seems the tax was never actually collected) became a geopolitical issue, and the companies asked the US government to intervene on their behalf.
Thorndike explains that a bilateral tax treaty was negotiated between the US and France to remedy this “double tax” situation. But the French legislature refused to ratify it.
In retaliation, US Congress passed Section 891, and six months later, France ratified its bilateral tax treaty with the US.
Parallels with today
In 1934, there were no digital multinational enterprises like Meta or Google. But that tax dispute nevertheless has parallels with modern concerns about taxing companies internationally.
The French government was trying, with a rather heavy hand, to counter international profit-shifting by large US multinationals.
Section 891 was re-enacted in later US tax codes, up to today, with minor amendments and no attempt to invoke it. It has remained in the background as a potential exercise of US fiscal and market power, supported by both sides of US politics.
Tax professor Itai Grinberg, who worked in the Biden administration on the OECD tax deal, suggested it could be applied to the European Union decision that taxes Apple in Ireland.
The US tech giants are only the latest in a long line of powerful American multinational corporations. Tada Images/Shutterstock
What might Trump do?
President Trump has specifically targeted the OECD global tax negotiations with this threat, just a month after Australia has legislated the global minimum tax under “Pillar Two” of the OECD Global Tax Deal.
The OECD deal aims to ensure large multinational enterprises pay a minimum 15% effective tax rate in all the jurisdictions in which they operate, by applying a top-up tax and under-taxed profit tax.
Trump asserted in a memorandum that the OECD Global Tax Deal is “extraterritorial”, instructing the US Secretary of the Treasury and the US Trade Representative to investigate it.
Could Australia be singled out?
Trump’s memorandum also ordered an investigation into “other discriminatory foreign tax practices” that may harm US companies.
This includes whether any foreign countries are not complying with their US tax treaties or have, or are likely to put in place, any tax rules that “disproportionately affect American companies”.
Under this proposal, digital platforms (many of which are US-owned) would have to pay a new levy, which could be offset if they negotiate or renew deals with Australian news media publishers to pay for hosting news content.
Section 891 could apply to such taxes if they were found by Trump to be “discriminatory” against US companies. What “discriminatory” means is not clear.
Its been suggested that foreign citizens or companies could be protected from Section 891 by their country’s tax treaty with the US, under the standard approach that a later treaty prevails over an older code section. But Australia’s tax treaty with the US took effect in 1983, before the most recent re-enactment of Section 891 in the US tax code.
Miranda Stewart receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Miranda is on the Permanent Scientific Committee of the International Fiscal Association.
Do schools and trees mix? You may have memories of shady playing areas and shelter belts by playing fields, but our recent study suggests this is increasingly an exception rather than a rule.
Trees are often seen as a health and safety risk, whether from branches or the whole thing falling, or from children falling out of them. Many schools have banned pupils from climbing trees as a result.
Beyond that, trees are often seen as an optional “nice to have”. New Zealand’s current education minister criticised extensive landscaping and bespoke design when announcing a review of school properties in early 2024.
But the benefits of trees and other vegetation in urban areas are well known, and increasingly important as housing density increases. Schools can play a significant role in encouraging the growth of “urban forests”.
Unfortunately, there are also large differences in tree canopy cover in New Zealand cities (and elsewhere in the world), with low socioeconomic areas often having low tree canopy cover.
Very little is known about green spaces on local school grounds. So, our research set out to survey the quantity and quality of green spaces in 64 urban primary schools in Auckland.
We conducted the survey in the context of several known factors about the role and place of nature in education:
greening a school improves children’s appreciation for their daily environment and increases social wellbeing
highly vegetated schools provide a big opportunity to boost physical and mental health benefits for children, particularly in suburbs with low tree canopy cover
trees and other vegetation can improve air quality at school, provide shade and UV protection from the sun.
Because schools are fairly evenly distributed throughout cities, and can have a large spatial footprint, there’s also an opportunity to enhance wider native biodiversity, create ecological corridors and maintain cultural connections.
Fields but few trees
Unfortunately, our survey found the green spaces of most Auckland primary schools are dominated by sports fields.
While it’s good news that children have access to these, adding trees and shrubs around the edges of the fields could provide many benefits without compromising existing play spaces.
Native biodiversity was also lacking. In fact, 33% of school ground contained environmental weeds, such as woolly nightshade. There were also many more introduced plant species than native species, and most schools lacked a shrub layer.
The most common native tree by far was pōhutakawa. But planting a monoculture of pōhutakawa is a big risk if a disease (such as myrtle rust) has a big impact on that species.
Diversity is key. Planting other native species such as pūriri, karaka, rewarewa or tītoki would increase plant diversity, attract native birds and other species, as well as provide sun shade.
Room for improvement
There was some good news, however. Of the 64 schools surveyed, 36% had a forest patch. This gives the children access to an outdoor learning resource that may be lacking from their immediate neighbourhood.
It was heartening to find every school had at least one species associated with weaving, with both harakeke and tī kōuka present at 83% of schools.
If this was a report card, Auckland’s school green spaces would not be high-achieving. But there are plenty of opportunities to improve. Adding more diversity, more native plants, and planting trees around the edges of sports fields will provide a wealth of benefits to both children and the city’s overall biodiversity.
Using outdoor spaces for learning will increase natural and cultural connections and improve children’s wellbeing. That is much more than a “nice to have”.
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.
What will happen to Australia — and New Zealand — once the superpower that has been followed into endless battles, the United States, finally unravels?
With President Donald Trump now into his second week in the White House, horrific fires have continued to rage across Los Angeles and the details of Elon Musk’s allegedly dodgy Twitter takeover began to emerge, the world sits anxiously by.
The consequences of a second Trump term will reverberate globally, not only among Western nations. But given the deeply entrenched Americanisation of much of the Western world, this is about how it will navigate the after-shocks once the United States finally unravels — for unravel it surely will.
Leading with chaos Now that the world’s biggest superpower and war machine has a deranged criminal at the helm — for a second time — none of us know the lengths to which Trump (and his puppet masters) will go as his fingers brush dangerously close to the nuclear codes. Will he be more emboldened?
The signs are certainly there.
President Donald Trump 2.0 . . . will his cruelty towards migrants and refugees escalate, matched only by his fuelling of racial division? Image: ABC News screenshot IA
So far, Trump — who had already led the insurrection of a democratically elected government — has threatened to exit the nuclear arms pact with Russia, talked up a trade war with China and declared “all hell will break out” in the Middle East if Hamas hadn’t returned the Israeli hostages.
Will his cruelty towards migrants and refugees escalate, matched only by his fuelling of racial division?
This, too, appears to be already happening.
Trump’s rants leading up to his inauguration last week had been a steady stream of crazed declarations, each one more unhinged than the last.
Denial of catastrophic climate consequences And will Trump be in even further denial over the catastrophic consequences of climate change than during his last term? Even as Los Angeles grapples with a still climbing death toll of 25 lives lost, 12,000 homes, businesses and other structures destroyed and 16,425 hectares (about the size of Washington DC) wiped out so far in the latest climactic disaster?
The fires are, of course, symptomatic of the many years of criminal negligence on global warming. But since Trump instead accused California officials of “prioritising environmental policies over public safety” while his buddy and head of government “efficiency”, Musk blamed black firefighters for the fires, it would appear so.
Will the madman, for surely he is one, also gift even greater protections to oligarchs like Musk?
“…pave the way for my Administration to dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure Federal agencies”.
So, this too is already happening.
All of these actions will combine to create a scenario of destruction that will see the implosion of the US as we know it, though the details are yet to emerge.
The flawed AUKUS pact sinking quickly . . . Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese with outgoing President Joe Biden, will Australia have the mettle to be bigger than Trump. Image: Independent Australia
What happens Down Under? US allies — like Australia — have already been thoroughly indoctrinated by American pop culture in order to complement the many army bases they house and the defence agreements they have signed.
Though Trump hasn’t shown any interest in making it a 52nd state, Australia has been tucked up in bed with the United States since the Cold War. Our foreign policy has hinged on this alliance, which also significantly affects Australia’s trade and economy, not to mention our entire cultural identity, mired as it is in US-style fast food dependence and reality TV. Would you like Vegemite McShaker Fries with that?
So what will happen to Australia once the superpower we have followed into endless battles finally breaks down?
‘Trump has promised chaos and chaos is what he’ll deliver.’
His rise to power will embolden the rabid Far-Right in the US but will this be mirrored here? And will Australia follow the US example and this year elect our very own (admittedly scaled down) version of Trump, personified by none other than the Trump-loving Peter Dutton?
If any of his wild announcements are to be believed, between building walls and evicting even US nationals he doesn’t like, while simultaneously making Canadians US citizens, Trump will be extremely busy.
There will be little time even to consider Australia, let alone come to our rescue should we ever need the might of the US war machine — no matter whether it is an Albanese or sycophantic Dutton leadership.
It is a given, however, that we would be required to honour all defence agreements should our ally demand it.
It would be great if, as psychologists urge us to do when children act up, our leaders could simply ignore and refuse to engage with him, but it remains to be seen whether Australia will have the mettle to be bigger than Trump.
Republished from the Independent Australia with permission.
It all begins innocently – a late-night peek at your favourite social media site before bed. You catch a headline that grabs your attention with “breaking news” you can’t afford to miss.
Like following digital breadcrumbs, one click leads to another. Before you know it, you’re tumbling down a rabbit hole of endless updates and emotionally charged social media posts. Two hours later, your shoulders are tense, your stomach is in knots, but you can’t put your phone down.
This endless scrolling through bad news – known as “doomscrolling” – sneaks up on us.
It’s important to stay in touch with what’s happening in the world. Being informed helps us make better decisions, engage meaningfully in our communities, and respond effectively to changes that affect our lives and those around us.
But just like a healthy diet, we must be smart about our news consumption to avoid it taking a toll on our health.
The good news is there are proven ways to stay informed without letting it take over your life. Research shows setting clear boundaries around your news consumption can make a huge difference. So, how can you strike the right balance?
How to set boundaries with news consumption
It’s worth considering why you feel compelled to stay constantly informed. Ask yourself: “will this information change what I can do about it?”.
Research shows scrolling through negative news can disrupt your sleep and increase anxiety. To make sure your media consumption is intentional, there are a few steps you can take.
Be picky with the news sources you read. Choose a few trusted outlets instead of letting social media algorithms decide what you see. It’s like sticking to a balanced meal plan, but for your mind.
While engaging with the news, pay close attention to how you’re feeling. When you notice physical signs of anxiety or emotional distress, that is your cue to take a break.
Set aside time earlier in the day with clear boundaries around your news consumption: maybe with your morning coffee or during your lunch break, whatever works for your schedule. Consider implementing a “digital sunset”, too. This is a cut-off time for news and social media, ideally an hour or two before bedtime, to give your mind time to process what you have learned without disrupting your sleep.
The world will always be there, but you will be in a better head space to process what is happening.
You don’t have to feel helpless
Taking breaks from consuming news is not burying your head in the sand – it’s practising self care. Studies have shown that people who set healthy boundaries around news consumption are often better equipped to engage meaningfully on important issues and take constructive action when needed.
When you check the news, be an active consumer. Instead of endless scrolling:
choose one or two in-depth articles to read thoroughly
discuss the news with colleagues, friends and family to process your feelings
look for solution-focused news stories that highlight positive change
take meaningful action on issues you care about.
There are also various apps and tools that can help you form healthier digital habits. Productivity apps use various approaches to help you stay focused, providing ways to snap you out of mindless scrolling.
News curation apps and apps that allow you to save articles to read later can help you establish a balanced news diet, and remove the urgent need to read everything immediately.
Many smartphones now come equipped with screen time management features, such as Apple’s Screen Time or Android’s Digital Wellbeing. You can use these to monitor your scrolling habits and to manage how much time you spend on social media or news apps.
One useful feature is to block apps from use during certain times of day or after you’ve used them for a set amount of time.
Screen time management features allow you to pause or block apps from use. The Conversation
Stay mindful, stay engaged
Staying informed doesn’t mean staying constantly connected. By mindfully setting boundaries and using supportive tools, you can keep up with important events while protecting your wellbeing.
If you’re trying productivity apps and other tools, start small. Choose one tool that resonates with you rather than trying everything at once. Set realistic goals that fit your life, and use these apps’ insights to understand your habits better.
Pay attention to what triggers your doomscrolling and adjust your settings accordingly. Remember, these tools work best when combined with offline activities you enjoy.
The goal isn’t to disconnect completely, but to find a sustainable balance between staying informed and maintaining peace of mind. With thoughtful boundaries and the right support tools, you can stay engaged with the world while keeping your mental health intact.
Lisa Harrison 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eylem Altuntas, Postdoctoral Researcher, Speech & Language Development, The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University
Babies are like little detectives, constantly piecing together clues about the world around them. If you’ve ever noticed your baby staring at you while you talk, it’s because they’re picking up on more than just sounds — they’re learning how those sounds are made.
Our recent study, published in Developmental Science, shows this amazing process starts as early as four months old, shaking up the old belief that babies learn these patterns only after tuning in to their native language between 6 and 12 months of age.
It also gives us an earlier window to help children who might be at risk of speech or language delays.
Sorting through a buffet of sounds
By their first birthday, babies are already fine-tuning their ears to the sounds of their native language in a process called perceptual attunement. Think of it like their brain sorting through a buffet of sounds to focus on the ones that matter most.
But in their first six months, babies can tell apart sounds from languages they’ve never even heard. For example, they might distinguish certain Hindi contrasts that are challenging for adult English speakers or identify unique tones in Mandarin, even if they’re growing up in an English-speaking household.
This incredible ability doesn’t last forever. Between six and 12 months, babies start narrowing their focus to the sounds they hear most often. For vowels, this fine-tuning kicks in at around six months while consonants follow at closer to ten months.
Think of it as babies zooming in on the sounds that matter, such as the difference between the “r” and “l” in English, while losing sensitivity to sounds they don’t hear regularly.
Until now, researchers thought this narrowing process was needed for babies to start learning more complex language skills, such as figuring out that the “b” in “bin” and the “d” in “din” differ because one is made with the lips and the other with the tongue tip.
But our study found babies as young as four months are already learning how sounds are physically made, long before this narrowing begins.
Here’s an example to picture this. Imagine you’re listening to someone speak a language you don’t know. Even if you don’t understand the words, you might notice how their lips or tongue move to make sounds. Four-month-old babies can do this too.
To demonstrate this, we conducted an experiment with 34 babies, aged four to six months, whose parents had provided consent to participate. We created a “match-the-pattern” game using two made up mini-languages.
One language had words with lip sounds like “b” and “v”, while the other used tongue-tip sounds like “d” and “z”. Each word, like “bivawo” or “dizalo”, was paired with a cartoon image — a jellyfish for lip words and a crab for tongue-tip words. A recording of a word was played at the same time its paired image was shown.
Why cartoons? Because babies can’t exactly tell us what they’re thinking, but they can form associations in their brains. These images helped us see if the babies could link each mini-language to the correct picture.
After the babies learned these mini-languages and their picture pairings, we mixed things up.
Instead of hearing the words, they watched silent videos of a person’s face saying new words from the same mini-languages.
In some videos, the face matched the cartoon they had learned earlier. In others, it didn’t. We then tracked how long the babies looked at the videos — a common method researchers use to see what grabs their attention. Babies tend to look longer at things that surprise or interest them and shorter at things they find familiar, helping us understand how they process and recognise what they see.
The results were clear: babies looked significantly longer at the videos where the face matched what they’d learned. This showed they weren’t just passively listening earlier — they were actively learning the rules of the mini-languages and linking that knowledge to what they saw.
The experiment involved pairing certain words with a cartoon image of a jellyfish and a crab. Eylem Altuntas
Connecting the dots
In simple terms, this means four-month-old babies can connect the dots between sound and sight. This early ability to spot patterns in how sounds are made is the foundation for learning language later on. It’s like their brains are already laying the groundwork for saying their first words.
This discovery changes what we thought we knew about babies’ early language learning. It suggests babies start figuring out patterns at four months, well before they begin perceptually attuning to the sounds of their native language between six and 12 months.
That opens up exciting new possibilities for helping children who might struggle with speech or language. If we can help earlier, we might make a big difference.
These findings raise several interesting questions. For example, can babies learn other differences such as voicing – whether a sound is made with a buzzing vibration, like the difference between “b” (buzzing) and “p” (no buzzing) – as early as four months? How does growing up in a bilingual home affect this ability? Could babies use this skill to learn patterns in entirely new languages?
By exploring these questions, we’ll keep uncovering the amazing ways babies’ brains set the stage for learning one of the most complex human skills: language.
Eylem Altuntas is a researcher at the BabyLab within the MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour, and Development at Western Sydney University.
It has now been four years since the Myanmar military launched its cataclysmic coup against the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi on February 1 2021, starting a civil war that has devastated the country.
Suu Kyi remains locked up, as do countless other activists and regime opponents. There is no easy resolution in sight.
Indeed, the country is at a nadir. The war has sparked an economic crisis that has destroyed Myanmar’s health and education systems. Half the population now lives in poverty, double the rate from before the coup. The deteriorating electricity network causes widespread blackouts.
According to the United Nations, more than 5,000 civilians have been killed and 3.3 million people have been displaced by the fighting. More than 27,000 people have also been arrested, with reports of sexual violence and torture rife.
Nevertheless, opposition forces – including ethnic armies and the People’s Defence Force militias drawn from the civilian population – have been gathering strength, with a string of victories against the junta’s army.
The regime now controls less than half the country. And recent strategic losses are weighing heavily on the military leaders, raising questions about whether the government could suddenly collapse like the Assad regime in Syria late last year.
As the war enters a fifth year, there are two significant things to watch that could determine the country’s future – the battleground gains made by the opposition forces and the state of the failing economy.
Junta under pressure on the battlefield
Following the opposition Three Brotherhood Alliance’s battleground successes in late 2023, China brokered a ceasefire between the junta and alliance in northern Shan State.
When that ceasefire ended last June, the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), one of the members of the alliance, captured the key trading town of Lashio, as well as the junta’s nearby Northeast Regional Military Command. It was the first time one of the 14 regional military commands had fallen to an opposition group in more than 50 years of military rule.
China has recently brokered another ceasefire between the MNDAA and the military, according to the Chinese foreign ministry. The terms have not been made public, but unless the insurgents relinquish Lashio and the military command – which is unlikely – it won’t alter the balance of power.
In December, the military lost another command centre in Rakhine State in western Myanmar to the Arakan Army, another member of the Three Brotherhood Alliance. The Arakan Army now controls 14 of that state’s 17 townships.
The Arakan Army, too, said recently it is open to political dialogue to potentially end the fighting. But it, too, is only likely to stop its military offensives for extremely favourable terms.
In a major study undertaken in late 2024, the BBC assessed the junta only had full control of 21% of Myanmar’s territory. Ethnic armies and other opposition forces controlled 42% of the country, while the remaining areas were contested.
In response, the junta has intensified its “scorched earth” tactics in areas outside its control, including indiscriminate and deliberate strikes against civilians. With dwindling reserves of willing fighters, air power is the main combat advantage it holds over the opposition forces.
Myanmar is now experiencing a full-blown economic and currency crisis.
The incremental gains in economic development, education, nutrition and health care of recent decades have been reversed very quickly. Three-quarters of the population is now living a subsistence existence.
Many young people are fleeing abroad, joining resistance groups, or eking out dangerous livelihoods on the margins. To make matters worse, the junta activated a longstanding but dormant conscription law last February to boost its dwindling forces. Those who refuse the draft face five years in prison.
In response to the Arakan Army’s successes, the junta is also isolating much of Rakhine State. This is contributing to widespread poverty and a looming famine, which could affect two million people.
And in an attempt to control the digital space, the junta enacted a sweeping new cybersecurity law earlier this month. People can now be imprisoned for using a virtual private network or sharing information from banned websites, among many other offences.
Could Myanmar fall apart?
The ASEAN regional bloc, chaired by Malaysia this year, has done little to solve the crisis, although it hasn’t accepted the junta’s hollow plans to hold elections this year.
Disagreements among the ASEAN members over strategy have ensured that little progress has been made. Thailand recently broke ranks to invite the junta’s foreign minister to regional talks about border security, even though the junta currently controls few of the country’s borders.
An accelerated economic deterioration could contribute to further unrest and drive even more migrants to neighbouring countries. Already, the millions of Myanmar migrants living in Thailand have precipitated anti-migrant protests and mass arrests.
So, given the combustible state of the country, could the junta’s hold on power suddenly collapse like the Assad regime in Syria last year?
It’s not likely. Unlike Syria, the opposition in Myanmar is not heavily backed by major international players. China’s support for various insurgent actors comes and goes depending on political calculations, while the United States and European Union have provided little material support.
In addition, the military has been effectively running Myanmar for 60 years and is well practised in counterinsurgency strategies. Although defections from the military continue, the conscription law is bolstering its numbers of – mostly reluctant – soldiers.
However, the fall of Syria’s oppressive government – as well as the government in Myanmar’s neighbour, Bangladesh – demonstrates how fragile long-standing regimes can be, particularly when faced with persistent challenges from armed groups and a motivated population.
And as in Syria, there are fears – particularly within China – that Myanmar could splinter along ethnic lines. The deteriorating security situation has led China to send its own private security corporations to secure its strategic investments in the country and become an active ceasefire deal-maker.
Even if the junta can be ousted, creating a workable federal system that involves power-sharing among the complex patchwork of ethnic groups will be a difficult task. The question of how to reintegrate nearly a million Rohingya displaced across the border in Bangladesh is another daunting challenge.
However, for the first time in years, there is optimism that opposition forces could eventually succeed in vanquishing the junta. Then begins the arduous task of rebuilding a shattered nation.
As a pro vice-chancellor at the University of Tasmania, Nicholas Farrelly engages with a wide range of organisations and stakeholders on educational, cultural and political issues, including at the ASEAN-Australia interface. He has previously received funding from the Australian government for Southeast Asia-related projects and from the Australian Research Council. Nicholas is on the advisory board of the ASEAN-Australia Centre, which is a new Australian government body, and also deputy chair of the board of NAATI, Australia’s government-owned accreditation authority for translators and interpreters. He writes in his personal capacity.
Adam Simpson 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.
With one in four Australian adults experiencing problems with incontinence, some people look to supplements for relief.
With ingredients such as pumpkin seed oil and soybean extract, a range of products promise relief from frequent bathroom trips.
But do they really work? Let’s sift through the claims and see what the science says about their efficacy.
What is incontinence?
Incontinence is the involuntary loss of bladder or bowel control, leading to the unintentional leakage of urine or faeces. It can range from occasional minor leaks to a complete inability to control urination and defecation.
This condition can significantly impact daily activities and quality of life, and affects women more often than it affects men.
Some people don’t experience bladder leakage but can sometimes feel an urgent need to go to the bathroom. This is known as overactive bladder syndrome, and occurs when the muscles around the bladder tighten on their own, which greatly reduces its capacity. The result is the person feels the need to go to the bathroom much more frequently.
There are many potential causes of incontinence and overactive bladders, including menopause, pregnancy and child birth, urinary tract infections, pelvic floor disorders, and an enlarged prostate. Conditions such as diabetes, neurological disorders and certain medications (such as diuretics, sleeping pills, antidepressants and blood-pressure drugs) can also contribute.
A number of supplements are available in Australia that include ingredients used in traditional medicine for urinary incontinence and overactive bladders. The three most common ingredients are:
Cucurbita pepo (pumpkin seed extract)
glycine max (soybean extract)
an extract from the bark of the Crateva magna or nurvala (Varuna) tree.
Soybean extracts are rich in isoflavones, especially daidzen and genistein. Like olieic acid, these are thought to act on the muscles around the bladder. Because isoflavones are similar in structure to the female hormone oestrogen, soy extracts may be most beneficial for postmenopausal women who have overactive bladders.
Crateva extract is rich in lupeol- and sterol-based chemicals which have strong anti-inflammatory effects. This has benefits not just for enlarged prostates but possibly also for reducing urinary tract infections.
Do they actually work?
It’s important to note that the government has only approved these types of supplements as “listed medicines”. This means the ingredients have only been assessed for safety. The companies behind the products have not had to provide evidence they actually work.
A 2014 clinical trial examined a combined pumpkin seed and soybean extract called cucurflavone on people with overactive bladders. The 120 participants received either a placebo or a daily 1,000mg dose of the herbal mixture over a period of 12 weeks.
By the end of study, those in the cucurflavone group went to the bathroom around three fewer times per day, compared with people in the control group, who only went to the bathroom on average one fewer time each day.
In a different trial, researchers examined a combination of Crateva bark extract with herbal extracts of horsetail and Japanese evergreen spicebush, called Urox.
For the 150 participants, the Urox formulation helped participants go to the bathroom less frequently when compared with placebo treatment.
After eight weeks of treatment, participants in the placebo group were going to the bathroom to urinate 11 times per day. Those in the Urox group were only going around to 7.5 times per day. And those who took Urox also needed to go to the bathroom one fewer time during the night.
Finally, another study also examined a Creteva, horsetail and Japanese spicebush combination, but this time in children. They were given either a 420mg dose of the supplement or a placebo, and then monitored for how many times they wet the bed.
After two months of taking the supplement, slightly more than 40% of the 24 kids in the supplement group wet the bed less often.
While these results may look promising, there are considerable limitations to the studies which means the data may not be reliable. For example, the trials didn’t include enough participants to have reliable data. To conclusively provide efficacy, final-stage clinical trials require data for between 300 and 3,000 patients.
From the studies, it is also not clear whether some participants were also taking other medicines as well as the supplement. This is important, as medications can interfere with how the supplements work, potentially making them less or more effective.
Otherwise, your GP may give you strategies or exercises to improve your bladder control, prescribe medications or devices, or refer you to a specialist.
If you do decide to take a supplement, discuss this with your doctor and local pharmacist so they can check that any product you choose will not interfere with any other medications you may be taking.
Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, a member of the Australasian Pharmaceutical Science Association and a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd (a medical device company) and was previously a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design, and testing.
As the 2019-2020 megafires took hold across eastern Australia, many of us reeled at the sight of animals trying and often failing to flee. Our screens filled up with images of koalas with burned paws and possums in firefighter helmets.
The death toll was staggering, estimated at up to three billion wild animals killed or displaced. Millions more were severely injured. Tens of thousands of domesticated animals were killed or had to be euthanised.
In fighting these fires, authorities focused almost entirely on protecting human lives and property, other than targeted rescue efforts for the last remaining wild stand of Wollemi pine. The role of rescuing and caring for domesticated and wild animals fell almost entirely to community groups and individual carers, who stepped up to fill the gap at significant cost to themselves – financially, emotionally and sometimes even at a risk to their safety.
Our new research draws on more than 60 interviews with wildlife carers and groups in the Shoalhaven region south of Wollongong in New South Wales. These people spontaneously organised themselves to care for thousands of domesticated, farm and wild animals, from evacuating them from fire zones to giving them shelter, food, water and healthcare.
The lengths our interviewees went to were extraordinary. But these rescue efforts were largely invisible to authorities – and, as our interviewees told us, sometimes even condemned as irresponsible.
What did our interviews tell us?
The standard view in Australia is that only humans matter in the face of bushfires. But the way affected communities reached out to save as many animals as they could shows many people think we ought to be acting differently.
One interviewee told about screaming for “her babies” as Rural Fire Service firefighters evacuated her. In response, the firies searched the house for human babies to no avail. When they found out she meant her wombat joeys, they laughed in relief. But to our interviewee, the joeys were like her babies. The joeys were safe inside her house.
People cared for a wide range of species, from horses, chickens, bees and cows to native birds, possums, wombats and wallabies. Despite this, we found common themes.
Many people felt the system had let them down when it came to protecting animals. This is why many of them felt they had to take matters into their own hands to ensure that animals survived.
As one interviewee told us:
one thing that you have to realise, is people’s animals are their children, and they are their life. If you let someone think that their animal isn’t safe, they will put themselves in danger to try and get to that animal or save that animal […] That’s one thing the firies — you know, if they’re not an animal compassionate person, they don’t get that.
While some guidance on disaster preparation talks about how to protect pets such as cats and dogs, wildlife carers, farmers and horse owners often found themselves facing incoming fires with little or no information or support.
People also told us about a lack of information on how to care for different types of animals during disasters. Information was often nonexistent or hard to locate, making decision-making during the crisis very difficult.
As one farmer told us:
there’s not any information on realistically what you do with your animals in a case of […] a massive disaster. I mean, it’s like someone said about cutting the fences. But now you’ve got stocking cattle running through the bush and they don’t know where the fire’s going to turn or what’s going to happen.
The needs of animals differ significantly. It’s harder to find shelter for a horse than a smaller animal, for instance. Wildlife being cared for already need assistance, due to being orphaned, injured or ill. It’s harder to evacuate injured animals or joeys who need regular feeding than it is to evacuate healthy adult animals.
Our interviewees reported price spikes for transport, food, temporary fencing and medicines during the 2019-2020 emergency season. Caring for animals always comes with costs, but the cost burden intensified over the Black Summer and afterwards.
Caring for animals came with another cost too, to mental health. Many of our interviewees told us they still felt traumatised, even though our interviews were two or three years after the fires.
As one interviewee told us:
the people at Lake Conjola […] said it was like an apocalypse. They said there was dead birds dropping out of the sky. Kangaroos would come hopping out of the bush on fire […] I know it really heavily affected most people on the beach, the horrific things that they saw.
Despite facing a lack of formal support and with limited information, people organised themselves very quickly into networks to share access to safe land, transport, food, labour and information. Dedicated people set up social media groups to allocate tasks, call for help and so on. This unsung animal rescue effort was almost entirely driven by volunteers.
What should we do before the next megafires?
Australia will inevitably be hit by more megafires, as climate change brings more hot, dry fire weather and humidity falls over land.
What would it mean to include animals in our planning? To start with, more and better information for wildlife carers, farmers, pet owners and the wider community. It would mean directing more funds to animal care, both during and after disasters, and including animal care in local, state and federal disaster planning. It would mean improving communication networks so people know where to go.
To this end, we developed a new guide for communities wanting to be better prepared to help animals in the next disaster. We prototyped an app designed to help communities organise themselves in order to help animals during disasters.
The scale of the Black Summer fires found governments and communities largely
unprepared. But we are now in a position to learn from what happened.
As authorities prepare for the next fires, they should broaden how they think about disaster preparation. Our research suggests disaster planning needs to take place at a community level, rather than a focus on individual households. And vitally, authorities need to think of communities as made up of both humans and animals, rather than just humans.
This research project was funded by the Australian government via a Bushfire Recovery Grant from the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. It was conducted in partnership with the Shoalhaven City Council. This article was prepared solely by the University of Sydney research team and reflects our research and analysis only.
This research project was funded by the Australian government via a Bushfire Recovery Grant from the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. It was conducted in partnership with the Shoalhaven City Council.
From January 31, Sydney’s Museum of Contemporary Art (MCA) will reintroduce ticketed entry, charging adults $20 for general admission and $35 for combined special exhibitions and museum entry. Entry will remain free for Australian students and people under 18.
This decision, which reverses 24 years of free general entry to the museum, reflects broader challenges faced by museums globally.
Driven by philanthropy
The MCA was opened in 1991, established through the bequest of Australian expatriate artist John Power. As an independent, not-for-profit organisation, its administrative and financial structure is different from major cultural institutions in Sydney.
Unlike the Art Gallery of New South Wales and Australian Museum, which are statutory bodies of the NSW government, the MCA receives a far smaller proportion of state funding.
For 2023-2024, the NSW government delivered A$46.2 million in recurrent funding to the Art Gallery of NSW and $47.4 million to the Australian Museum. The MCA received $4.2 million, which represented just 16% of its total revenue.
This funding disparity has always required the MCA to secure the bulk of its budget through other revenue streams. Corporate and philanthropic partnerships have been vital.
In 2000, financial support from Telstra allowed the museum to offer free admission. In 2012, philanthropists including Simon and Catriona Mordant contributed greatly to fund the museum’s expansion.
The MCA has also been proactive in leveraging its venue to maximise income. In 2023, 41% of revenue was earned through commercial services including venue hire, retail and commercial leases.
Why there’s no more free entry
Despite reducing its opening hours to six days a week post-COVID and scaling back audience engagement, the MCA’s financial pressures continued. According to director Suzanne Cotter, the museum “didn’t have any choice” but to implement an admission fee.
While ticketed admission creates a financial barrier, it also provides visitors a way to invest directly in the museum’s future and sustainability.
The MCA has consistently demonstrated its value, generating impressive visitor numbers. In 2019, attendance surpassed one million visitors, setting the museum ahead of many international peers.
But the effects of the COVID pandemic have lingered. In 2022-23, the museum attracted 859,386 visitors – a 15% decline compared to 2019.
In comparison, the Art Gallery of NSW welcomed almost two million visitors to its expanded campus in 2023, representing a 51% increase from pre-COVID figures.
The MCA isn’t struggling alone
Internationally, there are clear signs of an industry under immense pressure.
Major US institutions such as The Metropolitan Museum of Art (The Met), The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) and the Guggenheim and Whitney have all increased general adult admission fees to US$30.
The Met’s shift away from a pay-what-you-can model to fixed admission for most visitors in 2018 was driven by speculation of a US$40 million deficit. However, New York state residents and students, as well as New Jersey and Connecticut students, can still pay what they wish – even as little as one cent.
Similarly, at the Whitney, a US$2 million donation last year by Trustee and artist Julie Mehretu has helped enable free entry for under-25s.
These examples show how paying visitors can support a museum’s sustainability while preserving subsidised access for priority groups.
Across Europe, major museums including the Louvre and Uffizi are also increasingprices, though many retain periodic free days to ensure accessibility.
Meanwhile, commentators such as cultural historian Ben Lewis argue major institutions such as the British Museum should start charging general admission fees to supplement stagnant government funding and decrease dependence on potentially unethical corporate donors.
This would allow the museums to pay competitive wages and fund essential work, Lewis argues.
Lewis’s concerns about corporate donations accord with debates taking place internationally and in Australia around the role of big oil, mining and pharmaceutical companies that use the arts to “greenwash” their public brand.
Can accessiblity be prioritised in Australia?
The MCA’s situation, which reflects international trends, raises questions about arts funding and access.
Both the NSW and federal governments’ arts policies recognise the value of providing access to the arts. As the NSW government’s Creative Communities policy notes, “the right to participate in arts, cultural and creative activities is a fundamental human right.”
The MCA excelled in this regard under its free admission policy, attracting a diverse audience that other museums often struggled to reach. In 2023, about half of the museums on-site visitors were under 35, and 45% were from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
The NSW government’s policy – along with its national counterpart Revive – also emphasises the importance of telling Australian stories. This is another area the MCA has excelled in.
The question then is: if the state and federal governments value equitable access to the arts and appreciates the platforming of Australian stories, will they commit to a more sustainable funding arrangement for organisations like the MCA?
Without such a commitment, the gap between those who can afford to attend museums and those who can’t will continue to widen – compromising the democratic ideal of an accessible cultural sector.
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.
Companies like Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, X Corp, and OpenAI (all based in the United States) now operate beyond the control of most governments. Countries like New Zealand are increasingly struggling to keep these companies in check.
In the past decade, New Zealand has taken several measures to curb the influence of powerful tech companies through voluntary agreements and tax legislation.
But the digital age has fundamentally changed national sovereignty – the right of individual countries to decide the rules within their own borders.
Big tech companies are gradually taking on functions traditionally reserved for government institutions. For example, these companies have begun to function as the arbiters of speech, controlling the visibility of certain ideas and comments.
And as was widely covered in the media, Amnesty International released a report claiming that Facebook’s algorithms “proactively amplified” anti-Rohingya content in Myanmar, substantially contributing to human rights violations against the ethnic group.
New Zealand’s attempts to regulate big tech
A number of governments are now facing the question of how to temper the influence of these companies within their current legal frameworks.
As New Zealand (among others) has discovered in the past decade, influencing the behaviour of these companies is easier said than done. It has repeatedly found itself struggling to effectively manage big tech’s impact on its society and economy.
In 2018, for example, New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner said Facebook had failed to comply with its obligations under the New Zealand Privacy Act. The company told the commission the Privacy Act did not apply to it.
When the Christchurch terrorist attack was livestreamed on Facebook (owned by Meta), New Zealand authorities found themselves largely powerless to prevent the video’s spread across global platforms.
This crisis prompted then-prime minister Jacinda Ardern to launch the Christchurch Call initiative aimed at combating online extremism by fostering collaboration between governments and tech companies.
The goal was to develop and enforce measures such as improved content moderation, removal of extremist material, and the creation of safer online environments.
While gaining support from more than 120 countries and tech companies, its effect depends on voluntary ongoing cooperation. Recent events suggest this ongoing cooperation is unlikely.
While these proposals signify important steps toward holding big tech accountable, their implementation remains uncertain.
Although the relevant tax provisions have been adopted in New Zealand, the law includes clauses allowing tax collections to be deferred until as late as 2030.
The proposed law seeks to foster fair competition, prevent price gouging, and give smaller tech and news companies a chance to thrive in a landscape increasingly dominated by global giants.
The legislation would grant the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the authority to investigate and penalise companies with fines of up to A$50 million for restricting competition.
The targeted behaviour includes tactics such as restricting data transfers between platforms (for example, moving contacts or photos from iPhone to Android) and limiting third-party payment options in app stores.
The proposed law aims to put an end to these unfair advantages, ensuring a level playing field where businesses of all sizes can compete and consumers have more choices.
Democractic governance in the digital age
The growing power of tech platforms raises critical questions about democratic governance in the digital age.
There is an urgent need to reconcile the global influence of tech companies with local democratic processes and to create mechanisms that safeguard individual and national sovereignty in an increasingly digital world.
Governments need to recognise these platforms are not immutable forces of nature, but human-created systems that can be challenged, reformed or dismantled. The same digital connectivity that has empowered these corporations can become the very tool of their transformation.
Alexandra Andhov is conducting research on Big Tech Governance, funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark under the Inge Lehmann Programme. The author is grateful for this support and wishes to acknowledge that the research was conducted entirely independently.
After lengthy, torrid and emotional debate a critical decision for the future of Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau is being made in March. One party will celebrate; the other will slink back to the drawing board. But will it really settle the great Auckland stadium debate?
SPECIAL REPORT:By Chris Schulz
It resembles a building from Blade Runner. It looks like somewhere the Avengers might assemble. It is, believes Paul Nisbet, the future.
“It’s innovative, it’s groundbreaking, it’s something different,” says the driving force behind Te Tōangaroa, a new stadium mooted for downtown Auckland.
He has spent 13 years dreaming up this moon shot, and it shows. “We have an opportunity here to deliver something special for the country.”
Located behind Spark Arena, Te Tōangaroa — also called “Quay Park” — is Nisbet’s big gamble, the stadium he believes Tāmaki Makaurau needs to sustain the city’s live sport and entertainment demands for the next 100 years.
His is a concept as grand as it gets, a U-shaped dream with winged rooftops that will sweep around fans sitting in the stands, each getting unimpeded views out over the Waitematā Harbour and Rangitoto Island.
Located behind Spark Arena, Te Tōangaroa is also called “Quay Park”. Image: Te Tōangaroa
Nisbet calls his vision a “gateway for the world,” a structure so grand he believes it would attract the biggest sports teams, stars and sponsors to Aotearoa while offering visitors a must-see tourist destination. Nestled alongside residential areas, commercial zones and an All Blacks-themed hotel, designs show a retractable roof protecting 55,000 punters from the elements and a sky turret towering over neighbouring buildings.
He’s gone all in on this. Nisbet’s quit his job, assembled a consortium of experts — called Cenfield MXD — and attracted financial backers to turn his vision into a reality. It is, Nisbet believes, the culmination of his 30-year career working in major stadiums, including 11 years as director of Auckland Stadiums.
“I’ve had the chance to travel extensively,” he says. “I’ve been to over 50 stadiums around the world.”
Tāmaki Makaurau, he says, needs Te Tōangaroa — urgently. If approved, it will be built over an ageing commercial space and an unused railway yard sitting behind Spark Arena, what Nisbet calls “a dirty old brownfields location that’s sapping the economic viability out of the city”.
He calls it a “regeneration” project. “You couldn’t mistake you’re in Auckland, or New Zealand, when you see images of it,” he says.
The All Blacks are on board, says Nisbet, and they want Te Tōangaroa built by 2029 in time for a Lions tour. (The All Blacks didn’t respond to a request for comment, but former players John Kirwan and Sean Fitzpatrick have backed the team moving to Te Tōangaroa.)
Concert promoters are on board too, says Nisbet. He believes Te Tōangaroa would end the Taylor Swift debacle that’s seen her and many major acts skip us in favour of touring Australian stadiums.
“It will be one of those special places that international acts just have to play,” he says.
The problem? Nisbet’s made a gamble that may not pay off. In March, a decision is due to be made about the city’s stadium future. Building Te Tōangaroa, with an estimated construction time of six years and a budget of $1 billion, is just one option.
The other, Eden Park, has 125 years of history, a long-standing All Blacks record and a huge number of supporters behind it — as well as a CEO willing to do anything to win.
The stadium standing in Te Tōangaroa’s way Stand in Eden Park’s foyer for a few minutes and history will smack you in the face. It’s there in the photos framed on the wall from a 1937 All Blacks test match. It’s sitting in Anton Oliver’s rugby boots from 2001, presumably fumigated and placed inside a glass case.
More recent history is on display too, with floor-to-ceiling photographs showing off concerts headlined by by Ed Sheeran and Six60, a pivot only possible since 2021.
Soon, the man in charge of all of this arrives. “Very few people have seen this space,” says Nick Sautner, the Eden Park CEO who shakes my hand, pulls me down a hallway and invites me into a secret room in the bowels of Eden Park. With gleaming wood panels, leather couches and top-shelf liquor, Sautner’s proud of his hidden bar.
“It’s invite-only . . . a VIP experience,” says Sautner, whose Australian accent remains easily identifiable despite seven years at the helm of Eden Park.
The future of Eden Park if a refurb is granted. Image: YouTube
This bar, he says, is just one of the many innovations Eden Park has undertaken in recent years. Built in 1900, the Mt Eden stadium remains the home of the All Blacks — but Eden Park is no longer considered a specialty sports venue.
Up to 70 percent of the stadium’s revenue now comes from non-sporting activities, Sautner confirms. You can golf, abseil onto the rooftops and stay the night in dedicated glamping venues. It’s also become promoters’ choice for major concerts, with Coldplay and Luke Combs recently hosting multiple shows there. “We will consider any innovation you can imagine,” Sautner tells me. “We’re a blank canvas.”
Throughout our interview, Sautner refers to Eden Park as the “national stadium”. He’s upbeat and on form, rattling off statistics and renovations from memory. His social media feeds — especially LinkedIn — are full of posts promoting the stadium’s achievements. He’ll pick up the phone to anyone who will talk to him.
“Whatsapp is the best way of contacting me,” he says. Residents have his number and can call directly with complaints. After our interview, Sautner passes me his business card then follows it up with an email making sure I have everything I need. “My phone’s always on,” he assures me.
He may not admit it, but Sautner’s doing all of this in an attempt to get ahead of what’s shaping up as the biggest crisis of Eden Park’s 125 years. If Te Tōangaroa is chosen in March, Eden Park — as well as Albany’s North Harbour Stadium and Onehunga’s Go Media Stadium – will all take a back seat.
If Eden Park loses the All Blacks and their 31-year unbeaten record, then there’s no other word for it: the threat is existential.
Called Eden Park 2.1, Sautner is promoting a three-stage renovation plan. Image: YouTube
Ask Sautner if he’s losing sleep over his stadium’s future and he shakes his head. To him, Te Tōangaroa’s numbers don’t stack up. “If someone can make the business model work for an alternative stadium in Auckland, I’m all for activating the waterfront,” he says.
Then he poses a series of questions: “How many events a year would a downtown stadium hold? Forty-five?” he asks. “So 320 other days a year, what’s going to be in that stadium?”
He is, of course, biased. But Sautner believes upgrading Eden Park is the right move. Called Eden Park 2.1, Sautner is promoting a three-stage renovation plan that includes building a $100 million retractable rooftop. A new North Stand would lift Eden Park’s capacity to 70,000, and improved function facilities and a pedestrian bridge would turn the venue into “a fortress . . . capable of hosting every event”.
He’s veering into corporate speak, but Sautner sees the vision clearly. With his annual concert consent recently raised from six to 12 shows, he already thinks he’s got it in the bag, “Eden Park has the land, it has the consent, it has the community, it has the infrastructure,” he says. “I’m very confident Eden Park is going to be here for another 100 years.”
Instead of a drink, Sautner offers RNZ a personal stadium tour that takes us through the exact same doors that open when the All Blacks emerge onto the hallowed turf. There, blinking in the sunlight, Sautner sweeps his arms around the stadium and grins. “I get up every day and I think of my family,” he says. “Then I think, ‘How can I make Eden Park better?”
The stadium debate: ‘It began when the dinosaurs died out’ It is, says Shane Henderson, an argument for the ages. It never seems to quit. How long have Aucklanders been feuding about stadiums? “It began when the dinosaurs died out,” jokes Henderson.
For the past year, he’s been chairing a working group that will make the decision on Auckland’s stadium future. That group whittled four options down to the current two, eliminating a sunken waterfront stadium, and another based in Silo Park.
He’s doing this because Wayne Brown asked him to. “The mayor said, ‘We need to say to the public, ‘This is our preferred option for a stadium for the city.’” It’s taken over Henderson’s life. Every summer barbecue has turned into a forum for people to share their views.
“People say, “Why don’t you do this?’” he says. Henderson won’t be drawn on which way he’s leaning ahead of March’s decision, but he’s well aware of the stakes. “We’re talking about the future of our city for generations to come,” he says. “It’s natural feelings are going to run high.”
That’s true. As I researched this story, the main parties engaged in a back-and-forth discussion that became increasingly heated. Jim Doyle, from Te Tōangaroa’s Cenfield MXD team, described Eden Park’s situation as desperate.
“Eden Park can’t fund itself . . . it’s got no money, it’s costing ratepayers,” he said. Doyle alleged the stadium “wouldn’t be fit for purpose”. “You’re going to have to spend probably close to $1 billion to upgrade it.” Asked what should happen to Eden Park should the decision go Te Tōangaroa’s way, Doyle shrugged his shoulders. “Turn it into a retirement village.”
Eden Park’s Sautner immediately struck back. Yes, he admits Eden Park owes $40 million to Auckland Council, calling that debt a “legacy left over from the Rugby World Cup 2011”. But he denied most of the consortium’s claims.
“Eden Park does not receive any funding or subsidies from Auckland ratepayers,” Sautner said in a written statement. He confirmed renovations had already begun. “Over the past three years, the Trust has invested more than $30 million to enhance infrastructure and upgrade facilities . . . creating flexible spaces to meet evolving market demands.”
Sautner said Doyle’s statement was evidence of his team’s inexperience. “We are extremely disappointed that comments of this nature have been made,” he said. “They are factually incorrect and highlight Quay Park consortium’s lack of understanding of stadium economics.”
Do we even need to do this? As the stadium debate turns into a showdown, major stars continue to skip Aotearoa in favour of huge Australian shows, with Katy Perry, Kylie Minogue and Oasis all giving us a miss this year. New Zealand music fans are reluctantly spending large sums on flights and accommodation if they want to see them. Until Metallica arrives in November, there are no stadium shows booked; just three of Eden Park’s 12 allotted concert slots are taken this year.
Yet, Auckland City councillors will soon study feasibility reports being submitted by both stadium options.
On March 24, Henderson, the working group chair, says councillors will come together to “thrash it out” and vote for their preferred option. There will only be one winner, and The New Zealand Herald reports either building Te Tōangaroa or Eden Park 2.1 is likely to cost more than $1 billion. Either we’re spending that on a brand new waterfront stadium, or we’re upgrading an old one.
“Is that the best use of that money?” asks David Benge. The managing director for events company TEG Live doesn’t believe Tāmaki Makaurau needs another stadium because it’s barely using those it already has. He has questions.
“I understand the excitement around a shiny new toy, but to what end?” he asks. “Can Auckland sustain a show at Go Media Stadium, a show at Western Springs, a show at Eden Park, and a show at this new stadium on the same night — or even in the same week?”
Benge doesn’t believe Te Tōangaroa would entice more artists to play here either. “I’m yet to meet an artist who’s going to be swayed by how iconic a venue is,” he says. Bigger problems include the size of our population and the strength of our dollar.
No matter the venue, “you’re still incurring the same expenses to produce the show,” he says. Instead, he suggests Pōneke as the next city needing a new venue. “If you could wave a magic wand and invest in a 10,000-12,000-capacity indoor arena in Wellington, that would be fantastic,” he says.
Would a new stadium really lure big artists to NZ? Image: Te Tōangaroa
Live Nation, the touring juggernaut that hosts most of the country’s stadium shows, didn’t respond to a request for comment. Other promoters canvassed by RNZ offered mixed views. Some wanted a new stadium, while others wanted a refurbished one. Every single one of them said that any new stadium needed to be built with concerts — not sport — in mind.
“We’re fitting a square peg in a round hole,” one said about the production costs involved in trucking temporary stages into Eden Park or Go Media Stadium. “Turf replacement can add hundreds of thousands — if not $1 million — to your bottom line,” said another.
Some wanted something else entirely. Veteran promoter Campbell Smith pointed out Auckland Council is seeking input for a potential redevelopment of Western Springs. One mooted option is turning it into a home ground for the rapidly rising football club Auckland FC. Smith doesn’t agree with that. “I think it’s a really attractive option for music and festivals,” he says. “It’s got a large footprint, it’s easily accessible, it’s close to the city … It would be a travesty if it was developed entirely for sport.”
One thing is for certain: a decision on this lengthy, torrid and emotional topic is being made in March. One party will celebrate; the other will slink back to the drawing board. Will it finally end the great Auckland stadium debate? That’s a question that seems easier to answer than any of the others.
Chris Schulz is a freelance entertainment journalist and author of the industry newsletter, Boiler Room. This article was first published by RNZ and is republished with the author’s permission.Asia Pacific Report has a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael J. Davern, Professor of Accounting & Business Information Systems, The University of Melbourne
Almost A$1 trillion (US$600 billion) was wiped off the value of artificial intelligence microchip maker Nvidia overnight on Monday, when a little-known Chinese start up, DeepSeek, threatened to upend the US tech market.
While Nvidia suffered the biggest one-day loss in sharemarket history, other tech giants – Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon, who are investing heavily in competing AI tools including ChatGPT and Gemini – were also hit.
The rout was caused by investors’ shock at the claimed performance of DeepSeek’s new R1 chatbot. The Chinese AI was reported to be more advanced than its competitors and less expensive to develop.
DeepSeek R1 has soared, becoming the top free downloaded app on Apple’s app store, as US technology and related stock prices fell dramatically.
Why tech stocks took a deep dive
The market was surprised by DeepSeek providing what amounts to cheaper technology but comparable performance.
This has dramatically changed the market’s expectations of computing power, showing more can be done for less. It has also compromised the competitiveness of the US tech companies’ existing AI products and developments.
Stock prices are driven by market expectations. The claimed performance of DeepSeek R1 prompted a major revision of expectations about what was technologically possible and about how cheaply AI could be developed and operated.
Investors have rapidly incorporated the news of a low-cost Chinese AI competitor into stock prices, anticipating this new entrant could disrupt the market and erode the competitive advantage of existing leaders.
Who is DeepSeek and what is R1?
DeepSeek was founded in 2023 by Chinese hedge fund High Flyer, which had been exclusively using AI in trading since 2021.
DeepSeek develops large language models (LLMs) that can underpin chatbots and other AI-based tools. R1 is the latest iteration of DeepSeek’s chatbot and underlying model. It builds on earlier versions of generative AI models developed by DeepSeek, and considerable amounts of data, but is a surprising leap forward in performance and cost.
The model underlying R1 operates in a much less intensive manner. It is much cheaper to develop and run, requiring less data and computing power.
The training of the model was possible despite the US export ban preventing Chinese companies such as DeepSeek from accessing chips from US companies such as Nvidia. The Biden administration had introduced laws restricting the sale of certain computer chips and machinery to China, in a move intended to block its rival from accessing some of the world’s most advanced technology.
The training data and data uploaded to R1 sit on servers in China. Given concerns about data privacy and intellectual property have already been raised about US-based companies, having data under jurisdiction of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is arguably even more concerning.
The chatbot program code is free to download, read and modify, unlike ChatGPT. This is however somewhat a false transparency – what matters more is the underlying model, not the Chatbot code.
R1 is known to censor its responses in line with Chinese Communist Party values.
The future of AI and tech stocks
It is unknown whether this crash in price of tech stocks is an irrational panic that will reverse, or whether it simply reflects correct pricing. The future costs and benefits of AI are still uncertain.
This is both a technological and an economic question.
In technological terms, it is yet to be seen whether R1 really does require less computing power and less data to train and use.
Economically, there are potential winners and losers. AI users may win with cheaper access to AI, and LLMs in particular, leading to increased adoption and associated productivity gains. Existing producers such as Nvidia may lose out in what was a market with few real competitors.
More broadly, society may benefit from less computationally intensive, and therefore more energy-efficient, AI. However, the geopolitical risk of a single country capturing the market, together with concerns about data privacy, intellectual property and censorship may outweigh the benefits.
Michael J. Davern has previously received funding from CPA Australia for industry research into Artificial Intelligence.
Matt Pinnuck 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tongliang Liu, Associate Professor of Machine Learning and Director of the Sydney AI Centre, University of Sydney
Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company DeepSeek has sent shockwaves through the tech community, with the release of extremely efficient AI models that can compete with cutting-edge products from US companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic.
Founded in 2023, DeepSeek has achieved its results with a fraction of the cash and computing power of its competitors.
DeepSeek’s “reasoning” R1 model, released last week, provoked excitement among researchers, shock among investors, and responses from AI heavyweights. The company followed up on January 28 with a model that can work with images as well as text.
So what has DeepSeek done, and how did it do it?
What DeepSeek did
In December, DeepSeek released its V3 model. This is a very powerful “standard” large language model that performs at a similar level to OpenAI’s GPT-4o and Anthropic’s Claude 3.5.
While these models are prone to errors and sometimes make up their own facts, they can carry out tasks such as answering questions, writing essays and generating computer code. On some tests of problem-solving and mathematical reasoning, they score better than the average human.
V3 was trained at a reported cost of about US$5.58 million. This is dramatically cheaper than GPT-4, for example, which cost more than US$100 million to develop.
DeepSeek also claims to have trained V3 using around 2,000 specialised computer chips, specifically H800 GPUs made by NVIDIA. This is again much fewer than other companies, which may have used up to 16,000 of the more powerful H100 chips.
On January 20, DeepSeek released another model, called R1. This is a so-called “reasoning” model, which tries to work through complex problems step by step. These models seem to be better at many tasks that require context and have multiple interrelated parts, such as reading comprehension and strategic planning.
The R1 model is a tweaked version of V3, modified with a technique called reinforcement learning. R1 appears to work at a similar level to OpenAI’s o1, released last year.
DeepSeek also used the same technique to make “reasoning” versions of small open-source models that can run on home computers.
This release has sparked a huge surge of interest in DeepSeek, driving up the popularity of its V3-powered chatbot app and triggering a massive price crash in tech stocks as investors re-evaluate the AI industry. At the time of writing, chipmaker NVIDIA has lost around US$600 billion in value.
How DeepSeek did it
DeepSeek’s breakthroughs have been in achieving greater efficiency: getting good results with fewer resources. In particular, DeepSeek’s developers have pioneered two techniques that may be adopted by AI researchers more broadly.
The first has to do with a mathematical idea called “sparsity”. AI models have a lot of parameters that determine their responses to inputs (V3 has around 671 billion), but only a small fraction of these parameters is used for any given input.
However, predicting which parameters will be needed isn’t easy. DeepSeek used a new technique to do this, and then trained only those parameters. As a result, its models needed far less training than a conventional approach.
The other trick has to do with how V3 stores information in computer memory. DeepSeek has found a clever way to compress the relevant data, so it is easier to store and access quickly.
What it means
DeepSeek’s models and techniques have been released under the free MIT License, which means anyone can download and modify them.
While this may be bad news for some AI companies – whose profits might be eroded by the existence of freely available, powerful models – it is great news for the broader AI research community.
At present, a lot of AI research requires access to enormous amounts of computing resources. Researchers like myself who are based at universities (or anywhere except large tech companies) have had limited ability to carry out tests and experiments.
More efficient models and techniques change the situation. Experimentation and development may now be significantly easier for us.
For consumers, access to AI may also become cheaper. More AI models may be run on users’ own devices, such as laptops or phones, rather than running “in the cloud” for a subscription fee.
For researchers who already have a lot of resources, more efficiency may have less of an effect. It is unclear whether DeepSeek’s approach will help to make models with better performance overall, or simply models that are more efficient.
Tongliang Liu 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.
Headlines about Screen Australia’s latest annual Drama Report have highlighted one particular figure: a 29% drop in total industry expenditure compared to the year before.
But a closer look suggests this isn’t the most concerning finding. The report also reveals a significant chunk (42%) of the A$803 million spent on producing Australian TV drama in 2023–24 was funded by taxpayers.
What’s more – watching half of the Australian TV drama hours broadcast in 2024 required a streaming subscription. Watching all of them required seven different subscriptions.
With Australians’ funding of this commercial, for-profit sector on the rise, we can’t help but ask: what do Australian viewers get in return?
Screen production challenged globally
Screen sectors globally are experiencing significant downturns because of changes in audience behaviour and advertiser spending. Various analyses suggest between 14% and 25% of all viewing is now comprised of videos from YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram.
Traditionally, commissions from the three commercial broadcasters have supported Australia’s drama production sector. However, in 2021 the government significantly watered-down their quota obligations. As a result, networks Seven, Nine and Ten commissioned just nine hours of new, non-soap drama in 2024.
The loss of commercial broadcasters from the production ecosystem has radically changed the sector’s dynamics. Streamers such as Netflix and Stan are now the largest investors in Australian drama, followed by the ABC.
Government subsidies for the sector have also grown considerably, partly due to rising production costs. Over the ten years leading up to 2023–24, federal spending on local TV drama production more than tripled, increasing by an average of 16.9% each year.
Yet, during that same period, the hours of TV drama produced fell by an average of 5.7% each year. In other words, we’re spending more on less. And as mentioned above, much of this declining TV drama slate – which is heavily subsidised by government money – is ending up behind streamer paywalls.
The problem with current policy
Too much of Australia’s current screen funding is going towards stories that can’t be watched without a paid subscription.
Also, many of these stories have little to no connection to Australia. For instance NBC Universal’s Young Rock, which was produced in Australia, is about the childhood of American celebrity Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Similarly, Nautilus, which Disney originally commissioned and which was made in Australia, is loosely based on Jules Verne’s maritime adventure novel, 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea.
Since the 2000s, our screen industry has become far more global than national. Current policy largely funds television projects through tax rebates on production budget. And any scripted production made in Australia (and with a certain minimum budget) is eligible for this funding.
These rebates, combined with a lack of local content quotas for broadcasters and streamers, mean our current policy risks generously funding titles made by global corporations for international viewers.
The 2024 Drama Report highlights a need to carefully consider whether Australia’s policy for the sector is delivering for Australians.
It’s time to update the conditions of support, which were designed back when commercial broadcasters reliably commissioned some 300 hours of Australian drama each year. This is no longer the case.
Solutions for more Australians stories
So what needs to change? For a start, policy must offer greater support for dramas that tell compelling Australian stories in all their diversity.
Such dramas, which deliver significant cultural value to audiences, should receive higher levels of rebates than international stories filmed in Australia. The ABC and the SBS could lead the way in commissioning this content, as per their charter obligations.
The 2021 changes to Australian content regulations left the ABC as the principal provider of free local drama and children’s programs – but the ABC has limited resources. Rather than supporting international productions, local audiences might be better served if the government increased the ABC’s funding to produce minimum amounts of drama and children’s programs.
We also have to bring Australian drama out from behind streamer paywalls if they receive any kind of government support. They should be made available to local audiences for free within two years of their release.
This could be done through free-to-air television services, like ABC iView or SBS On Demand, or on a free platform built specifically for local content.
Policymakers will need to define production sector sustainability in a 21st century context. Australia has historically had many small production companies. However, the steep decline in local drama being produced suggests only a few companies will remain viable in the long term.
The scale of disruption facing local broadcasters and production companies needs to be matched by policy that’s fit for purpose, and which returns value to Australian communities.
Anna Potter receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Amanda Lotz receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Marion McCutcheon receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
State asset sales have been a political dividing line in New Zealand for decades now, and it seems voters are again being asked to decide which side they’re on.
In his state-of-the-nation speech last week, ACT Party leader David Seymour advised New Zealanders to “get past their squeamishness about privatisation” and ask themselves:
If we want to be a first world country, then are we making the best use of the government’s half-a-trillion-dollars–plus worth of assets? If something isn’t getting a return, the government should sell it so we can afford to buy something that does.
No doubt this appealed to ACT’s core constituency. But the available evidence suggests many New Zealanders view the privatisation of state assets with scepticism, not squeamishness.
The most rigorous available data are from the New Zealand Election Study: just under 50% of those surveyed in 2020 either “somewhat” or “strongly” agreed with the proposition that “privatisation has gone too far”.
Just over 9% either somewhat or strongly disagreed with that statement. In other words, those who oppose state asset sales comfortably outnumber those who support them.
It seems reasonable to suggest this reflects the sizeable proportion of New Zealanders who remember the asset sales experience of the 1980s and 1990s under both Labour and National governments.
Writing in 2000, during the heights of this bipartisan privatisation boom, economic analyst Brian Gaynor argued:
By selling 100 per cent shareholdings in state assets, the New Zealand Government has allowed a small group of investors, mainly offshore, to make enormous profits. With just a little foresight these profits could have been kept for the benefit of domestic investors and taxpayers.
At the same time, voters have watched levels of wealth inequality rise, and the transfer of public wealth into private hands. And while asset sales can improve efficiency, they can also reduce access to services for those on limited incomes or experiencing higher unemployment.
More broadly, some New Zealanders will also question Seymour’s assertion that state assets should provide a return on investment.
Aside from it not being possible to turn a profit on many of the assets a government needs to serve the needs of its citizens, there are costs associated with putting a market value on certain social goods and services.
[W]hen money comes increasingly to govern access to the essentials of the good life – decent health care, access to the best education, political voice and influence in campaigns – when money comes to govern all of those things, inequality matters a great deal.
Furthermore, there is ample evidence of the ethical and operational shortcomings of applying the profit motive to public institutions such as prisons, hospitals and schools.
Nor are markets themselves value-free, self-correcting mechanisms. In the material economy, they have a propensity to fail. When they do, the people who suffer most tend to be those least well positioned to defend themselves.
That is why the state performs certain functions: to make sure those unable to pay for privately provided goods and services are not denied them.
The nature and extent of what the state should provide is quite properly a matter for debate. But those decisions affect everyone and should be decided in the public domain, not left to the managers and owners of private companies.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon: open to a conversation about priviatisation. Getty Images
Public versus private debt
Seymour also suggested a return to asset sales was justified by the country’s current levels of public debt. He referred to “the other tribe” who are
building a majority for mediocrity – who would love nothing more than to go into lockdown again, make some more sourdough, and worry about the billions in debt another day.
the real risk in New Zealand is our very high levels of private debt, which includes household debt like mortgages, student loans, credit card, hire purchases, to buying a car in instalments […] Compared to our relatively low levels of public debt our current household debt stands at 95% of GDP.
According to the Treasury, current public debt levels are “prudent”, although “an ageing population, climate change and historical trends mean governments have important choices to make”.
The risk of renewed asset sales and privatisation is that public debt might be reduced but at the expense of private debt increasing.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has responded by saying he was open to a conversation about selling state assets. While it was “not something on our agenda right now”, he said, he hinted National may campaign on it ahead of next year’s election.
A niche party such as ACT can safely take policy positions that have little appeal beyond its core supporters. But that’s not a luxury available to its major coalition partner, which started the year behind in the polls.
On the other hand, National does not want to be outflanked any further by ACT. Asset sales, it seems, are destined to remain a perennial political fault line.
Richard Shaw 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.
However, when it comes to sport, the Australian calendar has long been dominated by two seasons: cricket and football.
Traditionally, cricket has been played from October to March when the weather is suitable, and Australian rules football and rugby league from April to September.
But in recent years, a lack of international cricket in Australia after January – coupled with earlier start dates for the AFL and NRL seasons – has resulted in football receiving more local media coverage and attention from fans during the summer.
For many Australian cricket fans, the season will be finished once the Big Bash League and women’s Ashes conclude in early February.
In February and March, the Australian men’s and women’s cricket teams will play matches overseas and the Australian states will play each other in one-day and four-day games.
However, the reduced media attention and free-to-air TV coverage of cricket in Australia means many sports fans turn their attention to other sports, usually football or rugby league.
Cricket has been played in Australia for more than 200 years. While Australian rules football was initially developed to keep cricketers fit through the winter, football competitions such as the AFL and NRL have now arguably become more dominant across the sporting calendar.
The 2024 AFL season was the longest in the sport’s history. The 2025 season will be exactly the same length, stretching nearly seven months, from March 6 to September 27.
The 2025 NRL season will be even longer. It starts in Las Vegas on March 2 and doesn’t finish until the Grand Final on October 5.
The 2025 AFLW and NRLW seasons will also be the longest ever, finishing as late as November 30.
Football seasons are starting earlier
While an AFL Grand Final in late September and an NRL Grand Final leading into NSW’s Labour Day in early October are well established, the start of the season has been slowly creeping forward over the decades.
Twenty years ago, the AFL season started in late March, 50 years ago it was early April, and 80 years ago it was late April. The first AFL (VFL) season in 1897 started on May 8.
The start of the NRL season has also moved forward over time. The first NRL (NSWRL) season in 1908 started on April 20.
While these historical season start dates did not overlap with the cricket season, that is no longer the case.
This year, the AFL and NRL will have completed three premiership rounds before the Sheffield Shield final ends the Australian domestic cricket season in late March.
And then there are the AFL and NRL pre-season competitions, with games starting as early as February 7.
Why are football seasons getting longer?
Some of the factors that have contributed to extensions of football seasons include:
the introduction of more teams that all need to play each other
AFL and NRL players have cited fatigue because of the long seasons. Consequently, some players’associations and coaches have advocated for shorter seasons.
However, playing fewer games would likely mean less money for the AFL and NRL, and for players and clubs.
Adding more teams to the AFL and NRL and extending the AFLW and NRLW seasons may allow for more flexibility with future season lengths, as football codes can be played any time of year.
Unless your stadium has an expensive roof, cricket cannot because of the threat of rain.
What does this mean for cricket?
While Australians can still play both cricket and football at junior and community levels, this is no longer possible at representative levels because of the overlap between seasons.
The encroachment of football into traditional cricket months means increased competition for players, often forcing talented young athletes to make a decision about which sport to pursue.
Greater perceived opportunities to play at the elite level may convince some players to prioritise football.
For example, the six Australian state cricket teams generally contract 20 to 25players each season. In comparison, the 17 NRL teams each have 30 contracted players and the 18 AFL clubs can have 44 players in their squads.
Current AFL players such as Stephen Coniglio, Caleb Serong and Brent Daniels all represented their state in underage cricket before choosing football. Manly lock Nathan Brown and retired star Braith Anasta are NRL examples.
Luckily for cricket, current players such as AlexCarey (GWS under-18 captain 2010), MitchMarsh (under-18 WA AFL team 2008) and WillSutherland (under-18 Victorian Metro AFL team 2017) are examples of young players choosing cricket after successful underage football careers.
Venue availability and scheduling conflicts
The extended football seasons pose logistical challenges for venues. Iconic stadiums such as the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) and Sydney Cricket Ground (SCG) traditionally host both cricket and football matches and now face increased scheduling pressure with the seasons overlapping.
For instance, in 2024, the MCG only had a 22-day turnaround between hosting the AFL Grand Final and the Victoria vs NSW Sheffield Shield match.
Hosting concerts at these venues increases revenue but also adds to scheduling difficulties.
It all adds up to a difficult juggling act for venues, which will be made even trickier if the football codes creep even further into the traditional cricket season.
Cricket, too, has a battle on its hands to stay relevant to fans, broadcasters, commercial partners and even participants as the AFL and NRL seasons continue to expand.
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.
