Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Barry Barton, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Newly released documents add more detail to the government’s plans for a regulatory framework to enable carbon capture and storage.

But they show indecision on two key matters – the legal framework and the agency that would be in charge.

The plan relates primarily to conventional carbon capture and storage technologies, which remove carbon dioxide from an industrial gas flow and dispose of it deep underground.

It also covers some methods of carbon dioxide removal, an emerging but as yet commercially untested suite of technologies such as enhanced rock weathering, bio-energy capture and direct air capture.

The latter technologies are not predicated on fossil fuel consumption and could operate in many different situations.

Neither kind of carbon removal is a simple answer to the climate challenge and the priority remains on cutting emissions. But we need to have regulatory frameworks in place for both reduction and removal technologies of all kinds, and soon.

Earning credits from emissions trading

Both types of technologies will benefit from the government’s decision to allow companies to get credits in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for the disposal of carbon dioxide from any source. Credits will not be tied to any one technology, according to the released policy discussion documents.

It’s also a positive development that an operator can get credits as a separate removal activity, not merely as a reduction of an existing emissions liability (although official advice was initially against separate credits). This allows for diversity in the players and the systems for removals.

The government has decided it will assume liability for any carbon dioxide leaks from geological storage, but only after verification that fluids in the subsurface are behaving as expected after closure, and no sooner than 15 years after closure.

Leaks this long after injection are unlikely, but we nevertheless need strong regulation, financial assurance to guarantee remedial action and clear liability rules.

The government also states ETS credits will only be available for removals that can be recognised internationally against New Zealand’s commitments to cut emissions. This would apply only to geological storage but not deep-ocean deposition or rock weathering.

But that’s not quite right. The general international rules already allow the inclusion in a national greenhouse gas inventory of removals from any process. Detailed methodologies for carbon dioxide removal are likely to become available within the next few years.

With change underway, New Zealand’s new regime should allow a wide range of removal methods to receive credits.

A new regulatory regime

The documents acknowledge that New Zealand needs a broader regulatory regime, beyond the ETS, to cover the entire process of carbon dioxide removal. The suitability of a disposal site must be verified, a detailed geological characterisation is required and the project design and operation need to be approved.

Approval is also required for closure and post-closure plans, and systematic monitoring. Monitoring is everything; it must be accurate and verifiable but also cost effective. The operator will have to pay for monitoring for decades after site closure.

In agreeing on these features, the government is following the examples of many countries overseas, including Australia, Canada, the UK and the EU.

However, it is intriguing that the government hasn’t decided where this new regime should sit in the statute book, and who should manage it. Much of the apparently relevant text in the documents has been redacted.

Given that carbon dioxide would be stored underground, the Crown Minerals Act is one possibility. But this legislation is all about extraction, not disposal. Although the New Zealand petroleum and minerals unit at the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment has expertise in regulating subsurface operations, it focuses largely on oil and gas, not on innovative climate projects.

The Resource Management Act certainly provides a regulatory approval regime, but it is awaiting reform and would need much more than the currently proposed changes to deal with carbon capture and storage or removal properly. So would legislation covering activities within New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone.

Indeed each act would require a whole new part to be added, with its own principles and procedures. There is a lot to be said for a standalone new act, in a form that would fit with the emerging Natural Environment Act that will replace the Resource Management Act.

The new legislation and regulation regime could be administered by the Environmental Protection Authority, which is already involved in Resource Management Act call-ins and fast-track approvals, the legislation covering the exclusive economic zone and the ETS.

One can only guess there might be tensions between contending factions in government. What we should ask for is a legislative and institutional arrangement that allows carbon capture and storage or removal technologies to evolve and grow without being a mere offshoot of the oil and gas industry or any other existing sector.

As part of our efforts to reduce emissions, we must make sure all kinds of removal technologies are available that truly suit New Zealand.

Barry Barton is part of the project “Derisking Carbon Dioxide Removal at Megatonne Scale in Aotearoa” which is funded by the MBIE’s Endeavour Fund. In the past, he has received funding from MBIE and the gas industry for research on CCS legal issues.
He is a director of the Environmental Defence Society.

– ref. The government plans to regulate carbon capture technologies – but who will be the regulating agency? – https://theconversation.com/the-government-plans-to-regulate-carbon-capture-technologies-but-who-will-be-the-regulating-agency-254696

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona MacDonald, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Northern British Columbia

Canada’s 2025 federal election will be remembered as a game-changer. Liberal Leader Mark Carney is projected to have pulled off a dramatic reversal of political fortunes after convincing voters he was the best candidate to fight annexation threats from United States President Donald Trump.

Only four months ago, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre had a 25-point lead in public opinion polls and a fairly secure path to victory.

Yet Poilievre’s lead soon vanished due to shifting voter sentiments defined less by the official campaign period and more by the months that preceded it. Justin Trudeau’s early January resignation announcement and Carney’s confirmation that he was officially in the Liberal leadership race dramatically changed the political landscape.

Read more:
After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election

Within a matter of weeks, Liberal support surged when Carney became party leader and Trump continued to make threats about Canada becoming a 51st American state — and to levy punishing on-again, off-again tariffs against the country.

The party went from being 20 percentage points behind the Conservatives to overtaking them, putting the party on track to secure its fourth consecutive victory. A shift described by longtime pollster Frank Graves as “unprecedented.”

Poilievre’s messaging

The emerging “Canada strong” and “elbows up” narratives, linked to the widespread anti-Trump sentiment, proved a major advantage for the Liberals, who made the most out of this political gift.

This shift, alongside Carney’s elimination of the carbon tax, left Poilievre on the back foot as his longstanding messaging on Trudeau and his “axe the tax” slogan became largely irrelevant.

Read more:
Who really killed Canada’s carbon tax? Friends and foes alike

The impact of these shifts in electoral fortunes extended beyond the two main parties. As the election became increasingly a two-party race between the Liberals and Conservatives, the smaller parties struggled for relevance.

Election campaign polling and early results indicated steep losses for the NDP, with Leader Jagmeet Singh’s own seat in Burnaby, B.C., under threat. This could be due to voters on the left responding to calls to vote strategically to prevent Conservative victories in various ridings.

The Bloc Québecois also lost ground, as did the Green Party of Canada and the People’s Party of Canada (PPC). Neither the Greens nor the PPC fielded full slates of candidates or participated in the leaders’ debates and therefore played comparatively limited roles in this election.

Advance voting in a gendered election

Another notable feature of this election was the record advance voting turnout, which surged to 7.3 million Canadians, up sharply from 5.8 million in 2021.

Early voting has now become a central part of party campaign strategy, with campaigns “getting out the vote” at every opportunity, not just on Election Day. This trend raises questions not only about whether overall turnout will rise, but also whether party platforms remain as influential given so many votes were cast before all parties released their platforms.

While many Canadians take in elections with a focus on party leaders and seat counts, there are other important ways to contemplate election outcomes in terms of inclusion and voice. What does this election tell us about gender and diversity representation in Canada’s Parliament?

This was a deeply gendered election. The major party leaders are all men, with the exception of Elizabeth May, the Green Party co-leader.

Preliminary candidate data showed a decrease in the number of women candidates compared to 2021.

The NDP nominated the highest proportion of women candidates — the majority of its candidates are women — and fielded the most diverse slate of candidates in terms of Indigenous people, Black people, racialized people and LGBTQ+ candidates. But the party’s dramatic losses mean these gains will not translate into more diverse representation in Parliament.

Furthermore, one of Carney’s first actions as prime minister was to eliminate the sex-balanced cabinet and to reduce the size of the cabinet. He eliminated the Ministry of Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) as well as ministerial portfolios focused on youth, official languages, diversity, inclusion, disability and seniors.

These decisions reverse previous efforts taken to institutionalize gender and diversity leadership in Canada’s Parliament.

Party platforms also reflected diverging approaches when it came to women. The Conservative platform only mentioned women four times, and three of those mentions were in the context of opposition to transgender rights.

Read more:
Pierre Poilievre’s ‘More Boots, Less Suits’ election strategy held little appeal to women

The role of young working-class men

Polling also revealed intersections of generation, gender and class are increasingly relevant. Like the last federal election, young working-class men are increasingly drawn to the Conservatives. This trend appears to be driven less by fiscal conservatism and more by concerns about rapid social change, a trend also observed in the 2024 American presidential election.

Many of these young men are expressing frustrations over housing affordability and job security, and what they view as the Liberal and NDP’s “woke culture,” which they view as eroding traditional values that have traditionally benefited men. In contrast, Canadian women of all ages continue to favour parties they view as more progressive — the Liberals and the NDP.

Theoretical explanations for this include young men feeling left behind by the Liberals, while the Conservatives have seemingly figured out a way to connect with them.

This may reflect campaign rhetoric about returning to traditional expectations and values around gender roles and men’s rights to well-paying jobs, an affordable home and taking care of their families.

Electoral reform needed?

In the aftermath of the election, there are avenues through which current gaps in representation can be addressed. Organizations like the United Nations’ Inter-parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, as well as gender and politics scholarship, propose various reforms to continue to strengthen diversity in Parliament.

These reforms are understood to be essential for enhancing the legitimacy, responsiveness and effectiveness of Canada’s parliamentary system. Research on gender-and diversity-sensitive parliaments consistently shows that when legislative bodies reflect the diversity of the societies they govern, they are more likely to produce policies that are equitable, inclusive and trusted by the public.

Overall, this Canadian election was characterized by transformative twists and turns that shed more light on important ongoing questions about representation and the potential need for democratic reform if Canadians want to avoid a two-party system.

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

– ref. Game change Canadian election: Mark Carney projected to have lead Liberals to their fourth consecutive win – https://theconversation.com/game-change-canadian-election-mark-carney-projected-to-have-lead-liberals-to-their-fourth-consecutive-win-253721

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tegan Cohen, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology

Another election, another wave of unsolicited political texts. Over this campaign, our digital mailboxes have been stuffed with a slew of political appeals and promises, many from the new party Trumpet of Patriots (backed by Clive Palmer, a veteran of the mass text campaign).

The practice isn’t new, and it’s totally legal under current laws. It’s also non-partisan. Campaigns of all stripes have partaken. Behold, the Liberal Party’s last-minute SMS to voters about asylum seekers before the 2022 federal election, or Labor’s controversial “Mediscare” text before the 2016 poll. Despite multiple cycles of criticism, these tactics remain a persistent feature of Australian election campaigns.

A recent proposal to update decades-old rules could help change things – if a government would put it into practice.

What does the law say about political spam?

Several laws regulate spam and data collection in Australia.

First, there is the Spam Act. This legislation requires that organisations obtain our consent before sending us marketing emails, SMSs and instant messages. The unsubscribe links you see at the bottom of spam emails? Those are mandated by the Spam Act.

Second, the Do Not Call Register (DNCR) Act. This Act establishes a “do not call” register, managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which individuals can join to opt out of telemarketing calls.

Finally, there is the Privacy Act, which governs how organisations collect, use and disclose our personal information. Among other things, the Privacy Act requires that organisations tell us when and why they are collecting our personal information, and the purposes for which they intend to use it. It restricts organisations from re-purposing personal information collected for a particular purpose, unless an exception applies.

This trio of laws was designed to offer relief from unsolicited, unwanted direct marketing. It does not, however, stop the deluge of political spam at election time due to broad political exemptions sewn into the legislation decades ago.

The Spam Act and DNCR Act apply to marketing for goods and services but not election policies and promises, while the Privacy Act contains a carve-out for political parties, representatives and their contractors.

The upshot is that their campaigns are free to spam and target voters at will. Their only obligation is to disclose who authorised the message.

How do political campaigns get our information?

Secrecy about the nature and extent of campaign data operations, enabled by the exemptions, makes it difficult to pinpoint precisely where a campaign might have obtained your data from.

There are, however, a number of ways political campaigns can acquire our information.

One source is the electoral roll (though not for phone numbers, as the Australian Electoral Commission often points out). Incumbent candidates might build on this with information they obtain through contact with constituents which, thanks to the exemptions, they’re allowed to re-purpose for campaigning at election time.

Another source is data brokers – firms which harvest, analyse and sell large quantities of data and profiles.

We know the major parties have long maintained voter databases to support their targeting efforts, which have become increasingly sophisticated over the years.

Other outfits might take more haphazard approaches – former MP Craig Kelly, for example, claimed to use software to randomly generate numbers for his texting campaign in 2021.

What can be done?

Unwanted campaign texts are not only irritating to some. They can be misleading.

This year, there have been reports of “push polling” texts (pseudo surveys meant to persuade rather than gauge voter options) in the marginal seat of Kooyong. The AEC has warned about misleading postal vote applications being issued by parties via SMS.

Generative AI is hastening the ability to produce misleading content, cheaply and at scale, which can be quickly pushed out across an array of online social and instant messaging services.

In short, annoying texts are just one visible symptom of a wider vulnerability created by the political exemptions.

The basic argument for the political exemptions is to facilitate freedom of political communication, which is protected by the Constitution. As the High Court has said, that freedom is necessary to support informed electoral choice. It does not, however, guarantee speakers a captive audience.

In 2022, the Attorney-General’s Department proposed narrowing the political exemptions, as part of a suite of updates to the Privacy Act. Per the proposal, parties and representatives would need to be more transparent about their data operations, provide voters with an option to unsubscribe from targeted ads, refrain from targeting voters based on “sensitive information”, and handle data in a “fair and reasonable” manner.

The changes would be an overdue but welcome step, recognising the essential role of voter privacy in a functioning democratic system.

Unfortunately, the government has not committed to taking up the proposal.

A bipartisan lack of support is likely the biggest obstacle, even as the gap created by the political exemptions widens, and its rationale becomes flimsier, with each election cycle.

Tegan Cohen has received funding from the Australian Research Council (FT210100263). She has volunteered for not-for-profit groups and parties, including the Wilderness Society and the Australian Greens.

– ref. Why are political parties allowed to send spam texts? And how can we make them stop? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-political-parties-allowed-to-send-spam-texts-and-how-can-we-make-them-stop-255413

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Crosby, Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics, Macquarie University

The Oscars have entered the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Last week the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences explicitly said, for the first time, films using generative AI tools will not be disqualified from the awards.

It’s a timely decision. As generative AI becomes more integrated into filmmaking, debates over creativity and authorship are intensifying. Writers’ strikes and fears of artistic displacement have dominated recent industry discussions.

But how do audiences feel about the use of AI in films? Our research suggests they may be more open to it than the industry might expect.

What the new rules say

The updated Oscars guidelines make it clear the use of generative AI will neither help, nor hinder, a film’s chances of nomination.

What matters is the degree to which people remain at the centre of the creative process. While AI tools can be part of the workflow, the judges will scrutinise the standard of human creative authorship in a given work.

This reflects broader shifts taking place in the film industry. AI tools are now embedded in many stages of production, including for high-profile and award-nominated films.

At this year’s Oscars, Adrien Brody won best actor for his performance in The Brutalist, which used generative AI to enhance the actor’s Hungarian dialogue. Emilia Pérez – the most nominated film, with 13 nods – also used AI-powered voice cloning in post-production.

The Oscars update isn’t introducing AI to Hollywood. It’s simply acknowledging the extent to which it is already in use.

Do audiences mind?

To understand how audiences respond to AI’s creative role in film, we conducted an experiment testing people’s reactions to AI-generated film ideas.

For our study, published in the Journal of Cultural Economics, we asked 500 US-based participants to rate AI-generated film “pitches” in terms of their anticipated enjoyment and likelihood of watching the film across different formats (such as cinema, online rental, or streaming).

Half of the participants were explicitly told the ideas were generated by AI, while the other half were not. Each AI-generated pitch included a synopsis, director, top-billed cast, genre, rating and runtime.

The results were clear. There was no systematic bias against AI-generated pitches. Ratings of anticipated enjoyment and likelihood of watching the films were broadly similar, regardless of whether the participants knew AI was involved.

AI-assisted versus AI-produced

It’s important to note our research focused on audience reactions to ideas – the initial pitch for a film – and not the final product. This distinction matters.

AI’s role was limited in our experiment. Human directors and cast members were implicitly part of each pitch, and there was no suggestion AI had written the full screenplay or contributed in other ways to the production of the final film.

As we note in our paper, AI’s limited involvement likely shaped participants’ responses. There was an implicit understanding that human creativity would remain central to the final product.

This aligns with broader evidence from other creative sectors. In the case of music and visual art, audiences tend to respond less favourably when they believe a work has been fully AI-generated.

Together, these findings suggest the middle ground may be the best approach. While audiences may be accepting of AI’s contribution to creative tasks such as idea generation, editing, and visual and audio effects, they still value human authorship and authenticity in the final product.

That is also the balance the Academy Awards seems to be aiming for. The new rules do not disqualify films for using AI. However, they emphasise that awards will go to works where humans remain at the heart of the creative process. For now, audiences appear to be comfortable with that approach, too.

What it means for the industry

Generative tools are becoming part of the mainstream production toolkit. And this raises important questions about creative labour, credit and compensation.

While our research suggests audiences may be open to AI-generated content, this doesn’t mean the industry can move forward without careful deliberation. The question is no longer whether AI will shape the future of film, but how – and who gets to decide the terms.

If AI is to complement, rather than diminish, the filmmaking process, it will be important to maintain clear standards and ethical guidelines around AI use, as well as a clear role for human authorship.

This includes transparency around how AI tools are used, and appropriate recognition for creative contributions – including for those whose work has been used to train generative AI systems.

The real test will be whether the industry can embrace AI without losing sight of the creative values that define it.

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

– ref. The Oscars have rolled out the red carpet for generative AI. And surprisingly, viewers don’t seem to mind – https://theconversation.com/the-oscars-have-rolled-out-the-red-carpet-for-generative-ai-and-surprisingly-viewers-dont-seem-to-mind-255120

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sue Hand, Professor Emeritus, Palaeontology, UNSW Sydney

As the world’s only surviving egg-laying mammals, Australasia’s platypus and four echidna species are among the most extraordinary animals on Earth.

They are also very different from each other.

The platypus is well adapted for a semi-aquatic lifestyle, spending up to 20 hours a day swimming in Australian waterways to forage for freshwater invertebrates. Echidnas, on the other hand, live entirely on land. They are widely distributed across Australia and New Guinea, and adapted for feeding on termites, ants and earthworms.

How did these differences emerge? Some researchers think echidnas evolved from a swimming, platypus-like ancestor. This hypothesis is based on evidence from aspects of their genes and anatomy, and from hypotheses about their evolutionary history.

However, this idea is controversial because fossil evidence for such a profound evolutionary transformation has been lacking – until now.

A bone from 108 million years ago

In our study published today in PNAS, we gleaned new data from a 108-million-year-old mammal humerus (arm bone), found 30 years ago at Dinosaur Cove, Victoria, by a team from Museums Victoria.

This arm bone, from a species called Kryoryctes cadburyi, belongs to an ancestral monotreme – a semi-aquatic burrower like the platypus. Our findings support the hypothesis that land-living echidnas evolved from a swimming ancestor.

Kryoryctes lived during the Age of Dinosaurs (the Mesozoic), when monotremes and monotreme relatives were more common than they are today. Glimpses of this past diversity are found in the fossil record in southern Victoria and Lightning Ridge, New South Wales.

Nevertheless, Australian Mesozoic mammal fossils are exceedingly rare, and mostly consist of teeth and jaws. Kryoryctes is the only one known from a limb bone, which provides significant information about its identity, relationships and lifestyle.

Tiny clues inside bones

In order to test the evolutionary relationships of Kryoryctes, we added it to a broader data set of 70 fossil and modern mammals. From there, we calculated an evolutionary tree. This showed Kryoryctes is an ancestral monotreme.

We also compared the external shape of the Kryroryctes humerus bone to living monotremes. These analyses indicated the bone is more like those of echidnas, rather than platypuses.

But it was a different story on the inside. When we looked at the internal structure of the Kryoryctes humerus with several 3D scanning techniques, we uncovered microscopic features of this arm bone that were actually more like those of the platypus.

Such tiny features inside bones yield crucial clues about the lifestyle of an animal. Numerous previous studies link bone microstructure in mammals and other tetrapods (four-limbed animals) with their ecology.

Using the wealth of data available for living mammals, we compared characteristics of the Kryoryctes humerus microstructure to those in platypuses, echidnas and 74 other mammal species.

These analyses confirmed that the Kryoryctes humerus has internal bone features found in semi-aquatic burrowing mammals (such as the platypus, muskrat and Eurasian otter), rather than land-living burrowing mammals such as the echidna.

From water to land

This discovery suggests that a semi-aquatic lifestyle is ancestral for all living monotremes. It also suggests the amphibious lifestyle of the modern platypus had its origins at least 100 million years ago, during the Age of Dinosaurs.

In this scenario, the modern platypus lineage has retained the ancestral semi-aquatic burrowing lifestyle for more than 100 million years. Echidnas would have reverted to a land-based way of life more recently.

For echidnas, a return to land appears to have resulted in adaptations such as their long bones becoming lighter, as shown in our study.

They possibly also lost several other features more useful for spending time in the water rather than on land, including the loss of a long tail, reduction of webbing between fingers and toes, reduction of the duck-like bill to a narrow beak, and a reduced number of electroreceptors on that beak.

However, precisely when this evolutionary transformation occurred is not yet known. The answer must wait until early echidna fossils are found – so far, nothing definitive has turned up anywhere.

The modern habitats of monotremes are increasingly under threat from environmental degradation, interactions with humans and feral predators, and climate change. This is especially true for platypuses. To ensure the survival of this ancient lineage, we need to better understand how their unique features evolved and adapted.

Sue Hand receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Laura A. B. Wilson receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Robin Beck receives funding from the UK’s National Environmental Research Council, and the Australian Research Council.

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

– ref. Echidna ancestors lived watery lifestyles like platypuses 100 million years ago – new study – https://theconversation.com/echidna-ancestors-lived-watery-lifestyles-like-platypuses-100-million-years-ago-new-study-254484

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Pitt, Senior Research Fellow – Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University

Do something about it before it gets worse.

This was a response from a 16-year-old boy in one of our recent studies when asked what he would say to the prime minister about gambling in Australia.

This response is not uncommon.

Read more:
Gambling in Australia: how bad is the problem, who gets harmed most and where may we be heading?

Calls for action

Even before they can legally gamble at the age of 18, young people recognise the harms that the gambling industry (and those who profit from gambling, such as sporting codes) can cause to Australians.

And they are frustrated by a lack of government action to protect them from these harms.

They tell us that rather than prioritising the wellbeing of the community, the government is prioritising the profits of a harmful business.

Politicians are also hearing concerns about gambling from the young people they represent in their communities.

Urging parliamentary action on gambling advertising, former Australian rugby captain and Independent ACT Senator David Pocock told parliament:

Talk to parents and young people. They’ll name all the gambling companies. They’ll be able to recite odds. They’ll talk about the odds for the upcoming games of their favourite teams. What I’m hearing from people here in the ACT that I represent is that this is not the direction they want to go in.

Starting young

For more than a decade, our team has been talking to young people and their parents about the normalisation of gambling in Australia. We have carried out multiple studies that show how pervasive marketing tactics are normalising gambling for young Australians.

Young people tell us they see innovative marketing strategies for different gambling products (including betting, lotteries and casinos) everywhere, including during family-friendly television shows, through watching and attending sport and even while walking down the street.

They increasingly see promotions on social media sites such as TikTok and Snapchat.

They can name multiple gambling brands from a young age, and think gambling gives you a reason to watch sport.

When asked why, they say gambling adds to the fun and excitement of the game. Some tell us they would be convinced to gamble if they got a good “deal” from a company.

Newer forms of app-based gambling also make it is easier for young people to gamble anywhere, anytime when they turn 18.

As an example, a young person couldn’t sit in a classroom and drink alcohol when they reach the legal age, but it is not unusual for young people to tell us that classmates use apps to bet on major events while at school.

Some researchers have also documented the extent to which young people gamble before the age of 18.

One study found 31% of 12- to 17-year-olds had ever gambled and 6% had gambled in the past month. They found 8% were at some level of risk of gambling harm.

It’s no wonder parents are worried.

Their concern about the risks of gambling are similar to their concerns about alcohol: 70% are at least somewhat concerned about the risks associated with gambling for their children, and 27.7% are extremely concerned.

They comment that gambling products are “highly accessible”, “attractive” and “in your face”.

When parents try to talk to their children about gambling, they say it is almost impossible to “get the message across” given the constant exposure to ads that their children see in their everyday lives. As one father told us:

It’s advertised to children every day of the week when they watch their favourite sport stars, so they think it’s normal.

It’s time to act

Government decisions about how to respond to the gambling industry will have a major impact on young people’s futures. But young people have rarely (if ever) been given an opportunity by the government to put forward their views.

Research shows when they are given the opportunity to comment on gambling policy (and gambling industry tactics), they carefully consider the issues. They are also able to use their own experiences to suggest strategies that would help protect them and other young people from gambling industry harm.

The United Nations states children have the right to be consulted about issues that matter to them and impact their futures. This includes strengthening engagement with children and young people, recognising their “agency, resilience and their positive contributions as agents of change”.

Young people have been central actors in the climate justice movement, and have been key stakeholders in initiatives to respond to the tactics of the junk food and tobacco industries.

While we talk a lot about the impact of the gambling industry on young people, governments rarely consult them about the policies that are needed to protect them from harm.

Yet their message to the government in our research is clear. They:

• are concerned about the influence of gambling marketing on the normalisation of gambling for young people, and its short and long-term impacts

• believe current restrictions aimed at protecting young people are ineffective

• are critical of the overwhelmingly positive messages about gambling they are exposed to, with very limited information about the risks and harms associated with the industry and its products.

The following comment from a 15-year-old sums it up best:

The wellbeing of the population is more important than the revenue that comes in from these sorts of businesses.

Dr Hannah Pitt has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, VicHealth, NSW Office of Responsible Gambling, Department of Social Services, ACT Office of Gambling and Racing Commission, and Deakin University. She is currently a member of the Editorial Board of Health Promotion International.

Grace Arnot has received funding for gambling related research from the ACT Office of Gambling and Racing Commission, VicHealth, and Deakin University. Grace is currently a member of the Editorial Board of the journal Health Promotion International.

Professor Samantha Thomas has received funding for gambling and related research from the Australian Research Council, ACT Office of Gaming and Racing, Department of Social Services, VicHealth, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Healthway, NSW Office of Responsible Gambling, Deakin University. She is currently Editor in Chief for Health Promotion International, an Oxford University Press journal. She receives an honorarium for this role.

Dr Simone McCarthy has received funding for gambling and related research from ACT Office of Gaming and Racing Commision, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, VicHealth, Department of Social Services, and Deakin University. She is currently a member of the Editorial Board of Health Promotion International.

– ref. ‘Do something about it before it gets worse’: young people want government action on gambling reform – https://theconversation.com/do-something-about-it-before-it-gets-worse-young-people-want-government-action-on-gambling-reform-251614

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Anne Kenny, Associate Professor, School of Law, Murdoch University

When refugees flee their home country due to war, violence, conflict or persecution, they are often forced to leave behind their families.

For more than 30,000 people who have sought asylum in Australia since arriving more than a decade ago, that separation has stretched into more than a decade. This group of people – known in policy circles as “the legacy caseload” – need a clear pathway to reunite with family members.

Refugees separated from family are plagued by guilt and worry for their family members’ safety. This makes it extremely difficult to focus on education, work or getting settled.

The right to family unity is a basic human right and vital to any humane refugee policy.

However, tensions arise between refugees’ conceptions of family and the restrictive definitions embedded in Australian law.

High costs, complex administrative requirements, and lengthy processing times often delay or prevent families from reuniting.

The legacy caseload: more than a decade in limbo

The so-called “legacy caseload” refers to approximately 30,000 people who arrived by boat between 2012 and 2014, and who were placed on Temporary Protection Visas.

For more than a decade, they were denied a pathway to permanency and barred from sponsoring family members to join them in Australia.

That policy made life so unbearable, more than 6,500 people from this group “chose” to return home despite the risks they face. This raises serious concerns about whether they were genuinely able to make a free choice, or were pushed into returning to danger.

Since the Albanese government’s 2022 commitment to end temporary protection, almost 20,000 people have been eligible to transition to permanent visas through the Resolution of Status process.

This is a crucial step. Without a permanent visa, they could not sponsor family members.

Even with permanency, however, family reunion remains out of reach for many “legacy caseload” refugees. This is due to outdated laws, harsh policies and bureaucratic delays.

Many of these refugees have not seen their spouses or children since before their arrival. Because they arrived by boat, they are barred from proposing family members through the humanitarian visa program and must use the family migration program.

That’s significant because the humanitarian program has a much broader definition of “family”, and grants people access to settlement services after they arrive.

Still unresolved is the fate of some 7,000 people who were refused protection under the flawed fast track system (a now abandoned policy that was supposed to speed up processing but actually introduced delays and unfairness).

These people urgently need a pathway to permanency.

Why family reunion remains so difficult

The main barriers to family reunification for refugees include:

• high visa fees (partner visa application charges, when they include children, can cost more than A$20,000)
• strict legal definitions (children over 23 are not classified as “dependents”; a child who was 12 when their parent fled may now be 24 — legally an adult, but still dependent and at risk)
• barriers to documentation (war and instability can make it difficult or dangerous to obtain documents, such as passports or identity papers)
• limited access to embassies
• technical issues with online applications
• repeated health checks (there is a visa requirement health checks but they are only valid for 12 months, so may need to be repeated if visa processing is delayed)
• unclear rules around exemptions.

These uncertainties further delay the process and add emotional and financial strain.

Calls for reform

Several organisations, including the Refugee Council of Australia, have called for clear, achievable reforms. These include:

• introducing visa application charge concessions for refugees
• allowing people to pay fees in instalments
• adapting visa processing to reflect realities faced by refugee and humanitarian visa applicants, such as challenges obtaining identity documents
• establishing a dedicated unit in the Department of Home Affairs for processing visas from refugee families
• prioritising families where children may “age out”.

They have also called for changes to the legal definitions of “dependent” and “member of the family unit”. This is to reflect the diverse familial structures in many refugee communities.

For many refugees, family extends beyond the Western concept of the nuclear family. It may also encompass, for instance, adult daughters and parents (who often play pivotal care-giving roles).

Another big issue for many refugee families is single young women in Afghanistan being left behind because they have aged out.

Reuniting families

Australia can learn from other countries.

Canada’s refugee sponsorship program actively supports family reunification.

New Zealand offers a more affordable and flexible system. Their definitions of family are broader and visa fees are lower.

Without family reunion, a refugee’s safety remains incomplete.

As one refugee told researchers:

I’m partly safer [in Australia], but inside I’m not safe […] I’m always afraid for the future of my family.

Thousands of refugees in Australia are still waiting. Their families remain in danger. The legal and policy tools to fix this already exist. What’s missing, for now, is the political will.

Reforming Australia’s family reunion system would mean more efficient refugee resettlement and integration, ultimately benefiting broader Australian society.

Mary Anne Kenny is a member of the Migration Institute of Australia and the Law Council of Australia and an affiliate of the UNSW Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law. She was on the Ministerial Council on Asylum Seekers and Detention (an independent advisory body) between 2012 and 2018.

– ref. ‘I’m always afraid for the future of my family’: why it’s too hard for some refugees to reunite with loved ones – https://theconversation.com/im-always-afraid-for-the-future-of-my-family-why-its-too-hard-for-some-refugees-to-reunite-with-loved-ones-254710

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Gillespie, Professor of Management; Chair in Trust, Melbourne Business School

Have you ever used ChatGPT to draft a work email? Perhaps to summarise a report, research a topic or analyse data in a spreadsheet? If so, you certainly aren’t alone.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly transforming the world of work. Released today, our global study of more than 32,000 workers from 47 countries shows that 58% of employees intentionally use AI at work – with a third using it weekly or daily.

Most employees who use it say they’ve gained some real productivity and performance benefits from adopting AI tools.

However, a concerning number are using AI in highly risky ways – such as uploading sensitive information into public tools, relying on AI answers without checking them, and hiding their use of it.

There’s an urgent need for policies, training and governance on responsible use of AI, to ensure it enhances – not undermines – how work is done.

Our research

We surveyed 32,352 employees in 47 countries, covering all global geographical regions and occupational groups.

Most employees report performance benefits from AI adoption at work. These include improvements in:

• efficiency (67%)
• information access (61%)
• innovation (59%)
• work quality (58%).

These findings echo prior research demonstrating AI can drive productivity gains for employees and organisations.

We found general-purpose generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, are by far the most widely used. About 70% of employees rely on free, public tools, rather than AI solutions provided by their employer (42%).

However, almost half the employees we surveyed who use AI say they have done so in ways that could be considered inappropriate (47%) and even more (63%) have seen other employees using AI inappropriately.

Sensitive information

One key concern surrounding AI tools in the workplace is the handling of sensitive company information – such as financial, sales or customer information.

Nearly half (48%) of employees have uploaded sensitive company or customer information into public generative AI tools, and 44% admit to having used AI at work in ways that go against organisational policies.

This aligns with other research showing 27% of content put into AI tools by employees is sensitive.

Check your answer

We found complacent use of AI is also widespread, with 66% of respondents saying they have relied on AI output without evaluating it. It is unsurprising then that a majority (56%) have made mistakes in their work due to AI.

Younger employees (aged 18-34 years) are more likely to engage in inappropriate and complacent use than older employees (aged 35 or older).

This carries serious risks for organisations and employees. Such mistakes have already led to well-documented cases of financial loss, reputational damage and privacy breaches.

About a third (35%) of employees say the use of AI tools in their workplace has increased privacy and compliance risks.

‘Shadow’ AI use

When employees aren’t transparent about how they use AI, the risks become even more challenging to manage.

We found most employees have avoided revealing when they use AI (61%), presented AI-generated content as their own (55%), and used AI tools without knowing if it is allowed (66%).

This invisible or “shadow AI” use doesn’t just exacerbate risks – it also severely hampers an organisation’s ability to detect, manage and mitigate risks.

A lack of training, guidance and governance appears to be fuelling this complacent use. Despite their prevalence, only a third of employees (34%) say their organisation has a policy guiding the use of generative AI tools, with 6% saying their organisation bans it.

Pressure to adopt AI may also fuel complacent use, with half of employees fearing they will be left behind if they do not.

Better literacy and oversight

Collectively, our findings reveal a significant gap in the governance of AI tools and an urgent need for organisations to guide and manage how employees use them in their everyday work. Addressing this will require a proactive and deliberate approach.

Investing in responsible AI training and developing employees’ AI literacy is key. Our modelling shows self-reported AI literacy – including training, knowledge, and efficacy – predicts not only whether employees adopt AI tools but also whether they critically engage with them.

This includes how well they verify the tools’ output, and consider their limitations before making decisions.

We found AI literacy is also associated with greater trust in AI use at work and more performance benefits from its use.

Despite this, less than half of employees (47%) report having received AI training or related education.

Organisations also need to put in place clear policies, guidelines and guardrails, systems of accountability and oversight, and data privacy and security measures.

There are many resources to help organisations develop robust AI governance systems and support responsible AI use.

The right culture

On top of this, it’s crucial to create a psychologically safe work environment, where employees feel comfortable to share how and when they are using AI tools.

The benefits of such a culture go beyond better oversight and risk management. It is also central to developing a culture of shared learning and experimentation that supports responsible diffusion of AI use and innovation.

AI has the potential to improve the way we work. But it takes an AI-literate workforce, robust governance and clear guidance, and a culture that supports safe, transparent and accountable use. Without these elements, AI becomes just another unmanaged liability.

This research was supported by the Chair in Trust research partnership between the University of Melbourne and KPMG Australia and funding from KPMG International. The research was conducted independently by Professor Nicole Gillespie and Dr Steve Lockey and their research team at Melbourne Business School, The University of Melbourne, and published in collaboration with KPMG.

– ref. Major survey finds most people use AI regularly at work – but almost half admit to doing so inappropriately – https://theconversation.com/major-survey-finds-most-people-use-ai-regularly-at-work-but-almost-half-admit-to-doing-so-inappropriately-255405

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Kirkland, Professor of Geochronology, Curtin University

We’ve discovered that a meteorite struck northwest Scotland 1 billion years ago, 200 million years later than previously thought. Our results are published today in the journal Geology.

This impact now aligns with some of Earth’s earliest known, land based, non-marine microbial fossils, and offers new insights into how meteorite strikes may have shaped our planet’s environment and life.

A rocky treasure trove

The Torridonian rocks of northwest Scotland are treasured by geologists as some of the finest archives of the ancient lakes and river systems that existed a billion years ago.

Those water bodies were home to microbial ecosystems consisting of eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are single-celled organisms with complex internal structures that are the ancestors of all plants and animals.

But the Torridonian environments and their associated microbial communities were dramatically disrupted when a meteor slammed into the planet.

The record of this event is preserved in a geological unit known as the Stac Fada Member. It is comprised of unusual layers of rock fragments broken and melted by the impact.

Also, crucially, there are shock-altered minerals that closely resemble those found in famous impact sites such as Chicxulub (Mexico) and Sudbury (Canada).

In the case of the Stac Fada, these minerals were engulfed in high-energy, ground-hugging flows of smashed rock triggered by the impact that spread across the ancient landscape.

What is exciting about our new date for the Stac Fada impact is that it now overlaps in age with microfossils preserved elsewhere in the Torridonian rocks.

This raises some interesting questions. For example, how did the meteorite strike influence the environmental conditions those early non-marine microbial ecosystems relied on?

Finding out the date

Determining when a meteorite struck is no easy task.

We can use minerals to constrain the age, but they have to be the right kind. In this case it means something that wasn’t overly altered by the intense heat, pressure and fluids generated by the impact, yet robust enough to survive the ravages of deep geological time.

Suitable minerals are extremely rare, but we found a few in the Stac Fada rocks. One was reidite, a mineral that only forms under extreme pressure. The other was granular zircon, a uranium-bearing mineral formed by immense impact temperatures.

These minerals are, in effect, tiny stopwatches whose clocks start “ticking” at the time they form. Although these clocks are often damaged during the impact and the ensuing pulse of heat, we used mathematical modelling to determine the most probable time of impact.

Together, these techniques consistently pointed to an event 1 billion years old, not 1.2 billion years old as previously suggested. Given such vast spans of time, a 20% change in age might not seem dramatic.

However, the new age shows the timing of the impact coincides with early non-marine eukaryotic fossils. It also lines up with a major mountain-building event. This means the Torridonian lifeforms had to cope with significant, environment-altering phenomena.

Why this is important for you, me, and life in general

The origin of life is a deeply complex process that likely began with a series of pre-biotic chemical reactions.

While much remains unknown, it is intriguing that two ancient meteorite impacts, the 3.5-billion-year-old North Pole impact in Western Australia and now the 1-billion-year-old Stac Fada deposit in northwest Scotland, occur close in time to major milestones in the fossil record.

The North Pole impact occurs in a sequence of rocks containing stromatolites, some of the oldest-known fossils considered to be indicative of microbial life.

All life requires energy. The earliest forms of life are thought to be associated with volcanic hydrothermal springs. Impacts offer a plausible alternative. The immediate aftermath of a meteorite strike is extreme and hostile, and would ruin your day. But the long-term effects could support key biological processes.

Meteorite strikes fracture rocks, generate long-lived hydrothermal systems and form crater lakes that enable the concentration of important ingredients for life, such as clays, organic molecules and phosphorus. The latter is a key element for all forms of life.

In Scotland, the Stac Fada impact lies within an ancient river and lake environment that housed microbial ecosystems colonising the land. What makes the Stac Fada impact deposits fascinating is that, unlike most other impacts on Earth, they preserve the environments in which those pioneering organisms lived immediately prior to the impact.

Further, the impact deposits were subsequently buried as non-marine microbial habitats became reestablished. So, the Stac Fada rocks provide an opportunity to see how microbial life recovered from impact.

Extraterrestrial visitors in the form of meteorite collisions may not just have scarred Earth’s surface, but shaped its future, turning catastrophic events into natural crater-cradles of life.

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

– ref. 1 billion years ago, a meteorite struck Scotland and influenced life on Earth – https://theconversation.com/1-billion-years-ago-a-meteorite-struck-scotland-and-influenced-life-on-earth-254285

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Simon, Adjunct Fellow in Economics, Macquarie University

Uncertainty is everywhere these days.

There is even uncertainty about the uncertainty.

The Reserve Bank of Australia, for example, noted in the minutes from its April 1 meeting:

The most significant development in the period leading up to the meeting had been the significant rise in uncertainty about global trade policy, although the effect of this on sentiment and economic developments in Australia was not yet clear.

A new monthly business survey, developed by a team of researchers at Macquarie University, the Business Outlook Scenarios Survey (BOSS), provides some clarity.

A key feature of the survey, which distinguishes it from other business surveys, is its focus on uncertainty about the future, not just expectations about the most likely outcome.

The most recent survey was conducted between April 10–17, after the announcement of the US “liberation day” tariffs on April 2. The results are concerning, but not yet alarming.

Big rise in uncertainty

The results suggest there has been a significant increase in business uncertainty stemming from the tariff and geopolitical tensions.

Our survey asks roughly 500 Australian businesses about their expectations for, and perceptions of uncertainty about, key business and macroeconomic conditions.

Running since June 2024, it tracks a sample that is representative of Australian businesses. It surveys key decision makers, such as chief financial officers and business owners, who have a detailed knowledge of their own business, and a general knowledge of the broader economy.

The jump in uncertainty is leading to an increase in pessimistic views about businesses’ prospects. Moreover, these expectations are surrounded by elevated uncertainty.

While this has yet to translate into plans to reduce employment and investment, businesses on average expect their costs will rise, and plan to counter the effect through increasing prices.

More importantly, uncertainty generally leads people to defer decisions, and we see evidence of that in the April survey. Firms on average are not expecting to reduce investment or employment – but neither are they planning on increasing it.

Inflation worries are off the boil

When asked about the main source of uncertainty over the next 12 months, businesses used to point to inflation. In June 2024, more than 65% of businesses cited inflation as the main source of business uncertainty. While this is still a significant concern, it has fallen to 48% of respondents.

More dramatically, however, geopolitical risk and tariffs combined were nominated by 52% of businesses in April as one of the main sources of uncertainty. This is up from about 20% of firms in June last year.

This global uncertainty is translating into uncertainty about individual business conditions. There is an increase in the percentage of businesses that expect deteriorating conditions for their business. And there is also an increase in uncertainty about the likely outcomes for their industry conditions, product demand, and access to credit and business inputs.

Risks for hiring and investment

While deteriorating expectations are a source of concern, the rise in uncertainty is like a one-two punch. Businesses that are uncertain about the future will stop hiring or investing until they have a better idea of what the future holds.

Indeed, during the Great Depression in the 1930s, uncertainty about the future exacerbated the initial downturn and helped turn it from a recession into a depression. This paralysing uncertainty is what led US President Franklin D. Roosevelt to utter the famous line “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

While the situation in Australia is not nearly that dire, you can see the consequences of the uncertainty in businesses’ expectations for both their own businesses and the economy more generally.

In light of the tariff tensions, the majority of businesses are adopting a “wait and see” approach and expect to keep employment and investment unchanged in the next 12 months. The majority (62%) also expect their costs will be higher and, consequently, that they will have to raise their prices.

What it means for the RBA

Most businesses surveyed also anticipate higher inflation and lower economic growth in Australia. That is, stagflation.

This has important consequences for the next Reserve Bank board meeting in May.

The March quarter consumer price index, to be released on April 30, is unlikely to show the effects of the trade tensions. But monetary policy needs to be set in a forward-looking manner. That means business expectations of higher costs, prices and inflation over the next 12 months could argue for higher interest rates than otherwise.

Complicating the picture is the expectation of slower economic growth, which would usually argue for lower interest rates.

On balance, the majority of businesses surveyed in April expect the Reserve Bank to lower the cash rate in response to the trade war.

Regardless, what is undeniable is that uncertainty has increased in the last few months. And that means that policymakers need to deal with the uncertainty itself. Slightly lower interest rates or a little extra government spending cannot, of themselves, overcome the paralysing effects of uncertainty.

As such, the Reserve Bank and the government need to talk about not just their central expectations, but their strategy for dealing with the uncertainty around those expectations.

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

– ref. New survey shows business outlook is weakening and uncertainty rising as the trade war bites – https://theconversation.com/new-survey-shows-business-outlook-is-weakening-and-uncertainty-rising-as-the-trade-war-bites-255101

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

The government has dug out last-minute savings of more than
A$7 billion, to ensure its election commitments are more than offset in every year of the forward estimates.

Its costings, released Monday, include savings of $6.4 billion from further reducing spending on consultants, contractors and labour hire, as well as non-wage expenses including travel, hospitality and property.

The second saving is $760 million from increasing the visa application fee for primary student visa applicants to $2000 from July 1.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers told a news conference Labor’s costings “show that we will more than offset our election campaign commitments in every year of the forward estimates”.

“We will finish this election campaign with the budget in a stronger position than at the start of the election campaign”.

“We have improved the budget position by more than $1 billion, comparing the pre-election outlook to the costings that we release today,” he said.

With its costings out, Labor is piling the pressure onto the opposition to produce its numbers.

“We call on the Coalition now to come clean on their cuts. We’ve made it very clear what our costs are and how we will pay for the commitments that we have made in this election campaign,” Chalmers said.

The opposition “need to come clean on what their secret cuts for nuclear reactors means for Medicare, for pensions and payments, for skills and housing and other essential investments.

“They have committed more than $60 billion in this election campaign and in their policy commitments, and that’s before we get to their $600 billion of nuclear reactors.”

Chalmers said if the opposition costings did not include the cost of the nuclear reactors they “will not be worth the paper they are written on”.

Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor said opposition costings, coming later this week, would project a stronger budget position than Labor’s. He also said if the Coalition was elected it would have an economic statement later this year.

As the costings war ramps up, ratings agency S&P warned Australia’s AAA credit rating could be threatened if election promises resulted in larger structural deficits, and debt and interest expenses increased more than expected.

Given deficits and international circumstances, “how the elected government funds its campaign pledges and rising spending will be crucial for maintaining the rating”, the agency said.

Asked about the comments, Chalmers said: “I say to that particular agency, indeed, all of the ratings agencies, that in our time in office, we’ve engineered the biggest positive turnaround in a budget of any parliamentary term ever”. He pointed to the improvement in the budget numbers during the campaign to underline Labor’s credentials.

The fresh impact of Labor’s promises on the bottom line has also been limited because most of them were already factored into the budget.

After the savings and spends are netted out the deficit for 2025-26 is estimated to be $41.9 billion compared to the $42.2 billion in the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook.

Chalmers says Dutton to build nuclear reactor in his own seat

Jim Chalmers must carry off the prize for the most brazen “scare” of a campaign full of attempted scares.

Chalmers picked up on Anthony Albanese’s question to Peter Dutton in Sunday’s debate, when the PM asked the opposition leader whether he’d be willing to have a nuclear power plant in his seat of Dickson. Dutton said he would.

Chalmers’ message to voters in “that wonderful part of southeast Queensland” is: “your local member wants to build a nuclear reactor in your suburbs.”

“[The Labor candidate,] Ali France, is not going to build a nuclear reactor in your local community but Peter Dutton wants to.

“I would encourage you to think about that […] as you choose your local member,” Chalmers told his news conference.

The treasurer kept a straight face while delivering this warning to Dickson voters.

Dutton questions Welcome to Country ceremonies at Anzac Dawn services

Peter Dutton has widened his criticism of the extent of Welcome to Country ceremonies by saying he does not believe they belong at Anzac Day dawn services.

He said that listening to veterans, “I think the majority view would be that they don’t want it on that day”. But he said it was an individual decision up to the RSLs.

Discussion of the Welcome to Country ceremonies has come to the fore after a group of neo-Nazis heckled the ceremony at the Shrine of Remembrance service on Friday. It also came up in Sunday’s debate between the leaders, when Dutton said the ceremonies should be reserved for significant occasions such as the opening of parliament.

Questioned by reporters on Monday, Dutton said the acknowledgment to country given by Qantas when planes landed was “over the top”.

“We are all equal Australians,” he said. “I believe we should stand behind one flag united to help Indigenous Australians deal with disparity around health outcomes, around education outcomes, around housing, around safety […] I want to provide support for practical reconciliation. The prime minister’s policy is to please inner city Greens, which is not something we signed up to.”

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

– ref. Election Diary: Labor to slash more consultant costs and increase visa charges to pay for fresh election commitments – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-labor-to-slash-more-consultant-costs-and-increase-visa-charges-to-pay-for-fresh-election-commitments-255386

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nial Wheate, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

An antidepressant containing a form of the drug ketamine has been added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), making it much cheaper for the estimated 30,000 Australians with treatment-resistant depression. This is when a patient has tried multiple forms of treatment for major depression – usually at least two antidepressant medications – without any improvement.

From May 1, a dose of Spravato (also known as esketamine hydrochloride) will cost $A31.60 and $7.70 for concession card holders.

However, unlike oral antidepressants, Spravato can’t be taken at home. Here’s how it works, and who it’s expected to help.

What is Spravato?

The chemical ketamine is used as an anaesthetic. In this formulation it combines both the right-handed (designated “R”) and left-handed (called “S”) forms of the molecule.

This means they are mirror images of each other, similar to how your left hand is a mirror image of your right hand. The left- and right-hand forms can have different effects in the body.

Spravato contains only the left-handed version, giving the drug its generic name esketamine.

Spravato works by increasing the levels of glutamate in the brain. Glutamate is a key chemical messenger molecule that excites brain nerve cells, lifting and improving mood. It also plays a role in learning and forming memories.

How is it taken?

Spravato cannot be taken at home.

A patient can self-administer, but it must be done at a registered treatment facility, such as a hospital, under the supervision of medical staff so they can look out for blood pressure changes and monitor potential side effects.

The drug is provided as a single-use nasal spray. This application means it’s absorbed directly through the nasal lining into the brain, so it starts to work within minutes.

Spravato must also be taken alongside an oral antidepressant. This will be a new one the patient hasn’t tried before. In clinical trials, it was usually an SNRI or SSRI medication.

When a patient first starts on Spravato, they are given the spray twice a week in the first month. It is then administered once a week for the second month, and then weekly or fortnightly after that.

Once there are signs the medicine is working, treatment is continued for at least six months.

How effective is it?

Spravato was approved for sale in Australia based on clinical trial data from more than 1,600 patients who were administered the drug for a period of four weeks. Each was given either Spravato, or a nasal placebo, and an oral antidepressant.

Patients were given a starting dose of either 28 or 56mg, which could be then increased up to 84mg by their doctor.

By the end of the four weeks, a greater percentage of patients who were given Spravato were found to have had a meaningful response to the treatment when compared with patients who received the placebo. Patients who were taking Spravato were also found to relapse at a lower rate. For those who did relapse, it took the Spravato patients longer to relapse when compared with patients who took the placebo.

It is expected Spravato will benefit a wide range of patients. The clinical trials demonstrated effectiveness for men and women, people aged 18 to 64, and those from a range of different ethnic backgrounds.

Read more:
Depression too often gets deemed ‘hard to treat’ when medication falls short

Potential side effects

As with any medicine, Spravato may cause side effects, some of which can be serious. The most common include:

• dissociation (feeling disconnected from yourself or what is around you)
• dizziness
• nausea and vomiting
• drowsiness
• headache
• change in taste
• vertigo.

Because Spravato can potentially increase blood pressure, medical staff will monitor a patient before and after it is administered.

Usually, blood pressure spikes around 40 minutes after taking the drug, so a reading is taken around this time. After taking Spravato, if their blood pressure has stayed low, or it’s dropping, the patient is given the all-clear to go home.

Due to the potential for this and other serious side effects, Spravato carries a black triangle warning. This means medical staff are encouraged to report any problem or side effect to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. A black triangle warning is generally used for new medicines or medicines that are being used in a new way.

Who will be eligible?

To be eligible for a prescription, a patient will need to have been diagnosed with treatment-resistant depression. In practice, this means they will have unsuccessfully tried at least two other antidepressant drugs first.

Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration approved Spravato for use in Australia in 2021, meaning it was available but not subsidised. Since then, the sponsoring company, Janssen-Cilag (an Australian subsidiary of the multinational Johnson & Johnson), applied to have it added to the PBS four times.

In December 2024, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommended a PBS listing.

The new PBS listing, capping the price of a single treatment at $31.60, is a significant price drop. In 2023, single doses of branded Spravato were reported to cost anywhere between $500 and $900.

However, patients may still have to pay hundreds of dollars for appointments at private clinics where Spravato can be administered. Public places are available but limited.

Spravato may be suitable for you if you’ve tried different antidepressants without success. If it is suitable for you, then your doctor can discuss the next steps.

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

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. 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. He is a member of the Haleon Australia Pty Ltd Pain Advisory Board. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design and testing.

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

– ref. A ketamine nasal spray will be subsidised for treatment-resistant depression. Here’s what you need to know about Spravato – https://theconversation.com/a-ketamine-nasal-spray-will-be-subsidised-for-treatment-resistant-depression-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-spravato-255403

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

In front of a crowd of party faithful last weekend, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton referred to the ABC, Guardian Australia and other news platforms as “hate media”. The language was extreme, the inference being these outlets were not simply doing their jobs, but attacking him and his side of politics because of ideological bias.

Speaking at a Liberal Party campaign rally in the Melbourne western suburb of Melton, Dutton said:

Forget about what you have been told by the ABC, The Guardian and the other hate media. Listen to what you hear [at] doors. Listen to what people say on the pre-polling. Know in your hearts that we are a better future for our country.

Melton is in the Labor-held seat of Hawke, which the Liberals believe they can win.

Dutton provided no evidence to support his accusation, for the good reason that there has been nothing in the ABC’s or Guardian Australia’s coverage of Dutton that could remotely justify it.

By a process of elimination, the “other hate media” to which he referred can only be The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, given the News Corporation mastheads have been unflagging in their support for him throughout the campaign.

What has been common to the campaign coverage by the ABC, Guardian Australia, The Age and the SMH has been close scrutiny of both sides and both leaders.

The three newspapers in particular have put renewed resources into independently fact-checking claims made by both Dutton and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and have caught out both men telling falsehoods.

The broadcast news media on the whole have played it straight, except of course for Sky News after dark, which has been as relentlessly pro-Coalition as their News Corp newspaper stablemates.

Beyond these professional mass media platforms, there have been clearly partisan social media influencers working on both sides, as well as a range of podcasters, but none of these has been guilty of hate speech towards Dutton or anyone else.

The inescapable conclusion is that Dutton equates scrutiny of him by journalists with hate speech.

This is where his attitude becomes dangerous to democracy. It comes straight from US President Donald Trump’s playbook, where the professional mass media are “fake news” and the “enemy of the people”.

It is designed to play not just on people’s longstanding distrust of the news media in general – though not of the ABC – but on some voters’ sense of grievance at the way governments have treated them.

This worked for Trump in the United States, but it became obvious early in the campaign that any association with Trumpism was a strong political negative in Australia, particularly in the atmosphere of alarm generated by his tariff war.

Dutton then took pains to distance himself from Trumpism, and at the Liberal launch in Western Australia his face was a picture of alarm when Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, whom he had appointed to the Trumpian-sounding post of shadow minister for government efficiency, used the slogan “Make Australia Great Again”.

But it is typical of his incoherent campaign that at the start of the last week he should be echoing the Trumpian view of the media in such extreme terms, creating even more instability. In an ABC interview, his shadow minister for finance, Jane Hume, refused to support him, saying “that wouldn’t be a phrase I would use”.

It also raises legitimate questions about how Dutton would treat the media should he become prime minister. For example, if a media platform refused to obey his wishes, or provide him with coverage of which he approved, would its representatives be excluded from prime ministerial access?

Not long ago, such a proposition would have been inconceivable, but Trump banned the Associated Press (AP) from presidential access because it would not obey his instruction to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. A federal judge later found the ban violated the First Amendment, and ordered AP’s access to be restored.

It is very improbable Dutton would even try to impose his will on the commercial media in Australia, especially the newspapers.

In fact, Guardian Australia has turned his remark into a fundraising opportunity. It emailed subscribers with the subject line “A note from the ‘hate media’,” comparing Dutton’s language to that of Trump, and asking for financial support to keep holding figures like Dutton to account.

But his potential to punish the publicly funded ABC is another matter.

From statements he has made during the campaign, it seems certain the ABC would be in for more funding cuts and an investigation into its operations of the kind Trump has launched into America’s National Public Radio.

Read more:
What would – and should – happen to the ABC under the next federal government?

Coalition prime ministers going back to John Howard have had a hostile relationship with the ABC. Howard stacked the ABC board, and the panel that nominates its members, with ideological mates.

In the eight years from 2014 to 2022, under the Coalition governments of Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison, $526 million was cut from the ABC’s budget.

During that time, there was also a series of inquiries into the ABC, set up to satisfy politicians with a beef against the ABC, notably Pauline Hanson.

The day after Dutton’s “hate media” statement, the ABC’s 4 Corners program revealed he failed for two years to disclose he was the beneficiary of a family trust that operated lucrative childcare businesses when he was a cabinet minister.

This is unlikely to improve his view of the national broadcaster. He may even see it as more hate. In fact, it is just good journalism.

Denis Muller and Nicole Chvastek will discuss this further on their Truth, Lies and Media podcast on Wednesday April 30.

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

– ref. Peter Dutton calling the ABC and the Guardian ‘hate media’ rings alarm bells for democracy – https://theconversation.com/peter-dutton-calling-the-abc-and-the-guardian-hate-media-rings-alarm-bells-for-democracy-255412

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Angus, Professor of Digital Communication, Director of QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology

In the lead-up to the 2025 Australian federal election, political advertising is seemingly everywhere.

We’ve been mapping the often invisible world of digital political advertising across Facebook, Instagram and TikTok.

We’ve done this thanks to a panel of ordinary Australians who agreed to download an ad tracking app developed through the Australian Internet Observatory.

We’re also tracking larger trends in political ad spending, message type and tone, and reach via the PoliDashboard tool. This open source tool aggregates transparency data from Meta (including Facebook and Instagram) which we use to identify patterns and items of concern.

While the major parties are spending heavily and are highly visible in the feeds of our participants, it is the prevalence of third-party political advertising that is most striking. We’ve observed a notable trend: for every ad from a registered political party, there is roughly one ad from a third-party entity.

Astroturfing and the illusion of grassroots support

One of the most concerning trends we’re seeing is a rise in astroturfing. This refers to masking the sponsors of a message to make it appear as though it originates from ordinary citizens or grassroots organisations.

Astroturfing ads do often adhere to the formal disclosure requirements set out by the Australian Electoral Commission. However, these disclosures don’t meaningfully inform the public on who is behind these misleading ads.

Authorisation typically only includes the name and address of an intermediary. This may be a deliberately opaque shell entity set up just in time for an election.

A key example seen by participants in our study involves the pro-gas advocacy group Australians for Natural Gas.

It presents itself as a grassroots movement, but an ABC investigation revealed this group is working with Freshwater Strategy – the Coalition’s internal pollster. Emails obtained by the ABC show Freshwater Strategy is “helping orchestrate a campaign to boost public support for the gas industry ahead of the federal election”.

Other examples we’ve encountered in our monitoring include groups with benign-sounding names like Mums for Nuclear and Australians for Prosperity. These labels and the ads they are running suggest grassroots concern, but they obscure the deeper agendas behind them.

In the case of Australians for Prosperity, an ABC analysis revealed backing from wealthy donors, former conservative MPs and coal interests.

The battle over energy

Nowhere is this more evident than in messaging around energy policy, especially nuclear power and gas.

In recent months, both major parties and a swathe of third-party advertisers have run targeted online campaigns focused on the costs and benefits of different energy futures. These ads play to deeply felt concerns about cost of living, action on climate change, and national sovereignty.

Yet many of these messages, particularly those that promote gas and nuclear, come from organisations with opaque funding and undeclared political affiliations or connections. Voters may see a slick Facebook ad or a sponsored TikTok explainer without any idea who paid for it, or why.

And with no obligation to be truthful, much of this content may be deeply misleading. It muddies public understanding at a critical moment for climate action.

Truth not required

Truth in political advertising isn’t legally required in all of Australia. While businesses can’t mislead consumers under consumer law, political parties and third-party campaigners are exempt from those same standards.

This means misleading or outright false claims – about opponents, policies or the state of the economy – can be repeated and amplified without consequence, provided they’re framed as political opinion.

Despite calls for reform from politicians, experts and civil society groups, federal legislation continues to lag behind community expectations.

South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory do have truth in political advertising laws, but there is still no national standard.

In the digital advertising environment, where ads are fast, fleeting, and often tailored to individuals, the absence of such independent scrutiny allows misinformation to flourish unchecked.

Most people are seeing very little – or so it seems

Paradoxically, our data shows the majority of participants are seeing very few political ads. Of the total ads seen, less than 2% pertained to political topics or the election specifically.

This is partly a result of how the advertising products offered by platforms like Meta and TikTok allow ads to be targeted to specific demographics, locations or interests. This means even two people in the same household may have entirely different ad experiences.

But it’s also a reminder social media ads are just the tip of the iceberg. Much political persuasion online happens outside paid ad campaigns – via influencer content, YouTube recommendations, algorithmic amplification, mainstream media coverage and more.

Because platforms and publishers aren’t required to share this broader content with researchers or the public, we can’t easily track it – although we are trying.

We need meaningful observability

If democracy is to thrive in a digital age, we need to be able to independently observe online political communication, including advertising.

Existing measures like campaign finance disclosures and transparency tools provided by platforms will never be enough. They don’t include user experiences or track patterns across populations and over time. This inevitably means some advertising activity flies under the radar.

We lack robust tools to understand and analyse our current fragmented information landscape.

Where platforms don’t provide meaningful data access to researchers and the public, tools like the Ad Observatory and PoliDashboard offer valuable glimpses into a fragmented information landscape, while remaining incomplete.

However, tools on their own are not enough. We also need to be willing to call out and act when politicians mislead the public.

Acknowlegement: The Australian Ad Observatory is a team effort. The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Jean Burgess, Nicholas Carah, Alfie Chadwick, Kyle Herbertson, Tina Kang, Khanh Luong, Abdul Karim Obeid, Lina Przhedetsky, and Dan Tran.

Daniel Angus receives funding from Australian Research Council through Linkage Project ‘Young Australians and the Promotion of Alcohol on Social Media’. He is a Chief Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.

Christine Parker receives funding from the Australian Research Council through the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society.

Giselle Newton received funding from the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education for the project ‘How alcohol and gambling companies target people most at risk with marketing for addictive products on Facebook’.

Mark Andrejevic receives funding from the Australian Research Council through the Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society and through the Discovery Program.

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

– ref. What political ads are Australians seeing online? Astroturfing, fake grassroots groups, and outright falsehoods – https://theconversation.com/what-political-ads-are-australians-seeing-online-astroturfing-fake-grassroots-groups-and-outright-falsehoods-255225

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Intifar Chowdhury, Lecturer in Government, Flinders University

As was widely predicted, the cost of living has dominated the federal election campaign. Soaring rents, grocery bills and energy prices have squeezed household budgets.

But these pressures aren’t new. In 2022, voter frustration over living costs helped Labor oust the Coalition.

With economic pressures persisting, will history repeat?

Analysis of cost-of-living trends and voting patterns in the last election reveals the voters most motivated by hip-pocket concerns: young women.

What was the situation in 2022?

In the 2022 Australian Election Study – a nationally representative post-election survey – about 23.3% of respondents (577 out of 2,478) identified cost of living as the most important issue shaping their vote.

Younger Australians were the most concerned about the issue. Among the age groups, 38.9% of those aged 18–30 prioritised it, compared with 30.4% aged 31–45, 28.5% aged 46–60, and just 15.4% among those aged 61–90.

The generational pattern was clear: the younger you were, the more likely you were to vote on cost-of-living concerns.

Gender also played a role. A slightly higher proportion of women (25.1%) than men (21.1%) rated cost of living as their top issue.

But the age-gender breakdown reveals more: among cost-of-living voters aged 18–45, women made up roughly 70%.

In contrast, men outnumbered women among older cost-of-living voters (aged 60 and over).

These trends suggest the cost of living is especially salient for younger women — a key electoral demographic to watch. Evidence shows this cohort is almost twice as likely as young men to be undecided voters.

If we look at housing, cost-of-living concerns were most prevalent among renters, with 38.5% of public housing tenants and 32.3% of private renters citing it as their top issue, compared to just 16.4% of those who own their home outright.

Those paying off a mortgage (27.3%) and people in alternative living arrangements such as boarding or living at home (35.6%) also reported elevated concern, highlighting the strong link between housing insecurity and financial stress.

Looking at household incomes, it’s no surprise low-income households were overrepresented among cost-of-living voters.

But concern wasn’t limited to them. Middle-income households, including many earning six-figure incomes, also featured prominently, reflecting how rising rents and mortgage repayments are squeezing even those once considered financially secure.

A generation defining crisis

Cost-of-living pressures are widespread, but financial vulnerability heightens the risk of poverty, which already affects more than three million Australians.

As shown above, young people and young families are at the deep end of the crisis.
For many, this is a generation-defining crisis, reshaping life expectations.

In 2017, 62.2% of Australians aged 18–24 saw home ownership as highly important. By 2024, that dropped to 49.5%. A similar decline occurred among 25–34-year-olds.

Read more:
Every generation thinks they had it the toughest, but for Gen Z, they’re probably right

Those in the poorest suburbs or the poorest household are the least likely to value home ownership. This is potentially a sign they feel permanently locked out, deepening inequality.

As renting becomes more common, and rent prices skyrocket, young people are increasingly struggling to secure affordable rent.

It’s no surprise Gen Z is more financially anxious than any other generation. The mental health toll of financial stress is stark, contributing to the high prevalence of mental health disorders among this age group.

With a sizeable youth electorate this time around, financially struggling young voters could be the power brokers of the election. So who might they vote for?

The politics of living costs

In the last election, 61.7% of voters concerned about the cost of living backed a left-of-centre party, while 38.3% voted for the right. Despite the Coalition’s historic advantage on economic issues, they faced an incumbent disadvantage among cost-of-living voters.

In an Election Monitoring Survey conducted in October 2024, only 23.7% of Australians were living comfortably on their present income, while 46.4% were coping, and 29.9% were struggling.

Those facing financial hardship were more dissatisfied with the country’s direction, less confident in the government, and more likely to dislike both major party leaders.

Unsurprisingly, October 2024 saw a decline in trust in the federal government, with 15.7% of Australians reporting no trust at all, up from 8.3% in May 2022. Those who did trust the government remained around 32%.

This shows cost-of-living voters – much like young and female voters – are likely to explore alternatives beyond the major parties, continuing the 2022 trend.

Both major parties have seen a steady decline in support over the past two decades, with less than 70% of the primary vote between them in 2022.

This time around, Labor can afford to lose only two seats before facing minority government. Peter Dutton, on the other hand, faces a tougher task, needing nearly 20 seats for a majority.

With increasing dislike for the major parties among financially struggling voters, there’s a real chance of a hung parliament, where neither party secures the 76 seats needed to govern outright, making negotiations with minor parties and independents crucial.

Policy battleground

The major parties know how important the rising cost of living is to voters. A slew of policies has already been announced, from cheaper doctors visits, to lower cost medicines and power bill rebates. On all these fronts, the Coalition has agreed to match Labor’s proposals, ensuring a tightly contested debate.

Notably, Labor’s proposal to top up stage three income tax cuts won’t kick in until mid-next year, but will cost the government $17 billion over four years.

Meanwhile, the Coalition’s pledge to halve the excise on fuel duty for a year, will cost $6 billion in lost tax revenue in a year.

But whether it will be enough to stop cost-of-living voters siding with a minor party or independent remains to be seen.

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

– ref. Young women are among those who care most about the cost of living. It could be bad for the major parties – https://theconversation.com/young-women-are-among-those-who-care-most-about-the-cost-of-living-it-could-be-bad-for-the-major-parties-254988

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James J Bell, Professor of Marine Biology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The latest update on the state of New Zealand’s environment paints a concerning outlook for marine environments, especially amid the increasing push to use the marine estate for economic gain.

But many shallow coastal ecosystems remain largely unexplored. As our latest fieldwork shows, many of these areas are hotspots for protected species, but are largely unprotected from human impacts.

Ecosystems in the ‘middle’ light zone

Subtidal rocky reefs have been the focus of scientific research for centuries. During the past eight decades, with the advent of SCUBA diving, they have been studied even more intensively.

However, rocky reefs extend much deeper than most SCUBA divers can typically reach, into what is known as the mesophotic or “middle” light zone.

While seaweeds dominate in the well-lit shallow waters, there is limited light to sustain photosynthesis in the mesophotic zone below around 30 metres. The decline in seaweed creates more space for animals, which leads to the development of communities containing species not found in the shallows.

Because these ecosystems are no longer affected by surface wave action, they are often dominated by large, fragile three-dimensional species.

We still know very little about the ecology of the species that live in mesophotic ecosystems. Many are likely to be slow growing and long-lived, with some living for hundreds or possibly thousands of years.

Research is ongoing and empirical data still sparse, but observations show many fish are associated with these mesophotic communities. We eat some of them, or they are important within the ocean food web.

Diverse ecosystems and protected species

We shared some of the first high-resolution videos of New Zealand’s mesophotic ecosystems in 2022. Back then, we thought these deep-reef communities were dominated by sponges.

However, we have since deployed a Boxfish remotely operated vehicle more than 200 times around New Zealand and found sponges are not always the most dominant organism.

In fact, mesophotic ecosystems along New Zealand’s coast are very diverse, with regional variation in the types of communities.

Our team found sea squirts dominated communities off Rakiura Stewart Island, anemone stands in the Wellington region, red coral beds along the Fiordland coast and coral “reefs” in Northland.

Importantly, many of these reefs support species protected under the Wildlife Act.

During our most recent trip to Doubtless Bay in Northland, we explored more than 20 locations. At many sites we encountered protected coral species. The term coral is broadly defined in the Wildlife Act – it includes groups such as black corals (order Antipatharia), gorgonian corals (Gorgonacea), stony corals (Scleractinia) and hydrocorals (family Stylasteridae).

Under the Wildlife Act, it is illegal to deliberately collect or damage these species. If they are brought to the surface accidentally (in fishing gear or by anchors, for example), they must be returned to the sea immediately.

Many of these corals are typically considered deep-sea species, but they are commonly found in New Zealand’s mesophotic ecosystems. Northland’s mesophotic communities have examples from all these groups of corals, as well as other fragile ecosystems dominated by glass sponges.

While glass sponges are not protected, they are thought to be very slow growing, with some species living for thousands of years.

Current and future impacts

Many mesophotic organisms grow slowly and rely on food carried in the water. This makes them particularly sensitive to activities that disrupt the seafloor, such as fishing and anchoring, and to the effect of higher sediment loads.

Sediment can either smother or clog mesophotic organisms such as corals and sponges. Many of these species show some tolerance to sediment, but prolonged exposure or very high levels can kill them off.

Many of the mesophotic ecosystems we have explored show clear evidence of human impacts, including lost recreational fishing gear and anchor lines.

The government plans to maximise the economic potential of the marine estate and much of this development is focused on coastal areas. Any activities that generate coastal sediment plumes are of particular concern.

Seabed sand mining operations already occur at some sites around the coast of New Zealand. More have been proposed, potentially generating sediment plumes that could reach these mesophotic communities.

A fundamental step for effective management of biodiversity is to understand its distribution. Our work over the past five years has characterised a wide range of mesophotic ecosystems, but there are still large areas of the New Zealand coastline that have not been explored. They are likely to contain undescribed communities.

As many regional councils around New Zealand are working through revisions to coastal policy plans, these deeper rocky reefs need to be fully included to protect the species they support.

Professor James J Bell receives funding from the Department of Conservation, Environment Southland, the George Mason Charitable Trust, The Royal Society of New Zealand, and the Greater Wellington Regional Council.

– ref. Reefs in the ‘middle’ light zone along NZ’s coast are biodiversity hotspots – many are home to protected species – https://theconversation.com/reefs-in-the-middle-light-zone-along-nzs-coast-are-biodiversity-hotspots-many-are-home-to-protected-species-254597

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Asgary, Professor, Disaster & Emergency Management, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies & Director, CIFAL York, York University, Canada

A car attack at a Filipino street festival in Vancouver just two days before Canada’s federal election has killed at least 11 people and injured many more.

The carnage along a street lined with food trucks took place shortly after one of the men vying to become Canada’s prime minister — New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh — attended the event. A shell-shocked Singh observed a moment of silence in Penticton, B.C., during another campaign stop the next day.

A 30-year-old Vancouver resident has been arrested, but the motivation behind the attack is unknown.

Vancouver police say the suspect has mental health issues and was known to police prior to the attack. Police also told a news conference there was no indication there was a need for extra policing at the festival, deeming it to have a “low threat level.”

What goes into making that calculation, and is a public event ever truly low-risk?

Difficulties of crowd management

The Vancouver SUV attack is now classified as a crowd-related or mass gathering type of disaster. There have been cases of public vehicle-ramming attacks in Canada in the past, in particular the 2018 Toronto van attack that left 10 people dead.

While it’s not yet known whether the Vancouver attack was targeted, there were clearly weaknesses in crowd management for such a large gathering. These types of attacks have been on the increase over the past decade and are now considered one of the prime threats to mass gatherings in public spaces and streets.

Unfortunately, many mass gathering events do not allocate either sufficient resources or time for crowd management procedures, particularly those related to risk and emergency management.

Organizing mass gathering events in public spaces should factor in different threats, including the potential for car ramming, and implement effective mitigation and preparedness measures.

‘Soft targets’

Many public spaces where these events take place are vulnerable to car attacks. Evidence shows that mass gatherings are soft targets, meaning they’re easily accessible to large numbers of people and have limited security, protective and warning measures in place. Extreme precautions are needed to protect the public from such attacks so that they don’t become mass casualty events.

Those in attendance should be aware that public spaces generally lack physical barriers, or the proper distribution of them, to resist car or vehicle attacks.

While public awareness programs exist for other hazards such as flooding, earthquakes and extreme weather events, it’s now clear that such awareness and education are needed for mass public gatherings too.

Police should be aware that relying on limited surveillance may not be sufficient to identify such threats at the scene. Vehicle access and traffic control should be in place throughout such events. Lack of warning systems to quickly inform the crowd about an ongoing attack further increases the impacts of vehicular attacks.

Much of the focus on these types of events has been on the motivations of the attackers. Since a considerable number of vehicle-ramming attacks have been attributed to terrorism, communities or events with the perception of lower terrorism threats may not pay close enough attention to this type of threat.

Read more:
Toronto’s most recent car attack was a targeted crime, not a mass attack

Impact on the election?

Canadians aren’t likely to get many more details about the Vancouver attack until after voting day on Monday. Could the tragedy have an impact on the outcome of the federal election?

Past and recent studies have drawn different conclusions about the impact of disasters on election results.

According to what’s known as retrospective voting theory, voters judge governments on how they manage disasters, particularly highly publicized, tragic events, when casting their ballots. Voters can evaluate governments based on their handling of the disaster and the amount of effort they have put into minimizing risk.

Some studies have found that local governments were rewarded after disaster events, including Calgary after the 2013 floods, several Italian municipal governments after earthquakes, local government officials in Brazil amid municipal drought declarations and civic elections in Japan after earthquakes, tsunamis and floods.

Read more:
Why Canada needs to dramatically update how it prepares for and manages emergencies

Voters can and do punish or reward governments and elected politicians based on the effects of recent disasters on them and governments’ responses to them.

But given how soon the Canadian election is being held after the disaster occurred — and the record number of voters who have already cast their ballots in advance polls — this tragedy isn’t likely to have a substantial impact.

Hopefully, however, it will have an influence on how organizers, police and other authorities manage public crowds and events at a time when vehicle-ramming attacks are becoming a recurrent threat. Those elected this election should prioritize efforts to ensure communities can have safer mass gathering events.

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

– ref. Vancouver SUV attack exposes crowd management falldowns and casts a pall on Canada’s election – https://theconversation.com/vancouver-suv-attack-exposes-crowd-management-falldowns-and-casts-a-pall-on-canadas-election-255395

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Hoyer, Senior Researcher, Historian and Complexity Scientist, University of Toronto

Canada is, by nearly any measure, a large, advanced, prosperous nation. A founding member of the G7, Canada is one of the world’s most “advanced economies,” ranking fourth in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Better Life Index, which measures things like national health outcomes, security, safety and life satisfaction.

However, all of this prosperity and ostensible stability can mask social tensions, which can simmer for years, even decades, before boiling over into widespread unrest, civil violence and even societal collapse.

Along with more than a dozen collaborators as part of the Seshat: Global History Databank project, I have spent over a decade studying the rise and fall of societies from around the globe and throughout history. This provides a unique insight to understand the challenges facing modern nations.

Our new organization, Societal Dynamics (SoDy), works to translate what we learn from observing historical patterns into lessons for today.

Even the most powerful empires can collapse

Devoting my time to studying historic crises has shown me just how fragile societies are. Even big, powerful, famous civilizations can succumb to crises.

For instance, colleagues recently published a study comparing three large, wealthy imperial powers of the past: the Roman, Han and Aztec Empires.

Historians consider these to be some of the most successful, wealthy, stable societies of the pre-modern world.

They lasted centuries, controlled vast stretches of territory, oversaw innovations in technology, politics and philosophy and produced some of the most famous works of art and architecture from history that we still talk about today — the incredible Roman Colosseum, the stunning jade carvings and other artwork of the Han period and the amazing Aztec pyramids and intricate artwork.

But not long after they reached their apex, all three of these mighty civilizations experienced devastating crises:

Rome was torn apart by civil warfare starting in the early third century CE. Ambitious military generals from the provinces marched on each other, looking to gain even more power. They were supported by legions of loyal soldiers dissatisfied with their lot in life.

Western Han imperial rule came to a crashing end in the 9 CE when a wealthy and prominent courtier named Wang Mang led a successful coup. As in Rome, Wang rallied military leaders and officials frustrated in their ambitions. He amassed a large following of commoners weary of impoverishment by decrying the luxurious excesses of the Han court.

Aztec authority was already weakened by civil strife by the time the invading Spanish armies arrived in 1519 CE. The Aztecs ultimately proved unable to withstand the vicious warfare and disease outbreaks that accompanied the Spanish arrival.

Hidden vulnerabilities

What happened to these once-mighty empires? The aforementioned study gives some answers. The authors explored the distribution of wealth and income in these empires, comparing it to the modern United States.

They found that each of these empires permitted fairly high disparities to accumulate.

In each case, the richest five per cent and one per cent of citizens controlled an outsized share of their society’s wealth. This leads to fairly high “gini index” values as well. The gini is a commonly used measure of inequality in nations — the higher the number up to one, the more inequitable a society is. For comparison, the current average gini among OECD countries is 0.32, notably lower than each of the four societies shown above.

The researchers suggest this high level of inequality contributed to the eventual collapse of these empires.

This is consistent with our own findings on the dynamics of crisis. Inequality tends to breed frustration as impoverishment spreads.

It creates conflict as the upper classes become bloated with too many wealthy and powerful families vying for control of the vast spoils that accumulate at the top. It also erodes society’s ability to respond to acute shocks like ecological disasters or economic downturns as the government loses capacity and authority.

If allowed to persist, it becomes more and more likely for the society to end in collapse.

How does Canada compare?

Canada today bears several similarities with these and other famous civilizations of the past — and that should make Canadians nervous.

Canada, like the Romans, Han, Aztecs and many other once great societies, has maintained a relatively peaceful and secure rule over a large territory for a time. It’s generated a great deal of wealth, has facilitated the exchange of technology, ideas and movement of people over vast distances and has produced amazing works of art. But Canada has also allowed inequality to grow and linger for generations.

My group has been exploring the historic patterns of wealth creation and distribution in different countries, including Canada. We focus on what’s known as the “Palma ratio,” generally considered a more reliable measure of inequality than the gini.

The measurement quantifies the ratio of wealth or income between the richest 10 per cent and the poorest 40 per cent of citizens. Higher numbers indicate that the richest are capturing the lion’s share of a country’s overall wealth.

Canada’s economy has been growing steadily as measured by GDP per capita — with a few notable exceptions — since the Second World War.

Initially, inequality held steady, but starting in about 1980, the Palma ratio jumps up sharply. This suggests the bulk of this growth was making its way into the hands of the wealthy. After a downturn in the late 2000s, inequality has begun to grow again in recent years.

By comparison, the U.S. has experienced similar trends, though without the momentary downturn in the 2000s. Note also that these two graphs show different levels — the Palma ratio in the U.S. in 2022 (the latest available data) is about 4.5, while it’s just over two in Canada.

Heading down a dangerous path

Most citizens living in the heyday of these once mighty empires probably thought that collapse was unfathomable, just as few living in the U.S. or Canada today feel that we’re headed that way.

But there have been familiar signs growing in the U.S. in recent years. Americans appear to be further ahead on the road to a potential collapse than Canadians are, but not by that much.

Canada is starting to exhibit many of these same indicators as well, including significant spikes in social unrest evident during the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasingly hostile rhetoric we have seen among Canadian politicians. Persistent, heightened material inequality stands out as core driver in all of these cases.

Read more:
The ‘freedom convoy’ protesters are a textbook case of ‘aggrieved entitlement’

Canada remains, in many ways, a stable, thriving, modern democratic-socialist country. But it’s on a dangerous path.

If Canada allows inequality continue to rise unchecked as it has over the last few generations, it risks ending up where Rome, Han, the Aztecs and hundreds of other societies have been before: widespread unrest, devastating violence and even complete societal collapse.

As Canadians head to the polls, the country is at another crossroads. Will it continue down this all-too-familiar path, or will it take the opportunity to forge a different route and avoid the fate of the fallen societies of the past?

Daniel Hoyer is director of SoDy and affiliated with ASRA Network, Complexity Science Hub, Vienna, and the SocialAI lab at the University of Toronto. He has received funding from: the Tricoastal Foundation; the Institute for Economics and Peace; and the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation.

– ref. Is Canada heading down a path that has caused the collapse of mighty civilizations in the past? – https://theconversation.com/is-canada-heading-down-a-path-that-has-caused-the-collapse-of-mighty-civilizations-in-the-past-254378

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Lakin, Lecturer, Clark University

Memory and politics are inherently intertwined and can never be fully separated in post-atrocity and post-genocidal contexts. They are also dynamic and ever-changing. The interplay between memory and politics is, therefore, prone to manipulation, exaggeration or misuse by clever actors to meet a range of political ends.

This applies too to Rwanda’s commemoration period (Kwibuka). It runs from April to July each year, dedicated to remembering the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi.

I have been researching genocide memory in Rwanda for more than 12 years. My research focuses on memorialisation, meaning-making, and senses of justice rendered for individuals who lived through the genocide, documenting personal relationships with Kwibuka.

Remembrance poses a challenging paradox. Often, when new conflicts arise, memorialisation falls into two distinct and competing categories. There is politically motivated commemoration, where memory is used as cover to advance a political agenda. Then, there are memory practices that transcend politics. These two types of memory coexist at the same time and place.

Drawing from more than a decade of original research on genocide memory in Rwanda, I explore commemoration practices that transcend politics, and identify why Kwibuka is still needed and how individuals keep Kwibuka relevant in today’s challenging socio-political climate.

Three ways genocide remembrance transcends politics

Firstly, Kwibuka can be a freeing practice for survivors.

For many Rwandans, genocide remembrance practices like Kwibuka still hold meaning. According to interviews I held with several Rwandan genocide survivors based in the US and in Rwanda, the commemoration period can be surprisingly and unexpectedly freeing.

One Rwandan woman in her early 40s who survived rape and was forced into hiding during the genocide explains:

When survivors gather for Kwibuka, we feel like we are allowed to express our grief in ways that might seem bizarre to outsiders. As Rwandans, culturally we are expected to be strong and not overly emotional. Yet during Kwibuka, we cry, we tell stories, and we even laugh and tell jokes. During Kwibuka we are not judged for it. This is what it looks like for survivors to move forward.

Secondly, there is genocide memory as a responsibility.

Some survivors continue to engage in commemoration as an outward form of obligation to the victims lost during the genocide.

According to interviews with several early representatives of Ibuka, the main survivors’ organisation in Rwanda, established in 1995, right after the genocide, most survivors didn’t feel ready to put their own needs aside. They doubted that justice would ever be achieved. Yet, by and large, they did it anyway for the good of the collective, or out of respect for the leaders of the movement who were advocating for their rights.

The obligation to victims remains meaningful to genocide survivors today. When sharing her testimony at the UN commemoration on 7 April 2025, genocide survivor Germaine Tuyisenge Müller discussed her personal obligation to victims.

Many of us still have guilt. We do not know why we survived. We tell our stories out of responsibility.

She was only 9 years old during the genocide.

Out of 100 people I interviewed during my research from 2013 to 2020 in Rwanda, the majority feel it’s important to attend Kwibuka ceremonies. The main reason they give is to support their neighbours and their community.

This perspective represents a change that took place some time after 2014, the 20th Kwibuka, from negative incentives to attend (pressure, surveillance from the government and potential consequences), to Kwibuka being perceived as a positive collective good, with relatively little harm in attending ceremonies. As one Rwandan I interviewed in 2017 put it:

We go because it holds communal value, it’s better to go rather than cause a problem in the community, and it isn’t a hassle for me to go Kwibuka.

Thirdly, genocide remembrance provides agency.

Many Rwandan survivors view engaging in Kwibuka as a way to have agency in the present, contrary to the genocide period when they had no control over their fate. They exercise agency through commitments and actions that support victims who experience violence today.

The majority of interview respondents shared that they reflect on different things while attending commemorations, even when official stories told might not represent the diverse range of Rwandan experiences during the genocide. These include Rwandans from mixed marriages, or individuals falsely accused of committing acts of genocide in 1994.

Shaping commemoration

How can external actors and concerned citizens support efforts that shape commemoration that transcends politics?

While it may feel that there is not much “we” can do, as ordinary global citizens, we each play an important role in protecting and promoting truth in the wake of those who manipulate history to harm survivors and gain politically. But we must be discerning. When we learn, listen to and amplify survivor voices, we must focus on two main aspects. First, are people’s stories authentic? Second, are they dedicated to pursuing justice and peace, and not causing division and conflict?

Additionally, building peace is a long struggle. It cannot happen overnight, nor can we expect it to.

Genocide survivors from Rwanda teach us that it takes active dedication and ongoing, daily work from individuals and organisations to confront and challenge rising manipulation by those who seek to promote violence and conflict. Suffering in the world is increasing. Survivor stories and testimonies shared around the world during Kwibuka become even more important to inform analysis and prevention of modern-day crimes and human rights abuses.

By remembering and honouring the struggles and sacrifices made for the right to gather and remember, the international community and stakeholders dedicated to pursuing peace can learn from the forms of remembrance that transcend politics. This includes its critical role in protecting historical truth from manipulation, one of the most significant challenges faced today.

Samantha Lakin, PhD, is a specialist in comparative genocide and a Senior Fellow at The Center for Peace, Democracy, and Development (CPDD) at the University of Massachusetts Boston. Please note: the author is writing in her personal capacity as a genocide scholar, and her views do not represent those of her current employer.

– ref. Rwanda’s genocide: why remembering needs to be free of politics – lessons from survivors – https://theconversation.com/rwandas-genocide-why-remembering-needs-to-be-free-of-politics-lessons-from-survivors-254745

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeffrey Fields, Professor of the Practice of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Negotiators from Iran and the United States are set to meet again in Oman on April 26, 2025, prompting hopes the two countries might be moving, albeit tentatively, toward a new nuclear accord.

The scheduled talks follow the two previous rounds of indirect negotiations that have taken place under the new Trump administration. Those discussions were deemed to have yielded enough progress to merit sending nuclear experts from both sides to begin outlining the specifics of a potential framework for a deal.

The development is particularly notable given that Trump, in 2018, unilaterally walked the U.S. away from a multilateral agreement with Iran. That deal, negotiated during the Obama presidency, put restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear program in return for sanctions relief. Trump instead turned to a policy that involved tightening the financial screws on Iran through enhanced sanctions while issuing implicit military threats.

But that approach failed to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.

Now, rather than revive the maximum pressure policy of his first term, Trump – ever keen to be seen as a dealmaker – has given his team the green light for the renewed diplomacy and even reportedly rebuffed, for now, Israel’s desire to launch military strikes against Tehran.

Jaw-jaw over war-war

The turn to diplomacy returns Iran-US relations to where they began during the Obama administration, with attempts to encourage Iran to curb or eliminate its ability to enrich uranium.

Only this time, with the U.S. having left the previous deal in 2018, Iran has had seven years to improve on its enrichment capability and stockpile vastly more uranium than had been allowed under the abandoned accord.

As a long-time expert on U.S. foreign policy and nuclear nonproliferation, I believe Trump has a unique opportunity to not only reinstate a similar nuclear agreement to the one he rejected, but also forge a more encompassing deal – and foster better relations with the Islamic Republic in the process.

There are real signs that a potential deal could be in the offing, and it is certainly true that Trump likes the optics of dealmaking.

But an agreement is by no means certain. Any progress toward a deal will be challenged by a number of factors, not least internal divisions and opposition within the Trump administration and skepticism among some in the Islamic Republic, along with uncertainty over a succession plan for the aging Ayatollah Khamenei.

Conservative hawks are still abundant in both countries and could yet derail any easing of diplomatic tensions.

A checkered diplomatic past

There are also decades of mistrust to overcome.

It is an understatement to say that the U.S. and Iran have had a fraught relationship, such as it is, since the Iranian revolution of 1979 and takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran the same year.

Many Iranians would say relations have been strained since 1953, when the U.S. and the United Kingdom orchestrated the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran.

Washington and Tehran have not had formal diplomatic relations since 1979, and the two countries have been locked in a decadeslong battle for influence in the Middle East. Today, tensions remain high over Iranian support for a so-called axis of resistance against the West and in particular U.S. interests in the Middle East. That axis includes Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

For its part, Tehran has long bristled at American hegemony in the region, including its resolute support for Israel and its history of military action. In recent years that U.S. action has included the direct assaults on Iranian assets and personnel. In particular, Tehran is still angry about the 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Standing atop these various disputes, Iran’s nuclear ambitions have proved a constant source of contention for the United States and Israel, the latter being the only nuclear power in the region.

The prospect of warmer relations between the two sides first emerged during the Obama administration – though Iran sounded out the Bush administration in 2003 only to be rebuffed.

U.S. diplomats began making contact with Iranian counterparts in 2009 when Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns met with an Iranian negotiator in Geneva. The so-called P5+1 began direct negotiations with Iran in 2013. This paved the way for the eventual Iran nuclear deal, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in 2015. In that agreement – concluded by the U.S., Iran, China, Russia and a slew of European nations – Iran agreed to restrictions on its nuclear program, including limits on the level to which it could enrich uranium, which was capped well short of what would be necessary for a nuclear weapon. In return, multilateral and bilateral U.S. sanctions would be removed.

Many observers saw it as a win-win, with the restraints on a burgeoning nuclear power coupled with hopes that greater economic engagement with the international community that might temper some of Iran’s more provocative foreign policy behavior.

Yet Israel and Saudi Arabia worried the deal did not entirely eliminate Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, and right-wing critics in the U.S. complained it did not address Iran’s ballistic missile programs or support for militant groups in the region.

When Trump first took office in 2016, he and his foreign policy team pledged to reverse Obama’s course and close the door on any diplomatic opening. Making good on his pledge, Trump unilaterally withdrew U.S. support for the JCPOA despite Iran’s continued compliance with the terms of the agreement and reinstated sanctions.

Donald the dealmaker?

So what has changed? Well, several things.

While Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA was welcomed by Republicans, it did nothing to stop Iran from enhancing its ability to enrich uranium.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, eager to transform its image and diversify economically, now supports a deal it opposed during the Obama administration.

In this second term, Trump’s anti-Iran impulses are still there. But despite his rhetoric of a military option should a deal not be struck, Trump has on numerous occasions stated his opposition to U.S. involvement in another war in the Middle East.

In addition, Iran has suffered a number of blows in recent years that has left it more isolated in the region. Iranian-aligned Hamas and Hezbollah have been seriously weakened as a result of military action by Israel. Meanwhile, strikes within Iran by Israel have shown the potential reach of Israeli missiles – and the apparent willingness of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to use them. Further, the removal of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria has deprived Iran of another regional ally.

Tehran is also contending with a more fragile domestic economy than it had during negotiations for JCPOA.

With Iran weakened regionally and Trump’s main global focus being China, a diplomatic avenue with Iran seems entirely in line with Trump’s view of himself as a dealmaker.

A deal is not a given

With two rounds of meetings completed and the move now to more technical aspects of a possible agreement negotiated by experts, there appears to be a credible window of opportunity for diplomacy.

This could mean a new agreement that retains the core aspects of the deal Trump previously abandoned. I’m not convinced a new deal will look any different from the previous in terms of the enrichment aspect.

There are still a number of potential roadblocks standing in the way of any potential deal, however.

As was the case with Trump’s meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un during his first term, the president seems to be less interested in details than spectacle. While it was quite amazing for an American leader to meet with his North Korean counterpart, ultimately, no policy meaningfully changed because of it.

On Iran and other issues, the president displays little patience for complicated policy details. Complicating matters is that the U.S. administration is riven by intense factionalism, with many Iran hawks who would be seemingly opposed to a deal – including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and national security adviser Mike Waltz. They could rub up against newly confirmed Undersecretary of Defense for policy Elbridge Colby and Vice President JD Vance, both of whom have in the past advocated for a more pro-diplomacy line on Iran.

As has become a common theme in Trump administration foreign policy – even with its own allies on issues like trade – it’s unclear what a Trump administration policy on Iran actually is, and whether a political commitment exists to carry through any ultimate deal.

Top Trump foreign policy negotiator Steve Witkoff, who has no national security experience, has exemplified this tension. Tasked with leading negotiations with Iran, Witkoff has already been forced to walk back his contention that the U.S. was only seeking to cap the level of uranium enrichment rather than eliminate the entirety of the program.

For its part, Iran has proved that it is serious about diplomacy, previously having accepted Barack Obama’s “extended hand.”

But Tehran is unlikely to capitulate on core interests or allow itself to be humiliated by the terms of any agreement.

Ultimately, the main question to watch is whether a deal with Iran is to be concluded by pragmatists – and then to what extent, narrow or expansive – or derailed by hawks within the administration.

Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

– ref. In talking with Tehran, Trump is reversing course on Iran – could a new nuclear deal be next? – https://theconversation.com/in-talking-with-tehran-trump-is-reversing-course-on-iran-could-a-new-nuclear-deal-be-next-254770

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cora Fox, Associate Professor of English and Health Humanities, Arizona State University

What is “happiness” – and who gets to be happy?

Since 2012, the World Happiness Report has measured and compared data from 167 countries. The United States currently ranks 24th, between the U.K. and Belize – its lowest position since the report was first issued. But the 2025 edition – released on March 20, the United Nations’ annual “International Day of Happiness” – starts off not with numbers, but with Shakespeare.

“In this year’s issue, we focus on the impact of caring and sharing on people’s happiness,” the authors explain. “Like ‘mercy’ in Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice,’ caring is ‘twice-blessed’ – it blesses those who give and those who receive.”

Shakespeare’s plays offer many reflections on happiness itself. They are a record of how people in early modern England experienced and thought about joy and satisfaction, and they offer a complex look at just how happiness, like mercy, lives in relationships and the caring exchanges between people.

Contrary to how we might think about happiness in our everyday lives, it is more than the surge of positive feelings after a great meal, or a workout, or even a great date. The experience of emotions is grounded in both the body and the mind, influenced by human physiology and culture in ways that change depending on time and place. What makes a person happy, therefore, depends on who that person is, as well as where and when they belong – or don’t belong.

Happiness has a history. I study emotions and early modern literature, so I spend a lot of my time thinking about what Shakespeare has to say about what makes people happy, in his own time and in our own. And also, of course, what makes people unhappy.

From fortune to joy

“Happiness” derives from the Old Norse word “hap,” which meant “fortune” or “luck,” as historians Phil Withington and Darrin McMahon explain. This earlier sense is found throughout Shakespeare’s works. Today, it survives in the modern word “happenstance” and the expression that something is a “happy accident.”

But in modern English usage, “happy” as “fortunate” has been almost entirely replaced by a notion of happiness as “joy,” or the more long-term sense of life satisfaction called “well-being.” The term “well-being,” in fact, was introduced into English from the Italian “benessere” around the time of Shakespeare’s birth.

The word and the concept of happiness were transforming during Shakespeare’s lifetime, and his use of the word in his plays mingles both senses: “fortunate” and “joyful.” That transitional ambiguity emphasizes happiness’ origins in ideas about luck and fate, and it reminds readers and playgoers that happiness is a contingent, fragile thing – something not just individuals, but societies need to carefully cultivate and support.

For instance, early in “Othello,” the Venetian senator Brabantio describes his daughter Desdemona as “tender, fair, and happy / So opposite to marriage that she shunned / The wealthy, curled darlings of our nation.” Before she elopes with Othello she is “happy” in the sense of “fortunate,” due to her privileged position on the marriage market.

Later in the same play, though, Othello reunites with his new wife in Cyprus and describes his feelings of joy using this same term:

…If it were now to die,
‘Twere now to be most happy, for I fear
My soul hath her content so absolute
That not another comfort like to this
Succeeds in unknown fate.

Desdemona responds,

The heavens forbid
But that our loves and comforts should increase
Even as our days do grow!

They both understand “happy” to mean not just lucky, but “content” and “comfortable,” a more modern understanding. But they also recognize that their comforts depend on “the heavens,” and that happiness is enabled by being fortunate.

“Othello” is a tragedy, so in the end, the couple will not prove “happy” in either sense. The foreign general is tricked into believing his young wife has been unfaithful. He murders her, then takes his own life.

The seeds of jealousy are planted and expertly exploited by Othello’s subordinate, Iago, who catalyzes the racial prejudice and misogyny underlying Venetian values to enact his sinister and cruel revenge.

Happy insiders and outsiders

“Othello” sheds light on happiness’s history – but also on its politics.

While happiness is often upheld as a common good, it is also dependent on cultural forces that make it harder for some individuals to experience. Shared cultural fantasies about happiness tend to create what theorist Sara Ahmed calls “affect aliens”: individuals who, by nature of who they are and how they are treated, experience a disconnect between what their culture conditions them to think should make them happy and their disappointment or exclusion from those positive feelings. Othello, for example, rightly worries that he is somehow foreign to the domestic happiness Desdemona describes, excluded from the joy of Venetian marriage. It turns out he is right.

Because Othello is foreign and Black and Desdemona is Venetian and white, their marriage does not conform to their society’s expectations for happiness, and that makes them vulnerable to Iago’s deceit.

Similarly, “The Merchant of Venice” examines the potential for happiness to include or exclude, to build or break communities. Take the quote about mercy that opens the World Happiness Report.

The phrase appears in a famous courtroom scene, as Portia attempts to persuade a Jewish lender, Shylock, to take pity on Antonio, a Christian man who cannot pay his debts. In their contract, Shylock has stipulated that if Antonio defaults on the loan, the fee will be a “pound of flesh.”

“The quality of mercy is not strained,” Portia lectures him; it is “twice-blessed,” benefiting both giver and receiver.

It’s a powerful attempt to save Antonio’s life. But it is also hypocritical: Those cultural norms of caring and mercy seem to apply only to other Christians in the play, and not the Jewish people living alongside them in Venice. In that same scene, Shylock reminds his audience that Antonio and the other Venetians in the room have spit on him and called him a dog. He famously asks why Jewish Venetians are not treated as equal human beings: “If you prick us, do we not bleed?”

Shakespeare’s plays repeatedly make the point that the unjust distribution of rights and care among various social groups – Christians and Jews, men and women, citizens and foreigners – challenges the happy effects of benevolence.

Those social factors are sometimes overlooked in cultures like the U.S., where contemporary notions of happiness are marketed by wellness gurus, influencers and cosmetic companies. Shakespeare’s plays reveal both how happiness is built through communities of care and how it can be weaponized to destroy individuals and the fabric of the community.

There are obvious victims of prejudice and abuse in Shakespeare’s plays, but he does not just emphasize their individual tragedies. Instead, the plays record how certain values that promote inequality poison relationships that could otherwise support happy networks of family and friends.

Systems of support

Pretty much all objective research points to the fact that long-term happiness depends on community, connections and social support: having systems in place to weather what life throws at us.

And according to both the World Happiness Report and Shakespeare, contentment isn’t just about the actual support you receive but your expectations about people’s willingness to help you. Societies with high levels of trust, like Finland and the Netherlands, tend to be happier – and to have more evenly distributed levels of happiness in their populations.

Shakespeare’s plays offer blueprints for trust in happy communities. They also offer warnings about the costs of cultural fantasies about happiness that make it more possible for some, but not for all.

Cora Fox has received funding from an NEH grant for activities not directly related to this research.

– ref. ‘I were but little happy, if I could say how much’: Shakespeare’s insights on happiness have held up for more than 400 years – https://theconversation.com/i-were-but-little-happy-if-i-could-say-how-much-shakespeares-insights-on-happiness-have-held-up-for-more-than-400-years-198583