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

Peter Dutton has chosen a dark horse in naming David Coleman for the key shadow foreign affairs portfolio, in a reshuffle that also seeks to boost the opposition’s credentials with women.

Coleman has been communications spokesman. He led the opposition’s campaign for an age limit on young people’s access to social media – a policy that was later adopted by the government and now has been legislated by the parliament.

He is one of the opposition’s small band of moderates although not seen as a factional player.

Coleman, who holds the Sydney marginal seat of Banks, has done extensive work with Middle East communities and the Chinese community. He is a former minister for immigration, citizenship, migrant services and multicultural affairs.

The foreign affairs job, previously held by Simon Birmingham, who is departing parliament, was keenly sought by a number of frontbenchers. One of the aspirants was deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley, whose position entitles her to choose her portfolio, at least in theory.

Dutton has also brought Julian Leeser back onto the frontbench, as shadow assistant minister for foreign affairs. Leeser quit the shadow ministry to fight for the yes case in the 2023 Voice referendum.

While his return will be welcomed by many on merit grounds, it also reflects the high profile that Leeser, who is Jewish, has taken in demanding more action against the wave of antiseminism in Australia. Announcing his reshuffle on Saturday, Dutton described Leeser as “a powerhouse of support for Australia’s Jewish community”.

The new shadow cabinet has 11 women, the same number as in the Albanese cabinet.

Melissa McIntosh, from NSW, has been promoted to the shadow cabinet and takes Coleman’s previous job of communications. She stays shadow minister for Western Sydney.

Claire Chandler, from Tasmania and the right, is promoted to shadow cabinet as shadow minister for government services and the digital economy and shadow minister science and the arts. Chandler was in the headlines before the last election for her campaigning against trans women’s access to female sports.

The high profile Jacinta Price receives a promotion. In shades of Elon Musk’s role in the United States, in addition to her current responsibility as shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, she has been given a new role as shadow minister for government efficiency.

Tony Pasin, from South Australia and the right faction, joins the shadow ministry as spokesman on roads and road safety. The government is emphasising its roads program in its campaigning, this month announcing $7.2 billion to upgrade the Bruce Highway.

Matt O’Sullivan, a senator from Western Australia, joins the outer shadow ministry as shadow assistant minister for education.

Ted O’Brien adds energy affordability and reliability to his key role as the opposition’s energy spokesman, in which he is prosecuting the nuclear debate. It has been speculated that the government is likely to do more to give people relief on their power bills.

Kerrynne Liddle adds Indigenous health services to her responsibilities as shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence.

Victorian senator James Paterson, who as home affairs spokesman has been regarded as one of the opposition’s best performers, joins the Coalition leadership group.

Michael Sukkar becomes manager of opposition business in the House of Representatives, the position that has been held by Paul Fletcher, who is retiring at the election.

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. Peter Dutton’s reshuffle: David Coleman the surprise choice as shadow foreign minister – https://theconversation.com/peter-duttons-reshuffle-david-coleman-the-surprise-choice-as-shadow-foreign-minister-248303

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Patrick Taylor, Chief Environmental Scientist, EPA Victoria; Honorary Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

Most of us are fortunate that, when we turn on the tap, clean, safe and high-quality water comes out.

But a senate inquiry into the presence of PFAS or “forever chemicals” is putting the safety of our drinking water back in the spotlight.

Lidia Thorpe, the independent senator leading the inquiry, says Elders in the Aboriginal community of Wreck Bay in New South Wales are “buying bottled water out of their aged care packages” due to concerns about the health impacts of PFAS in their drinking water.

So, how is water deemed safe to drink in Australia? And why does water quality differ in some areas?

Here’s what happens between a water catchment and your tap.

Human intervention in the water cycle

There is no “new” water on Earth. The water we drink can be up to 4.5 billion years old and is continuously recycled through the hydrological cycle. This transfers water from the ground to the atmosphere through evaporation and back again (for example, through rain).

Humans interfere with this natural cycle by trapping and redirecting water from various sources to use. A lot happens before it reaches your home.

The quality of the water when you turn on the tap depends on a range of factors, including the local geology, what kind of activities happen in catchment areas, and the different treatments used to process it.

How do we decide what’s safe?

The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines define what is considered safe, good-quality drinking water.

The guidelines set acceptable water quality values for more than 250 physical, chemical and bacterial contaminants. They take into account any potential health impact of drinking the contaminant over a lifetime as well as aesthetics – the taste and colour of the water.

The guidelines are not mandatory but provide the basis for determining if the quality of water to be supplied to consumers in all parts of Australia is safe to drink. The guidelines undergo rolling revision to ensure they represent the latest scientific evidence.

From water catchment to tap

Australians’ drinking water mainly comes from natural catchments. Sources include surface water, groundwater and seawater (via desalination).

Public access to these areas is typically limited to preserve optimal water quality.

Filtration and purification of water occurs naturally in catchments as it passes through soil, sediments, rocks and vegetation.

But catchment water is subject to further treatment via standard processes that typically focus on:

• removing particulates (for example, soil and sediment)

• filtration (to remove particles and their contaminants)

• disinfection (for example, using chlorine and chloramine to kill bacteria and viruses)

• adding fluoride to prevent tooth decay

• adjusting pH to balance the chemistry of the water and to aid filtration.

This water is delivered to our taps via a reticulated system – a network of underground reservoirs, pipes, pumps and fittings.

In areas where there is no reticulated system, drinking water can also be sourced from rainwater tanks. This means the quality of drinking water can vary.

Sources of contamination can come from roof catchments feeding rainwater tanks as well from the tap due to lead in plumbing fittings and materials.

So, does all water meet these standards?

Some rural and remote areas, especially First Nations communities, rely on poor-quality surface water and groundwater
for their drinking water.

Rural and regional water can exceed recommended guidelines for salt, microbial contaminants and trace elements, such as lead, manganese and arsenic.

The federal government and other agencies are trying to address this.

There are many impacts of poor regional water quality. These include its implication in elevated rates of tooth decay in First Nations people. This occurs when access to chilled, sugary drinks is cheaper and easier than access to good quality water.

What about PFAS?

There is also renewed concern about the presence of PFAS or “forever” chemicals in drinking water.

Recent research examining the toxicity of PFAS chemicals along with their presence in some drinking water catchments in Australia and overseas has prompted a recent assessment of water source contamination.

A review by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) proposed lowering the limits for four PFAS chemicals in drinking water: PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS and PFBS.

The review used publicly available data and found most drinking water supplies are currently below the proposed new guideline values for PFAS.

However, “hotspots” of PFAS remain where drinking water catchments or other sources (for example, groundwater) have been impacted by activities where PFAS has been used in industrial applications. And some communities have voiced concerns about an association between elevated PFAS levels in their communities and cancer clusters.

While some PFAS has been identified as carcinogenic, it’s not certain that PFAS causes cancer. The link is still being debated.

Importantly, assessment of exposure levels from all sources in the population shows PFAS levels are falling meaning any exposure risk has also reduced over time.

How about removing PFAS from water?

Most sources of drinking water are not associated with industrial contaminants like PFAS. So water sources are generally not subject to expensive treatment processes, like reverse osmosis, that can remove most waterborne pollutants, including PFAS. These treatments are energy-intensive and expensive and based on recent water quality assessments by the NHMRC will not be needed.

While contaminants are everywhere, it is the dose that makes the poison. Ultra-low concentrations of chemicals including PFAS, while not desirable, may not be harmful and total removal is not warranted.

Mark Patrick Taylor is a full-time employee of EPA Victoria, appointed to the statutory role of Chief Environmental Scientist. He is also an Honorary Professor at Macquarie University. EPA Victoria has previously received funding from the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and Victorian water authorities to understand the presence of contaminants waste water. He has previously received funding from the Australian Government, ARC and other government agencies for environmental pollution research.

Antti Mikkonen is a full-time employee of EPA Victoria, in the role of Principal Health Risk Advisor for chemicals. Antti has previously received funding from the Australian Government Department of Education for research to understand PFAS bioaccumulation in livestock and models for risk management.

Minna Saaristo is a full-time employee of EPA Victoria, appointed to the role of Principal Scientist – Ecological Risk and Emerging contaminants. She is affiliate of the School of Biological Sciences at Monash University. EPA Victoria has previously received funding from the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and Victorian water authorities to understand the presence of emerging contaminants in recycled water. She has previously received funding from the Australian Government, ARC and other government agencies for environmental pollution research.

– ref. How we treat catchment water to make it safe to drink – https://theconversation.com/how-we-treat-catchment-water-to-make-it-safe-to-drink-242206

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glenn Banks, Professor of Geography, School of People, Environment and Planning, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s state-of-the-nation address yesterday focused on growth above all else. We shouldn’t rush to judgement, but at least one prominent financial commentator has concluded the maths behind the goals “just doesn’t add up”.

Luxon specified mining and tourism among a number of sectors where the government was anticipating and facilitating growth. Having researched these sectors across the Pacific and Aotearoa New Zealand for more than 30 years, we would echo a cautionary approach.

There is certainly scope for more activity in both sectors. But there also needs to be a dose of realism about what they can deliver, and recognition of the significant risks associated with focusing solely on growth.

NZ is not Australia

Luxon wants to see mining “play a much bigger role in the New Zealand economy”, comparing the local sector with the “much higher incomes” generated in places such as Australia. If we wanted these, he suggested, we need to be aware it is “mining that pays” them.

But it is simplistic to compare domestic mining’s potential to the industry in Australia, which exports more than 400 times as much mineral wealth as New Zealand.

In addition, mineral wealth does not necessarily translate into significant increases in local or even national wealth. This is especially relevant when the local sector is dependent on foreign investment, high levels of imports and offshore expertise for construction and operations, highly volatile commodity prices and generous taxation regimes.

Luxon cited Taranaki and the West Coast as potential areas where mining could deliver “higher incomes, support for local business and families, and more investment in local infrastructure”.

This echoes Regional Development Minister Shane Jones’ linking of mining and regional development. But it flies in the face of historical trends and empirical evidence.

The West Coast has seen the longest continuous presence of large- and small-scale gold and coal mining (for well over a century). And yet the region consistently scores among the worst for socioeconomic deprivation. Mining itself does not create regional development.

The ‘critical minerals’ cloak

The prime minister also gave a nod to the minerals “critical for our climate transition”.

While it’s true that “EVs, solar panels and data centres aren’t made out of thin air”, they are also not made in any significant way with the minerals we currently or might potentially mine (aside from some antimony, possibly).

The “critical minerals” argument risks being a cloak for justifying more mining of coal and gold.

So, even leaving aside the very real (though unacknowledged by Luxon) environmental risks, mining will not be the panacea the government suggests, and certainly not in the short term.

New Zealand does need mining, of course. Aggregates for roads and construction are the most obvious “critical mineral”. But the country also deserves a 21st-century sector that is environmentally responsible and transparent, and which generates real returns for communities and the national economy.

The tourist trap

Echoing Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ speech earlier in the week, Luxon also said “tourism has a massive role to play in our growth story”.

Willis said, “We want all tourists.” But this broad focus on high-volume tourism goes against international best practice in tourism development.

The negative impacts of a high-growth tourism model have been well documented in New Zealand. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s 2019 report – titled “Pristine, popular … imperilled?” – warned of the environmental damage that would be caused by pursuing this approach.

Mayors and tourism industry officials have responded to the Willis and Luxon speeches this week by expressing concern that boosting tourism numbers will only work if there is more government funding.

This is needed to manage growth and provide infrastructure, particularly in areas with low numbers of ratepayers. The need stretches from providing public toilets for busloads of tourists flowing through MacKenzie District, to maintaining popular tracks such as the West Coast Wilderness Trail.

A 2024 report from Tourism New Zealand showed 68% of residents experienced negative impacts from tourism, including increased traffic congestion and rubbish.

Further expansion could see tourism losing its social licence – a dire outcome when international tourists particularly value the “warm and welcoming” nature of locals.

High value vs high volume

Luxon and Willis point to major employment wins from tourism growth. But tourism is notorious for creating low-income, insecure jobs. This is not the basis for strong and sustainable economic development.

While we agree with Luxon that our tourism industry is “world class”, we risk seriously damaging that reputation if we compromise the quality of experience for visitors.

Post-COVID, there have been significant efforts by the tourism industry to support and implement a regenerative approach. This aligns with a high-value – or “high values” – approach, rather than being fixated on high volume.

We are not arguing against mining or tourism per se. Rather, we are sounding a caution: they are sectors that need careful assessment and regulation, and reputable operators, to deliver sustainable and equitable growth, regionally and nationally.

Simply generating profits for foreign investors and leaving local communities to deal with the costs cannot be a sustainable model.

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. Luxon goes all out for growth in mining and tourism – we should be careful what he wishes for – https://theconversation.com/luxon-goes-all-out-for-growth-in-mining-and-tourism-we-should-be-careful-what-he-wishes-for-248131

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claudio Bozzi, Lecturer in Law, Deakin University

On his way to the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro in November, Chinese President Xi Jinping met with Peruvian President Dina Boluarte to officially open a new US$3.6 billion (A$5.8 billion) deepwater mega-port in Peru called Chancay.

China’s state-owned Cosco shipping giant had purchased a 60% stake in the port for US$1.6 billion (A$2.6 billion), which gave the company exclusive use of the port for 60 years.

Days later, the first ship departed for Shanghai loaded with blueberries, avocados and minerals.

Chancay is part of China’s vision of a 21st century maritime Silk Road that will better connect China’s manufacturing hubs with its trading partners around the world. This has involved a heavy investment in ports in many countries, which has the West concerned about China’s expanding influence over global shipping routes.

Newly re-elected US President Donald Trump made clear these concerns when he claimed China was “operating” the Panama Canal and the US intended to take it back.

China does not operate the canal, though. Rather, a Hong Kong company operates two ports on either side of it.

A booming port expansion

The scale and scope of the maritime Silk Road is impressive. China has invested in 129 ports in dozens of countries through its state-owned enterprises, mostly in the Global South. Seventeen of these ports have majority-Chinese ownership.

According to one estimate, Chinese companies invested US$11 billion (A$17.7 billion) in overseas port development from 2010–19. More than 27% of global container trade now passes through terminals where leading Chinese firms hold direct stakes.

China has entered Latin America aggressively, becoming the region’s top trading partner. Its port strategy has clearly signalled a long-term goal to access the exports essential to its food and energy security: soybeans, corn, beef, iron ore, copper and battery-grade lithium.

Last year, for example, Portos do Paraná, the Brazilian state-owned enterprise that acts as the port authority in the state of Paraná, signed a letter of intent with China Merchants Port Holdings to expand Paranaguá Container Terminal, the second-largest terminal in South America. China may invest in even more Brazilian ports, as 22 terminals are scheduled to be auctioned before the end of 2025.

In Africa, Chinese investment grew from two ports in 2000 to 61 facilities in 30 countries by 2022.

And in Europe, Chinese enterprises have complete or majority ownership of two key ports in Belgium and Greece – the so-called “dragon’s head” of the Belt and Road Initiative in Europe.

What’s driving this port strategy?

China’s emergence as a maritime and shipping power is central to Xi’s ambition for global economic dominance.

For one, China requires stable access to key trading routes to continue meeting the demand for Chinese exports globally, as well as the imports Beijing needs to keep its economy humming.

Controlling ports also enables China to create economic zones in other countries that give port owners and operators privileged access to commodities and products. Some fear this could allow China to disrupt supplies of certain goods or even exert influence over other countries’ politics or economies.

Another key driver of this strategy is the metals and minerals needed to fuel China’s rise as a tech superpower. Beijing has concentrated its port investment in regions where these critical resources are located.

For example, China is the world’s largest importer of copper ore, mainly from Chile, Peru and Mexico. It is also one of the world’s major lithium carbonate importers.), mainly from Chile and Argentina. And its port deals in Africa give it access to rare earths and other minerals.

In addition, tapping into Latin America counteracts the trade tensions China has experienced recently with Europe. It also preempts concerns about possible US tariffs imposed on Chinese goods by Trump.

Military concerns

These moves have prompted concern in Washington that China is challenging US influence in its own backyard.

China maintains that its seaport diplomacy is market oriented. However, it has established one naval base in the strategically located African nation of Djibouti. And it is believed to be building another naval base in Equatorial Guinea.

According to a recent report by the Asia Society Policy Institute, strategy analysts believe China is seeking to “weaponise” the Belt and Road Initiative.

One way it is doing this is by requiring the commercial ports it invests in to be equally capable of acting as naval bases. So far, 14 of the 17 ports in which it has a majority stake have the potential to be used for naval purposes. These ports can then serve a dual function and support the Chinese military’s logistics network and allow Chinese naval vessels to operate further away from home.

US officials are also concerned China could leverage its influence over private companies to disrupt trade during a time of war.

How is the West responding?

While China’s investments are raising suspicions, the West’s willingness to invest in ports at this scale is limited. The US International Development Finance Corporation, for instance, has a much slower, rigorous process for its investments, which generally leads to fairer outcomes for both investors and host nations.

However, some Western companies are acquiring stakes in established and newly built ports in other countries, albeit not to the extent of Chinese enterprises.

The French shipping and logistics company CMA CGM’s global port development strategy, for example, includes investments in 60 terminals worldwide. In 2024, it acquired control over South America’s largest container terminal in the Port of Santos, Brazil.

Trump has threatened tariffs as one way of countering China’s global sea power. An advisor on his transition team has proposed a 60% tariff on any product transiting through the Chancay port in Peru or any other Chinese-owned or controlled port in South America.

Rather than making nations reluctant to sign port deals with Beijing, however, this kind of action just erodes Washington’s regional influence. And China is likely to take retaliatory measures, like banning the export of critical minerals to the US.

Host nations like Peru and Brazil, meanwhile, are using the competition for port investment to their advantage. Attracting interest from both the West and China, they are increasingly asserting their autonomy and adopting a strategy of using ports to “play everywhere” on the global stage.

Claudio Bozzi 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. China has invested billions in ports around the world. This is why the West is so concerned – https://theconversation.com/china-has-invested-billions-in-ports-around-the-world-this-is-why-the-west-is-so-concerned-244733

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Murray, Professor of Cybersecurity, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

Before the end of its first full day of operations, the new Trump administration gutted all advisory panels for the Department of Homeland Security. Among these was the well-respected Cyber Safety Review Board, or CSRB.

While this change hasn’t received as much notice as Trump’s massive announcement about AI, it has potentially significant implications for cyber security. The CSRB is an important source of information for governments and businesses trying to protect themselves from cyber threats.

This change also throws into doubt the board’s current activities. These include an ongoing investigation into the Salt Typhoon cyber attacks which began as early as 2022 and are still keeping cyber defenders busy, attributed to hackers in China.

Salt Typhoon has been described as the “worst telecommunications hack” in US history. Among other activities, the hackers obtained call records data made by high-profile individuals and even the contents of phone calls and text messages. The phones of then presidential nominee Donald Trump were reportedly among those targeted.

What does the Cyber Safety Review Board do?

The board was established three years ago by the Biden administration. Roughly speaking, its job is the cyberspace equivalent of government air traffic investigation bodies such as the US National Transportation Safety Board, or the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

The CSRB investigates major cyber security incidents. Its job is to determine their causes and recommend ways government and businesses can better protect themselves, including on how to prevent similar incidents in future.

Its members include global cyber security luminaries from industry, such as cyber executives from Google and Microsoft, and US government leaders from several departments and agencies concerned with security.

The US CSRB has previously published three major reports. Its first covered the infamous 2021 Log4j vulnerability, described at the time as the “single biggest, most critical vulnerability ever”. (A vulnerability is a weakness in a computer system that cyber criminals can exploit.)

The board’s most recent published investigation involved a very sophisticated hacking campaign that targeted Microsoft’s cloud email services in 2023. As a result, hackers even gained access to the emails of various US government agencies.

Cyber security experts widely consider the CSRB as a positive thing. Late last year, Australia even committed to establish its own version, the Cyber Incident Review Board.

At the time of writing, it’s unclear whether the CSRB will continue – perhaps with different membership – or whether its activities will cease entirely.

Either way, the decision to fire the board’s members has significant security implications. It comes at a moment in history when cyber threats have never been more severe.

What is Salt Typhoon?

The CSRB has been investigating the Salt Typhoon hacking campaign. Salt Typhoon is the name Microsoft assigned to a sophisticated group of hackers believed to be operated by China’s Ministry of State Security. The ministry is somewhat like a combination of an intelligence agency and a secret police service.

Salt Typhoon is best known for hacking into several US telecommunication companies, first reported in August 2024. In December, it came to light Salt Typhoon’s telco hacks may also have impacted countries beyond the US. American, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand authorities also jointly issued public guidance to organisations to help defend against Salt Typhoon.

Salt Typhoon reportedly targeted prominent figures, including political leaders. The hackers’ goal appears to have been to collect intelligence, rather than cause damage.

For example, it has been reported Salt Typhoon collected a list of all phone calls made near Washington DC, which could help them determine who was talking to whom in the US capital.

Salt Typhoon also reportedly obtained a list of phone numbers wiretapped by the US Justice Department. This confirmed the fears of many people opposed to the government’s powers to lawfully wiretap citizens’ phones.

It is unclear why the hackers obtained that information. Some have speculated it would identify which of their own operatives were being monitored by US law enforcement.

To say the Salt Typhoon revelations created waves in government and cyber security circles is putting it mildly. Telecommunications are critical infrastructure, as well as highly valuable targets for intelligence collection.

The idea that foreign spies could burrow so deeply into the communication fabric of the US was unprecedented and disturbing.

In October 2024 the CSRB was tasked with investigating Salt Typhoon’s activities.

An uncertain future

With the board now fired, the future of the Salt Typhoon investigation remains unclear.

A thorough and impartial investigation of the Salt Typhoon hacks, had it been allowed to run, was likely to have delivered highly valuable cyber security lessons. Those lessons are important for both US companies and those in Australia, which have also been the targets of Chinese intelligence collection.

The future of the CSRB itself is now also in question. The board and its overseas equivalents serve a vital role in promoting cyber information-sharing that helps to improve best practices.

It is imperative these bodies are staffed with a diverse collection of impartial experts, able to carry out their work free from government and corporate interference.

It remains to be seen whether dissolving the current CSRB will be a gift to Chinese hackers (as some have claimed), or simply a speed bump in the evolution of the board.

Toby Murray is the Director of the Defence Science Institute, which receives Commonwealth and State government funding. Toby receives research funding from the Australian government and has previously received funding from the US Department of Defense, Facebook and Google.

– ref. Trump has fired a major cyber security investigations body. It’s a risky move – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-fired-a-major-cyber-security-investigations-body-its-a-risky-move-248106

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Lowe, Chair in Contemporary History, Deakin University

After many years of heated debate over whether January 26 is an appropriate date to celebrate Australia Day – with some councils and other groups shifting away from it – the tide appears to be turning among some groups.

Some local councils, such as Geelong in Victoria, are reversing recent policy and embracing January 26 as a day to celebrate with nationalistic zeal. They are likely emboldened by what they perceive as an ideological shift occurring more generally in Australia and around the world.

But what of young people? Are young Australians really becoming more conservative and nationalistic, as some are claiming? For example, the Institute for Public Affairs states that “despite relentless indoctrination taking place at schools and universities”, their recent survey showed a 10% increase in the proportion of 18-24 year olds who wanted to celebrate Australia Day.

However, the best evidence suggests that claims of a shift towards conservatism among young people are unsupported.

The statement “we should not celebrate Australia Day on January 26” was featured in the Deakin Contemporary History Survey in 2021, 2023, and 2024. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement level. The Deakin survey is a repeated cross-sectional study conducted using the Life in Australia panel, managed by the Social Research Centre. This is a nationally representative online probability panel with more than 2,000 respondents for each Deakin survey. With its large number of participants, weighting and probability selection, the Life in Australia panel is arguably Australia’s most reliable and robust social survey.

The Deakin Contemporary History Survey consists of several questions about the role of history in contemporary society, hence our interest in whether or how Australians might want to celebrate a national day.

Since 1938, when Aboriginal leaders first declared January 26 a “Day of Mourning”, attitudes to this day have reflected how people in Australia see the nation’s history, particularly about the historical and contemporary dispossession and oppression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

In 2023, we found support for Australia Day on January 26 declined slightly from 2021, and wondered if a more significant change in community sentiment was afoot. With the addition of the 2024 data, we find that public opinion is solidifying – less a volatile “culture war” and more a set of established positions. Here is what we found:

This figure shows that agreement (combining “strongly agree” and “agree”) with not celebrating Australia Day on January 26 slightly increased in 2023, but returned to the earlier level a year later.

Likewise, disagreement with the statement (again, combining “strongly disagree” and “disagree”) slightly dipped in 2023, but in 2024 returned to levels observed in 2021. “Don’t know” and “refused” responses have consistently remained below 3% across all three years. Almost every Australian has a position on when we should celebrate Australia Day, if at all.

The 2023 dip might reflect a slight shift in public opinion or be due to statistical factors, such as sampling variability. Either way, public sentiment on this issue seems established. As Gunai/Kurnai, Gunditjmara, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta writer Nayuka Gorrie and Amangu Yamatji woman Associate Professor Crystal McKinnon have written, the decline in support for Australia Day is the result of decades of activism by Indigenous people.

Though conservative voices have become louder since the failure of the Voice Referendum in 2023, more than 40% of the population now believes Australia Day should not be celebrated on January 26.

In addition, the claim of a significant swing towards Australia Day among younger Australians is unsupported. In 2024, as in earlier iterations of our survey, we found younger Australians (18–34) were more likely to agree that Australia Day should not be celebrated on January 26. More than half of respondents in that age group (53%) supported that change, compared to 39% of 35–54-year-olds, 33% of 55–74-year-olds, and 29% of those aged 75 and older.

Conversely, disagreement increases with age. We found 69% of those aged 75 and older disagreed, followed by 66% of 55–74-year-olds, 59% of 35–54-year-olds, and 43% of 18–34-year-olds. These trends suggest a steady shift, indicating that an overall majority may favour change within the next two decades.

What might become of Australia Day? We asked those who thought we should not celebrate Australia Day on January 26 what alternative they preferred the most.

Among those who do not want to celebrate Australia Day on January 26, 36% prefer replacing it with a new national day on a different date, while 32% favour keeping the name but moving it to a different date. A further 13% support keeping January 26 but renaming it to reflect diverse history, and 8% advocate abolishing any national day entirely. Another 10% didn’t want these options, and less than 1% were unsure.

If the big picture suggests a lack of clarity – with nearly 58 % of the population wanting to keep Australia Day as it is, but 53 % of younger Australians supporting change – then the task of finding possible alternatives to the status quo seems even more clouded.

Gorrie and McKinnon point to the bigger issues at stake for Indigenous people: treaties, land back, deaths in custody, climate justice, reparations and the state removal of Aboriginal children. Yet, as our research continues to show, there are few without opinions on this question, and we should not expect it to recede as an issue the animates Australians.

David Lowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

Andrew Singleton currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Joanna Cruickshank receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Support for changing date of Australia Day softens, but remains strong among young people: new research – https://theconversation.com/support-for-changing-date-of-australia-day-softens-but-remains-strong-among-young-people-new-research-247571

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Whiterod, Science Program Manager, Goyder Institute for Water Research Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Research Centre, University of Adelaide

Murray crayfish once thrived in the southern Murray-Darling Basin. The species was found everywhere from the headwaters of the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers in the Australian Alps all the way down to Wellington in South Australia.

For thousands of years, First Nations people managed harvesting sustainably. But crayfish stocks crashed after European settlement. This was partly due to commercial and recreational harvest, which began in the late 1860s. At its peak in 1955, 15 tonnes of Murray crayfish were taken from the river in New South Wales and sent to markets in Melbourne and Sydney.

In South Australia, the commercial fishery was unsustainable by the 1960s and the species was no longer targeted. In the 1980s, Murray crayfish became a protected species in the state. But the damage was done.

Over-harvesting was not the only problem. Murray crayfish prefer free-flowing, oxygen-rich water, so they suffered from efforts to regulate river flows using dams and weirs. Poor water quality, including pollution from pesticides and other agricultural chemicals, made matters worse.

Murray crayfish disappeared from South Australia sometime in the past 40 years. Targeted surveys over a five-year period couldn’t find them anywhere in the state.

But that all changed in the winter of 2023 when our reintroduction program began. Now we’re preparing for the third release of crayfish and there are positive signs many crays from earlier releases are still going strong.

A species in need of support

Like many species from the highly threatened Euastacus genus, Murray crayfish grow slowly. It takes almost ten years for a female to reach sexual maturity, and she only produces a small number of eggs. Dispersal is also limited. This makes it hard for the population to recover in both number and range.

Following a recent assessment, the species Euastacus armatus is expected to soon be listed as vulnerable to extinction under Australia’s conservation laws.

Conservation actions such as reintroductions will be necessary to aid recovery of the species.

A long time coming, shaped by adversity

The idea of returning Murray crayfish to the river in South Australia is not new.

Two University of Adelaide ecologists, the late Keith Walker and Mike Geddes, first suggested it in the 1990s. They even conducted trials involving crayfish in cages to show sections of the river would be suitable for the species.

Then in 2007, the reintroduction idea was floated again. It was one of the main recommendations in a report identifying gaps in knowledge of the species.

But the idea really gathered momentum after disaster struck. Widespread flooding across the southern Murray-Darling Basin in 2010–11 led to a “hypoxic blackwater” event. This is where leaf litter and debris from the floodplain wash into the river, depleting levels of oxygen and causing mass deaths of both fish and crayfish.

This inspired further research into crayfish genetics, recovery potential and preferred habitat. It guided a 2019 strategy outlining how the species could be successfully reintroduced. A trial five-year reintroduction program in the New South Wales range of the species helped refine the strategy.

Then another Murray blackwater event in 2022–23, in NSW and Victoria, forced crayfish out of the water and up the riverbanks.

Vision of dying crayfish leaving the water, only to be consumed by predators or poached by people, prompted the community to respond. Guided by fisheries agencies and a fishing conservation charity, they rescued crays and held them safely in aquaculture facilities until they could be released back into the wild.

Many of these crayfish were later returned to the river where they came from. But a small number were held for release into SA as part of our new reintroduction program.

In a truly collaborative effort, a small environmental not-for-profit organisation, Nature Glenelg Trust, worked in partnership with a natural resource management agency, First Nations community, fisheries agencies from three states and a private aquaculture facility to turn the idea into reality.

Positive signs from crayfish releases

Murray crayfish were first released back into South Australia in winter 2023. It was a big moment for people who have long championed the species’ return.

A further 200 crayfish were released during winter 2024.

During each release, some of the crayfish were tagged with trackers. This has provided world-first movement and activity information. It shows all tagged crayfish being regularly detected, indicating they are flourishing.

Field surveys each season at the reintroduction site have also found the species alive and well, representing the first Murray crayfish found in the state for more than 40 years.

Returning a totemic and iconic species

The reintroduction of Murray crayfish into a closely guarded location in South Australia’s Riverland is both culturally and ecologically significant.

It signals the return of a important totem to the Erawirung people of the region, and provides a way to reconnect with the species.

Reestablishing a population of the species in South Australia, where hypoxic blackwater events have not been as severe, also provides insurance against extinction.

The species is considered a keystone species, meaning it plays a disproportionately large role in the ecosystem. So returning it to the river may have even greater ecological benefits.

The first of many steps

Reintroduction programs require ongoing commitment if they are to be successful. Extra crayfish will need to be added to the reintroduced population over the coming years.

The reintroduced population will continue to be monitored to ensure numbers are increasing and the range expanding. It will remain protected from fishing by local fisheries authorities.

If successful, further reintroductions may be undertaken into other parts of South Australia.

This initiative is a partnership between Nature Glenelg Trust and the Murraylands and Riverland Landscape Board through funding from the landscape levies, with support from NSW Fisheries, Victorian Fisheries Authority, not-for-profit organisation OzFish Unlimited, North West Aquaculture, the River Murray & Mallee Aboriginal Corporation (RMMAC), CSIRO and the Department of Primary Industries and Regions SA (PIRSA).

Nick Whiterod works for the Goyder Institute for Water Research, Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth (CLLMM) Research Centre, which is funded by the national government to deliver research in the region. He is a member of the New South Wales Fisheries Scientific Committee.

Sylvia Zukowski works for not-for-profit organisation Nature Glenelg Trust, which receives funding from state and national government for conservation projects.

– ref. The world’s second largest freshwater crayfish was once plentiful in Australia’s longest river – we’re bringing it back – https://theconversation.com/the-worlds-second-largest-freshwater-crayfish-was-once-plentiful-in-australias-longest-river-were-bringing-it-back-236520

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wendy Hargreaves, Senior Learning Advisor, University of Southern Queensland

There are two verses to Advance Australia Fair, but do you know the second? Probably not.

It’s in our citizenship booklet, Our Common Bond, suggesting Aussies know it and new citizens could be questioned on it in their citizenship test.

Yet official protocol makes singing it optional. And who’ll choose to sing both verses when thousands of sporting fans just want the game to start?

There are living generations who never properly learnt Advance Australia Fair. Before 1984, most school students sang God Save the Queen. Schools today teach verse one, but whether we learn verse two is haphazard.

If school students sing along to a pre-recorded accompaniment with two verses, we’ll learn verse two. If we sing along with a squeaking school beginner band, one verse is probably all we’ll endure.

I suspect if we knew the second verse our common bond would be arguing about it. Australians acted passionately when debating one word in verse one, yet verse two barely raises an eyebrow. It’s the controversy we need to have (after we’ve googled the lyrics).

The birth of our second verse

The problem with verse two comes from its origins. It wasn’t in Peter Dodds McCormick’s original 1878 composition. His second verse championed gallant Cook sailing with British courage to raise old England’s flag, proving “Britannia rules the waves”. His third and fourth verses weren’t any more appropriate.

So, before Advance Australia Fair became our anthem in 1984, the National Australia Day Council made shrewd edits.

Instead of using verse two from McCormick’s original version, they turned to another version of Advance Australia Fair written for federation in 1901.

The federation version introduced a new commemorative verse, the only other verse the council kept:

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross we’ll toil with hearts and hands

To make our youthful Commonwealth renowned of all the lands

For loyal sons beyond the seas we’ve boundless plains to share

With courage let us all combine to Advance Australia Fair.

Next, the council fixed the gendered language in the federation verse. “Loyal sons” became “those who’ve come”. They deleted “youthful” with an uncanny premonition that age would become sensitive.

(For verse one, Australians resolved the debate ingeniously in 2021 by replacing “young and free” with “one and free”.)

But that’s all the council changed in verse two. They endorsed the rest.

What’s wrong with verse two?

The federation verse, understandably, celebrated the politics of 1901.

The lyrics begin mildly but repetitively, “Beneath our radiant Southern Cross we’ll toil with hearts and hands”. I’m not sure why we’re toiling in both verses. Perhaps Aussies have an exceptional work ethic.

In the next line, the word “commonwealth” was included to mark federation. The forming of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 marked a transition from six British colonies (New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland) into one nation.

On one hand, it celebrates unity and cooperation between colonies. But by singing the intended meaning of the verse, that the nation began when the colonies united, we disrespect the knowledge Australia already was many nations of First Peoples.

The second questionable lyric in verse two is “for those who’ve come across the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share”.

In 1901, Australia’s idea of sharing land was specific. We recruited enthusiastically for more British immigration, yet rejected migrants who weren’t white.

The Immigration Restriction Act 1901, one of our parliament’s first laws, allowed immigration officers to set near impossible dictation tests in any European language. In effect, this meant anyone could be excluded from immigrating by what would be known as the White Australia Policy.

Australia’s 21st century approach to sharing with foreigners also draws media attention. The breach of human rights at detention centres and the limiting of international student visas to stem migration suggest we have “bounds” after all.

The way forward

If the federation verse is theoretically testable for new citizens, then we should check if the values of 1901 and 2025 still match. Without checking, Australia is stagnating, not advancing.

The way forward is in the last line of verse two: “With courage let us all combine to Advance Australia Fair”.

In 1901, that was a plea for spirit and cooperation between colonies when forming a national parliament.

Yet, there’s a timeless truth in those words. By debating our anthem courageously, we can be united by challenge, enriched by diversity and ingenious at rewriting lyrics.

Wendy Hargreaves 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. Few Australians know the second verse of our national anthem – or how out of date it is – https://theconversation.com/few-australians-know-the-second-verse-of-our-national-anthem-or-how-out-of-date-it-is-246678

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Bridgewater, Adjunct Professor in Conservation, University of Canberra

Existing policies to tackle environmental challenges fail to take into account that biodiversity loss, climate change and pollution are intertwined crises and produce compounding and intensifying impacts.

Policy measures taken in isolation are likely to result in unintended consequences.

These are key findings of two major assessment reports by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released late last year.

One report lays out a framework for transformative change. The other, known as the Nexus assessment, highlights links between biodiversity loss, water quality, food security, health risks and climate change.

Both assessments focus on feedbacks and cascading issues which collectively lead to a polycrisis. The Nexus assessment encapsulates this:

Biodiversity loss and climate change are interdependent and produce compounding impacts that threaten human health and human wellbeing.

The reports argue that transformative change is urgent and necessary, but also feasible, to achieve a just and sustainable world. They encourage weaving Indigenous knowledge with science to promote a more comprehensive and connected approach and to limit unintended consequences.

Options for a sustainable future

The reports suggest mainstreaming biodiversity in the sectors contributing to its loss. This includes agriculture, fisheries, forestry, urban development, infrastructure, mining and energy (especially fossil fuels). Mainstreaming means all ministries in government and private industry should consider biodiversity in their work.

Reducing competition for land can achieve positive outcomes across biodiversity, food, water, health and climate. These include sustainable healthy diets, reduced food waste, ecological intensification of agriculture and ecosystem restoration.

Both assessments offer several effective options for policy to drive the transformative change needed for a sustainable future. These include:

• implementing nature-based solutions in urban areas to reconnect people with nature

• employing spatial planning to configure the use of land and sea resources to balance trade-offs

• measuring and reporting on the stocks and flows of natural assets to manage and enhance ecosystem services

• restoring carbon-rich ecosystems such as forests, soils and mangroves

• and supporting indigenous food systems.

The reports mention more than 70 options, highlighting the urgency of a globally coordinated and integrated effort.

Despite the clear value of the reports, the combined impacts of water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity already featured in the 2002 world summit on sustainable development. We must stop reinvention and move to implementing solutions to well-known problems.

Consensus process needs to change

The IPBES plenary bucked a trend of several unsuccessful global summits last year.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16) could not finish and will have to resume in February. The annual climate summit (COP19) left many delegates disappointed over lack of funding. A meeting on combating desertification (COP16) ended with major items unfinished.

The IPBES not only released its reports, it also agreed to carry out a second global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services, starting this year.

But even though consensus was eventually reached, the long and tedious negotiations between governments were marred by national interests and were painful to watch.

Both assessments build on the work of hundreds of scientists, synthesising the latest science. Yet the politics on display during negotiations showed the worst of the human endeavour.

Why was this? The plenary consists of bureaucrats and diplomats from the 147 member governments, observers from other governments, Indigenous peoples and academia. It is not well suited to evaluate a scientific report. By placing their interpretation on the science in the reports they diluted the messages.

While the report authors attempted to accommodate the changes requested, differing requests often cancelled each other out. This created circular arguments, often taking the conclusions away from the science.

Even more than in previous years, this left authors saddened and highly frustrated with the process. A leading IPBES member opined that “very soon no scientist will want to take part in this process, willingly sacrificing three years of their life”.

This negotiation process must change in the future to put science back in the centre of IPBES assessments. Likewise, science must understand the need to offer a better and wider range of options to develop effective policy.

The plenary agreed to a review to examine ways and means of improving the IPBES process, building on the first review in 2019. If the upcoming review is serious, rethinking of the plenary process for the final negotiations and approval must be centre stage.

Another development that will help is better understanding between the IPBES and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on their respective roles. The scientific alarm bells are ringing loudly in assessments by both intergovernmental organisations. Science has done its job. Will policymakers and decision takers do theirs?

Peter Bridgewater was Review Editor for Chapter 1 and the Summary for Policy Makers of the Transformative Change Assessment

Dirk S. Schmeller and Suraj Upadhaya 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. We live in times of multiple entwined crises – but our policy responses aren’t keeping up – https://theconversation.com/we-live-in-times-of-multiple-entwined-crises-but-our-policy-responses-arent-keeping-up-247180

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University

This week Prince Harry achieved something few before him have: an admission of guilt and unlawful behaviour from the Murdoch media organisation. But he also fell short of his long-stated goal of holding the Murdochs to account in a public trial.

The Duke of Sussex, along with Tom Watson, the Labour MP who had led the charge against the Murdochs’ News Group Newspapers (NGN) in the United Kingdom during the 2011–12 phone hacking scandal, are the last to settle their claims against News over their privacy being invaded by phone hacking or through the use of private investigators.

They join a list of around 1,300 people, including celebrities such as Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller, who have already settled their claims against The Sun newspaper at an estimated cost to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch’s company of more than £1 billion (almost A$2 billion).

This one is significant because unlike previous settlements, it came with an admission of wrongdoing and an apology, as well as the perfunctory wheelbarrow full of cash.

Until now, The Sun has simply refused to say sorry or admit liability. But that stance has become increasingly absurd.

As Grant posted on X last year when he settled his claim:

News Group are claiming they are entirely innocent of the things I had accused The Sun of doing. As is common with entirely innocent people, they are offering me an enormous sum of money to keep this matter out of court.

Prince Harry wrung from News considerably more. In a statement released after the case was settled on Wednesday morning in London, NGN said:

NGN offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the serious intrusion by The Sun between 1996 and 2011 into his private life, including incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun.

It went on:

NGN also offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information by journalists and private investigators instructed by them at the News of the World. NGN further apologises to the Duke for the impact on him of the extensive coverage and serious intrusion into his private life as well as the private life of Diana, Princess of Wales, his late mother, in particular during his younger years. We acknowledge and apologise for the distress caused to the Duke, and the damage inflicted on relationships, friendships and family, and have agreed to pay him substantial damages. It is also acknowledged, without any admission of illegality, that NGN’s response to the 2006 arrests and subsequent actions were regrettable.

Let’s break down what this is actually saying, and what it isn’t.

Carefully crafted wording

First, it is undoubtedly a significant admission that in pursuit of stories, The Sun engaged in unlawful activity. That is a big step up (or down, depending on your point of view) from previous settlement statements.

Note, though, it carefully pins the unlawful activity on private investigators working for The Sun rather than on journalists and, more importantly, editors. The word “incidents” is doing a lot of work here: “widespread” and “industrial-strength” come to mind as more appropriate.

Harry’s lawyer, David Sherborne, said immediately after the settlement was reached that “NGN unlawfully engaged more than 100 private investigators over at least 16 years on more than 35,000 occasions”.

He continued: “this happened as much at The Sun as it did at the News of the World with the knowledge of all the Editors and executives, going to the very top of the company.”

NGN’s statement, then, continues to assert phone hacking did not happen at The Sun but in a roundabout way, somehow, the newspaper benefited from it. Sort of.

Dancing to avoid perjury

The company has been engaged in this kind of casuistry ever since 2006 when it said the journalist and private investigator who were found guilty of phone hacking (Clive Goodman and Glen Mulcaire, respectively) were just two bad apples in an otherwise orchard-kissed media basket.

The hundreds of people who have received payments because their phones were hacked know this only too well, but there is an important reason NGN feels it still has to maintain this charade. To do otherwise would be an admission that it has perjured itself in courts and before inquiries.

The Murdochs’ company can hardly deny that journalists at the newspaper it was forced to close over phone hacking – The News of the World – were engaged in the practice. Several of them were jailed over it, most notably former editor Andy Coulson.

As one of Coulson’s former reporters, Dan Evans, testified at his editor’s trial in 2014, “even the office cat knew” phone hacking was happening at the newspaper.

The newspaper was closed, in large part, to try and persuade the public that the problem of unethical reporters was confined to that newspaper alone.

They weren’t expected to notice that months later, News set up a Sunday edition of The Sun that continues to be published.

The legal war continues

For Prince Harry, this has been a deeply personal campaign, especially as News has admitted seriously intruding into his private life since he was 12, and into his mother’s too, for many years.

NGN also acknowledged, without any admission of illegality, that its response to the 2006 arrests and its subsequent actions were “regrettable”. This is PR-speak for when you can’t bring yourself to actually apologise.

Harry’s lawyer went on the attack over these evasions and euphemisms:

there was an extensive conspiracy to cover up what really had been going on and who knew about it. Senior executives deliberately obstructed justice by deleting over 30 million emails, destroying back-up tapes, and making false denials – all in the face of an ongoing police investigation. They then repeatedly lied under oath to cover their tracks – both in Court and at the Leveson Public Inquiry.

Beneath the duelling statements, though, is the sense that this settlement, important though it is, may not be the end of the saga.

It seems clear those backing and advising Prince Harry see the settlement as an important step in pursuing criminal charges against NGN executives, as well as winning a personal apology from Rupert Murdoch himself.

Will that actually happen? We do know that in Murdoch’s long history in the media, apologies are vanishingly rare.

We also know that the second part of the Leveson inquiry was shelved by the former Conservative government. The recently elected Labour government has been under pressure from Hacked Off, the public interest group that has been advocating for victims of media intrusion and for reform of media laws ever since the phone hacking came to light in 2011.

Will Britain’s police and government build on NGN’s partial admissions and apologies? Will they investigate News executives, therefore fulfilling what was meant to occur in the second stage of the Leveson inquiry, whose terms of reference singled out News’s activities as a company?

Or will they take the cautious view that this rare settlement means justice has now been served and hope, like Murdoch and many of his senior executives, this long-running issue will now just quietly go away?

It is too early to tell. What we do know is that in recent years, the Murdochs’ once brilliant batting average has dropped like a stone. First, there was the historically high payout in the Dominion lawsuit, then the failed attempt to revoke an irrevocable trust that is tearing apart the family, and now the settlement with Prince Harry.

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. Murdoch’s UK newspapers have apologised to Prince Harry. Where does it leave the legally embattled media empire? – https://theconversation.com/murdochs-uk-newspapers-have-apologised-to-prince-harry-where-does-it-leave-the-legally-embattled-media-empire-248110

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Rowe, Associate Professor in Education, Deakin University

As Australian families prepare for term 1, many will receive letters from their public schools asking them to pay fees.

While public schools are supposed to be “free”, parents are regularly asked to pay “voluntary” annual contributions. The price tag can be significant. For example, in 2023, Victorian public schools received on average A$570 per student in fees, charges and parent contributions. These voluntary fees go towards a range of items, depending on the school – and could include stationary, excursions or other resources.

This week, the Greens announced a A$10 billion election policy to address public school costs.

Are fees really voluntary at public schools, and why are schools asking parents for funds?

What’s the Greens’ policy?

The Greens’ plan has two components. First, it would give public schools extra funding to cover school expenses, so parents would no longer be asked for voluntary contributions.

Second, the party is pledging to pay families $800 per year for every child attending a public school to cover back-to-school costs, including “uniforms, technology and school supplies”.

The Greens say this will make public schools “truly free”, adding, “public schools shouldn’t need to rely on the generosity of parents”.

The policy, which has been costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, includes $2.4 billion to end school fees and $7.6 billion for the back-to-school payment.

Are fees really voluntary?

Fees at public schools are supposed to be voluntary. For example, the New South Wales Education Department notes:

These contributions are voluntary. The payment of voluntary school contributions is a matter for decision by parents and carers. Schools must not deny any student the opportunity to meet syllabus requirements because of non-payment of voluntary school contributions.

But parents often receive an official letter from the school at the start of the year (on school stationary, looking like an itemised bill).

Public pressure can also be a factor. In 2019, children at Bondi Public School in Sydney received free popcorn if their parents had paid their fees.

How much are public school fees?

In a 2019 study, a colleague and I examined voluntary school fees at 150 metropolitan public schools in Melbourne between 2013 and 2016. We also studied voluntary school fees at 386 public schools in NSW over five years (2013–17). In a 2022 study, we compared these to public selective-entry schools in NSW.

While we found fees were relatively stable over our study period, there were significant differences depending on the socioeconomic status of the school (measured by asking parents their profession and level of education).

In NSW, the average annual parent contribution in a high socioeconomic status school was $1,055 per student, compared with $419 in a low socioeconomic status school.

In metropolitan Melbourne, the average annual parent contribution in a high socioeconomic status school was $1,430 per student, compared with $408 in a low socioeconomic status school. The average annual parent contribution in a selective-entry public school was $2,057.

While the precise figures will have changed since we did our study – and are likely to be higher – the comparisons are concerning. They suggest significant gaps between public schools’ resources, depending on whether they are in an advantaged or disadvantaged area.

Schools are struggling for funds

Other research also suggests many public schools are struggling for funds. In my co-authored 2024 study, public school principals spoke of how they need to apply for competitive government grants to prop up school funds and provide basic services and building maintenance.

As part of this, principals talked about how their schools no longer had the capacity to help families in their communities. As one Victorian primary school principal told us:

We don’t have the flexibility [in our budget] that we once had. Once upon a time we probably had more flexibility to cover those families that are in dire need.

Another 2024 study found NSW students are being asked to pay for core physical education lessons at public schools, which have to outsource these lessons due to teacher shortages.

Read more:
‘Very frustrating’: for public school principals, applying for grants is now a big part of their job

The bigger picture

At a broader level, Australian schools are still not “fully funded”, according to the Gonski reforms more than a decade ago.

This is based on the “schooling resource standard”, whereby schools get funding based on the level of students’ needs. So far, only public schools in the ACT have had full funding allocations (for recurrent funding) under this model.

Funding for infrastructure or capital works is done separately, and is not tied to any needs-based measure.

Read more:
As more money is flagged for WA schools, what does ‘fully funded’ really mean?

School fees create barriers

Some parents may be happy to pay voluntary school fees in a public school – seeing it as a way to support their children’s education and the local community. Voluntary payments mean schools can afford more resources, which benefit their students.

However, the bigger issue is public schools should be accessible to everyone. Any school fees create potential barriers and access issues for families who cannot afford to pay. They also create gaps between different public schools, with some schools having far more money than others.

The solution is to ensure public schools are not only funded adequately, but robustly. At the moment, our funding system is not meeting the bare minimum agreed targets, and therefore it is unsurprising costs are being passed to parents.

Emma Rowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Are public schools really ‘free’? Families can pay hundreds of dollars in voluntary fees – https://theconversation.com/are-public-schools-really-free-families-can-pay-hundreds-of-dollars-in-voluntary-fees-248107

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC L3 Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney

Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) has been met with dismay in the public health field.

Some have called one of the US president’s first executive orders “a grave error” and “absolutely bad news”.

What does the WHO do?

The WHO is a United Nations agency that aims to expand universal health coverage, coordinates responses to health emergencies such as pandemics, and has a broad focus on healthy lives. It does not have the power to enforce health policy, but influences policy worldwide, especially in low-income countries.

The WHO plays an essential coordinating role in surveillance, response and policy for infectious and non-infectious diseases. In fact, infectious diseases have the most pressing need for global coordination. Unlike non-communicable diseases, infections can spread rapidly from one country to another, just as COVID spread to cause a pandemic.

We have much to thank the WHO for, including the eradication of smallpox, a feat which could not have been achieved without global coordination and leadership. It has also played a leading role in control of polio and HIV.

Why does the US want to withdraw?

The reasons for withdrawing include:

mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic … and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.

The executive order also cites the disproportionately higher payments the US makes to the WHO compared to China. In 2024-25, the US contributed 22% of the organisation’s mandatory funding from member states compared to about 15% for China.

President Trump initiated withdrawal from the WHO over similar concerns in 2020. But this was reversed by President Biden in 2021.

What happens next?

The withdrawal may take a year to come into effect, and may need approval by the US Congress.

How this will play out is unclear, but it seems likely the WHO will lose US funding.

The US withdrawal may also be the final nail in the coffin for the WHO Pandemic Agreement, which faltered in 2024 when member states could not agree on the final draft.

Trump’s executive order states all negotiations around the pandemic agreement will cease. However, the order hints that the US will look at working with international partners to tackle global health.

The US Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) already has such international partners and could feasibly do this. It already convenes a global network of training in outbreak response, which could provide a model. But to move in this direction needs finessing, as another objective of the new US government is to reduce or cease international aid.

The WHO also convenes a range of expert committees and networks of reference laboratories. One among many network of laboratories is for influenza, comprising more than 50 labs in 41 member states. This includes five “super labs”, one of which is at the CDC. It’s unclear what would happen to such networks, many of which have major US components.

With the threat of bird flu mutating to become a human pandemic these global networks are critical for surveillance of pandemic threats.

WHO expert committees also drive global health policy on a range of issues. It is possible for the WHO to accredit labs in non-member countries, or for experts from non-member countries to be on WHO expert committees. But how this will unfold, especially for US government-funded labs or experts who are US government employees, is unclear.

Another potential impact of a US withdrawal is the opportunity for other powerful member nations to become more influential once the US leaves. This may lead to restrictions on US experts sitting on WHO committees or working with the organisation in other ways.

While the US withdrawal will see the WHO lose funding, member states contribute about 20% of the WHO budget. The organisation relies on donations from other organisations (including private companies and philanthropic organisations), which make up the remaining 80%. So the US withdrawal may increase the influence of these other organisations.

A chance for reform

The Trump administration is not alone in its criticism of how the WHO handled COVID and other infectious disease outbreaks.

For example, the WHO agreed with Chinese authorities in early January 2020 there was no evidence the “mystery pneumonia” in Wuhan was contagious, while in reality it was likely already spreading for months. This was a costly mistake.

There was criticism over WHO’s delay in declaring the pandemic, stating COVID was not airborne (despite evidence otherwise). There was also criticism about its investigation into the origins of COVID, including conflicts of interest in the investigating team.

The WHO was also criticised for its handling of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa a decade ago. Eventually, this led to a series of reforms, but arguably not enough.

More changes needed

US public health expert Ashish Jha argues for reform at WHO. Jha, who is the dean of the Brown University School of Public Health and former White House COVID response coordinator, argues the organisation has an unclear mission, too broad a remit, poor governance and often prioritises political sensitivities of member states.

He proposes the WHO should narrow its focus to fewer areas, with outbreak response key. This would allow reduced funding to be used more efficiently.

Rather than the US withdrawing from the WHO, he argues the US would be better to remain a member and leverage such reform.

Without reform, there is a possibility other countries may follow the US, especially if governments are pressured by their electorates to increase spending on domestic needs.

The WHO has asked the US to reconsider withdrawing. But the organisation may need to look at further reforms for any possibility of future negotiations. This is the best path toward a solution.

C Raina MacIntyre receives funding from NHMRC (L3 Investigator Grant and NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence), the US Department of Defence (for a pandemic war game Able Resolve 2024 and 2025) and Sanofi (investigator driven research on influenza and pertussis). She is on the WHO SAGE Mpox and smallpox advisory group, and was on the WHO Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (2021-2024).

– ref. The US intends to leave the World Health Organization. What happens next? – https://theconversation.com/the-us-intends-to-leave-the-world-health-organization-what-happens-next-247997

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Williamson, Senior Tutor in English, University of Canterbury

“Motherhood,” the beleaguered stay-at-home mother of Nightbitch tells us in contemplative voice-over, “is probably the most violent experience a human can have aside from death itself”.

Increasingly depicted as a source of frustration, resentment and rage, the film sets out to show motherhood is also far more savage and feral than the anodyne images posted on social media by retrograde tradwives or mumfluencers would have us believe.

As Nightbitch puts it, it’s “fucking brutal”.

Adapted by Marielle Heller from Rachel Yoder’s 2021 novel of the same name, the film stars Amy Adams as Mother, an unnamed installation artist who places her career on hold to raise her young son.

Wrung out by the demands of motherhood and increasingly furious with the lack of support she receives from her incompetent and often absent Husband (Scoot McNairy), Mother starts to spiral out of control, morphing into a dog complete with tail, sharpened canines, extra nipples and a ravenous desire for raw meat.

This transformation places the film squarely within a long representational history of monstrous mothers.

Monstrous motherhood

Writing in 1993, feminist film scholar Barbara Creed famously declared

all human societies have a conception of the monstrous-feminine, of what it is about woman that is shocking, terrifying, horrific, abject.

Anxieties about women’s bodies and their sexuality permeate cultural products, ranging from Freudian jokes to the duplicitous femme fatale of film noir.

This is especially true for the reproductive female body, whose unsettling ability to transform and multiply simultaneously threatens and fascinates. The horror genre is rich with examples, which critic Erin Harrington has helpfully termed “gynaehorror”.

Nightbitch takes this fear literally, drawing on magic realism and horror tropes to show the visceral and psychological metamorphosis women undergo on becoming mothers (a phenomenon known as matrescence).

In one scene, Mother gouges into a cyst on her spine, releasing oozing, seeping pus before pulling out a tail. In another, she gluttonously devours cafeteria mac and cheese with her bare hands.

This surrealist turn promises to take us into the terrain of full feminist body horror (an experience that audiences are clearly up for, if the success of last year’s The Substance is anything to go by). But Nightbitch loses the courage of its convictions. By her own admission, Heller has an aversion to violence and the decision to dampen the gore was a deliberate one.

Unfortunately, this is to the detriment of the film. While it is unclear in Yoder’s absurdist novel whether Mother’s transformation is real or merely metaphorical allegory, the adaptation to film demands this be taken literally – at least at a visual level.

Heller’s refusal to lean into the body horror results in a neutered narrative with more bark than bite.

Death of the self

Nightbitch is the latest in a string of contemporary films and television series about motherhood and its discontents. Other titles include Tully (2018), The Let Down (2017–19), Working Moms (2017–23), Big Little Lies (2017–19) and the Bad Moms films (2016–17).

These texts put mothers front and centre. Stylistically different, and not without their individual problems, they are unified in their efforts to portray the messy reality of motherhood.

Adams’ portrayal of the invisibility and grief she experiences as a new mother will resonate with many viewers. An opening montage of Mother frying hashbrowns, reading bedtime stories and playing trucks ad nauseam deftly establishes the boredom and inertia of early motherhood. Sleep-deprived and terrified she’ll never be “smart or happy or thin ever again”, Mother has become unrecognisable to her pre-baby self.

When Husband asks in the middle of a fight “What happened to the girl I married?”, she replies, “She died in childbirth”.

The idea that motherhood is akin to a loss of selfhood isn’t revelatory or new; nor is Nightbitch’s approach. The film’s over-reliance on Adams’ voice-over to deliver lengthy didactic monologues is heavy-handed.

More unusual is Nightbitch’s suggestion that successful motherhood can also be depleting and a source of profound ambivalence.

Nightbitch is quick to show us Mother is, in fact, a good mum – playful, attentive and affectionate with her son. Warm, golden lighting infuses their scenes together creating an intimate private world shared by mother and child.

Mother, it would seem, is doing everything right.

Her guilty admission she is “not doing OK” comes in spite of this. Nightbitch teases us with the idea the problem lies not with Mother but with motherhood itself.

This is an important distinction maternal scholars have been championing since the publication of Adrienne Rich’s groundbreaking work Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution in 1976.

Once again, however, Nightbitch disappointingly fails to deliver.

Despite having laboured to show the corrosive impacts that rigid gender norms and societal expectations can have on mothers, Nightbitch offers an individualised solution to this systemic problem.

Fed up with Husband’s ineptitude, Mother initiates a separation, bonds with her fellow mum-friends, takes up running and throws herself back into her art. Apparently, all she really needed to do was find her pack and carve out some “me time”. Although Yoder’s book likewise concludes with Mother channelling her rage into her art, the separation and subsequent reconciliation subplot with Husband is an addition to the film.

This curious pivot shuts down the film’s articulation of maternal ambivalence and perinatal depression, as well as its critique of the weaponized incompetence exhibited by straight men in their romantic and family relationships.

Nightbitch’s ending certainly feels weird and surreal – just not in the way audiences might hope.

Nightbitch is streaming on Disney+ in Australia and New Zealand from today.

Rachel Williamson 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 new wave of filmmakers are exploring motherhood’s discontents. Nightbitch makes this monstrous – https://theconversation.com/a-new-wave-of-filmmakers-are-exploring-motherhoods-discontents-nightbitch-makes-this-monstrous-246414

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted January 15–21 from a sample of 1,610, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead using 2022 election preference flows, unchanged from the early December Resolve poll. The Coalition had a wider 52–48 lead by respondent preferences.

Primary votes were 38% Coalition (steady), 27% Labor (steady), 13% Greens (up one), 7% One Nation (steady), 10% independents (down one) and 6% others (up one). Labor’s primary vote fell three points to 27% in December.

Peter Dutton held a 39–34 lead over Anthony Albanese as preferred PM, after they were tied at 35% each in December. This is easily Dutton’s biggest lead in any poll on this measure, which usually favours the incumbent relative to voting intentions.

Albanese’s net approval improved four points to -22, with 55% rating him poor and 33% good. However, this came after a 12-point slump in December. Dutton’s net approval surged eight points to +6.

Inflation and the cost of living is still the major cause of Labor’s problems. By 50–17, respondents expected inflation to get worse in the near future. By 46–29, they said their income would not keep up with inflation this year.

The Liberals led Labor by a large 42–23 on economic management (41–23 in December). On keeping the cost of living low, the Liberals led by 37–22 (38–22 previously).

I explained the chart below in Monday’s article. Since Monday, Morgan, Essential and Resolve polls have been released, and none have been good for Labor. The latest Freshwater and Resolve polls occupy the same space on the chart.

There have been five polls released in the last week. By 2022 election flows, the Coalition leads in four, with Essential tied. Actual preferences will probably be better for the Coalition than in 2022, so Labor is probably further behind.

Although Labor’s position is poor, they’re not behind by 55–45. If Labor can use the lead-up to the election to increase fears about a Coalition government, they can still win the next election. The federal election is due by May.

But on current polling, the Coalition will probably win the two-party count, though not necessarily a majority of House of Representatives seats.

Essential poll good for Labor except on voting intentions

A national Essential poll, conducted January 15–19 from a sample of 1,132, gave the Coalition a 48–47 lead by respondent preferences including undecided, unchanged since mid-December.

Primary votes were 37% Coalition (up two), 30% Labor (steady), 12% Greens (down one), 7% One Nation (up one), 2% UAP (up one), 7% for all Others (down four) and 5% undecided (steady). These primary votes would give about a 50–50 tie by 2022 election preference flows, a two-point gain for the Coalition.

However, Albanese’s net approval jumped 11 points to net zero, with 45% both approving and disapproving. This is his highest net approval in Essential since October 2023, and his highest from anyone since a May 2024 Newspoll. Dutton’s net approval was down four points to -1.

By 46–38, respondents thought Australia is on the wrong track (51–31 in December), This is the smallest margin for wrong in this poll since May 2023.

On whether Australia should have a separate national day to recognise Indigenous Australians, 40% (steady since January 2024) did not want a separate day, 30% (down one) supported a separate day and keeping Australia Day and 19% (up one) supported a separate day to replace Australia Day.

By 42–27, respondents supported banning TikTok in Australia (45–25 in March 2024). By 54–12, they thought social media companies should be regulated more (57–9 in March 2024). By 77–7, respondents thought dental and oral healthcare should be included in Medicare.

Morgan poll: Coalition gains clear lead

A national Morgan poll, conducted January 13–19 from a sample of 1,564, gave the Coalition a 52–48 lead by headline respondent preferences, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition since the January 6–12 poll.

Primary votes were 42% Coalition (up 1.5), 28.5% Labor (down 1.5), 13% Greens (up 0.5), 4% One Nation (down 0.5), 8.5% independents (down 0.5) and 4% others (up 0.5).

Using 2022 election flows, the Coalition led by 52–48, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition. This is the worst Morgan poll for Labor by this measure this term, beating the 51.5–48.5 to the Coalition in mid-December.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Coalition has lead in most polls as Dutton gains five-point preferred PM lead in Resolve – https://theconversation.com/coalition-has-lead-in-most-polls-as-dutton-gains-five-point-preferred-pm-lead-in-resolve-248001

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa French, Professor & Dean, School of Media and Communication, RMIT University

In 1961, aged 19, Bob Dylan left home in Minnesota for New York City and never looked back. Unknown when he arrived, he would later be widely described as the voice of a generation.

A Complete Unknown follows Dylan’s transformation from his arrival in 1961 to when he was booed at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965 for playing electric guitar instead of acoustic.

Loosely based on Elija Wald’s 2015 book Dylan Goes Electric!, the film is a snapshot of an era of generational and social upheaval through the prism of Dylan’s music.

In the 60s and 70s, my home was filled with Dylan’s songs, and those relating to the antiwar movement had particular resonance. My mother, who loved Dylan’s music, was aligned with Save Our Sons, which campaigned against the Vietnam War and hid young men from conscription. She worried her eldest son might get swept into the war.

In 1978, three years after the war ended, I went with my teenage friends to hear Dylan play at the Sidney Myer Music Bowl in Melbourne. He began with A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall, and it literally did. A transfixed concert audience endured the deluge of pouring rain through 29 songs.

Crafting a biopic

Director James Mangold looks at the period where Dylan (Timothée Chalamet) emerged from obscurity, using his shift to electric music to show how his artistic evolution and pursuit of his own path led to fame.

The film does not shrink from portraying Dylan in an unflattering light. His focus is on music at the expense of everything else. He hardly notices his impact on others and does not show loyalty to anyone. Male rock stars are Teflon: their mystique wins over, self-centeredness is accepted.

Music biopics about men often romanticise them as visionaries and laud the artist for their genius, from Mozart in Amadeus (1984) to Brian Wilson from The Beach Boys in the film Love & Mercy (2014).

Biopics about female musicians tend to emphasise their unique challenges, including sexism and exploitation, or issues around race or gender, rather than their status as legendary artists.

The Billie Holiday biopic Lady Sings the Blues (1972) examined addiction and racism. Judy (2019), about Judy Garland, explored addiction and the pressures of stardom. What’s Love Got to Do with It (1993) depicted Tina Turner’s journey to become a solo performer despite an abusive relationship.

A Complete Unknown shares the major approaches of recent biopics, including a focus on a key period of the artist’s transformation, such as the portrait of the first 15 years of Queen’s Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody (2018).

Others explore the artist as innovator, as in the Elton John biopic Rocketman (2019). The majority examine the musician’s cultural impact, for example Aretha Franklin’s influence on civil rights and feminism in Respect (2021).

There are many traditions both male and female biopics share: the cost and burden of fame, the music as a lens for understanding struggle or triumph, the artist as a figure challenging society. A Complete Unknown examines those, and includes romantic and professional relationships, but they are secondary to the story of Dylan’s achievement.

A Complete Unknown is more open than some of its predecessors to acknowledging the difficulties women encounter, but it hints at them rather than fleshing them out.

The pressure on Joan Baez (Monica Barbaro) as a woman in a male-dominated industry is invisible, and the film does not substantially break with gender stereotypes which inform the narrative, character development and themes.

The women of Dylan’s life

Chalamet’s performance as Dylan has enormous resonance. Elle Fanning’s Sylvie Russo, a character inspired by Dylan’s real-life girlfriend at the time, is played as a quiet yet strong presence. Vulnerable but independent, she supports and inspires him during his unknown early days, clearly motivated by genuine care for him rather than his stardom.

The film depicts Dylan as having simultaneous relationships with both Sylvie and Joan (although this is apparently a liberty of fiction, his manager at the time has said the real-life characters had relationships at different times). The film communicates this through the characters’ various gazes at Dylan. Sylvie watches Bob with Joan; Joan sees him with Sylvie.

Joan and Sylvie gaze at Dylan as if trying to fathom a mystery: Dylan is unpredictable and unknowable. Sylvie tries to go with the flow, but ends up saying she can’t do it. Joan, a singer with a reputation far greater than Dylan’s at the beginning of the film, ends up throwing him out of her room when it becomes clear all he wants to do is write another song.

They both cut him loose. Dylan’s 1964 song One Too Many Mornings is about the newly single man and a failure of communication. It speaks of a post-breakup reflective solitude, and how men and women don’t always understand each other.

A cultural turning point

Dylan’s artist girlfriend Suze Rotolo, upon whom Sylvie is based, reportedly resented being cast simply as a musician’s chick. In the film she stands in for the emotional and intellectual support women offer but she is not portrayed as the artist she was.

The only woman represented in the male dominated folk music industry is Joan Baez, which along with her forthrightness in calling Dylan out as “kind of a jerk”, symbolises the times were changing for women too.

But the focus is Dylan. Everyone else is just those he abandoned along the way.

A Complete Unknown depicts the cultural turning point of the times as the context for Dylan’s own musical transformation – from acoustic folk to electrified rock. The film stays with you, ricocheting around in your memory. That, for me, is a sign of a good one.

Lisa French 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. Bob Dylan biopic A Complete Unknown has enormous resonance – but doesn’t break with gender stereotypes – https://theconversation.com/bob-dylan-biopic-a-complete-unknown-has-enormous-resonance-but-doesnt-break-with-gender-stereotypes-246234

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Van Amber, Senior Lecturer in Fashion & Textiles, RMIT University

Last year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) issued at least nine recall notices on products that didn’t comply with the mandatory standard for nightwear for children. All of these items posed a fire hazard, but didn’t have the required labelling.

The latest of these recalls, a glow-in-the-dark jumper sold on the website Temu, caused severe burn injuries to an 8-year-old Queensland girl. The incident has exposed significant gaps in Australian product safety standards.

Brands will use warning labels to meet legal requirements (such as the mandatory standard mentioned above), but they continue producing and selling these dangerously flammable textiles. This shifts the responsibility to shoppers who purchase items with fire warning labels, but may not fully understand the implications of the warning.

Highly flammable fabrics are far more common than you might realise – and it’s not just synthetic ones that can easily catch flame.

What makes a fabric flammable?

Textiles are lightweight materials, often with a high surface area meaning they ignite and burn easily. The next time you light a candle, just look at the wick – it’s usually a cotton yarn.

The only naturally flame-resistant fibre is wool, along with all other animal protein fibres such as silk, alpaca, mohair, cashmere and others. These fibres are slow to ignite and form ash when burned.

Synthetic materials melt when burning. If they stick to the skin, they can cause severe injuries that are difficult to treat. Polyester made up over 57% of global fibre production in 2023.

Acrylic is the most flammable of all synthetics. Acrylic fibres are commonly used to make jumpers that look and feel like wool, but are much less expensive to produce. Without checking the label, shoppers can easily mistake acrylic sweaters for wool ones.

Not all synthetic fibres are equally flammable. Somewhat confusingly, there is a flame-resistant fibre called modacrylic. Modacrylic was developed to address the flammability problems with acrylic. Other flame-resistant human-made fibres are kevlar and glass.

However, there is more to fabric flammability than just the fibres alone. Textile fabrics are complex materials – a fabric’s flammability is affected by the fibres, yarns, structure (knit or weave), and any finishes used.

For example, smooth, tightly woven or knitted fabrics will be slower to burn than lightweight or fuzzy fabrics. Fabrics can also be treated with flame retardant finishes.

Fabrics with the highest fire risk are those with a pile or brushed surface (think cosy, fuzzy or furry fleeces, flannelettes and faux furs) and are composed of cotton, acrylic, polyester and other synthetic fibres. These soft and fuzzy (and highly flammable) textile products are everywhere, and often at affordable prices.

‘Not intended for children’s sleepwear’

Despite well-known fire risks of different materials, Australian rules for fibre content labelling lapsed in 2019. Now, products only legally need care instructions.

Most brands still list the fibre content (for example, “100% cotton”) to meet American and European requirements, but it’s no longer legally required here.

Current safety rules focus mainly on protecting children, particularly in sleepwear and some daily clothes. However, risk from flammable clothing extends beyond children. Women, older people and any person who tends to wear loose-fitting garments that can catch fire more easily are at risk.

Many costume pieces like capes, hoods, wings and tutus are also excluded from children’s product safety rules in Australia. The exclusion of these types of items from regulation is especially baffling, as they often pose a high flammability risk due to their combination of materials and loose-fitting designs.

All this means shoppers may not know the item they are purchasing is highly flammable.

Consider a shopper who encounters flannel fabrics printed with bunnies and dogs at a major Australian retailer. These fabrics come with mandatory warnings like “not intended for children’s sleepwear” or “fire warning: flannelette is a flammable material and care should be taken if using flannelette for children’s sleepwear and loose-fitting garments”.

What are these cutesy flannel fabrics to be used for, if not children’s products?

We need stronger consumer protection

While Australia has consumer protection laws, the ACCC has acknowledged there is no direct ban on selling unsafe products.

Without stronger legislation prohibiting the production and sale of highly flammable textiles, Australia risks becoming a market for hazardous clothing and textile products that don’t meet stricter international standards.

At the very minimum, Australia needs to reintroduce mandatory fibre content labelling for textiles and clothing products to be in line with US and EU requirements.

In the meantime, consumers need to take action in other ways. Take any product with a “fire warning” label seriously – don’t let children wear fuzzy, fleecy, furry or loose clothing items such as costumes around open flames or as sleepwear. Older adults can also be at risk. Wearing a favourite fuzzy bathrobe when cooking over open flames, such as a gas stove top, is extremely dangerous.

Better yet, don’t purchase any items with a “fire warning” label – brands will stop producing items that don’t sell.

Consumers are encouraged to report any products they suspect are unsafe to the ACCC.

Rebecca Van Amber is currently the Honorary Secretary of the Textile Institute Australia, and has previously received funding from The New Zealand Wool Industry to undertake her postdoctoral research from 2014–2016 in New Zealand.

– ref. Your fuzzy flannel pyjamas could be incredibly flammable – here’s what to know – https://theconversation.com/your-fuzzy-flannel-pyjamas-could-be-incredibly-flammable-heres-what-to-know-247448

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Carson, Senior Research Fellow, School of Medicine, The University of Western Australia

The war in Gaza will leave its mark in many ways, long after the recently negotiated ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas.

One legacy relates to how the chaos of war provides the perfect storm for the rise in antimicrobial resistance.

This is when microbes evolve to withstand the medicines designed to kill them. These microbes turn into superbugs, rendering previously effective treatments ineffective, and previously survivable infections, deadly.

We’ve already seen examples of antimicrobial resistance in Gaza and other conflict zones around the world.

Antimicrobial resistance is a growing problem globally. It not only threatens human health, but also agriculture, food security and economies.

Managing antimicrobial resistance is complex. It requires approaches including preventing infections in the first place, strategic limits on how antimicrobial agents are used, and robust health-care systems.

In conflict zones, the reverse is starkly evident.

Health-care systems are disrupted

Armed conflicts devastate health-care infrastructure. Such conflicts often occur in places with limited resources to start with.

Hospitals and diagnostic laboratories are damaged or destroyed, and supplies are depleted. Health-care workers are killed or displaced.

Conflict zones are left with less-than-ideal diagnostic capabilities, treatment and care.

This makes preventing and controlling infections incredibly difficult.

Vaccination is disrupted too

Disrupted vaccination programs can affect the development of antimicrobial resistance in a number of direct and indirect ways.

For instance, in conflict zones, less vaccination against bacterial disease leads to more infections, increasing the need for antibiotics, and the risk that antimicrobial resistance develops.

Less vaccination against viral diseases can leave people in conflict zones vulnerable to those viral infections and in turn, secondary bacterial infections. This leads to antibiotic use as a preventive measure, or as treatment, promoting the development of antimicrobial resistance.

Antibiotics are overused and misused

Widespread injuries, infections, and poor hygiene in conflict zones are common. This leads to an over-reliance on antibiotics, especially those acting against the broadest range of bacteria.

Ideally, broad-acting antibiotics would be used sparingly and after diagnostic tests. However, treatment is needed and diagnostic capabilities are compromised. So broad-acting antibiotics are used much more often, further promoting the development of resistance.

Fewer controls over who has access to antibiotics in war-torn regions is also a problem. Without prescriptions, professional oversight or diagnostic tests, antibiotics are used in ways that drive further resistance. This includes using them “just in case”, using ones not effective for that infection or injury, or using them for too long, or not long enough.

For all these reasons, overuse and misuse of antibiotics, while often unavoidable, make it more likely for resistant microbes to arise and spread.

Wounds, infections, antibiotics

Armed conflict leads to large numbers of traumatic injuries. As Chief Surgeon Sergiy Kosulnykov at Mechnikov Hospital in Dnipro, Ukraine said last year:

Every blast is an open wound, and every open wound is an infection.

Treating these injuries requires antibiotics. However, in conflict zones, the infecting microbes are often ones resistant to multiple drugs. This is especially when those microbes are acquired on the battlefield, in field hospitals or in other high-risk environments. Once antimicrobial resistance has started, these circumstances makes it easier for microbes to become resistant to additional antibiotics.

Unsanitary living conditions

Refugee camps and shelters for displaced populations are often overcrowded and lack access to clean water and proper sanitation.

So infections and resistant microbes are more likely to occur and spread, worsening outbreaks and fostering the evolution and spread of resistant microbes.

The wider breakdown in water and sanitation infrastructure also fosters the spread of waterborne microbes, increasing the prevalence and spread of resistant microbes.

Lack of surveillance and monitoring

Effective management of antimicrobial resistance depends on accurate diagnostic tests, and robust surveillance systems to track resistance patterns and inform treatment recommendations.

Conflict disrupts these systems, leaving authorities blind to emerging resistance trends. This disruption also delays the implementation of effective countermeasures.

Global spread of resistant pathogens

Conflict generates a large pool of antimicrobial-resistant microbes that may infect or colonise many people, in and beyond the conflict zone. Movement of people in and out of the conflict zone contributes to this spread across borders.

Refugees and displaced people often carry resistant microbes to regions with no or less prior exposure, contributing to the global spread of antimicrobial resistance.

Acinetobacter baumanii bacteria that are highly resistant to multiple antibiotics are one example. These have proven problematic to treat in United States military personnel that returned with combat injuries from Afghanistan and Iraq. The same bacteria have been noted in the United Kingdom as a potential source of life-threatening infections that spread readily in hospitals.

In Afghanistan, Gaza, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen and elsewhere, bacteria resistant to multiple antibiotics have emerged and thrived during conflicts, and continue to do so.

What should we do about it?

Antimicrobial resistance in regions affected by conflict requires urgent action, as well as peace. This includes rebuilding and maintaining health-care systems, improving sanitation, regulating antibiotic use, and ensuring access to clean water and vaccines.

International cooperation and sustained investment are essential to mitigating the devastating impact on those already affected by conflict.

Without this, antimicrobial resistance becomes yet another catastrophic legacy of war, threatening human health and security for generations to come.

Christine Carson is a founder with a financial interest in Cytophenix, a company developing new diagnostic tests. Her work is supported by government funding sources, philanthropy and private companies.

– ref. ‘Every blast is an open wound’: how the chaos of war breeds deadly superbugs that spread around the world – https://theconversation.com/every-blast-is-an-open-wound-how-the-chaos-of-war-breeds-deadly-superbugs-that-spread-around-the-world-245946