Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Crowley, Adjunct Associate Professor, Public and Environmental Policy, University of Tasmania

Federal Greens leader Adam Bandt says the federal election offers “an opportunity for real change”, saying his party would use the balance of power in the next parliament to help deliver serious policy reforms.

In a speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday, Bandt outlined the party’s election priorities and said the poll represents:

A once-in-a-generation chance to create a country where everyone has a right to the basics – food, health, and a home. A safe climate and a healthy environment. An economy which puts people before the profits of the obscenely wealthy and the excessively profitable.

The Greens broke new ground at the last federal election, snatching three new lower house seats and winning the balance of power in the Senate. The gains suggested the Greens were moving beyond their roots as a party of protest, and becoming a true policy force.

But the Greens broadly failed to make the most of its greater political presence this term. In the next parliament, it should focus on building political capital and picking its battles more wisely.

Meagre parliamentary success this term

As a traditional party of protest, the Greens have historically tended to stick firmly to the party’s policy agenda rather than make major concessions to the government of the day.

However, as the new Labor government focused on delivering its mostly modest reform agenda this term, the Greens party was forced to negotiate on its demands, much as the Teals have done.

The Greens helped Labor pass its signature climate change policy, the safeguard mechanism, which seeks to limit emissions from Australia’s most polluting companies. In return, Labor agreed to the Greens’ call for a hard cap on emissions under the scheme. But it refused to bow to Greens demands for a ban on new gas and coal projects, and limiting the use of carbon credits.

The Greens were then tested by Labor’s housing agenda – specifically, two schemes to make buying or renting a home more affordable.

The Greens’ initially teamed up with the Coalition to block the laws, arguing they would drive up housing prices and give tax breaks to property developers. The party’s opposition was at odds with public opinion, including most Greens voters.

The party eventually waved the housing bills through in November last year without winning any concessions from Labor, and after burning much political capital.

The chastened Greens helped pass a flurry of other legislation late in 2024, including Reserve Bank governance reforms and a supermarket code of conduct. In return, Labor offered Greens fairly piecemeal concessions, including more money for social housing electrification and a ban on fossil fuel subsidies under the Future Made in Australia scheme.

The Greens also offered to help salvage Labor’s troubled proposal to reform Australia’s environmental protection laws. It shelved its calls for a “climate trigger” – which would force regulators to consider the potential climate damage of a proposal before it was approved. Instead, the Greens insisted only on stronger protections for native forests.

However, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese intervened at the eleventh hour to scuttle the deal.

All this suggests the Greens party is yet to strike the right balance between pursuing its own policy agenda and supporting Labor to the extent that a healthy working relationship is achieved. So far, it has gained only meagre concessions, and its policy grandstanding has not worked.

Flare-ups outside parliament

Scoring political points outside parliament can be easier for the Greens than influencing policy within it.

Environmental conflict has always fuelled the Greens’ vote, and the party continues to campaign on issues such as protecting Tasmania’s native forests, opposing salmon farming and calling for a ban on new coal and gas projects.

But outside parliament this term, the Greens have faced controversies that may hurt them at the ballot box.

Greens senator Lidia Thorpe quit the party over its support for the Voice referendum, and Bandt copped criticism for allegedly failing to confront bullying claims against West Australian Greens senator Dorinda Cox.

The Gaza conflict triggered significant ruptures between the Greens and the pro-Israel movement. There were also reports that a new Muslim political movement may siphon votes from the Greens and hurt them electorally.

There is no ready formula, then, for the Greens to shore up – let alone expand – its vote outside parliament.

What’s next for the Greens?

The Guardian’s polls tracker suggests the Greens’ primary vote has increased since the 2022 election, from 12.3% to 14%.

However, the party faces several tough political contests to retain or extend the gains it won in 2022. And its disappointing results at recent elections in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory suggest the party has its work cut out.

As ABC election analyst Antony Green has noted, Labor holds three seats with margins below 5% where the Greens have a chance. However, the Greens also hold seats on slim margins that Labor or another candidate could win.

The Greens’ lower-house gains at the last election came in the inner-Brisbane seats of Ryan, Brisbane and Griffith. The Greens will have to fight hard to retain all three next month.

The most recent polls suggest Labor will be returned by a narrow margin at the May 3 election – probably helped along by the return of United States’ President Donald Trump.

On Wednesday Bandt said the Greens “are within reach of winning seats right across the country and, in the minority government, we can make things happen”.

However, seven new Independents won lower house seats at the last election. Should that trend continue, and if Labor does need to form a minority government, the Greens may find themselves fighting for the balance of power on a crowded crossbench.

Picking fights or delivering policy?

If the Greens party wants to be seen as a serious political force, it must decide if its traditional political approach – hard-nosed policy opposition and picking political fights – is still the best strategy.

Bandt’s mentor, former Greens leader Christine Milne, got results from minority pacts with both sides of politics. She believed the Greens’ role was to build political capital and then, when an opportunity such as minority government arose, to spend that capital on achieving significant policy outcomes.

On Wednesday, Bandt indicated a willingness to work towards meaningful policy outcomes in the next parliament. He claimed the Greens were willing to compromise in the event of minority government, saying:

we understand the need to cooperate and to come up with an arrangement that forms stable, effective and progressive government […] We will go into any discussions with goodwill and with [an] open mind.

Kate Crowley 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. Adam Bandt says the Greens can deliver ‘real change’ – but the party should choose its battles more wisely – https://theconversation.com/adam-bandt-says-the-greens-can-deliver-real-change-but-the-party-should-choose-its-battles-more-wisely-253851

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Suzanne Mahady, Gastroenterologist & Clinical Epidemiologist, Senior Lecturer, Monash University

Anal cancer doesn’t get a lot of attention. This may be because it’s relatively rare – anal cancer affects an estimated one to two Australians in every 100,000. As a comparison, melanomas affect around 70 in every 100,000 people.

But it’s also likely due to embarrassment. Anal cancer is an abnormal growth in the cells lining the anus, the last few centimetres of the bowel. Many people feel awkward talking about this part of their body.

So, when symptoms appear – such as bleeding or itchiness – they may delay speaking to a doctor. But it’s crucial to know what to look for, because if anal cancer is caught early the chances of treating it are much higher.

Do we know what causes it?

Up to nine in ten anal cancers are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted infection.

HPV is common – more than 80% of people who have ever been sexually active will be infected at some point with a strain (there are more than 150).

Most HPV strains won’t cause any problems. But some, particularly HPV16, are higher risk. Persistent infection can cause changes in the anal lining and this can progress to anal cancer. This can happen even if you don’t have anal sex.

Vaccination against HPV is a highly effective method to reduce the risk of cancers related to HPV infection such as anal and cervical cancer.

Since the national HPV vaccination program began in Australia in 2007, there has been a substantial drop in diseases linked to HPV (such as genital warts). While it’s too early to say, it is hoped that over time cancer rates will also fall due to vaccination.

Other factors that increase your risk for anal cancer include:

• being older
• a history of smoking
• a weakened immune system (for example from medication or HIV)
• sexual activity (having anal sex or multiple sexual partners)
• a history of cervical, vulval or vaginal cancer.

What are the symptoms?

Sometimes anal cancer doesn’t cause any symptoms. A doctor may instead detect the cancer visually during a colonoscopy or another examination.

Other times, symptoms may include bleeding from the bottom (you might see blood on the toilet paper), a new anal lump, or feeling non-specific discomfort or itchiness in your anus.

You may also have an unusual sensation that you can’t pass a stool as “fully” or easily as before.

If you have any of these symptoms – particularly if they are new or getting worse – it is important to speak with your doctor.

The symptoms of anal cancer can be very similar to common conditions such as haemorrhoids, so it’s best to get them checked by a doctor to get the diagnosis right.

It’s understandable you might be embarrassed. But for doctors, this is all part of routine practice.

Catching it early improves your chances

Survival rates are much better for anal cancer caught in the early stages.

Around 90% of people diagnosed with stage one anal cancer will live five years or more. That drops to 60% if the diagnosis is made when the cancer has developed to stage three.

The test may be as simple as a quick anal examination. Or it may require other investigations such as anoscopy (looking inside the bottom with a slim tube) or specialised ultrasounds or scans.

Most tests involve only a small amount of discomfort or none at all. They can rule out anything serious, giving you peace of mind.

If a cancer is detected, treatment usually involves radiotherapy, chemotherapy or surgery, or a combination.

The bottom line

If you need another reason to get symptoms checked out, here’s one: they could also indicate bowel cancer.

Bowel cancer (also known as colon or colorectal cancer) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed in Australia, and the second most common cause of cancer death, with similar symptoms such as bleeding from the bottom.

So, it’s crucial to not to let awkwardness get in the way. Speak to your doctor if any symptoms concern you. Starting the conversation early could save your life.

Suzanne Mahady 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. Don’t let embarrassment stop you – talking about these anal cancer symptoms could save your life – https://theconversation.com/dont-let-embarrassment-stop-you-talking-about-these-anal-cancer-symptoms-could-save-your-life-249570

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Stevens, Lecturer, Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, Australian Catholic University

As part of their federal election campaign, the Coalition announced plans to limit the number of international students able to commence study each year to 240,000, “focused on driving […] housing availability and affordability”.

This announcement was criticised as a “fact free zone” by the Property Council.

The Coalition proposal falsely equates high immigration with housing shortages. Studies indicate limiting international students will have minimal impact on housing supply. Most international students stay in student housing or share house accommodation, not suitable or desirable for many Australians to live in.

History shows us Australia has previously gone through periods of high migration and economic uncertainty. But history also shows us, if we are willing to adapt and innovate, high immigration and housing affordability can co-exist.

Lessons from Australia’s gold rush

The discovery of gold in Victoria caused Melbourne’s population to explode.

In 1851, Melbourne’s population was 77,000. Within a decade, that figure had more than quadrupled to 540,000.

As a young colony, the Victorian government actively recruited British and Irish migrants, subsidising fully or partially the cost of the sea voyage to Australia.

It wasn’t all smooth sailing: competition across migrant groups developed, and new Chinese immigrants in particular were singled out. Europeans staged violent anti-Chinese riots, which included the murder of three Chinese migrants.

To accommodate new migrants, the Victorian colonial government expanded housing supply in two ways.

First, in 1852 Lieutenant-Governor Charles La Trobe permitted the establishment of Canvas Town, essentially a tent city on the southern bank of the Yarra River.

There were problems in Canvas Town: disease was common, sanitation nonexistent, and crime rife. But Canvas Town provided newcomers protection from the elements. Canvas Town was officially disbanded in 1854, although people continued to live in tents across Melbourne as they awaited the construction of more permanent housing.

Second, prefabricated iron houses were imported to Melbourne from Britain to overcome supply shortages. These British-built “kit homes” were dismantled, every component labelled and then shipped to Australia for assembly.

Rapidly-built homes appeared in Port Melbourne, North Melbourne, Fitzroy, Collingwood and Richmond. Three such examples still exist today in South Melbourne.

Gold Rush Victoria reminds us of the importance of nimble government intervention in the housing market to offset housing pressures and mitigate anti-foreigner sentiments.

Responding to migrants after World War II

One hundred years later, Australia was again facing an immigration and population boom. Australia faced housing shortages in the post-World War II years, as the population grew from 7.6 million to 10.5 million people between 1947 and 1961.

In the era of post-war shortages and rationing, Australians worried about the impacts of the new arrivals on employment and social issues such as crime.

The arrival of displaced persons and assisted migrants from Europe strained existing housing stock. Some new and existing Australians resorted to squatting and other forms of temporary housing.

Commonwealth and state governments took leading roles in housing construction.

Between 1947 and 1961, Australia’s housing stock increased by 50% compared with a 41% increase in population. Australian governments directly contributed to 24% of this increase in stock, or 221,700 homes.

As the minister for immigration, Harold Holt said in 1950, “migrant labour was helping to solve Australia’s housing problems, not aggravating it” by working in essential industries that produce housing materials.

Once again, prefabricated homes were part of the solution.

But on-site construction also had a role to play and could capitalise on the skills of new migrants, particularly in the new migrant town of Elizabeth, South Australia.

Migrants also pooled their resources and constructed homes for their community.

In Wexcombe, Western Australia, 12 British families formed a building group. Within three years, they had built new homes for each family.

Eras of innovation

In the 1850s and 1950s, increased immigration triggered bigotry and xenophobia. However, governments at this time were focused on nation building.

Even if this was largely focused on supporting new white migrants, many politicians resisted the temptation to fan social divisions for political gain.

Instead, during the Gold Rush and post-World War II eras, Australian governments assisted individuals to adapt and innovate to new circumstances and create novel forms of housing.

Australian history gives us episodes where we see our society under strain and yet capable of addressing social issues with innovation and adaptability, while welcoming migrants.

Rachel Stevens works for the Australian Catholic University, which will be impacted by the proposed reforms on international students discussed in this article.

– ref. Gold rush Melbourne and post-war boom: how Australia overcame housing shortages in the past – https://theconversation.com/gold-rush-melbourne-and-post-war-boom-how-australia-overcame-housing-shortages-in-the-past-253952

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wanning Sun, Professor of Media and Cultural Studies, University of Technology Sydney

Chinese-Australian voters were pivotal to Labor’s win in the 2022 election, with the swing against the Liberals in several key marginal seats almost twice that of other seats.

Many traditionally pro-business Liberal supporters switched sides in protest against the Coalition’s anti-China rhetoric under then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison. This exacerbated the widespread anti-Chinese racism many people felt in the wake of the COVID pandemic.

A new survey by Sydney Today, a digital Chinese-language media outlet, suggests Labor will most likely retain the support of many of these Chinese-Australian voters.

Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the 3,000 respondents in the ongoing survey have said they would vote for Labor in the upcoming federal election, while just 27% were backing the Liberals, 2% the Greens and 5% independents.

If these results mirror the views of the wider Chinese-Australian community, it bodes well for Labor’s prospects, at least in seats with a high concentration of Chinese-Australian voters.

However, Labor may not succeed in improving on its performance in the last election. One in five voters said they would vote differently this time compared to 2022, with 55% of this group indicating they would switch from Labor to the Coalition and just 18% going the other way.

When asked why they were changing their vote, 51% said economic management, while 26% said Australia–China relations.

Survey respondents were predominantly first-generation migrants from China. Nearly four in five were born outside Australia, but have lived here for more than ten years. Most (73%) were Australian citizens and eligible to vote.

What issues are most important

The 2021 census counted approximately 1.39 million Australian residents with Chinese heritage, around 536,000 of whom were born in mainland China. As this group continues to grow rapidly, first-generation Chinese-Australians are becoming a significant political force.

The survey results reveal a complex and shifting picture of party loyalties and preferences among these voters.

Participants were asked to identify one issue out of a list of 17 that concerns them most in this election. This list included things such as housing, income, taxes, welfare, health, education, immigration and the environment. The economy ranked first with 14% of respondents, followed closely by Australia–China relations (12%).

The fact that many Chinese-Australians see the Liberals as better economic managers may account for the shift back to the party among some swing voters.

Yet, most Chinese-Australians seem to agree Labor has handled Australia–China relations much better than the Liberals. This may be why the majority of respondents overall have preferred to stick with Labor.

About 70% of respondents said they would consider voting for a party that is friendly to Chinese-Australian communities, while 72% said they would consider voting for a party that adopts a moderate approach to China.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, long a hardline critic of the Chinese Communist Party, has attempted to soften his stance in the lead-up to this election. He said last year, for instance, he was “pro-China” and wanted to see the trade between the two countries double.

In recent days, however, he has attacked Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for his “weak” response to the presence of a Chinese research vessel off the coast of Australia.

Some Chinese-Australian voters would prefer Australia to adopt a more independent foreign policy that is less reliant on the US for its national security. Research suggests Chinese-Australians tend to be more critical of the bipartisan AUKUS agreement with the United States and United Kingdom than the general public.

And I’ve observed anecdotal evidence in conversations with Chinese-Australian voters suggesting some are unhappy with both major parties’ positions on China and the US. This is convincing a small number of rusted-on Labor supporters to consider voting for the Greens, minor parties or independents.

Support for Chinese candidates not a guarantee

There is a widespread assumption that ethnic voters tend to vote for a candidate who shares their cultural or ethnic background. This seems to be the thinking behind both major parties’ choice of candidates to run in electorates with high concentrations of Chinese voters.

The Liberals’ preselection of Grange Chung (Reid), Scott Yung (Bennelong), and Howard Ong (Tangney) are cases in point.

But the survey indicates this may not be a foolproof strategy. When asked whether they would support a candidate on the basis of their Chinese or Asian appearance, respondents were split down the middle. Only slightly more than half (52%) said they would.

Much can change between now and election day on May 3. Whether the Liberals can retain the small swing they seem to have gained among Chinese-Australians may depend on Dutton’s stance on China. They will no doubt be watching closely to see what he says.

Wanning Sun 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. Chinese-Australian voters were key to Labor’s win in 2022. Are some now swinging back to the Liberals? – https://theconversation.com/chinese-australian-voters-were-key-to-labors-win-in-2022-are-some-now-swinging-back-to-the-liberals-254052

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joel Anderson, Associate Professor in LGBTIQA+ Psychology, La Trobe University

From The Bachelor to Married at First Sight, reality TV sells us the idea that one perfect partner will complete us.

The formula is familiar: find “the one,” lock it down and live happily ever after.

But behind the rose ceremonies and fairytale weddings lies a very different reality.

Read more:
Is reality TV ‘harmful’? We asked 5 experts – including an ex-reality TV participant

Monogamy as a gold standard?

A new meta-analysis challenges the long-held belief that monogamous relationships are more satisfying than non-monogamous ones.

The study used data from more than 24,000 people from around the world, including Australia. It reported no significant difference in relationship or sexual satisfaction between people in monogamous and consensually non-monogamous relationships.

This changes the way we can think about relationships.

For years, people have assumed monogamy (the exclusive romantic and sexual commitment to one person) is the gold standard.

But it turns out the secret to fulfilling relationships might not be about exclusivity at all. It seems to be more about honesty, communication and mutual agreement – regardless of how many people are involved.

A long-held assumption

The belief that monogamy leads to more satisfying relationships feels like common sense for most people.

It’s consistently reinforced by our experiences of the world, ranging from childhood fairytales to government policies – there’s no “polyamorous” box on your tax return, for example. Most movies end with one couple walking off into the sunset together to live happily ever after.

Popular culture hasn’t done much to challenge this assumption.

Non-monogamous relationships are rarely depicted on screen and when they are – like in Wanderlust or You Me & Her – they’re often shown as chaotic, emotionally fraught and destined to collapse.

These ideas create what we have called the “monogamy-superiority myth”: the assumption monogamous relationships are more satisfying, more loving and more stable than alternative forms of relationships.

So what is consensual non-monogamy?

Consensual non-monogamy comes in many forms but the key aspect is everyone involved agrees that having multiple romantic or sexual partners is okay.

The explicit awareness of all involved means these relationships are grounded in consent, communication and mutual respect.

They come in many forms, such as:

• open relationships: where couples may have sex with others but maintain a strong emotional bond to each other
• polyamory: where people may have multiple romantic or emotional partnerships at the same time
• monogamish: where mostly monogamous couple allow some degree of sexual activity with others, usually with clear, consensual boundaries (such as when travelling)
• swinging: where committed couples engage in sexual activities with other people, often in a social or party setting.

These relationships typically involve detailed conversations about values, needs and boundaries.

As a result, people in these relationships often report higher levels of trust, communication and intentionality in their relationship.

What our study found

Our recent meta-analysis explored how people in monogamous and non-monogamous relationships compare on a range of relationship and sexual satisfaction dimensions. These included intimacy, passion, trust, sexual fulfilment and overall relationship happiness.

We concluded people in non-monogamous relationships are just as satisfied as those in monogamous ones.

The study also found this to be true for both heterosexual and LGBTQIA+ participants, challenging another stereotype: that non-monogamy is a “lifestyle choice” for queer people, rather than a legitimate relationship preference.

So if non-monogamous relationships aren’t less satisfying, why do people think they are?

Openness and stigmas

In many monogamous relationships, the most common cause of dissatisfaction or breakup is cheating: when exclusivity is assumed but not upheld, trust can be shattered.

Consensual non-monogamy relationships, by contrast, build openness into their structure. By agreeing on boundaries from the start, partners may avoid some of the betrayals that hurt monogamous relationships most.

People in these relationships often face stigma, discrimination and systemic barriers. They may be less likely to disclose their relationship status to doctors, therapists, or employers, fearing judgement or misunderstanding.

Their relationships are rarely recognised legally and social assumptions often paint them as unstable, overly sexual, or emotionally detached.

Yet many people in non-monogamous relationships are thriving despite the stigma – most likely because of the trust and communication these relationships require.

The secret to satisfaction

These findings are not suggesting everyone should be non-monogamous; monogamy works well for lots of people.

But this research shows us that relationship satisfaction doesn’t depend on exclusivity – it depends on whether partners feel seen, supported and aligned in their values.

Health-care providers, educators and policymakers should be aware that not all families or partnerships follow a traditional relationship structure – and that’s OK.

Recognising consensual non-manogamy relationships can help reduce stigma, improve access to support, and promote wellbeing for people in all types of partnerships.

Love and relationships simply aren’t a one-size-fits-all situation.

While reality TV may keep trying to churn out monogamous fairytales, real life is a lot more diverse and, as it turns out, just as fulfilling.

Joel Anderson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. The ‘monogamy superiority myth’: new research suggests unconventional relationships are just as satisfying – https://theconversation.com/the-monogamy-superiority-myth-new-research-suggests-unconventional-relationships-are-just-as-satisfying-253443

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mathew Doidge, Senior Research Fellow, National Centre for Research on Europe, University of Canterbury

It’s unlikely many New Zealanders paid close attention to Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ statement late last year that “New Zealand and Germany are committed to enhancing their partnership”.

Peters had been visiting Berlin two weeks after Donald Trump’s US election victory, but well before the real contours of the second Trump administration came into focus.

The foreign minister’s diplomatic tone may have suited the less heated atmosphere of the time, but 2025 is a very different place. With the pillars of the international system New Zealand depends on crumbling, strong ties with an active Germany at the heart of Europe begin to look more important.

Germans, too, are grappling with the same uncertainties – not least Friedrich Merz, the Christian Democratic Union party leader who is all but certain to be the new chancellor when coalition negotiations conclude.

Among the most pro-American of Europe’s leaders, Merz will enter the Chancellery at a time when US relations are fraught. Even before the February election results were finalised, he acknowledged this new reality, calling to “strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that […] we can really achieve independence from the USA”.

With Trump’s reversal of US support for Ukraine, his “might is right” foreign policy and hostile trade tariffs, Germany and the European Union have begun to reassess their place in the new world order. New Zealand will be watching closely.

Easing the ‘debt brake’

Former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine a Zeitenwende – a watershed moment from which “the world afterwards will no longer be the same as the world before”. Trump 2.0 has only reinforced this rupture.

Responding to events even before assuming office, Merz (supported by the Social Democratic Party and the Greens) reformed Germany’s “debt brake”, or Schuldenbremse.

Restricting government borrowing to 0.35% of GDP, the brake was introduced by former chancellor Angela Merkel in 2009 to limit indebtedness following the global financial crisis. It achieved its aim, but contributed significantly to the current parlous state of German infrastructure and defence.

The reform allows greater borrowing for defence and establishes a €500 billion infrastructure fund (with €100 billion for climate and economic transformation as the price for Green support).

This is the first step in Merz’s goal to transform Germany from “a sleeping middle power to a leading middle power again”, and exercise greater leadership in the European Union alongside France and Poland.

With Emmanuel Macron’s French presidency ending in 2027, and France’s far-right gaining strength (Marine Le Pen’s recent embezzlement conviction notwithstanding), a strong Germany at the heart of Europe is essential to the maintenance of the EU and its approach to world affairs.

As an important – perhaps vital – partner for New Zealand and the Pacific, three key considerations stand out.

Pacific re-engagement

Germany’s ties with Samoa and the Pacific may be a century old, but it has recently begun looking south again, including opening an embassy in Suva in August 2023.

Now, the Trump administration’s axing of USAID has put foreign aid in the region under a cloud. Pacific states are not eligible for German bilateral development support, but are covered by more general climate change and disaster preparedness programmes.

Since stepping up Pacific engagement in 2022, Germany has also joined the Partners in the Blue Pacific and been an advocate for Pacific projects within the EU’s Global Gateway Initiative (a framework for global infrastructure investment).

Importantly, Germany does not intend to establish significant independent Pacific aid projects. Rather, it sees itself as a “force multiplier”, partnering with other donors to support their efforts. New Zealand therefore has an opportunity to both strengthen relations with Germany and add impact to its own Pacific projects.

Climate resilience

Climate change is the single greatest security threat to Pacific island states, and yet another area the US is pulling back from. But while Germany has been a strong player on climate policy, Merz has been a critic of the Greens and environmental policy in general.

The balance of power in the new Bundestag may now force a change of mindset. Merz’s coalition will hold just 328 seats in the 630-seat chamber, meaning Green support cannot be discounted. A more serious commitment to climate policy will be the price.

There is a base to work from, too. Germany co-founded the UN Group of Friends on Climate and Security with Nauru in 2018, and has identified climate issues as a driving force behind its Pacific engagement. Again, this is an area where New Zealand’s interests can be served by closer engagement with Germany.

The rules-based order

Ultimately, the international trade system and multilateral frameworks for cooperation and conflict resolution are crucial pillars of the Germany-New Zealand relationship.

With the US no longer a reliable backstop, Germany and the EU are also the bulwark for a rules-based order grounded in international law. Merz’s debt brake reform, seen as strengthening Europe, was framed in these terms:

Our friends in the EU are looking to us just as much as our adversaries and the enemies of our democratic and rules-based order.

“Germany is back,” Merz said in March. We may well see New Zealand’s foreign minister back in Germany before long, too.

Mathew Doidge 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. ‘Germany is back’: 3 ways NZ can benefit from Europe’s renewed centre of power – https://theconversation.com/germany-is-back-3ways-nz-can-benefit-from-europes-renewed-centre-of-power-253926

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Stone, Credit Union SA Chair of Economics, University of South Australia

The past week has seen the United States single-handedly rewrite the underlying paradigm for global trade. And while it is fair to say that the methods are extreme, the underlying goal of the policy is not unique to the US.

Indeed, the push to support, and expand, domestic manufacturing through policy intervention is experiencing a resurgence not seen since the 1970s.

Many people believe the COVID pandemic exposed weaknesses in global supply chains. In reality, the pandemic simply accelerated an existing trend of slowing of integration.

Growing concerns around trade wars and risks from climate shock existed prior to COVID with both policymakers and firms rethinking globalisation strategies.

Countries were also becoming concerned about the manufacturing dominance of China and the potential weaponisation of economic activity.

The risks of rising concentration

The expansion of international trade has led to massive efficiencies in production.

But it has also led to concentration of certain sectors in certain regions. Examples include software development in Silicon Valley, semiconductor manufacturing in Taiwan and critical minerals processing in China.

This geographic concentration started to raise concerns for many countries. Reasons include climate events disrupting supply chains, pandemics and increasingly, geopolitical concerns.

In response to the rise in economic concentration, countries as diverse as Japan, South Korea, the European Union, India, Brazil and the US introduced policy actions to promote or return certain critical sectors to domestic production.

Australia’s Future Made In Australia plan is a prime example of this.

Trade disruptions

Even before the Trump tariffs, the US and other countries were alarmed by China’s control over key manufacturing sectors, and its associated ability to disrupt trade and commerce.

Australia experienced this first-hand when China imposed significant tariffs on wine and barley in response to Australia’s call for a COVID inquiry.

China’s willingness to use its economic position was demonstrated on Friday when it announced not just retaliatory tariffs, but export restrictions on seven categories of rare earth minerals. These are critical to strategic US sectors affecting companies like Apple and defence contractor Lockheed Martin.

Government support on the rise

This shift to increased economic resilience through self-reliance has led to a big surge in government intervention through industrial policies.

The objective of industrial policy is to target certain sectors in order to change the structure of economic activity within a country. It uses government policy to promote investment in sectors deemed under-served by markets.

While all countries have used some level of industrial policy, historically it was mainly confined to developing economies. It has been used sparingly since the 1970s. Between 2009 and 2017, the total number of industrial policies used by countries was less than 200.

Between 2017 and 2023 the use of industrial policy increased nine-fold. In 2023, there were roughly 2,500 industrial policy interventions put in place with two-thirds introduced by advanced economies. Almost 48% were concentrated in three: China, the EU and the US.

Intervening in markets

Generally, industrial policy has been out of favour with mainstream economists. It is very hard to get right as it relies on an in-depth knowledge of industries as well as an ability to predict the future.

Providing funding for one sector means less funding available for others. This could undermine new technologies or other as-yet unseen opportunities. It involves shifting resources from existing, efficient uses to less efficient uses.

It rarely works. A prime example are the many countries that have spent billions of dollars trying to recreate a domestic Silicon Valley with no success.

However, Trump is trying to do just that, on an economy-wide scale, mainly through tariffs. The tariffs announced also imply the US will go it alone. The approach takes fragmentation to a new level, where bilateral negotiations are the name of the game.

Shifting global alliances

Meanwhile the response from other nations such as Canada, Southeast Asian economies and even Europe, is to diversify and form new alliances without the US.

Indeed, the Canadian Prime Minister’s first trip overseas was not, as tradition dictates, to the US, but to Europe and the UK, whom he dubbed “reliable” partners.

Becoming more isolated and pushing other countries to China may not be what the US intends, but it is happening.

Last week, Japan and South Korea announced a joint strategy with China to promote regional trade. The EU’s trade representative went to Beijing shortly after the tariff announcement where the two nations announced plans to “deepen trade and investment” ties.

The risks of highly integrated supply chains in the face of security concerns, or changes in a trading partner’s domestic policy, have become glaringly clear.

How countries choose to address these concerns, especially through the widespread use of industrial policy, will create further disruption to markets. While it is considered politically expedient for security concerns, this will raise prices and limit choice in domestic markets. As the old adage reminds us, there is no free lunch.

Susan Stone 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. Bringing manufacturing back from overseas isn’t an easy solution to Trump’s trade war – https://theconversation.com/bringing-manufacturing-back-from-overseas-isnt-an-easy-solution-to-trumps-trade-war-253744

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Tran, Academic Tutor at Swinburne University of Technology, Swinburne University of Technology

Since Iron Man hit the big screen in 2008, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) has made more than US$30 billion, from films to series, to merchandise and comics. As scholars and the press have noted, key to its success is the use of a highly gripping and elaborate “shared universe”.

A number of shared universes have popped up since the MCU, including Legendary Pictures’ MonsterVerse (featuring Godzilla and King Kong), James Wan’s Conjuring universe, the Star Wars universe and the rebooted DC Universe.

You might be surprised to hear they’ve actually been around for a very long time – but most of them fail to really get off the ground.

What is a shared universe?

The definition of a “shared universe” is a bit tricky to pin down, as it overlaps heavily with related concepts such as spin-offs, crossovers and franchises.

At its simplest, you can think of a shared universe as a narrative world made up of at least two texts (such as film, television, video games or books) that are distinct, but with overlapping narrative elements.

The texts may have different main characters, different stories, or even different settings – but there will be, at the minimum, some evidence they take place within the same broader world.

Early shared universes

Shared universes have been a staple in storytelling since the dawn of mass media – and not just in cinema.

One of the first shared universes was The Human Comedy (La Comédie humaine) series (1829–48) by French novelist and playwright Honoré de Balzac.

Set against the French Restoration, following the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte, Balzac’s sprawling world spans more than 90 novels and charts the complexity of post-revolution life.

Another early example from literature is L. Frank Baum’s Oz universe. After Baum grew tired of the Oz books, he wrote The Sea Faeries (1911) as the start of a new series. Its lack of critical reception forced him to return to Oz, but not before bringing some Sea Faerie characters along to the Oz universe with him.

The shared universe trend continued in the early 1900s with writers such as Isaac Asimov, Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft, and would become a mainstay in sci-fi and fantasy.

However, it was arguably television that made shared universes mainstream. This started as early as the 1960s with The Danny Thomas Show and its spin-off The Andy Griffith Show. Other notable examples include the Cheers spin-offs, the Law & Order franchise and the Vampire Diaries universe.

Television’s episodic form – perpetually stuck in the second act – lends itself to spin-offs. Why risk time and money on something new when a fan-favourite character can get their own show, with the prestablished audience (hopefully) migrating over?

Before Marvel came thundering along

One of the earliest cinematic universes was Universal’s original Monsters franchise, beginning in 1931 with the films Dracula and Frankenstein.

This universe was made up of horror characters including Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster and the Wolf Man. Crossover offerings included Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943) and House of Frankenstein (1944).

But this attempt at a coherent world was haphazard. Continuity was often ignored or contradicted, with post-editing decisions cutting out crucial story connectivity.

For example, in The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942), Ygor’s brain transplant is what allows the monster to speak, yet this element is omitted from later films.

Difficult beginnings

Only a handful of cinematic universes have been truly successful. Following the MCU’s triumph, Warner Bros. attempted a King Arthur universe with King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017), but it flopped.

Sony then tried (and failed) to begin a franchise with Robin Hood (2018) that would spin off to his many merry men.

And it would be remiss to not mention Univeral’s attempt at recapturing its original Monster universe with Tom Cruise’s The Mummy (2017). This film was supposed to be the beginning of the so-called “Dark Universe” which – you guessed it – never happened.

The trifecta you need for success

One cultural character with great success in cinematic universes is Godzilla. The radioactive reptile has been a hit in two separate shared universes: first in Toho Studios’ Japanese live action films, and more recently in Legendary Pictures’ MonsterVerse.

The latter has grossed more than US$2 billion worldwide, and given us five major films including Godzilla (2014) and Kong: Skull Island (2017), as well as two spin-off shows that have begun production on their second seasons.

An experienced screenwriter explained what makes a successful franchise to media scholar Henry Jenkins:

When I first started, you would pitch a story because without a good story, you didn’t really have a film. Later, once sequels started to take off, you pitched a character because a good character could support multiple stories. And now, you pitch a world because a world can support multiple characters and multiple stories across multiple media.

It is the trifecta of story, characters and world that gives rise to a successful shared universe. And the MCU and MonsterVerse both provide captivating worlds in which more characters and stories can always be added.

Marvel films are by no means groundbreaking, as they follow the typical heroes journey of good versus evil. But they leverage comic book characters that had already captivated fans through a different medium.

Also, the MCU was meticulously planned from the beginning: one universe populated with several heroes was always the endgame. As a result, Marvel has managed to transform C- and D-list superheroes into household names.

Meanwhile, the MonsterVerse draws audiences in with the sheer spectacle of massive titans – who were also already well-known – engaging in action-packed battles.

In both cases, there are always more heroes to appear, and more titans to fight.

So, can we expect major studios to continue to try and capture lighting in a bottle, like Disney has with the MCU? Unequivocally, yes. But what might change is the approach.

Failed cinematic universe attempts from the past had many reasons for failing – whether it was media constraints, or trying to capitalise on the hype instead of actually delivering a compelling fictional world. Creators of the future have a higher bar to meet.

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

– ref. How to build a cinematic universe: the secret to Marvel’s enormous success among a history of failures – https://theconversation.com/how-to-build-a-cinematic-universe-the-secret-to-marvels-enormous-success-among-a-history-of-failures-250510

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grant Duncan, Teaching Fellow in Politics and International Relations, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Winston Peters turns a venerable 80 on April 11, but he showed no sign of retiring as New Zealand’s archetypal populist during his recent state of the nation speech. He especially enjoyed the hecklers, gleefully telling them one by one to get out.

As ever, his detractors became extras in the Winston Peters show – something of a trademark in his long political career. As well as a milestone birthday, 2025 will mark 50 years since Peters’ first election campaign in 1975.

In that first attempt, he ran unsuccessfully as the National Party candidate for the Northern Māori seat. In 1978, he won in Hunua, but only after a judicial recount. Already we can see a pattern: a dogged determination to come back and a lawyer’s litigious streak.

His political instincts were formed in that era between 1975 and 1984 under prime minister Robert Muldoon, National’s original, pugnacious populist. It implanted pride in his nation, economic protectionism, and a belief in old-fashioned “common sense” politics.

Those characteristics could also be his undoing. In 1991, Peters was sacked from Jim Bolger’s National cabinet for publicly criticising cabinet colleagues. He was later kicked out of the National caucus entirely and then vacated his seat.

As his party website explains in retrospect, he’d questioned “the neoliberal policy agenda” and paid the price. He formed NZ First in 1993 and won back the seat of Tauranga. Ever since, the party known mockingly as “Winston First” has been inextricably identified with its (thus far) one and only leader.

Coalitions of the willing

Any mention of Winston Peters’ name gets a reaction, be it love, loathing or wry admiration. For the political scientist, though, his career is remarkable for its many ups and downs, and for sheer longevity.

In New Zealand’s first proportional representation election in 1996, NZ First, still only three years old, won all of the (then five) Māori electorates. With 13.4% of the party vote (its best result ever), NZ First gained 17 seats, handing Peters a kingmaker role in the government formation negotiations.

The upshot was a National-NZ First coalition, which broke up acrimoniously in 1998 after a disagreement about a proposal to sell Wellington Airport brought existing tensions between the parties to a head.

At the 1999 election, NZ First lost the five Māori seats and its party vote plummeted to 4.3%. It got back into parliament only thanks to Peters holding Tauranga by a fingernail: a mere 63 vote majority.

Dumped by Māori voters, he turned his attention to New Zealand’s growing retirement generations and climbed on board the anti-immigration bandwagon. In 2003, Peters launched an attack on “Third World immigrants” that rattled the National Party’s cage so hard it felt compelled to launch its own populist campaign.

Then National leader Don Brash’s infamous speech at Orewa in 2004 centred around an alleged “dangerous drift towards racial separatism”. The country became polarised around Māori aspirations and the Treaty of Waitangi, not dissimilar to the effect today of the Treaty Principles Bill.

Being a populist, Peters is sometimes mischaracterised as far right. But the more significant aspect of his career has been his centrist aptitude for collaborating with either National or Labour, depending on the political wind.

Between 2005 and 2008, Peters supported Helen Clark’s Labour-led government, enjoying the plum job of foreign minister. But in 2008, National’s John Key categorically refused to work with Peters in government, and NZ First fell to 4.1% at the election.

With no local electorate win this time, Peters was banished to the political wilderness. Many thought (or hoped) this would spell the end of his career. But he was back in 2011, aiming to be in opposition against Key’s National government. He succeeded in this – and confounded his critics – with a party vote of 6.6%.

COVID and comebacks

The strategy of seeing out the Key (and successor Bill English) years on the cross benches worked well, with the 2014 election delivering a party-vote boost to 8.7%.

Peters’ next big break came after the 2017 election when he once again played kingmaker. Although National won the most seats, Peters chose a coalition with Jacinda Ardern’s Labour, with support from the Greens.

But NZ First’s voter-base had been evenly split over supporting a National-led or Labour-led government. Inevitably, the party would be punished for choosing to go with either major party. And indeed, its share dropped from 7.2% in 2017 to 2.6% in the 2020 election – its worst result ever.

Once again, Peters was cast out into the wilderness, to the undoubted delight of his many detractors. It was over, surely? As the 2023 election approached, there was considerable doubt about Peters making yet another comeback.

His party was polling better than in 2011, however, and in the end romped home with 6.1% of the vote. Peters used his bargaining power to become foreign minister and deputy prime minister in the current National-led coalition.

Some may have wondered how the wily old fox found his way back into the coop. But we can trace at least some of the reason back to a stroll Peters took through the COVID protest camp in parliament grounds in February 2022.

He said he was there to listen, whereas the Ardern government’s refusal to talk with protestors was “just going to make things much worse”. To make his day, parliament’s speaker Trevor Mallard had Peters trespassed from parliament, which only boosted his maverick reputation – and helped pave the way back to power.

Not his first rodeo

Peters courted an anti-vax, anti-globalist constituency, promising to “defend freedom” by ending vaccine mandates and holding “a credible fully independent inquiry into New Zealand’s COVID-19 response”.

Both things were going to happen anyway. But Peters won votes that might otherwise have gone to fringe protest parties, none of which got more than 1.2%.

Like a Pied Piper in a double-breasted pinstripe suit, he led the disgruntled all the way to the ballot box. One campaign video featured him in cow-cocky gear, mounting a horse and boasting “this is not our first rodeo”. Among the current generation of politicians, only he could have pulled that off.

Peters possesses a canny political instinct that combines opportunism with attention-grabbing rhetoric. He can drum up enough enthusiasm from target audiences to get his party over (or back over) the 5% MMP threshold.

His recent declaration of a “war on woke” shows he’s doing it again. He zeros in on a political pain-point to energise a support base and simultaneously enrage opponents. The latter – along with “the mainstream media” – are used as props as he campaigns from one provincial community hall to the next.

At 80, Peters is as well adapted to posting on Elon Musk’s X as he is to old-school hustings politics. And he’s showing no sign of calling it a day as he prepares to hand over the office of deputy prime minister to ACT’s David Seymour later this year.

As the 2026 election draws nearer, one thing will be certain – you can’t rule him out. Don’t be surprised if one day we see an AI-generated Winston Peters telling us this is neither his first nor his last rodeo.

Grant Duncan 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. Winston Peters at 80: the populist’s populist clocks up 50 years of political comebacks – https://theconversation.com/winston-peters-at-80-the-populists-populist-clocks-up-50-years-of-political-comebacks-253322

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kaitlyn DeGhetto, Associate Professor of Management, University of Dayton

To attract business investment, American cities and states offer companies billions of dollars in incentives, such as tax credits. As the theory goes, when governments create a business-friendly environment, it encourages investment, leading to job creation and economic growth.

While this theory may seem logical on its face, it’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. Business investment follows employees, not just the other way around. In fact, our research suggests workers care less about whether a city has business-friendly policies and more about how safe they feel living in it. And interestingly, we found that politics influence people’s risk perceptions more than hard data such as crime statistics.

Our findings have major implications for cities and businesses. If people choose where to live and work based on perceived safety rather than economic incentives, then entrepreneurs and city leaders may need to rethink how they approach growth and investment.

The many faces of risk

We are management professors who surveyed more than 500 employees and entrepreneurs from across the country to better understand how they rate 25 large U.S. cities on various dimensions of risk.

We asked about three different types of risk: risk related to crime, government function and social issues. Risk related to government function includes corruption and instability, while risk related to social issues includes potential infringements on individual rights.

We found that people’s views of risk weren’t driven primarily by objective statistics, such as FBI crime data. Instead, they were shaped by factors such as media representations, word of mouth and geographic stereotypes.

For example, studies suggest that crime in Denver has been rising, and U.S. News and World Report recently ranked it as the 10th most dangerous city based on FBI crime reports. However, the employees and entrepreneurs we surveyed ranked Denver as the safest city in the country.

It’s all politics

We found that political perspectives were the main factor biasing the rankings. For example, conservative-leaning employees and entrepreneurs believed that Portland, Oregon, is dangerous, ranking it as America’s ninth-riskiest city. In contrast, those who are liberal-leaning ranked it as the second-safest city in the country.

Both of these beliefs can’t be accurate. Instead, when basing the ranking on objective crime data from the FBI, U.S. News ranked Portland the 15th most dangerous city in the country.

When assessing risk related to how the government functions, conservatives praised politicians in Nashville, Charlotte and Dallas, while the liberals praised those in Denver, Minneapolis and Portland. Similarly, when considering risk related to social issues, conservatives said New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco were “risky,” while the liberals said Tampa, Miami and Houston should be avoided.

Our findings also suggest that political perspectives influence the types of risk that employers and employees care about. For example, conservatives tend to care more about crime-related risk than liberals, and liberals care more about risk related to social issues.

Now what?

We’re not advocating that city leaders drop financial incentives altogether, or that employers ignore them. Evidence suggests that financial incentives and other business-friendly policies may be effective at attracting businesses and strengthening local economies.

However, our research suggests that when individuals are making important life decisions about where to live, work and invest, a city’s level of risk matters. Importantly, beliefs about risk are subjective and are biased by political perspectives.

In our view, city leaders must recognize and address concerns about crime, governance and social issues while actively working to improve public perceptions of their cities. Likewise, businesses may want to consider investing in cities that are less politically polarized when making investment decisions.

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

– ref. Cities that want to attract business might want to focus less on financial incentives and more on making people feel safe – https://theconversation.com/cities-that-want-to-attract-business-might-want-to-focus-less-on-financial-incentives-and-more-on-making-people-feel-safe-250247

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

The election’s first debate, on Sky News on Tuesday night, was disappointingly dull. Viewers who’d been following the campaign would have learned little. There was minimal spontaneity.

Among the 100 undecided voters in the room, 44 said Anthony Albanese won, 35 thought Peter Dutton came out ahead and 21 were undecided.

Both camps will be satisfied, because each leader’s main aim was to avoid disaster. A bad mistake, an undisciplined moment, can sour the following day.

The Liberals will be especially relieved. After difficult days for Dutton, with Trump wading into the campaign and the fiasco over the work-from-home policy, the opposition leader needed to perform creditably. He did that, with commentators scoring the result variously (in some cases in line with the scorer’s political leaning).

Dutton was under added pressure – just before the two men faced off he learned his father Bruce had been taken to hospital.

Both leaders were well prepared, and carefully polite. Questions canvassed the “Trump pandemic”, education, health, cost of living, immigration, Albanese’s tax cuts, Dutton’s fuel excise promise, and Gaza.

When moderator Kieran Gilbert asked audience members to raise their hands if they were “doing it pretty tough” about half did so.

Albanese seemed to have more material to work with, and made sure he homed in on Dutton’s nuclear policy and his time as health minister.

Naturally, we saw Albanese’s well-worn Medicare card again.

The PM dodged an awkward reference to NSW premier Chris Minns’ returning public servants to the office, pivoting to Dutton’s dumping his working from home policy. “Peter hasn’t been able to stand up for his own policy, so I don’t know how he can stand up for Australia.”

Albanese had a good zinger countering Dutton’s spiel on gas: “The only gas policy that the Coalition have is the gaslighting of the Australia public.”

Dutton had a cut-through point on the PM’s promise to subsidise solar batteries. “He’s asking you to provide a subsidy or to support a subsidy for people on higher incomes like me to buy a battery at a subsidised price and I don’t believe that’s fair.”

Rather bizarrely, the Coalition used the cover of the debate to release its delayed modelling for its gas reservation policy, sending it out just as the debate started, embargoed until its finish.

“Modelling conducted by Frontier Economics has concluded that the Coalition’s National Gas Plan will see a 23% reduction in wholesale gas prices,” the statement said. This would “progressively mean

• 15% reduction in retail gas bills for industrial customers
• 7% reduction in retail gas bills for residential customers
• 8% reduction in wholesale electricity prices
• 3% reduction in residential electricity prices.”

And do the debates matter anyway?

Australian election debates are punctuation points in the campaign. They don’t necessarily carry much weight, although they can affect a candidate’s immediate momentum.

Ian McAllister, director of the ANU’s Australian Election Study, says fewer and fewer people are watching these debates. In 1993, about seven in ten voters watched; in 2022 only a third did.

McAllister also says our debates are low grade compared to some overseas. For example, in France, the two candidates sit across from each other, with two moderators and “go for it”. In Australia, debates are “stylised” and the candidates rely heavily on prepared answers.

Winning or losing the debates is not necessarily a guide to the election result. As the table shows John Howard performed better in elections than in debates.

NSW Premier Minns defends a back-to-the-office policy

Peter Dutton took a serious fall over his now-abandoned plan to force Canberra public servants back to the office. But Chris Minns already has many state bureaucrats back at their desks, and on Tuesday declared firmly he won’t be for turning.

The Minns policy, announced last year, admittedly has had a bumpy start, including problems with the unions. But Minns’ “sell” is very different from the Coalition’s unsuccessful attempt.

The federal opposition, which often seems obsessed with Canberra public servants, left the impression these bureaucrats working from home were ripping off the system and needed to be brought into line.

Contrast the positive spin from Minns on Tuesday. After noting most NSW public servants can’t work from home – they’re on the front line – for the rest: “We believe it’s the only way of mentoring the next generation of people, to come through offices and ensure that they’ve got good modelled behaviour, a sense of shared mission and an idea of where they’re going collectively together.

“In order for us to fulfil the mission of government and public service, it means that you’ve got to build a team culture. And that can really only be done in the workplace.

“I think our policy is different to Peter Dutton’s, but I just don’t want to mince words. We’ve got to be clear and consistent and we’re not changing our policy.

“I don’t want any ambiguity about our position. We made that call last year. It was the right decision. And in terms of the mentoring role that a senior person plays in a workplace, whether they’re a manager or not, if they’ve got years under their belt and they’ve got experience, it’s amazing the positive impact they will have on a junior recruit that we’ve just got into the public service and that doesn’t happen on zoom and it doesn’t happen on YouTube and it doesn’t happen over the phone.”

Minns has consistently proved himself a strong communicator. He often ran rings around Anthony Albanese in responding to the antisemitism crisis.

Jim Chalmers does the rounds on the tariff crisis

Treasurer Jim Chalmers is making the most of incumbency in the wake of the Trump tariff upheaval, undertaking an intense round of official activity.

Chalmers will convene a meeting on Wednesday of the Council of Financial Regulators to discuss the impact globally and locally. Those attending will include the heads of the Reserve Bank, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Treasury and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

He will also meet the heads of the Future Fund and the ASX. On Thursday, he will have talks with major employers.

Chalmers has already convened and attended a Treasury briefing for the prime minister. He has talked with Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock, and been in touch with the CEOs of the major banks and superannuation funds representatives.

Chalmers is due to debate shadow treasurer Angus Taylor on Wednesday evening.

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

– ref. Election Diary: The election’s first debate was disaster-free but passion-free too – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-the-elections-first-debate-was-disaster-free-but-passion-free-too-183208

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Matthew Flinders Professor of Global Ecology and Node Leader in the ARC Centre of Excellence for Indigenous and Environmental Histories and Futures, Flinders University

Coral reefs are much more than just a pretty place to visit. They are among the world’s richest ecosystems, hosting about a third of all marine species.

These reefs also directly benefit more than a billion people, providing livelihoods and food security, as well as protection from storms and coastal erosion.

Without coral reefs, the world would be a much poorer place. So when corals die or become damaged, many people try to restore them. But the enormity of the task is growing as the climate keeps warming.

In our new research, we examined the full extent of existing coral restoration projects worldwide. We looked at what drives their success or failure, and how much it would actually cost to restore what’s already been lost. Restoring the reefs we’ve already lost around the world could cost up to A$26 trillion.

Global losses

Sadly, coral reefs are suffering all over the world. Global warming and marine heatwaves are the main culprits. But overfishing and pollution make matters worse.

When sea temperatures climb above the seasonal average for sustained periods, corals can become bleached. They lose colour as they expel their symbiotic algae when stressed, revealing the white skeleton underneath. Severe bleaching can kill coral.

Coral bleaching and mass coral deaths are now commonplace. Last month, a massive warm-water plume bleached large areas of Ningaloo Reef on Australia’s northwest coast just as large sections of the northern Great Barrier Reef were bleaching on the northeast coast.

Since early 2023, mass coral bleaching has occurred in throughout the tropics and parts of the Indian Ocean.

Over the past 40 years, the extent of coral reefs has halved. As climate change continues, bleaching events and coral deaths will become more common. More than 90% of coral reefs are at risk of long-term degradation by the end of the century.

Direct intervention

Coral reef restoration can take many forms, including removing coral-eating species such as parrot fish, transferring coral spawn, or even manipulating the local community of microbes to improve coral survival.

But by far the most common type of restoration is “coral gardening”, where coral fragments grown in nurseries are transplanted back to the reef.

The problem is scale. Coral restoration can only be done successfully at a small scale. Most projects only operate over several hundred or a few thousand square metres. Compare that with nearly 12,000 square km of loss and degradation between 2009 and 2018. Restoration projects come nowhere near the scale needed to offset losses from climate change and other threats.

Sky-high costs

Coral restoration is expensive, ranging from around $10,000 to $226 million per hectare. The wide range reflects the variable costs of different techniques used, ease of access, and cost of labour. For example, coral gardening (coral fragments grown in nurseries transplanted back to the reef) is relatively cheap (median cost $558,000 per hectare) compared with seeding coral larvae (median $830,000 per hectare). Building artificial reefs can cost up to $226 million per hectare.

We estimated it would cost more than $1.6 billion to restore just 10% of degraded coral areas globally. This is using the lowest cost per hectare and assuming all restoration projects are successful.

Even our conservative estimate is four times more than the total investment in coral restoration over the past decade ($410 million).

But it’s reasonable to use the highest cost per hectare, given high failure rates, the need to use several techniques at the same site, and the great expense of working on remote reefs. Restoring 10% of degraded coral areas globally, at $226 million a hectare, would cost more than $26 trillion – almost ten times Australia’s annual GDP.

It is therefore financially impossible to tackle the ongoing loss of coral reefs with restoration, even if local projects can still provide some benefits.

Location, location, location

Our research also looked at what drives the choice of restoration sites. We found it depends mostly on how close a reef is to human settlements.

By itself, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But we also found restoration actions were more likely to occur in reefs already degraded by human activity and with fewer coral species.

This means we’re not necessarily targeting sites where restoration is most likely to succeed, or of greatest ecological importance.

Another limitation is coral gardening normally involves only a few coral species – the easiest to rear and transplant. While this can still increase coral cover, it does not restore coral diversity to the extent necessary for healthy, resilient ecosystems.

Measuring ‘success’

Another sad reality is that more than a third of all coral restoration efforts fail. The reasons why can include poor planning, unproven technologies, insufficient monitoring, and subsequent heatwaves.

Unfortunately, there’s no standard way to collect data or report on restoration projects. This makes it difficult – or impossible – to identify conditions leading to success, and reduces the pace of improvement.

Succeed now, fail later

Most coral transplants are monitored for less than 18 months. Even if they survive that period, there’s no guarantee they will last longer. The long-term success rate is unknown.

When we examined the likelihood of extreme heat events immediately following restoration and in coming decades, we found most restored sites had already experienced severe bleaching shortly after restoration. It will be difficult to find locations that will be spared from future global warming.

No substitute for climate action

Coral restoration has the potential to be a valuable tool in certain circumstances: when it promotes community engagement and addresses local needs. But it is not yet – and might never be – feasible to scale up sufficiently to have meaningful long-term positive effects on coral reef ecosystems.

This reality check should stimulate constructive debate about when and where restoration is worthwhile. Without stemming the pace and magnitude of climate change, we have little power to save coral reefs from massive losses over the coming century and beyond.

Other conservation approaches such as establishing, maintaining and enforcing marine protected areas, and improving water quality, could improve the chance a coral restoration project will work. These efforts could also support local human communities with incentives for conservation.

Reinforcing complementary strategies could therefore bolster ecosystem resilience, extending the reach and success of coral restoration projects.

Read more:
Coral restoration is a speculative, feel-good science that won’t save our reefs

Corey J. A. Bradshaw receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Clelia Mulà receives funding from the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Giovanni Strona 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. Reality check: coral restoration won’t save the world’s reefs – https://theconversation.com/reality-check-coral-restoration-wont-save-the-worlds-reefs-251055

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andy Marks, Vice-President, Public Affairs and Partnerships, Western Sydney University

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have faced off in the first leaders’ debate of the 2025 federal election. The debate, hosted by Sky News and The Daily Telegraph, was held at the Wenty Leagues Club in Sydney’s western suburbs, where an audience of 100 undecided voters asked questions of both leaders.

All the expected topics were canvassed, including the cost of living, the economy, housing, health and education, immigration, the war in Gaza, and of course US President Donald Trump. So how did the two leaders shape up? Three expert authors give their analysis.

Andy Marks, Western Sydney University

A funny thing happened on the way to the “people’s forum”. It reverted to a festival of rhetoric. The first federal election leaders’ debate between Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton began personably.

The Sky News debate saw Anthony and Peter – yes, first names only – take questions from the floor. It could have been the local sports team’s AGM. It wasn’t.

“Who’s doing it tough?” Sky News host Kieren Gilbert asked the audience. A sprinkle of hands, some reluctant, some defiant, rose.

“That was a very confronting scene,” Dutton remarked. “To see that many hands go up”, he added, reflected what he had seen throughout the government’s term: “people in tears” because they couldn’t cope with rising costs.

Albanese took a different approach. “Wages are up. Unemployment is low,” he said. The election, he argued, is about “what happens next”. The road ahead, he commented, was uncertain. “The world has thrown a lot of challenges at us. We’ve responded the Australian way.”

The focus was on ideal versus experience. “All you need is your Medicare card, not your credit card,” Albanese assured a questioner of his commitment to lift bulk-billed healthcare.

Dutton turned that proposition around, asking the questioner, “What’s your experience? Do you use your Medicare card, or your credit card too?” It was his most effective moment.

Albanese went full-Rudd zinger on energy. “The only gas policy the Coalition has is the gaslighting of the Australian public.”

When Albanese and Dutton were unleashed on each other, the debate descended into the usual contest over conflicting accounts of surplus records.

When it mattered, however – when audience members had the floor – it was a forum on what voters were experiencing, and which leader proved the better listener. That won’t be answered until polling day.

Andrea Carson, La Trobe University

Dutton faced a tough start to the first televised leaders’ debate of the 2025 federal election campaign, with reports his father had been rushed to hospital shortly before the cameras rolled.

But if he was rattled, he didn’t show it. Dutton wasted no time speaking to what he saw as Labor’s weaknesses, beginning with cost of living: power bills up, businesses going bust, grocery prices climbing.

Meanwhile, Albanese began with a few stammers, but quickly dispelled memories of his 2022 gaffes by confidently rattling off numbers that told a story of economic recovery amid the COVID-induced cost-of-living crisis.

With the primary vote share at record lows for both major parties, and with more Australians voting for minor parties and independent candidates, this is a crucial time to capture Australian’s attention before early voting opens next Tuesday.

Whether this debate reaches enough voters behind the News Corp paywall is questionable, but the debate’s soundbites will likely have a longer life than the 60-minute broadcast.

Using the tricks of the trade, Albanese repeated questioner’s names and thanked them for their service as school teachers and truckies, for caring for children, and for keeping Australia moving. He came ready with a well-worn prop – waving his green and gold Medicare card to spruik his plans to increase bulk billing for GP visits.

But Dutton wasn’t having a bar of it, stating he had seen the stunt before and that “the Mediscare campaign” continues. Albanese retorted by pointing to Dutton’s track record as health minister, claiming bulk billing was then in freefall. Women in the audience nodded in agreement. It was a little win for Albanese.

Predictably, both leaders kept to their areas of perceived strength: healthcare and education for Labor; the economy and keeping a lid on immigration for the Coalition. Both skirted the tricky question on the Gaza war – and avoided direct criticism of Trump.

The debate covered plenty of ground – solar power, fuel excise, cuts to universities’ foreign student numbers – but featured little mention of regional Australia or global security.

Albanese finished his pitch on a message of “staying the course”. Dutton returned to where he started: the economy, promising the Coalition could do it better, weaving in the threat of a Labor/Greens coalition government.

There were no fatal blows. Just like the polls, it was too close to call an outright winner. But not to worry. There will be another debate next week, this time on the ABC.

Emma Shortis, RMIT University

As someone who spends far too much time focused on US politics, it was a little bit refreshing to watch a debate that was a little bit … boring. Two blokes in suits, badly lit, talking about actual policy. In quite a bit of detail!

We often worry, with good reason, that Australian politics is being Americanised. Tonight showed that isn’t necessarily the case – in fact, the Trump administration’s dismantling of US democracy didn’t feature much this evening.

And there certainly weren’t many of the outrageous features of US politics – there was some bluster, of course, and some pretty concerning rhetoric around “immigration” – but this wasn’t anything like the corrosive, paranoid politics of America today.

Albanese opened the debate by noting that “the world has thrown a lot of challenges at Australia”, without mentioning the United States. That’s despite the fact the second Trump administration has effectively set the agenda of Australian politics for the past week at least.

But the very first question was about the “Trump pandemic”. Albanese was right to say in his response that Trump’s tariffs are an act of “economic self-harm” by the US. It does seem a stretch to suggest Australia got “a better deal” on tariffs because of representations made by the Australian government. Given what we know about the second Trump administration and its treatment of traditional allies, that seems unlikely.

Dutton once again made the argument that he would be better placed to negotiate with Trump because of his experience with Trump mark 1. But again, given how the Trump administration is treating America’s traditional allies, that’s not particularly convincing.

Surprisingly, the AUKUS submarine pact only got a mention right at the end. Albanese affirmed Labor’s support for the deal and said the government wouldn’t link the tariff issue to defence. That might be politically desirable, but it will be increasingly difficult as Trump continues to put pressure on the alliance. If Trump places no value in Australia’s free trade agreement with the US, what reason is there to believe he places any value in any other agreements?

As more and more attention is focused on what “security” actually means, those arbitrary dividing lines to which Australian politics has been so accustomed – such as the one between our defence and trade relationship with the US – might be becoming a little bit blurrier.

Emma Shortis is also Director of the Australia Institute’s International & Security Affairs Program.

Andrea Carson and Andy Marks 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. No major gaffes and no knockout punch: the first leaders’ debate was a pedestrian affair – https://theconversation.com/no-major-gaffes-and-no-knockout-punch-the-first-leaders-debate-was-a-pedestrian-affair-253711

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dorina Pojani, Associate Professor in Urban Planning, The University of Queensland

In the pre-industrial era, people often lived and worked in the same building. This removed the need to travel to work.

The separation of home and work occurred much later, during the Industrial Revolution. Factories and offices were grouped in designated areas and residential zoning was invented.

Even then, people typically spent about 60 to 90 minutes travelling each day, no matter how technology or urban layouts changed. This is known as Marchetti’s constant.

The rise of the internet in the 1990s – and more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic – sparked a rethink of commuting. As we head towards the polls in Australia’s largest federal election, working from home has become a hot-button issue.

Labor and the Coalition have been polarised for and against working from home, citing research and even anecdotes backing their positions.

That was until this week. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton swung from insisting all public servants would have to return to the office five days a week under the Coalition to saying current arrangements would remain unchanged.

But beyond political squabbles, what does the latest research – including our own on workers in Brisbane – show?

Impacts of working from home

Working from home impacts multiple areas including transport, housing, business and health. A systematic literature review on working from home – covering international studies between 2000 and 2022 – shows it:

• reduces traffic congestion and saves commuting time. However, it financially strains public transport operators due to lower demand.

• boosts regional growth as workers relocate in search of larger homes with home-office space. But this raises regional housing demand and prices.

• helps employers cut costs and increase productivity and job satisfaction rates. It can, however, limit promotion opportunities for remote workers.

• cuts traffic pollution and improves work-life balance. But it may cause social isolation, overwork, strained family relationships and musculoskeletal problems if ergonomic furniture isn’t used.

These are short-term effects, which may eventually disappear as society adjusts. The long-term effects are harder to predict because government and workplace policies change, as do economic conditions.

While working from home reduces the need for daily commuting, people may reallocate this saved time to off-peak trips for shopping or recreation.

As households move from urban cores, urban sprawl increases, resulting in less frequent but longer trips. This may lead to increased overall travel, offsetting environmental benefits. Marchetti’s constant may no longer hold.

The redistribution of activity zones may create new economic dynamics. Suburbs and regional centres may gain from more local spending, while areas with fewer shops may rely more on online shopping. Traditional CBDs could decline, needing new uses for office spaces.

New research on Brisbane workers

Our new research – to be published in a forthcoming book in Elsevier’s series “Advances in Transport Policy and Planning” – assesses the short-term costs and benefits of working from home for individuals, the private and the public sectors in Brisbane.

Here, a big shift to working from home occurred during the pandemic. We’ve used secondary and proxy data from 2020-2021 when working from home peaked. During that time, Brisbane was in and out of lockdowns.

We’ve created an accounting tool that lists the costs and benefits of working from home. The net impact is calculated by subtracting total costs from total benefits, allowing us to measure tangible and, when possible, intangible effects.

We found individuals and the private sector gained the most, while the public sector has felt the greatest losses. Employees have enjoyed more benefits from working from home than expected, while employers have cut spending in CBDs and seen increased revenues in suburbs.

In Brisbane the total annual working from home (for individuals, the private and public sector) costs amounted to A$557.5 million, while the total benefits reached $4.1 billion. These benefits outweigh costs by a factor of seven.

However, this is a preliminary look, rather than a comprehensive account. It is important to remember the cost-benefit balance may evolve over time, depending on technological advances, corporate culture and generational preferences.

Should Australia continue to support working from home?

Based on our findings and assuming other state capitals perform like Brisbane, we recommend keeping work from home arrangements. But what about public sector losses?

While public transport revenues have been lower due to working from home, it doesn’t seem to be a major issue for South East Queensland. Here, 50 cent fares were introduced before the last state election and have since become permanent.

However, the budgets of public transport operators in other states might be different. In those cases, more proactive measures might be needed. This might involve shifting from peak-hour services to frequent all-day routes and adjusting fares for vulnerable customers.

Some agencies might offer demand-responsive services, like ride-sharing. If all public transport becomes financially unsustainable, community-based cooperatives could step in.

These shifts in transport patterns may prompt land-use changes. For instance, businesses relying on daily commuters, like restaurants and shops in city centres, may move to the suburbs or pivot to delivery, take-out or meal-prep kits.

In any case, not all jobs can be done remotely. Certain sectors, such as manufacturing, healthcare, justice and hospitality will continue to require employees to be physically present.

Dorina Pojani has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Urban Research Infrastructure Network (AURIN), the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR), and iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre.

Neil G Sipe has received funding from the Australian Research Foundation.

Ying Lu 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. Politics aside, new research shows there are good financial reasons to back working from home – https://theconversation.com/politics-aside-new-research-shows-there-are-good-financial-reasons-to-back-working-from-home-253629

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sebastian Rosenberg, Associate Professor, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, and Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney

The Labor government has announced it would invest A$1 billion in mental health if re-elected to provide more Australians – particularly young people – with “free, public mental health care”.

The package includes:

• $225 million to either build or upgrade 31 Medicare mental health centres

• more than $200 million to build or upgrade 58 headspace services for young people

• $500 million to establish 20 youth specialist centres for young people with complex needs

• $90 million to support more than 1,200 training places for mental health professionals and peer workers.

This is good news – but there are some important things that are left out.

A focus on youth

Some 75% of severe mental health problems develop before a person turns 25. We know intervening early improves clinical outcomes as well as prospects for completing education and maintaining employment in the future.

So this focus on youth mental health is really welcome and needed. If we can execute it properly, it represents an investment not just in young people and their families, but will also see longer-term benefits for communities and the economy.

Australia’s continued investment in a network of youth mental health services, headspace, is unique and positive. That said, multiple reviews have found there are often issues finding enough staff to provide appropriate care for the young people accessing these services.

It’s crucial to ensure existing and new headspace centres have properly trained staff to deliver the required services. The new training places are welcome in this regard but will of course will take time to come on stream.

The youth specialist centres would be new, and could fill an important gap.

At present, we have federally funded Medicare services for mental health, such as GPs and psychologists. At the other end of the spectrum there are state-funded hospital inpatient and outpatient services for people with more severe problems.

What has been missing is much in the middle, in the way of community mental health services. The new specialist centres for young people with complex needs may go some way to filling this gap, but we need more detail about how they’ll operate.

The importance of holistic care

This funding package has focused on new provisions for clinical and medical mental health care. While this is important, it neglects psychosocial care.

Psychosocial services help keep people in stable housing, in employment, at school and enjoying some quality of life. This is what really matters to most people.

The psychosocial workforce can be found in some of the non-government and charitable organisations providing mental health and community services. It includes people with a range of qualifications, with staff such as social workers, peer workers and others, who can help young people stay connected across these social determinants of health, while they receive treatment from clinical staff for their mental illness.

Of those needing help for their mental health, a large proportion of young people face multiple concerns, including drugs and alcohol, sexual health or other issues such as unstable housing. So rather than simply seeing one clinician, someone with an eating disorder, for example, may need a team including a psychologist, a GP, a social worker, a dietitian, a nurse and others.

It’s unclear whether the youth specialist centres would bring together multidisciplinary teams such as this, but it’s important they do, including professionals who can provide psychosocial care.

Psychosocial support services have traditionally been very poorly funded in Australia. One option could be to set up new Medicare mental health centres to be managed by community sector organisations already using team-based service delivery models.

Ultimately, while having more services is great, we need to think imaginatively and flexibly about who has the skills to best respond to young people’s needs. A heavy reliance on clinical and medical care, without psychosocial care, is a bit like trying to fight with one arm behind our back.

A national analysis found that in 2022–23, 335,800 people aged 12–64 with severe mental illness would benefit from 21.9 million hours of psychosocial support services. A further 311,500 people with moderate mental illness would benefit from 3.3 million hours.

Other questions we need answered

Different groups face different levels of need and different barriers to accessing mental health care. So if we’re establishing new centres, we need to understand clearly things such as where the highest levels of psychological distress are, and what services will need to look like in areas where a high proportion of young people speak English as a second language.

What’s more, young women are more likely to seek mental health care than young men. We need to ask what’s making accessing services less appealing to young men and address these issues.

In a nutshell, we need to develop models of care tailored to local circumstances. This should involve working with local communities, rather than looking to impose centralised, one-size-fits-all solutions.

We also need to know how well new services will be linked to existing services, such as hospitals, GPs, and non-government organisations providing psychosocial care. If we don’t invest properly in coordination, these changes could risk perpetuating the fragmentation which often hampers our current mental health system.

Finally, we need a new level of accountability so we can tell whether what we’re doing is helping or not. We need regularly reported outcomes – such as hospital admissions among young people with mental illness – so we can understand system quality and performance, address any issues, and build our collective confidence that we’re meeting the needs of Australia’s young people.

Without this, we risk well-intentioned investments failing to deliver better support.

Sebastian Rosenberg 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. Labor’s $1 billion for mental health is good news for young people in particular – but leaves some gaps – https://theconversation.com/labors-1-billion-for-mental-health-is-good-news-for-young-people-in-particular-but-leaves-some-gaps-254054

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fergus Edwards, Lecturer in English, University of Tasmania

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

It is an international TV phenomenon, in 29 countries from Australia to Iran.

The latest season is from the United Kingdom, hosted by Jimmy Carr and featuring comedians like Bob Mortimer, Sara Pascoe and Joe Lycett.

But why do we, whatever our linguistic or cultural background, love watching comedians trying desperately hard not to laugh at each other?

It works because it’s funny – but it’s not about comedy. It’s about laughter. Philosophers and psychologists have spent hundreds of years thinking about what makes us laugh.

Here’s what they’ve had to say about laughter – and what they, perhaps, would have to say about Last One Laughing.

What makes us laugh?

Comedy takes time, but laughter can take less than a moment. Last One Laughing shows us the three major theories of humour that try to explain moments of spontaneous laughter.

The oldest is “superiority theory”. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes explained in is 1651 book Leviathan we “maketh those Grimaces called LAUGHTER” when we realise we’re better off than someone else. We “suddenly applaud” ourselves when we recognise our superiority.

In the new Last One Laughing series, Richard Ayoade nearly catches out two players when, asked what his childhood hobbies were, he replies: “I don’t know. I cried a lot?”

Irish philosopher Francis Hutcheson disagreed with Hobbes and suggested an alternative: “incongruity theory”.

In Reflections Upon Laughter (1750) he maintains we laugh in surprise at “bringing resemblances from subjects of a quite different kind from the subject to which they are compared”.

This happens when we meet one word with two meanings, like in every Christmas cracker joke, or Rob Beckett asking “What did one plate say to the other plate?” and answering “Dinner’s on me”.

In Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious (1905), Austrian founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud suggests our subconscious works to stop us from consciously understanding something that might be socially unacceptable. If we allow ourselves to acknowledge what we think we’re seeing, the energy we had been using to repress ourselves is then “discharged by laughter”.

Last One Laughing has many, mostly unprintable, moments that illustrate Freud’s relief theory of humour. No-one is at ease when Bob Mortimer’s magic act features a napkin rising into the air at groin height.

The art of not laughing

In Anatomy of the Gag (1963), the Czech playwright – and politician – Václav Havel suggests a gag has two phases. We see something and think we know what it is. Then, we see the same thing again – but we recognise it as something different. But the two interpretations can’t both be true! So we know we’ve made a mistake.

We laugh because of a “surprising quality” that “stems not from the revelation of the unknown, but from the unexpected look at the known”. We laugh because now we know we’re properly seeing the world as it is.

Comedians laugh at their own jokes because they experience this fresh look at the world before they’ve put it into words. This explains why Mortimer laughs at his own teeth, and Lou Sanders is laughing before she reaches her own punchline. Or, indeed, her own set-up.

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

Comedians not laughing when it’s expected is, in itself, a second gag. Our doubled laugh lets us express our understanding of this rather odd thing that’s happening. We’re reassuring ourselves, and anyone with us, that we know what’s going on.

Understanding the world

Douglas Robinson’s work in linguistics and Antonio Damasio’s work in neuropsychology suggests our brain and our body learn to respond to the world before our mind has kicked in. We’re physically laughing before we’ve mentally processed what’s funny. We see this response in babies, and it stays with us throughout our lives.

The feedback that tells us that we’ve understood the world correctly comes from other human beings. So it’s unsurprising we are 30 times more likely to laugh in company. It’s unsurprising that laughter is infectious. And it should be unsurprising that the winning moment of Last One Laughing comes from a game we play with newborns: “peek-a-boo”.

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

Fergus Edwards 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. We’re hardwired to laugh – this is why watching comedians try to be the ‘Last One Laughing’ is so funny – https://theconversation.com/were-hardwired-to-laugh-this-is-why-watching-comedians-try-to-be-the-last-one-laughing-is-so-funny-253935

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Singh, Research Fellow, Allied Health & Human Performance, University of South Australia

Many of us turn to Sudoku, Wordle or brain-training apps to sharpen our minds. But research is increasingly showing one of the best ways to boost memory, focus and brain health is exercise.

Our new research reviewed data from more than 250,000 participants across 2,700 studies. We found exercise helps boost brain function – whether it’s walking, cycling, yoga, dancing, or even playing active video games such as Pokémon GO.

Moving your body improves how we think, make decisions, remember things and stay focused – no matter your age.

What the science says

Our review adds to a growing body of research that shows regular physical activity improves three key areas of brain function:

• cognition, which is your overall ability to think clearly, learn and make decisions

• memory, especially short-term memory and the ability to remember personal experiences

• executive function, which includes focus, planning, problem-solving and managing emotions.

We conducted an umbrella review, which means we looked at the results of more than 130 high-quality research reviews that had already combined findings from many exercise studies. These studies usually involved people starting a new, structured exercise program, not just tracking the exercise they were already doing.

To assess the effects on cognition, memory and executive function, the original studies used a range of brain function tests. These included things like remembering word lists, solving puzzles, or quickly switching between tasks – simple activities designed to reliably measure how well the brain is working.

The improvements were small to moderate. On average, exercise led to a noticeable boost in cognition, with slightly smaller but still meaningful gains in memory and executive function.

The benefits showed up across all age groups, though children and teens saw major gains in memory.

People with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) showed greater improvements in executive function after physical activity than other population groups.

The brain started responding fairly quickly – many people experienced improvements after just 12 weeks of starting regular exercise.

Generally, the greatest benefits were seen in those doing at least 30 minutes of exercise on most days of the week, aiming for a total of about 150 minutes per week.

What’s happening in the brain?

Activities such as walking or cycling can increase the size of the hippocampus, the part of the brain responsible for memory and learning.

In one study, older adults who did aerobic exercise for a year grew their hippocampus by 2%, effectively reversing one to two years of age-related brain shrinkage.

More intense workouts, such as running or high-intensity interval training, can further boost neuroplasticity – the brain’s ability to adapt and rewire itself. This helps you learn more quickly, think more clearly and stay mentally sharp with age.

Another reason to get moving

The world’s population is ageing. By 2030, one in six of people will be aged over 60. With that comes a rising risk of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline.

At the same time, many adults aren’t moving enough. One in three adults aren’t meeting the recommended levels of physical activity.

Adults should aim for at least 150 of moderate exercise – such as brisk walking – each week, or at least 75 minutes of more vigorous activity, like running.

It’s also important to incorporate muscle-strengthening exercises, such as lifting weights, into workouts at least twice a week.

Everyday movement counts

You don’t need to run marathons or lift heavy weights to benefit. Our study showed lower-intensity activities such as yoga, tai chi and “exergames” (active video games) can be just as effective – sometimes even more so.

These activities engage both the brain and body. Tai chi, for instance, requires focus, coordination and memorising sequences.

Exergames often include real-time decision-making and rapid response to cues. This trains attention and memory.

Importantly, these forms of movement are inclusive. They can be done at home, outdoors, or with friends, making them a great option for people of all fitness levels or those with limited mobility.

Although you may already be doing a lot through daily life – like walking instead of driving or carrying shopping bags home – it’s still important to find time for structured exercise, such as lifting weights at the gym or doing a regular yoga class, to get the full benefits for your brain and body.

Real-life applications

If you’re a grandparent, consider playing Wii Sports virtual tennis or bowling with your grandchild. If you’re a teenager with signs of ADHD, try a dance class, and see if it impacts your concentration in class. If you’re a busy parent, you might be more clear-headed if you can squeeze a 20-minute yoga video session between meetings.

In each of these cases, you’re not just being active, you’re giving your brain a valuable tune-up. And unlike most brain-training apps or supplements, exercise delivers far reaching benefits, including improved sleep and mental health.

Workplaces and schools are starting to take note. Short movement breaks are being introduced during the workday to improve employee focus.

Schools that incorporate physical activity into the classroom are seeing improvements in students’ attention and academic performance.

Exercise is one of the most powerful and accessible tools we have for supporting brain health. Best of all, it’s free, widely available and it’s never too late to start.

Ashleigh E. Smith receives grant funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund and is a Henry Brodaty mid-career fellow awarded from Dementia Australia Research Foundation.

Ben Singh 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. Here’s a simple, science-backed way to sharpen your thinking and improve your memory – https://theconversation.com/heres-a-simple-science-backed-way-to-sharpen-your-thinking-and-improve-your-memory-253751

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hussein Dia, Professor of Future Urban Mobility, Swinburne University of Technology

Australia has huge reserves of coal and gas – but very little oil. Before the 20th century, this didn’t matter – trains ran on local coal. But as cars and trucks have come to dominate, Australia has become more and more reliant on imported oil.

Imports now account for around 80% of total refined fuel consumption, the highest level on record.

If the flow of oil stopped due to war or economic instability, Australia would have about 54 days worth in storage before we ran out. That would be a huge problem.

But as more drivers switch from petrol and diesel to electric cars, this equation will change. We can already see this in China, where a rapid uptake of electric vehicles has seen oil demand begin to fall.

On one level, ending Australia’s dependence on foreign oil makes sense at a time of great geopolitical uncertainty. But on the other, going electric would lead to more reliance on China, now the world’s largest manufacturer of EVs.

Reducing reliance on oil makes clear sense for climate and national security reasons. But going electric has to be done carefully, to ensure Australia isn’t reliant on just one country.

Importing oil makes us vulnerable

In recent years, almost all of Australia’s refineries have closed. The government spent billions keeping the Geelong and Brisbane refineries open, as well as other fuel security measures, such as boosting domestic fuel reserves and building more storage.

The last two refineries rely on imported crude oil, as Australian oil from the North-West Shelf largely isn’t suitable for local refining.

As a result, Australia is more reliant than ever on importing fuels from large refineries in Asia such as South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. In 2023, around 45,000 megalitres of fuel were imported from these nations.

Almost three-quarters (74%) of these liquid fuels are used in transport, across road, rail, shipping and air transport. But road transport is the big one – our cars, trucks and other road vehicles use more than half (54%) of all liquid fuels.

This reliance presents clear energy security risks. If war, geopolitical tension, economic turmoil or price volatility slows or stops the flow of oil, Australia’s cities and towns would grind to a halt.

In January, Australia had 30 days worth of petrol. Our stores of all types of oil are a bit higher, at 54 days worth. But that’s still well short of the 90 days the International Energy Agency (IEA) requires of member nations.

Electricity made locally

Shifting to electric vehicles promises cleaner air and far lower ongoing costs for drivers, as electricity is much cheaper than petrol or diesel and maintenance is far less.

But there’s another factor – the energy source. Australia’s electricity is all produced and consumed inside its borders, using local resources (sun, wind, water, coal and gas).

In this respect, electric vehicles offer much greater energy security. A war in the Middle East or a trade war over tariffs would not bring Australia to a halt. This is one reason why China has so aggressively gone electric – to end its soaring dependence on foreign oil.

Mainstreaming EVs in Australia will mean accelerating production of renewable electricity further so we can power not just homes and industry but charge cars, trucks and buses, too.

Doing this would boost our energy security, break our dependency on imported oil and drive down emissions.

EV manufacturing is expanding rapidly with more models, lower purchase prices, improved battery charging times and increasing consumer adoption.

Globally, over 17 million EVs (battery and plug-in hybrids) were sold in 2024, including 91,000 battery and 23,000 plug-in hybrids in Australia.

IEA data shows electric vehicles are already reducing oil demand globally, as are electric bikes and mopeds.

Ending our dependence on oil will be slow. Australia Institute research estimates 8% of imported fuels could be replaced by local electricity once EVs make up 25% of the passenger car fleet. At 100% EVs, we would reduce oil demand by 33%.

The other two-thirds of demand is largely from trucks, planes and ships. Electric trucks are coming, but the sector isn’t as mature as electric cars. It’s a similar story for planes and cargo ships.

Energy security and EVs

Australia doesn’t manufacture EVs at scale. As a result, we import EVs from the top manufacturing nations. China is far and away the leader, building 80% of Australia’s new EVs.

Australia is a major producer of critical minerals essential to the manufacture of EVs, as well as other green technologies such as lithium, cobalt and nickel. But China dominates much of the global supply chain for refining these minerals and manufacturing batteries.

There’s a risk in relying largely on one country for EVs, especially given the present geopolitical instability.

Balancing security and sustainability

EVs unquestionably offer large benefits for Australia’s energy security by steadily reducing our reliance on imports from volatile global oil markets.

But this has to be balanced with other security concerns, such as a heightened reliance on China, as well as the privacy and security risks linked to data collection from digitally connected EVs.

A balanced approach would see authorities emphasise energy independence through renewables and strong support for vehicle electrification through legislative and regulatory frameworks.

Under this approach, policymakers would work to diversify supply chains, strengthen cybersecurity and encourage local manufacturing of EV components.

This approach would reduce new security risks while unlocking the environmental and economic benefits of widespread EV adoption.

Hussein Dia receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre, Transport for New South Wales, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, and Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts.

– ref. If Australia switched to EVs, we’d be more reliant on China’s car factories – but wean ourselves off foreign oil – https://theconversation.com/if-australia-switched-to-evs-wed-be-more-reliant-on-chinas-car-factories-but-wean-ourselves-off-foreign-oil-252388

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephanie Perkiss, Associate professor in accounting, University of Wollongong

With the Easter weekend now around the corner, the sixth edition of the Global Chocolate Scorecard has just been released.

This is an annual initiative produced by Be Slavery Free, in collaboration with two Australian universities and a wide range of consultants and sustainability interest groups.

It ranks companies across the entire chocolate sector – from major multinational producers through to retailers – on a wide range of sustainability policies and practices.

This year, there have been some improvements across the board.

Transparency has increased, with 82% of companies now fully disclosing child labour data, up from 45% in 2023. The data reported also shows the discovery of child labour is down in the sector.

On other measures, the sector is less commendable. Deforestation is still high, with more than a third of cocoa bought by companies coming from deforested or unknown sources.

Companies reported that 84% of cocoa farmers in their supply chain are not earning a living income – or their income is unknown. And there hasn’t been enough progress on the use of pesticides to address the chronic exposure of communities to harmful chemicals.

Chocolate’s annual scorecard

The Global Chocolate Scorecard evaluates and ranks chocolate traders, manufacturers, brands and retailers.

This year, 60 companies from around the world were invited to participate. Collectively, these companies purchase more than 90% of the world’s cocoa.

Companies are categorised as either large, small (less than 1,000 tons of cocoa) or retailers. They’re evaluated based on a range of policies and practices.

These include:

• traceability and transparency levels across supply chains
• whether they pay farmers a living income
• efforts to prevent the use of child labour
• action on climate and deforestation
• how they support agroforestry
• efforts to eliminate the use of harmful pesticides.

Top of the class

Awards were given out this year to the best and the worst performers – a “Good Egg” award in each category, a gender award, and a “Bad Egg” award overall.

This year, Tony’s Chocolonely won the Good Egg award in the large company category. It scored the highest against the six markers, representing the most sustainable chocolate company according to the scorecard.

The Gender award went to Mars Wrigley – which produces Mars, Snickers, Twix and Malteasers – recognising the company for work supporting gender equality.

The Good Egg award for smaller companies went to US chocolate manufacturer Beyond Good. Beyond Good buys beans directly from farmers in Madagascar and Uganda, ensuring traceability and fair trade practices.

Unlike indirect sourcing in the cocoa commodity supply chain, Beyond Good’s direct trade model means the company buys cocoa direct from the farmers. Bypassing intermediaries enables better transparency and supply chain relationships.

The ‘bad egg’ award

This year, multinational chocolate manufacturer Mondelēz, producers of Cadbury, Toblerone, Green & Black’s, Oreo and Daim, was given the “Bad Egg” award.

The award recognises the company’s decision not to participate in this year’s chocolate scorecard process, indicating of a lack of transparency and public accountability.

Mondelēz did participate in the last (fifth) edition, ranking 25th out of 38 large companies. The company has not provided a reason for not participating this year. However, it is an outlier, as all other large chocolate companies participated.

Another notable absence from this year’s scorecard was major Australian retailer Coles, which has participated in the past.

The understanding that businesses have a responsibility to be accountable to their consumers is not new. It encompasses aspects of corporate social responsibility – compliance, ethical and sustainable practices, and transparency.

To be transparent, companies need to be open and honest about how their products are made, how their prices are set and what policies they follow.

A sector in turmoil

The global chocolate sector is facing some serious challenges. About 75% of the world’s cocoa is produced in West Africa.

Cocoa prices surged to record highs in 2024. Many major chocolate companies increased their prices as a result.

Despite the price of chocolate rising, these increases are often not passed on, leaving many cocoa farmers in extreme poverty. This is in addition to struggling with the impacts of climate change.

New uncertainty for producers are only set to worsen in the wake of the Trump administration’s dismantling of USAID and International Labour Affairs Bureau programs. Such cuts ending projects for health, humans rights and monitoring risk reversing the much celebrated progress on reducing child labour in chocolate supply chains.

Stephanie Perkiss is part of the Chocolate Scorecard’s Data Integrity & Ethics and Research team.

– ref. Here’s who topped the rankings in this year’s scorecard for sustainable chocolate – and which confectionery giant refused to participate – https://theconversation.com/heres-who-topped-the-rankings-in-this-years-scorecard-for-sustainable-chocolate-and-which-confectionery-giant-refused-to-participate-253933

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jazmine Skinner, Lecturer in Animal Science, University of Southern Queensland

Allergies can be debilitating for those who have them – even more so when the cause of the allergic reaction is a beloved pet.

Second only to dust mites, the humble domestic house cat is one of the major causes of indoor allergens for people.

But what is the actual source of the allergic response? And are certain breeds less allergenic than others? There are many myths and misconceptions related to cat allergens, so let’s debunk a few.

It’s not the hair!

Contrary to common misconception, cat hair is not the cause of allergies in people.

Rather, the allergy is down to a pesky protein commonly referred to as Fel d 1. This protein is produced in a cat’s saliva and skin glands. While cats produce at least eight allergens, it is Fel d 1 which studies have shown to be the leading cat allergen.

Fel d 1 is a microscopic protein that readily sticks to clothing and other surfaces. It can also remain airborne for long periods of time, making it easy to inhale.

Studies have shown it can even be found in homes without cats, brought in from outside on clothes and other objects – not great news for people with a severe allergy.

The Fel d 1 allergen is transferred to the cat’s hair and skin when they groom themselves. It then spreads into their environment when they shed hair and dander, which is mostly comprised of dead skin cells.

Although the cat’s hair can carry the allergens, the hair itself is not at fault here. Even hairless Sphynx cats secrete the protein. This is also why longer haired, fluffier cats don’t necessarily make you more allergic.

It’s not the breed, either

In fact, research has shown that neither the length of the cat’s hair, nor the colour of its coat, appear to have any significant bearing on how much allergen the cat produces.

Regardless of a cat’s breed, sex and individual variation in the production of Fel d 1 are the main reason why some cats seem to cause a greater allergic response than others.

It has long been known that on average, unneutered male cats produce more Fel d 1 than females or neutered males. Some studies have also found that older cats tend to produce lower levels of Fel d 1 than younger cats.

While there are breeds referred to as “hypoallergenic”, it is important to remember this does not mean “allergen-free”. According to a review published in 2024, “to date, there is no scientific evidence for a hypoallergenic cat breed”.

However, putting our strict hypoallergenic definition aside, a few small studies have reported reduced levels of Fel d 1 production in some of these breeds. It is important to remember though that even in individual cats, production of Fel d 1 can vary widely throughout the year.

Further studies in these breeds, using larger sample sizes, is needed to confirm these findings.

Overall, the fact that sensitive people report an increased allergic response to some cats rather than others is likely due to variation in how much Fel d 1 the individual cat produces.

Can we make cats less allergenic?

In the last few years, several studies have investigated the possibility of vaccinating cats against the Fel d 1 protein.

While this would be great news for allergy sufferers, the issue is that researchers are currently unsure what role the protein plays in cats. Current evidence suggests it may play a role in the dispersal of pheromones, and potentially in protecting the cat’s skin; further research is needed.

There is also some initial evidence to suggest that therapeutic diets in which an antibody is added from chicken eggs (IgY antibodies) can reduce the production of Fel d 1 that a cat produces. However, larger studies are needed before we might start seeing “anti-allergy” cat food on the shelves.

There is some evidence to suggest that exposure to cats at a young age may reduce the likelihood of a person developing an allergy.

If you’re an adult allergic to cats but still would like to have one, there is good evidence to suggest regular cleaning can substantially decrease the amount of cat allergens in your home.

Even though the jury is out on the scientific evidence for “hypoallergenic” cat breeds, some cats really are less allergenic than others.

Despite the challenges for those that are allergic, you are not doomed to have to avoid cats for the rest of your life. With the right management and care, cat ownership is entirely possible – and absolutely worth it.

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

– ref. Why are some cats more allergenic than others? It’s not their coat length – https://theconversation.com/why-are-some-cats-more-allergenic-than-others-its-not-their-coat-length-251133

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janet Hoek, Professor in Public Health, University of Otago

At the start of this month, when denicotinisation would have been due to come into effect in Aotearoa New Zealand (had the government not repealed smokefree laws), Australia introduced innovative smokefree policies to change the look, ingredients and packaging of tobacco products.

New Zealand’s current goal is to reduce smoking prevalence to no more than 5% (and as close to zero as possible) among all population groups. However, realising this goal now seems very unlikely.

Latest figures show 6.9% of the general population smoke daily, but smoking places a much heavier burden on Māori and Pacific peoples, where 14.7% and 12.3% smoke, respectively.

New Zealand could borrow measures from Australia’s new regulations, or even go beyond, to begin salvaging its reputation as a country that develops progressive, evidence-based smokefree policy. Here are six ideas New Zealand should consider implementing.

1. Refresh and diversify on-pack warnings

New Zealand introduced plain packaging in 2018. This policy replaced vibrant on-pack branding with dissuasive colours and much larger health warnings. However, despite annual warning rotation, recent work suggests on-pack warnings have “worn out”.

Our work with people who smoke suggests we need two responses: refresh existing health warnings and create more diverse warnings that illustrate other risks, such as the financial burden smoking imposes and its inter-generational harms.

2. Offer hope that quitting is possible

On-pack warnings aim to ensure people who smoke understand the many health risks smoking causes.

However, few countries (with the exception of Canada) also provide advice to increase people’s confidence they can quit or promote the benefits of becoming smokefree. Australia has now followed Canada’s lead and will introduce “health promotion inserts that encourage and empower people to quit smoking”.

The ASPIRE Aotearoa Centre’s recent work shows that by promoting positive outcomes and offering practical advice, health promotion inserts foster hope and help motivate people who smoke to think about quitting.

New Zealand should complement external pack warnings with inserts that increase people’s agency and support smoking cessation.

3. Change the experience of smoking

Tobacco companies use cigarette stick design to shape how people experience smoking. It is no coincidence that cigarette sticks are white. The colour has connotations of cleanliness and deflects attention from the harms smoking causes.

Until Canada introduced on-stick warnings in 2023, no country had changed the design of cigarette sticks.

Australia has now followed suit and will require health warnings on cigarette filters. New Zealand could both adopt and go beyond this measure.

Our earlier work examined the effects of dissuasive colours and designs on cigarette sticks. People who smoke found colours such as murky green and mustard yellow aversive. They also reacted strongly against graphics, such as a chart showing the minutes of life lost with each cigarette, which could be printed on sticks.

4. Eliminate additives

Tobacco companies use several ingredients to make smoking more palatable and enhance nicotine delivery. For example, many cigarettes contain menthol, even those without a characterising menthol flavour. These ingredients ease harshness and make the initial, sometimes disagreeable, experience of smoking much smoother.

Other additives enhance nicotine delivery. For example, tobacco companies may add sugars to tobacco that, once combusted, create acetaldehyde, which may increase the addictiveness of nicotine.

Disallowing these additives could further reduce smoking uptake. By making smoking a harsher experience, this measure could also encourage people who smoke to quit.

5. Get rid of gimmicks that appeal to young people

Tobacco companies have developed product features that enable people who smoke to experience different flavours. Brands such as Dunhill Switch contain a flavour capsule within the filter. When squeezed, the capsule releases a flavouring agent, thus creating a more varied and novel smoking experience.

Our study of young people’s responses to capsule cigarettes found these appealed more to those who did not smoke than to those who did. New Zealand should follow Australia by closing loopholes and disallowing products likely to increase interest in smoking among young people who do not smoke.

6. Disallow filters

There is one measure New Zealand could implement to go beyond Australia’s new policies.

The draft Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 action plan proposed disallowing filters in cigarettes, but this measure was not part of the final action plan. Described by renowned Stanford University historian Robert Proctor as “the deadliest fraud in the history of human civilization”, filters may mislead people who smoke into believing they have reduced the risks smoking presents.

In addition, filters do not biodegrade and studies report they cause considerable harm to the environment and impose substantial clean-up costs on local authorities.

Australia has made important changes that will increase knowledge of smoking’s risks, reduce tobacco companies’ ability to develop cigarette features likely to appeal to young people, and support smoking cessation.

Meanwhile New Zealand, once a leader in tobacco control policy, is very unlikely to reach the government’s smokefree 2025 goal. Adopting Australia’s policies could support smoking cessation. But there are opportunities to go beyond Australia’s approach; disallowing filters could bring comprehensive health as well as environmental benefits.

Janet Hoek receives (or has received) funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, Royal Society Marsden Fund, NZ Cancer Society and NZ Heart Foundation. She is a member of the Health Coalition Aotearoa’s smokefree expert advisory group and of the Ministry of Health’s smokefree advisory group, a senior editor at Tobacco Control (honorarium paid), and she serves on several other government, NGO and community advisory groups.

– ref. Australia’s innovative new policies are designed to cut smoking rates – here are 6 ideas NZ could borrow – https://theconversation.com/australias-innovative-new-policies-are-designed-to-cut-smoking-rates-here-are-6-ideas-nz-could-borrow-253717

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deborah Gleeson, Associate Professor in Public Health, La Trobe University

While Australia was busy defending the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme against threats from the United States in recent weeks, another issue related to the supply and trade of medicines was flying under the radar.

Buried on page 19 of the Trump’s administration’s allegations of barriers to trade was a single paragraph related to Australia’s access to generic medicines. These are cheaper alternatives to branded medicines that are no longer under patent.

The US is concerned about how much notice their drug companies have that Australia will introduce a generic version of their product. Once a single generic version of a medicine is listed on the PBS, the price drops. The US argues that lack of advance notice is a barrier to trade.

There is pressure for Australia to emulate aspects of the US system, where drug companies can delay generic copies of their medicines by 30 months.

If the US plays hardball on this issue, perhaps in return for other concessions, this could delay Australia’s access to cheaper generic drugs.

It would also mean significant pressure on Australia’s drug budget, as the government could be forced to pay for the more expensive branded versions to ensure supply.

What’s the current process?

Drug companies use patents to protect their intellectual property and prohibit other manufacturers from copying the drug. The standard patent term in Australia is 20 years, but the time a product is protected by patents can be extended in a number of ways. When patents expire, other companies are able to bring generic versions to market.

A generic manufacturer wanting to market its drug in Australia must apply to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for regulatory approval. Before approval is granted, the generic company must provide a certificate to the TGA that states either:

a) that the product will not infringe a valid patent, or

b) that it has notified the patent-holder of its intention to market the product.

The certificate can be provided after the TGA has evaluated the generic – before it grants approval.

If the generic company chooses option “a”, the manufacturer of the patented product may not find out the competing product is going to be launched until after the TGA has approved it.

The patent-holder can then apply for a court order to temporarily stop the generic from coming to market, while legal battles are fought over patent-related issues.

However, if the first generic has already launched and been added to the PBS, it triggers an automatic 25% price drop. This affects all versions of the drug, including the patented product.

In Australia, patented drug companies that try to delay generics by taking legal action without good reason can face penalties and be required to pay compensation.

Patented drug companies don’t like this system. They want to know as early as possible that a generic is planning to launch so they can initiate legal action and prevent or delay generic entry and the associated price reductions.

Is Australia’s system consistent with our trade obligations?

Australia introduced its patent notification system at the request of the US, to comply with the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). The World Trade Organization doesn’t require patent notification.

Australia’s system is different to that of the United States. But it’s consistent with the rules negotiated between the two countries.

US drug companies have long argued Australia’s system is a barrier to trade. They want Australia to change it to be more like the US system.

Why is the US arguing this is a barrier to trade?

The Trump Administration’s 2025 report on foreign trade barriers states “US and Australian pharmaceutical companies have expressed concerns about delays” in the patent notification process.

The report also mentions US concerns about the potential for penalties and compensation when a patent owner takes legal action against a generic company.

This report reflects long-standing concerns of the US pharmaceutical industry. In March, its drug makers trade association wrote to the US trade representative complaining that “lack of adequate notification” is an unfair trade practice. It argued this creates uncertainty for patent-holders, prevents resolution of patent challenges before generics enter the market, and penalises patented-drug companies for trying to protect their rights.

Medicines Australia, which represents the Australian subsidiaries of many big patented drug makers, echoes these concerns.

What does the US want instead?

The US patent notification system is much more favourable to the patented drug companies than Australia’s.

In the US, the generic company must notify the patented drug company within 20 days of filing an application for approval.

Then, within 45 days of receiving the notification, the patent-holder can ask the regulator to impose a 30-month delay on approval for the generic.

This means there is an automatic 30-month delay on the launch of the generic, unless patents expire in the meantime or the court decides earlier that valid patents aren’t being infringed.

What could happen if Australia bowed to pressure from the US?

Changing Australia’s system to be more like the US would delay generics entering the market in Australia and keep the price of drugs higher for longer.

The quicker generics can be added to the PBS, the less the government pays. When the first generic is listed on the PBS, a 25% price cut is applied to all versions of the product, including the patented version.

Over time, as more generics get added, prices continue to fall. Having plenty of generic competition can eventually result in prices lower than the PBS co-payment, resulting in savings for consumers.

In the longer term, lost savings from timely listing of generics on the PBS would reduce value for money and add cost pressure.

In time, it could also delay savings for consumers from drugs priced below the PBS co-payment.

Both major parties are saying they won’t use the PBS as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the US over tariffs. They also need to resist pressure to slow down access to generic drugs.

Deborah Gleeson has received funding in the past from the Australian Research Council. She has received funding from various national and international non-government organisations to attend speaking engagements related to trade agreements and health, including access to medicines. She has represented the Public Health Association of Australia on matters related to trade agreements and public health.

– ref. Trump has Australia’s generic medicines in his sights. And no-one’s talking about it – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-australias-generic-medicines-in-his-sights-and-no-ones-talking-about-it-253836

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacquelyn Harverson, PhD Candidate, School of Psychology, Deakin University

Once upon a time, children fought for control of the remote to the sole family television. Now the choice of screen-based content available to kids seems endless. There are computers, tablets, phones and gaming consoles offering streaming services, online content and apps.

Children also use devices at school, with digital literacy part of the Australian curriculum from the start of school.

The speed and scale of this change has left parents, researchers and policymakers scrambling to catch up. And it has inevitably led to concerns about screen use, as well as guidelines about limiting their use.

Our new study looks at the links between digital technology use and young children’s wellbeing, specifically for those aged four to six.

Our comprehensive analysis shows children who spend longer periods using digital technologies are more likely to have social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. However, we can’t say at what age or level of screen use these negative effects are likely to become evident.

But for parents trying to navigate a world where technology is all around us, our study also shows there are things they can do to help their kids use screens in healthier ways.

Read more:
Why parents need to be like Big Ted and ‘talk aloud’ while they use screens with their kids

Our study

We carried out a systematic review of the research literature on children’s use of digital devices since 2011 (after the Apple iPad was launched). This means we examined all the available peer-reviewed research on digital devices and their impact on wellbeing for children.

We also focused on ages four to six age as it is a time when children are developing rapidly and beginning school. Other studies have focused on particular types of device. But we included all kinds of digital devices in our search – from televisions to phones, tablets and gaming consoles – to make sure we could provide comprehensive analysis of what kids are using.

The studies came from 20 countries, including Australia, China, the United States, Turkey, Germany and Canada. They were almost exclusively based on parents’ reports of their children and include more than 83,000 parents.

4 areas of child wellbeing

From this, we analysed the relationship between children’s technology use and the following four areas:

1. psychosocial wellbeing: an overall measure that captures children’s happiness, as well as social and emotional adjustment.

2. social functioning: children’s social skills, including how well they get along with their peers.

3. the parent-child relationship: the level of closeness or conflict between parents and their children.

4. behavioural functioning: the absence of behavioural difficulties such as tech-related tantrums, hyperactivity, depression or anxiety.

We did this with a meta-analysis – a statistical method that uses data from multiple studies to draw conclusions.

Read more:
3 ways to help your child transition off screens and avoid the dreaded ‘tech tantrums’

What we found

Our analysis found more digital technology use in young children was associated with poorer wellbeing outcomes across the four areas.

It is important to note correlation doesn’t equal causation. The scope of the research means at this point, it is not possible to identify the exact reasons behind the negative relationships.

But we do know the more time children spent watching TV, playing on iPads or apps, the more likely they were to have problems with behaviour, social skills, their relationship with their parents, and their emotional wellbeing.

But tech use is more than just time

Our research also brought together emerging evidence which shows the relationship between digital tech use and child wellbeing is complex.

This means the type of content children consume, and the context in which they consume it, can also have a bearing on their wellbeing. The research shows there are several ways parents can guide their children to potentially mitigate the negative links with social, emotional and behavioural wellbeing.

With this in mind, how can you encourage healthier screen use?

3 tips for kids and screens

1. Keep an eye on the clock

The research cannot provide a specific “time limit” for screen use. But you can still be mindful of how much time your child spends on devices both at home and at school – moderation is key.

Try and mix screen time with other activities, such as time outside or time with friends and family, books or imaginary play.

2. Seek out quality

Research shows encouraging high-quality educational content during screen use may curb negative links between tech use and wellbeing.

Consider swapping fast-paced cartoons and time spent on lots of short clips with educational viewing, for example ABC kids programs that promote learning.

Introduce your child to age-appropriate educational and interactive games that challenge them and encourage them to be creative.

3. Use tech together

Tech time isn’t just for kids – parents can also join in.

Solo tech use may reduce opportunities for positive social interactions. But watching or playing with friends or family opens up opportunities for conversation, working together and learning.

This could include watching a movie together and talking about the characters, working on an online puzzle together or learning new coding skills together.

Jacquelyn Harverson is affiliated with the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child.

Louise Paatsch receives funding from Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child

Sharon Horwood is affiliated with the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child.

– ref. New research shows digital technology is linked to reduced wellbeing in young kids. So what can parents do? – https://theconversation.com/new-research-shows-digital-technology-is-linked-to-reduced-wellbeing-in-young-kids-so-what-can-parents-do-253637

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gary Mortimer, Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Queensland University of Technology

About 14% of Australians experienced personal fraud last year. Of these, 2.1 million experienced credit card fraud, 675,300 were caught in a scam, 255,000 had their identities stolen and 433,000 were impersonated online.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics latest Personal Fraud Survey, between July 2023 and June 2024, Australians lost A$2.1 billion through credit card fraud.

This was up almost 9% from the previous year. Even after reimbursements, the loss was still $477 million.

These figures do not include financial loss through identity theft, or phishing, romance, computer support and dodgy financial advice scams.

Why the increase?

Research shows the more frequently we use technology, the more likely we are to be scammed. Monica Whitty from the Cyber Security Centre, University of Warwick, found victims of cyber-frauds were more likely to score high on impulsivity measures like ‘urgency’ and engage in more frequent online routine activities that place them at great risk of becoming scammed.

We communicate via email, we shop online, use dating apps and allow technicians to remotely access our computers. Meanwhile, amazing “get rich quick” opportunities are apparently being liked by our friends on our socials almost every day.

But too many of us do not stop and think, “is this legitimate?” It is no wonder we see personal fraud and scams increase every year.

While the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures suggest older Australians (aged 45 and over) are more exposed to card fraud, research has found demographics are not a significant predictor of fraud victimisation.

Taking risks

Being too trusting, drives complacency, which produces gullibility. Think about an online dating sites. The site uses a multi-factor authenticator, it requires you to authenticate your photo, password protect your profile and read the scam warnings.

A site’s apparent legitimacy increases your trust. Research has found if you perceive a platform to be legitimate you could be exposed to romance fraud. Fraudsters may be operating within a site, even if it is legitimate.

Another strong predictor of exposure to online fraud is self-control. Self-control theory predicts individuals with low self-control tend to pursue their own self-interest without considering the negative consequences.

Simply, if the investment scheme looks “too good”, they will mostly likely click on the link and get scammed.

Giving away too much

Some individuals are prone to self-disclosing personal information online – and scammers love personal information. Self-disclosure is defined as the amount of information a person decides to make common knowledge.

Sometimes, we disclose, even when we don’t intend to. A common phishing technique on social media is status updates that read, “Your porn star name is your first pet’s name and the first street you lived on.”

They’re interesting, funny and bring on a healthy dose of nostalgia, but the answers to those questions that you tap in for all to see are also most likely to be your security questions on your bank accounts.

The most common scams in 2023-2024:

• Buying or selling scams (1.4% or 308,200)
• Information request or phishing scams (0.7% or 148,800)

What is the government doing to protect me?

The Australian government recently passed legislation which targets scams. It places increased responsibilities on banking and finance, telecommunications and digital platforms organisations to protect customers.

Suspicious numbers can now be accompanied a warning of “potential fraud” on your smartphone screen. Banks are also informing customers about the latest scams. Some banking transactions can verify the identity of the payment recipient, to ensure the details you have match the actual account holder.

While these will not stop all scams, they are a step towards reducing the number of victims and the amount of money lost to fraudulent approaches.

Six steps to protect yourself

There are some small but powerful steps we can all take to reduce the likelihood of financial harm.

1. Passwords: it is important to have strong, unique passwords across your accounts. Using a password manager can help with this.

2. Multi-factor authentication: many platforms will allow you to add extra layers of security to your account by using one-time passwords, authenticator apps, or tokens.

3. Review privacy settings: be aware of the different settings on your accounts and ensure you are in control of what information you provide and what can be accessed by others.

4. Be vigilant: know what you see and hear may not be real. The person or company you are communicating with may not be authentic. It is okay to be sceptical and take time to do your own checks.

5. Money transfers: never send money you are not willing to lose. Too often, people will send money before realising it is a scam. Never feel rushed or forced into any financial decision. It is OK to say no.

6. Credit monitoring: if you know or suspect you have been scammed, you can enact a credit ban, meaning no one can access your details or take further action in your name. This can be a good short-term solution.

And if you are scammed …

Anyone can report money lost in a scam to ReportCyber, the Australian online police reporting portal for cyber incidents. If you have received scam texts or emails, you can report these to Scamwatch, to assist with education and awareness activities.

Gary Mortimer receives and has received funding from the Building Employer Confidence and Inclusion in Disability Grant, AusIndustry Entrepreneurs’ Program, National Clothing Textiles Stewardship Scheme, National Retail Association and Australian Retailers Association.

– ref. 3.5 million Australians experienced fraud last year. This could be avoided through 6 simple steps – https://theconversation.com/3-5-million-australians-experienced-fraud-last-year-this-could-be-avoided-through-6-simple-steps-253623

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Knowles, Lecturer, Western Civilisation Program, Australian Catholic University

The New York Times Connections game asks players to categorise 16 words into four groups of four. For example, in one collection of 16, a category included “blow”, “cat”, “gold” and “sword”: these are all words that might come before “fish”.

As described by puzzle editor Wyna Liu, completing the puzzle should feel “challenging and satisfying”. Players are encouraged to “think flexibly”. Liu says her job as puzzle designer is “to trick you”.

Challenging word-based games are not a modern invention.

In fact, in early medieval England, around the year 1000, there was also a strong appetite for word puzzles designed to entertain (and trick) avid players.

Gaming in the Middle Ages

Riddles were very popular in early medieval England.

Many examples of riddles from this period are in Latin, but a collection of approximately 95 poems, written in Old English and found in a manuscript known as the Exeter Book are the earliest surviving vernacular collection of riddles in Western Europe.

Compiled around the year 1000, The Exeter Book also includes a variety of poetic works with both religious and secular themes. This, and its location since 1072 in Exeter Cathedral Library, suggests it had a religious audience of monks.

Take the shortest riddle in the Exeter collection, Riddle 69, included here in both its original Old English form and in translation, thanks to riddles scholar Megan Cavell, one of the creators of the website The Riddle Ages:

Wundor wearð on wege; wæter wearð to bane.

There was a wonder on the wave; water turned to bone.

Early English riddles ask their audience to guess what the different clues point to, usually an object or animal. In Riddle 69, the audience is asked to identify what might be referred to through the metaphor of water turning to bone.

The solution to this riddle is debated, but most suggestions have to do with ice: ice, icicle, iceberg and frozen pond.

The answer hangs on the various qualities that attach to the word bone: it is hard, difficult to break and can also be long, like an icicle.

It’s possible to imagine bone and ice linked in a Connections category “things that are tough”.

Most Old English riddles are a little more complex but still rely on the trickery that comes from word play, metaphor and ambiguity.

One of the more surprising riddles in the Exeter collection (particularly when we consider the likely monastic audience) is Riddle 45:

I heard that something was growing in the corner,
swelling and sticking up, raising its roof.
A proud bride grasped that boneless thing,
with her hands. A lord’s daughter
covered with a garment that bulging thing.

A series of clues point to possible solutions. The answer will be something that rises, that needs physical touch to grow, and which is covered by cloth.

The innocently playful solution to this riddle is dough – though it certainly puts another, more vulgar, solution in mind. This innuendo likely added to the entertainment and challenge of the original riddle, teasing its audience with a taboo answer.

The Exeter Book Riddles does not come with answers. This is both a frustration and a reason for their longevity: modern audiences continue to grapple with possible solutions 1,000 years later.

It is also possible that part of the entertainment for both medieval and modern audiences is their ambiguity. There are multiple plausible solutions.

Culture is a game changer

Part of what makes interpreting the Old English riddles so difficult for modern players is that word puzzles are shaped by the culture in which they were created.

This cultural coding is obvious in Connections puzzles too. For example on January 3 2025 a category linked American slang words for a dollar, less familiar in other countries: buck, clam, single and smacker.

Similarly, Old English riddles assume knowledge of aspects of life in early medieval England. For example, Riddle 26 requires an understanding of the processes by which an animal hide became a book.

Some even rely on knowledge of runic characters to understand their solution; this was an alphabet that was used in England prior to the adoption of the Latin alphabet from the 7th century.

Old English riddles offer an excellent insight into not just the sorts of games and puzzles that entertained early medieval audiences, and continue to entertain us today, but also into domestic life in the period.

In 1,000 years, Connections puzzles will be harder to guess because players will be unfamiliar with our current way of life. They will also be a type of relic into how minds and culture operated in the early 21st century.

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

– ref. What do medieval puzzles and the New York Times Connections have in common? – https://theconversation.com/what-do-medieval-puzzles-and-the-new-york-times-connections-have-in-common-250155

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ritesh Chugh, Associate Professor, Information and Communications Technology, CQUniversity Australia

You’re about to recycle your laptop or your phone, so you delete all your photos and personal files. Maybe you even reset the device to factory settings.

You probably think your sensitive data is now safe. But there is more to be done: hackers may still be able to retrieve passwords, documents or bank details, even after a reset.

In fact, 90% of second-hand laptops, hard drives and memory cards still contain recoverable data. This indicates that many consumers fail to wipe their devices properly before resale or disposal.

But there are some simple steps you can take to keep your personal information safe while recycling responsibly.

The data security risks

Discarded or resold electronics often retain sensitive personal and corporate information. Simply deleting files or performing a factory reset may not be sufficient. Data can often be easily recovered using specialised tools. This oversight has led to alarming incidents of data leaks and breaches.

For example, 42% of used storage devices sold on eBay still contained sensitive data, despite sellers following methods to erase data. This included passport images, school records, and corporate documents.

Another 2022 study found that improperly erased internet-connected devices stored private data, making them vulnerable to exploitation. European e-waste exported to Ghana also contained classified corporate and government files, exposing security risks beyond personal identity theft.

A major wireless provider in the United States failed to securely decommission storage devices. This lead to a data breach affecting 14 million customers.

Similarly, in 2021 improperly discarded medical hard drives exposed over 100,000 confidential patient records.

Why standard factory resets are not enough

Many people believe performing a factory reset fully erases their data. But this is not always the case.

An analysis of secondhand mobile devices found that 35% still contained recoverable data after being reset and resold. This highlights the risks of relying solely on factory resets.

On older devices or those without encryption, residual data can still be recovered using forensic tools.

iPhones use hardware encryption, making resets more effective, while Android devices vary by manufacturer.

Best practices for secure disposal

To protect your personal and organisational information, consider these measures before disposing of old devices:

Data wiping

Personal users should use data-wiping software to securely erase their hard drive before selling or recycling a device.

However, for solid-state drives, traditional wiping methods may not be effective. This is because solid-state drives store data using flash memory and algorithms, which prolong a device’s lifespan by distributing data across memory cells and can prevent direct overwriting.

Instead, enabling full-disk encryption with software such as BitLocker on Windows or FileVault on Mac before resetting the device can help to ensure data is unreadable.

On Android phones, apps such as Shreddit provide secure data-wiping options. iPhones already encrypt data by default, making a full reset the most effective way to erase information.

Businesses that handle customer data, financial records or intellectual property must comply with data protection regulations. They could use certified data-wiping tools that meet the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology’s guidelines for media sanitisation or the US Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ standard for sanitising storage. These guidelines are globally recognised.

Many companies also choose third-party data destruction services to verify compliance and enhance security.

Physical destruction

If the data is highly sensitive, physically destroying the storage medium (such as a hard drive) is the most secure option. Common methods include degaussing (using a strong magnetic field), shredding, disintegration, melting, and drilling.

However, some of these techniques can be hazardous if not handled by professionals. They also make a hard drive or device unsuitable for resale and instead require it to be taken to a waste recovery centre so the rare earth metal components can be recovered.

Certified recycling services

Use reputable e-waste recyclers who adhere to strict data destruction protocols to ensure your information does not fall into the wrong hands. Look for certifications such as R2, e-Stewards, or AS/NZS 5377, which ensure compliance with industry security standards. An online database run by sustainable electronics organisation SERI of R2-certified facilities around the world can help with this.

Safe selling and donating practices

Before selling or donating devices, conduct a thorough data wipe. Be cautious of devices linked to cloud accounts, and remove all personal information to prevent unauthorised access. Resetting alone may not be enough.

Legal and regulatory considerations for businesses

Different regions have strict data-protection laws that impose legal and financial penalties for improper disposal of sensitive data.

It’s important for businesses to consider the legal standards for handling and disposing personal information in whatever region they’re operating in, whether that be Europe, the United States, Australia or elsewhere.

Before recycling or selling an old device, take the necessary steps to ensure your data is completely erased. Identity theft, financial fraud and data breaches are real risks. But they can be prevented with the right precautions.

A few extra steps now can protect your information and ensure responsible recycling.

Ritesh Chugh 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. Selling your old laptop or phone? You might be handing over your data too – https://theconversation.com/selling-your-old-laptop-or-phone-you-might-be-handing-over-your-data-too-251613

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

Amid the chaos of the tariff crisis and the dark clouds internationally, there is a potential silver lining for Australian mortgage holders.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers on Monday pointed out that the markets were expecting several cuts in Australia’s interest rates this year, including one next month. There has been one cut so far, in February.

“Markets are now expecting around four interest rate cuts in Australia this calendar year”, Chalmers told a news conference. There was even a “more than 50% expectation in the markets that the next Reserve Bank interest rate cut in May might be as big as 50 basis points”.

While saying he didn’t predict or pre-empt Reserve Bank decisions, Chalmers nevertheless highlighted what the markets are expecting.

The next meeting of the Reserve Bank is on May 19-20, so a cut would be after the May 3 election.

Chalmers said the “whole world” was trying to get their heads around the impacts of these “bad decisions” on tariffs.

Releasing updated Treasury modelling of the impact, Chalmers said it expected big hits to American growth and to Chinese growth, as well as a spike in American inflation.

“We expect more manageable impacts on the Australian economy but we still do expect Australian GDP to take a hit, and we expect there to be an impact on prices here as well”.

Chalmers stressed the uncertainty around the modelling and about the economic impacts more generally. “Clearly, a series of decisions are still to be taken around the world when it comes to how countries may or may not retaliate to the decisions taken and announced by President Trump”.

The Treasury modelling says: “The effects on the Australian economy are expected to be modest, however, some parts of the agriculture, energy, mining and durable manufacturing sectors will be more adversely affected than others”.

“Australia’s real GDP is estimated to decline by 0.1 per cent and inflation to increase by 0.2 percentage points in 2025 relative to a baseline scenario with no tariffs. Over the medium-term Australia’s GDP is permanently lower; while the effect on inflation is temporary.

“The direct effects of the United States tariff changes (from bilateral trade) are expected to be small.

“Most of Australia’s exposure to US tariffs comes from reduced demand for Australian exports from major trading partners including China, Japan, South Korea, and India.

“The indirect effects of US tariffs on Chinese demand accounts for almost 80 per cent of the total impact on Australian GDP.”

Government to promise $1 billion for mental health, with emphasis on youth

Returning to Labor’s core issue of health, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Tuesday will promise $1 billion for free mental health services that would fill gaps in the system.

This includes

• $225 million for 31 new and upgraded Medicare Mental Health Centres

• More than $200 million for 58 new, upgraded or expanded headspace services

• $500 million for 20 Youth Specialist Care Centres for young people with complex needs, and

• $90 million for more than 1,200 training places for mental health professionals and peer workers.

The government says the new network of Youth Specialist Care Centres would ensure young people in “the missing middle” received needed specialist help. It would mean those with complex mental health needs such as personality disorders, eating disorders and early psychosis would be able to ongoing and intensive care outside hospital.

Dog day for Dutton

Saying you got it wrong is never harder than in an election campaign. Peter Dutton bowed to the inevitable in dropping his plan to force Canberra public servants back into the office, but fronting the media for the mea culpa on Monday was painful.

“I have apologised for the decision we took in relation to work from home,” he said. He added, with false optimism, “Labor’s run this scare campaign and I think we bring an end to that today.”

It wasn’t the only pain of the day for the opposition leader, who needs – to borrow his own election slogan – to get his campaign “back on track”. The message from Newspoll, the poll many Liberals take most notice of, was bad. Labor had extended its lead in a week, from 51%-49% in two-party terms to 52%-48%. This is close to the result of the 2022 election, and can only alarm the Liberal campaigners.

Some Liberals, disappointed with the Coalition campaign so far, are recalling John Howard’s mantra: you can’t fatten the pig on market day. “There’s not much evidence the work has been done,” one says.

As of late Monday, Dutton had still not produced the modelling for his controversial gas reservation scheme, which has made it more difficult for candidates to explain the policy to voters.

On another front, the Liberals have also failed to do their work properly in vetting candidates. They’ve had to disendorse their candidate for the Sydney Labor seat of Whitlam, Ben Britton.

Previously Britton had said women should be removed from combat positions in the defence force. “Their hips are being destroyed because they can’t cope with the carrying of the heavy loads and the heavy impacts that’s required for doing combat-related jobs,” he said, among other comments attacking “diversity and equity quotas” for weakening Australia’s defence.

In previous elections, parties have had to remove candidates after previous embarrassing comments have turned up. Surely the Liberals would have learned to be scrupulous in vetting. But in the New South Wales Liberal organisation, it seems to take a long time for the messages to get through.

.

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

– ref. Election Diary: Jim Chalmers highlights expectations of May interest rate cut – after the election – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-jim-chalmers-highlights-expectations-of-may-interest-rate-cut-after-the-election-253733

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chen Zhao, ARC DECRA Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania

One of the biggest challenges in predicting Antarctica’s deeply uncertain future is understanding exactly what’s driving its ice loss.

A vast network of lakes and streams lies beneath the thick ice sheet. This water can lubricate the ice, allowing it to slide more rapidly toward the ocean.

Our new research shows “subglacial water” plays a far larger role in Antarctic ice loss than previously thought. If it’s not properly accounted for, future sea-level rise may be vastly underestimated.

Including the effects of evolving subglacial water in ice sheet models can triple the amount of ice flowing to the ocean. This adds more than two metres to global sea levels by 2300, with potentially enormous consequences for coastal communities worldwide.

Understanding the role of subglacial water

Subglacial water forms when the base of the ice sheet melts. This occurs either due to friction from the movement of the ice, or geothermal heat from the bedrock below.

The presence of subglacial water enables ice to slide over the bedrock more easily. It can also cause further melting under ice shelves, leading to even faster ice loss.

So it’s crucial to understand how much subglacial water is generated and where it goes, as well as its effect on ice flow and further melting.

But subglacial water is largely invisible. Being hidden underneath an ice sheet more than two kilometres deep makes it incredibly difficult to observe.

Scientists can drill boreholes through hundreds to thousands of metres of ice to get to it. But that’s an expensive and logistically challenging process.

Alternatively, they can use ice-penetrating radar to “see” through the ice. Another technique called laser altimetry examines changes in the height of the ice at the surface. Bulges might appear when lakes under the ice sheet fill, or disappear when they empty.

More than 140 active subglacial lakes have been identified beneath Antarctica over the past two decades. These discoveries provide valuable insights. But vast regions — especially in East Antarctica — remain unexplored. Little is known about the connections between these lakes.

What we did and what we found

We used computer simulations to predict the influence of subglacial water on ice sheet behaviour.

We used two computer models:

• an advanced ice sheet model that simulates how the ice sheet flows and responds to climate.
• a specialised hydrology model that predicts subglacial water production and flow.

Then we explored how different assumptions about subglacial water pressure affect ice sheet dynamics. Specifically, we compared scenarios where water pressure was allowed to change over time against scenarios where it remained constant.

When the effects of changing subglacial water pressure were included in the model, the amount of ice flowing into the ocean under future climate nearly tripled.

These findings suggest many existing sea-level rise projections may be too low, because they do not fully account for the dynamic influence of subglacial water.

Our research highlights the urgent need to incorporate subglacial water dynamics into these models. Otherwise we risk significantly underestimating the rate and magnitude of future sea-level rise.

In the video below, the moving dark lines show where grounded ice begins to float. The left panel is a scenario where subglacial water is not included in the ice sheet model and the right panel is a scenario that includes the effects of evolving subglacial water.

A looming threat

Failing to account for subglacial water means global sea-level rise projections are underestimated by up to two metres by 2300.

A two-metre rise would put many coastal cities in extreme danger and potentially displace millions of people. The economic damage could reach trillions of dollars, damaging vital infrastructure and reshaping coastlines worldwide.

It also means the timing of future tipping points are underestimated too. This is the point at which the ice sheet mass loss becomes much more rapid and likely irreversible. In our study, most regions cross this threshold much earlier, some as soon as 2050. This is deeply concerning.

The way forward

Understanding Antarctica’s hidden water system is challenging. The potential for rapid, catastrophic and irreversible ice loss remains.

More observations are needed to improve our models, particularly from remote regions such as East Antarctica. Continuing to gather information from boreholes, ice-penetrating radar and satellites will help us better understand how the underside of the ice sheet behaves. These techniques can then be combined with computer simulations to enable more accurate projections of future ice loss and sea-level rise.

Our new research shows integrating subglacial water dynamics into ice sheet models is a top priority. Understanding this hidden threat is crucial as the world grapples with the consequences of global warming especially rising seas.

Chen Zhao is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award. Dr Zhao is affiliated with Australian Antarctic Program Partnership (AAPP), at the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), University of Tasmania, supported under the Antarctic Science Collaboration Initiative program.

Ben Galton-Fenzi is also affiliated with Australian Antarctic Program Partnership (AAPP), at the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), supported under the Antarctic Science Collaboration Initiative program, and the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, supported under the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative, both based at the University of Tasmania.

– ref. Antarctica’s hidden threat: meltwater under the ice sheet amplifies sea-level rise – https://theconversation.com/antarcticas-hidden-threat-meltwater-under-the-ice-sheet-amplifies-sea-level-rise-250780

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Griffin, Professor, Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, The University of Queensland

Australians are being urged to roll up their sleeves for a flu vaccine amid rising cases of influenza.

It’s an opportune time to think about other vaccines too, particularly because some vaccines can be given at the same time as the flu vaccine.

One is the COVID vaccine.

Should you get another COVID shot?

More than five years since COVID was declared a pandemic, we hear much less about this virus. But it’s still around.

In 2024 there were 4,953 deaths involving COVID. This is nearly 20% lower than in 2023, but still nearly five times that of influenza (1,002).

Vaccines, which do a very good job at reducing the chances of severe COVID, remain an important tool in our ongoing battle against the virus.

Case numbers don’t tell us as much about COVID anymore as fewer people are testing. But based on other ways we monitor the virus, such as cases in ICU and active outbreaks in residential aged care homes, there have essentially been two peaks a year over recent years – one over summer and one over winter.

This doesn’t mean we can predict exactly when another wave will happen, but it’s inevitable and may well be within the next few months. So it’s worth considering another COVID vaccine if you’re eligible.

Who can get one, and when?

There are several risk factors for more severe COVID, but some of the most important include being older or immunocompromised. For this reason, people aged 75 and older are recommended to receive a COVID booster every six months.

In the slightly younger 65 to 74 age bracket, or adults aged 18 to 64 who are immunocompromised, booster doses are recommended every 12 months, but people are eligible every six months.

Healthy adults under 65 are eligible for a booster dose every 12 months.

Healthy children aren’t recommended to receive boosters but those who are severely immunocompromised may be eligible.

What COVID shots are currently available?

We’ve seen multiple types of COVID vaccines since they first became available about four years ago. Over time, different vaccines have targeted different variants as the virus has evolved.

While some vaccine providers may still offer other options, such as the older booster that targeted the Omicron variant XBB.1.5, the recent JN.1 booster is the most up-to-date and best option.

This is a relatively recently updated version to improve protection against some of the newer strains of COVID that are circulating. The new booster only became available in Australia in late 2024.

This booster, as the name suggests, targets a subvariant called JN.1. Although JN.1 has not been the dominant subvariant in Australia for some time, this shot is still expected to provide good protection against circulating subvariants, including new subvariants such as LP.8.1, which is descended from JN.1.

While it’s great we have an updated booster available, unfortunately uptake remains poor. Only 17.3% of people 75 and over had received a COVID vaccine in the six months to March.

Getting a flu and COVID shot together

Data from more than 17,000 people who completed a survey after receiving the JN.1 booster shows that while 27% reported at least one adverse event following vaccination, the majority of these were mild, such as local pain or redness or fatigue.

Only 4% of people reported an impact on their routine activities following vaccination, such as missing school or work.

If you choose to get the flu vaccine and the COVID vaccine at the same time, they’ll usually be given in different arms. There shouldn’t be a significant increase in side effects. What’s more, getting both shots at the same time doesn’t reduce your immune response against either vaccine.

Now is the ideal time to get your flu vaccine. If you’re eligible for a COVID booster as well, getting both vaccines at the same time is safe and can be very convenient.

We’re conducting trials in Australia, as are scientists elsewhere, of combined vaccines. One day these could allow vaccination against COVID and flu in a single shot – but these are still a way off.

If you’re not sure about your eligibility or have any questions about either vaccine, discuss this with your GP, specialist of pharmacist. Australian state and federal government websites also provide reliable information.

Paul Griffin has been the principal investigator on many vaccine clinical trials and received speaker honoraria and been a member of medical advisory boards for vaccine manufacturers. He is also a scientific advisory board member and director of the immunisation coalition.

– ref. Do I need another COVID booster? Which one should I choose? Can I get it with my flu shot? – https://theconversation.com/do-i-need-another-covid-booster-which-one-should-i-choose-can-i-get-it-with-my-flu-shot-252914