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

In the government’s latest initiative on energy prices, Anthony Albanese on Sunday will promise that if re-elected, Labor will reduce the cost of installing a typical home solar battery by 30% from July 1.

This would cut about $4,000 from the upfront cost of an 11.5 kWh battery, which is the typical household size.

Small businesses and community facilities would be eligible for the discount, as well as households.

The government says the discount would save a household with existing rooftop solar panels up to $1,100 off their power bill every year. For those with new solar panels and battery, the saving would be up to $2,300 annually – up to 90% of a typical power bill.

More than one million installations would be expected by 2030 under the measure. The initiative would cost an estimated $2.3 billion over the forward estimates, including in the 2025-26 budget.

The discount would be applied on installing virtual power plant-ready battery systems beside new or existing rooftop solar until 2030. The absolute value of the discount would decline over the five years in line with the expected fall in the cost of batteries.

Albanese said the measure was “good for power bills and good for the environment”.

Labor’s number one priority is delivering cost-of-living relief. That’s why we want to make sure Australians have access to cheaper, cleaner energy.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen said:

The contrast is clear – a re-elected Albanese government will take pressure off household energy bills, while Peter Dutton’s Liberals will spend $600 billion on a nuclear plan that drives power bills up.

Mixing politics and sport can be risky on campaign trail

For the second election campaign in a row, a Liberal leader has claimed a victim on the football field.

At least, some relieved Liberals might be saying, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton felled a member of the media, not a child.

Dutton, campaigning in Darwin on Saturday with a few million dollars in hand to promise for the local footy ground, was happy to have a kick with kids for the cameras.

But the ball hit a TV camera, which went into the face of Channel Ten cameraman Ghaith Nadir. A federal policeman helped with a bandage for Nadir’s forehead. Dutton promised a compensatory beer.

In the 2022 campaign, Prime Minister Scott Morrison joined some youngsters in their junior soccer training.

Becoming rather too competitive, Morrison crashed into a boy, and they both ended on the ground. It made for plenty of jokes about the man who’d admitted in the campaign that “I can be a bit of a bulldozer”. The clip was replayed again and again.

After Saturday’s incident, Dutton quipped, “If the prime minister kicked it, he would have told you that it didn’t hit anyone”.

Last week, Albanese stepped back off a stage, appearing to fall, during an event. He later insisted he hadn’t fallen. “I stepped back onto a step, I didn’t fall off the stage,” he said. “Just one leg went down, and I was sweet.”

Way back in 1984, there was another unfortunate incident on the sporting field during a campaign. That time, the perpetrator was a journalist and the victim was Prime Minister Bob Hawke.

Hawke had called an election a few days before playing in a cricket match against the parliamentary press gallery. A ball from Gary O’Neill, a journalist with the Melbourne Herald, caught the edge of Hawke’s bat and smashed into his glasses.

Hawke went to the Canberra Hospital, where (after he jumped the queue) a patch was put on his eye. He returned to the match, watching from the sidelines.

At least he scored 27 before the incident. However, the accident set him back for the early days of what was an eight-week campaign.

Over the years there are plenty of examples of leaders losing their (physical) footing.

A few months before the 2007 election, Prime Minister John Howard tripped and fell on his hands on the way to a radio interview in Perth.

Visiting India in 2012, Prime Minister Julia Gillard tumbled when her shoe got stuck in grass. She explained:

For men who get to wear flat shoes all day every day, if you wear a heel it can get embedded in soft grass and when you pull your foot out the shoe doesn’t come.

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: Albanese promises 30% discount on solar batteries, in latest energy bill help – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-albanese-promises-30-discount-on-solar-batteries-in-latest-energy-bill-help-253736

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University

The United States and Iran are once again on a collision course over the Iranian nuclear program.

In a letter dated early March, US President Donald Trump urged Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to negotiate a new deal. The new deal would replace the defunct nuclear agreement negotiated in 2015 between the United States, Iran and five other global powers.

Trump withdrew from that agreement, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), during his first term.

Trump gave the Iranians a two-month deadline to reach a new nuclear deal. If they don’t, the US will bomb the country. In recent days, American B-2 bombers and warships have been deployed to the region in a show of force.

In response, Tehran has agreed only to indirect negotiations. It has ruled out any direct talks while under a US policy of “maximum pressure”.

Down to the ‘final moments’

The danger of US or combined American-Israeli military actions against Iran has never been greater.

Trump says the US is down to the “final moments” should Tehran persist with moving towards a military nuclear capability.

His national security advisor, Mike Waltz, has gone further, demanding Iran shut down its entire nuclear program.

Khamenei and his generals have promised a “harsh response” to any military venture. Iran has vowed to target all American bases in the region.

France, one of key negotiators in the 2015 deal, said this week a failure to secure a new deal would make a military confrontation “almost inevitable”.

In a positive sign, however, Washington is reportedly “seriously considering” Iran’s offer for indirect negotiations. And Trump is now suggesting Iran may actually be open to direct talks.

On the threshold of a nuclear bomb

It would be a folly to expect a quick result that could satisfy an impatient Trump. This is especially true given Trump is under intense pressure from his close friend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu has long advocated for military action as the best way to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and eliminate its other military capabilities, as well as its regional influence.

The Iranian Islamic regime has repeatedly said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. However, the US and its allies – in particular Israel – have remained highly sceptical of Tehran’s intentions.

Following Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, Tehran has substantially expanded its nuclear program, to the chagrin of the other signatories to the deal (Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China).

It has installed more advanced centrifuges and accelerated uranium enrichment to 60%, just below weapons-grade level. The country is now at a nuclear weapon threshold. It is believed to be capable of assembling an atomic bomb within months, if not weeks.

Israel’s devastating military operations against Iran’s allies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, as well as direct exchanges with Iran, have prompted some in the Iranian leadership to advocate for crossing that threshold.

As I document in my book, Khamenei also remains highly distrustful of Trump and the US political class in general.

Khamenei initially dismissed Trump’s letter last month as a “deception” from the leader of a country he has long considered an “arrogant power” that wants to dictate to Iran, rather than negotiate with it.

One of his senior advisers, former Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, berated Washington for engaging in “psychological warfare”.

And the current foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said direct negotiations would be futile unless Washington changed its policy of maximum pressure against Iran. This would involve removing sanctions against his country.

What the two sides want

Despite this historic distrust of the US, Tehran has found it expedient to offer indirect talks for a possible deal. However, the two sides remain far apart in their respective demands.

Washington, at the very least, would want Tehran to indefinitely limit its uranium enrichment to 3.7% – the level it had agreed to in the 2015 deal. Washington would also demand close oversight by the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Tehran’s minimum demands would include the US unfreezing Iranian assets, lifting all sanctions against Iran and guaranteeing a nuclear deal will not be rescinded by future American administrations.

Neither side could meet these demands, however, without first engaging in substantive confidence-building measures. Since Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, the onus is on him to jump-start the process. He could do this by:

• unfreezing Iranian assets in the United States
• lifting some sanctions to enable Iran to purchase non-lethal items from the West, including new civilian aircraft from Boeing and Airbus which were voided following the JCPOA’s dismantling
• withdrawing the threat of a US, Israeli or combined military action.

Given the depth of the long-standing enmity and distrust between the parties, the chances of reaching a new nuclear deal seem further away than the drums of war.

However, given Trump’s unpredictability and the serious domestic and foreign policy challenges facing the Iranian regime, a deal also cannot not be completely ruled out.

Amin Saikal 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. With US bombers at the ready, can Trump cut a deal with Iran and avoid a war? – https://theconversation.com/with-us-bombers-at-the-ready-can-trump-cut-a-deal-with-iran-and-avoid-a-war-253828

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Bradshaw, Professor of Marketing, Royal Holloway University of London

As politicians around the world scramble to respond to US “liberation day” tariffs, consumers have also begun flexing their muscles. “Boycott USA” messages and searches have been trending on social media and search engines, with users sharing advice on brands and products to avoid.

Even before Donald Trump announced across-the-board tariffs, there had been protests and attacks on the president’s golf courses in Doonbeg in Ireland and Turnberry in Scotland in response to other policies. And in Canada, shoppers avoided US goods after Trump announced he could take over his northern neighbour.

His close ally Elon Musk has seen protests at Tesla showrooms across Europe, Australia and New Zealand. New cars have been set on fire as part of the “Tesla take-down”, while Tesla sales have been on a deep downward trend. This has been especially noticeable in European countries where electric vehicles sales have been high, and in Australia.

This targeting of Trump and Musk’s brands are part of wider boycotts of US goods as consumers look for ways to express their anger at the US administration.

Denmark’s biggest retailer, Salling Group, has given the price label of all European products a black star, making it easy for customers to avoid US goods.

Canadian shoppers are turning US products upside down in retail outlets so it’s easier for fellow shoppers to spot and avoid them. Canadian consumers can also download the Maple Scan app that checks barcodes to see if their grocery purchases are actually Canadian or have parent companies from the USA.

Who owns what?

The issue of ostensibly Canadian brands being owned by US capital illustrates the complexity of consumer boycotts – it can be difficult to identify which brands are American and which are not.

In the UK, for example, many consumers would be surprised to learn how many famous British brands are actually American-owned – for example, Cadbury, Waterstones and Boots. So entwined are global economies that attempts by consumers to boycott US brands may also damage their local economies.

This complexity is also present in Danish and Canadian Facebook groups that are dedicated to boycotting US goods. Consumers exchange tips on how to swap alternatives for American products.

The fact that Facebook is a US-based company only demonstrates how deeply embedded consumer culture is in US technologies. European businesses often depend on American operating systems and cloud storage while consumers rely on US-owned social media platforms for communication.

Even when consumers succeed in weeding out American products, if they pay using Visa, Mastercard or Apple Pay, a percentage of the price will nonetheless be rerouted to the US. If a touch payment is made with Worldpay, the percentage could be even greater.

These American financial services show just how embedded US businesses are in retail in ways that consumers may not appreciate. In practice, an absolute boycott of US business is almost unimaginable.

All-American brands

But American branding is not always subtle. In addition to brands directly connected to the US administration – such as the Trump golf courses and Tesla – many other companies have always been flamboyantly American. Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Budweiser are just some examples where their American identities and proudly on show.

As such, it’s possible that consumers will increasingly avoid blatantly American brands. They may be less concerned about the complexities and contradictions of a more comprehensive boycott.

Consumer actions where the goal is political change are known as “proxy boycotts” because no particular company is the ultimate target. Rather, the brands and firms are targeted by consumers as a means to an end.

Do boycotts work?

A classic example of a proxy boycott took aim at French goods, particularly wine, in the mid-1990s. This was in response to president Jacques Chirac’s decision to conduct nuclear tests in the Pacific. The large-scale consumer boycotts contributed to France’s decision to abandon its nuclear tests in 1996.

In Britain, for example, French wines in all categories lost market share as demand fell during the boycott. At the time, it cost the French wine sector £23 million (about £46 million today).

These boycotts are a reminder that the interplay between corporations, brands and consumer culture are inevitably embedded in politics. The current political impasse demonstrates that consumers can participate in politics, not just with their votes, but also with their buying power.

Trump clearly wants to demonstrate American strength. The “liberation day” tariffs, which were higher than most observers expected, bear this out. But many US corporations will now be worrying about how consumers in the US and around the world might respond. Trump could see a mass mobilisation of consumer power in ways that will give the president something to think about.

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

– ref. Consumers are boycotting US goods around the world. Should Trump be worried? – https://theconversation.com/consumers-are-boycotting-us-goods-around-the-world-should-trump-be-worried-253389

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

Anthony Albanese has announced that the government will ensure the Port of Darwin, currently leased by the Chinese company Landbridge, is returned to Australian hands.

“Australia needs to own the Port of Darwin,” the prime minister declared late Friday.

Albanese rang a Darwin radio station after Labor got wind of the fact that Opposition Leader Peter Dutton would on Saturday announce a Coalition government would return the port back to local control.

Both the government and opposition are promising that, if necessary, they would bring the port’s lease into public ownership.

Albanese said the government had been seeking a local buyer, but was prepared to acquire the port’s lease if that was the only solution.

“We prefer that it be through superannuation funds or some other vehicle that doesn’t mean direct taxpayer’s funds, but we’re prepared to go down the road of taxpayer direct involvement, as well.”

Asked to clarify whether the options were that the port remain privately owned or that it be returned to be a government asset, Albanese said, “yes, they are.”

The Northern Territory government leased the port to Landbridge in 2015 for about $500 million. The lease was for 99 years.

The federal government at the time was not directly involved in the deal, but the Northern Territory government sought advice from the Defence Department and security agencies, which didn’t raise objections. Later, US President Barack Obama chided then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull for not giving the Americans a heads-up.

The Chinese deal has caused serious controversy in the years since.

When Dutton was defence minister in the Morrison government, his department did a review of the lease.

A statement on Friday from Dutton and shadow ministers said a Coalition government would seek a private operator to take over the lease, but if one could not be found within six months, the government would acquire it “as a last resort”.

It would use the Commonwealth’s “compulsory acquisition powers”, and the government would then compensate the Landbridge Group.

“In the current geopolitical environment, it is vital that this piece of critical infrastructure, which is directly opposite to the Larrakeyah Defence Precinct, is operated by a trusted, Commonwealth approved entity.

“We will appoint a specialist commercial adviser to work with the Northern Territory Government and officials from the Departments of Treasury, Finance, Defence and Infrastructure to provide advice and engage with potential new operators of the port.”

Dutton said that a Coalition government would not allow the port to be leased by any entity that is “directly or indirectly controlled by a foreign government, including any state-owned enterprise or sovereign wealth fund.”

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. Albanese and Dutton both say they will return the Port of Darwin to Australian hands – https://theconversation.com/albanese-and-dutton-both-say-they-will-return-the-port-of-darwin-to-australian-hands-253735

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Jean Monnet Chair of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

On April 2, United States President Donald Trump unveiled a sweeping new “reciprocal tariff” regime he says will level the playing field in global trade – by treating other countries the way (he claims) they treat the US.

First, Trump’s plan will impose a “baseline” 10% tariff on virtually all goods imported into the US, effective April 5. Then, from April 9, 57 countries will face higher “reciprocal tariffs”.

These vary by country, according to a formula based on individual trade deficits.

On face value, the new tariff regime might sound like a simple solution for fairness. If a particular country was taxing American imports with a 50% tariff, it might seem fair for the US to tax their imports at 50% as well.

But appearances are deceiving.

These new “reciprocal” tariffs ostensibly aim to eliminate the US trade deficit by making imports more expensive so that Americans buy less from abroad until imports equal exports.

But the Trump administration hasn’t directly matched specific foreign tariffs. Instead, they’ve opted for a crude formula based on bilateral trade deficits between the US and each specific country. Those aren’t the same things.

Read more:
New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with the US hit hardest

Trade deficits aren’t tariffs

A country has a trade deficit when the total value of everything it imports from somewhere else exceeds the value of what it exports there. A trade surplus is the opposite.

Trade deficits and surpluses – the balance of trade – can be calculated between specific countries, but also between one country and the rest of the world.

Tariffs are different things altogether – taxes a country charges on imports when they cross the border, paid by the importer.

Read more:
What are tariffs?

Trump’s new reciprocal tariffs have been calculated by taking the US trade deficit with each country, dividing it by total US imports from that country, then halving the resulting ratio and converting it into a percentage.

For example, in 2024, the US imported approximately US$605.8 billion from the European Union, but exported only $370.2 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of $235.6 billion.

Dividing the deficit by total imports from the EU gives a ratio of 39%. The White House interpreted this figure as the EU’s trade “advantage” and subsequently imposed a “discounted” 20% tariff on EU products – roughly half of 39%.

This same calculation led to a 34% tariff on China, 26% on India, 24% on Japan and 25% on South Korea. More export-dependent developing countries, including many in Southeast Asia, face some eye-wateringly high reciprocal tariffs.

Trade experts swiftly criticised the methodology behind the tariffs. James Surowiecki, a financial journalist, labelled it “extraordinary nonsense”.

While the use of economic formulas in the corresponding US Trade Representative document might give it an appearance of being grounded in economic theory, it is detached from the rigours of trade economics.

The formula assumes every trade deficit is a result of other countries’ unfair trade practices, but that is simply not the case. To see why, we need to understand why Trump’s obsession with trade deficits is wrong.

A government isn’t a household

Why does Trump detest trade deficits? He appears to think of the national balance of trade like a business or household’s finances.

Under Trump’s logic, if more money is leaving the “account” than coming in, that’s bad business. A $200 million trade deficit would mean the US is “losing” – with money and jobs being siphoned away.

Trump argues other countries have been taking advantage of America by running up big trade surpluses and “hollowing out” US industry. He has long argued that America’s massive deficits indicate unfair trade deals, foreign protectionism, and even a threat to national security.

Few economists share Trump’s view

The trade gap is not money simply being drained overseas by allegedly rapacious foreigners. Rather, it represents the exchange of value.

American consumer behaviour is a significant driver of the US trade deficit. As a consumption powerhouse, the United States sees its residents and businesses spending vast sums on imported products ranging from iPhones and TVs to clothing and toys.

Many of these are actually produced by US companies but made overseas. Moreover, those US companies licence foreign factories to produce these goods, and the intellectual property revenues earned make up a huge US surplus in services trade.

But services trade does not feature in the formula. This shows the singular obsession with tangible things, or goods trade. Yet in most supply chains it is the services components that yield the most value.

Back on the goods side, when the US economy is robust and people have disposable income, imports naturally increase. Ultimately, while trade deficits indicate economic dynamics, they are not inherently negative nor do they signify economic weakness.

Rather, they often reflect a nation’s economic structure and consumer preference for diverse global products. After all, Australia has run trade deficits for decades, including with the US, and is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

The real reason for the deficit

The formula used to calculate the reciprocal tariffs is highly misleading. Responsible policy makers would take account of many other factors in their calculations.

Among other variables, the US Trade Representative formula fails to consider strong US consumer demand for imports. It also overlooks the US government’s gigantic fiscal deficit. This requires it to borrow money from overseas, pushing up the value of the US dollar. This strong dollar supports US purchases of imports.

In other words, the US runs large trade deficits not primarily because other nations have high trade barriers but largely because Americans need to fund their debts and want to buy lots of imported goods. The misleading formula places the blame entirely on an ill-conceived notion, and we are all going to pay the price.

Peter Draper receives funding from the European External Action Service and Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, for project-specific work connected to trade policies. He is affiliated with the Australian Services Roundtable (Board Member); the International Chamber of Commerce (Research Foundation Director); European Centre for International Political Economy (non-resident Fellow); German Institute for Development and Sustainability (non-resident Research Fellow); and Friends of Multilateralism Group (member).

Vutha Hing receives funding from Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia. He is affiliated with Trade Policy Advisory Board, Royal Government of Cambodia.

– ref. No, that’s not what a trade deficit means – and that’s not how you calculate other nations’ tariffs – https://theconversation.com/no-thats-not-what-a-trade-deficit-means-and-thats-not-how-you-calculate-other-nations-tariffs-253830

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

Several of Australia’s biggest superannuation funds have suffered a suspected coordinated cyberattack, with scammers stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars of members’ retirement savings.

Superannuation funds including Rest, HostPlus, Insignia, Australian Retirement and AustralianSuper have all reportedly been targeted. However, so far AustralianSuper appears to be the worst affected.

It is Australia’s largest superannuation fund. It has roughly 3.5 million members and manages more than $365 billion in retirement savings. In this cyberattack, a handful of its members have lost about A$500,000 in combined savings.

AustralianSuper is reportedly assisting authorities recover the money. It has not yet confirmed if any remediation will occur.

It’s not yet clear whether the affected accounts had mandatory multi-factor authentication for login or money transfers. But this is a crucial measure to reduce the risk of a similar cyberattack happening in the future.

Strategic timing, stolen passwords

Details of the cyberattack are still sparse. But we do know that it began in the early hours of last weekend. This timing was likely strategic: account holders wouldn’t have noticed anything suspicious as they would have most likely been sleeping.

Cyber criminals are believed to have obtained stolen passwords – either from the dark web or other hacked websites. They then used these passwords to try to access people’s superannuation accounts.

In a statement, AustralianSuper’s Chief Member Officer Rose Kerlin said scammers had accessed up to 600 customer passwords to log into accounts.

So far only four accounts have actually been breached. In those cases, the scammers changed login details and transferred out lump sums of money.

Although members of other superannuation funds do not seem to have lost any money, their personal information may have been compromised.

Different to other attacks

There have been cases in the past of people being scammed out of their retirement savings.

For example, in 2020, Australian man Lee Braz lost all of his retirement savings, worth $180,000, to scammers. The scammers used fraudulent documents to trick his fund, Intrust Super (now owned by HostPlus), into authorising the transfer.

After a four-year legal battle with the fund, Braz retrieved one-third of the money he had lost. However, this amount didn’t cover his legal fees.

But this recent scam seems very different in nature. It didn’t involve scammers using any fraudulent documents or elaborate trickery. Instead, the perpetrators appear to have pulled it off simply by using stolen passwords to access accounts.

Tighter security is crucial

Australian Taxation Office data indicates the average super balance for men is roughly A$180,000, while for women it is roughly A$146,000.

To ensure all of this money is properly protected, financial organisations should implement mandatory multi-factor authentication for user accounts. This would require people to prove who they are with something in addition to a password.

This could include, for example, using a one-time code or an authenticator app on their smartphone. This makes it much harder for criminals who obtain user passwords to take over their accounts.

Other financial organisations, including banks and some superannuation funds, already use multi-factor authentication. But it’s especially important for all superannuation funds to implement it, given many people don’t check their retirement savings for months at a time and are less likely to notice straight away if they’ve been hacked.

In the wake of this cyberattack, the Association of Superannuations Funds of Australia says it is working to improve security across the industry, but it is unclear exactly what this will involve.

Consumers also need to do their part by making sure they do not reuse passwords between websites. This is especially important for passwords used to protect accounts on financial organisations such as their super fund or online banking.

Using a password manager is a great way to make it easy to have unique passwords for each website you visit.

Finally, customers should be on the lookout for potential scams that may target them in the coming days. Scammers have been known to exploit fear and confusion in the wake of data breaches to try to lure victims into giving away personal information or money.

Anyone receiving messages purporting to be from their super fund and who wants to respond to them should call up their super provider directly, using a phone number from their website. Avoid clicking links or phoning numbers listed in messages that purport to be from your super fund.

Anyone receiving messages they suspect are scams can report them to Scamwatch.

Toby Murray receives funding from the Department of Defence and Google. He is Director of the Defence Science Institute, wich receives funding from the Commonwealth and State governments.

– ref. Hackers have hit major super funds. A cyber expert explains how to stop it happening again – https://theconversation.com/hackers-have-hit-major-super-funds-a-cyber-expert-explains-how-to-stop-it-happening-again-253835

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Trembath, Professor of Speech Pathology, Griffith University

If your child is struggling with certain everyday activities – such as playing with other kids, getting dressed or paying attention – you might want to get them assessed to see if they need additional support.

Currently, the way a child is assessed is often fragmented and time-consuming for families. If there’s a concern, you might be talking to your child’s school, have a referral to see a speech pathologist and be on a wait-list to see a psychiatrist.

We’ve developed a framework – in collaboration with 23 other community and professional organisations – to help make this approach more consistent for all Australian children aged 0–12 years.

The framework focuses on a child’s functional strengths (what they can do day-to-day) as well as their challenges and aspirations, to work out what support they might need.

This is useful for all children and it means support can start sooner, whether or not a child has a diagnosis now or might have one in the future.

Working out what support is needed

All children have support needs. But when these needs go beyond what might be expected for their age, or that the people around them can manage, they may need additional help.

Take communication, for example.

Parents use strategies to help their children learn to talk, such as by encouraging them and showing them how to do it.

But for about 3.2% of children, communication difficulties substantially impact their ability to participate in everyday activities. An older child who is struggling to talk will find it harder to play and make friends with other children at childcare.

Understanding each child’s need as well as their day-to-day functioning is the first step to getting appropriate support.

However, there are two main problems with how assessments are currently done.

A fragmented and inconsistent picture

The first problem is inconsistency. Doctors, teachers, childcare workers and allied health practitioners (such as physiotherapists or psychologists) all work hard to understand each child’s strengths and needs. But they tend to do assessments differently.

This is not surprising – they are focusing on different things.

But this means information can be sometimes duplicated or missed, making it harder to join the dots.

For example, let’s say a child with intellectual disability and minimal spoken language is avoiding eating most foods.

A psychologist may look at the child’s behaviour, a speech pathologist at their swallowing, and a doctor at their nutrition. But unless they work together, it may take longer to understand the underlying issue – in this case, that the child has strong sensory sensitivities.

Without a consistent approach, it is difficult to form a holistic picture of a child’s strengths and support needs across settings, let alone come up with a good plan for support.

Focusing on diagnosis, not function

The second problem is assessment often focuses too much on diagnosis and not enough on support.

Yet even children with the same diagnosis can have significantly different needs.

For example, among three autistic children, one may need 24-hour supervision and support to be safe.

The second may face challenges with a specific activity such as communicating at school, and benefit from targeted support from a speech pathologist.

The third child may not need any additional support at this point in time, beyond what is provided for all children.

Support needs also differ based on a range of personal and environmental factors, such as other health conditions, the quality of supports already in place (such as ramps for a wheelchair), or assistive technology (including mobility and communication aids).

What does the new framework recommend?

The framework focuses on what children can actually do and what they need help with, rather than a diagnosis.

It encourages each professional doing an assessment – whether an educator or health professional – to consider the child’s existing context, including what supports they already have, their strengths and challenges. And it should consider their aspirations (what is most important to them and their hopes for the future).

The framework recognises a child’s strengths and needs can change as they grow, and recommends follow-up assessments when there is a change, rather than following a set schedule.

We developed this framework by reviewing the evidence, looking at how assessments work in other countries, consulting widely with the disability community and yarning with Aboriginal parents and health professionals.

It outlines an approach that can be used consistently whenever a child is assessed across health, education, disability and community services.

What needs to happen next?

The framework is already available and is beginning to be used in practice.

But to make the approach consistent, we need to also provide training for professionals who assess children’s strengths and needs, and a tool to gather and share the information consistently across different settings.

We’re currently working on these. They will be ready by the end of the year, along with recommendations to government for supporting their roll-out across health, education, disability and community services.

If you’re a parent, you don’t need to wait for a diagnosis to start seeking support for your child. You can talk to a professional you trust, such as your family doctor or child’s teacher about your concerns.

David Trembath receives funding from the Autism Cooperative Research Centre (Autism CRC), the Commonwealth Government, and the Stan Perron Charitable Foundation. The research featured in this article was commissioned by the Autism Cooperative Research Centre with support from a federal government Department of Social Services Information, Linkages, and Capacity-Building grant.

Rachelle Wicks receives funding from the Autism Cooperative Research Centre, the Commonwealth Government, and the Stan Perron Charitable Foundation. She also receives a small quarterly honorarium as Chair of the Autism Queensland Advisory Committee.

– ref. If a child has extra needs, support can be hard to find. This new approach can help make it easier and quicker – https://theconversation.com/if-a-child-has-extra-needs-support-can-be-hard-to-find-this-new-approach-can-help-make-it-easier-and-quicker-253339

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meltem Weger, Research Fellow, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland

As summer fades into autumn, most Australian states and territories will set their clocks back an hour as daylight saving time ends and standard time resumes.

About one-third of the world also adjust their clocks seasonally, moving forward in spring and back in autumn (remember: spring forward; fall back).

In spring, losing an hour of sleep can leave us feeling tired, groggy and out-of-sync, making it hard to shake off that lingering sleepiness in the following days.

Although getting an extra hour of sleep in autumn might sound great, it’s not entirely positive either, as biannual time shifts – whether you’re gaining or losing an hour – can disrupt our biological clock.

This is why sleep experts and scientists who study the body clock (chronobiologists) often oppose the biannual clock changes. They argue we should eliminate daylight saving time and stick to standard time year-round.

So why do we have daylight saving time in the first place? And why is it contentious?

What’s daylight saving time for?

Daylight saving time was first introduced during World War I as a wartime measure to conserve fuel.

However, modern research shows that daylight saving time does not meaningfully reduce overall energy use. It can even increase it: while Australians use less power for lighting during daylight saving time, we use more for air conditioning during hot weather.

These days, daylight saving is debated mainly for its potential economic and social benefits, such as extended evening daylight for recreation, shopping and traffic safety, as well as for its health implications.

What happens in our body?

Humans have a longstanding, evolutionary-conserved biological or circadian clock.

Our biological clock regulates our sleep and many other bodily functions, including when to eat and when we can achieve optimal physical and cognitive performance.

To keep everything running smoothly, the biological clock depends on natural daylight. Exposure at the right time is particularly important for sleep. Morning sunlight helps wake you up, while evening light signals your body to stay awake, meaning you stay up later and get up later in the morning.

When we adjust the time on our clocks by one hour, we shift our social schedules, such as work or school times and social activities, and the timing of light exposure. When we switch our clocks back to standard time, most people experience sunrise and sunset earlier relative to their biological clock.

Conversely, under daylight saving time, morning light is delayed, so we encounter sunlight later in relation to our internal clock. This “circadian misalignment” can throw our biological clock out of sync, adversely affecting bodily functions.

This is especially problematic for people who already experience a persistent circadian misalignment (social jetlag), such as shift workers and those who prefer to stay up late in the evening and wake up later in the morning (night owls).

How the ‘spring forward’ can affect your health

Most research on biannual clock changes has historically focused on the spring switch, the transition from standard time to daylight saving.

The spring switch can cause sleep deprivation across the week following the time change and is linked with a 5.7% increase in work related injuries.

It’s also associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular and mental health problems, with studies reporting a 4–29% increase in heart attacks and a 6% increase in mental health crises and substance misuse. These are attributed to the acute disruptions in sleep and the body clock.

Daylight saving time is also linked to long-term health consequences, even after several months.

On standard time, mornings are bright and evenings are dark. But with daylight saving time, sunlight comes later, so you might stay up later and still need to wake up at the same time due to social obligations.

When that pattern persists, it can cause longer-term circadian misalignment. This “social jetlag” has been associated with poorer cognitive performance and mental health.

How the ‘fall back’ can affect your health

The autumn transition from daylight saving time back to standard time is often perceived as beneficial because of the extra hour of sleep gained.

However, some research shows the autumn transition from daylight saving time back to standard time can disrupt wellbeing too. It is linked with increased restlessness during the night that compromises sleep.

It has also been linked to a rise in depressive episodes in Denmark, up to ten weeks after the transition to standard time. This may be due to the sudden start of earlier sunsets, which signals the start of a long period of short days.

Where does this leave the debate?

The European Union and United States are on the path to abolishing biannual clock changes.

The EU’s proposal to end biannual clock changes was approved in principle and awaits final agreement by all members states.

The US Senate has passed the Sunshine Protection Act, which now needs additional approval to become law.

From a circadian health perspective, permanent standard time aligns better with our biological clocks than permanent daylight saving time.

But people do not have to sacrifice their lifestyle preferences to live in tune with their biological clocks. Daylight saving time doesn’t provide more sunlight, it only shifts the timing.

So simple lifestyle adaptions, such as flexible work hours, can let people start working earlier in summer months and enjoy longer evenings even without changing the clock twice a year.

Meltem Weger has received funding from the German Academic Scholarship Foundation (PhD fellowship; 2010-2012) and from the European Commission (Marie Curie Curie Postdoctoral fellowships; 2014-2016, 2017-2019).

Benjamin Weger receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council
and the Alzheimer’s Association.

– ref. Daylight saving time ends Sunday. Why do we change our clocks? And how does it affect our bodies? – https://theconversation.com/daylight-saving-time-ends-sunday-why-do-we-change-our-clocks-and-how-does-it-affect-our-bodies-252518

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darren Roberts, Conjoint Associate Professor in Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, St Vincent’s Healthcare Clinical Campus, UNSW Sydney

Authorities in New South Wales and Victoria have been warning the public about worrying cases of heroin overdoses after people thought they had taken cocaine or methamphetamine.

We know the issue is also relevant to other parts of Australia. And it’s particularly concerning because heroin can cause life-threatening opioid overdoses, particularly in people inexperienced with heroin who snort it.

Our new research sheds more light on what happens to people who accidentally took heroin thinking it was something else.

What we did and what we found

We are part of a NSW Health program that helps to find and quickly respond to concerning illicit and recreational drug poisonings and trends. The program is a collaboration between many government health services, including hospitals, the NSW Poisons Information Centre and labs.

We searched our database and found 34 cases of opioid overdoses after using what people thought to be a stimulant drug between January 2022 and June 2024. A total of 19 people thought they were taking cocaine and 15 methamphetamine.

Most of these 34 people had a severe opioid overdose requiring treatment by paramedics and in hospital. Sadly, two people died.

Heroin was the opioid in all cases where we specifically tested for it, and we suspect all the cases.

Cases occurred across NSW but most cases (68%) were in Sydney. In the last eight months of our study we identified multiple cases each month which may indicate these cases are becoming more common.

In the United States, drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine are sometimes mixed with the potent opioid drug fentanyl. This unintentional use of opioids is causing many deaths in the US. But we didn’t find any evidence that fentanyl was the cause of the overdoses we examined.

What happens when you take heroin by accident?

Cocaine and methamphetamine are stimulant drugs. These are drugs that make a person feel more energetic and confident, and their pupils become larger.

They have the opposite effect to heroin, which is an opioid and sedative. Heroin and other opioids make a person feel relaxed and often drowsy, with smaller pupils.

When overdosing, opioids cause loss of consciousness and a person’s breathing slows or even stops, which is life-threatening. Severe opioid overdose without prompt treatment is lethal.

If you expect to be taking cocaine or methamphetamine, but it is actually heroin, or has some heroin in it, you will very likely overdose. This is particularly true if you don’t usually take opioids, or if you use it for the first time. People can overdose from as little as snorting a line.

Why is this happening?

Sometimes people get a different drug than they wanted. This can happen because the drug is mixed with something else or swapped.

This can happen for many reasons, including during manufacturing and distribution. It can happen intentionally or unintentionally by the dealer or people using the drug.

One major reason is that you sometimes can’t tell heroin apart from cocaine or methamphetamine just by looking at them. So if drugs are mixed or swapped, you can’t always tell until you take them.

What can we do about it?

Opioid deaths are preventable. Government and community groups are working together to respond to the problem, either via issuing drug alerts or by educating their members.

But people who take illicit or recreational drugs can reduce their risk by avoiding using drugs alone, and by making sure one person in their group is able to get help if needed.

Unexpected sleepiness is a reason to seek help, not to simply rest. Start CPR if someone is not responsive and call 000.

How about naloxone?

Definitely, if someone is experiencing an opioid overdose, give them naloxone as soon as possible.

Naloxone is a life-saving medicine that can temporarily reverse an opioid overdose. It comes in an easy-to-use nasal spray, and as a pre-filled injection.

It’s available for free and without a prescription via the national Take Home Naloxone program. You can also order it online and get it by post.

Naloxone is for anyone who may experience, or witness, an opioid overdose or adverse reaction.

NSW authorities recommend it for people who use any illicit drugs including opioids, stimulants (like cocaine, methamphetamine and MDMA), ketamine and counterfeit pharmaceuticals, due to the risk of drugs being mixed with something else or swapped. Call 000 even if you have given naloxone.

You can report unexpected overdoses to the Poisons Information Centre from anywhere in Australia on 131 126. In an emergency in Australia, call 000.

Darren Roberts is the Medical Director of the NSW Poisons Information Centre and a clinical toxicologist and addiction medicine specialist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital

Jared Brown is affiliated with NSW Ministry of Health and NSW Poisons Information Centre.

Peter Chisholm is a is a public health registrar in Drug and Alcohol Services at The Langton Centre and Prince of Wales Hospital.

– ref. Heroin found in cocaine and ‘ice’, and snorting a line can be lethal – https://theconversation.com/heroin-found-in-cocaine-and-ice-and-snorting-a-line-can-be-lethal-253348

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Moore, Senior Research Associate, School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Street trees usually grow in appalling soils, have little space for their roots, are rarely watered and often get aggressively trimmed by road authorities or utility companies.

If they do get established, many street trees suffer damage from vehicles, have to live in wind tunnels or are forced to grow in the permanent shade of large buildings.

But despite everything we throw at them, many street trees don’t just survive, they thrive. So let’s meet one of these heroic species: the yellow gum, (Eucalyptus leucoxylon).

Pretty but tough

Yellow gum is widely planted across southeastern and eastern Australia as a street tree. In some suburbs and towns, it is so common that people think it is a native tree (in fact it is from South Australia, Victoria or southwest New South Wales).

It is not to be confused with yellow box (Eucalyptus melliodora), a different eucalypt altogether.

Yellow gum has been widely planted because it meets many of the demands we place on urban trees.

It grows well in different soils and climates, and has very attractive red, white or pink flowers.

It’s called yellow gum in Victoria and parts of NSW, but is often known as blue gum in SA.

The common names can be confusing, but yellow gum refers to its pale yellow wood and bark patches, while blue gum refers to its leaves.

Many specimens develop dense, low, spreading canopies, which offer lovely shade and help cool our cities down.

And importantly, it doesn’t grow too big. It is typically a medium to small woodland tree, usually between 13 and 16 metres high (but it can grow higher in the wild).

Different bird and insect species feed on the trees some feeding on flowers and fruits and others on the foliage.

Natural populations of yellow gum occur in coastal and inland SA, in the southwest corner of NSW and in the western half of Victoria from the Murray River to the coast.

There are several subspecies, too, and debate rages in botanical and horticultural circles about whether some of them deserve to be recognised as their own species.

Yellow gum is also tolerant of wind and salt spray, and can withstand waterlogged soils. They stood up to the millennium drought conditions well.

Many arborists think the yellow gum has the potential to do well in many parts of Australia as the climate changes. Research has shown, for example, that some individual yellow gum trees regulate their water use better (when compared to other individuals in the species, and when compared to other eucalypts).

Like many eucalypts, yellow gum possesses lots of dormant buds and a lignotuber (a swelling at the base of the trunk containing dormant buds and carbohydrate). This means it copes well with pruning and will respond especially well to targeted formative pruning when young.

This can help reduce the risk of problems such as what’s known as “co-dominant stems” (when two main stems grow from a single point of origin, instead of one tall, straight trunk) and rubbing or crossing branches.

Not everyone’s favourite

Not everybody likes the yellow gum, and for some good reasons.

Some yellow gums are multi-stemmed, while others have twisted and curving trunks; some have both. These are not the characteristics many local governments want in street trees; many want to see straight trunks and dense canopies.

These problems can be so annoying that some council arborists no longer recommend planting yellow gums.

But these issues are due to poor tree selection and propagation. In the past, yellow gum seed was not carefully sourced from the best trees with the most suitable characteristics, and so inferior specimens have prospered.

With the right investment of time and money into tree selection, these problems can be overcome.

Ticking most of the boxes

All in all, yellow gum can be a very fine and useful urban tree.

The species grows well and if superior stock is used, the trees develop with straight and attractive trunks and wide, dense canopies.

They are typically medium-sized trees, do well in tough street conditions or in smaller domestic front and back yards.

They tick most, if not all, of the boxes for a good urban street tree.

Gregory Moore 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. It’s not easy being a street tree, but this heroic eucalypt withstands everything we throw at it – https://theconversation.com/its-not-easy-being-a-street-tree-but-this-heroic-eucalypt-withstands-everything-we-throw-at-it-246040

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sean Coakley, Senior Research Fellow, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland

Earlier this year news broke about doctors in London curing blindness in children with a rare genetic condition.

The genetic condition was a severe, albeit rare, form of retinal dystrophy. It causes severe sight impairment and can be caused by defects in many different genes.

In this case, the four young patients had mutations in the gene encoding AIPL1. This accounts for up to 5% of infants affected by this condition, and has no treatment.

In this study, published in The Lancet, a team from the Moorfields Eye Hospital and University College London Institute of Ophthalmology injected a new copy of the gene AIPL1 into one eye of each patient to replace the defective one. The four children in the study showed improved functional vision without serious adverse effects.

The story of this incredible breakthrough actually begins 132 years ago. It highlights the importance of research done not for any clear application in the world – just curiosity. But around the world, this kind of research is under threat.

Understanding the world – just for the sake of it

Curiosity-driven research is exactly what it sounds like: research driven by the goal of understanding nature without regard for application. It has many aliases. “Blue-sky research”, “discovery science” and “basic science” are all terms commonly used to describe this approach.

This kind of research differs from “mission-directed research”, which focuses primarily on practical applications and whose goals are set by governments and industry.

The logic behind curiosity-driven research is that understanding how things work will inevitably lead to discoveries that will fuel innovation.

Historically, this has led to transformational discoveries. Another recent example is the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, which was awarded to Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman for discoveries that enabled the development of effective mRNA vaccines against COVID.

The recent study in The Lancet follows more than a century of curiosity-driven discoveries culminating in these four children receiving their life-changing injections.

Sketching the structure of the retina

The kind of medical intervention used on these patients is called a gene therapy.

In this case, the cause of the condition is a defect in a single gene. This defect leads to the malfunction of an individual protein in the eye that is required for vision. The approach essentially is to provide a working copy of that gene to the eye, to restore function. This requires not only the technology to deliver the therapy, but the underlying knowledge of how AIPL1 functions in normal vision.

This knowledge dates back to 1893, when the pioneer of modern neuroscience, Santiago Ramon y Cajal, exquisitely sketched the structure of the retina – the light-sensitive tissue at the back of the eye.

In the 132 years since, our knowledge of how this tissue converts light into an electrical signal for our brain to interpret as vision has significantly advanced. We now understand a lot about how this works.

This foundational knowledge also means we know precisely why a dysfunctional AIPL1 gene leads to severe vision impairment. It also enables us to predict that providing a working version could improve vision. Armed with this knowledge, we have an engineering problem. How do we get a working copy into the eye?

In this case, the working copy of AIPL1 was delivered by an adeno-associated virus, or AAV. These were first discovered in the mid-1960s, and without realising their therapeutic potential, several research groups dedicated themselves to understanding their biology.

An AAV was first used in a human patient in 1995 for the treatment of cystic fibrosis. Without this curiosity-driven research they would not have been developed into a gene therapy platform. This is how most modern therapies have emerged.

Protecting curiosity-driven research

This is one of hundreds of therapies taking a similar approach. We will likely see many more stories like this in the coming decades. But I am certain we won’t see any examples where we don’t understand the underlying biology.

Curiosity-driven research, focused on understanding how biology works, is essential for the development of therapies to treat human disease. The history of medical advances shows us this time and time again.

Curiosity-driven breakthroughs include the discovery of X-rays as well as the antibiotic penicillin. The discovery of CRISPR/Cas9, an ancient bacterial defence, has enabled the editing of DNA with unprecedented precision. This has already led to an FDA-approved therapy to treat sickle cell disease.

Australia has punched above its weight in this arena for many years. But this is no longer the case.

Funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, our largest funder of medical research, has been falling since 2020. More broadly, this coincides with a decline in the proportion of basic research being funded in Australia and directly threatens our capacity for curiosity-driven innovation.

Internationally, this strong focus on practical application is repeated. For example, 83% of the European Union’s €95.5 billion research funding program supports mission-directed research.

In Australia, and globally, we must protect curiosity-driven research at all costs and not underestimate the vital contribution it will make to our future.

Sean Coakley receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council.

– ref. ‘Curiosity-driven research’ led to a recent major medical breakthrough. But it’s under threat – https://theconversation.com/curiosity-driven-research-led-to-a-recent-major-medical-breakthrough-but-its-under-threat-252298

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

As he looks to solidify his territorial gains in Ukraine in a potential ceasefire deal, Russian President Vladimir Putin has one eye trained on Russia’s southern border – and boosting Russian influence in Central Asia.

Following his 2024 re-election, Putin made Uzbekistan his third foreign visit after China and Belarus. The visit signalled the region’s continued importance to Moscow.

In response to Western sanctions on Moscow over the Ukraine war, trade and investment between Russia and Central Asian countries have grown significantly.

Russia’s Lukoil and Gazprom are now the dominant foreign players in Uzbekistan’s energy fields. In Kazakhstan, Moscow controls a quarter of the country’s uranium production.

But as Russia tries to reaffirm its role in the region, China has also been quietly expanding its influence.

Could this growing competition over Central Asia affect Beijing and Moscow’s broader relationship?

Central Asia drifting apart from Moscow

The Central Asian region is home to approximately 79 million people spread across five nations. It was part of the Soviet Union until its collapse in 1991. Its strategic location between Russia and China, on the doorstep of the Middle East, has long made it a “grand chessboard” for great power politics.

While Russia has traditionally dominated the region, Central Asian leaders have made efforts to somewhat distance themselves from Moscow recently.

At the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) summit in October 2022, for example, Tajikistan’s president publicly challenged Russian President Vladimir Putin. He demanded respect for smaller states like his.

Similarly, during Putin’s 2023 visit to Kazakhstan, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev made a symbolic statement at the press conference by delivering his speech in Kazakh rather than Russian. This was a rare move that seemed to catch Putin’s delegation off guard.

In another striking moment, Tokayev declared at an economic forum in Russia in 2022 that Kazakhstan does not recognise Russia’s “quasi-states”, referring to its occupied territories of Ukraine.

Yet, all Central Asian states remain part of at least one Russia-led organisation, such as the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, or the Eurasian Economic Union.

Three states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) rely on Russian security guarantees through the Collective Security Treaty Organization.

And the region’s economic dependency on Russia remains significant. Of the 6.1 million migrants in Russia, the largest groups come from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. These countries depend heavily on remittances from these migrant workers.

China’s growing influence

With Russia preoccupied with Ukraine and constrained by Western sanctions, China has seized the opportunity to deepen its engagement in the region.

Beijing’s involvement in Central Asia has long been economic. In 2013, for instance, China unveiled its ambitious, global Belt and Road Initiative in Kazakhstan. And by 2024, it was China, not Russia, that was the largest trading partner of every Central Asian country except Tajikistan.

But in recent years, China has expanded its influence beyond economic ties, establishing itself as a key player in regional politics.

At the inaugural China-Central Asia Summit in 2023, for example, Chinese leader Xi Jinping pledged support for the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the region. This is traditionally a role played by Russia.

Xi has also been making high-profile visits to Central Asian states, signalling Beijing’s growing strategic interests here.

Local populations, however, remain wary. Public opinion surveys indicate China is viewed more negatively than Russia.

Many Chinese-funded projects bring their own workers, limiting job opportunities for locals and fuelling resentment. There is also anxiety about potential “debt trap” diplomacy. Civil society groups have called for economic diversification to avoid over-reliance on Beijing.

Further complicating matters is Beijing’s treatment of the Muslim minority Uyghur population in the Xinjiang region of western China. This has reinforced suspicions in Muslim-majority Central Asia about China’s long-term intentions in the region.

Growing competition

The increasing competition raises questions about the potential impact on the broader, “no limits” relationship between Moscow and Beijing.

At a recent forum, Putin acknowledged Beijing’s growing economic role in the region. However, he insisted Russia still has “special ties” with Central Asian states, rooted in history. And he notably dismissed concerns about China’s expansionist aims, saying:

There is nothing about domination in the Chinese philosophy. They do not strive for domination.

On the ground, however, things aren’t so simple. So far, China and Russia have managed to avoid stepping on each other’s toes. How long that balance remains, however, is an open question.

Central Asian countries, meanwhile, are courting both sides – and diversifying their ties beyond the two powers.

Many of the region’s educated elite are increasingly looking toward Turkey – and pan-Turkic solidarity – as an alternative to both Russian and Chinese dominance.

Russia’s historical influence in the region remains strong. But the days of its unquestioned dominance appear to be over.

Russia may try to reassert its preeminent position, but China’s deepening economic presence is not going anywhere.

With both countries pushing their own regional agendas, it’s hard to ignore the overlap – and the potential for a future clash over competing interests.

Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva 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. Russia and China both want influence over Central Asia. Could it rupture their friendship? – https://theconversation.com/russia-and-china-both-want-influence-over-central-asia-could-it-rupture-their-friendship-251023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Matheson, Associate Professor in Public Health and Policy, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Governments like to boast that “data-driven” policies are the best way to make fair, efficient decisions. They collect statistics, set targets and adjust strategies to suit.

But while data can be useful, it’s not neutral. There are biases and blind spots in the systems that produce the data. Worse, data often lacks the depth, context and responsiveness needed to drive real-world change.

The real questions are about who decides which data matter, how it’s interpreted – and what the change based on the data might look like.

Take the Social Investment Agency, for example. One of New Zealand’s best-known data-driven initiatives, it was established to improve the efficiency of social services using data and predictive analytics to identify individuals and families most at risk, directing funding accordingly.

The model is intended to guide early interventions and prevent long-term harm. And on paper, this appears to be a smart, targeted strategy. Yet it has also faced criticism over the risk of data-driven policies reducing individuals to measurable statistics, stripping away the complexity of lived experiences.

The result is that decision making remains centralised within government agencies rather than being shaped by the communities most affected.

What data can’t tell us

The Social Investment Agency also relies on Stats NZ’s Integrated Data Infrastructure, a database of anonymised administrative information. While a rich source for longitudinal research and policy development, this too has limitations.

It relies heavily on government-collected data, which may embed systemic bias and fail to represent communities accurately. Without accounting for context, some populations may be underrepresented or misrepresented, leading to skewed insights and misguided policy recommendations.

This kind of data is completely separate from the lived reality of the people the data describes. Māori in particular have been concerned about a lack community ownership and that the Integrated Data Infrastructure does not currently align with their own data sovereignty aspirations.

Given this greater likelihood of misrepresentation, Māori and Pasifika communities worry that data-driven funding models, on their own, fail to account for more holistic, whānau-centered approaches.

For instance, a predictive algorithm might flag a child as “at risk” based on socioeconomic indicators. But it would fail to also measure protective factors such as strong cultural connections, intergenerational knowledge and community leadership.

This is where the kaupapa Māori initiative Whānau Ora provides an alternative model. Instead of viewing individuals in isolation, it prioritises the needs of families to provide tailored housing, education, health and employment support.

Change from the ground up

Funded by Te Puni Kōkiri/Ministry of Māori Development, Whānau Ora has been criticised in the past for the lack of measurable outputs data-driven systems can offer. But research has also shown community-led models produce better long-term outcomes than traditional, top-down, data-driven welfare and service delivery models.

A 2018 review found Whānau Ora strengthened family resilience, improved employment outcomes and increased educational engagement – for example, through supporting whānau into their own businesses and off social assistance.

Whānau Ora’s work strengthening community networks and building self-determination migh be harder to measure using standard metrics, but it has long-term economic and social benefits.

Similarly, data-driven approaches to disease prevention can fall short. While governments might rely on obesity rates or physical activity levels to shape interventions, these blunt measurements fail to capture the deeper social and economic factors that affect health.

Too often, strategies target individual behaviours – calorie counting, exercise tracking – assuming better data leads to better choices. But we know local conditions, including what financial and community resources are available, matter much more.

An example of this in action is Health New Zealand/Te Whatu Ora’s Healthy Families NZ division. With teams in ten communities around the country, it works to create local change to improve health.

Instead of simply telling people to eat better and exercise more, it has supported community action to reshape local environments so healthier choices become easier to make.

In South Auckland, for example, Healthy Families NZ has worked with local businesses to improve access to fresh, affordable food. In Invercargill, it has helped transform urban planning policies to expand green spaces for physical activity.

Data in perspective

Such initiatives recognise health is about more than just individuals. It is a shared outcome that results from systemic processes. Data-driven approaches by themselves struggle to capture these less measurable pathways and relationships.

That is not to say government-led, data-driven methods don’t often diagnose the problem correctly – just that they frequently fail to provide solutions that empower communities to make lasting change.

Rather than over-relying on data analytics to dictate funding, or on national health targets to guide the system, cross-sector and place-based initiatives such as Whānau Ora and Healthy Families NZ can teach us a lot about what works in the real world.

Data will always have an important role to play in shaping policy, but this requires a broader perspective. Data offers a tool for communities, not a substitute for their leadership and voice. Real system change happens when we fundamentally rethink how change happens, and who leads that change in the first place.

Anna Matheson has been leading the evaluation of Healthy Families NZ which is funded by Health New Zealand.

– ref. Yes, data can produce better policy – but it’s no substitute for real-world experience – https://theconversation.com/yes-data-can-produce-better-policy-but-its-no-substitute-for-real-world-experience-253527

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anita Manfreda, Senior Lecturer in Tourism, Torrens University Australia

The White Lotus season three returns to familiar territory: an exotic escape, privileged and powerful guests, the supposed heights of luxury.

But beneath this lies a satirical critique of these very things – an investigation into the contradictions of luxury travel.

Set in Thailand, the heart of the South Asian wellness scene, the show comments on more than just what luxury looks like. It asks: what does luxury cost? And who bears this cost?

At the same time, the show quietly gestures towards what tourism could become, if we were bold enough to re-imagine it. Because luxury isn’t the problem. The problem is how we do it.

Wellness … but not really

Season three leans into the booming wellness economy. Between floating therapy, personalised biomarker tests and digital detoxes, the appearance of “healing” is everywhere.

The irony, however, is clear: guests pursue self-care, but act disconnected, irritable and hostile.

The luxury setting reflects their worst impulses. Characters such as Jaclyn (Michelle Monaghan), a Hollywood star chasing relevance, and Victoria (Parker Posey), lost without her Lorazepam, treat wellness practices as a trend that’s more about image than transformation.

This reflects a broader trend in luxury tourism: wellness that photographs well, but rarely goes beneath the surface.

Research shows real transformation in tourism requires discomfort – something most luxury guests instinctively avoid.

As the character of monk Luang Por Teera (Suthichai Yoon) warns:

Everyone runs from pain toward pleasure […] but you cannot outrun pain.

One person’s wellness is another person’s work

In luxury tourism, wellness is not mutual. One person’s transformation often depends on someone else’s sacrifice. And this exchange is never equal.

While the guests of season three try and look inward, those holding space for them – such as the meditation guide Amrita (Shalini Peiris), or the ever-present security guard Gaitok (Tayme Thapthimthong) – remain relatively voiceless. They quietly manage the chaos, with little room for their own stories to flourish.

Throughout the season, the interactions between guest and staff are built on performance. Staff are praised for their beauty, politeness or spiritual presence, but rarely acknowledged as full people.

Emotional and “aesthetic” labour (looking and acting the part) are silently expected and constantly extracted.

When resort employee Belinda (Natasha Rothwell) raises concerns about Greg (Jon Gries), resort manager Fabian (Christian Friedel) brushes her off, saying:

It is really not wise to stir anything up. You do not have anything to worry about, as long as you focus on yourself and your job.

The message is clear: stay quiet and stay in your place.

Nature as wallpaper

This season offers no shortage of natural cues. Clean air, ocean views, jungle trails – luxury retreats promise grounding and transformation through nature.

As with much of luxury tourism, however, this nature is curated. The jungle is manicured, the ruins softly lit. Nature, too, performs.

But unlike the staff, who slip into silence and composure, nature doesn’t follow the script. It interrupts, resists and sometimes bites. Monkeys raid the buffet. Lizards slip into rooms and cause havoc. A venomous cobra bites a guest. The pong-pong tree bears deadly fruit.

This is a contradiction luxury travel can’t resolve. Nature is brought in for healing and ambience, but refuses to be compliant.

Culture – flattened and filtered

Season three could have been set in any location with beaches and palm trees. For most guests, the local culture is invisible – a scenic backdrop for their personal drama. Cultural experiences are safely curated, stripped of context, and designed to comfort, not challenge.

Even brief moments beyond the resort feel disorienting to the guests.

“He seems like the real deal,” Timothy (Jason Isaacs) says after an encounter with monk Luang Por Teera (Yoon) – revealing how artificial everything else feels.

The show critiques a familiar move in luxury tourism: selling “authenticity” while delivering a flattened, palatable version of reality. There is just enough difference to feel exotic, but never enough to feel uncomfortable.

In one cautionary scene, Jaclyn (Monaghan), Piper (Sarah Catherine Hook), and Laurie (Carrie Coon) wander into a Thai New Year celebration, where locals start chasing them with water guns, drenching them in what feels like joyful protest.

Although it’s played for laughs, the scene reminds us culture isn’t there to serve. Travellers might do better to meet culture on its terms and not their own.

Glimpses of something better

Ironically, the show’s satire may be fuelling the very thing it critiques. Since season three aired, talk of a “White Lotus effect” has already begun, with claims of a rise in tourism interest and bookings. It seems the (not-so) fantasy still sells, even when we can see the cracks.

Yet, in quiet, awkward and sometimes funny moments, the show resists cynicism, offering glimpses of potential. Guests perceive themselves. Relationships shift. Silenced actors push back.

Through these cracks, we can sense what luxury could be if it connected us, instead of shielding us, from new people and places.

Luxury travel, re-imagined, could be a space where care flows in both directions – where staff are seen as people, and where nature and culture aren’t curated, but respected as they are. Indeed, it is the experiences that expand us, rather than insulate us, which end up changing us the most.

And it’s not just up to hotels and resorts to deliver this shift. It asks something of us, too. A different mindset.

This season’s power lies in what it leaves unsaid, inviting us to examine what is lost in the pursuit of comfort.

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

– ref. An exotic escape, or empty illusion? How The White Lotus exposes the contradictions of luxury travel – https://theconversation.com/an-exotic-escape-or-empty-illusion-how-the-white-lotus-exposes-the-contradictions-of-luxury-travel-253229

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Arrow, Professor of History, Macquarie University

Gender was an important factor in the 2022 election: it shaped the ways the major parties packaged their policies and their leaders. Three years later, as Australians grapple with an uncertain world and a cost-of-living crisis, how might gender shape the 2025 election result?

Ideas about gender have always shaped Australian politics, although male and female political alignments have shifted over time. For example, when Sir Robert Menzies established the Liberal Party in 1944, he crafted messages to appeal to women, in contrast with the Labor Party’s blue-collar masculinity.

By the 1970s and 1980s, as more women entered the workforce and pursued further education, they became more progressive in their voting habits. This trend is evident beyond Australia (for example in the US, and in Europe and Canada).

How gender influenced the 2022 election

Women’s issues were decisive in the last federal election. The gendered impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the emergence of Grace Tame as a fiery advocate for survivors of sexual abuse, and the Morrison government’s poor response to Brittany Higgins’ allegation of sexual assault enraged many women, who took the streets in the March for Justice in 2021.

The election was a contest of competing masculinities, between what political scientist Blair Williams calls the “state daddy” (Anthony Albanese) and the “daggy dad” (Scott Morrison). Labor targeted women with messages about “care”, while the Coalition donned high-vis and continued to pursue young men who “might vote Labor”.

The (mostly) female community independents added another new gender dynamic. Highly competent professional women who were disaffected with the Liberal party, they ran on integrity, climate action and gender equality, and won some of the Coalition’s safest seats.

The gender gap in favour of Labor in the 2022 election was driven by younger voters (18-34 years) and a strong Greens vote. Women gave the Coalition their lowest ever level of support at just 32%.

So what role might gender play in the 2025 election campaign?

First, the gender gap remains in place. Internal Liberal party polling suggests that many women have returned to the party since 2022, but most polls suggest the gender gap in favour of Labor is still at least around 2%. This gap is most pronounced among younger voters.

Second, while gender issues remain important, they are not electrifying political debate as they did in 2022. According to the latest Newspoll, neither Albanese or Dutton are especially appealing to women voters, who are shifting to the Greens. However, young women (and a majority of young people) still prefer Albanese over Dutton.

This doesn’t mean gender issues won’t play a role, though. Dutton’s threat to curtail working from home (which women especially dislike), and promises to cut public service jobs (and therefore services) might suggest that he has not yet learned the gender lessons from 2022.

Similarly, while Labor has delivered on its policy promises of improving wages in female-dominated industries, voter response to much of Labor’s first term has been tepid at best. However, Labor’s recent announcements on Medicare and bulk-billing will speak to women feeling the pinch of the cost of living crisis (according to one poll, middle aged women moved away from Labor in 2024 because of this issue.)

Third, gender is now a fault line in international politics. The resurgence of Donald Trump and his brand of “strongman” masculinity, attacks on women’s and trans rights, online polarisation, and the rise of a “manosphere” spreading (often) misogynistic messages appears to be fuelling a growing divide between young men and women. The lobby group Advance is letterboxing Australian households with leaflets arguing Labor is “Weak, Woke,[and] Sending Us Broke”. They clearly believe Trump-style campaign slogans will win over voters.

Gender polarisation was evident in the recent US election: Trump won young men by 14 points, while Harris won young women by 18 points, though many white women remained loyal to Trump.

Data from Essential suggested that while many Australians regard the Trump administration with dismay, young men (aged 18-35) are the outliers.

These men are also the demographic group most supportive of Dutton’s performance as opposition leader. The 2022 Australian Co-operative Election Study suggested that younger men were less receptive to gender equality. For example, while 70% of women agreed that “Australian society needs to do more to achieve equality between men and women”, only 51% of men agreed. Young men were by far the most hostile to this proposition, perhaps due in part to the polarised social climate of the post-#MeToo era.

Yet it is easy to overstate these gender differences: Intifar Chowdhury’s research showed that while young women are shifting leftwards, so too are young men, though at a relatively slower rate.

A generation gap?

The 2025 election is the first where Gen Z and Millennial voters will outnumber Baby Boomers. So while gender differences might determine voting, they will intersect with socioeconomic and generational issues.

While politicians argue over the best way to address the cost of living crisis, young people have grappled with that crisis on top of life-changing HECS-HELP debts, distress over climate change, and a rise in insecure work. Home ownership, a pathway to prosperity for older generations, is out of reach for many Gen Z and Millennials: social researcher Rebecca Huntley found that more than 60% of Australians (and 75% of renters) believe the dream of home ownership is dead for young people. Is it any wonder that young people might despair about their futures?

In response to this rather bleak picture, young women have consistently turned to progressive parties. Like their feminist forebears, these women are looking to the state for rights and protections, which has long been one of the hallmarks of Australian feminism.

Many young men appear to be more sceptical of such solutions. But it is important not to overstate gender differences at a time when generational differences seem more politically salient. It will be fascinating to see if young Australians can leverage their electoral clout to force the next parliament to meaningfully address intergenerational inequality.

Michelle Arrow receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Michelle would like to thank Professor Shaun Wilson for his assistance in researching this article.

– ref. Gender played a significant role in the 2022 election. Will it do the same in 2025? – https://theconversation.com/gender-played-a-significant-role-in-the-2022-election-will-it-do-the-same-in-2025-249580

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Allen Cheng, Professor of Infectious Diseases, Monash University

It’s that time of year when flu vaccines are becoming available in Australia. You may have received an email from your GP clinic or a text message from your pharmacy telling you they’re in stock.

So far in 2025 in Australia, there have been more flu notifications compared to the same period in previous years.

Elsewhere, many northern hemisphere countries have reported intense flu activity during the 2024–25 winter season. This has included several deaths in children.

Although it’s difficult to make predictions about the intensity and timing of the upcoming flu season, it’s a good time to start thinking about vaccination.

Who should get vaccinated, and when?

In Australia, flu vaccines are available for everyone over the age of six months. Flu vaccines don’t work well in young infants, but they can be protected if their mothers are immunised during pregnancy.

The National Immunisation Program provides free vaccines for people at higher risk, including specific age groups (adults older than 65 and children between six months and five years), those with chronic medical conditions, pregnant women and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

For healthy adults and children outside these groups, a flu vaccine costs around A$20–30. The vaccines are widely available at GPs and pharmacies, and through workplace programs.

Flu vaccines reduce the risk of GP presentation with influenza by around 30–60% and hospitalisation with influenza by about 50–70%.

There’s some evidence the protection from flu vaccines wanes over several months. Ideally, everyone would get vaccinated within a few months of the peak of the flu season. But in reality, we can’t easily predict when this will occur, and since the COVID pandemic, flu seasons have arrived unusually early in the year. So, some time in the next month or so is a good time to get vaccinated.

In general, flu vaccines can be given at the same time as most other vaccines, including COVID vaccines, but check with your vaccination provider about whether this is appropriate for you.

Influenza vaccines are regarded as safe. While some people may get a sore arm or fever, these symptoms are usually mild and short lived. Serious side effects, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, are rare, and are thought to be less common than after influenza infection.

Why do we need a flu vaccine every year?

Influenza is a difficult virus to make vaccines for, as the virus changes frequently, and vaccines generally only provide protection against a limited range of strains. Some studies suggest mutations in the influenza virus are 20 times more common than with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

This means, each year, experts need to predict the likely circulating strains in the next season, so vaccines can be manufactured in preparation.

The World Health Organization coordinates two meetings each year – in February to decide on vaccine strains for the following northern hemisphere season, and around September for the southern hemisphere.

Although all current influenza vaccines contain strains from four influenza subtypes (A/H1N1, A/H3N2, B Victoria and B Yamagata), one of the strains appears to have disappeared during the pandemic. So next year’s vaccines will probably drop the B Yamagata strain.

Seasonal flu vaccines don’t provide protection against avian influenza (bird flu) strains, but vaccination is still recommended for people who may be at risk of bird flu, such as poultry workers. This is to reduce the chance that a new virus could result from the combination of both seasonal and avian influenza strains.

Which vaccines are available?

There are a variety of vaccines you may be offered when you book in or turn up for a flu vaccine.

Over the past few years, new types of vaccines have been developed. Some of these attempt to improve the body’s immune response to vaccines. For example, Fluad Quad contains an adjuvant called MF59, an additional substance designed to attract immune cells to the site of vaccination.

Other vaccines, such as Fluzone High-Dose, use a larger dose of the vaccine strains to improve the immune response. These vaccines are recommended for older people, as immune responses tend to decline with age.

Certain vaccines use alternative production methods to try to improve the match between vaccine strains and the circulating strains. Standard flu vaccines are produced using influenza viruses grown in chicken eggs. One weakness of this method is that viral mutations can occur during the production process, known as “egg adaptation”. During some of the seasons between 2014 and 2019, this was shown to reduce the effectiveness of flu vaccines.

The avoid this issue, cell-based vaccines, such as Flucelvax Quad, use influenza vaccine strains grown in mammalian cells rather than eggs.

The key takeaways are:

1. older people are recommended to receive an enhanced vaccine (Fluad Quad for >65 years or Fluzone High-Dose for >60 years), with Fluad Quad provided free under the National Immunisation Program

2. other people are recommended to receive a standard vaccine (egg-based or cell-based), with vaccines provided free for high-risk groups and children between six months and five years.

Looking to the future

There are several new flu vaccines currently under development. Recombinant vaccines, such as Flublok, use insect cells to produce a specific component of the virus.

With the success of mRNA vaccines for COVID, there is interest in using a similar process for influenza. In theory, this could shorten the time to develop vaccines, for both seasonal influenza and pandemic influenza.

There’s also interest in combination vaccines – for example, a single shot could provide protection against both COVID and the flu.

The “holy grail” of influenza vaccines is one that could provide long-lasting protection against many different strains. Although we’re not there yet, you’re at lower risk of influenza and its complications if you get a flu shot.

Allen Cheng is a member of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. He receives funding from the Australian Department of Health and the National Health and Medical Research Council.

– ref. Flu vaccines are now available for 2025. What’s on offer and which one should I get? – https://theconversation.com/flu-vaccines-are-now-available-for-2025-whats-on-offer-and-which-one-should-i-get-252292

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Johanna Nalau, Senior Lecturer, Climate Adaptation, Griffith University

Australia’s 2022 federal election was seen as the climate election. But this time round, climate policy has so far taken a back seat as the major parties focus on cost-of-living issues.

Despite this, climate change remains an ever-present threat. Last year was the world’s hottest on record and extreme weather is lashing Queensland. But there are hints of progress. Australia’s emissions have begun to fall and the main power grid is now 40% renewable.

So before Australians head to the polls on May 3, it’s worth closely examining the climate policies of the two major parties. What are they offering on cutting emissions, preparing for climate-boosted disasters and future-proofing our energy systems? And where are the gaps?

Energy transition – Tony Wood, Grattan Institute

Cost-of-living pressures, escalating damage from climate change and global policy uncertainty mean no election issue is more important than transforming Australia’s economy to achieve net zero. But our energy supply must be reliable and affordable. What should the next government prioritise?

There is great pressure to deliver power bill relief. But the next government’s priority should be reducing how much a household spends on energy, rather than trying to bring down the price of electricity. Far better to give financial support for battery storage and better home insulation, to slash how much power consumers need to buy from the grid.

The Liberal-led Senate inquiry has just found supporting home electrification will also help with cost of living pressures.

The electricity rebates on offer from Labor and the temporary cut to fuel excise from the Coalition aren’t enough.

Federal and state governments must maintain their support and investment in the new transmission lines necessary to support new renewable generation and storage.

Labor needs to do more to meet its 2030 target of reaching 82% renewables in the main grid. Currently, the figure is around 40%. The Coalition’s plan to slow down renewables, keep coal going longer and burn more gas while pushing for a nuclear future carries alarmingly high risks on reliability, cost and environmental grounds.

Gas shortfalls are looming for Australia’s southeast in the next few winters and the price of gas remains stubbornly high. Labor does not yet have a workable solution to either issue, while the Coalition has an idea – more and therefore cheaper gas – but no clarity on how its plan to keep more gas for domestic use would work in practice.

So far, we have been offered superficially appealing ideas. The field is wide open for a leader to deliver a compelling vision and credible plan for Australia’s net-zero future.

Climate adaptation – Johanna Nalau, Griffith University

You would think adapting to climate change would be high on the election agenda. Southeast Queensland just weathered its first cyclone in 50 years, estimated to have caused A$1.2 billion in damage, while outback Queensland is enduring the worst flooding in 50 years.

But so far, there’s little to see on adaptation.

Both major parties have committed to building a weather radar in western Queensland, following local outcry. While welcome, it’s a knee-jerk response rather than good forward planning.

By 2060, damage from climate change will cost Australia $73 billion a year under a low emissions scenario, according to a Deloitte report. The next federal government should invest more in disaster preparation rather than throwing money at recovery. It’s cheaper, for one thing – longer term, there are significant savings by investing in more resilient infrastructure before damage occurs.

Being prepared requires having enough public servants in disaster management to do the work. The Coalition has promised to cut 41,000 jobs from the federal public service, and has not yet said where the cuts would be made.

While in office, Labor has been developing a National Adaptation Plan to shape preparations and a National Climate Risk Assessment to gather evidence of the main climate risks for Australia and ways to adapt.

Regardless of who takes power, these will be useful roadmaps to manage extreme weather, damage to agriculture and intensified droughts, floods and fires. Making sure climate-exposed groups such as farmers get necessary assistance to weather worse disasters, and manage new risks and challenges stemming from climate change, is not a partisan issue. Such plans will help direct investment towards adaptation methods that work at scale.

New National Science Priorities are helpful too, especially the focus on new technologies able to sustainably meet Australia’s food and water needs in a changing climate.

Emission reduction – Madeline Taylor, Macquarie University

Emission reduction has so far been a footnote for the major parties. In terms of the wider energy transition, both parties are expected to announce policies to encourage household battery uptake and there’s a bipartisan focus on speeding up energy planning approvals.

But there is a clear divide in where the major parties’ policies will lead Australia on its net-zero journey.

Labor’s policies largely continue its approach in government, including bringing more clean power and storage into the grid within the Capacity Investment Scheme and building new transmission lines under the Rewiring Australia Plan.

These policies are leading to lower emissions from the power sector. Last year, total emissions fell by 0.6%. Labor’s Future Made in Australia policies give incentives to produce critical minerals, green steel, and green manufacturing. Such policies should help Australia gain market share in the trade of low-carbon products.

From January 1 this year, Labor’s new laws require some large companies to disclose emissions from operations. This is positive, giving investors essential data to make decisions. From their second reporting period, companies will have to disclose Scope 3 emissions as well – those from their supply chains. The laws will cover some companies where measuring emissions upstream is incredibly tricky, including agriculture. Coalition senators issued a dissenting report pointing this out. The Coalition has now vowed to scrap these rules.

The Coalition has not committed to Labor’s target of cutting emissions 43% by 2030. Their flagship plan to go nuclear will likely mean pushing out emissions reduction goals given the likely 2040s completion timeframe for large-scale nuclear generation, unless small modular reactors become viable.

On gas, there’s virtually bipartisan support. The Coalition promise to reserve more gas for domestic use is a response to looming shortfalls on the east coast. Labor has also approved more coal and gas projects largely for export, though Australian coal and gas burned overseas aren’t counted domestically.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has promised to include gas in Labor’s renewable-oriented Capacity Investment Scheme and has floated relaxing the Safeguard Mechanism on heavy emitters. The Coalition has vowed to cancel plans for three offshore wind projects and are very critical of green hydrogen funding.

Both parties will likely introduce emission reduction measures, but a Coalition government would be less stringent. Scrapping corporate emissions reporting entirely would be a misstep, because accurate measurement of emissions are essential for attracting green investment and reducing climate risks.

Johanna Nalau has received funding from Australian Research Council for climate adaptation research, is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Co-chair of the Science Committee of the World Adaptation Science Program (United Nations Environment Programme) and is a technical expert with United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Madeline Taylor has received funding from the Australian Research Council, ACOLA, and several industry and government partners for energy transition research. She is a board member of REAlliance, Fellow of the Climate Council, and Honorary Associate of the Sydney Environment Institute.

Tony Wood may own shares in companies in relevant industries through his superannuation fund

– ref. This election, what are Labor and the Coalition offering on the energy transition, climate adaptation and emissions? – https://theconversation.com/this-election-what-are-labor-and-the-coalition-offering-on-the-energy-transition-climate-adaptation-and-emissions-253430

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephanie Brodie, Research Scientist in Marine Ecology, CSIRO

Picture this: you’re lounging on a beautiful beach, soaking up the sun and listening to the soothing sound of the waves. You run your hands through the warm sand, only to find a cigarette butt. Gross, right?

This disturbing scene is typical of coastal pollution in Australia. But fortunately our new research shows the problem is getting better, not worse. Over the past ten years, the amount of waste across Australian coastal cities has reduced by almost 40%. We’re also finding more places with no rubbish at all.

We surveyed for debris in and around six Australian urban areas between 2022 and 2024. Then we compared our results to previous surveys carried out a decade ago. We found less coastal pollution overall and reset a new baseline for further research.

Our study shows efforts to clean up Australia’s beaches have been working. These policies, practices and outreach campaigns have reduced the extent of pollution in coastal habitats near urban centres. But we can’t become complacent. There’s plenty of work still to be done.

What we did

In Australia, three-quarters of the rubbish on our coasts is plastic. Even cigarette butts are mainly made of plastic.

To tackle the pollution effectively, we need to understand where the waste is coming from and how it gets into the environment.

Research has shown much of the coastal debris comes from local inland areas. Poor waste management practices can result in debris eventually making its way through rivers to the coast and out to sea.

We focused on urban areas because high population density and industrial activity contributes to waste in the environment. We examined six areas across Australia:

• Perth in Western Australia
• Port Augusta in South Australia
• Hobart in Tasmania
• Newcastle in New South Wales
• Sunshine Coast in Queensland
• Alice Springs in the Northern Territory.

These places represent a starting point for the national baseline. At each location we studied sites on the coast, along rivers and inland, within a 100 kilometre radius.

We inspected strips of land 2m wide. This involved two trained scientists standing in an upright position looking downward, slowly walking along a line surveying for debris items. Together they captured information about every piece of debris they came across, including the type of material and what it was originally used for (where possible).

What we found

On average, we found 0.15 items of debris per square metre of land surveyed. That’s roughly one piece of rubbish every five steps.

Plastic was the most common type of waste. But in many cases it was unclear what the item was originally used for. For example, fragments of hard plastic of unknown origin were found in a quarter of all surveyed areas.

Polystyrene fragments were the most common item overall (24% of all debris fragments). Other frequently encountered items included food wrappers or labels, cigarette butts, and hard plastic bottle caps or lids.

We found more waste near farms, industry and disadvantaged areas.

The types of waste varied among cities. For example, cigarette butts were the most prevalent items in Newcastle, Perth and the Sunshine Coast. But food wrappers and beverage cans were more prevalent in Port Augusta and Alice Springs, respectively.

Hobart had the highest occurrence of beverage bottles and bottle fragments.

Targeting problem items

Identifying the different types of litter in the environment can help policymakers and waste managers target specific items and improve waste recovery.

Research has shown container deposit legislation, which enables people to take eligible beverage containers to a collection point for a refund, has reduced the number of beverage containers in the coastal environment by 40%. Hobart did not have a container deposit scheme in place at the time of our survey.

Plastic bag bans can reduce bag litter. Now polystyrene food service items are becoming increasingly targeted by policymakers.

Making progress

When we compared our results to the previous survey from 2011-14 we found a 39% decrease in coastal debris. We also found 16% more areas where no debris was present.

Our results support previous research that found an ongoing trend towards less waste on Australian beaches.

We think our research demonstrates the effectiveness of improved waste management policies, campaigns such as the “Five R’s – Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose, then Recycle” – as well as clean-up efforts.

It’s likely that increased awareness is making a big dent in the problem. But reducing the production of plastic, and invoking changes further up the supply chain, would likely further help reduce mismanaged waste in the environment.

Implications for the future

Measuring and monitoring litter can inform policymaking and waste management. Our research serves as a benchmark for evaluating and informing future efforts to reduce plastic waste.

We are heartened by the findings. But continued effort is needed from people across government, industry and Australian communities. Everyone needs to address how we produce, use and dispose of plastic for a cleaner and healthier planet.

As part of her role at CSIRO, Stephanie Brodie receives funding the federal Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

Britta Denise Hardesty received funding for this work from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water. Shell Australia previously provided funding for this research via Earthwatch Australia for surveys and citizen science projects carried out between 2011 and 2014.

– ref. Good news, beach lovers: our research found 39% less plastic waste around Australian coastal cities than a decade ago – https://theconversation.com/good-news-beach-lovers-our-research-found-39-less-plastic-waste-around-australian-coastal-cities-than-a-decade-ago-253221

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

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton both agree Australia should react to US President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff regime by continuing to seek a special deal. They just disagree about which of them could better handle the challenge of dealing with the rogue president.

Dutton said after Trump’s announcement, “the deal is there to be done”, but insisted Albanese just isn’t up to the task.

At Wednesday’s briefing for the red meat industry, Trade Minister Don Farrell said, “Tomorrow might be the end of the first part of the process but we’ll continue to engage with the Americans to get these tariffs removed, as we did with the Chinese.”

But if there is indeed a deal to be done, at what cost would it come? The price could be higher than any specifics negotiated.

Australia should be careful of going down the route of supplicant – which, let’s be blunt, is what this would involve.

It’s long been clear we can’t predict what Trump might do in his international relationships. His appalling bullying of Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky; his extraordinary treatment of Canada; his bizarre bid to grab Greenland from NATO ally Denmark – individually, each of these is shocking; collectively, they amount to nearly unimaginable behaviour from a US president.

The risk of trying to cosy up to the Trump administration in seeking exemptions from the 10% general tariff is that, whatever the overt quid pro quo involved, Trump would then see Australia as owing him something if and when he needed it.

A deal could mean Australia would later feel somewhat constrained in calling out egregious Trump actions. Even if it didn’t, the perception could be there.

It’s obvious in retrospect – if it wasn’t all along – that Australia was never going to escape whatever general tariff Trump imposed. At least we are at the bottom of the league table – we’re among the countries minimally hit. As of course we should be, given the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. As Albanese said, we shouldn’t be targeted at all.

One area for possible future negotiation is the ban, for biosecurity reasons, on US fresh beef coming into Australia. There have already been talks about this. Albanese on Thursday said Australia wouldn’t compromise its biosecurity, but flagged room for some possible movement.

This is double-edged. Beef producers will want an exemption, but anything that could be construed as even a remote threat to our biosecurity would go down badly in sections of the electorate, regardless of guarantees.

Australia is in a solid position to withstand the direct effects of the Trump tariffs. Only about 5% of our exports go to the US.

The effect on the beef trade could be relatively mild. The Americans have a dwindling cattle herd (the lowest since the early 1950s). Australian lean beef is particularly suitable for burgers. And, given the 10% tariff applies to other countries, we won’t be disadvantaged against other suppliers. So the Americans are likely to continue to need Australian beef – they will just have to pay more for it.

Peter Draper, professor of international trade at the University of Adelaide, puts the bilateral situation in perspective. “We rode out China’s trade coercion, and China is a much more important trading partner. These tariffs are much smaller.”

Draper argues that “as a matter of principle, you shouldn’t negotiate with bullies”.

Also, the US is breaking international trade rules that are crucial to uphold, Draper says. Cutting special deals validate the rule-breaker’s actions, he says.

The real, and significant, cost to Australia will be what the tariff regime will do to the international economy. Treasurer Jim Chalmers described “Liberation Day” as “a dark day for the global economy”.

Shiro Armstrong, professor of economics at the Australian National University, says the “main game is stopping the contagion of these tariffs globally and stopping a retreat to a 1930s retaliatory spiral”.

Armstrong believes that when it comes to getting a special deal, Australia’s chances are probably better than those of most countries.

But he warns Australia should be “very careful” of a deal involving critical minerals – something the government had on the table and the opposition has said it would pursue. Armstrong points to Trump’s penchant for using “economic coercion to extract concessions”.

Immediately after the Trump announcement, Albanese had a response ready to go.

This includes financial encouragement for exporters to seek to grow other markets.

Australia is not retaliating with counter-tariffs (a sensible stance in line with its free trade beliefs). But there are some “protection-lite” measures in the Albanese package.

Australian businesses will be put at “the front of the queue” for government procurement and contracts.

This measure is part of the government’s current “Buy Australian” push. A small dose of protectionism, it may mean taxpayers pay more for goods and services.

On another front, Albanese said Australia would establish a “Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve”. Details are to come, but it is expected to be a stockpile for these minerals, which are vital for defence equipment in particular. Perhaps such a move is to assure Australians that if there were an agreement to facilitate US access to critical minerals, the government would have belt-and-braces protection for these vital national assets.

In this first week of the campaign, Dutton has found himself on the barbed wire fence when it comes to Trump. He’s putting himself forward as the better leader to deal with Trump (including fighting him if necessary). He’s also rejecting suggestions he is running on Trump-like policies.

In general, the first week of the campaign has been a hard slog for the opposition leader. He comes across as undercooked and late with his deliveries. We are still waiting for the modelling of his controversial policy for an east coast gas reservation scheme.

In the 2022 election campaign, Albanese had a shocker start. But the Liberals now are in a worse place than Labor was then, and Dutton’s campaign needs a significant lift. The question is whether he has the capacity to give it that.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Trying too hard for a special tariff deal with Trump could be the wrong way to go – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-trying-too-hard-for-a-special-tariff-deal-with-trump-could-be-the-wrong-way-to-go-253737

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rakesh Gupta, Associate Professor of Accounting & Finance, Charles Darwin University

US President Donald Trump’s new trade war will not only send shockwaves through the global economy – it also upsets efforts to tackle the urgent issue of climate change.

Trump has announced a minimum 10% tariff to be slapped on all exports to the United States. A 34% duty applies to imports from China and a 20% rate to products from the European Union. Australia has been hit with the minimum 10% tariff.

The move has prompted fears of a global economic slowdown. This might seem like a positive for the climate, because greenhouse gas emissions are closely tied to economic growth.

However, in the long term, the trade war is bad news for global efforts to cut emissions. It is likely to lead to more energy-intensive goods produced in the US, and dampen international investment in renewable energy projects.

How does global trade affect emissions?

Traditionally, growth in the global economy leads to greater emissions from sources such as energy use in both manufacturing and transport. Conversely, emissions tend to fall in periods of economic decline.

Trade tensions damage the global economy. This was borne out in the tariff war between the US and China, the world’s two largest economies, in 2018 and 2019.

Trump, in his first presidential term, imposed tariffs on billions of dollars worth of imports from China. In response, China introduced or increased tariffs on thousands of items from the US.

As a result, the International Monetary Fund estimated global gross domestic product (GDP) would fall by 0.8% in 2020. The extent of its true impact on GDP is difficult to determine due to the onset of COVID in the same year.

However, Trump’s tariff war is far broader this time around, and we can expect broadscale damage to global GDP.

In the short-term, any decline is likely to have a positive impact on emissions reduction. We saw this effect during the COVID-19 pandemic, when global production and trade fell.

But unfortunately, this effect won’t last forever.

Domestic production isn’t always a good thing

Every country consumes goods. And according to Trump’s trade plan, which aims to revive the US manufacturing base, the goods his nation requires will be produced domestically rather than being imported.

Unfortunately, this US production is likely to be inefficient in many cases. A central tenet of global trade is that nations focus on making goods where they have a competitive advantage – in other words, where they can manufacture the item more cheaply than other nations can. That includes making them using less energy, or creating fewer carbon emissions.

If the US insists on manufacturing everything it needs domestically, we can expect many of those goods to be more emissions-intensive than if they were imported.

Renewable energy slowdown?

Globally, investment in renewable energy has been growing. The US trade war jeopardises this growth.

Renewable energy spending is, in many cases, a long-term investment which may not produce an immediate economic reward. The logic is obvious: if we don’t invest in reducing emissions now, the economic costs in the future will be far worse.

However, the US tariffs create a new political imperative. Already, there are fears it may trigger a global economic recession and increase living costs around the world.

National governments are likely to become focused on protecting their own populace from these financial pressures. Business and industry will also become nervous about global economic conditions.

And the result? Both governments and the private sector may shy away from investments in renewable energy and other clean technologies, in favour of more immediate financial concerns.

The COVID experience provides a cautionary tale. The unstable economic outlook and higher interest rates meant banks were more cautious about financing some renewable energy projects.

And according to the International Energy Agency, small to medium-sized businesses became more reluctant to invest in renewable energy applications such as heat pumps and solar panels.

What’s more, the slowing in global trade during the pandemic meant the supply of components and materials vital to the energy transition was disrupted.

There are fears this disruption may be repeated following the US tariff move. For example, the duty on solar products from China to the US is expected to rise to 60%, just as demand for solar energy increases from US data centres and artificial intelligence use.

Few nations can afford to impose retaliatory tariffs on the US imports.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, for example, says this nation will not slap new duties on US imports, saying: “We will not join a race to the bottom that leads to higher prices and slower growth”.

China, however, can be expected to return fire. Already it has halted imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the US for 40 days – a move attributed to trade tensions.

This may seem like good news for emissions reduction. However, China, like all other nations, needs energy. With less gas from the US, it may resort to burning more coal – which generates more CO₂ when burnt than gas.

An uncertain time

Free global trade has worldwide benefits. It helps reduce poverty and stimulates innovation and technology. It can improve democracy and individual freedoms.

And, with the right safeguards in place, global trade can help drive the clean energy transition. Global trade improves efficiency and innovation and technology. This is likely to benefit innovation in clean energy and energy efficiency.

Trump’s tariff war weakens global trade, and will slow the world’s progress towards decarbonisation. It is a most uncertain time – both for the world’s economy, and its climate.

Rakesh Gupta 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 Donald Trump’s dramatic US trade war means for global climate action – https://theconversation.com/what-donald-trumps-dramatic-us-trade-war-means-for-global-climate-action-253740

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Toohey, Professor of Law, UNSW Sydney

It had the hallmarks of a reality TV cliffhanger. Until recently, many people had never even heard of tariffs. Now, there’s been rolling live international coverage of so-called “Liberation Day”, as US President Donald Trump laid out tariffs to be imposed on countries around the world.

Just hours ago, Trump announced imports to the United States from all countries will be subject to a new “baseline” 10% tariff. This is an additional tax charged by US Customs and Border Protection when products cross the border.

The baseline tariff is expected to take effect from April 5, and the higher reciprocal tariffs on individual countries from April 9. That leaves no time for businesses to adjust their supply chains.

What might the next “episode” hold for the rest of the world? We can expect many countries to retaliate, bringing in tariffs and trade penalties of their own. That comes with risks.

Tariffs on the whole world

No country has been spared from today’s baseline tariffs, including many of the US’s traditional allies.

Vietnam will be among the hardest hit, with a 46% tariff. China, South Korea and Japan will also feel the brunt of the newest announcement – all subject to tariffs of between 24% and 34%. The European Union is subject to 20%.

Many countries had already vowed to retaliate.

In a recent speech, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said “all instruments are on the table”. She also stressed that the single market is the “safe harbour” for EU members.

Canada was apparently spared from the baseline 10% tariff. But it still has to contend with previously announced 25% tariffs on the automotive and other sectors.

Canada’s new prime minister, Mark Carney, has said “nothing is off the table” in terms of retaliation.

Major tariffs on Asia

China’s 34% tariff is a further aggravation to already fractious relations between the world’s two largest economies.

Vietnam is especially reliant on the US market, and has been trying to negotiate its way through tariff threats. This has included unprecedented agreements to accept deported Vietnamese citizens from the US.

Until this point, Vietnam had benefited from tensions between the US and China. These new enormous tariffs will have large ripple effects through not only Vietnam, but also less economically developed Cambodia (49% tariff) and Myanmar (44% tariff).

Is it worth fighting back?

Vulnerable countries may not have the leverage to fight back. It is hard to imagine what leverage Cambodia or Myanmar could have against the US, given the disparity in resources.

Other countries consider it is not worth the fight. For example, Australia is rightly questioning whether a tit-for-tat strategy is effective, or will just ramp up the problem further.

One country that has flown under the radar is Russia. Two-way trade with Russia is small, and subject to sanctions. But US media have reported Trump would like to expand the trading relationship in the future.

A nightmare for the US Postal Service

One of the interesting side effects of Trump’s announcements relates to what trade experts call the “de minimis” rule: usually, if you make a small purchase online, you don’t pay import taxes when the item arrives in your country.

Trump closed this loophole in February. Now, US tariffs apply to everything, even if below the “de minimis” amount of US$800.

This won’t just be a nightmare for online shoppers. Some 100,000 small parcels arrive in the US every hour. Tariffs will now have to be calculated on each package and in coordination with US Customs and Border Protection.

Boycotts and retaliation

We can also expect consumer backlash to increase worldwide, too. Canada’s “elbows up” movement is one template.

Consumers around the world are already choosing to redirect their spending away from US products, expressing their anger at the Trump administration’s stance on trade, diversity equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, environmental protection, gender rights and more.

Consumers should be careful about jumping on the bandwagon without doing their homework, though. Boycotting a US fast food outlet might make you feel better (and frankly may be better for your health), but that’s also going to impact the local franchise owner.

Hating Americans en masse is also not productive – many US citizens are themselves deeply upset at what is happening.

Claiming victory while consumers pay more

Watch out for the impending claim of victory – one of Trump’s mantras popularised in the recent movie, The Apprentice.

The US trade deficit rocketed after Trump’s previous tariff announcements this year, as importers scrambled to stockpile supplies before price increases.

This cannot happen this time, because the tariffs come into effect in just three days.

In the short term, the monthly trade deficit will decline if imports return to normal, which will give Trump a chance to claim the policies are working – even if it’s just a rebound effect.

But these tariffs will harm rather than help ordinary Americans. Everyday purchases like clothes (made in places like Vietnam, Cambodia and China) could soon cost a lot more than they used to – with a $20 t-shirt going up to nearly $30, not including US sales taxes.

As this reality TV-style trade drama continues to unfold, the world should prepare for more episodes, more cliffhangers, and more uncertainty.

Lisa Toohey receives public research funding from the Australian Government and is a past recipient of a Fulbright Fellowship.

– ref. Trump’s trade war will hurt everyone – from Cambodian factories to US online shoppers – https://theconversation.com/trumps-trade-war-will-hurt-everyone-from-cambodian-factories-to-us-online-shoppers-253726

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Fuller, Clinical Trials Director, Department of Endocrinology, RPA Hospital, University of Sydney

In the ever-changing wellness industry, one diet obsession has captured and held TikTok’s attention: protein.

Whether it’s sharing snaps of protein-packed meals or giving tutorials to boost your intake, the message is clear: maximum protein consumption is essential for weight management and wellness.

Supermarkets have fed this obsession, stacking the shelves with protein-packed bars, shakes and supplements, and protein-boosted versions of just about every food we eat.

But is all this extra protein as beneficial as it’s made out to be? How much protein do we really need?

Read more:
Protein is being added to yoghurt, bread and even coffee – but is it really good for our health?

Different types of protein

Protein is an essential macronutrient our bodies need to function correctly.
It’s made up of building blocks called amino acids. Twenty amino acids link in different combinations to form proteins that are classified into:

• essential amino acids – ones our bodies can’t make that we need to get through our diet

• non-essential amino acids – ones our bodies can make.

When we think about protein, animal-based foods such as meat, chicken, fish, eggs and dairy products are usually top of mind.

However, the essential amino acids we need to get from our diet can also be found in many plant-based foods, including legumes, nuts, seeds, wholegrains and soy products like tofu.

Why we need protein

Proteins are often called the workhorses of life. They’re involved in virtually every process that keeps our bodies functioning and play a vital role in:

• building and repairing tissue. From our muscles and bones to our skin and nails, proteins are responsible for their growth, renewal and repair

• fighting infection. Our immune system relies on antibodies, a type of protein, to fight off bacteria and viruses

• transporting substances such as nutrients and blood sugar through our bodies and taking oxygen from our lungs to our cells

• regulating processes. Most of the hormones controlling crucial functions, like our metabolism, are proteins

• managing activity. Protein catalysts, in the form of enzymes, manage vital chemical reactions driving important actions in our bodies, including our ability to digest food

• providing energy. Protein isn’t a primary energy source but it can be used for energy when other sources are low.

Protein also plays an essential role in weight management by:

• increasing satiety, making us feel fuller for longer

• reducing cravings by suppressing ghrelin, an appetite-stimulating hormone

• building and maintaining muscle mass. Muscle determines our metabolic rate and the rate at which we burn calories

• boosting our metabolism. Protein-rich foods also have a high thermic effect (the measure of the energy needed for digestion), meaning they help us burn more calories throughout the day.

So influencers have it half right: protein is a must-have. But that doesn’t mean it’s a more-is-better situation.

How much protein do we actually need?

Our daily protein requirements are based on our body weight, gender and age.

Protein should account for around 15–25% of our total daily energy intake, with the national guidelines recommending

• women consume 0.75 grams of protein per kilo of body weight (and 1.0 grams per kilo of body weight when pregnant or breastfeeding)

• men consume 0.84 grams of protein per kilo of body weight.

A woman weighing 72 kilos, for example, should consume 54 grams of protein daily, while a man weighing 87 kilos should consume 73 grams.

Our recommended protein intake changes as we age, with adults aged over 70 requiring 25% more protein than younger people – or around 67 grams of protein daily for women and 91 grams for men.

This is because, as we age, our bodies stop working as efficiently as before. Around the age of 40, we start experiencing a condition called sarcopenia, where our muscle mass naturally declines, and our body fat starts increasing.

Because muscle mass helps determine our metabolic rate, when our muscle mass decreases, our bodies start to burn fewer calories at rest.

Given the role protein plays in muscle growth and preservation, it’s even more vital as we age.

Read more:
What can you do to speed up your metabolism?

What does this look like in real life?

By including a protein source at every meal, you can easily meet your daily protein needs. With the example below, you end up with around 125g a day for men and around 100g for women.

Broken down into meals, this might look like:

• breakfast: chickpea scramble = 1.5 fist-sizes of protein

• morning tea: Greek yoghurt and a handful of nuts

• lunch: beef stir fry = 1 fist-size of protein

• afternoon tea: hummus, veggie sticks and one boiled egg

• dinner: lentil and beef bolognese, and salad = half a fist-size of protein.

What happens when we consume too much protein?

The wellness industry may make you think you’re not getting enough protein. But for most people, we are fixating on a problem that doesn’t exist. In fact, you can get too much, when at levels of greater than 2 grams per kilo of body weight per day.

A diet excessively high in protein can lead to nutritional deficiencies that can result in poor immune function, fatigue and a decrease in bone density because you’re likely to lose out on other nutrients.

High meat intake, particularly processed meats, may also increase our risk of cancer and heart disease, and can come with a surplus of energy that leads to weight gain.

Balance is key

Aim for a diet balanced across all of the macronutrients we need: wholegrain carbohydrates, healthy fats and protein.

As a guide, aim to fill a quarter of your plate with lean protein (lean meat, poultry, fish, eggs, tofu, nuts, seeds, legumes or beans), a quarter with wholegrain carbohydrates and the rest with vegetables and fruits.

And avoid those unnecessary, protein-boosted foods and supplements – your health, weight and hip pocket will thank you for it.

At the Boden Group, Charles Perkins Centre, we are running clinical trials for metabolic health. You can register here to express your interest.

A/Prof Nick Fuller works for the University of Sydney and RPA Hospital and has received external funding for projects relating to the treatment of overweight and obesity. He is the author and founder of the Interval Weight Loss program, and the author of Healthy Parents, Healthy Kids with Penguin Books.

– ref. Is TikTok right? Do I need to eat more protein? – https://theconversation.com/is-tiktok-right-do-i-need-to-eat-more-protein-234375

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Tarzia, Professor and Co-Lead of the Sexual and Family Violence Program at the Department of General Practice & Primary Care, The University of Melbourne

Every year, more than 700,000 international students leave their homes to study in Australia.

Around half are women.

For most of these students, the experience is positive. Many choose to remain in Australia for employment or migration.

However, for others, what should be a dream opportunity is shattered by experiences of violence.

An unsafe space for some

Australia has long been regarded as a safe society. However, international students’ safety was questioned in 2009 after a series of attacks on Indian students, and again in 2020 when a survey of 6000 students revealed a quarter had experienced racist abuse during the COVID pandemic.

Addressing these issues is important.

For women international students, violence can also be gender-based, including intimate partner violence and sexual violence.

These issues facing women international students have mainly been overlooked by institutions, government policies and services, despite causing enormous harm to health and wellbeing.

Read more:
‘They eat snacks during class and swing on chairs’: the worrying, sexist behaviour of some young men at uni

Our research

In our recent project, we examined the sexual and intimate partner violence experiences of women international students in Australia.

For the past few years we have been running a national survey of students focused on “health, relationships, consent and wellbeing”.

The survey was offered in five languages other than English (Mandarin, Hindi, Portuguese, Vietnamese and Nepali). It referred to “unwanted sexual experiences” rather than talking about “sexual assault”, to try to reduce participant discomfort.

A total of 1491 students responded nation-wide. Nearly one-third were born in China, 10% in the Philippines and 10% in India, reflecting the major international student groups currently studying in Australia.

Most (82%) had a first language other than English.

Our findings suggest both sexual violence and intimate partner violence are common among women international students. More than 40% had experienced at least one incident of sexual violence since arriving in Australia.

One in five had experienced forced or coerced sex. More than 45% who had ever been in a relationship had experienced intimate partner violence in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Almost all of this violence was perpetrated by men.

It’s important to note this was not a representative sample in the statistical sense, because students volunteered to take part. However, our findings are still concerning.

International students are by no means the only group affected by sexual and intimate partner violence. Both are widespread in Australia, including among domestic students.

The 2021 National Student Safety Survey found one in six students had experienced sexual harassment since starting university, and one in 20 had been sexually assaulted.

Less is known about intimate partner violence, but research suggests it is also common.

In the wider Australian community, sexual violence affects around one in five women over the age of 15. One in four report intimate partner violence.

What else did we discover?

We also looked at what factors might be linked to this violence against women international students.

We found students who experienced financial stress, housing insecurity, and low social support were more likely to report both sexual violence and intimate partner violence.

In an earlier study for this project, we interviewed 30 international students about their experiences seeking help after sexual or intimate partner violence.

Many felt socially isolated and had no-one to turn to. Support from tertiary education providers was mixed and students worried about their visa being cancelled.

Often, they did not tell their families back home what had happened for fear of causing shame or distress.

Multiple barriers such as cost, ineligibility for services, and confusion about the complex health and legal systems in Australia prevented them from accessing support privately.

Some felt: “Australia doesn’t care about me”.

Some positive steps, but more is needed

Last month, the federal government launched the National Student Ombudsman as part of its national action plan addressing gender-based violence in higher education.

The government has also recently unveiled the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence, outlining expectations and standards for addressing the issue.

These are positive changes.

However, international student voices have not been heard in the development of these, or other policies and guidelines focused on gender-based violence in higher education.

Recommendations addressing the specific needs of international students are lacking.

There is an urgent need to tackle the structural challenges faced by international students when seeking help.

Our findings suggest tertiary education providers could be doing more to keep women international students safer. Culturally appropriate, trauma-sensitive education around consent and relationships, delivered in-language, is important.

But this on its own is not enough.

International students experiencing financial stress or housing insecurity need to be supported to avoid increasing their risk of gendered violence. Strategies could be put into place to build social connection, so students are less isolated when they arrive in Australia.

At government levels, subsidised social support, health and welfare services need to be made available and without restrictions to all international students.

We need to take our duty of care towards international students’ health, wellbeing and safety more seriously.

International education is Australia’s largest services export, contributing about A$51 billion in 2023-24.

It’s in our interest to better support international students to study safely in Australia.

The authors would like to acknowledge the input of Dr Adele Murdolo from the Multicultural Centre for Women’s Health for this article.

Laura Tarzia receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and The Australian Research Council for her research addressing sexual and reproductive violence.

Helen Forbes-Mewett receives funding from the Australian Research Council, DHSS and DFAT for her work on international students and migrant communities.

Ly Tran receives funding from the Australian Research Council, DFAT and Department of Education for her work on international students, geopolitics and student mobilities, the New Colombo Plan, staff professional development in international education and graduate employability in Vietnam.

Mandy McKenzie receives funding from the Australian Research Council

– ref. ‘Australia doesn’t care about me’: women international students suffering alarming rates of sexual violence – https://theconversation.com/australia-doesnt-care-about-me-women-international-students-suffering-alarming-rates-of-sexual-violence-252610

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sebastian Maslow, Associate Professor, International Relations, University of Tokyo

Two months into US President Donald Trump’s second term, the liberal international order is on life support.

Alliances and multilateral institutions are now seen by the United States as burdens. Europe and NATO are framed as bad business, “ripping off” the US. On his so-called “Liberation Day”, Trump also imposed 20% tariffs on all European Union imports.

The Trump administration has been far less critical of the US’ alliances in the Indo-Pacific region. On a visit to Tokyo this week, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth described Japan as America’s “indispensable partner” in deterring Chinese aggression.

Yet, Japan and South Korea fared even worse than the EU with Trump’s new tariffs. Trump slapped Japan with 24% tariffs and South Korea 25%. (Both countries enjoy a trade surplus with the US.)

So, how are the US’ two main allies in the Indo-Pacific dealing with the mercurial US leader? Will they follow Europe’s lead in reassessing their own security relationships with the US?

Japan: a positive summit but concerns remain

America’s post-war security strategy in Asia differs from Europe. While NATO was built on the premise of collective defence among its members, the US adopted a “hub-and-spokes” model in Asia, relying on bilateral alliances to contain the spread of communism.

Japan and South Korea have long sheltered under the US nuclear umbrella and hosted major US military bases. Both are also highly sensitive to changes in the US’ Indo-Pacific policies.

Japan, in particular, has a long history of careful alliance management with the US, epitomised by former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s courting of Trump.

During Trump’s first term in office, Abe’s policy goals aligned closely with the US: transforming Japan’s security posture to make it a serious military and diplomatic power. Japan increased military spending, lifted arms export restrictions and deepened ties with India and Australia.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida continued to raise Japan’s security profile from 2021-24, again increasing military spending and taking a tough line on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He emphasised “Europe today could be Asia tomorrow”.

His successor, Shigeru Ishiba, had a successful summit with Trump in February, immediately after his inauguration. The joint statement reaffirmed US security guarantees to Japan, including over the Senkaku Islands, which are claimed by China.

Japan also agreed to import American liquefied natural gas, and later committed to working with South Korea to develop a US$44 billion (A$70 billion) plan to export LNG from Alaska.

However, these positive developments do not mean the relationship is on firm ground.

In early March, Trump complained the US-Japan security agreement signed in 1960 was “one-sided” and a top administration official again called for Japan to increase its defence spending to 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) – a huge increase for a country facing serious demographic and fiscal pressures.

Reports also emerged the US was considering cancelling a new joint headquarters in Japan aimed at deeper integration between US and Japanese forces.

South Korea: extremely vulnerable on trade

South Korea faces similar pressures. Ties between the two countries were strained during Trump’s first term over his demand South Korea increase the amount it pays to host US forces by
nearly 400%. A 2021 agreement restored some stability, but left Seoul deeply worried about the future of the alliance.

South Korea’s acting president, Choi Sang-mok, has expressed a desire to strengthen ties with the US, though Trump has reportedly been cool to his advances.

With a US$66 billion (A$105 billion) trade surplus with the US, South Korea is considered the country most vulnerable to trade risk with the Trump administration, according to a Swiss research group.

Trump’s past suggestions that both South Korea and Japan develop nuclear weapons or pay for US nuclear protection has also rattled some nerves. As confidence in the US alliance erodes, both countries are engaging in an urgent public debate about the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons.

Tensions moving forward

Potential for conflict is on the horizon. For example, Tokyo and Washington are set to renegotiate the deal that dictates how much Japan pays to host US troops next year.

Both allies pay huge sums to host US bases. South Korea will pay US$1.14 billion (A$1.8 billion) in 2026, and Japan pays US$1.72 billion (A$2.7 billion) annually.

A trade war could also prompt a reassessment of the costs of US efforts to decouple from China, potentially leading to closer economic ties between Japan, South Korea and China. The three countries have agreed to accelerate talks on a trilateral free trade agreement, which had been on hold since 2019.

Another challenge is semiconductors. Japan’s new semiconductor revitalisation strategy is prioritising domestic investment, raising questions about whether Trump will tolerate “friendshoring” if Japan diverts investments from the US.

In 2024, Japan outspent the US in semiconductor subsidies (as a share of GDP), while Taiwan’s TSMC, the world’s largest contract chipmaker, expanded its production capacity in Japan.

Seoul remains an important partner to Washington on semiconductors. Samsung and SK Hynix are both boosting their investments on new semiconductor plants in the US. However, there is now uncertainty over the subsidies promised to both companies to invest in America under the CHIPS Act.

Ultimately, the strength of these alliances depends on whether the Trump administration views them as long-term bulwarks against China’s rise in the region, or merely vassals that can be extorted for financial gain.

If the US is serious about countering China, its regional alliances are key. This would give Japan and South Korea some degree of leverage – or, in Trump terms, they’ll hold valuable cards. Whether they get to play them, however, depends on what Trump’s China policy turns out to be.

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

– ref. Slammed by tariffs and defence demands, Japan and South Korea toe a cautious line with Trump – https://theconversation.com/slammed-by-tariffs-and-defence-demands-japan-and-south-korea-toe-a-cautious-line-with-trump-244172