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

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Haslam, Professor of Psychology, The University of Melbourne

The original tall poppies bloomed in the garden of Tarquin the Proud, last king of Rome. To communicate that his enemies should be defeated by killing their leaders, he is said to have decapitated the tallest flowers with a stick.

Two and a half thousand years later, “tall poppies” are those among us who rise above the horde through the excellence of their achievements or the boldness of their ambition.

Sometimes tall poppies are celebrated, as an array of tall poppy awards attests. Other times they are scorned for their arrogance and envied for their success. Too big for their boots or britches, they must be cut down to size.

Aversion to tall poppies is said to be particularly strong in Australia and New Zealand, where the idea of a “tall poppy syndrome” was invented in the 1980s. A tendency to drag down those who set themselves above others, the syndrome supposedly reflects values of equality, humility and the storied “fair go”.

But what are the effects of the tall poppy syndrome? What does it tell us about Antipodean cultures? And are we uniquely averse to those who stand out from the crowd?

Effects of the tall poppy syndrome

Effects of the tall poppy syndrome on work performance and leadership have been studied extensively.

In a New Zealand study of prominent entrepreneurs, nearly all reported encountering the syndrome. “If you do achieve something and stick your head up a bit further,” one said, “people will try to chop you down to size.”

Dealing with negative responses to success drove some entrepreneurs to adopt specific coping strategies, like staying under the radar and taking pains not to flaunt their success.

Tall poppy syndrome doesn’t merely bruise enterprising egos, it can also adversely affect business decisions. The NZ study found public attacks can discourage entrepreneurs from starting or growing a business and from persevering after setbacks.

Athletes also report being targets. Some attacks simply reflect anonymous online spite, but tall poppy attitudes also drive aggressive behaviour. One Australian study found that high performing student athletes were often victims of bullying.

Cultural underpinnings

Harvesting tall poppies may be common in Australia and New Zealand, but there is little evidence that it is unique to us.

In Japan, the saying “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down” captures the idea that people should not be conspicuously different.

The Law of Jante expresses a similar sentiment in Scandinavian countries. Despite being fictitious, invented by Danish-Norwegian novelist Aksel Sandemose, its ten rules dictate that “you’re not to think you are anything special” and “you’re not to imagine yourself better than we are”, among other humbling commandments.

These examples are subtly different from each other: the Japanese version presents being different as undesirable; the Nordic version identifies being better or special as undesirable traits.

In the more collectivist Japanese context, avoiding displays of individuality helps to preserve social harmony and avoid conflict. In the more individualist Scandinavian context, the key concern is maintaining social equality. The Law of Jante levels out a society where individuality is highly valued but expressions of personal superiority are not.

These variations show that aversion to tall poppies can express two distinct values in different cultural settings: conformity via collectivism, and equality via egalitarianism.

Values researchers think of egalitarianism in terms of a cultural dimension called “power distance”. Cultures high on this dimension value social hierarchy and accept inequalities. Low cultures prefer more equal social arrangements.

Australia tends to score relatively low on power distance, with Scandinavian countries and New Zealand lower still, as well as scoring high on individualism. In this “horizontal” form of individualism, people are meant to strive to be distinct without desiring special status. It is therefore no surprise to find the tall poppy syndrome in these countries.

Values in the United States also tend to be highly individualistic, but higher in power distance than in Oceania, a combination known as “vertical individualism”. Vertical individualists also value being distinct from others, but are more comfortable with inequality and with raising themselves above others.

As this contrast suggests, Americans favour rewarding tall poppies more strongly than Australians. This aligns with the ethos of the “American Dream”, a cultural narrative that champions ambition and status-seeking, and the full-throated celebration of personal success.

The future of the tall poppy syndrome

In our age of self-promotion, with social media sites devoted to not-so-humble bragging, have we become immune to the tall poppy syndrome? Are we becoming more comfortable about standing out, or does egalitarianism remain a powerful obstacle?

Research finds no increase in levels of narcissism in Australia, in contrast to some evidence of rising levels in the US. By implication, Australians are not becoming more willing to elevate themselves above others. Whether their attitudes to people who do so has changed remains to be seen.

More importantly, we should ask if, in times of high and rising inequality, less egalitarianism is something to hope for. No one wants successful athletes to be lashed by public envy – but if the tall poppy syndrome reflects a commitment to social equality, perhaps a complete cure would be worse than the disease.

A culture that attacks its tall poppies risks discouraging ambition and innovation, but one that overlooks inequality may lose sight of the collective good. Ultimately, the challenge lies in finding a balance between celebrating individual excellence and maintaining the egalitarian spirit that fosters fairness.

Nick Haslam receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Milad Haghani 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. Australia and New Zealand are plagued by ‘tall poppy syndrome’. But would a cure be worse than the disease? – https://theconversation.com/australia-and-new-zealand-are-plagued-by-tall-poppy-syndrome-but-would-a-cure-be-worse-than-the-disease-245355

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niven Winchester, Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology

We now have a clearer picture of Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and how they will affect other trading nations, including the United States itself.

The US administration claims these tariffs on imports will reduce the US trade deficit and address what it views as unfair and non-reciprocal trade practices. Trump said this would

forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed.

The “reciprocal” tariffs are designed to impose charges on other countries equivalent to half the costs they supposedly inflict on US exporters through tariffs, currency manipulation and non-tariff barriers levied on US goods.

Each nation received a tariff number that will apply to most goods. Notable sectors exempt include steel, aluminium and motor vehicles, which are already subject to new tariffs.

The minimum baseline tariff for each country is 10%. But many countries received higher numbers, including Vietnam (46%), Thailand (36%), China (34%), Indonesia (32%), Taiwan (32%) and Switzerland (31%).

The tariff number for China is in addition to an existing 20% tariff, so the total tariff applied to Chinese imports is 54%. Countries assigned 10% tariffs include Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

Canada and Mexico are exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, for now, but goods from those nations are subject to a 25% tariff under a separate executive order.

Although some countries do charge higher tariffs on US goods than the US imposes on their exports, and the “Liberation Day” tariffs are allegedly only half the full reciprocal rate, the calculations behind them are open to challenge.

For example, non-tariff measures are notoriously difficult to estimate and “subject to much uncertainty”, according to one recent study.

GDP impacts with retaliation

Other countries are now likely to respond with retaliatory tariffs on US imports. Canada (the largest destination for US exports), the EU and China have all said they will respond in kind.

To estimate the impacts of this tit-for-tat trade standoff, I use a global model of the production, trade and consumption of goods and services. Similar simulation tools – known as “computable general equilibrium models” – are widely used by governments, academics and consultancies to evaluate policy changes.

The first model simulates a scenario in which the US imposes reciprocal and other new tariffs, and other countries respond with equivalent tariffs on US goods. Estimated changes in GDP due to US reciprocal tariffs and retaliatory tariffs by other nations are shown in the table below.

The tariffs decrease US GDP by US$438.4 billion (1.45%). Divided among the nation’s 126 million households, GDP per household decreases by $3,487 per year. That is larger than the corresponding decreases in any other country. (All figures are in US dollars.)

Proportional GDP decreases are largest in Mexico (2.24%) and Canada (1.65%) as these nations ship more than 75% of their exports to the US. Mexican households are worse off by $1,192 per year and Canadian households by $2,467.

Other nations that experience relatively large decreases in GDP include Vietnam (0.99%) and Switzerland (0.32%).

Some nations gain from the trade war. Typically, these face relatively low US tariffs (and consequently also impose relatively low tariffs on US goods). New Zealand (0.29%) and Brazil (0.28%) experience the largest increases in GDP. New Zealand households are better off by $397 per year.

Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world (all nations except the US) decreases by $62 billion.

At the global level, GDP decreases by $500 billion (0.43%). This result confirms the well-known rule that trade wars shrink the global economy.

GDP impacts without retaliation

In the second scenario, the modelling depicts what happens if other nations do not react to the US tariffs. The changes in the GDP of selected countries are presented in the table below.

Countries that face relatively high US tariffs and ship a large proportion of their exports to the US experience the largest proportional decreases in GDP. These include Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, Switzerland, South Korea and China.

Countries that face relatively low new tariffs gain, with the UK experiencing the largest GDP increase.

The tariffs decrease US GDP by $149 billion (0.49%) because the tariffs increase production costs and consumer prices in the US.

Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world decreases by $155 billion, more than twice the corresponding decrease when there was retaliation. This indicates that the rest of the world can reduce losses by retaliating. At the same time, retaliation leads to a worse outcome for the US.

Previous tariff announcements by the Trump administration dropped sand into the cogs of international trade. The reciprocal tariffs throw a spanner into the works. Ultimately, the US may face the largest damages.

Niven Winchester has previously received funding from the Productivity Commission and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to estimate the impacts of potential trade policies. He is affiliated with Motu Economic & Public Policy Research.

– ref. New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with the US hit hardest – https://theconversation.com/new-modelling-reveals-full-impact-of-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-with-the-us-hit-hardest-253320

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felicity Deane, Professor of Trade Law, Taxation and Climate Change, Queensland University of Technology

US President Donald Trump has imposed a range of tariffs on all products entering the US market, with Australian exports set to face a 10% tariff, effective April 5.

These import taxes will be charged by US customs on each imported item. The punitive tariffs on 60 countries range as high as 34% on imports from China and 46% on Vietnam, and exceed the rates agreed between the United States and other global trade partners.

“For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike,” Trump said.

The impact on Australian industries will be both direct and indirect. The largest Australian export to the US is meat products, totalling A$4 billion in 2024, and our farmers may divert some product to other nations.

Direct and indirect impacts

The larger economic risk is to our regional trading partners.

While Australia faces only 10% tariffs, our major trading partners China, Japan and South Korea all face much higher US tariffs under the new regime. So the risk of a manufacturing slowdown in those countries could dampen demand for Australia’s much larger exports – iron ore, coal and gas.

Australian investors reacted swiftly, wiping 2.1% off the main stock market index, the S&P/ASX 200, in the first hour of trade.

Another problem will be the disruption to global supply chains. It is not just finished products impacted. For instance, the 25% automobile tariff will be extended to auto parts on May 3. This means even if a car is entirely built in the US, it will still be more expensive because many components are imported.

Read more:
What are tariffs?

What sectors has the US complained about?

On April 1, the US released an annual trade report that identifies what it describes as “foreign trade barriers”. There was a long list of grievances with both tariff and non-tariff barriers identified.

The report identified Australia’s biosecurity restrictions on meat, apples and pears. The Australian biosecurity rules do not directly ban any products, although in practice raw beef products are excluded.

Trump singled out Australian beef in his speech. “They won’t take any of our beef,” he claimed.

In a speech riddled with inaccuracies and falsehoods, this was one of them. Australia take shelf-stable US products, but not raw products for which consumer safety can not be assured.

The US cited two other main Australian trade barriers. US drug companies have criticised the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme approvals processes. The Albanese government’s plan to strengthen the News Media Bargaining Code that requires tech companies to pay for news published on their platforms was also targeted.

How can Australia respond?

Both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton are in agreement over what we should do in response. They say Australian law and policy is not up for sale. We don’t negotiate on biosecurity, we don’t negotiate on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme process, and our local news media deserves protection from Big Tech.

1. All avenues start with negotiations

The preferred option is for a negotiation with the US to secure an exemption.

A dispute at the World Trade Organization (WTO) sends a strong message to our trading partners and will also mean there’s an expert adjudication on this unprecedented move.

However, the US has sidelined the WTO in recent years and Albanese has ruled out this route.

2. Consultation

The second potential action is to initiate consultations under the Australia–US Free Trade Agreement. There is a formal process identified in the agreement to which Albanese referred, with a threat of “dispute resolution mechanisms”.

Albanese has ruled out imposing “reciprocal tariffs” on US imports, noting this would only push up prices for Australian consumers.

3. Find new markets

Third, we can find other markets. Australian agricultural products are some of the most desirable in the world. Australian producers will have other options. Indeed, the latest data for beef exports showed exports to China jumped 43% from January, to Japan up 27%, and to South Korea up 60% from the previous month.

What has the government said?

Albanese announced a response package, including $50 million to help pursue new markets. He said the tariff announcement was “not the act of a friend” and had “no basis in logic”:

It is the American people who will pay the biggest price for these unjustified tariffs. This is why our government will not be seeking to impose reciprocal tariffs.

Albanese’s response contains only one direct trade measure. That is the plan to strengthen anti-dumping provisions on steel, aluminium and other manufacturing. This means countries looking to sell their products too cheaply in Australia will face countervailing duties. It is a measure that aligns with trade rules.

The decision by the US to impose tariffs in this way shows complete disregard for the world trade order established after World War II.

The rules that have existed since this time aimed to limit trade barriers (such as tariffs). They also recognised the importance of supporting developing countries to be part of the world economy.

Some of the biggest US tariffs are to hit some of the lowest-income countries. This will impact their economies badly and disadvantage people already living in poverty.

Read more:
Why developing countries must unite to protect the WTO’s dispute settlement system

Felicity Deane 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. US tariffs will upend global trade. This is how Australia can respond – https://theconversation.com/us-tariffs-will-upend-global-trade-this-is-how-australia-can-respond-253621

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

US President Donald Trump singled out Australia’s beef trade for special mention in his announcement that the United States would impose a 10% global tariff as well as “reciprocal tariffs” on many countries.

In a long speech in the White House Rose Garden, Trump said: “Australia bans – and they’re wonderful people and wonderful everything – but they ban American beef.

“Yet we imported US$3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone.

“They won’t take any of our beef. They don’t want it because they don’t want it to affect their farmers and you know, I don’t blame them but we’re doing the same thing right now starting at midnight tonight, I would say.”

Australia bans US fresh beef imports because of biosecurity concerns. The US just-released Foreign Trade Barriers report says, “the United States continues to seek full market access for fresh US beef and beef products”.

Trump announced a “minimum baseline tariff” of 10%, which would apply to Australia as well as to all other countries.

Initially, given Trump’s language, there was confusion about what will happen with beef but later it was clarified it would face the basic 10% general tariff, and nothing more.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned the new US trade regime and said Australia would continue to try to get exemptions for Australia.

The trade decision was “not unexpected” but had “no basis in logic” and “was not the act of a friend”.

Albanese announced a response package, but flagged the government did not want to take the US to the World Trade Organisation. The package includes:

• strenghening anti-dumping provisions

• providing A$50 million to affected sectors to secure and pursue new markets

• sending five missions abroad to develop other markets

• setting up a new resilience program, involving $1 billion in loans to capitalise on new investment opportunities

• putting Australian businesses at “the front of the queue” in a “buy Australian” policy in government procurement

• setting up a strategic reserve for Australian critical minerals.

Albanese re-emphasised Australia would make no changes to the country’s biosecurity rules.

Under Trump’s announcement, varying “reciprocal” rates are being imposed on individual countries according to the barriers they impose on American items.

The president described this as “one of the most important days in American history”, saying it represented a “declaration of economic independence”.

China will face a 34% tariff, while there will be a 25% global tariff on cars imported into the US. Imports from the European Union will have a 20% tariff imposed.

There will be 25% on imports from South Korea, as well as 24% on imports from Japan and 32% on those from Taiwan.

Trump’s message to countries seeking special treatment could not have been blunter.

“To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors, and everyone else, who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs, I say, terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don’t manipulate here your currencies – they manipulate their currencies, like, nobody can even believe, when it’s a bad, bad thing, and very devastating to us.

“And start buying tens of billions of dollars of American goods.

“Tariffs give us protection against those looking to do us economic harm.”

He said the new US trade regime would raise trillions of dollars that would reduce American taxes and pay down its debt.

Opposition campaign spokesman James Paterson described the announcement as “disappointing”, He said Australia should work “calmly and directly” with the US administration to get a better deal.

Nationals leader David Littleproud said action against beef would mean the price of Big Mac burgers would go up for American consumers. Australian beef exported to the US is especially for burgers.

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. Australian beef highlighted by Donald Trump in ‘Liberation Day’ trade crackdown – https://theconversation.com/australian-beef-highlighted-by-donald-trump-in-liberation-day-trade-crackdown-253111

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Rudge, Law lecturer, University of Sydney

Recent media coverage in the Nine newspapers highlights a surge in non-medical ultrasound providers offering “reassurance ultrasounds” to expectant parents.

The service has resulted in serious harms, such as misdiagnosed ectopic pregnancies and undetected fetal abnormalities, according to the reports.

So why do some women choose additional ultrasounds? And how can you tell if you should trust the person providing your ultrasound?

What are reassurance scans?

Reassurance scans are a type of non-medical elective or “entertainment” ultrasound some women seek in addition to their routine first- and second-trimester scans.

Reassurance scans are marketed as a way to “give you peace of mind” about your baby’s development, or to assure you “everything is progressing as it should” if you’re not due for a routine scan.

They’re also called souvenir, boutique or keepsake ultrasounds, because these business typically sell memento packages. These often include so-called 4D images: renderings combined with the fourth dimension of time to show movement.

Some businesses offer gender identification information, sometimes with “gender-reveal” party accessories, as well as audio recordings of the fetal heartbeat.

Why do women get them?

Detailed interview studies have explored why ultrasound images beyond the routine scans are so popular.

Many expecting parents want to learn the fetal sex as early as possible, seek reassurance, see the facial features of their future child and acquire keepsake images.

Others find the routine scans too rushed and impersonal, turning to commercial providers as a more ceremonious and fulfilling ritual.

Health sociologists have emphasised the positive health impacts of non-medical ultrasound, which can help expecting mothers and fathers bond with their baby.

Some feminists in the 20th century criticised the medicalisation of pregnancy for devaluing “lived experience”. But recent feminist accounts have re-framed non-medical scans as a way for women to get health care that goes beyond clinical utility.

Rather than trivialising the “entertainment” value of these services, some argue obstetricians could learn from the service, thus improving patient satisfaction during obstetric imaging.

What are the risks of these services?

In recent years, the technology to provide detailed scans has become more portable, with handheld, smartphone-compatible ultrasound devices now available.

This, along with the normalisation of sharing ultrasound images on social media, has likely led to more commercial businesses offering these services.

Yet the service is considered fraught with unmanageable psychological and social risk. Providers are usually not trained to counsel mothers or families should a fetal anomaly be suspected.

Professional organisations have denounced these businesses for misleading consumers with false reassurances. As these scans aren’t checked by a clinician, these operators cannot give reliable assurances.

The World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology and similar bodies disapprove of souvenir ultrasounds on safety grounds. So too does the Australian Sonographers Association, which represents about 70% of sonographers.

No substantive restrictions on ultrasound devices

Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration regulates the supply of medical devices. It registers them, classifies them according to their risk and sometimes attaches conditions to their use.

However, some portable ultrasound scanners approved as low-risk devices carry no specific conditions. Lay consumers could theoretically purchase them, including through the personal importation scheme.

Last year, the TGA de-registered several handheld devices used to detect fetal heartbeats during pregnancy without health practitioner supervision.

The decision followed a post-market review that found expectant parents had been falsely reassured by the devices themselves or by untrained people using them in home settings.

However, no such review has been conducted for portable ultrasound devices.

While removing devices from the register in this manner may limit consumer access, it is not a “product recall” and would not prevent the continued sale of second-hand devices.

Who can perform ultrasounds?

While some specialist health practitioners may perform ultrasounds (such as obstetricians holding a relevant certificate), most diagnostic imaging specialists are sonographers.

To perform medical ultrasounds that are eligible for a Medicare rebate, sonographers must be trained and accredited.

But there is no sonography registration board to receive complaints about sonographers or take disciplinary action against them. This sets sonographers apart from registered health practitioners such as doctors, nurses and pharmacists.

The Australian Sonographers Association has argued sonographers should be regulated by a registration board.

This could make sonographers more clearly identifiable through title protections, ensure poorly performing sonographers are disciplined and allow for consistent national standards.

However, it would not stop unregistered people from providing non-medical ultrasounds.

So how can you tell if your provider is a sonographer?

One clear signal that a provider is offering a non-diagnostic ultrasound is that no Medicare subsidy is on offer.

Australian providers conducting imaging without accreditation must inform consumers of their non-accredited status and confirm no Medicare benefit is payable.

Not doing so would amount to an offence.

How can you report a dodgy provider?

You can make complaints to state-based health complaints bodies. The Health Care Complaints Commission in New South Wales, for example, can investigate complaints about sonographers as non-registered health practitioners and consider the relevant code of conduct.

When a sonographer is found to have acted improperly, or to pose a health or safety risk, these complaints bodies may issue orders prohibiting the sonographer from providing any health services for a specified period.

Australian consumer law is another way authorities may crack down on unscrupulous providers. In 2015, a person was prosecuted in Western Australia after selling identical images to six women who received non-medical ultrasounds in their homes.

Her offences involved making false or misleading claims and accepting money for services not provided.

If non-medical imaging providers make misleading claims, including about the level of clinical reassurance a non-diagnostic scan can provide, you can report them to the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission.

The author was employed as a research officer at the Medical Council of New South Wales in 2018.

– ref. Why do women get ‘reassurance scans’ during pregnancy? And how can you spot a dodgy provider? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-women-get-reassurance-scans-during-pregnancy-and-how-can-you-spot-a-dodgy-provider-253544

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Heaslip, Senior Lecturer in Naval History, University of Portsmouth

China’s intentions when it comes to Taiwan have been at the centre of intense discussion for years. Both mainland China and Taiwan claim to represent the “real” China after the Kuomintang nationalist party under Chiang Kai Shek retreated across the Taiwan Strait and established the Republic of China there in 1949. Ever since then, mainland China – the People’s Republic – has maintained a claim over Taiwan.

But in recent years, Chinese leaders – including the current president, Xi Jinping – have talked of plans for “reunification” which would bring Taiwan and its population of 23 million under the control of Beijing. By force if necessary.

Now, the recent appearance of a handful of odd-looking barges at a beach in Guangdong province in the People’s Republic may be a significant movement towards that unwelcome potential outcome.

The Shuiqiao barges filmed in March 2025 working together to form a relocatable bridge – the name means “water bridge” – enable the transfer of vehicles, supplies and people between ship and shore, over shallow beaches and potential obstacles on to firm ground. Analysts have already pointed out that there is no obvious commercial role for such large vessels, so the most likely purpose is for landing armed forces during amphibious operations.

All major navies maintain some form of amphibious capability. The UK’s Royal Fleet Auxiliary, for example, operates the UK’s three bay class landing ships, which are due to be replaced by six modern multi-role strike ships. What is particularly significant, however, is that the Shuiqiao offers capabilities along similar lines to the Mulberry harbours built for the D-Day Normandy landings.

The specialised nature of these landing barges, with only one real purpose – to help land large numbers of military forces, stands in contrast with mainstream amphibious vessels. Bay class ships, for example, continue to be used for civilian evacuations, humanitarian aid, disaster relief and a wide range of military roles.

That is a crucial distinction as amphibious operations present huge logistical challenges. D-Day required 850,000 troops, 485,000 tons of supplies and 153,000 vehicles to be landed safely over the first three weeks. Ports tend to be difficult to seize intact, as was demonstrated to great cost during the 1942 raid on Dieppe, so it is generally necessary to land armies over the invasion beaches.

The ability to install temporary harbours, which is what the Shuiqiao bridges appear to provide, offers a means of quickly landing large forces from bigger ships to shore. That also reduces the number of specialised landing ships required, by enabling the use of commercial vessels for ferrying troops to those makeshift ports.

Is an invasion of Taiwan imminent?

What is of concern is that such specialised landing barges are not normally constructed until shortly before they are intended to be used. The Mulberry harbours went into production only a year before the Normandy landings. This is both to ensure they are in good working order when required, but also as they tend to offer little additional value and yet come at a significant price. In this present case, the nearest comparable civilian and military vessels cost hundreds of millions of dollars each.

This does not mean that their appearance guarantees that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is imminent. At present there are reported to be three completed prototype landing barges ready for deployment and three under construction. This would offer one or two beach bridges, each an estimated 820 metres long.

That would be of minimal value in a major invasion. The single US Navy Jlots modular floating pier in Gaza, for example, was only able to land 8,800 tonnes of aid in 20 days. While the Gaza effort was affected by bad weather, any Shuiqiao landing bridges would face much more dangerous wartime conditions. Three to six barges could also still plausibly be intended for disaster relief, even if does not seem a particularly cost-effective means of delivering aid.

But if the number of these barges continues to increase then the assumption must be that a major amphibious expedition is likely within the next decade. Historically, neither the UK, US or any other major power has maintained more than a handful of such highly specialised landing vessels, except for when they intended to use them. In the case of these barges the target may not necessarily be Taiwan – although it would be the most obvious target.

Assuming that an invasion does not trigger a world war, it might still be unsuccessful. Despite years of preparation and near complete control of the sea and skies, the Normandy landings were incredibly perilous and at times looked at risk of defeat. Success came at great cost in lives, through great skill, and at times a little luck. More than 4,400 allied soldiers are believed to have died within the first 24 hours alone, with many more wounded.

Furthermore, getting forces ashore is only part of the challenge. Taiwan’s geography is not suited to rapid movement inland and in similar historic cases that has led to significant additional casualties and delays.

The battle of Anzio during the 1944 invasion of Italy, for example, registered tens of thousands of casualties as the allies struggled to break out of the beachhead. Likewise, at Gallipoli in 1915, repeated failures to move inland saw allied forces suffer hundreds of thousands of casualties only to eventually withdraw.

As a historian who is fond of China, I can only hope that these prototypes will remain just that and this will join the list of other forgotten moments in world history. If not, then the conflicts we have seen since the cold war and even those of the past few years may look minor in comparison to what could be unleashed as a result of an invasion of Taiwan.

Matthew Heaslip is a Visiting Fellow at the Royal Navy’s Strategic Studies Centre.

– ref. What these new landing barges can tell us about China’s plans to invade Taiwan – https://theconversation.com/what-these-new-landing-barges-can-tell-us-about-chinas-plans-to-invade-taiwan-253044

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kiera Vaclavik, Professor of Children’s Literature & Childhood Culture, Queen Mary University of London

This spring, Babe is returning to cinemas to mark the 30th anniversary of its release in 1995. The much-loved family film tells the deceptively simple but emotionally powerful story of a piglet who saves his bacon through intelligence, kindness and hard work.

Babe becomes the trusted ally of both farmer and farmyard animals and, like so many Hollywood heroes before and since, he refuses to stay in his lane.

It’s a film which, on paper, really shouldn’t work and which sounds alarm bells to any self-respecting children’s literature scholar like me. It takes an expertly crafted English children’s book with tasteful black-and-white illustrations – Dick King-Smith’s The Sheep Pig (1983) – and turns it into an all-singing, all-dancing technicolour extravaganza.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

The film inserts new episodes and characters – an evil cat, a plucky duck and (most alarmingly) a brace of brattish kids. And it replaces a perfectly good, does-what-it-says-on-the-tin book title with the cutesy moniker of the piglet star.

It shouldn’t work … but it really, really does. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it’s one of the most successful film adaptations of a children’s book of all time.

It met with both commercial and critical success, making over US$254 million at the box office and being nominated for no less than seven Academy Awards, one of which it secured for visual effects.

So, what exactly is so special about Babe? It was one of the first films which, thanks to the then-cutting edge combination of animatronics and visual effects, delivered convincing talking animals who, endowed with the gift of speech, could themselves “look like movie stars”. But with all the jaw-dropping technological advances of the last 30 years, how has this film managed to stand the test of time so well?

The answer in part is that its source material is exceptionally strong. The Sheep Pig is written with restraint and economy, but also great warmth and relish. King-Smith has immense fun, wallowing in words like the proverbial pig in muck, and putting it all to the service of a story whose core values are easy to get behind. The Sheep Pig is a soft-power parable which advocates for brains over brawn, for respectful communication and common decency.

But the excellence of a film’s bookish bedrock is no guarantee of success. Indeed, the brilliance of a book can often be something of a liability. Think of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, or any of the film and TV adaptations of Noel Streatfeild’s superb Ballet Shoes. With Babe, though, the book is catalyst rather than straitjacket, an enabling prompt which initiates a new work of equal strength and quality.

The pacing is well judged, the look of the film lush, and there are several actual laugh-out-loud moments – including the duck’s panicked realisation that “Christmas means carnage!” Above all, it’s a film with immense emotional intelligence and power.

Recognised for its visual effects, it also succeeds in large part because of the strength of its soundscape and score. There’s one scene in particular which really soars, and which takes on the elephant in the room: the human habit of eating pigs.

Babe is so shocked and upset on learning this fact from the evil cat (who else?) that he loses the will not just to win in the sheepdog trial, but to live at all. The supremely taciturn Father Hoggett must act to make amends and save his pig protégé.

In an astonishingly moving act of love, this man of few words takes the sickly and sick-at-heart pig onto his lap and sings to him. At first a gentle crooning, the farmer’s expression of care and affection soon swells to an out-and-out bellow, accompanied by a wild, caution-to-the-wind dance.

It’s difficult to imagine a more lyrically apt song than the 1977 reggae-inflected hit based on the powerful tune of Camille Saint-Saëns’ Symphony No. 3 in C Minor: “If I had words”, it begins. It’s a moment of huge emotional force and intensity, in which the gaping abyss of age and species difference are bridged through music and dance.

James Cromwell as Farmer Hoggett, here and throughout the film, is tremendous, his reserved performance a key factor in its success. The role – which he almost didn’t take because of the paucity of lines – was career-defining, and prompted personal epiphanies which flow naturally from this scene.

First, Cromwell never ate meat again. Second, he has spoken (with visible emotion) of the delivery of the film’s final pithy-but-powerful line of approbation – “That’ll do pig, that’ll do” – as a moment of communion with his father on catching sight of his own artificially aged reflection in the camera lens. “My life changed, and I owe it to a pig,” the actor concludes.

Babe is a film and an adaptation with many qualities. It’s wholesome without ever being sickly. But above all, it has an emotional force which worked on actors and audiences alike and which, 30 years later, remains undiminished.

Kiera Vaclavik 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. Babe at 30: why this much-loved film is one of the best cinematic translations of a children’s book – https://theconversation.com/babe-at-30-why-this-much-loved-film-is-one-of-the-best-cinematic-translations-of-a-childrens-book-253290

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sophie King-Hill, Associate Professor at the Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham

Netflix television series Adolescence follows a 13-year-old boy accused of the murder of his female classmate. It touches upon incel online hate groups, toxic influencers and the misogynistic online spaces of the manosphere.

Keir Starmer, the UK prime minister, has backed a move for Adolescence to be shown in schools, and Netflix has now made the series available to be shown for free in classrooms through charity Into Film+, which has also produced a guide for teachers. Resources for teachers and parents will also be produced by relationships charity Tender.

Adolescence is a drama and deserves the praise it has attracted. But it wasn’t developed as an educational resource, the kind that is produced in consultation with young people and schools and should be underpinned by robust research and well planned evaluations.

The series shows an extreme example of one teenager drawn into the world of the manosphere. Not all boys will see themselves reflected in this portrayal. And as a researcher working on masculinity and misogyny, my concern is that showing the series in schools may lead boys to think that they are all perceived as potential threats.

Showing the series as a teaching tool risks framing boyhood as monolithic, with one particular – and problematic – way of being a boy.

Already, a broad-brush, blame-heavy approach is often taken to boys in response to issues relating to sexual harassment and violence. “We may have a problem with boys and young men that we need to address”, Keir Starmer has said.

Boys dealing with blame

In research I have carried out for a forthcoming book on boys and masculinity, I worked with young men and boys aged 13 to 19. One 15-year-old boy said that “I am always told that I am part of the problem but never allowed to be part of the solution”. I also found that this broad blame culture leads to feelings of worthlessness in young men and boys, which shuts down vital dialogue and also may lead them to resort to looking for direction from negative spaces such as the manosphere.

It is evident from reports and evidence that young men and boys do carry out a large amount of reported sexual harassment and harms against young women and girls. This can be seen in the 2021 Ofsted report into sexual harassment in schools in England, for example. The 2025 2000 Women report states that, in the UK, a woman is killed by a man every three days.

There is evidently a serious, endemic and complex problem. The misogyny that can be popularised by toxic influencers online also needs urgently addressing.

But a “one-size-fits-all” approach to tackle “boys’ issues” may result in making things worse, not better, due to the lack of recognition of the intersectionality of boyhood. Other aspects of identity, such as race, age, class, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, sexuality and physical and mental health will have implications for the approaches that need to be taken.

Read more:
How to talk to boys about misogyny

My ongoing research has demonstrated that boyhood means differing things to different boys. In steering groups with young men and boys from various ethnicities and differing social classes, a consistent theme emerged. This was a conflict between the internal and external self that the boys felt that they had to portray. This was also highlighted in a further 16 focus groups carried out on the project, again with a range of boys.

The internal self refers to who the boys actually are, including other identity traits such as race and class, and all the other intersecting aspects of their identity. The external self is what they felt they should show as a boys to fit into the hierarchy of masculinity and how they should portray themselves to fit within the social expectations of being a boy. This causes a conflict of external and internal self.

Efforts to help boys deal with issues such as the messages of the manosphere need to be attuned to the nuance of their internal selves. Generalising boys does not account for the individual identities that they bring to the issues that affect them.

Boys as individuals

The monolithic perspective of “boys” and the ensuing group blame oversimplifies complex issues, resulting in less than effective solutions and interventions that do not acknowledge or account for the nuances and complexities that surround individual boys.

This approach ignores diversities and intersecting identities and steers societal thinking about boys as a set group. It risks stereotyping them and causing prejudicial approaches. When boys are stigmatised in such a way, it compounds issues across genders, breaks down valuable communication and can also cause resentment and hostility.

One of the key voices and valuable perspectives that is missing from this debate is that of young men and boys themselves. We need to truly listen to their perspectives and their needs and build upon these as they are the experts in the world they are experiencing. Good practice accounts for and builds upon these experiences, with young people.

My research has demonstrated that young people want to be a part of these discussions rather than having things decided for them. It also shows that, quite often, we are teaching them what they already know and providing support and education that is too little, too late. We need to move away from the broad brush blaming of boys and young men and begin to approach them based upon their own individual identities – of which gender is only a part.

Sophie King-Hill receives funding from ESRC.

– ref. Adolescence in schools: TV show’s portrayal of one boyhood may do more harm than good when used as a teaching tool – https://theconversation.com/adolescence-in-schools-tv-shows-portrayal-of-one-boyhood-may-do-more-harm-than-good-when-used-as-a-teaching-tool-253158

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Tucker, Professor of History, Wesleyan University

I teach history in Connecticut, but I grew up in Oklahoma and Kansas, where my interest in the subject was sparked by visits to local museums.

I fondly remember trips to the Fellow-Reeves Museum in Wichita, Kansas, and the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum in Oklahoma City. A 1908 photograph of my great-grandparents picking cotton has been used as a poster by the Oklahoma Historical Society.

This love of learning history continued into my years as a graduate student of history, when I would spend hours at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum learning about the history of human flight and ballooning. As a professor, I’ve integrated the institution’s exhibits into my history courses.

The Trump administration, however, is not happy with the way the Smithsonian Institution and other U.S. museums are portraying history.

On March 27, 2025, the president issued an executive order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” which asserted, “Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth. Under this historical revision, our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.”

Trump singled out a few museums, including the Smithsonian, dedicating a whole section of the order on “saving” the institution from “divisive, race-centered ideology.”

Of course, history is contested. There will always be a variety of views about what should be included and excluded from America’s story. For example, in my own research, I found that Prohibition-era school boards in the 1920s argued over whether it was appropriate for history textbooks to include pictures of soldiers drinking to illustrate the 1791 Whiskey Rebellion.

But most recent debates center on how much attention should be given to the history of the nation’s accomplishments over its darker chapters. The Smithsonian, as a national institution that receives most of its funds from the federal government, has sometimes found itself in the crosshairs.

America’s historical repository

The Smithsonian Institution was founded in 1846 thanks to its namesake, British chemist James Smithson.

Smithson willed his estate to his nephew and stated that if his nephew died without an heir, the money – roughly US$15 million in today’s dollars – would be donated to the U.S. to found “an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.”

The idea of a national institution dedicated to history, science and learning was contentious from the start.

In her book “The Stranger and the Statesman,” historian Nina Burleigh shows how Smithson’s bequest was nearly lost due to battles between competing interests.

Southern plantation owners and western frontiersmen, including President Andrew Jackson, saw the establishment of a national museum as an unnecessary assertion of federal power. They also challenged the very idea of accepting a gift from a non-American and thought that it was beneath the dignity of the government to confer immortality on someone simply because of a large donation.

In the end, a group led by congressman and former president John Quincy Adams ensured Smithson’s vision was realized. Adams felt that the country was failing to live up to its early promise. He thought a national museum was an important way to burnish the ideals of the young republic and educate the public.

Today the Smithsonian runs 14 education and research centers, the National Zoo and 21 museums, including the National Portrait Gallery and the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which was created with bipartisan support during President George W. Bush’s administration.

In the introduction to his book “Smithsonian’s History of America in 101 Objects,” cultural anthropologist Richard Kurin talks about how the institution has also supported hundreds of small and large institutions outside of the nation’s capital.

In 2024, the Smithsonian sent over 2 million artifacts on loan to museums in 52 U.S. states and territories and 33 foreign countries. It also partners with over 200 affiliate museums. YouGov has periodically tracked Americans’ approval of the Smithsonian, which has held steady at roughly 68% approval and 2% disapproval since 2020.

Smithsonian in the crosshairs

Precursors to the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the Smithsonian took place in the 1990s.

In 1991, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, which was then known as the National Museum of American Art, created an exhibition titled “The West as America, Reinterpreting Images of the Frontier, 1820-1920.” Conservatives complained that the museum portrayed western expansion as a tale of conquest and destruction, rather than one of progress and nation-building. The Wall Street Journal editorialized that the exhibit represented “an entirely hostile ideological assault on the nation’s founding and history.”

The exhibition proved popular: Attendance to the National Museum of American Art was 60% higher than it had been during the same period the year prior. But the debate raised questions about whether public museums were able to express ideas that are critical of the U.S. without risk of censorship.

In 1994, controversy again erupted, this time at the National Air and Space Museum over a forthcoming exhibition centered on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima 50 years prior.

Should the exhibition explore the loss of Japanese lives? Or emphasize the U.S. war victory?

Veterans groups insisted that the atomic bomb ended the war and saved 1 million American lives, and demanded the removal of photographs of the destruction and a melted Japanese school lunch box from the exhibit. Meanwhile, other activists protested the exhibition by arguing that a symbol of human destruction shouldn’t be commemorated at an institution that’s supposed to celebrate human achievement.

Republicans won the House in 1994 and threatened cuts to the Smithsonian’s budget over the Enola Gay exhibition, compelling curators to walk a tightrope. In the end, the fuselage of the Enola Gay was displayed in the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum. But the exhibit would not tell the full story of the plane’s role in the war from a myriad of perspectives.

Trump enters the fray

In 2019, The New York Times launched the 1619 project, which aimed to reframe the country’s history by placing slavery and its consequences at its very center. The first Trump administration quickly responded by forming its 1776 commission. In January 2021, it produced a report critiquing the 1619 project, claiming that an emphasis on the country’s history of racism and slavery was counterproductive to promoting “patriotic education.”

That same year, Trump pledged to build “a vast outdoor park that will feature the statues of the greatest Americans to ever live,” with 250 statues to mark the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

President Joe Biden rescinded the order in 2021. Trump reissued it after retaking the White House, and pointed to figures he’d like to see included, such as Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Betsy Ross, Sitting Bull, Bob Hope, Thurgood Marshall and Whitney Houston.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with honoring Americans, though I think a focus on celebrities and major figures clouds the fascinating histories of ordinary Americans. I also find it troubling that there seems to be such a concerted effort to so forcefully shape the teaching and understanding of history via threats and bullying. Yale historian Jason Stanley has written about how aspiring authoritarian governments seek to control historical narratives and discourage an exploration of the complexities of the past.

Historical scholarship requires an openness to debate and a willingness to embrace new findings and perspectives. It also involves the humility to accept that no one – least of all the government – has a monopoly on the truth.

In his executive order, Trump noted that “Museums in our Nation’s capital should be places where individuals go to learn.” I share that view. Doing so, however, means not dismantling history, but instead complicating the story – in all its messy glory.

The Conversation U.S. receives funding from the Smithsonian Institution.

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

– ref. With its executive order targeting the Smithsonian, the Trump administration opens up a new front in the history wars – https://theconversation.com/with-its-executive-order-targeting-the-smithsonian-the-trump-administration-opens-up-a-new-front-in-the-history-wars-253397

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claudia Reyes, Postdoctoral Fellow, Research School of Astronomy & Astrophysics, Australian National University

The “music” of starquakes – enormous vibrations caused by bursting bubbles of gas that ripple throughout the bodies of many stars – can reveal far more information about the stars’ histories and inner workings than scientists thought.

In new research published in Nature, we analysed the frequency signatures of starquakes across a broad range of giant stars in the M67 star cluster, almost 3,000 light years from Earth.

Using observations from the Kepler space telescope’s K2 mission, we had a rare opportunity to track the evolution of stars during most of their journey through the giant phase of the stellar life cycle.

In doing so, we discovered that these stars get stuck “playing the same part of their tune” once their turbulent outer layer reaches a sensitive region deep inside.

This discovery reveals a new way to understand the history of stars – and of the entire galaxy.

The sound of starquakes

Starquakes happen in most stars (like our Sun) that have a bubbling outer layer, like a pot of boiling water. Bubbles of hot gas rise and burst at the surface, sending ripples through the entire star that cause it to vibrate in particular ways.

We can detect these vibrations, which occur at specific “resonant frequencies”, by looking for subtle variations in the brightness of the star. By studying the frequencies of each star in a group called a cluster, we can tune into the cluster’s unique “song”.

Our study challenges previous assumptions about resonant frequencies in giant stars, revealing they offer deeper insights into stellar interiors than previously thought. Moreover, our study has opened new ways to decipher the history of our Galaxy.

The melody of a stellar cluster

Astronomers have long sought to understand how stars like our Sun evolve over time.

One of the best ways to do this is by studying clusters – groups of stars that formed together and share the same age and composition. A cluster called M67 has attracted a lot of attention because it contains many stars with a similar chemical makeup to the Sun.

Just as earthquakes help us study Earth’s interior, starquakes reveal what lies beneath a star’s surface. Each star “sings” a melody, with frequencies determined by its internal structure and physical properties.

Larger stars produce deeper, slower vibrations, while smaller stars vibrate at higher pitches. And no star plays just one note – each one resonates with a full spectrum of sound from its interior.

A surprising signature

Among the key frequency signatures is the so-called small spacing – a group of resonant frequencies quite close together. In younger stars, such as the Sun, this signature can provide clues about how much hydrogen the star still has left to burn in its core.

In red giants the situation is different. These older stars have used up all the hydrogen in their cores, which are now inert.

However, hydrogen fusion continues in a shell surrounding the core. It was long assumed that the small spacings in such stars offered little new information.

A stalled note

When we measured the small spacings of stars in M67, we were surprised to see they revealed changes in the star’s internal fusion regions.

As the hydrogen-burning shell thickened, the spacings increased. When the shell moved inward, they shrank.

Then we found something else unexpected: at a certain stage, the small spacings stalled. It was like a record skipping on a note.

We discovered that this stalling appears during a specific stage in the life of a giant star — when its outer envelope, the “boiling” layer that transports heat, grows so deep that it makes up about 80% of the star’s mass. At this point the inner boundary of the envelope reaches into a highly sensitive region of the star.

This boundary is extremely turbulent, and the speed of sound shifts steeply across it — and that steep change affects how sound waves travel through the star. We also found that the stalling frequency is distinctively determined by the star’s mass and chemical composition.

This gives us a new way to identify stars in this phase and estimate their ages with improved precision.

The history of the galaxy

Stars are like fossil records. They carry the imprint of the environments in which they formed, and studying them lets us piece together the story of our galaxy.

The Milky Way has grown by merging with smaller galaxies, forming stars at different times in different regions. Better age estimates across the galaxy help us reconstruct this history in greater detail.

Clusters like M67 also provide a glimpse into the future of our own Sun, offering insight into the changes it will experience over billions of years.

This discovery gives us a new tool – and a new reason to revisit data we already have. With years of seismic observations from across the Milky Way, we can now return to those stars and “listen” again, this time knowing what to listen for.

Claudia Reyes 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. Astronomers listened to the ‘music’ of flickering stars – and discovered an unexpected feature – https://theconversation.com/astronomers-listened-to-the-music-of-flickering-stars-and-discovered-an-unexpected-feature-253546

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Clune, Honorary Associate, Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

The five-week election campaign is now in full swing throughout the nation.

Amid the flurry of photo opportunities and press conferences, candidates campaign in specific areas for a reason: to shore up or win back key seats.

But which seats are key? Here, six experts explain the seats to watch in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.

New South Wales

David Clune, honorary associate, government and international relations, University of Sydney

How the 2025 federal election will play out in NSW is difficult to predict for two reasons.

The first is the recent redistribution which, as ABC analyst Antony Green’s pendulum shows, has redefined many electoral boundaries.

The second is the number of crossbench MPs. There are three Teals in formerly safe Liberal seats: Mackellar (Sophie Scamps), Warringah (Zali Steggall) and Wentworth (Allegra Spender). Teal Kylie Tink’s seat of North Sydney has been abolished.

All were lifted into parliament by the rising tide of resentment against former Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Now that tide has gone out, the survival of these MPs depends on how they have performed as local members. The overall impression is that they have done well in connecting with their constituents and will be hard to shift.

There is a chance the formerly safe upper north shore seat of Bradfield could augment their numbers. Teal Nicolette Boele gave Liberal Paul Fletcher a very uncomfortable election night in 2022 when she slashed his majority. After the redistribution, the Liberals hold the seat by a narrow 2.5%. Fletcher is not recontesting. Boele is running a well-financed campaign with a lot of grass roots support.

The redistribution has pushed many former North Sydney voters into Bradfield. Whether they remain Teal or revert to being true-blue Liberals remains to be seen.

Much of the rest of the former North Sydney has gone into the very marginal Labor seat of Bennelong, which is now notionally marginal Liberal.

The Nationals have a problem in Calare, where former Nationals MP, now independent, Andrew Gee, is recontesting. The Nationals are also facing challenges from the left on the upper north coast due to demographic change. They hold Cowper by 2.4%.

Liberal-aligned independent, Dai Le, narrowly won Fowler in Sydney’s western suburbs in 2023. Labor has endorsed Tu Le, also of Vietnamese descent, in what promises to be a tough fight. Parramatta is another marginal seat in the western suburbs, held by Labor’s Andrew Charlton with a two-party preferred margin of 3.7%.

The government is concerned about seats on the central coast and in the Hunter and Illawarra regions, where concerns about wind farms and job losses due to renewable energy are a major issue. Most of the government’s vulnerable seats are in these areas: Gilmore, Robertson, Paterson and Hunter would all be lost with a two-party-preferred swing of 5%.

Queensland

Paul Williams, associate professor in politics and journalism, Griffith University

For decades we said Queensland was a key “battleground” in federal elections where seats north of the Tweed so often held the keys to The Lodge.

The 1975 election saw the Coalition leave Labor with a single seat, and the 1996 poll bequeath Labor just two. Conversely, Labor’s Kevin Rudd rode to victory on his nine-seat haul in in 2007, with Rudd losing seven of those in 2010.

But, for the past 15 years, federal elections have seen little movement in Queensland except, of course, for 2022 when the Greens won three seats. In short, Queensland is no longer the “make-or-break” state. Even the retirements of Keith Pitt (Hinkler), Karen Andrews (McPherson), Warren Entsch (Leichhardt) and Graham Perrett (Moreton) will hardly affect the mood.

The electoral pendulum confirms this. Labor holds just five of Queensland’s 30 seats, with Blair – a mix of outer-suburban and regional proclivities – Labor’s most marginal, but still held by a healthy 5.2% buffer. Given the two-party-preferred (2PP) swing to the Liberal-National Party (LNP) in Queensland will likely be under five percentage points – far lower than the 7.0% two-party-preferred swing the LNP attained at last October’s state election – the Coalition is unlikely to seize any more Labor property.

Conversely, despite the LNP holding seven Queensland seats on margins under 5%, the electoral tide is well and truly out for a Labor Party, whose Queensland brand is damaged at all levels. Inflation and housing shortages have hit Queensland hard, and especially so in the regions. Peter Dutton’s seat of Dickson – the LNP’s most marginal on just 1.7% – is therefore safe.

Climate action and other “community” candidates (some reject the “Teal” moniker) are standing on the Gold Coast (McPherson and Moncrieff), on the Sunshine Coast (Fisher and Fairfax), and in Groom and Dickson. None will win, but some will carve out a respectable primary vote.

All eyes will instead be on the cashed-up inner-urban seats of Ryan (potentially returning to the LNP), Griffith (a possible Labor win) and Brisbane (a genuine three-way race) – all three useful, but not essential, to Labor’s pathway to minority government.

In the Northern Territory, Labor’s Marion Scrymgour holds Lingiari by 1.7%, making that seat one to watch.

South Australia

Rob Manwaring, associate professor of politics and public policy, Flinders University

South Australia is rarely a key battleground in federal elections, and only comprises ten electoral seats.

There are, however, three key seats worth watching as they will tell us a lot about how the election campaign is playing out: Sturt, Boothby and Mayo.

In Sturt, the Liberals hold this key seat in Adelaide’s eastern suburbs with a margin of 0.5%. A fresh challenge for the incumbent James Stevens is that he faces a threat from SA’s first real Teal candidate, Verity Cooper. This potentially pulls this seat into a three-way fight.

Boothby, in Adelaide’s southern suburbs, will be a good litmus test of how well Labor’s campaign is performing. Labor won the seat for the first time ever in 2022, and Louise Miller-Frost has a 3.3% margin. Liberal candidate Nicolle Flint is resurrecting her political ambitions and would be a useful ally for Peter Dutton, if she were to win.

Finally – a question – does Rebekah Sharkie like pizza? Infamously, when state Labor Premier Jay Weatherill needed a critical independent vote to secure office in 2014, he drove to Port Pirie and brokered a deal over pizza with Geoff Brock. Sharkie holds the seat of Mayo in the Adelaide Hills as a member of the Centre Alliance party with a safe 12.3% margin. Sharkie aligns herself with the Teals, and if a Dutton-led victory looks likely, then she may well be ordering her favourite slice to thrash out the terms of any support.

Tasmania

Robert Hortle, deputy director of the Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania

There are two main seats to watch in Tasmania.

The large, rural seat of Lyons is one of the most marginal in the country. Labor’s Brian Mitchell won with a 0.9% margin in 2022, but he’s made way for Rebecca White. Despite an underwhelming record as Tasmanian Labor Leader – three state election defeats – White is very popular in Lyons. However, Liberal candidate Susie Bower was somewhat unlucky to lose in 2022 after winning 37.2% of the primary vote, and has been in campaign mode for the past three years.

On the surface, Franklin – Australia’s only non-contiguous electorate – looks like a safe Labor seat. Julie Collins, the MP since 2007 and a cabinet minister, has a 13.7% margin. But her primary vote fell in 2022, and community backlash against salmon farming in Franklin’s waterways – which Labor and the Coalition both support – could make her vulnerable.

If independent Peter George (former journalist and anti-salmon campaigner) can get ahead of the low-profile Liberal candidate at some point in the count, Liberal preferences may get him across the line.

Two other Tasmanian seats are unlikely to change hands, but feature some interesting dynamics.

Liberal MP Bridget Archer’s 1.4% margin in the northern seat of Bass might look vulnerable. However, she managed a strong primary vote in 2022 despite a big swing against the Liberal Party. She’s very popular in the community for her willingness to stick to her values – even if it means voting against her party 28 times – and should hold her seat despite rumours of internal moves against her.

In Braddon, long-serving Labor Senator Anne Urquhart has quit the upper house to run. Incumbent Liberal MP Gavin Pearce is retiring, and his replacement candidate, Mal Hingston, is a bit of an unknown. It’s unlikely Urquhart will be able to overturn the 8% two-party preferred margin, but prominence in the community might give her a glimmer of hope.

Another point of interest is who will pick up the votes won by the Jaquie Lambie Network (JLN) in 2022. The JLN is not running candidates following a spectacular implosion at state level – and where those voters find a home could be crucial, particularly in Lyons.

Victoria

Zareh Ghazarian, senior lecturer in politics, school of social sciences, Monash University

Victoria is shaping up to be a crucial state for the major parties. Several seats are held by the Labor and coalition parties with a margin of less than 5%.

According to Antony Green, Chisholm is the most marginal seat Labor currently holds. The eastern Melbourne seat has been held by both major parties over the past 30 years.

Next up is Aston, further east of Chisholm, which Labor won at arguably the Liberal Party’s lowest ebb in this electoral cycle at a byelection in 2023.

McEwen, on the other hand, is a provincial electorate to the north of Melbourne. Holding onto these three seats will be a significant feat for Anthony Albanese and may set up Labor to hold a majority government.

For the Coalition, the most marginal seat is Deakin, which is a neighbouring electorate to Aston and Chisholm. The seat is held by a margin of just 0.02%, making it the most marginal in the country.

Monash is also a very interesting seat as it was won by Russell Broadbent, who lost Liberal Party preselection and has decided to run as an independent. His local profile may provide a boost to his primary vote, but may not necessarily be enough to win the seat, which will likely be held by the Liberals.

The Coalition will be in trouble if it fails to retain any of its seats in Victoria. It would need to reclaim Chisholm and Aston if it has any chance of forming majority government.

Other seats to watch include Kooyong, held by Monique Ryan with a margin of 2.2% who defeated Josh Frydenberg in 2022, and Goldstein, held by Zoe Daniel with a margin of 3.3% after defeating Liberal Tim Wilson. These will be a test of whether the Liberal Party is able to reconnect with voters who had traditionally supported them in the past.

Western Australia

Narelle Miragliotta, associate professor in politics, Murdoch University

The five WA seats to watch are Curtin, Bullwinkel, Forrest, Pearce and Tangney.

The affluent inner metropolitan seat of Curtin is held by Teal Kate Chaney on a 1.3% margin. The Liberal’s 2022 defeat was existential and the party are investing heavily in reclaiming it, although Chaney is not likely to be outspent entirely, or outmanoeuvred.

Bullwinkel is a new seat on the eastern fringes of Perth. The majority of its voters are in the metropolitan area, but the seat also takes in regional parts of the state. The seat’s geography and lack of incumbent led to the Nationals fielding Mia Davies, who was leader of the Nationals in the state parliament between 2017 and 2023.

As a result, this notional Labor seat is the site of a fierce three-way contest. YouGov projects a “Coalition” gain, although the outcome will be influenced by whether the Liberals and Nationals can contain simmering hostilities.

Forrest, in the state’s southwest, is held by the Liberals on a 4.2% margin. The retirement of the incumbent and the presence of a Climate 200-backed candidate, adds an interesting dimension to the contest.

Pearce, in the state’s far north, is held by Labor on a comfortable 8.8% margin. However, it’s one of the most indebted electorates in the nation, and the state Labor government experienced large swings against it in outer suburban and regional state electorates earlier this year.

Tangney, in the state’s southern suburbs, was a major win for Labor in 2022. A blue-ribbon inner-city seat held uninterrupted by the Liberals since the early 1980s, Tangney is Labor’s most marginal WA seat (2.6% margin). To Labor’s advantage is the fact that several of the once-safe Liberal inner metro electorates within Tangney’s boundaries have recently voted with Labor at a state level. However, it will be a tight contest.

Paul Williams is a research associate with the T.J. Ryan Foundation.

Rob Manwaring receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a Discovery project on political parties and associated entities.

David Clune, Narelle Miragliotta, Robert Hortle, and Zareh Ghazarian 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. State of the states: six politics experts explain the key seats across the country – https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-states-six-politics-experts-explain-the-key-seats-across-the-country-253123

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Whittle, ANZMUSC Practitioner Fellow, Monash University

More than 500 million people around the world live with osteoarthritis. The knee is affected more often than any other joint, with symptoms (such as pain, stiffness and reduced movement) affecting work, sleep, sport and daily activities.

Knee osteoarthritis is often thought of as thinning of the protective layer of cartilage within the joint. But we now understand it affects all the structures of the joint, including the bones, muscles and nerve endings.

While there are things that can be done to manage the symptoms of knee osteoarthritis, there is no cure, and many people experience persistent pain. As a result, an opportunity exists for as yet unproven treatments to enter the market, often before regulatory safeguards can be put in place.

Stem cell injections are one such treatment. A new review my colleagues and I published this week finds that evidence of their benefits and harms remains elusive.

Stem cell treatments

Stem cells are already established as treatments for some diseases – mostly disorders of the blood, bone marrow or immune system – which has led to suggestions they could be used for a much wider array of conditions.

Stem cells have been touted as promising treatments for osteoarthritis because they have special properties which allow them to replicate and develop into the mature healthy cells that make up our body’s organs and other tissues, including cartilage.

Stem cell treatments for osteoarthritis generally involve taking a sample of tissue from a site that is rich in stem cells (such as bone marrow or fat), treating it to increase the number of stem cells, then injecting it into the joint.

The hope is that if the right type of stem cells can be introduced into an osteoarthritic joint in the right way and at the right time, they may help to repair damaged structures in the joint, or have other effects such as reducing inflammation.

But no matter how convincing the theory, we need good evidence for effectiveness and safety before a new therapy is adopted into practice.

Stem cell injections have not been approved by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Nonetheless, some clinics in Australia and around the world still offer them.

Because of the regulatory restrictions, we don’t have reliable numbers on how many procedures are being done.

They’re not covered by Medicare, so the procedure can cost the consumer thousands of dollars.

And, as with any invasive procedure, both the harvest of stem cells and the joint injection procedure may carry the potential for harm, such as infection.

What we found

Our new review, published by the independent, international group the Cochrane Collaboration, looks at all 25 randomised trials of stem cell injections for knee osteoarthritis that have been conducted worldwide to date. Collectively, these studies involved 1,341 participants.

We found stem cell injections may slightly improve pain and function compared with a placebo injection, but the size of the improvement may be too small for the patient to notice.

The evidence isn’t strong enough to determine whether there is any improvement in quality of life following a stem cell injection, whether cartilage regrows, or to estimate the risk of harm.

This means we can’t confidently say yet whether any improvement that might follow a stem cell injection is worth the risk (or the cost).

Hope or hype?

It’s not surprising we invest hope in finding a transformative treatment for such a common and disabling condition. Belief in the benefits of stem cells is widespread – more than three-quarters of Americans believe stem cells can relieve arthritis pain and more than half believe this treatment to be curative.

But what happens if a new treatment is introduced to practice before it has been clearly proven to be safe and effective?

The use of an unproven, invasive therapy is not just associated with the risks of the intervention itself. Even if the treatment were harmless, there is the risk of unnecessary cost, inconvenience, and a missed opportunity for the patient to use existing therapies that are known to be effective.

What’s more, if we need to play catch-up to try to establish an evidence base for a treatment that’s already in practice, we risk diverting scarce research resources towards a therapy that may not prove to be effective, simply because the genie is out of the bottle.

Working towards a clearer answer

Several more large clinical trials are currently underway, and should increase our understanding of whether stem cell injections are safe and effective for knee osteoarthritis.

Our review incorporates “living evidence”. This means we will continue to add the results of new trials as soon as they’re published, so the review is always up to date, and offers a comprehensive and trustworthy summary to help people with osteoarthritis and their health-care providers to make informed decisions.

In the meantime, there are a number of evidence-based treatment options. Non-drug treatments such as physiotherapy, regular exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and cognitive behavioural therapy can be more effective than you think. Anti-inflammatory and pain medications can also play a supporting role.

Importantly, it’s not inevitable that osteoarthritic joints get worse with time. So, even though joint replacement surgery is often highly effective, it’s the last resort and fortunately, many people never need to take this step.

Samuel Whittle is supported by an Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trial Network Practitioner Fellowship and by a grant from The Hospital Research Foundation Group. Dr Whittle currently serves as President of the Australian Rheumatology Association.

– ref. People are getting costly stem cell injections for knee osteoarthritis. But we don’t know if they work – https://theconversation.com/people-are-getting-costly-stem-cell-injections-for-knee-osteoarthritis-but-we-dont-know-if-they-work-253404

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cornelia Sattler, Research Fellow in Ecology, Macquarie University

If you go walking in the wild, you might expect that what you’re seeing is natural. All around you are trees, shrubs and grasses growing in their natural habitat.

But there’s something here that doesn’t add up. Across the world, there are large areas of habitat which would suit native plant species just fine. But very often, they’re simply absent.

Our new research gauges the scale of this problem, known as “dark diversity”. Our international team of 200 scientists examined plant species in thousands of sites worldwide.

What we found was startling. In regions heavily affected by our activities, only about 20% of native plant species able to live there were actually present. But even in areas with very little human interference, ecosystems only contained about 33% of viable plant species.

Why so few species in wilder areas? Our impact. Pollution can spread far from the original source, while conversion of habitat to farms, logging and human-caused fires have ripple effects too.

Conspicuous by their absence

Our activities have become a planet-shaping force, from changing the climate through our emissions to farming 44% of all habitable land. As our footprint has expanded, other species have been pushed to extinction. The rates of species loss are unprecedented in recorded history.

When we think about biodiversity loss, we might think of a once-common animal species losing numbers and range as farms, cities and feral predators expand. But we are also losing species from within protected areas and national parks.

To date, the accelerating loss of species has been largely observed at large scale, such as states or even whole countries. Almost 600 plant species have gone extinct since 1750 – and this is likely a major underestimate. Extinction hotspots include Hawaii (79 species) and South Africa’s unique fynbos scrublands (37 species).

But tracking the fate of our species has been difficult to do at a local scale, such as within a national park or nature reserve.

Similarly, when scientists do traditional biodiversity surveys, we count the species previously recorded in an area and look for changes. But we haven’t tended to consider the species that could grow there – but don’t.

What did we do?

To get a better gauge of biodiversity losses at smaller scale, we worked alongside scientists from the international research network DarkDivNet to examine almost 5,500 sites across 119 regions worldwide. This huge body of fieldwork took years and required navigating global challenges such as COVID-19 and political and economic instability.

At each 100 square metre site, our team sampled all plant species present against the species found in the surrounding region. We defined regions as areas of approximately 300 square kilometres with similar environmental conditions.

Just because a species can grow somewhere doesn’t mean it would. To make sure we were recording which species were genuinely missing, we looked at how often each absent species was found growing alongside the species growing at our chosen sites at other sampled sites in the region. This helped us detect species well-suited to a habitat but missing from it.

We then cross-matched data on these missing species against how big the local human impact was by using the Human Footprint Index, which measures population density, land use and infrastructure.

Of the eight components of this index, six had a clear influence on how many plant species were missing: human population density, electric infrastructure, railways, roads, built environments and croplands. Another component, navigable waterways, did not have a clear influence.

Interestingly, the final component – pastures kept by graziers – was not linked to fewer plant species. This could be because semi-natural grasslands are used as pasture in areas such as Central Asia, Africa’s Sahel region and Argentina. Here, long-term moderate human influence can actually maintain highly diverse and well-functioning ecosystems through practices such as grazing livestock, cultural burning and hay making.

Overall, though, the link between greater human presence and fewer plant species was very clear. Seemingly pristine ecosystems hundreds of kilometres from direct disturbance had been affected.

These effects can come from many causes. For instance, poaching and logging often take place far from human settlements. Poaching an animal species might mean a plant species loses a key pollinator or way to disperse its seeds in the animal’s dung. Over time, disruptions to the web of relationships in the natural world can erode ecosystems and result in fewer plant species. Poachers and illegal loggers also cut “ghost roads” into pristine areas.

Other causes include fires started by humans, which can threaten national parks and other safe havens. Pollution can travel and settle hundreds of kilometres from its source, affecting ecosystems.

Our far-reaching influence can also hinder the return of plant species, even in protected areas. As humans expand their activities, they often carve up natural areas into fragments cut off from each other. This can isolate plant populations. Similarly, the loss of seed-spreading animals can stop plants from recolonising former habitat.

What does this mean?

Biodiversity loss is not just about species going extinct. It’s about ecosystems quietly losing their richness, resilience and functions.

Protecting land is not enough. The damage we can do can reach deep into conservation areas.

Was there good news? Yes. In regions where at least a third of the landscape had minimal human disturbance, there was less of this hidden biodiversity loss.

As we work to conserve nature, our work points to a need not just to preserve what’s left but to bring back what’s missing. Now we know what species are missing in an area but still present regionally, we can begin that work.

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. Invisible losses: thousands of plant species are missing from places they could thrive – and humans are the reason – https://theconversation.com/invisible-losses-thousands-of-plant-species-are-missing-from-places-they-could-thrive-and-humans-are-the-reason-252378

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Madeleine Fraser, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, Australian Catholic University

One of the first things parents want to ask their children after school is “how was your day?” We simply want to know how they are going and what happened at school.

But these conversations can feel like pulling teeth. Often you may only get a “good” or “fine” (if you’re lucky).

Why are children reluctant to divulge information about their day and how can you encourage more details?

Why don’t kids like to talk?

School can be overwhelming – with diverse social, academic and physical demands.

It may seem simple, but a genuine answer to the “how was school today” question requires considerable effort and decision making to synthesise information from a busy day. A child may also be hesitant to answer if they think a parent’s response might be anger, worry or confusion.

Children are also likely to be hungry and tired straight after school. They are probably thinking about a snack before a chat. If you think of psychologist Abraham Maslow’s famous theory about a “hierarchy of needs”, survival needs like hunger are ideally met before communication and connection.

Children have also not yet fully developed a theory of mind (an ability to image what’s going on in another person’s mind). So they might not understand why their parent is asking about school or what it is they want to know.

How can you prepare for a chat?

There are several things you can do to encourage a more informative conversation with your child.

1. Consider the purpose: ask yourself whether you want to gather information or simply connect with your child. To have a moment of connection you could simply say, “I’m so happy to see you” at the school gate. To seek information, ask a very specific question (that requires little mental effort on your child’s part). For example, “did you have your spelling test today”, rather than “what did you learn?”

3. Check your timing: instead of asking your child right after school, consider waiting. Better conversations may instead happen after the child decompresses with a favourite game and a snack, over dinner or even on way to school the next morning.

Try creating a routine to help your child prepare their answer, like the “rose dinner”. At the dinner table, everyone shares their daily “thorn” (something difficult or upsetting) and “petal” (something pleasant).

3. Consider the space: face-to-face conversations can create pressure and feel like an interrogation. This is why it’s common for psychologists to place therapy chairs on a slight angle to promote a calm, relaxed atmosphere where it is easier to disclose difficult things.

So try and do activities where you are side-by-side with your child. For example, walking or driving, doing craft, playing Lego, sport or cooking. Your child may spontaneously raise a topic – or you can model the conversation by talking about your day first.

Time to chat

To create a comfortable, safe environment for your child during the chat, here are four more things to consider.

1. Really listen: if your child initiates a conversation, bring your full attention and enthusiasm to it (which means putting your phone away). If you are busy thinking about what you’re going to say next while your child is speaking, this is not high-quality listening.

Show you are listening by paraphrasing what they are saying or identifying their feelings. This helps them to feel like they are being listened to and understood.

If your child opens up about something important and they sense you are not supporting them or concentrating, you’re discouraging them from opening up in the future.

2. Be compassionate and curious: the urge to protect our kids is strong, but instead of trying to “solve” or “teach” them when they are talking, don’t be afraid of silence and curious questions. Curiosity helps us show we care, and allows the child to own their own experiences and reactions, rather than parents telling them how to feel.

For example, “Nick said I couldn’t play with him” could be responded to with “what was that like for you?” rather than outrage (“that’s horrible of Nick!”).

3. Celebrate strengths: when your child is talking, listen out for implicit strengths and values in what your child has shared. Having a parent highlight an area of strength or skill for a child helps build their sense of self. For example, “it sounds like that upset you because you value fairness”.

4. Follow up: if your child speaks about upcoming events, check back in. For example, “last week you mentioned you were nervous about basketball trials, how are you feeling now?” This also shows you have listened.

There is no magic formula: each conversation is as different as the individuals who are part of it. So experiment with these ideas and take notice of what works for you and your child.

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

– ref. ‘How was school today?’ How to help kids open up and say more than ‘fine’ – https://theconversation.com/how-was-school-today-how-to-help-kids-open-up-and-say-more-than-fine-252289

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Johnston, Director of Learning and Teaching at Excelsia University College and Research Affiliate, University of Sydney

As Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young waved a decapitated salmon dripping with blood in parliament last week, you could feel the election coming.

Hanson-Young was protesting the watering down of Australia’s environmental laws aimed at preserving salmon farming in Tasmania.

Using props and orchestrated performances to provoke a response has been common throughout the history Australian politics. In 2017, then treasurer Scott Morrison held out a lump of coal to ridicule the opposition’s renewable energy policies. He mockingly declared:

This is coal. Don’t be afraid, don’t be scared.

Later that same year, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson wore a burqa into the Senate to argue for a ban on full-face coverings – dramatically embodying her anti-Islam rhetoric.

More recently, independent members of parliament Andrew Wilkie and Bob Katter donned inflatable pig costumes to criticise the major supermarkets as pigs with their snouts in the trough, given their excessive profit margins.

It’s clear Australian politicians are drawn to drama. With the election campaign in full swing, it’s worth being wary of such beguiling performances.

Visceral is memorable

The history of theatre is peppered with shocking moments, often enhanced by props. Props help to provoke a visceral emotional response from the audience, while blurring the boundary between reality and fiction.

In Sophocles’ ancient Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex, Oedipus exits the stage with sharp gold brooches to gorge out his eyes after discovering of his wife Jocasta’s suicide. Upon his return, his bleeding eye sockets also allude to his metaphorical blindness, having killed his own father and married his mother.

Similarly, at the end of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, the tyrant king’s severed head is brought onstage – fulfilling a deceptive prophecy foretold by the fiendish witches at the beginning of the play.

In a more contemporary example, Australian playwright Patrick White’s surrealist play Ham Funeral features a ham representing gluttony, death, lust and decay, served at the wake of Mrs Lusty’s husband. We’re also shocked by a fetus from a back-alley trash can.

These are all attention-grabbing examples of how props can be much more than just the thing they represent.

In politics, as on stage, theatrical objects are an easy way to heighten emotions, and convey meaning and context. They can make abstract concepts feel more concrete. And even when they’re highly theatrical, they can communicate authenticity and passion – ready to go viral online.

Flags, high-vis vests, pints of beer and babies are all common props on the election campaign trail. Over time, they can lead voters to associate certain politicians with certain values and worldviews.

All the world’s a stage

As politician and activist Harvey Milk (played by James Franco) declares in the 2008 biopic Milk:

Politics is theatre. It doesn’t matter if you win. You make a statement. You say, “I’m here, pay attention to me”.

Evidence suggests political personas can be successfully constructed through careful attention to meaning-making processes, such as facial expressions, hand gestures and emotional rhetoric.

Take Adolf Hitler. In 1932, Hitler carefully crafted his speeches and vocal delivery with Paul Devrient, an operatic tenor and director. He also worked with Heinrich Hoffmann, his official photographer, in theatre-like rehearsals to strike dramatic poses and fine-tune his body language and persuasive gestures.

His performances culminated in the Nuremberg rallies. These events, choreographed like a Wagnerian opera, featured monumental architecture and lighting, banners, torches and music that positioned the Führer as a mythical hero.

Bertolt Brecht famously satirised the fabricated display in his play The Resistable Rise of Artuo Ui, in which a washed-up Shakespearean actor teaches a Chicago gangster how to present himself as a legitimate, commanding leader.

Peek behind the curtain

Performance takes place along a continuum, from mundane everyday life, to highly-staged aesthetic enactments. We’re all taking part in performances all the time, whether it’s ordering a morning coffee, or delivering Hamlet’s soliloquy at the Opera House, holding Yorick’s skull aloft.

In politics, compelling representatives hope to craft an authentic image for themselves through emotional performance – sometimes using props as framing devices to signal certain moments as marked or special.

When Julia Gillard delivered her unexpectedly viral, off-the-cuff misogyny speech, or when John Howard declared, “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come”, they shifted our attention from the ordinary to the performative. They incited us to feel outrage and fear, to drive a political narrative.

The warning of theatre is that we should look through appearances, to discern the substance of what’s going on.

Daniel Johnston 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. Headless fish and babies take centre stage during election season – but don’t let the theatre of politics distract you – https://theconversation.com/headless-fish-and-babies-take-centre-stage-during-election-season-but-dont-let-the-theatre-of-politics-distract-you-253230

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris F. Wright, Professor of Work and Labour Market Policy, University of Sydney

Labor has called for an “economically sustainable real wage increase” for almost 3 million workers who depend on the award system for their wages.

In a submission to the Fair Work Commission’s Annual Wage Review on Wednesday, Labor said a real wage increase above inflation would provide cost-of-living relief for lower-income workers – especially in the early childhood, cleaning and retail sectors.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has said he’s not opposed to an increase in minimum wages. Several major business groups have also tentatively endorsed an increase.

But the size of the wage boost is in contention. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry wants an increase to be no higher than headline inflation, saying:

[an] increase in minimum and modern award wages of no more than 2.5% is fair and reasonably responsible in the current economic environment.

Read more:
Labor will urge Fair Work Commission to give real wage rise to three million workers

Can the government actually raise wages?

The federal government doesn’t set minimum and award wages directly. That job falls to the Fair Work Commission, Australia’s independent national workplace relations tribunal.

Each year, the commission receives submissions for the Annual Wage Review from “interested parties” such as business groups, trade unions and governments.

Governments almost always make submissions, typically informed by economic logic, to the annual review.

Labor’s submission is consistent with that approach. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said businesses would benefit overall, because when low-wage workers receive a wage increase, they typically spend rather than save it.

Could a real wage boost fuel inflation?

Labor’s proposal has already attracted concern.

Some economists have argued it could increase inflation. That could make it harder for the Reserve Bank of Australia to deliver further interest rate cuts.

However, this concern was addressed in the OECD’s 2023 Economic Outlook paper, which argued:

in several sectors and countries, there is room for profits to absorb some further increases in wages to mitigate the loss of purchasing power at least for the low paid without generating significant additional price pressures.

In other words, with inflation falling in Australia and other parts of the world, there is scope for wages to increase without a significant risk this will generate inflationary pressure.

The OECD has also stated that much of the recent high global inflation was generated by the impact of the Ukraine war on rising food and energy prices, rather than wages.

Wage growth without productivity growth

A second concern relates to boosting wages in the context of Australia’s languishing levels of labour productivity – output per worker or per hour worked.

On Tuesday, Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock said without an increase in productivity:

the rate of nominal wages growth that can be sustained and be in line with the inflation target is lower.

However, as Mark Bray and Alison Preston found in their interim report from the review of the Secure Jobs, Better Pay laws, labour productivity growth has been consistently higher than capital productivity.

According to Bray and Preston:

It is, therefore, difficult to argue that industrial relations systems have a significant, dominant effect on national productivity outcomes.

If anything, a wages boost might be good for productivity. There is evidence to suggest measures to improve the quality of employment – including by increasing wages – can boost productivity.

If workers feel they are paid fairly, they are more likely to be satisfied and work harder, and less likely to leave their employer.

Staff turnover, on the other hand, requires employers to recruit and train new employees, which is time-consuming and resource-intensive, and can sap productivity.

What about inequality?

It’s important we don’t overlook another important factor in the minimum wage debate. Since its 2022 election victory, addressing inequality has been central to the Albanese government’s labour market reforms.

Before 2022, wages growth was persistently weak for several years, despite the lowest unemployment rate in almost five decades.

Low unemployment is generally assumed to stimulate wages growth, but this didn’t eventuate. This worsened workforce shortages, making it hard for employers to attract and retain workers.

Findings from a large body of academic research published before the passage and implementation of the December 2022 Secure Jobs, Better Pay amendments highlighted the need for fairer redistribution in pay settings.

The gender pay gap

This includes addressing gender-based pay inequalities.

Improving job quality – particularly by raising wages – in low-paid sectors is essential to advancing gender equality. The minimum wage and award-reliant segments of the Australian labour market are highly feminised. These include vital frontline roles in the care, cleaning and hospitality sectors.

The latest Workplace Gender Equality Agency scorecard, drawing on ABS Labour Force Survey data, shows wage growth in these sectors over the past two years has contributed significantly to reducing the national gender pay gap to its lowest point on record.

Lifting wages and job quality is not only crucial for attracting and retaining workers in these essential frontline roles. It also supports broader labour force participation, particularly for working parents.

An “economically sustainable” boost to the minimum wage is therefore unlikely to drive up inflation, or adversely impact productivity. However, it will provide cost-of-living relief to Australia’s lowest-paid workers.

Chris F. Wright has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the UK Economic and Social Research Council, the International Labour Organization, the Australian and NSW governments, and various business and trade union organisations.

– ref. Labor wants to give the minimum wage a real boost. The benefits would likely outweigh any downsides – https://theconversation.com/labor-wants-to-give-the-minimum-wage-a-real-boost-the-benefits-would-likely-outweigh-any-downsides-253624

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron Humphrey, Lecturer, Media and Digital Humanities, University of Adelaide

Leading man of 1990s Hollywood, Val Kilmer, has died at 65 from pneumonia. Battling cancer since 2014, he has not been a frequent presence on our film screens for most of this century. While he has recently done some interesting projects, he never recaptured his fame and box-office draw of the 1980s and ‘90s, when he appeared in iconic films such as Top Gun (1986) and Batman Forever (1995).

His standout performance as Tom Cruise’s swaggering, self-assured rival Iceman in Top Gun made him a star. But the film that really cemented his reputation as a leading man was Oliver Stone’s The Doors (1991), in which he played Jim Morrison to astonishing effect. He is the best thing about that film.

In 1993, he starred as Doc Holliday in Tombstone, a stylish modern western, which he co-headlined with Kurt Russell as Wyatt Earp. It was perhaps the most ’90s of the ’90s westerns. Kilmer’s performance was crowd-pleasing and critically acclaimed. His 2020 memoir, I’m Your Huckleberry, took its name from a line Kilmer spoke in the film.

In some ways, it is a superhero film with cowboys – as you can see so clearly in the poster. It was this performance that put Kilmer on the radar of Warner Bros when they were looking to cast a new Batman after Michael Keaton abandoned the suit.

Batman Forever

We’ve got used to superhero films having cinematic universes and narrative continuity between films, but in the 1990s that had not quite been established.

Warner Bros had struck cinematic gold with the first modern superhero blockbuster, Superman (1978) starring Christopher Reeve, but faced diminishing critical and financial returns with each subsequent film in the series. After Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) failed to connect with audiences, the studio turned to Batman to be its cinematic icon. In those days, one superhero film every couple of years was seen as sufficient. Fortunately, Tim Burton’s Batman (1989) and Batman Returns (1992), two dark takes on the Batman story both starring Michael Keaton, were hits.

However, Batman Returns was regarded by audiences and critics as too “dark”, and too Burton. Both Burton and the studio felt a change of pace was needed for a third film. Joel Schumacher was brought on as director and, perhaps due to the departure of Burton, Keaton also chose to leave the series.

Fresh off Tombstone, Kilmer was cast as the superhero.

Batman Forever took a goofier tone, inspired just as much by the campy 1960s TV series as the dark gothic noir style of Burton. It is still brooding, but the film is more bombastic, more colourful. Noted for performances from Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey as the villains – and the costumes that famously featured nipples and codpieces – Kilmer’s performance got lost.

Worse for Kilmer, rumours of being difficult to work with on the set of Batman may have set his career back in subsequent years. But, despite these difficulties, Kilmer makes a good Batman.

He performed the role with a brooding physicality, as well as playfulness. He was underrated, and certainly better than George Clooney, who took over in Batman and Robin (1997) after Kilmer declined to return.

The non-Keaton Batman films are sometimes overlooked by fans, or not seen as living up to the heights of the Burton movies. In recent years, Burton’s movies have become more or less canonised as the “real” Batman of the era. A series of comic books, Batman ’89, has been published since 2021 that continues the story from Batman Returns, bypassing the developments of Kilmer’s Batman Forever and Clooney’s Batman and Robin.

Keaton has since reprised his role as the caped crusader on the silver screen as a major supporting character in The Flash (2023), which also featured cameos from Batman alumni Clooney and Ben Affleck as alternate universe versions of the Dark Knight. Kilmer and Christian Bale were the only retired big-screen Batmans not to appear in the film.

But Batman Forever stands the test of time. It is an entertaining film that walks the line between the dark and brooding Batman from Burton, and the parody of the 1960s television series starring Adam West.

Soulful melancholy

Batman Forever was the pinnacle for Kilmer in terms of critical and commercial success. He followed it with great performances in films such as The Ghost and the Darkness (1996), Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) and Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (2009), but he was often the supporting character rather than the lead. These films, too, weren’t box-office smashes like his films up to and including Batman had been.

One of his best performances of the 2000s was in the David Mamet film Spartan (2004). Kilmer plays a retired marine corps sergeant in a good leading turn. He gave a muscular performance that still had a soulful melancholy at its heart, which can be seen in a lot of his roles. He plays action figures who are tough and macho on the outside, but have a melancholy just below the surface.

Although he never reprised his role as Bruce Wayne, a fitting coda for Kilmer’s career was the long-awaited sequel Top Gun: Maverick (2022), in which he gives a cameo as an ailing version of Iceman.

Kilmer will be missed for his iconic roles as the quintessential performer of the late 1980s and ’90s. In 2021, a documentary about Kilmer, Val, was released, based on decades of archive footage. I would recommend it to audiences who want to know more about the man, his life, his career and his health battles over the past decades.

Aaron Humphrey 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. Val Kilmer’s macho action figures held a melancholy just below the surface – https://theconversation.com/val-kilmers-macho-action-figures-held-a-melancholy-just-below-the-surface-253631

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

Ahead of Donald Trump’s tariff announcement early Thursday (Australian time), the United States president has become a serious and increasing worry for Peter Dutton’s campaign. Even apart from Labor’s obvious and constant “Trump-whistling”, many voters are apparently seeing a lot of Trump dust on the opposition leader.

Liberal strategists know how dangerous this is, given Trump’s unpopularity with Australians. So Dutton is shaping up.

In a Sky interview aired Wednesday, Dutton positioned himself as ready to take on Trump (or anyone else) if necessary. “If I needed to have a fight with Donald Trump or any other world leader to advance our nation’s interests, I’d do it in a heartbeat,” he declared. “And I’ll put the Americans on notice and anyone else who seeks to act against our national interest.”

It’s a measure of where things are that an Australian conservative leader is putting “the Americans on notice”.

Anthony Albanese – who once said Trump “scares the shit out of me” – suggested his opponent was going over the top.

“Peter Dutton will always dial things up to 11. He thinks this is a contest of who can say the most aggro things. It’s not. It’s not the way that diplomacy works.”

When it comes to Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff announcement – which will feed directly into the Australian campaign – it seems diplomacy hasn’t worked.

Trade Minister Don Farrell told briefings for agricultural and industry groups on Tuesday and Wednesday he was “pessimistic”, suggesting the likelihood of a tariff of up to 20% across the board.

Farrell indicated the Australian government had put an offer to the US, but that was rejected. Australia rejected a counter offer from the US, and resubmitted its original offer.

At Wednesday’s briefing for the red meat industry, 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”.

The government is preparing its response, which reportedly could involve taking the US to the World Trade Organisation. Asked about this, Albanese would not be drawn but told the ABC, “What we’re doing is supporting our US Free Trade Agreement, that says that goods and services between our two nations should be tariff-free.

“That’s what we’re doing, supporting our agreement, holding to our word, standing up for Australia’s national interest, and calling for the United States not only to stand up for that agreement, but to stand up to their own interests as well.”

Liberals play it cool on Albanese’s bid for real wage rise

The Liberals had a very bad experience on wages in the 2022 election.

Then-opposition leader Albanese said he’d “absolutely” support a wage increase to keep up with inflation, which was more than 5%.

The Coalition went on the attack, branding him as economically irresponsible. As he campaigned in the following days, Albanese kept producing a gold coin to show how small the rise would be for those on the minimum wage. He still occasionally reprises this party trick.

Labor is once again campaigning on wages, this time advocating a boost to real wages – that is, an increase above inflation, which is now down to 2.4%. (The submission put in on Wednesday to the Fair Work Commission went in from the Labor Party, rather than the government, because we’re in the “caretaker” period.)

The government’s position is clever. It says the wage rise, which would cover about three million workers, should be “economically sustainable”. But it doesn’t recommend a figure.

The Liberals a re trying to stay off the wages sticky paper. To be saying “no” in a cost-of-living election would only spell grief. Instead, they’re keeping their response vague. “We support wage increases”, Dutton said, without being specific about the government’s above-inflation pitch.

As to a figure, “Without further economic advice from treasury and finance, our position is we want higher wages and we want to make sure we have downward pressure on costs”.

“The prime minister is in search of a fight here,” Dutton said, a conclusion that didn’t require much perception, a fight Dutton was determined to try to side step.

Labor’s case received some backing on Wednesday from the Australian Industry Group, which suggested a rise of 2.6%.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry advocated a rise of no more than 2.5%. Asked what sort of difference there was between ACCI and the government, ACCI CEO Andrew McKellar said “that’s very hard to say. They are deliberately being non-specific.”

The ABC is in the Liberals’ sights – again

The ABC is a favourite target for many Liberals, including Dutton. In recent months he has singled out ABC reporters for attention when he didn’t like their questions.

So would he look at its budget? Dutton is leaving the impression he likely would; moreover he is critical of the national broadcaster’s regional service, which even most Coalition MPs praise.

“The approach that we would take is to reward excellence and where we find waste, to cut that waste.

“And there are a lot of regional services for the ABC which I think are underdone,” he said in his Sky interview. He’d been in western Queensland this week looking at the floods “and the ABC could be a much more integral part of that community. But just having it based in Sydney or just being based in Melbourne is not helping people in outer metro areas or regional areas.”

According to the ABC, it has about 600 employees in rural and regional Australia in 56 locations.

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: Dutton tries to shake off Trump dust and avoid being trapped on wages – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-dutton-tries-to-shake-off-trump-dust-and-avoid-being-trapped-on-wages-253117

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grace McQuilten, Associate professor, RMIT University

Australia’s visual arts and craft workers are facing increasingly deteriorating conditions, according to research published today.

Our four-year study reveals workers are abandoning the visual art sector, largely because of unstable employment, below-average salaries and a lack of support.

We present findings from the largest academic surveys of artists and arts workers to-date – the first conducted in 2022 (more than 700 respondents) and the second in 2024 (almost 900 respondents) – with income and employment data from four financial years between 2018 and 2024.

Alongside the surveys, we conducted interviews with 20 artists and arts workers to better understand hybrid career patterns – and consulted widely with industry.

Comparable to the gig economy

Artists and arts workers represent a financially vulnerable group in Australia’s workforce. Our research identified concerning patterns of work, including:

• high levels of education that don’t match salaries, which are well below the average for professional workers

• high levels of unpaid work, volunteer work and self-employment

• a highly gendered (majority women) workforce, with a significant gender pay gap

• barriers to opportunity and career progression for people with disability and from diverse cultural backgrounds.

We also found artists and arts workers often don’t know which awards and agreements they’re covered by, if any.

A gendered workforce

According to our 2024 survey responses, more than 74% of the visual arts workforce identify as women.

Despite this, there was a significant gender pay gap. On average, woman artists earned 47% less than men artists, while women arts workers earned 23% less than men arts workers.

This is much higher than the broader gender pay gap of 11.5% in 2024 (based on base pay for full-time workers).

The average income from visual art or craft practice in 2023–24 was A$13,937, with men artists reporting an average of $23,130, women artists $12,330, and non-binary artists $14,074.

This is matched with slow progression through career stages from emerging to “established”, particularly for women artists.

Lack of security, long hours, little return

Artists are surviving by taking multiple jobs. Only 25% of respondents spent 100% of their working time as an artist – with 82% receiving at least some income from other jobs.

Half of artists also participated in unpaid work. This equated to an average of 28 hours per month.

The cost-of-living crisis added further financial pressure, with 63% of respondents saying they were very or moderately financially stressed when it came to paying for essential goods and services.

This had a flow-on effect on wellbeing. Half the artists surveyed rated their mental health as poor or fair, while 59% rated their work-life balance as poor or fair. These issues were amplified for artists with disability and from diverse cultural backgrounds, who experience significant barriers to participation.

Arts workers, meanwhile, reported working an average of 45 hours per week in 2024. Despite this, 60% said they wanted to work even more hours – pointing to low pay and the challenges of making an arts career viable.

On average, arts workers earned an annual income of $63,031. This was much lower than professionals in other industries, who earned an average income of $100,017.

Levelling the playing field

Our report contains a suite of policy recommendations and priority actions for the arts industry to address these issues.

To address gender-related disparities, we suggest:

• requiring gender pay gap reporting from organisations receiving public funding, along with action plans to address disparities

• greater transparency in recruitment and promotion processes

• commitments to gender equity targets in leadership positions.

We also recommend greater transparency and reporting of disability and cultural diversity representation in staffing, including leadership and board roles, to promote accountability and drive cultural change.

Funding incentives should be introduced to support diverse leadership – including higher pay to compensate for the additional workload carried by workers from First Nations, disability and culturally diverse backgrounds.

Boosting incomes

To address the intractable issue of low incomes, we suggest all funding contracts from state and federal arts bodies mandate adherence to industry best practice (such as NAVA’s Code of Practice). This will help agencies better support artists and arts workers, and uphold employment standards across the sector.

Further, operational funding agreements should consistently prioritise secure work for artists and arts workers, by laying down permanent contracts or minimum fixed terms.

Finally, there must be greater, more transparent recognition of the amount of unpaid labour in the arts, and a commitment to moving away from this. We therefore recommend sector-wide reportable targets aimed at reducing unpaid labour.

Grace McQuilten received funding from the Australian Research Council. The Linkage Project Ambitious and Fair: strategies for a sustainable arts sector (LP200100054)

Chloë Powell received funding from the Australian Research Council. The Linkage Project Ambitious and Fair: strategies for a sustainable arts sector (LP200100054).

Jenny Lye received funding from the Australian Research Council. The Linkage Project Ambitious and Fair: strategies for a sustainable arts sector (LP200100054)

Kate MacNeill received funding from the Australian Research Council. The Linkage Project Ambitious and Fair: strategies for a sustainable arts sector (LP200100054)

Marnie Badham received funding from the Australian Research Council: Linkage Project Ambitious and Fair: strategies for a sustainable arts sector (LP200100054).

– ref. New research lays bare the harsh realities facing artists and arts workers – https://theconversation.com/new-research-lays-bare-the-harsh-realities-facing-artists-and-arts-workers-253547

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By T.J. Thomson, Senior Lecturer in Visual Communication & Digital Media, RMIT University

You wouldn’t usually associate Pikachu with protest.

But a figure dressed as the iconic yellow Pokémon joined a protest last week in Turkey to demonstrate against the country’s authoritarian leader.

And then a virtual doppelgänger made the rounds on social media, raising doubt in people’s minds about whether what they were seeing was true. (Just to be clear, the image in the post shown below is very much fake.)

This is the latest in a spate of incidents involving AI-generated (or AI-edited) images that can be made easily and cheaply and that are often posted during breaking news events.

Doctored, decontextualised or synthetic media can cause confusion, sow doubt, and contribute to political polarisation. The people who make or share these media often benefit financially or politically from spreading false or misleading claims.

How would you go at telling fact from fiction in these cases? Have a go with this quiz and learn more about some of AI’s (potential) giveaways and how to stay safer online.

How’d you go?

As this exercise might have revealed, we can’t always spot AI-generated or AI-edited images with just our eyes. Doing so will also become harder as AI tools become more advanced.

Dealing with visual deception

AI-powered tools exist to try to detect AI content, but these have mixed results.

Running suspect images through a search engine to see where else they have been published – and when – can be a helpful strategy. But this relies on there being an original “unedited” version published somewhere online.

Perhaps the best strategy is something called “lateral reading”. It means getting off the page or platform and seeing what trusted sources say about a claim.

Ultimately, we don’t have time to fact-check every claim we come across each day. That’s why it’s important to have access to trustworthy news sources that have a track record of getting it right. This is even more important as the volume of AI “slop” increases.

T.J. Thomson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is an affiliated researcher with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making & Society.

– ref. Can you tell the difference between real and fake news photos? Take the quiz to find out – https://theconversation.com/can-you-tell-the-difference-between-real-and-fake-news-photos-take-the-quiz-to-find-out-253539