Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra

By the standards of pre-election budgets, this one is surprisingly modest. There are only a handful of new revenue and spending initiatives. The Budget Paper 2 book, which contains new measures, is a slim document.

In part, this is because many of the most significant new spending proposals have been announced already – support for more bulk billing, the Future Made in Australia program, funding for schools and pre-schools and the Housing Australia Future Fund.

It can be hard to discern the new initiatives from the old. For example, the budget commits the government to support wage growth by “funding wage increases for aged care workers and early childhood educators” and “advocating for increases to award wages”. It will also ban non-compete clauses (contract provisions that hinder workers from moving between employers) for low- and middle-income workers.

These should in theory significantly shift wages upwards. Yet the economic forecast for the wage price index barely moves – from 4.1% in 2023-24 to 3% in 2024-25 and 3.25% in 2025-26. That is because the forecasts had already built in assumptions on the impact of things like aged care and childcare wage rises – they aren’t new.

The non-compete reform is a new initiative and over the longer term has the potential to improve wages as people move jobs. More importantly, it will improve flexibility in the labour market and improve productivity.

Overall, the deficits are forecast to continue for the foreseeable future.

Some more tax cuts on the way

The one surprising element of the budget is tax cuts. In essence, they return some bracket creep to low- and middle-income earners for a couple of years, after which revenue estimates return to trend. Bracket creep refers to increases in tax revenues as taxpayers move into higher tax brackets.

It is one of the reasons why governments have resisted calls to index the income tax brackets to inflation. Giving back bracket creep from time to time in the form of a tax cut, especially when an election looms, is more politically attractive.

There were few savings initiatives. The main one was the old chestnut of more funding to the Australian Taxation Office for compliance.

The Taxation Office receives an additional A$999 million over four years to combat tax avoidance including non-compliance, under reporting of income and illicit tobacco. This is expected to recoup $3.2 billion over five years, while increasing payments by $1.4 billion – some of the additional tax collected will go to GST payments to the states. So in net terms therefore this is also a modest saving.

One thing to look for in every budget is the provision for “decisions taken but not yet announced”. This refers to money put aside in the budget for future announcements – such as election promises.

It is not clear what the government might have planned. Revenue drops in 2025-26, but it climbs back up again in the following two years. Spending decisions include $323 million next year, which is relatively small change in the overall budget.

For transparency, we should not have any undisclosed decisions but at least the ones in this budget are far from extravagant.

Public service numbers

On staffing in the public service, there has been a large increase since the government took office. There will be some 33,000 more public servants – the majority outside Canberra – in 2025-26 than in 2022-23. However, the rate of increase is slowing. Not all agencies have had staff increases in this budget.

Nevertheless, the government has devoted ten pages to arguments for investing in the public service, and why the public service is a valuable resource. This is probably to emphasise one of the few points of difference between it and the opposition.

The defence budget saw almost no change. The treasurer was asked in his budget lockup press conference why this was, given the uncertain geopolitical environment documented in the budget papers.

Chalmers agreed “the world is a dangerous place right now” but pointed to increases in defence spending in previous budgets and argued these had positioned Australia to respond.

One missing element of the budget is new spending to combat climate change. The threat of climate change to the budget estimates has grown significantly. This is acknowledged briefly with a half page in the budget’s “statement of risks” – “climate change is expected to have a significant impact on the budget”.

However, that impact is not quantified – possibly because of “significant uncertainty”. Yes, there is uncertainty.

But the same applies to other parts of the budget, including the international economy, which is discussed in much more depth. The climate change department is one of a handful that lose staff in this budget. It may take more severe disasters before it regains prominence in the budget papers.

Stephen Bartos 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. The 2025 budget has few savings and surprises but it also ignores climate change – https://theconversation.com/the-2025-budget-has-few-savings-and-surprises-but-it-also-ignores-climate-change-253026

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

Today’s budget is a cautious and responsible response to the cost-of-living pressures facing voters.

As noted ahead of budget night, many of the major spending initiatives had already been announced.

But, in the only major surprise, there are income tax cuts for all income taxpayers. Even if we need to be patient. The new tax cuts only start in July 2026, with a second round in July 2027.

And as Treasurer Jim Chalmers himself said, they are “modest” cuts. A worker on average earnings will receive A$268 in the first year, rising to $536 in the second year.

Combined with the government’s first round of tax cuts in last year’s budget, this will add up to $2,190 per year in 2027.

The cost to the budget of the latest tax cuts in 2026-27 will be $3 billion, and over three years will be $17.1 billion. The cuts still need to pass parliament.

But calls by economists such as Chris Richardson and Ken Henry for major tax reform have not been heeded. Major reforms inevitably create losers as well as winners. So, big changes were never likely just weeks before an election.

And there is still bracket creep (increases in tax revenues as taxpayers move into higher tax brackets) over the next decade. Total tax receipts are projected to rise from 25.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2024-25 to 26.8% in 2035-36. This will do most of the work in the very gradual windback of the budget deficit.

How concerned should we be about the budget moving into deficit?

In the first back-to-back surpluses for almost 20 years, there were budget surpluses in 2022-23 and 2023-24. This year we are returning to deficit and further deficits are expected for about a decade. Should we be alarmed?

A balanced or surplus budget is not necessarily a good budget. What we want is a budget appropriate to current economic conditions and sustainable in the long run.

The Australian economy has only been growing modestly in recent years and is forecast to grow 1.5% in the current year. Inflation is near the target range in underlying terms. So, a modest deficit is not unreasonable.

The longer run projections show a very gradual return to balance. But this assumes no recession and no further income tax cuts, for a decade. It might be better to rebuild the fiscal position more quickly so as to be better placed to provide fiscal stimulus in the event of a global recession or another pandemic.

‘A new world of uncertainty’

As Chalmers said, we are in a “new world of uncertainty” with “the threat of a global trade war”. The volume of Australian exports is forecast to only expand by 2.5% in 2025-26 and 2026-27, but it could be lower.

In February, the Reserve Bank forecast headline inflation would rebound above the 2% to 3% target range when the electricity rebates expired. The extension of the rebates in Tuesday’s budget as well as the reductions in the price of prescription medicines will help keep inflation below 3%. Headline inflation is forecast to improve to 2.5% in 2026-27.

In the December 2024 budget update, the unemployment rate was forecast to be around 4.5% in mid-2025 and stay around that level for the next couple of years. Given the unemployment rate was steady at 4.1% in February, the reduction to 4.25% seems plausible.

What will it mean for interest rates?

One reason the government went for a modest tax cut rather than a wild “cash splash” is it did not want to undermine the narrative there will be future interest rate cuts by stimulating household spending too much.

If households were given immediate cash to spend, this could drive up inflation.

The Reserve Bank is unlikely to change interest rates at its April 1 meeting. But it would be very unhelpful for the government’s electoral prospects if the minutes showed the central bank had become more concerned about inflation and less likely to cut interest rates at future meetings.

The Reserve Bank is unlikely to feel this budget contains enough government spending to boost economic activity in the near term and therefore change its view on the economic outlook.

So, a further interest rate cut remains possible at the bank’s following meeting on May 20.

And any further relief on interest rates would be welcomed by households – as well as whoever might be in government by then.

John Hawkins was a formerly a senior economist at the Treasury and Reserve Bank.

– ref. Tax cuts are coming, but not soon, in a cautious budget – https://theconversation.com/tax-cuts-are-coming-but-not-soon-in-a-cautious-budget-253027

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Parker, Adjunct Fellow, Naval Studies at UNSW Canberra, and Expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University

A report in The Atlantic today sent shockwaves through Washington and beyond: senior US officials shared military operations for a bombing campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen in a Signal group chat that inadvertently included the magazine’s editor.

Military planning of this nature is highly classified, which is why some media outlets are characterising it as “an extraordinary breach of American national security intelligence”.

Here are three key reasons why this incident is so concerning, and how such conversations are typically handled.

What are the potential consequences of this kind of breach?

From an operational and strategic level, this incident could have had significant implications.

Had the Houthis or their Iranian backers managed to access this information, they could have moved the individuals or equipment that was being targeted, making the strikes ineffective.

In addition, depending on what military assets the US was using to conduct the strikes – for example, ships and aircraft – the information could have given away their positions. This could have allowed the Houthis to pre-emptively target these assets, which is another significant concern.

Or, the Houthis could have pre-emptively attacked something else, such as oil facilities in neighbouring Saudi Arabia, which they have targeted successfully in the past.

At the strategic level, this breach provides an insight into the dynamics of the people involved in the key defence decision-making in the Trump administration. Many names were reportedly shared, including an active intelligence officer.

If America’s adversaries were able to access this information, they could use it to target these people or people around them.

More broadly, this incident is just a bad look. This is a classified discussion about military planning being conducted on an unclassified platform that was accessed by a journalist who didn’t have high-level clearances and shouldn’t have had access to the information.

How are classified conversations usually conducted?

During my time in the Australian Defence Force, I was a former director of operations of a 38-nation coalition of maritime forces in the Middle East.

And I was quite surprised to see these US plans being discussed on Signal.

Normally, operations of this kind are discussed strictly on secure, classified devices only, such as phones or laptops. Military commanders are contactable on these devices at all hours of the day or night.

These devices are “cleaned” before they’re issued by the Department of Defence and regularly checked. You can’t plug a foreign device into them, which ensures they can’t be compromised in any way. Any communications that take place on these devices would also be encrypted.

In addition, on a classified network, it would be impossible to add someone to a conversation in the way the Atlantic editor was, unless they had access to the same secure technology.

I would be highly surprised if the US secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, and the national security advisor, Mike Waltz, do not have access to these devices. They may have chosen to have this conversation on Signal for ease, but it clearly makes the information much more vulnerable.

If high-level conversations do need to happen on an unclassified platform like Signal, the participants would normally use a code word that doesn’t give away what they’re talking about. This keeps a conversation encrypted to a degree until a secure device can be accessed.

Should America’s allies worry about intelligence lapses, too?

The US’ key partners and allies should seek to have a conversation with the Americans behind closed doors to understand the context of what happened.

The big questions are: what does this kind of lapse mean and what is the US doing to address it?

The US National Security Council has already said it intends to look at the situation in depth.

So, at this stage, I don’t think America’s Five Eyes partners should necessarily be concerned about the potential for other intelligence breaches.

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

– ref. Why is the US group chat on Houthi attack plans so concerning? A military operations expert explains – https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-us-group-chat-on-houthi-attack-plans-so-concerning-a-military-operations-expert-explains-253029

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Watson, Professor in Conservation Science, School of the Environment, The University of Queensland

In 2022, Australia and many other nations agreed to protect 30% of their lands and waters by 2030 to arrest the rapid decline in biodiversity.

Since then, the Albanese government has protected large new areas of ocean, taking the total up to 52% of territorial waters. In tonight’s federal budget, the government is expected to announce A$250 million in funding to protect an additional 30 million hectares of land over the next five years. At present, Australia protects 22% of its lands through its National Reserve System. This would take the total to 30%.

You might expect conservationists to be ecstatic. But we’re not. Large new areas of desert and arid areas are likely to be protected under this scheme, because these areas have minimal population and are not sought after by farming. But these ecosystems are already well protected.

We have to come back to the point of the 30 by 30 agreement: protect biodiversity. That means the government has to protect representative samples of all ecosystems – including in areas sought for farming or other human uses.

Buying land is only a fraction of the task

For years, Australia’s National Reserve System of national parks, state parks and Indigenous Protected Areas has languished. The last big infusion of funding and political interest came between 2007 and 2010 under a previous Labor government, when Peter Garrett was environment minister. Then, the government expanded the reserve system, grew Indigenous Protected Areas and ensured new reserves would preserve a representative sample of Australia’s ecosystems.

Since then, conservation efforts have largely not been up to scratch. Funding has stagnated. National parks are riddled with invasive species and other environmental problems.

On funding grounds alone, the $250m announced by Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek is welcome. It is, however, just a fraction of what’s needed to properly protect the right areas.

In 2023, environmental organisations called for a $5 billion fund to buy and protect important habitat – and to pay for maintenance.

The purchase of land represents perhaps 10% of the overall cost of conservation. If you buy land and do nothing, it can be overrun by invasive species. Australia’s ever-larger number of threatened species are often threatened because of these species, as well as the growing threat of land clearing in Queensland and the Northern Territory. Fire management is another cost.

Which lands actually need protection?

As successive governments have backed away from conservation, non-government organisations such as the Australian Land Conservation Alliance, Bush Heritage Australia and Australian Wildlife Conservancy have stepped up. These organisations are doing fine work in protecting land and doing the necessary on-ground land management to safeguard threatened species and ecosystems, but they do not have access to resources at a government scale.

So how will this government funding be used? It’s likely we will see further growth in Indigenous Protected Areas – areas managed by Traditional Owners alongside authorities to protect biodiversity.

These areas are often located where low rainfall often means they are not viable for farming. This means there’s less conflict over what to do with the land. If our government is determined to meet the 30% target as quickly and cheaply as possible, we may well see more arid lands and desert protected.

When you set a target of 30% protected land by 2030, governments often see the top-line figure and aim for that alone. But the text of the international agreement stresses the need to prioritise “areas of particular importance for biodiversity”.

Governments have a choice: the easy, less effective way or the hard but effective way. The recent growth in marine protected areas suggests the government is taking the easy path. Even though the science is clear that marine parks bolster fish stocks in and outside the park, they are still controversial among fishers who believe they are being locked out.

As a result, Australia’s marine park system has made greatest gains where there are very few humans who might protest, such as quadrupling the protected areas around the very remote Heard and McDonald Islands in the sub-Antarctic region. (The government has expanded marine parks at a smaller scale closer to population centres too.)

This same story may well play out on land.

What would it look like if our government was willing to do what was necessary? It would involve actively seeking out the ecological communities in clear decline, such as native grasslands, brigalow woodlands and swamps, and buying up remaining habitat.

Saving here, clearing there

On the one hand, 22% of Australia’s land and 52% of seas come under some form of protection. But on the other, over the last two decades an area the size of Tasmania has been cleared – largely for livestock farming and mining. Satellite analyses show land clearing is actually increasing in many parts of the country.

Land clearing places further pressure on threatened species. In fact, most species considered threatened with extinction are largely in this situation because the land they live on has attributes prized by farmers or graziers, such as grass and water.

Australia’s environment faces real challenges in the next few years. Intensified land clearing, worsening climate change and whiplash drought-flood cycles, to say nothing of ballooning feral populations.

If we protect the right 30% of Australia, we have a chance to ensure most of our ecosystems have areas protected. But if we protect the wrong 30% and leave the rest open to bulldozers, we will only lock in more extinctions.

James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council, National Environmental Science Program, South Australia’s Department of Environment and Water, Queensland’s Department of Environment, Science and Innovation as well as from Bush Heritage Australia, Queensland Conservation Council, Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and Birdlife Australia. He serves on the scientific committee of BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with Bush Heritage Australia and Wildlife Conservation Society. He serves on the Queensland government’s Land Restoration Fund’s Investment Panel as the Deputy Chair.

– ref. A budget splash to conserve 30% of Australia’s lands will save species – if we choose the right 30% – https://theconversation.com/a-budget-splash-to-conserve-30-of-australias-lands-will-save-species-if-we-choose-the-right-30-252918

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Irene Nikoloudakis, PhD Candidate in Law, University of Adelaide

Being robbed is a horrible experience under any circumstances. But being robbed by your employer involves a unique betrayal of trust.

So it was a sign of real progress when “wage theft” finally became a crime in New Zealand earlier this month with the passage of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Act.

Heralded by trade unions and the Labour Party as a victory for workers, the new law makes it a criminal offence under the Crimes Act for an employer to intentionally (and without reasonable excuse) fail to pay workers what they’re entitled to.

Wage theft can include deliberately underpaying wages or holiday pay, or making unlawful deductions from pay packets. The question now is how well the new law will be enforced.

While there is little research on how widespread wage theft in New Zealand is, we do know it all too often affects temporary migrant workers and those in labour-intensive industries such as hospitality, construction and horticulture.

But if, as seems likely, the police are tasked with investigating allegations of wage theft, the new law may struggle to be enforced effectively.

Who investigates wage theft?

Until the law change, wage theft was only addressed through the civil system, not the criminal courts. Underpaid employees could take an employer to court to recover what was owed – if they had the means to navigate what could be a complex process.

It took an initiative by former Labour MP Ibrahim Omer – who as a refugee in New Zealand had experienced wage theft – to begin the reform process. He introduced a members’ bill to parliament in 2023 seeking to make wage theft a criminal offence.

Under the new law, the maximum penalties for wage theft are the same as for general theft. For serious offences, this means employers can be imprisoned for stealing their workers’ pay.

The trouble is, the law doesn’t state which government agency will be responsible for investigating such crimes. This is important because adequately enforcing the law is the whole point.

A 2024 report by the Ministry of Justice had suggested investigative responsibility might sit with New Zealand’s workplace regulator, the Labour Inspectorate. This seemed a logical move.

But when the legislation was being debated in parliament, it became clear MPs assumed enforcement responsibility would lie with police. Confirming the law change this month, Labour MP Camilla Bellich said:

Theft is theft, and before this bill was law workers had to take up a civil case. Civil wage claims are difficult for any employee to initiate and often time consuming and expensive. Now workers can go to the police and report wage theft as a crime.

How Australia does it

On the face of it, the police might seem like the logical enforcement agency. They investigate crimes and play an important role in crime prevention. But wage theft isn’t an area they have dealt with before. And uncovering wage theft in practice is very difficult.

First, those most at risk – such as migrant workers and young employees – are the least likely to report it, often for fear of the consequences or because they simply don’t know how to make a formal complaint.

Secondly, bad employers are good at covering their tracks, leaving no paper trail or fudging the books.

Without specialised knowledge or experience in these areas – as well as dealing with their existing resourcing challenges – the police will potentially struggle to uncover wage theft offending.

A better model might be Australia’s criminal wage theft regime, which came into effect at the start of this year. Overall, it is tougher and more targeted than New Zealand’s.

The Australian law applies hefty maximum penalties for wage theft offences – up to ten years’ imprisonment and monetary fines in the millions. Investigations are the responsibility of the national workplace regulator, the Fair Work Ombudsman.

This makes sense, because it’s the Fair Work Ombudsman which has significant experience in uncovering breaches of national employment laws, not the police.

Put the Labour Inspectorate in charge

The equivalent enforcement agency in New Zealand is the Labour Inspectorate, whose entire remit is to uncover breaches of employment standards.

The Labour Inspectorate, far more than the police, will understand the intricacies of wage theft, including which workers and industries are most vulnerable, and what methods dodgy employers use to hide wage theft.

If necessary, the inspectorate’s powers and resources could be reviewed and modified to ensure it has the tools to conduct criminal investigations, including the ability to search and seize evidence.

Finally, empowering an agency with the right tools, knowledge and experience to investigate wage theft would leave the police to deal with the other serious crimes already demanding their attention.

Irene Nikoloudakis 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. Wage theft is now a criminal offence in NZ – investigating it shouldn’t be left to the police – https://theconversation.com/wage-theft-is-now-a-criminal-offence-in-nz-investigating-it-shouldnt-be-left-to-the-police-252712

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in International Law, Curtin University

Only five days after the arrest warrant against former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte was issued, he was apprehended and immediately put on a plane to The Hague to face charges before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The prompt action – and the fact he is the first former Asian head of state before the ICC – have been heralded as “a pivotal moment for the court”.

While this is a rare success story in the court’s tumultuous history, many challenges remain. The successful arrest of one defendant will unfortunately do little to change negative perceptions of the court or remove the many obstacles it faces in prosecuting cases.

A long history of criticism

The ICC was conceived as a “court of last resort” in 1998 under the Rome Statute, the treaty that established it. The aim was to try individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression in cases where a state’s domestic courts refuse or are unable to do so.

Shortly after it began its work in 2002, however, the ICC faced criticism for its perceived focus on Africa.

In more recent years, it has also been criticised for its limited effectiveness, its perceived hypocrisy, and a lack of support from major powers, such as the US, China and Russia, which are not members.

The court has long faced a public relations crisis it may never be able to resolve. When it does not investigate a potential case, it is said to be ineffective. And when it does initiate investigations, it is often said to be biased or acting beyond its capabilities.

Putin and Netanyahu

Currently, the ICC has 12 ongoing investigations, mostly in Africa and Asia. It has issued 56 arrest warrants, half of which have yet to be executed.

As the focus of the court is limited to those who bear the greatest responsibility for international crimes, the cases frequently involve high-profile individuals.

Current arrest warrants, for example, have been issued against Russian President Vladimir Putin on charges of allegedly deporting Ukrainian children to Russia and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza.

These two cases have been among the court’s most controversial. Critics say the ICC lacks jurisdiction because:

• the alleged crimes did not occur in their own states
• their states are not parties to the Rome Statute
• the UN Security Council did not refer these cases to the ICC for investigation.

Others have accused the court of selective prosecution and bias for pursuing a case against Netanyahu, specifically, instead of prioritising cases in states run by dictators, such as Syria.

And some complain the court should be focusing on crimes allegedly committed by Western leaders in places like Iraq.

Indicting leaders of states raises additional legal challenges. International law dictates that heads of state enjoy immunity in other states’ courts – unless this immunity is expressly waived by their own governments.

The ICC defends its actions as fair. It argues it does have jurisdiction in the cases against Putin and Netanyahu because the alleged crimes took place in Ukraine and Palestine, two states who have explicitly accepted its jurisdiction.

And Article 27 of the Rome Statute says the ICC can exercise jurisdiction over people with state immunity, although it’s debatable whether this must be first waived for leaders of states not party to the Rome Statute.

Cooperation remains key

The ICC is not only constrained by these complex legal questions, but also by the limited cooperation of states around the world.

It relies on close cooperation with its 125 state parties, among others. But some states have been reluctant or even refused to cooperate with the court in executing the arrest warrants of controversial figures.

For example, Putin was not arrested when he visited Mongolia, an ICC member, last year, in part, because Mongolia relies heavily on Russian energy. South Africa similarly refused to arrest Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir when he visited in 2015.

Even when state parties do cooperate, the political fallout can impact the court’s reputation.

Following Duterte’s arrest last week, a Filipino senator (the sister of the current president) launched an urgent investigation to ensure due process was followed and Duterte’s legal rights were upheld and protected. She acknowledged the arrest has “has deeply divided the nation”.

The lack of support from the US – arguably, still the world’s most powerful democracy – remains a perennial problem, as well.

While the US has generally supported the court’s mandate over the years, it has been wary of its jurisdiction over American citizens and those of its allies accused of crimes. Last month, President Donald Trump authorised new sanctions against ICC officials in an attempt to paralyse the international organisation.

Although 79 states did declare their support for the ICC following the sanctions, the Trump adminstration’s rejection of the court’s jurisdiction, legitimacy and authority has had significant consequences for its operations.

It remains to be seen how the case against Duterte will play out. Securing a conviction is not assured.

However, his arrest demonstrates the court can fulfil its mandate and remain a relevant force in the fight against the gravest of crimes. It is also a significant moment for the families of those killed during Duterte’s rule, who have long sought justice for their loved ones.

Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria 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. The ICC showed its might by arresting Rodrigo Duterte. Its reputation will take longer to fix – https://theconversation.com/the-icc-showed-its-might-by-arresting-rodrigo-duterte-its-reputation-will-take-longer-to-fix-252509

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

If you’ve ever picked up your child from childcare and wondered if they’re living a double life, you’re not alone.

Parents often receive rave reports from educators about kids’ adventurous eating habits, only to face a different reality at home, when the child who devoured a veggie-packed curry at lunchtime morphs into a fussy eater refusing anything but dinosaur-shaped chicken nuggets.

While this confusing behaviour is frustrating, it’s completely normal.

Here’s why it happens and what you can do.

How kids’ tastes and eating behaviour develops

To understand why kids eat differently in different settings, we need first to understand two factors that shape their tastes and food preferences:

1. Genetics. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors developed physiological responses for survival that are embedded in our genes and influence taste preferences from birth. These include developing “food fussiness” – a natural aversion to unfamiliar foods and bitter flavours to avoid ingesting toxins – and learning to seek palatable foods rich in natural sugars, fat and protein to avoid starvation.

2. Eating environment. As kids grow, their surroundings at mealtimes – namely carers’ eating habits, feeding practices, routines and social cues conveyed – shape what they actually eat and enjoy.

The interaction between these two factors drives how fussy kids will be, their likes and dislikes and how open they are to new foods.

Why eating behaviour differs between childcare and home

The simple reason kids may eat differently at childcare comes down to the eating environment. Here’s what typically makes childcare different to home:

1. Childcare has strict routines

Childcare runs to a strict schedule, teaching kids to expect meals and snacks at set times and places. Meals are also planned to ensure kids sit down to eat when they’re hungry, and food is offered for a limited time – factors that help kids focus on eating.

When mealtimes are less structured at home, it often leads to kids snacking, reducing their appetite at dinnertime. Distractions, like screens, also take kids’ attention away from eating.

2. Kids are exposed to peer influence and different role models

Kids are natural copycats, so seeing friends enjoying healthy food makes them more willing to try it. This behaviour is supported by a study showing that seating a preschooler who dislikes a vegetable next to a peer who enjoys it can gradually shift their preference, leading them to eat the previously disliked vegetable.

Additionally, the social nature of eating in a group setting encourages kids to try new foods and eat more.

Research also shows carers – who are trained to model enthusiasm for nutritious foods – shape healthy eating habits and help kids learn other valuable behaviours like table manners.

At home, time constraints and limited knowledge can make it harder for parents to model these same behaviours.

3. Childcare regularly exposes kids to new foods

At childcare, meals are carefully planned according to Australian Dietary Guidelines and are focused on exposing kids to new foods regularly and repeatedly to get them comfortable with different tastes and textures.

At home, busy family lives often lead to repetitive meal routines.

4. Kids are offered limited choices

At childcare, meals are planned with military precision and served without negotiation, teaching kids to try to eat what’s provided.

At home, mealtimes can involve high-stakes negotiations when kids refuse certain foods, leading parents to surrender and offer alternatives – a tactic that only reinforces fussy eating and teaches kids to hold out for favourite foods.

5. Kids are given some control over what they eat

Kids have very little control over their daily lives – we’re constantly telling them what to do and when they’ll do it.

However, one way kids assert control is by refusing to eat certain foods at home.

Childcare cleverly gives kids the control they seek, encouraging them to serve themselves from shared platters, making them more willing to try new foods.

6. Kids experience less attention and pressure

At home, we naturally focus on what our child is eating (and not eating) which makes mealtimes stressful for kids.

At childcare, kids don’t have an audience watching their every bite, so they feel less pressure, eat more freely and are more willing to try different foods.

Read more:
5 picky eating habits – and how to help your child overcome them

Six ways to bring childcare eating habits home

1. Stick to a strict routine

Serve meals around the same time each day and establish snack times, ensuring they’re two hours before mealtimes so your child sits down hungry and ready to eat. Your routine should include putting devices away so your child’s full attention is on eating.

2. Be a positive role model

Because kids observe and mimic what they see, if you show enthusiasm for trying new foods and healthy eating your child will do the same.

3. Get creative

Take a leaf out of childcare’s book and ensure your child’s plate features different colours, textures and flavours presented in fun ways to capture and hold their interest in new foods.

And just like childcare, do this regularly, as repeated exposure is key – it can take eight to ten exposures before your child will accept eating a new food.

4. Limit food choices (but in a fun way)

Offer limited choices but in a way that gives your child some control, like serving platter-style meals where they can choose what they want.

Don’t give into food demands. While it’s tempting to offer alternatives when meals are refused, this creates more problems than it solves, reinforcing food fussiness and narrowing their diet.

5. Encourage independence

Actively involve your child in meal preparation, asking them to pick healthy recipes, help you shop and complete simple tasks like washing veggies and mixing ingredients. This can make them curious to taste the meal they’ve helped prepare.

6. Make mealtimes stress-free

Prioritise sitting down to eat as a family and ensure mealtimes are relaxed and fun – especially when you’re introducing new foods – to create positive associations with healthy eating.

Nick Fuller is the author of Healthy Parents, Healthy Kids – a clinically proven blueprint to overcoming food fussiness.

A/Professor 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. Why does my kid eat so well at childcare but not at home? – https://theconversation.com/why-does-my-kid-eat-so-well-at-childcare-but-not-at-home-247447

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mike Climstein, Associate Professor, Faculty of Health, Southern Cross University

You’ve got a new brown spot on your face, but is it a freckle or a sunspot? Or perhaps you’ve found a spot on your back that looks like a mole but is flatter than your other ones – is it a mole or a dark freckle?

Here’s how to tell the difference between freckles, sunspots and moles – and when you need to get a spot checked to see if it’s skin cancer.

Freckles

Freckles, known as ephelides, are small, flat, light brown spots that appear on people with fair skin, or red or light-coloured hair.

These people are more likely to have the MC1R gene, which leads to freckles forming.

Freckles are caused by sun exposure and are more noticeable in summer. When sunlight hits the skin, cells called melanocytes produce melanin, the pigment that gives skin its colour.

In people prone to freckles, the melanin doesn’t spread evenly. Instead, it clumps together, creating freckles.

Freckles generally appear in childhood and may fade with age, especially if sun exposure reduces. As we age we produce less melanin, or it can break down or disperse, resulting in lighter or fewer freckles.

Using sunscreen and wearing protective clothing can help prevent new freckles from developing, especially on the face and arms.

While freckles are completely harmless, they are a sign that someone is genetically at higher risk of developing skin cancer.

Sunspots

Sunspots are also called age spots or actinic keratoses (or liver spots, but they have nothing to do with the liver). They are larger than freckles: sometimes the size of a small coin, and appear as flat brown spots.

Sunspots develop over time due to long-term sun exposure, which leads to excessive melanin production. They tend to appear on skin with greater sun exposure, such as the face, hands, shoulders and arms.

Unlike freckles, which tend to get lighter with less sun exposure, sunspots will not fade with time, and may further darken with continued sun exposure.

However, some people try to remove their sunspots for cosmetic reasons using either a laser, chemical peel or a prescription topical cream.

While sunspots are not dangerous, they do increase your risk of other skin cancers in that area.

It’s also important to monitor them, as slow-growing melanomas may initially look like sunspots. If you see the spot changes in size, shape or colour, see your doctor to rule out skin cancer.

Moles

Moles are often dark, raised or flat skin growths that can appear anywhere on your body.

Although moles can exist from birth, they typically grow during childhood, adolescence and early adulthood (including during pregnancy, when hormones are changing), until around the age of around 40. Moles can increase in size, and new ones can also appear.

Most adults have between ten and 40 moles on their body. A person with a high mole count has 50 or more, while someone with a very high mole count has 100 or more.

Moles form when melanocytes grow in clusters instead of spreading evenly throughout the skin.

Moles can either be raised or flat, depending upon their type, depth and age.

Raised moles, referred to as compound nevi, have both flat and raised portions and typically have pigment that is deeper in the skin.

Dermal nevi are skin-coloured or light brown moles that are also raised.

Most moles are harmless. Some may have hair growing from them and some may disappear, whereas other moles may darken or alter with age or hormonal changes.

However, some moles can develop into melanoma, a dangerous form of skin cancer.

When to see your doctor

While freckles and sunspots are completely harmless, moles do require more attention, especially if they change in size, shape, colour or texture.

If a mole shows any of the following warning signs, see your doctor, who will use the ABCDE rule to detect if a lesion is a skin cancer:

• asymmetry: if one half of the mole looks different from the other half

• border: if your mole is shaped irregularly, jagged or has poorly defined edges

• colour: varied shades or sudden changes in colour of the mole

• diameter: if it is larger than 6 millimeters (about the size of a pencil eraser)

• evolving: if your mole has any changes in its size, shape, colour, or sensation such as itching or bleeding for more than a few weeks.

Our research shows only 21.7% of people can correctly identify melanoma on their own, so professional checks are essential.

How to prevent skin damage

Since freckles, sunspots and some moles are influenced by exposure to the sun, you can protect your skin by:

• avoiding the sun when ultraviolet rays are strongest

• wearing sunscreen with SPF 50 every day, even when it’s cloudy. Apply it 20 minutes before going outside and reapply every two hours

• wearing protective clothing, including a wide-brimmed hat to cover your face, neck and ears, and long-sleeved shirts and pants to protect your arms and legs.

Mike Climstein received funding from Johnson & Johnson

Jeremy Hudson receives funding from Agaibey Enterprises Ltd.

Michael Stapelberg receives funding from Johnson & Johnson.

Nedeljka Rosic received research funding from Johnson & Johnson

– ref. What’s the difference between freckles, sunspots and moles? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-freckles-sunspots-and-moles-250768

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carolyn Nickson, Associate Professor, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne; Adjunct Associate Professor, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

Australia’s BreastScreen program offers women regular mammograms (breast X-rays) based on their age. And this screening for breast cancer saves lives.

But much has changed since the program was introduced in the early 90s. Technology has developed, as has our knowledge of which groups of women might be at higher risk of breast cancer. So how we screen women for breast cancer needs to adapt.

In a recent paper, we’ve proposed a fundamental shift away from an age-based approach to a screening program that takes into account women’s risk of breast cancer.

We argue we could save more lives if screening tests and schedules were personalised based on someone’s risk.

We don’t yet know exactly how this might work in practice. We need to consult with all parties involved, including health professionals, government and women, and we need to begin Australian trials.

But here’s why we need to rethink how we screen for breast cancer in Australia.

Why does breast screening need to change?

Australia’s BreastScreen program was introduced in 1991 and offers women regular mammograms based on their age. Women aged 50–74 are targeted, but screening is available from the age of 40.

The program is key to Australia’s efforts to reduce the burden of breast cancer, providing more than a million screens each year.

Women who attend BreastScreen reduce their risk of dying from breast cancer by 49% on average.

Breast screening saves lives because it makes a big difference to find breast cancers early, before they spread to other parts of the body.

Despite this, around 75,000 Australian women are expected to die from breast cancer over the next 20 years if we continue with current approaches to breast cancer screening and management.

Who’s at high risk, and how best to target them?

International evidence confirms it is possible to identify groups of women at higher risk of breast cancer. These include:

• women with denser breasts (where there’s more glandular and fibrous tissue than fatty tissue in the breasts) are more likely to develop breast cancer, and their cancers are harder to find on standard mammograms

• women whose mother, sisters, grandmother or aunts have had breast or ovarian cancer, especially if there are multiple relatives and the cancers occurred at young ages

• women who have been found to carry genetic mutations that lead to a higher risk of breast cancer (including women with multiple moderate risk mutations, as indicated by what’s known as a polygenic risk score).

Women in these and other high-risk groups might warrant a different form of screening. This could include screening from a younger age, screening more frequently, and offering more sensitive tests such as digital breast tomosynthesis (a 3D version of mammography), MRI or contrast-enhanced mammography (a type of mammography that uses a dye to highlight cancerous lesions).

But we don’t yet know:

• how to best identify women at higher risk

• which screening tests should be offered, how often and to whom

• how to staff and run a risk-based screening program

• how to deliver this in a cost-effective and equitable way.

The road ahead

This is what we have been working on, for Cancer Council Australia, as part of the ROSA Breast project.

This federally funded project has estimated and compared the expected outcomes and costs for a range of screening scenarios.

For each scenario we estimated the benefits (saving lives or less intense treatment) and harms (overdiagnosis and rates of investigations in women recalled for further investigation after a screening test who are found to not have breast cancer).

Of 160 potential screening scenarios we modelled, we shortlisted 19 which produced the best outcomes for women and were the most cost effective. The shortlisted scenarios tended to involve either targeted screening technologies for higher-risk women or screening technologies other than mammography for all screened women.

For example, in our estimates, making no change to the target age range or screening intervals but offering a more sensitive screening test to the 20% of women deemed to be at highest risk would save 113 lives over ten years.

Alternatively, commencing targeted screening from age 40 and offering a more sensitive screening test annually to the 20% of women at highest risk, and three-yearly screening (of the current kind) to the 30% of women at lowest risk, would save 849 lives over ten years.

However, less frequent screening of the lower risk group was expected to lead to small increases in breast cancer deaths in that group.

We also outlined 25 recommendations to put into action, and set out a five-year roadmap of how to get there. This includes:

• a large scale trial to find out what is feasible, effective and affordable in Australia

• making sure women at higher risk in different parts of Australia are offered suitable options regardless of where they live and who they see

• better data collection and reporting to support risk-based screening

• testing how we assess women for their risk of breast cancer, including whether these assessments work as intended and make sense to women from a range of backgrounds

• clinical studies of screening technologies to determine the best delivery models and associated costs

• ongoing engagement with groups including women, health professionals and government.

Breast cancer screening review out soon

Federal health minister Mark Butler said a review of the BreastScreen program would consider our recommendations. The results of this review are expected soon.

We’re not alone in calling for a move towards risk-based breast cancer screening. This is backed by national and international submissions to government, policy briefing documents and the Breast Cancer Network Australia.

We’ve provided an evidence-based roadmap towards better screening for breast cancer. Now is the time to commit to this journey.

We acknowledge Louiza Velentzis from the Daffodil Centre, and Paul Grogan and Deborah Bateson from the University of Sydney, who co-authored the paper mentioned in this article.

Carolyn Nickson led the ROSA Project for Cancer Council Australia. She receives funding from the Australian government Department of Health and Aged Care, the Medical Research Future Fund, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Melbourne Health.

Bruce Mann works as a surgeon at Northwestern BreastScreen in Melbourne. He was a board member of the Breast Cancer Network Australia, which has improved screening as a key strategic objective. He is director of research at Breast Cancer Trials.  If trials are done in this space, Breast Cancer Trials may be involved. He was a member of the ROSA Project coordination group and jointly chaired the project advisory groups.

Karen Canfell was executive lead for the ROSA Project discussed in this article. She has received grants from the Australian government’s Department of Health and Aged Care and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund, the US National Cancer Institute and CDC, Cancer Research UK, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and government agencies in several countries. She co-leads an investigator-initiated trial of cervical screening, Compass, run by the Australian Centre for Prevention of Cervical Cancer (ACPCC), which is a government-funded not-for-profit charity. Compass receives infrastructure support from the Australian government and the ACPCC has received equipment and a funding contribution from Roche Molecular Diagnostics, USA.  She also co-leads an implementation program Elimination of Cervical Cancer in the Indo-Pacific which has received support from the Australian government and the Minderoo Foundation, and equipment donations from Cepheid and Microbix.  

– ref. Breast cancer screening is ripe for change. We need to assess a woman’s risk – not just her age – https://theconversation.com/breast-cancer-screening-is-ripe-for-change-we-need-to-assess-a-womans-risk-not-just-her-age-252182

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Valerie A. Cooper, Lecturer in Media and Communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Of all the contradictions and ironies of Donald Trump’s second presidency so far, perhaps the most surprising has been his shutting down the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) for being “radical propaganda”.

Critics have long accused the agency – and its affiliated outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia – of being a propaganda arm of US foreign policy.

But to the current president, the USAGM has become a promoter of anti-American ideas and agendas – including allegedly suppressing stories critical of Iran, sympathetically covering the issue of “white privilege” and bowing to pressure from China.

Propaganda is clearly in the eye of the beholder. The Moscow Times reported Russian officials were elated by the demise of the “purely propagandistic” outlets, while China’s Global Times celebrated the closure of a “lie factory”.

Meanwhile, the European Commission hailed USAGM outlets as a “beacon of truth, democracy and hope”. All of which might have left the average person understandably confused: Voice of America? Wasn’t that the US propaganda outlet from World War II?

Well, yes. But the reality of USAGM and similar state-sponsored global media outlets is more complex – as are the implications of the US agency’s demise.

Public service or state propaganda?

The USAGM is one of several international public service media outlets based in western democracies. Others include Australia’s ABC International, the BBC World Service, CBC/Radio-Canada, France Médias Monde, NHK-World Japan, Deutsche Welle in Germany and SRG SSR in Switzerland.

Part of the Public Media Alliance, they are similar to national public service media, largely funded by taxpayers to uphold democratic ideals of universal access to news and information.

Unlike national public media, however, they might not be consumed – or even known – by domestic audiences. Rather, they typically provide news to countries without reliable independent media due to censorship or state-run media monopolies.

The USAGM, for example, provides news in 63 languages to more than 100 countries. It has been credited with bringing attention to issues such as protests against COVID-19 lockdowns in China and women’s struggles for equal rights in Iran.

On the other hand, the independence of USAGM outlets has been questioned often, particularly as they are required to share government-mandated editorials.

Voice of America has been criticised for its focus on perceived ideological adversaries such as Russia and Iran. And my own research has found it perpetuates stereotypes and the neglect of African nations in its news coverage.

Leaving a void

Ultimately, these global media outlets wouldn’t exist if there weren’t benefits for the governments that fund them. Sharing stories and perspectives that support or promote certain values and policies is an effective form of “public diplomacy”.

Yet these international media outlets differ from state-controlled media models because of editorial systems that protect them from government interference.

The Voice of America’s “firewall”, for instance, “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news”. Such protections allow journalists to report on their own governments more objectively.

In contrast, outlets such as China Media Group (CMG), RT from Russia, and PressTV from Iran also reach a global audience in a range of languages. But they do this through direct government involvement. CMG subsidiary CCTV+, for example, states it is “committed to telling China’s story to the rest of the world”.

Though RT states it is an autonomous media outlet, research has found the Russian government oversees hiring editors, imposing narrative angles, and rejecting stories.

Other voices get louder

The biggest concern for western democracies is that these other state-run media outlets will fill the void the USAGM leaves behind – including in the Pacific.

Russia, China and Iran are increasing funding for their state-run news outlets, with China having spent more than US$6.6 billion over 13 years on its global media outlets. China Media Group is already one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, providing news content to more than 130 countries in 44 languages.

And China has already filled media gaps left by western democracies: after the ABC stopped broadcasting Radio Australia in the Pacific, China Radio International took over its frequencies.

Worryingly, the differences between outlets such as Voice of America and more overtly state-run outlets aren’t immediately clear to audiences, as government ownership isn’t advertised.

An Australian senator even had to apologise recently after speaking with PressTV, saying she didn’t know the news outlet was affiliated with the Iranian government, or that it had been sanctioned in Australia.

Switched off

Trump’s move to dismantle the USAGM doesn’t come as a complete surprise, however. As the authors of Capturing News, Capturing Democracy: Trump and the Voice of America described, the first Trump administration failed in its attempts to remove the firewall and install loyalists.

This perhaps explains why Trump has resorted to more drastic measures this time. And, as with many of the current administration’s legally dubious actions, there has been resistance.

The American Foreign Service Association says it will challenge the dismantling of the USAGM, while the Czech Republic is seeking EU support to keep Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty on the air.

But for many of the agency’s journalists, contractors, broadcasting partners and audiences, it may be too late. Last week the New York Times reported some Voice of America broadcasts had already been replaced by music.

Valerie A. Cooper 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. Trump silences the Voice of America: end of a propaganda machine or void for China and Russia to fill? – https://theconversation.com/trump-silences-the-voice-of-america-end-of-a-propaganda-machine-or-void-for-china-and-russia-to-fill-252901

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Wilson, Professor of Social Impact, University of Technology Sydney

Queensland and the federal government have reached an agreement on school funding. This means all Australian states and territories are now signed up to new arrangements, which officially began at the start of 2025.

The agreement follows more than a year of negotiations between the federal and state governments.

The agreements mean government schools will receive 25% of funding from the federal government, up from 20%. Cash-strapped state and territory governments now only have to find 75% (down from 80%).

In some good news for schools, it also means there is now a firm plan to “fully fund” public schools by 2034. This means they will get 100% of the funding recommended by the schooling resource standard (or school funding mechanism) – albeit more than a decade after it was first recommended by the Gonski review in 2011.

Much of the debate about the agreements has understandably focused on the funding split between federal and state governments.

But the agreements also tie vital funding for schools to specific targets and reforms for the next ten years. There is plenty of fine print.

Here are four major changes we can expect to see in schools and classrooms around Australia.

Read more:
Underfunded? Overfunded? How school funding works in Australia

1. A ‘unique’ identifier for all students

The new agreement will see all students receive a “unique student identifier” as part of a national system.

This is a number all students will have from the time they start school. It would follow them through school to tertiary education or any other further study or training.

The idea was first agreed to by the former Council of Australian Governments in 2009 and is already in place for university and vocational education students.

A long time in the planning, it was included in the last school funding agreement, which expired at the end of 2024, despite little progress.

At the moment, education systems can easily lose track of students. For example, pre-COVID an estimated 50,000 children and young people were not officially tracked by education authorities.

The identifier number means governments will be able to track students across school systems. For example, if they move from the public system to the private system. Or if they move states or begin homeschooling.

The identifier will also provide a greater understanding of the pathways taken by young people after school and potentially make it easier to link senior high schooling with TAFE and other vocational studies.

Introducing a bill to set up architecture for the indentifier last year, federal Education Minister Jason Clare said it would have “robust privacy measures”, including protection under the Privacy Act.

Read more:
NSW has finally struck a school funding deal. What does this mean for schools and students?

2. A new numeracy check

Along with rolling out a well-publicised national phonics check for Year 1 (which some states are already doing), the new agreements include a numeracy check for young students.

While numeracy is checked as part of NAPLAN in Year 3, the test was not designed to provide diagnostic data on individual students.

The new checks will be used to identify students and schools in need of extra support.

So far, we have few details on the design or time frames. The checks may also need significant research and development to work effectively. But existing programs (such as in South Australia) show screening checks have the potential to provide better monitoring and resourcing for student needs.

3. A review of how school funding is calculated

The new agreement also flags two more significant reviews.

One will be on the way school funding is calculated – the first review since the current system was devised in 2011.

The schooling resource standard is an estimate of how much total public funding a school needs to meet its students’ educational needs.

In 2025, the base rates are A$13,977 for primary students and $17,565 for high school students. On top of these, there are six loadings to provide extra funding for students and schools with additional needs. This includes students with disability, Indigenous students and students in remote areas.

But as a 2023 Productivity Commission review noted, some individual students qualify under multiple categories, and “the effects can be compounding”. This means this level of disadvantage needs more understanding and policy adjustment.

The review will examine the methodology behind the base rate and loadings. As part of this, it will hopefully look at transparency around school funding arrangements. The Australian National Audit Office identified this as an issue as far back as 2017.

4. A review of how schools are measured

There will also be a review of the national Measurement Framework for Schooling in Australia. This details key performance measures for schooling, such as attendance, NAPLAN results and school completion.

This framework usually has just minor adjustments about every couple of years. But a more significant overhaul is now in the works, with states agreeing a review will look at “possible new and updated measures”.

These could include indicators for students’ engagement and learning growth, as well as outcomes for students with disability and the teaching workforce.

An improved national data set holds enormous potential for addressing educational challenges, like declining participation rates, school refusal and teacher shortages.

Elsewhere in the new agreement, states and territories also agreed to “better understand” how socioeconomic diversity and school attendance are impacting student learning. This can be seen as high-level acknowledgement the current reporting mechanisms and data on students need to improve.

Now we need to see progress

The new schools agreement contains some promising new measures to improve outcomes for students and teachers. But we now need to see them implemented.

As the Productivity Commission and National Audit Office have previously noted, just because something is included in a school funding agreement, does not necessarily mean it will happen on time or as planned.

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. 4 key changes you may have missed in the new school funding agreement – https://theconversation.com/4-key-changes-you-may-have-missed-in-the-new-school-funding-agreement-252291

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Garrett, Research Associate, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

In just two months back in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump has tested the limits of the US Constitution, from overhauling immigration to drastically reducing the federal workforce and dismantling government agencies.

With Republicans now in control of both the Senate and House of Representatives, Congress has so far shown little sign it will stand in Trump’s way.

The judiciary is the other branch of government that can check the power of the president. However, the Trump administration has appeared increasingly willing to simply ignore decisions handed down by judges.

There has also been a notable lack of unified opposition from the Democratic Party.

Congressional Democrats are demoralised and deeply divided over how to respond to Trump. They face criticism, too, over their apparent lack of strategy.

This has led some to ask why the United States lacks a formal political opposition leader.

How opposition leaders operate in other countries

In the American political system, the loser of the presidential election doesn’t retain a position as leader of the party in opposition. Instead, they tend to disappear from view.

Kamala Harris is considering a run for governor of California — and could well attempt another run for president in 2028 or beyond. But she hasn’t remained a vocal counterpoint to Trump since he took office.

By contrast, in countries with Westminster-style parliamentary systems, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and India, the main party not in power selects an opposition leader from among their ranks. In most countries, this position is defined by convention, not law.

The opposition leader in many countries serves as the main face — and voice — of the party not in power. They work to keep the government accountable and are seen as the leader of an alternative government-in-waiting.

What it takes to lead the opposition in the US

During Trump’s first term, the Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was widely recognised as the de facto Democratic opposition leader.

A skilled negotiator, Pelosi was largely able to unite the Democrats behind her to lead the opposition to Trump’s legislative agenda — famously ripping up a copy of Trump’s State of the Union address on the House podium in 2020.

As Senate majority and minority leader, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell successfully blocked swathes of legislation during Barack Obama’s presidency. He even thwarted a US Supreme Court nomination.

In the 1980s, then-Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill led the Democratic opposition to Republican President Ronald Reagan’s domestic agenda, without resorting to obstructionism.

However, for an opposition figure to have this level of influence, they usually need decades of experience, political skill, and a party in control of the House or Senate.

The Democrats no longer have a majority in either chamber and are no longer led by Pelosi. Hakeem Jeffries has been the House minority leader since 2023, but without the speaker’s gavel or control of any committees, he has limited influence.

Party discipline is typically far more unwieldy in the United States compared to other countries. In Australia, for instance, crossing the floor to vote against your own party is very rare.

Unruly party caucuses make it significantly more difficult for a single party figurehead to emerge unless they command near-universal party loyalty and respect among their members in both chambers.

Will Democratic cracks shatter the party?

The Democratic caucus, already strained by Joe Biden’s late withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, is now even more fractured.

The Democrats continue to grapple with their resounding defeat in November, which saw the party lose ground with almost every demographic across the country. Polling shows public support for the Democrats has slumped to unprecedented lows, with just over a quarter of voters holding a positive view of the party.

Most dramatically, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer defied fellow Democrats (including Jeffries) by voting in favour of a resolution in recent weeks to avoid a government shutdown. His decision sparked an uproar from his party colleagues.

Visual images of the party’s disarray were also on clear display during Trump’s joint address to Congress earlier this month. While some representatives protested loudly, others followed leadership instruction to remain silent.

Democrats were in near lock-step on almost all issues during Trump’s first term, as well as Biden’s presidency. Now, some are calling on Schumer to step aside as minority leader — and for the Democrats to coalesce behind a younger, more outspoken leader such as Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Where next for the party?

In the fractious debates now consuming the party, some see parallels with the emergence of the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party during Barack Obama’s first term in office.

The current Democratic division could result in the emergence of a stronger dissident faction within the party. And this could push a harder line in opposition to Trump, no longer toeing the line from party leadership.

Yet, while the political outlook for Democrats may appear bleak, electoral turnarounds can happen quickly in the United States.

Few expected a demoralised Democratic party to turn John Kerry’s heavy defeat to George W Bush in 2004 into a generational victory just four years later. Similarly, after Obama decisively won reelection against Mitt Romney in 2012, few Republicans could have predicted they’d soon be back in power with Trump.

But, as was the case 20 years ago, the soul-searching process will be painful for the Democrats. Whether it’s Ocasio-Cortez or another figure, the 2026 midterm elections are likely to be the best opportunity for a new central leader to emerge on the national stage.

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. Why isn’t there an opposition leader to unite Democrats in the US? – https://theconversation.com/why-isnt-there-an-opposition-leader-to-unite-democrats-in-the-us-252384

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eric Windholz, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Monash University

Last week, the Novak Djokovic-led Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) announced it was suing the sport’s governing bodies – the men’s (ATP) and women’s (WTA) tours, the International Tennis Federation (ITF) and the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA).

The lawsuit:

• seeks to change the prize money formula designed by the men’s and women’s tours (the PTPA says too little of the sport’s revenue goes to players)
• aims to improve the “unsustainable” 11-month calendar and match schedules that often keep players on court well past midnight
• alleges a “heavy-handed approach” by the ITIA
• criticises the sport’s rankings system
• wants to boost the number of combined men’s-women’s events.

The union, cofounded by Djokovic five years ago, also alleges “anti-competitive practices and a blatant disregard for player welfare”.

The lawsuit is just one example of a battle for control of international sport – the outcome of which will shape sport for years to come.

The power of sport governing bodies

Sport’s international governing bodies – such the International Olympic Committee, soccer’s governing body the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and, in the case of tennis, the ATP, WTA and ITF – are masters of their domains.

These bodies exercise great power and autonomy over the competitions they administer. They determine who competes in their competitions, when and where, as well as rules and policies.

These rules cover tournament schedules, player eligibility and anti-doping policies. Players, teams and even countries that breach these rules are subject to penalties including expulsion from competitions.

Governments have largely been willing partners in this. They have respected the autonomy of these governing bodies and assisted them where necessary by, for example, hosting their mega-events such as the Olympics, World Cups and Grand Slam tournaments.

However, this is changing.

A changing landscape

As shown by the PTPA lawsuit, players are seeking a greater share of sports’ economic pie, better working conditions, more freedom in selecting where and when they play, and a greater say in how their sports are run.

Private investors also are seeking to share in the money being made from sport by establishing rival competitions.

These include the Wall Street-backed, but ultimately ill-fated, European Super League (soccer); the International Swimming League, funded by billionaire swimming fan Konstantin Grigorishin; and the Saudi-Arabia backed LIV Golf tour.

In response, some fans and lower-level teams are organising to protect their clubs from the influx of private money.

In the United Kingdom, this has resulted in proposed legislation to establish an independent regulator of football.

And all of this is occurring in the shadow of a broader geopolitical restructuring in which the West’s traditional hegemony over sport is being challenged by the wealth of the Gulf states, the assertiveness of authoritarian regimes, and the emerging economies of the Global South.

The result is a contest for control between actors and forces, both powerful and passionate.

The outcome of this contest is important because sport is a generator of significant economic activity (a recent study estimated the global sport industry to be the ninth largest industry on earth) and an important vehicle for driving social change – both of which also make it politically important.

What does the future hold?

When confronted with forces for change, sport governing bodies generally go through a three-stage process of denial (rejecting the need for change), resistance (fighting the change), and adaptation (conceding some autonomy while retaining ultimate control).

The tennis dispute is travelling this well-worn path. Tennis’s governing bodies have denied the PTPA a seat at the table, so the PTPA is now taking the matter to court (early indications are tennis’s governing bodies will fight it vigorously).

Predicting the outcome of litigation is fraught. However, sport governing bodies do not have a strong record defending the use of their power before the courts.

Courts are more independent and less deferential towards sport governing bodies than the political arms of government.

Recent decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union offer evidence of this. It applied EU competition law to constrain the power of sport governing bodies to:

• prevent third parties organising rival sporting competitions
• restrict athletes’ freedom of movement.

Another example comes from the United States, where the Supreme Court struck down as an antitrust (competition) law violation, rules that limited the benefits student-athletes can receive for playing.

This litigation led the governing body of collegiate sport, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, to propose a US$2.8 billion (A$4.45 billion) settlement that will allow colleges to pay their student-athletes.

As for tennis, settlement of the PTPA litigation is possible, notwithstanding the current rhetoric.

Indeed, some form of adaptation of sports’ governing bodies to accommodate the various forces and interests at play is the most likely outcome.

Eric Windholz 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. Tennis pros rally for better pay and less punishing schedules, amid wider power struggles in world sport – https://theconversation.com/tennis-pros-rally-for-better-pay-and-less-punishing-schedules-amid-wider-power-struggles-in-world-sport-252721

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William Alexander Donald, Professor of Chemistry, UNSW Sydney

Silicosis is an incurable but entirely preventable lung disease. It has only one cause: breathing in too much silica dust. This is a risk in several industries, including tunnelling, stone masonry and construction.

Just last week, ABC reported that 13 workers from tunnelling projects in Sydney have been diagnosed with silicosis. It’s yet another reminder that current diagnostic methods are limited. They often detect the disease only after the lungs already have significant damage.

Our new study, published in the Journal of Breath Research, provides the latest results on a breath test for detecting silicosis powered by artificial intelligence (AI). It’s non-invasive and measures dozens of molecules to identify silicosis in just minutes.

The test we’ve developed achieved over 90% accuracy in differentiating silicosis patients from healthy individuals. This is better than traditional lung function tests.

While our test is yet to be trialled in real-world clinics, our results so far suggest breath testing could become a crucial tool in workplace health screening. Early detection would prevent suffering and disease progression, and reduce healthcare costs.

Silicosis is a growing problem – but hard to detect

Currently, more workers in New South Wales, elsewhere in Australia and internationally are being diagnosed with silicosis at younger ages. The Australian government has responded by banning engineered stone, but that doesn’t address ongoing risks in other industries.

Patients with silicosis often describe a feeling like they are slowly being strangled, with every breath becoming more difficult over time. In advanced stages, silicosis can be fatal unless patients can access a lung transplant.

The only way to stop the progression of silicosis is removing affected workers from further silica exposure. This is why diagnosing patients in the early stages – before irreversible lung damage occurs – is critical.

However, this isn’t easy to achieve. Lung function testing and chest X-rays only identify the problem once irreversible lung damage has occurred. In some cases, patients also need CT scans and invasive biopsy to confirm diagnosis. But CT scans, although much higher resolution, also rely on visible signs of silicosis.

And these methods are costly and take time, making it harder to easily screen the thousands of workers who could be at risk.

This is where breath testing comes in.

How breath tests can detect disease

Human breath contains hundreds of volatile organic compounds – small gas molecules that come from metabolic processes in the body, as well as the environment.

The composition of these molecules changes in response to physiological conditions like disease. However, volatile organic compounds are often present in extremely low concentrations – we need highly sensitive technology to detect them reliably.

Our team has developed tools that can detect volatile organic compounds at concentrations as low as parts per trillion. This is equivalent to detecting a single drop of liquid diluted in multiple Olympic-sized swimming pools.

This level of sensitivity allows us to identify very small biochemical changes in breath. AI is key to this approach. Our machine learning model analyses breath samples to tell apart healthy individuals and those with silicosis.

This builds on our previous work using AI to analyse blood plasma for early Parkinson’s disease detection with high accuracy and interpretability, which allows us to determine the chemical features that contribute the most to model accuracy. Interpretability refers to the ability to understand and explain how the AI model arrives at its predictions, providing insights into which data inputs are most important.

Now, we have applied similar methods to breath analysis. Thanks to the sensitivity of our test, we could potentially detect silicosis at very early stages.

How well does it work?

In our new study, the breath test was trialled on 31 silicosis patients and 60 healthy controls. The AI-powered model successfully distinguished silicosis cases with over 90% accuracy.

The test takes less than five minutes per sample, making it feasible for large-scale health screening. Additionally, the test doesn’t require subjects to fast or undergo any special preparation beforehand.

An important question in breath analysis is whether external factors, such as diet or smoking, influence test results. Our study included smokers and non-smokers in both silicosis and healthy control groups, and the test maintained high accuracy.

Our results show great promise, but there are challenges to overcome. The test relies on highly sensitive instrumentation that, while compact (less than a cubic metre), still requires technical expertise to operate.

Currently, breath samples are collected in clinics and transported to a lab for analysis. We hope future iterations could allow for testing in workplace settings, creating routine screening programs. Further validation in larger, diverse worker populations is also necessary before full implementation.

The next phase of research will involve refining the AI model and expanding real-world testing to thousands of silica-exposed workers who might be at risk.

While routine medical evaluations will still be necessary for at-risk workers, the addition of breath analysis could enable more continuous monitoring than what is currently practical. It could help detect silicosis earlier, before the symptoms become irreversible, reducing long-term health risks.

Acknowledgements: Aruvi Thiruvarudchelvan and Jeff Gordon also contributed to this research.

William Alexander Donald receives funding from the Australian Research Council, iCare Dust Diseases Board, Coal Services NSW Health & Safety Trust, US National Institutes of Health and several industry research contracts. He is an advisor to Preview Health and Mass Affinity. He is president of the Australian & New Zealand Society for Mass Spectrometry.

Deborah Yates is an occupational respiratory physician and a director of Thomas-Yates Pty Ltd, a medical services company, and an expert advisor to the Asbestos & Dust Diseases Research Institute, Concord, NSW. She is an independent director of the board of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, a global advisor to the Royal College of Physicians of London, independent member of the NSW Mine Safety Advisory Council and Councillor to the Australian Society of Salaried Medical Officers (ASMOF) of NSW, the doctors’ union. She acts also as an advisor to Tuberous Sclerosis Australia and LAM Australasia. She receives no funding for any of these roles. She has recently received funding for investigator-initiated grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and iCare NSW as well as the Coal Services Trust, and has previously participated in several industry initiated research studies into asthma and chronic cough. She is a member of the iCare Medical Advisory Panel. She has in the past acted in an advisory capacity and given paid lectures for Glaxo Smith Klein, Astra Zeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. She has no shares in mining companies or pharmaceutical companies and is not a member of any political parties.

Merryn Baker’s PhD research was funded by UNSW through the Scientia Scheme.

– ref. Silicosis is ruining the lungs of construction workers. An AI-powered breath test can detect it in minutes – https://theconversation.com/silicosis-is-ruining-the-lungs-of-construction-workers-an-ai-powered-breath-test-can-detect-it-in-minutes-252640

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zoe Porter, Lecturer, Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Science, Monash University

Earlier this month, Kmart pulled a “hyaluronic acid cleansing balm” from its shelves, after a teen who used the skincare product was hospitalised, reporting eye pain and blurred vision. It’s unclear what ingredient caused this reaction.

In a statement, Kmart said it was removing the product while conducting an investigation. The retailer also said:

We want to assure our customers that our cosmetics are designed to ensure that they comply with both Australian and European requirements on ingredients.

Hyaluronic acid – despite the name – is a gentle ingredient commonly used in skincare products.

But what does hyaluronic acid do to your skin as a skincare ingredient? And is it safe for tweens and teens?

What is hyaluronic acid?

Hyaluronic acid is a glycosaminoglycan – a sugar-based molecule found naturally in the skin, eyes, joint fluid and connective tissue.

It plays a key role in hydrating the skin and tissues, lubricating our joints and supporting tissue repair.

Beyond cosmetics, hyaluronic acid is used in drug delivery, regenerative medicine, wound repair, and to treat conditions such as atherosclerosis (where the arterial walls harden and narrow) and osteoarthritis (a degenerative joint disease).

It is also a key ingredient in many eye drops and contact lens care solutions.

How is it used in skincare?

While the word “acid” might suggest it is harsh and potentially damaging to the skin, hyaluronic acid is not used in its acidic form in skincare products. It is usually used in its salt form, sodium hyaluronate.

In skincare, active acids such as salicylic acid usually lower the skin’s pH and exfoliate it by breaking the bonds between dead skin cells.

Hyaluronic acid, in contrast, is used to hydrate the skin. It is a humectant, an ingredient that attracts and retains water molecules.

Hyaluronic acid has three qualities that make it suitable for skincare: it’s soluble (can be dissolved in water), biocompatible (meaning it’s not harmful to the body), and biodegradable (naturally breaks down into non-toxic, simpler substances).

It is usually safe and well-tolerated, meaning it has very few side effects.

In skincare products, hyaluronic is used in different forms. Smaller hyaluronic molecules can penetrate deeper into the skin and hydrate the lower levels. In products this is often advertised as “anti-ageing”, because it stimulates the production of collagen (a structural protein in the skin), and helps to improve elasticity and reduce the appearance of fine lines.

Larger hyaluronic acid molecules remain on the skin’s surface and have an immediate hydrating effect, preventing water evaporation from the skin.

Any risks?

Hyaluronic acid is generally a safe ingredient, even for sensitive skin. But products advertised as “hyaluronic acid skincare” may contain other ingredients which can cause irritation.

In particular, fragrances, preservatives and surfactants (ingredients that produce foam and help wash away oil and dirt) may be safe for skin but burn or otherwise irritate the eyes.

This is because the cornea and conjuctiva (the thin membrane covering the eye) are much more sensitive than the skin.

How are skincare ingredients regulated?

Unlike medicines and products used for therapeutic reasons, which are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), general cosmetic products do not require pre-market safety testing or approval.

Instead, companies need to register their business with the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme and verify that their ingredients are not banned or restricted in Australia.

This creates a potential gap where defective products remain on the market, only to be recalled after adverse reactions occur.

Are these products appropriate for children?

Most scientific research on active ingredients – including hyaluronic acid – has been evaluated in older populations. This leaves a gap in understanding how they affect teen and preteen skin.

Many products are designed for ageing and/or specific skin types, and are largely unnecessary for children and younger people.

In some cases, they can potentially be harmful to their skin. For example, unless prescribed by a dermatologist, it’s advisable for young people to avoid retinoid products (containing retinol or retinal) as they can cause redness, peeling and drying.

Similarly, products with alpha hydroxy acids can cause irritation, itching, redness and may worsen acne in young skin.

So, what should younger people look for?

Preteens and teens should avoid products containing active ingredients such as retinol, vitamin C, alpha- and beta- hydroxy acids, and peptides, as well as those labelled with terms such as anti-ageing, wrinkle-reducing, brightening, or firming.

To keep skin clean and protected, teenagers can use a good cleanser, a simple moisturiser and a broad spectrum SPF 30 or 50 sunscreen.

It’s best to opt for gentle, fragrance-free cleansers and moisturisers suitable for all skin types. Consulting with a pharmacist can provide personalised recommendations based on individual skin needs.

Laurence Orlando is a council member with the Australian Society of Cosmetic Chemists.

Zoe Porter 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 is hyaluronic acid – and is it OK for kids and teens to use this common skincare ingredient? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-hyaluronic-acid-and-is-it-ok-for-kids-and-teens-to-use-this-common-skincare-ingredient-252296

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christina McCabe, PhD Candidate in Interdisciplinary Ecology, University of Canterbury

When we think about flood management, higher stop banks, stronger levees and concrete barriers usually come to mind. But what if the best solution – for people and nature – isn’t to confine rivers, but to give them more space?

This alternative is increasingly being considered as an approach to mitigating flood risk. But allowing rivers room to move also delivers ecological benefits far beyond flood risk reduction. It supports biodiversity, improves water quality and stores carbon.

As climate change increases the frequency and intensity of extreme floods, rethinking our approach to managing floodplain rivers has never been more urgent.

Climate change, floods and river confinement

Climate change is amplifying flood risks worldwide, and Aotearoa New Zealand is no exception. Large floods are expected to become much more frequent and severe, threatening communities, infrastructure and ecosystems.

Many of these risks are made worse by past management decisions that have artificially confined rivers within narrow channels, cutting them off from their natural floodplains.

Floodplain river systems have historically been dynamic, shifting across landscapes over time. But extensive stop banks, modification of river channels and land development have restricted this natural variability.

Strangling rivers in this way transfers and heightens flood risks downstream by forcing water through confined channels at greater speeds. It also degrades ecosystems that rely on the natural ebb and flow of river processes.

Giving rivers space to roam

The idea of allowing rivers to reclaim space on their floodplains is not new.

In the Netherlands, the Room for the River programme was a response to flooding in 1995 that led to large-scale evacuations of people and cattle. In England, predictions that economic risks associated with flooding will increase 20-fold within this century ignited the Making Space for Water strategy.

However, these initiatives typically remain focused on flood protection, overlooking opportunities to maximise ecological benefits. Our new research shows that well-designed approaches can deliver ecological gains alongside flood protection.

This is crucial because floodplain river systems are among the most valuable ecosystems. They provide about a quarter of all land-based ecosystem services such as water retention and pollutant filtration, as well as educational, recreational and cultural benefits.

Managing rivers for variability

A fundamental shift in river management involves acknowledging and accommodating natural variability. Floodplain rivers are not static: they change across landscapes and through time, responding to seasonal flows, sediment movement and ecological processes.

Our research synthesises the ecological processes that are enabled when floodplain rivers have room to move.

Rivers that are not unnaturally confined are typically more physically complex. For instance, along with the main river channel, they might have smaller side channels, or areas where the water pools and slows, springs popping up from below ground to re-join the surface waters, or ponds on the floodplain.

A diverse range of habitats supports a rich variety of plant and animal life. Even exposed gravel, made available in rivers that flow freely, provides critical nesting sites for endangered birds.

Biodiversity is not one-dimensional. Instead, it exists and operates at multiple scales, from a small floodplain pond to a whole river catchment or wider. In a dynamic, ever-changing riverscape, we might find the genetic composition of a species varying in different parts of the river, or the same species of fish varying in their body size, depending on the habitat conditions.

These examples of natural biological variability enable species and ecosystems to be resilient in the face of uncertain future conditions.

At a larger scale, the type and number of species that live in different floodplain river habitats also varies. This diversity of biological communities produces variation in the functions ecosystems perform across the river, such as the uptake of nutrients or processing of organic matter. This can even help to diversify food webs.

These variations mean not all species or groups of species in the river will be vulnerable to the same disturbances – such as droughts or floods – at the same time. This is because plants and animals in rivers have evolved to take advantage of long-term rhythms of floods and droughts in different ways.

For instance, the cottonwood poplars of the southwest United States time their seed release with the highly predictable rhythms of snowmelt-driven spring floods in that part of the world. In Aotearoa New Zealand, whitebait fish species typically deposit their eggs during high autumn flows, which then get transported to sea as larvae during high winter flows.

Some animals need multiple habitats within the river for different stages of life. Other creatures travel from afar to use river floodplains for only a short time. The latter includes the banded dotterel (Charadrius bicinctus), endemic to Aotearoa New Zealand. This bird travels as far as 1,700km to nest on braided-river gravels each spring. Banded dotterels are in decline, and they rely on habitats provided by rivers that have space to roam.

A call for more sustainable river management

As climate change accelerates, we must rethink how we manage our waterways. Reinforcing levees and deepening channels may seem like logical responses to increased flood risk, but these approaches often exacerbate long-term vulnerabilities and transfer risk elsewhere.

We call for practitioners to broaden the scope of values included in river management policy and programmes to include ecological variability.

Nature-based solutions are approaches that seek to benefit both people and nature. By working with nature rather than against it, we can create landscapes that are more resilient, adaptive, and supportive of both people and biodiversity.

It’s time to embrace a new paradigm for river management – one that sees rivers not as threats to be controlled, but as lifelines to be protected and restored.

Christina McCabe receives funding through an Aho Hīnātore doctoral research scholarship at the University of Canterbury.

Jonathan Tonkin receives funding from a Rutherford Discovery Fellowship and the Centre of Research Excellence Te Pūnaha Matatini. He also receives funding from the Antarctic Science Platform and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

– ref. Giving rivers room to move: how rethinking flood management can benefit people and nature – https://theconversation.com/giving-rivers-room-to-move-how-rethinking-flood-management-can-benefit-people-and-nature-251225

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olivia Fisher, Senior Research Fellow, Applied Implementation Science, Charles Darwin University

Seven million Australians live in rural and remote areas and many struggle to access the same quality of health care as those in metropolitan areas.
More than 18,000 Australians have no access to primary health care services within an hour’s drive time from their home, and many are hours or even multiple days’ drive from their closest major hospital. Travel to a major city to access health care is costly and time-consuming.

Rural Australians have almost A$850 less spent on their health per year than those in major cities.

People living in rural and remote Australia have substantially higher levels of preventable hospitalisations, burden of disease, and avoidable deaths. This leaves a gap in median life expectancy between people in very remote areas and major cities of 13 years for men and 16 years for women.

Our new research shows clinicians and health care decision-makers are willing to accept a lower standard of care for people outside of major cities because they consider it better than nothing.

Relying on what they have

Our research investigated Queensland clinicians’ and health care decision-makers’ perspectives on virtual health care as a means to improve access to care.

We also asked about what constitutes acceptable quality and standards for rural patients.

Although we used virtual health care as an example, the results are indicative of a broader issue.

What is virtual health care? What are its pros and cons?

“Virtual health care” is more than just telehealth. It includes:

• hospital in the home. A nurse will visit a patient in their home to provide treatments such as intravenous antibiotics, coupled with telehealth consultations with a doctor. This model of care can achieve similar outcomes to those at traditional hospitals

• virtual wards, such as influenza or COVID wards. These wards involve a patient in their home, and combination of telehealth, remote monitoring devices such as pulse oximeters, and face-to-face care from visiting clinicians if required.

• virtual emergency departments. These support patients who can be safely and effectively managed at home. Emergency doctors and nurses provide guidance and identify which patients need to present to a traditional emergency department.

Virtual health care can minimise travel time to major cities, keeping patients better connected with their family and community while undergoing treatment.

However, virtual health care is not currently suitable for patients who require intensive care, some types of physical procedures, or for patients at high risk of complications.

Virtual services need to be well-designed, with appropriately trained clinicians, and consider what can and cannot be accomplished remotely.

When virtual health care isn’t well designed, and clinicians aren’t adequately trained, it can result in poor patient outcomes. As one doctor explained:

I can catalogue just over the last month, I’ve seen errors in telehealth […] They’ve missed pneumonia, they’ve missed kidney stones, they’ve missed a bowel obstruction, they’ve missed an ischaemic valve, they’ve missed an MI [myocardial infarction]. You know, all because they think they can do all these things on telehealth […].

Our research

We interviewed 26 clinicians (such as doctors and nurses) and executive leaders from private, not-for-profit hospitals and aged care services in metropolitan, regional, rural and remote Queensland in 2023.

Most participants expressed reticence towards using telehealth and other forms of virtual health care for people in major cities who can readily access traditional hospitals and providers face-to-face.

They felt safety and care standards would be inferior to traditional inpatient care.

However, they said virtual health care – even if it was a lower standard to traditional hospitals – was better than nothing. As one doctor and health service leader said:

there’s no other choice is there, so you just do it that way.

Another doctor and health service leader explained:

But we would use it for sure. I mean especially those days when we get, you know, which is becoming more and more common where the hospital rings down there’s no beds. There’s no beds and you’re like, well, what do I do now I’ve got ten people here and nowhere to send them.

Towards more equitable care for rural patients

Sub-standard health care will not bring health outcomes and life-expectancy of people in rural and remote areas up to parity – it will merely reinforce current inequities.

We need to design health services that improve both quality and access. Taking health-care models that work in our major cities and rolling them out in rural areas doesn’t work. We need tailored, creative solutions that meet the same standards we would expect in a city.

In addition to increasing and improving access to virtual health care, we also need to:

• attract and retain a rural health workforce of experienced practitioners to provide face-to-face services

• design health services in conjunction with the community to ensure they suit local needs and conditions

• address state and federal government funding issues that impact the sustainability and capacity for innovation of rural health services.

An unconscious willingness to accept better than nothing is simply not good enough for the millions of Australians who live outside of major cities.

Olivia Fisher receives funding from UnitingCare Queensland.

Caroline Grogan receives funding from UnitingCare Queensland and the Irene Patricia Hunt Memorial Trust.

Kelly McGrath receives funding from the Australian Government Department of Industry, Science and Resources via an Elevate Scholarship, Wesley Research Institute, UnitingCare Queensland, Mitsubishi Development, and the Catalano Family Foundation.

– ref. ‘Better than nothing’: clinicians and hospital heads accept lower standards of care outside metro hospitals – https://theconversation.com/better-than-nothing-clinicians-and-hospital-heads-accept-lower-standards-of-care-outside-metro-hospitals-251063

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Holland, Principal Research Scientist, Water Security, CSIRO

The Adelaide Hills are experiencing severe water shortages. The root cause? A prolonged dry period and not enough water tankers to meet unprecedented demand from people not connected to the mains water supply.

Thousands of residents and farmers are hurting as dams, tanks and streams dry up. Water tankers are becoming a common sight, carting in desperately needed water. People are waiting weeks for expensive water deliveries.

The South Australian government has set up emergency water collection points to cope with the demand from off-grid families. More water tankers have been secured. But despite recent rain, the situation is far from over.

We found rainfall and flows into Adelaide’s reservoirs are at their lowest levels in 40 years. Reservoir levels have dropped to 44% – the lowest for more than 20 years.

Adelaide is not currently at risk of running out of water; the state government built a desalination plant after the Millennium Drought. Production at the desal plant is four to six times higher than usual to meet demand. Without the desal plant and water from the River Murray, the city would be under severe water restrictions.

But the crisis shows many off-grid families, farms and businesses need new options to plan for the future.

Global water stress

This is not the first time entire communities have run out of water.

Cape Town in South Africa nearly ran out of water in 2018. The city of nearly 4 million people was weeks away from “Day Zero”.

In Australia, several regional and rural country towns have hit their own Day Zero. Stanthorpe in Queensland officially ran out of water in January 2020. Truckloads of water were carted into town every day to meet residential demand.

Scientists have coined a new term, “hydroclimate whiplash”, to describe the rapid swings between intensely wet and dangerously dry weather currently occurring across the globe. This climate volatility amplifies natural hazards such as flash floods, wildfires, landslides and disease.

The January wildfires in Los Angeles happened when two wet winters were followed by an extremely dry autumn and winter, providing plenty of dry fuel for fire.

These aren’t isolated events. The global water crisis didn’t go away.

The bigger picture

What’s happening in the Adelaide Hills – and in other very dry places worldwide – demonstrates the need for careful, long-term water security planning.

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6 is to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”. Water stress already affects more than 2 billion people – more than a quarter of the world’s population.

By 2030, the UN predicts 2 billion people will still be living without safely managed drinking water, 3 billion without safely managed sanitation, and 1.4 billion without basic hygiene services.

For many, this is literally a life-or-death matter.

Investing in water security

CSIRO is collaborating with industry, government and research organisations on research to overcome drought and build resilience for regional Australia. Our researchers are testing how well each of these strategies might work in different regions during extended dry periods. We calculate how much water can be collected and stored during the driest periods on record.

Rainfall over Norfolk Island, a subtropical island in the Pacific Ocean roughly 1,500km southeast of Brisbane, has declined by 11% since 1970, with long runs of dry years in recent decades. The future is likely to be drier still.

Our Norfolk Island Water Resource Assessment explored ways to help the community determine how to adapt and build resilience to drought.

Since this project finished in 2020, residential and commercial rainwater tanks have been upgraded and a new seawater desalination plant installed. Other options to diversify water supplies included sharing groundwater bores, capturing runoff in gully dams, managing vegetation water use, and storing water underground.

Excess water from rainwater or recycled wastewater can sometimes be stored underground in natural reservoirs called aquifers for use during drought. This is called “water banking” or “managed aquifer recharge”. The technique has been developed over the past 20 years and used to safely store water underground across Australia and overseas.

Brackish (salty) groundwater is a potential water source that could be unlocked during drought. A National Water Grid funded project is investigating ways to use groundwater that would normally be too salty, along with renewable energy to power inland desalination plants. The project is investigating the prospect of using brackish groundwater across Western Australia for the first time.

A call to action

The Adelaide Hills water crisis is a microcosm of a global issue. It’s a reminder action is needed now to secure our water future. Not when the water runs out.

Deeper groundwater bores, water tankers on standby and bigger water storages are all potentially part of the portfolio of emergency plans. And due to climate change, the Adelaide Hills water crisis will happen again if we are unprepared. It is a question of when, not if.

We have also seen the catastrophic effects of drought in Los Angeles – a tinderbox waiting to burn, and insufficient water on hand to fight the fires. We can and must prepare for natural disasters today. These are not unforeseen consequences. They are not “unknown unknowns”. We know them today. We will have no excuse when this happens.

By adopting more sustainable water management policies and practices in the longer term, we can make sure the spectre of Day Zero does not become real for more communities around the world.

With thanks to CSIRO Senior Research Scientist and Hydrologist Matt Gibbs and Principal Experimental Scientist in Hydrogeology Andrew Taylor.

Kate Holland receives funding from the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and Department of Industry, Science and Resources.

Craig T. Simmons has received funding for water research from various government and non-government organisations in the past. He is currently serving as Chief Scientist for South Australia.

– ref. Adelaide Hills water crisis: a local problem is a global wake-up call – https://theconversation.com/adelaide-hills-water-crisis-a-local-problem-is-a-global-wake-up-call-251265

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin O’Brien, Associate Professor, School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University

When the United States starts a trade war with your country, how do you fight back? For individuals, one option is to wage a personal trade war and boycott products from the US.

President Donald Trump has said no nation will be exempt from his tariffs, and this includes both Australia and New Zealand. His tariffs on all steel and aluminium imports, in particular, could hurt the sector in Australia, while New Zealand’s meat and wine exports to the US could also feel the effect.

So far, political leaders have responded differently. Canada, Mexico and the European Union have imposed reciprocal tariffs on the US, while Australia has indicated it will not retaliate.

But whether governments choose to push back or not, citizens in those and other countries are making their own stands. This includes artists such as renowned pianist András Schiff, who has cancelled his upcoming US tour.

Most notably, collective outrage at the US president has led to a growing global boycott of Elon Musk’s Tesla due to his role in the Trump administration. Sales of new Tesla vehicles are down 72% in Australia and 76% in Germany. The share price has dropped by more than 50% since December 2024, with calls for Musk to step down as chief executive.

Some governments are even encouraging consumer boycotts. The Canadian government, for example, has urged citizens to “fight back against the unjustified US tariffs” by purchasing Canadian products and holidaying in Canada.

Canadians are clearly embracing this advice. Road trips to the US have dropped by more than 20% in the past month and US liquor brands have been removed from some Canadian stores altogether.

This rise in calls for boycotts of American brands and companies is unsurprising in the Trump 2.0 era, where the lines between government and corporate America have become increasingly blurred.

Political change by proxy

When people want to protest a government policy, but have no political leverage because they’re not citizens of that country, boycotting corporations or brands gives them a voice. These actions are sometimes called “surrogate” or “proxy” boycotts.

This form of “political consumerism”, where individuals align their consumption choices with their values, is now one of the most common forms of political participation in western liberal democracies.

When France opposed the war in Iraq in 2003, US supporters of the war aimed boycotts at French imports. Consumers in the US, United Kingdom and elsewhere have boycotted Russian goods over the invasion of Ukraine, and targeted Israel over its military action and policies in Gaza and the West Bank.

Most famously, protests against the apartheid regime in South Africa from the 1950s through to the 1990s helped isolate and eventually change its government.

The current boycotts are not just protesting Trump’s trade war, of course. They are also about the role of unelected leaders from the corporate world, such as Musk and the heads of the Big Tech and social media companies, and their perceived self-interest and influence.

Trump has responded angrily to consumer boycotts, calling the actions against Tesla “illegal”, which they are not. Indeed, political leaders like Trump often argue that consumer action, rather than government regulation, should be relied on to ensure corporations conform to social expectations.

How to wage a personal trade war

Consumer boycotts do create change under certain conditions – typically when there is a contained problem that the targeted corporation has the power to solve.

For example, consumer boycotts against Nestlé in the 1970s over false and dangerous marketing of powdered milk for infants led to changes in the firm’s marketing approaches. Boycotts of Nike products over sweatshop conditions for workers had a direct impact on the company’s bottom line and led to improvements.

Things may still need to improve at Nestlé and Nike, but these boycotts show consumer pressure can catalyse corporate action. However, it is much harder – though not impossible – for boycott campaigns to succeed when the target is a government.

Consumers boycotting American products can amplify the impact of their protest by also lobbying retailers. For example, if enough consumers stop buying a bottle of soft drink from the US, major supermarkets like Woolworths and Foodstuffs will stop buying thousands of bottles.

There are also other ways to “vote with your wallet”. People can engage in “political investorism” by using their power as a shareholder, bank customer or pension-fund member to express their political views.

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for example, investors sought to divest from Russian companies, and superannuation funds were pressured by their members to do the same.

As consumers and investors, individuals can wage a personal trade war, sending a clear message. Trump may not be willing to listen to the leaders of allied nations, but if consumer and investor pressure is sustained and spreads globally, he may yet hear the voice of corporate America.

Erin O’Brien receives funding from the Australian Research Council to examine consumer and investor activism for social change. She is affiliated with the Australian Political Studies Association.

Justine Coneybeer receives funding from the Australian Research Council to investigate ethical investment.

– ref. Trouble at Tesla and protests against Trump’s tariffs suggest consumer boycotts are starting to bite – https://theconversation.com/trouble-at-tesla-and-protests-against-trumps-tariffs-suggest-consumer-boycotts-are-starting-to-bite-252489

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

Treasurer Jim Chalmers will bring down the federal budget on Tuesday.

It’s likely most of the major spending initiatives have already been announced. An extra A$8.5 billion in spending on Medicare will aim to ensure nine out of ten GP visits will be bulk billed by 2030. Queensland’s Bruce Highway is to be upgraded with the Albanese Government providing $7.2 billion of the $9 billion cost.

In a speech last week, Chalmers promised “meaningful and substantial” cost-of-living relief.

He also stressed the global economy is more volatile and unpredictable. He said the budget bottom line would be little changed from the mid-year update released in December, when the deficit was forecast to be $26.9 billion this financial year.

It was a comprehensive dress rehearsal for tomorrow evening’s budget speech.

No rabbits out of the hat

Australian budgets today are well signposted in advance in speeches such as this. That is deliberate. It is seen as a mark of responsible fiscal management to have few surprises, either positive or negative.

In past decades, treasurers were prone to announcing surprise spending measures. No longer. The rationale for rejecting the “rabbit out of a hat” approach was spelled out by former treasurer Wayne Swan in his 2008 budget lockup press conference: he said the budget had to be “responsible”. Chalmers was Swan’s deputy chief of staff at the time.

This means calls by economists such as Chris Richardson and Ken Henry for major tax reform are unlikely to be heeded.

Bracket creep (increases in tax revenues as taxpayers move into higher tax brackets) will do most of the work in the very gradual windback of the budget deficit. In the mid-year budget update, it was projected to take a decade to return the budget to balance.

Read more:
If Treasury forecasts are right, it could be a decade before Australia is ‘back in black’

Good luck rather than good management

Not that a balanced or surplus budget is a sign of good budgeting. The driver of recent budget surpluses under both Labor and Coalition governments has not been government policy but stronger than expected commodity prices and exports. They have been accidental, not deliberate.

While deficits add to debt, imposing costs on future generations, what matters is whether the debts can be paid. If the economy grows faster than the rate of debt, the situation is manageable. So we are likely to see a chart in Tuesday’s budget papers showing this, with debt gradually declining as a share of Gross Domestic Product over time.

However, these forecasts for the bottom line do not include off-budget items such as special green energy funds or student debt write-offs that total close to $100 billion, according to Deloitte Access Economics.

This is because the budget covers only the “general government sector” – public service departments and agencies and the defence force. It is not the whole of the public sector, which includes commercial or financial entities like government business enterprises, the Reserve Bank of Australia, and various funds.

On Sunday, the government announced further cost-of-living relief with an extension of electricity rebates, giving households another $150 this year. This will avoid headline inflation rebounding above 3%, as the Reserve Bank is currently forecasting.

The energy rebate last year cost the budget an estimated $3.5 billion in 2024-25. Extending it for six months will cost $1.8 billion. Chalmers has also promised another reduction in the maximum cost of prescription medicines to $25.

In December’s budget update, the unemployment rate was forecast to be around 4½% in mid-2025 and stay around that level for the next couple of years. Given the unemployment rate was steady at 4.1% in February, that forecast may be lowered.

Inflation was forecast to stay below 3%.

The increasing risk of a global trade war will see some reduction in forecasts for global and Australian economic growth. The OECD has lowered its forecasts for global growth and emphasised the international outlook is highly uncertain.

This means the Australian budget forecasts are more likely than usual to be wrong. We just don’t know in which direction they will be wrong – will they be too optimistic or pessimistic?

What will it mean for interest rates?

The Reserve Bank board is unlikely to feel it has enough additional information to cut interest rates again at the April 1 meeting.

Nonetheless, the government will be constrained in how much support it can provide households. It does not want undermine its narrative of future interest rate cuts by stimulating household spending too much.

Something to watch for will be “decisions taken but not yet announced”. These are additional initiatives the government will announce during the election campaign. They will be able to answer the “where’s the money coming from?” question by saying they are already included in the budget.

Finally, will there be increases in defence spending? US President Donald Trump is pressing US allies to do this. Trouble is, defence spending does not address the political problem of cost-of-living pressures – if anything it adds to them.

A potential way out is for government to support more defence spending, but only “in principle”, leaving the details for future budgets. That would help manage both domestic and international pressures.

John Hawkins was a formerly a senior economist at the Treasury and Reserve Bank.

Stephen Bartos 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. This week’s federal budget will focus on cost-of-living measures – and a more uncertain global economy – https://theconversation.com/this-weeks-federal-budget-will-focus-on-cost-of-living-measures-and-a-more-uncertain-global-economy-252515

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexis Weaver, Associate Lecturer in Music Technology, University of Sydney

With artificial intelligence programs that can now generate entire songs on demand, you’d be forgiven for thinking AI might eventually lead to the decline of human-made music.

But AI can still be used ethically to help human musicians challenge themselves and grow their music-making abilities. I should know. As a composer and music educator, I was an AI sceptic until I started working with the technology.

Two sides of the argument

If you can write a text prompt, you can use AI to create a track in any genre, for almost any musical application.

Besides generating full tracks, music AI can be used in sound analysis, noise removal, mixing and mastering, and to create entire sound palettes (such as for use in video games and podcasts). Suno, Beatoven, AIVA, Soundraw and Udio are some of the companies currently leading in the AI music space.

In many cases, the outputs don’t have to be excellent, they just have to be good enough, and they can undercut the services of real musicians and sound designers.

The music industry is understandably concerned. In April 2024, the US-based Artist Rights Alliance published an open letter, signed by more than 200 artists, calling for developers to stop training their AIs with copyrighted work (as this would allow companies to emulate artists’ music and image, and therefore deplete the royalties paid to artists).

At the same time, music AI companies claim to lower the barrier to making music, such as by removing the need for physical equipment and traditional music education.

In an interview from January, Suno’s chief executive Mikey Shulman said:

it’s not really enjoyable to make music now. It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of practice […] the majority of people don’t enjoy the majority of the time they spend making music.

This is far from the message I want to send my students. However, it does unfortunately reflect the increasing pressure musicians feel to master their craft as soon as possible, in an increasingly fast-paced world that’s geared towards an intangible end goal, rather than enjoying the process of making mistakes and learning.

From a sceptic to a reluctant advocate

In 2023, I was commissioned by the Sydney Opera House create a new work with Sydney-based design company Kopi Su, and to develop a new generative music AI tool in the process. This tool, called Koup Music, is now in beta testing.

I accepted the opportunity – but with quite a few hesitations, as I wasn’t really interested in working with AI. Would this be a huge waste of time, or end with my data added to some mysterious AI data pool? Or would it open up new creative directions for me?

The tool was based on a text-to-image diffusion model called Riffusion. It takes a text prompt and generates a spectrogram, which is a visual representation of the various frequencies in an audio signal as they change through time. This is then converted to audio.

First, I would upload my own recorded sample to the AI, and then choose a text prompt to transform it into a new five-second sample.

For example, I could upload a short vocal melody and ask the AI to turn it into an insect, or re-contextualise it for a “hip hop” style. Sometimes the generated samples sounded very similar to my own voice (due to the vocals I uploaded).

The following insect voice output became the subject of the musical piece below it.

At the time of the project, the outputs could only be 5 or 10 seconds long – not long enough to make a full track. I considered this a positive, as it meant I had to incorporate the samples into my own larger work.

Some samples were catchy. Some were funny. Others were boring. Some came out with scratchy, harsh timbres. The imperfection of it all gave me permission to have fun.

I focused on generating separate musical elements with my text prompts, rather than fully arranged samples. A generated drum beat or melody line could be enough to inspire a completely new musical track in a style I would never have attempted otherwise.

Sometimes, one generated sample was enough. Other times, I challenged myself to use only AI-generated sounds to create a full track. In these cases, I used techniques such as filtering and looping small snippets to tease out the sounds I wanted.

For instance, I used the following audio samples to create the track below:

The process felt like a collaboration – like I was making music with a kooky colleague. This took away the pressure to make “perfect” music, and instead allowed me to focus on new creative possibilities.

My takeaways

I’ve concluded it’s not a bad idea to know what large music AIs are capable of. We can use them to further our own musical understanding, such as by studying how they use stylistic trends and mixing techniques, or how they translate musical ideas to suggest different genres.

For me, the key to quashing my AI scepticism was using an AI that didn’t take over the entire working process. I remained flexible to its suggestions, while using my own knowledge to retain creative control.

My experience isn’t isolated. Multiple studies have found that users of music AIs reported feeling satisfied with programs that allowed them to retain a sense of ownership over the composing process.

The connecting factor across these projects was that the AI did not generate entire musical works in one go. Instead, a limited amount of musical information was generated (such as rhythms, melodies or chords), allowing the user to dictate the final result.

The beauty in human imperfection

Despite Shulman’s claims, the key to a meaningful relationship with music AI is to work alongside it – not to let it do all the work.

Do I think every music student should start incorporating AI into their daily practice? No. But under the right circumstances, it can provide the tools to produce something truly creative.

Making “imperfect” art that takes time – and hard work – is the price of being human. And I’m grateful for that.

The author received a once-off financial commission from the Sydney Opera House to develop musical work made using the Koup Music AI, which premiered at the Sydney Opera House through a livestream broadcast on July 15th, 2023. After this initial performance the author continued to test the AI model for artistic research purposes. No funding was received to help prepare the manuscripts or research associated with this article. The author will not benefit financially from any promotion of the Koup Music tool, and has never received payment from Kopi Su.

– ref. I was a music AI sceptic – until I actually used it – https://theconversation.com/i-was-a-music-ai-sceptic-until-i-actually-used-it-252499

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justin Bergman, International Affairs Editor

Both Labor and the Coalition are considering an increase to defence spending ahead of the federal election.

Defence spending is currently at about 2% of gross domestic product (GDP), or around A$56 billion per year. The Coalition is reportedly eyeing an increase to 2.5% of GDP by 2029.

The Albanese government’s current spending plan is expected to reach 2.33% of GDP by 2034. And in this week’s budget, it is expected to bring forward some of its already announced $50 billion increase in defence spending.

Why do these percentages matter? US President Donald Trump has made it very clear he expects America’s allies to pay more on defence, at least 3% of GDP.

We asked five experts if defence spending should be increased, and if so, by how much. They agreed more money is needed, albeit with caveats.

– ref. Should Australia increase its defence spending? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/should-australia-increase-its-defence-spending-we-asked-5-experts-252374

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janeen Baxter, Director, ARC Life Course Centre and ARC Kathleen Fitzpatrick Laureate Fellow, The University of Queensland

Australia has a gender problem. Despite social, economic and political reform aimed at improving opportunities for women, gender gaps are increasing and Australia is falling behind other countries.

The World Economic Forum currently places Australia 24th among 146 countries, down from 15th in 2006. At the current rate of change, the forum suggests it will take more than 130 years to achieve gender equality globally.

Australia has taken important steps forward in some areas, while progress in other areas remains painfully slow. So how far have we come since 2000, and how much further do we have to go?

The good stuff

There are now more women in the labour market, in parliament, and leading large companies than at any other time.

Over the past 25 years, there have been major social and political milestones that indicate progress.

These include the appointment of Australia’s first female governor-general in 2008 and prime minister in 2010, the introduction of universal paid parental leave in 2011, a high-profile inquiry into workplace sexual harassment in 2020, and new legislation requiring the public reporting of gender pay gaps in 2023.

Timeline of equality milestones

• 2000

  Child Care Benefit introduced, subsidising cost of children for eligible families

• 2008

  First female Governor-General (Dame Quentin Bryce)

• 2010

  First female Prime Minister elected (Julia Gillard)

  First Aboriginal woman from Australia elected to UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (Megan Davis)

  Australia’s first national paid parental leave scheme

• 2012

  Julia Gillard misogyny speech

  Workplace Gender Equality Act becomes law, Workplace Gender Equality Agency established

• 2013

  Dad or Partner Pay Leave commenced

• 2016

  First Indigenous woman elected to House of Representatives (Linda Burney)

• 2017

  Launch of Women’s Australian Football League

  #metoo movement spreads globally to draw attention to sexual harassment and assault

• 2020

  Respect@Work National Inquiry into sexual harassment in the Australian workplace chaired by Kate Jenkins released.

• 2021

  Grace Tame named Australian of the Year for her advocacy in sexual violence/harassment campaigns

  Independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces launched

• 2022

  National plan to end violence against women is finalised

• 2023

  Closing the Gender Pay Gap Bill passes parliament

• 2024

  Superannuation on government-funded paid parental leave from July 1, 2025

  Parental leave to be increased to 26 weeks from July 2026.

There are, however, other areas where progress is agonisingly slow.

Violence and financial insecurity

Women are more likely to be in casual and part-time employment than men. This is part of the reason women retire with about half the superannuation savings of men.

This is also linked to financial insecurity later in life. Older women are among the fastest-growing groups of people experiencing homelessness.

The situation for First Nations women is even more severe. The most recent Closing the Gap report indicates First Nations women and children are 33 times more likely to be hospitalised due to violence compared with non-Indigenous women.

They are also seven times more likely to die from family violence.

Improving outcomes for Indigenous women and children requires tackling the long-term effects of colonisation, removal from Country, the Stolen Generations, incarceration and intergenerational trauma. This means challenging not only gender inequality but also racism, discrimination and violence.

At work, the latest data from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency suggests the gender pay gap is narrowing, with 56% of organisations reporting improvements.

On average, though, the pay gap is still substantial at 21.8% with women earning only 78 cents for every $1 earned by men. This totals an average yearly shortfall of $28,425.

There are also some notable organisations where the gender pay gap has widened.

The burden of unpaid work

Another measure of inequality that has proved stubbornly slow to change is women’s unequal responsibilities for unpaid domestic and care work.

Without real change in gender divisions of time spent on unpaid housework and care, our capacity to move towards equality in pay gaps and employment is very limited.

Australian women undertake almost 70% of unpaid household labour. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics time use data show that of those who participate in domestic labour, women spend an average of 4.13 hours per day on unpaid domestic and care work, compared with men’s 2.14 hours.

This gap equates to more than a third of a full-time job. If we add up all work (domestic, care and paid), mothers have the longest working week by about 10 hours. This has changed very little over time.

These charts, based on analyses of data from the Households, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) study, show what drives this gap.

Women respond to increased demand for care and domestic work by doing more, while men do not. Parenthood significantly increases the time women spend on unpaid care and housework, while also reducing their time in employment.

Men increase their time in unpaid care after a birth, but the jump is minor compared with women, and there is no change to men’s employment hours.

Not surprisingly given these patterns, parenthood is associated with substantial declines in women’s employment hours, earnings, career progression, and mental health and wellbeing.

The way forward

Current policy priorities primarily incentivise women to remain in employment, while continuing to undertake a disproportionate share of unpaid family work, through moving to part-time employment or making use of other forms of workplace flexibility. This approach focuses on “fixing” women rather than on the structural roots of the problem.

There is limited financial or cultural encouragement for men to step out of employment for care work, or reduce their hours, despite the introduction of a two-week Dad and Partner Pay scheme in 2013 and more recent changes to expand support and access.

Fathers who wish to be more actively involved in care and family life face significant financial barriers, with current schemes only covering a basic wage. If one member of the family has to take time out or reduce their hours, it usually makes financial sense for this to be a woman, given the gender earning gap.

The benefits of enabling men to share care work will not only be improvements for women, but will also improve family relationships and outcomes for children.

Research shows relationship conflict declines when men do more at home. Time spent with fathers has been found to be especially beneficial for children’s cognitive development.

Fixing the gender problem is not just about helping women. It’s good for everyone.

Gender inequality costs the Australian economy $225 billion annually, or 12% of gross domestic product.

Globally, the World Bank estimates gender inequality costs US$160.2 trillion. We can’t afford to slip further behind or to take more than a century to fix the problem.

This piece is part of a series on how Australia has changed since the year 2000. You can read other pieces in the series here.

Janeen Baxter receives funding from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course (CE200100025) and an Australian Research Council Kathleen Fitzpatrick Laureate Fellowship (FL230100104).

– ref. Despite some key milestones since 2000, Australia still has a long way to go on gender equality – https://theconversation.com/despite-some-key-milestones-since-2000-australia-still-has-a-long-way-to-go-on-gender-equality-250250