Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron Camens, Lecturer in Palaeontology, Flinders University

In the remnant rainforests of coastal far-north Queensland, bushwalkers may be lucky enough to catch a glimpse of a diminutive marsupial that’s the last living representative of its family.

The musky rat-kangaroo (Hypsiprymnodon moschatus) weighs only 500 grams and looks a bit like a potoroo. It’s part of a lineage that extends back to before kangaroos evolved their distinctive hopping gait.

Unlike their bigger relatives, muskies can be seen out and about during the day, foraging in the forest litter for fruits, fungi and invertebrates.

As the only living macropodoid (the group that includes kangaroos, wallabies, potoroos and bettongs) that doesn’t hop, they can provide a crucial insight into how and when this iconic form of locomotion evolved in Australia.

Our study, published in Australian Mammalogy today, aimed to observe muskies in their native habitat in order to better understand how they move.

Why kangaroos are special

If we look around the world, hopping animals are quite rare. Hopping evolved once in macropodoids, four times in rodents, and probably once in an extinct group of South American marsupials known as argyrolagids.

In animals heavier than five kilograms, hopping is an incredibly efficient form of locomotion, in large part thanks to energy being stored in the Achilles tendon at the back of the heel.

However, the vast majority of animals that hop are really small. The only hopping animals with body masses over 500 grams are kangaroos. And Australia used to have a lot more kangaroo species, many of them quite large.

Despite the abundance of fossil kangaroos, we still don’t really know why they evolved their hopping gait, especially given it only really becomes more efficient at body masses over five kilograms. Hypotheses range from predator escape, to energy preservation, to the opening of vegetation as Australia shifted to a drier climate.

Researchers looking at limb proportions have suggested that fossil kangaroos also hopped. But it’s likely the ways that extinct roos moved were much more diverse than has previously been suggested.

Why muskies are key in roo evolution

Muskies are the last living member of the Hypsiprymnodontidae, a macropodoid family that branched off early in kangaroo evolution. For this reason, it is thought muskies may move in a similar way to early kangaroo ancestors.

Studies on kangaroo evolution will often mention locomotion in muskies, but only in passing. And only a single, brief, first-hand description of locomotor behaviour in muskies has actually been published, in 1982. The authors observed that muskies moved their hindlimbs together in a bound and that all four limbs were used, even at fast speeds.

So, we set out to answer the question: can H. moschatus hop? And if not, what form of locomotion does it use?

Using high-speed video recordings, we studied the sequence in which muskies place their four feet on the ground, and the relative timing and duration of each footfall.

Through this gait analysis, we determined that muskies predominantly use what is called a “bound” or “half-bound” gait. Bounding gaits are characterised by the hindfeet moving together in synchrony – just like when bipedal kangaroos hop. In the case of muskies, the forefeet (or “hands”) also generally move together in close synchrony.

No other marsupial that moves on all fours is known to use this distinctive style of movement to the same extent as muskies. Rather, other species tend to use a combination of the half-bound and some form of galloping (the gait that horses, cats and dogs use) or hopping.

From all fours to hopping

We were also able to confirm that tantalisingly brief observation from the 1980s: even when travelling at high speeds, muskies always use quadrupedal gaits, never rearing up on just their back legs.

They are, therefore, the only living kangaroo that doesn’t hop.

Combined with further investigation of their anatomy, these observations help us get closer to understanding how and why kangaroos adopted their distinctive bipedal hopping behaviours.

These results also signal a potential pathway to how bipedal hopping evolved in kangaroos. Perhaps it started with an ancestor that moved about on all fours like other marsupials, such as brush-tail possums, then an animal that bounded like the muskies, and finally evolved into the iconic hopping kangaroos we see in Australia today.

However, we are no clearer on how the remarkable energy economy of kangaroo movement evolved, or why hopping kangaroos got so much bigger than hopping rodents.

The next part of the research needs to focus on that and will be informed by key fossil discoveries from early periods in kangaroo evolution.

Amy Tschirn received funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship and an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant (to G.J.P) during this project.

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

– ref. We found the only kangaroo that doesn’t hop – and it can teach us how roos evolved their quirky gait – https://theconversation.com/we-found-the-only-kangaroo-that-doesnt-hop-and-it-can-teach-us-how-roos-evolved-their-quirky-gait-251373

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Black, Visitor, School of History, Australian National University

The world had its eyes on Sydney in 2000. A million people lined the harbour to ring in the new millennium (though some said it was actually the final year of the old one) on January 1.

US television reporters called it “the biggest party in Australian history”. Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft, whose corporation seemed to represent the coming age, was among those watching on.

Sydney offered not only a world-leading party, but also a litmus test for the much-feared Y2K bug, which threatened to knock planes out of the sky and bring the global economy to a halt. Australia and New Zealand were said to be the “tripwire for the world’s computer systems”.

It was fine in the end, although plenty of work had in fact been undertaken behind the scenes to make Australia’s systems more millennium-proof than they might have been.

This was arguably the defining feature of Australia in the year 2000: a confident display for the world concealing a lot of angst and uncertainty. Australia was the “oldest continent on Earth”, the US broadcasters told their viewers, but it was “much more of an Asian nation”, and much closer to the rest of the world “thanks to technology”.

Those confident claims would probably have surprised many Australians. Theirs was an old country trying to keep up with a new, interconnected world, and also a relatively young one trying to reconcile itself with the ancient cultures that its settler forebears had dispossessed.

A curated Australia

In September, the world’s sporting and political elite, followed by a train of journalists, arrived in Sydney for the 2000 Olympic Games. It had been years in the making, and every level of government was involved. There were no fewer than 47,000 volunteers.

There was something for everyone in the well-curated opening ceremony. The event opened with the crack of a stockman’s whip and a fleet of flag-waving bushmen on horseback. There were highly sanitised displays of European arrival, pastoral settlement and a tribute to an armour-clad colonial Victorian bushranger that must have baffled those viewers watching from abroad who had not seen a Sidney Nolan painting before.

Ancient stories and new cultural sensibilities were on display too. There were stylised performances of the Dreaming, striking First Nations dances and the distinctive sounds of the didgeridoo. A section entitled “Arrivals” recognised the importance of migration in the nation’s story.

A young Aboriginal sprinter, Cathy Freeman, lit the cauldron in what became one of the iconic images of the year. The cauldron’s hydraulics unfortunately got stuck as it ascended, and the flame was mere seconds from snuffing out in what could have been a global embarrassment. But big ambitions incur big risks.

This global performance of Australian-ness was arrestingly simple: that of a nation confident in its own diversity and capable of catering to everyone’s tastes.

Even the musical selections seemed to reconcile the needs of the youth (with performances from a young Vanessa Amorosi and even younger Nikki Webster), and the more mature (represented by John Farnham and Olivia Newton-John).

Australia’s athletes had their best ever showing with 58 medals, including Freeman’s own gold.

Not quite comfortable, not quite relaxed

The Olympics masked as much as they revealed.

In 2000, many white Australians still weren’t sure if theirs was, or should be, a multicultural society.

The reactionary Pauline Hanson was out of parliament for the time being, but her One Nation Party had won 7.5% of the vote in New South Wales in the March 1999 state election, and nearly 23% of the vote in Queensland the year before.

Eight weeks before millennium day, Australians had roundly rejected two referendum proposals, one to become a republic, and for a Constitutional preamble that, among other things, recognised Indigenous Australians as “the nation’s first people”.

But whether Hanson liked it or not, her lifetime had coincided with great demographic and social change.

In 1976, roughly 1.8% of the population said they were born in Asia or the Middle East. In the 2001 census, 1.6% of the population were born in China or Vietnam alone, and many more were the descendants of migrants from these places.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population had more than doubled over the same period, while those identifying as Christian decreased from nearly 79% in 1976 to 56% in 2001.

This increasingly diverse Australia claimed to be on a journey to “reconciliation”. That process had been sorely tested during the nasty debates about land rights and the Stolen Generations.

Corroboree 2000, held on May 27 in Sydney, saw the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the nation’s political leaders present their visions for the next phase of national healing. The leaders symbolically left their handprints on a “reconciliation canvas”.

The following day, 250,000 Australians walked across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in a moving display of togetherness. John Howard, the prime minister, declined to participate.

But his treasurer, Peter Costello, made a point of showing up for a similar event in Melbourne that December, leading Victorian Liberals and another 200,000 or so Australians.

Their different approaches showed that the past was still a troubling present. Howard rebuffed suggestions of a treaty between Indigenous and settler Australians and maintained his refusal to apologise on behalf of the Commonwealth to the Stolen Generations, though all the states had done so by this time.

The idea of such an apology was not as popular then as it seemed later on. The prime minister was sensitive to the fact that his was “an unpopular view with a lot of people”, but an opinion poll in The Australian newspaper showed a majority of voters were opposed to a national apology.

Two survivors of the Stolen Generations, Peter Gunner and Lorna Cubillo, sued the Commonwealth for damages in 2000, giving their opponents the chance to challenge the legitimacy of their experiences. None of this looked like a nation that was as “comfortable and relaxed” as Howard had hoped it would be under his watch.

Border politics

Australian collective memory often gravitates toward 2001, the year of the Tampa affair and the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York.

But Australia’s border was already highly politicised in 2000.

In January, a boat arrived from Indonesia carrying 54 Christians fleeing religious conflict. They spent ten weeks at Port Hedland Immigration Detention facility, from which 39 went back to Indonesia and only 15 moved on to Adelaide to build new lives.

Port Hedland and other detention centres made the news for all the wrong reasons. There were riots, hunger strikes and multiple breakouts. Authorities responded with upgraded security perimeters, character checks, and strip searches without warrants.

Frustrated refugees set fire to South Australia’s Woomera facility, which former prime minister Malcolm Fraser publicly condemned as a “hell-hole”.

In an end-of-year reflection for The Age newspaper, Gary Tippet said there had been a “touch of mean-spiritedness” about the handling of it all. Chris Wallace rightly suggests 2000 was a crucial moment in the “march towards an absolute offshore, extraterritorial approach” to refugees in Australia.

In the intervening quarter-century, Australian officials have made mean-spiritedness an art form at the border and on the seas.

First-rate democracy, third-rate economy

Compared to the many legal challenges that came out of the US presidential contest in November 2000, Australia’s elections looked pretty smooth and sensible. The US seemed to have a backward democracy grafted onto its world-leading, information-age economy.

Australia looked the opposite: a first-rate democracy with what looked increasingly like a “branch-office economy”.

Reformers had tried for 20 years to make Australia efficient and competitive, but as one editorial in The Australian Financial Review explained, the country still suffered from its “old economy image”.

Certainly, Australia still sold its minerals and farm products to the world in exchange for quality cars and cutting-edge computers.

With global capitalists still enthralled by the global tech boom (though it was soon to become the “tech wreck”), they had little need for the Aussie dollar.

The currency’s value declined through the year to just 50 US cents, and it would fall further in the following months. On its own, this mattered little, but a quarter of negative growth at the end of the year meant, as Paul Kelly later wrote, an “election-year recession” seemed a “real threat”.

In the meantime, the much-debated Goods and Services Tax took effect around midnight on June 30 (a few hours later for businesses trading through the night).

The 10% consumption tax was a big deal. Costello said in his memoir the “prices of three billion products were to change all at the same time”.

The measure was politically brave, but soon became unpopular, helping raise petrol prices and alienate small business owners.

The punters were pretty confident the Howard government was heading for defeat in 2001. They were wrong.

Between the old and new

The pace of social change accelerated from 2000.

In the 2021 census, 2.6% of the population said they were born in India, and a further 3.2% in China and Vietnam. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians had more than doubled over two decades, such that they made up 3.2% of the total population in 2021.

People increasingly related to their economy differently, too. Half of the workforce had been unionised in the 1980s, but coverage fell to roughly a quarter in 2000 and just 12.5% in 2022.

These and other changes make our politics look different from that of 25 years ago. Nailbiter elections are now more common than thumping majorities and attitudes toward the once-feared “minority government” have softened.

For all that, many of the challenges of 2000 are still with us.

Many Australians are less tolerant of overt racism than they once were, but the 2023 Voice referendum and our offshore detention regime remind us that race still matters in this country.

Kevin Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generations in 2008, but Treaty and Truth-Telling are left unresolved.

And for all our talk about human capital and the digital economy, resources make up a much higher share of our total export mix today than in 2000.

A quarter-century on, Australia is still caught between the old and the new.

Dr Joshua Black is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Australia Institute.

– ref. In 2000, Australia was defined by the Olympics, border politics and reconciliation. So what really has changed? – https://theconversation.com/in-2000-australia-was-defined-by-the-olympics-border-politics-and-reconciliation-so-what-really-has-changed-250791

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

The most striking feature of the Australian economy in the 21st century has been the exceptionally long period of fairly steady, though not rapid, economic growth.

The deep recession of 1989–91, and the painfully slow recovery that followed, led most observers to assume another recession was inevitable sooner or later.

And nearly everywhere in the developed world, the Global Financial Crisis of 2007–08 did lead to recessions comparable in length and severity to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Through a combination of good luck and good management, Australia avoided recession, at least as measured by the commonly used criterion of two successive quarters of negative GDP growth.

Recessions cause unemployment to rise in the short run. Even after recessions end, the economy often remains on a permanently lower growth path.

Good management – and good luck

The crucial example of good management was the use of expansionary fiscal policy in response to both the financial crisis and the COVID pandemic. Governments supported households with cash payments as well as increasing their own spending.

The most important piece of good luck was the rise of China and its appetite for Australian mineral exports, most notably iron ore.

This demand removed the concerns about trade deficits that had driven policy in the 1990s, and has continued to provide an important source of export income. Mining is also an important source of government revenue, though this is often overstated.

Still more fortunately, the Chinese response to the Global Financial Crisis, like that in Australia, was one of massive fiscal stimulus. The result was that both domestic demand and export demand were sustained through the crisis.

The shift to an information economy

The other big change, shared with other developed countries, has been the replacement of the 20th century industrial economy with an economy dominated by information and information-intensive services.

The change in the industrial makeup of the economy can be seen in occupational data.

In the 20th century, professional and managerial workers were a rarefied elite. Now they are the largest single occupational group at nearly 40% of all workers. Clerical, sales and other service workers account for 33% and manual workers (trades, labourers, drivers and so on) for only 28%.

The results are evident in the labour market. First, the decline in the relative share of the male-dominated manual occupations has been reflected in a gradual convergence in the labour force participation rates of men (declining) and women (increasing).

Suddenly, work from home was possible

Much more striking than this gradual trend was the (literally) overnight shift to remote work that took place with the arrival of COVID lockdowns.

Despite the absence of any preparation, it turned out the great majority of information work could be done anywhere workers could find a desk and an internet connection.

The result was a massive benefit to workers. They were freed from their daily commute, which has been estimated as equivalent to an 8–10% increase in wages, and better able to juggle work and family commitments.

Despite strenuous efforts by managers, remote or hybrid work has remained common among information workers.

CEOs regularly demand a return to full-time office work. But few if any have been prepared to pay the wage premium that would be required to retain their most valuable (and mobile) employees without the flexibility of hybrid or remote work.

The employment miracle

The confluence of all these trends has produced an outcome that seemed unimaginable in the year 2000: a sustained period of near-full employment. That is defined by a situation in which almost anyone who wants a job can get one.

The unemployment rate has dropped from 6.8% in 2000 to around 4%. While this is higher than in the post-war boom of the 1950s and 1960s, this is probably inevitable given the greater diversity of both the workforce and the range of jobs available.

Matching workers to jobs was relatively easy in an industrial economy where large factories employed thousands of workers. It’s much harder in an information economy where job categories include “Instagram influencer” and “search engine optimiser”.

As we progress through 2025, it is possible all this may change rapidly, for better or for worse.

The chaos injected into the global economy by the Trump Administration will radically reshape patterns of trade.

Meanwhile the rise of artificial intelligence holds out the promise of greatly increased productivity – but also the threat of massive job destruction. Economists, at least, will be busy for quite a while to come.

John Quiggin 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 Australian economy has changed dramatically since 2000 – the way we work now is radically different – https://theconversation.com/the-australian-economy-has-changed-dramatically-since-2000-the-way-we-work-now-is-radically-different-249942

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Moran, Lecturer in the Department of English, Creative Writing and Film, University of Adelaide

If you peruse the philosophy section of your local bookshop, you’ll probably find a number of books on Stoicism – an ancient philosophy enjoying a renaissance today. But where are the Epicureans?

Both philosophical schools were popular in the ancient world. However, while stoic works such as Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and Seneca’s letters still fill the shelves, alongside contemporary takes such as The Daily Stoic (2016), Epicureanism largely remains a historical curiosity.

Today, the Greek thinker Epicurus (341–270 BCE) is mostly remembered as the originator of the term “epicurean”, which describes someone devoted to sensual enjoyment, particularly of fine food and drink.

And while it’s true Epicurus argued pleasure is the highest human good, there’s a lot more to Epicureanism than merely savouring a glass of Shiraz with haute cuisine.

Philosophers in the garden

Epicurus was born on the island of Samos to Athenian parents. He studied philosophy in Athens before travelling to the island of Lesbos to establish a philosophical academy.

Upon returning to Athens in 306 BCE, he bought a tract of land and began a philosophical community known as the Garden.

The Garden was radically different from other philosophical communities at the time. While Plato’s Academy generally trained the children of the Athenian elite, and Aristotle tutored nobles such as Alexander the Great, Epicurus’ Garden was far more inclusive. Women and slaves were welcome to join the dialogue.

The community led a frugal life and practised total equality between men and women, which was uncommon at the time. In this atmosphere, noblewomen and courtesans, senators and slaves, all engaged in philosophical debate.

While many early Epicureans have disappeared from the annals of history, we know of some women, such as Leontion and Nikidion, who were early proponents of Epicurean thought.

Philosophy as a way of life

It isn’t just the Garden’s inclusivity that gives it contemporary appeal, but its entirely unique notion of what constitutes a philosophical life.

According to Epicurus, a philosopher wasn’t someone who taught or wrote philosophical tracts. A philosopher was someone who practised what the French philosopher Pierre Hadot describes, in his work on Epicureanism, as “a certain style of life”.

Epicureanism was a daily practice, rather than an academic discipline. Anyone who strove to live a philosophical life was part of the Epicurean community and was considered a philosopher.

The concept of philosophy Epicurus promoted was more egalitarian and all-encompassing than the narrow definition we often see used today.

The pursuit of pleasure

But what did it mean to be a practising Epicurean? Epicurus conceived of philosophy as a therapeutic practice. “We must concern ourselves with the healing of our own lives,” he wrote.

This process of healing involves developing an inner attitude of relaxation and tranquillity known as anesis in Ancient Greek. To do this, Epicureans sought to turn their minds away from the worries of life and focus instead on the simple joy of existence.

According to Epicurus, unhappiness comes because we are afraid of things which should not be feared, and desire things which are not necessary and are beyond our control.

Most notably, he rejected the idea of an afterlife, arguing the soul did not continue to exist after death. He also argued it was wrong to fear death as it

gives no trouble when it comes [and] is but an empty pain in anticipation.

Instead of fearing punishment in the beyond, he said we should focus on the possibilities for pleasure in the here and now. But that doesn’t mean chasing every pleasure which comes our way; the task of the Epicurean is to understand which pleasures are worth pursuing.

The highest pleasures are not those which yield the highest intensity or last the longest, but those which are the least mixed with worry and the most likely to ensure peace of mind. In this vein, Epicurus sought to cultivate feelings of gratitude and appreciation for even the simplest everyday experiences.

While his critics cast him and his followers as unrestrained hedonists, he wrote in one letter that a single piece of cheese was as pleasurable as an entire feast.

For Epicureans, it is precisely the brevity of life that gives us such an exquisite capacity for pleasure. As one Epicurean Philodemus wrote:

Receive each additional moment of time in a manner appropriate to its value; as if one were having an incredible stroke of luck.

A philosophy for outsiders

Epicurus’ perennial appeal resides in how his philosophy gave strength and inspiration to outsiders. In the late 19th century, aesthetes such as critic Walter Pater and playwright Oscar Wilde praised Epicureanism as a way of life.

In Wilde’s letter De Profundis (From the depths) – written in 1897 while imprisoned in Reading Gaol on charges of indecency – he wrote that Pater’s novel Marius the Epicurean (1885) had given him both intellectual and spiritual solace during his trial.

Pater, too, had faced discrimination at Oxford for having homosexual relationships. His novel is an evocative celebration of the possibilities of a life lived in the pursuit of sensual and spiritual beauty.

In one of his earlier texts, The Renaissance (1873), Pater paraphrases Victor Hugo, writing

we are all under a sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve […] we have an interval, and then our place knows us no more. […] Our one chance lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time.

This profoundly Epicurean sentiment, of a life lived in the interval, remains appealing to those who seek to turn their lives into a work of art.

Thomas Moran 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. Long before debates over ‘wokeness’, Epicurus built a philosophy that welcomed slaves, women and outsiders – https://theconversation.com/long-before-debates-over-wokeness-epicurus-built-a-philosophy-that-welcomed-slaves-women-and-outsiders-250772

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew King, Associate Professor in Climate Science, ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather, The University of Melbourne

Climate change is the most pressing problem humanity will face this century. Tracking how the climate is actually changing has never been more critical.

Today, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published its annual State of the Climate report, which found heat records kept being broken in 2024. It’s likely 2024 was the first year to be more than 1.5°C above the Earth’s pre-industrial average temperature. In 2024, levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere hit the highest point in the last 800,000 years.

The combination of heat and unchecked emissions, the organisation points out, had serious consequences. Attribution studies found a link between climate change and disasters such as Hurricane Helene, which left a trail of destruction in the southeastern United States, and the unprecedented flooding in Africa’s arid Sahel region.

Slowing these increasingly dangerous changes to Earth’s climate will require a rapid shift from fossil fuels to clean energy.

The record heat of 2024

From the North Pole to the South Pole, the oceans and our land masses, the report catalogues alarm bells ringing ever louder for Earth’s vital signs.

Steadily rising global average temperatures show us the influence of the extra heat we are trapping by emitting greenhouse gases. The ten warmest years on record have all happened in the past ten years.

The report shows 2024 was the warmest year since comprehensive global records began 175 years ago. The planet was an estimated 1.55°C (plus or minus 0.13°C) warmer than it was between 1850 and 1900.

Together, 2023 and 2024 marked a jump in global mean temperature from previous years. There was a jump of about 0.15°C between the previous record year (2016 or 2020 depending on the dataset) and 2023. Last year was even warmer – about 0.1°C above 2023.

Last year was the first year the planet was likely more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This doesn’t mean we have broken the 2015 Paris Agreement goal of holding warming under 1.5°C – temperatures would need to be sustained over a number of years to formally lose that fight. But it’s not good news.

There are a few extra factors at play in this record-breaking global temperature, including an El Niño event boosting eastern Pacific Ocean temperatures in the first part of 2024, falling pollution from shipping leading to less cloud over the ocean, and a more active sun as well.

Researchers are hard at work unpicking why the Earth’s average temperature jumped in 2023 and 2024. But it is clear the 2024 record-breaking warmth and most other damning statistics in the report would not have occurred if it wasn’t for human-induced climate change.

Carbon dioxide up, glacial melt up, sea ice down

It’s not just global temperatures breaking records.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reached 427 parts per million last year. Sea level rise has accelerated and is now about 11 centimetres above early 1990s levels, and the oceans are at their highest temperatures on record.

Seasonal sea-ice in the Arctic and around Antarctica shrank to low levels (albeit short of record lows) in 2024, while preliminary data shows glacial melt and ocean acidification continued at a rapid pace.

Almost all parts of the world were much warmer in 2024 than even recent averages (1991–2020) and much of the tropics experienced record heat.

From cyclones to heatwaves, another year of extreme events

In the English-speaking media, extreme events affecting North America, Europe and Australia are well covered, such as the devastating Hurricane Helene in the US and the lethal flash flooding in Spain.

By contrast, extreme weather and its fallout in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia get less coverage.

In September 2024, Super Typhoon Yagi killed hundreds and caused widespread damage through the Philippines, China and Vietnam. Later in the year, Cyclone Chido struck Mayotte and Mozambique causing more than 100,000 people to be displaced. Hundreds died in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan due to spring floods following an unusual cold wave.

Unusual flooding hit parts of the arid Sahel and even the Sahara Desert. Meanwhile the worst drought in a century hit southern Africa, devastating small farmers and leading to rising hunger.

Much of South and Central America was hit by significant drought. Huge tributaries to the Amazon River all but dried up for the first time on record. Severe summer heat hit much of the Northern Hemisphere, while more than 1,300 pilgrims died during the Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca as heat and humidity pushed past survivable limits.

Globally, extreme weather forced more people from their homes than any other year since 2008, which had widespread floods and fires.

Did climate change play a role in these extreme events? The answer ranges from a resounding yes in some cases to a likely small role in others.

Scientists at World Weather Attribution found the fingerprints of climate change in Hurricane Helene’s large-scale rain and winds as well as the flooding rains in the eastern Sahel.

Paying the price for decades of inaction

This report is a dire score card. The numbers are sobering, scary but sadly, not surprising.

We have known the basic mechanism by which greenhouse gases warm the planet for over 100 years. The science behind climate change has been around a long time.

But our response is still not up to the task.

Currently, our activities are producing ever more greenhouse gas emissions, trapping more heat and causing more and more problems for people and the planet. Every fraction of a degree of global warming matters. The damage done will keep worsening until we end our reliance on fossil fuels and reach net zero.

Andrew King receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather and the National Environmental Science Program.

Linden Ashcroft has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is affiliated with the ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather

– ref. Flooding in the Sahara, Amazon tributaries drying and warming tipping over 1.5°C – 2024 broke all the wrong records – https://theconversation.com/flooding-in-the-sahara-amazon-tributaries-drying-and-warming-tipping-over-1-5-c-2024-broke-all-the-wrong-records-252490

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Gaviglio, Lecturer Strength and Conditioning, University of Southern Queensland

During Australia’s winter sports seasons, hundreds of thousands of children will take to the field in contact sports like rugby league, rugby union, Australian rules and soccer.

With this comes the ever-present risk of concussions, which can have serious short and long-term effects – especially for younger athletes.

While concussion protocols in professional sports are now common practice, with detailed return-to-play guidelines following head knocks, junior sports often lack comprehensive prevention strategies.

Despite growing awareness and rule changes aimed at increasing safety, concussion rates in junior sport remain concerning.

How bad is the problem?

Sports-related concussions account for a significant portion of emergency department visits and hospitalisations.

One in five concussion hospitalisations involve sport but this figure does not capture the full scope of concussions that are managed outside hospitals, such as those treated in general practice, by physiotherapists, or that go unreported.

The 2021–22 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report on concussions in Australia over the past decade highlighted:

• children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable. Boys aged 5–14 had the highest rates of emergency department presentations for concussions, suggesting sports and recreational activities play a significant role in injury occurrence at these ages.

• young men are at highest risk of severe concussion requiring hospitalisation. Males aged 15–24 had nearly double the hospitalisation rate for concussion compared to females in the same age group.

• although men had more concussions, when adjusted for participation numbers, women had higher concussion rates in contact sports such as rugby and Australian rules football. This means women proportionally experience concussions at a higher rate than men.

Read more:
Should I get my child a baseline concussion test before they start junior sports?

Why children are more vulnerable to concussions

Children and adolescents are particularly susceptible to concussions as their brains are still developing. This makes them more vulnerable to the effects of head trauma.

Most young athletes also have significantly lower neck strength compared to adults. This weakness, combined with a proportionally larger head size relative to their neck, leads to greater forces transmitted to the brain when an impact occurs.

Youth athletes often also need longer recovery periods after concussions. Symptoms can affect their schoolwork, mental health and ability to return to sport.

While many sports have tried to lower concussion risks by implementing simplified gameplay and modifications to player-to-player contact, these approaches don’t directly boost an athlete’s physical capacity to withstand impacts.

Can neck strength reduce concussion risk?

One crucial yet often overlooked protective factor is neck strength.

Research suggests stronger necks can significantly reduce concussion risk by helping to stabilise the head during impact.

The reason appears obvious: a stronger neck helps stabilise the head during impact, reducing the acceleration forces transmitted to the brain.

Data from high school sports suggests athletes with stronger neck muscles can better control head movement during a collision. This essentially creates a more effective “shock absorber” system.

In soccer players, adolescents who performed neuromuscular neck exercises reported fewer concussions and possible concussive events. They also had less pain when heading the ball compared to those who didn’t perform the exercises.

A landmark study, which examined concussions in 6,662 high school athletes across multiple sports, discovered a direct relationship between neck strength and concussion risk. It found that if athletes developed stronger neck muscles, it reduced their risk of concussion.

This finding suggests even modest improvements in neck strength could yield significant protective benefits.

Why neck strength matters

Strengthening junior athletes’ necks extends beyond injury prevention.

Fewer concussions mean less time away from sport, potentially reducing dropout rates and encouraging long-term participation.

This has implications not just for athletic development but for public health more broadly, as lifelong sport participation contributes to better physical and mental wellbeing.

Cognitive protection is equally important.

By reducing concussion risk, we help safeguard young athletes’ academic performance and cognitive development.

For sporting organisations, implementing neck strength training represents a low-cost, effective intervention that demonstrates commitment to player welfare.

How to develop a stronger neck

Effective neck strengthening doesn’t require expensive equipment or extensive time commitments.

Simple exercises can be easily integrated into training sessions or warm-ups.

Isometric neck holds are a great starting point. Athletes place their hand against their forehead, temple, or the back of their head and push gently against resistance for 5–10 seconds. These exercises activate key neck muscles without requiring any equipment.

Over time, these exercises can be progressed using minimal equipment to increase the complexity and better mimic sports-specific movements.

The key is consistency. Performing these exercises two to four times weekly can produce meaningful improvements in neck strength and function.

An easy win

As the evidence mounts, one thing becomes increasingly clear: neck strength training represents a simple, effective strategy that may reduce the effects of concussion in junior athletes.

The minimal time and equipment requirements make it an accessible option in sports where head and neck injuries are a concern.

Parents, coaches and sporting bodies should consider making neck strengthening exercises a standard component of junior athlete training programs.

By doing so, we can help ensure our young athletes enjoy safer sporting experiences and healthier futures both on and off the field.

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. A stronger neck can help young athletes reduce their risk of concussion – https://theconversation.com/a-stronger-neck-can-help-young-athletes-reduce-their-risk-of-concussion-251250

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sharha Sharha, PhD Candidate in Kamasutra Feminism, Cardiff Metropolitan University

For some people, the Kamasutra is little more than a name associated with condom brands, scented oils and chocolates shaped into erotic positions. In India, where sex remains a taboo subject, this ancient sex manual has often been reduced to merely a “dirty book”.

But beneath this narrow view lies a deeper message: the Kamasutra is a treatise on sexual autonomy, one that could be revolutionary for women.

In Indian society, women’s sexual pleasure is often invisible, buried beneath layers of cultural silence. Women are often taught to suppress their desires, their voices stifled by traditions that prioritise male needs. Yet, it was in this very country that the Kamasutra was written.

Composed in the ancient Sanskrit language in the 3rd century by the Indian philosopher Vatsyayana, the Kamasutra is more than a book about sexual positions. The word “kama” means love, sex, desire and pleasure, while “sutra” translates to a treatise. The text explores relationships, ethics and social norms. It offers a framework for mutual respect and understanding between partners.

In her 2016 book Redeeming the Kamasutra, scholar of Indian culture and society Wendy Doniger argues that Vatsyayana was an advocate of women’s pleasure as well as stressing their right to education and the freedom to express desire. Far from reinforcing male dominance, the Kamasutra originally emphasised the importance of mutual enjoyment and consent. It presents sex as a shared experience rather than a male conquest.

The perception of the Kamasutra as a male-centred sex manual can be traced back to its first English translation by Sir Richard Burton in 1883.

Burton, a British soldier and explorer, omitted or altered passages that highlighted women’s autonomy. It shifted their role from active participants to passive recipients of male pleasure.

In contrast, scholars such as Ganesh Saili have argued that the Kamasutra originally depicted women as equal partners in intimacy. According to the text, women communicated their needs through gestures, emotions and words, ensuring that their pleasure was just as valued as men’s. Importantly, conversation played a central role in intimacy, reinforcing the necessity of a woman’s consent before having sex.

Despite this rich history, Indian society continues to largely suppress discussions around female sexuality. Indian sex educator and journalist Leeza Mangaldas argues that women’s sexual pleasure remains a taboo topic, policed by cultural expectations that dictate women must remain silent, subservient and sexually inactive before marriage.

Social scientist, Deepa Narayan, argues that this suppression begins at home. Girls are often taught to deny their own bodies and prioritise male desires.

This control extends to patriarchal social norms that uphold virginity as a virtue for women while imposing no such expectation on men. Sex is framed as something women “give” rather than something they experience. Pleasure is seen as a right for males but merely an afterthought for females. Sex is for men but for women, it is only for producing babies.

Yet the Kamasutra itself tells a different story. In its original form, it described women as active participants in their pleasure and compared their sensuality to the delicacy of flowers – requiring care, attention and respect.

My own research explores “Kamasutra feminism”. This is the idea that this ancient text is not just about sex but about sexual autonomy. It challenges patriarchal norms by promoting women’s freedom to articulate their desires and take control of their pleasure. The Kamasutra rejects the notion that women’s sexuality should be regulated or repressed. Instead, it advocates for mutual satisfaction and consent.

Doniger describes the Kamasutra as a feminist text, citing its emphasis on women choosing their partners, expressing their desires freely and engaging in pleasurable sexual relationships. It recognises economic independence as a crucial factor in women’s sexual autonomy. Financial freedom is linked to the ability to make personal choices.

Patriarchy versus sexual liberty

Ultimately, the Kamasutra represents a clash between patriarchy – where women’s sexuality is controlled – and a vision of sexual liberty. It offers an alternative narrative, one where seduction is about mutual enjoyment rather than male domination. Its teachings encourage open discussions about intimacy, allowing women to reclaim their voices in relationships.

For more than a century, the Kamasutra has been misinterpreted, its radical message buried beneath layers of censorship and cultural shame. But if we look beyond its erotic reputation, we find a text that speaks to the importance of consent, equality and female agency.

Reclaiming the Kamasutra as a guide for sexual empowerment could help dismantle deeply ingrained taboos and reshape the conversation around women’s pleasure. In a world where female desire is still widely policed, this ancient manuscript reminds us that women’s pleasure is not a luxury, but a right.

Sharha Sharha 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. Women’s sexual pleasure is still taboo – but the Kamasutra tells a different story – https://theconversation.com/womens-sexual-pleasure-is-still-taboo-but-the-kamasutra-tells-a-different-story-251987

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Desalegn Markos Shifti, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Child Health Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland

Australia is often called the allergy capital of the world. Allergic diseases – such as allergic asthma, hay fever, eczema and food allergies – affect almost one in five people. And this figure is expected to rise in the years to come.

An allergy happens when the body’s immune system mistakenly reacts to certain foods or other substances as if they were dangerous.

But do allergies affect all Australians equally?

In a recent study, we looked at emergency department (ED) presentations related to asthma and other allergic diseases in central Queensland. The region has a population of 228,246 according to the most recent Census data, and 7.2% of residents identify as First Nations.

We found First Nations Australians were almost twice as likely to present to hospital with asthma or other allergy-related illnesses compared to other Australians.

What we did and found

We analysed 813,112 ED presentations from 12 public hospitals in central Queensland from 2018 to 2023. The hospitals were spread across regional and remote areas.

Of the conditions we looked at, asthma was the most likely to bring patients to the ED. This was followed by unspecified allergies, atopic dermatitis (or eczema) and anaphylaxis (a severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction). First Nations people were more likely than other Australians to present with each of these conditions.

Overall, we found First Nations people were almost twice as likely to visit an ED for asthma or allergic diseases compared to other Australians. It should be noted that asthma is not always caused by allergies, and in this study we looked at all presentations for asthma, regardless of the cause.

Our study also found ED visits for allergic diseases among First Nations people increased over time. They were around 1.5 times more common in 2023 compared to 2018.

Further, we found a notable peak in asthma-related visits to the ED among First Nations people in 2019. This increase may have been partly due to Australia’s Black Summer bushfires during 2019–20.

Other research has shown ED visits and hospitalisations for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease increased during the Black Summer bushfires. Exposure to bushfire smoke significantly increases the risk of breathing problems and other health issues.

The increase in asthma-related ED visits could also be linked to the severe flu season in 2019, as flu is known to trigger asthma attacks.

Are these findings surprising?

National data shows asthma is one of the most commonly reported chronic illnesses for First Nations Australians. More than 16% of First Nations Australians reported they had asthma in 2022–23 compared to 10.8% of the general Australian population.

So it’s not entirely surprising that hospital presentations for asthma were higher among First Nations people.

However, we were surprised to find First Nations people visited the ED more often for other allergic diseases. Allergies have not necessarily been recognised as an important concern among First Nations people, particularly in remote areas.

That said, international studies have reported a higher burden of allergic and atopic diseases (eczema, hay fever and asthma) among the Indigenous peoples of Canada.

How about food allergies?

Interestingly, we didn’t find any food allergy cases in our data. But some of the “unspecified” allergies could be linked to food allergies, as could some of the cases of anaphylaxis.

Australian researchers have found differences in the prevalence of food allergies among different groups, but they lacked specific data on First Nations populations. We know little about how common food allergies are in First Nations Australians.

In a recent national survey, 12% of First Nations people self-reported an allergy to a food, drug, or other substance (compared to 14% in the overall population). But some cases might go unrecognised or unreported, and these data were not broken down into different types of allergies.

Some limitations

This is the first comprehensive study, to our knowledge, that looks at asthma and allergic disease-related ED visits among both First Nations people and other Australians in an under-researched part of Australia.

However, we only looked at asthma and allergic diseases treated in the ED, which doesn’t encompass all cases. For example, some people might visit other health services such as GPs when they’re having a less severe allergic episode.

Ultimately, we need more research to better understand how common allergies and allergic diseases are among First Nations Australians.

Why do these gaps exist?

We don’t know exactly why there are disparities in ED presentations for allergic diseases between First Nations people and other Australians.

One possibility is that asthma and allergic diseases might be more severe in First Nations people, leading to more hospital visits, even if they’re not more common.

Another reason could be limited access to specialists, especially in rural and remote First Nations communities. Long wait lists to see allergy doctors and their limited availability in some areas could lead to delays in care and make it harder to get the right treatment. This can worsen asthma and allergic disease symptoms, causing patients to seek ED care instead.

We want to learn more about how allergies affect First Nations people, especially in regional and remote areas, and whether people have unmet needs. In initial conversations with First Nations Australians living with a food allergy, we’ve heard allergies might not be well understood in rural areas. This could be because they’re rare or because traditional lifestyles offer some protection.

We’re interested in finding out more, especially whether allergies are a concern for First Nations people, and, if so, how we can support communities to develop targeted and culturally respectful strategies to address them.

Desalegn Markos Shifti is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)-funded Centre for Food and Allergy Research (CFAR) Postdoctoral Funding.

Jennifer Koplin receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. She is a member of the Executive Committee for the National Allergy Centre of Excellence (NACE), which is supported by funding from the Australian government.

Renarta Whitcombe 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. First Nations Australians are more likely to present to hospital with asthma and allergies – new research – https://theconversation.com/first-nations-australians-are-more-likely-to-present-to-hospital-with-asthma-and-allergies-new-research-251720

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Cantrell, Senior Lecturer – Writing, Editing, and Publishing, University of Southern Queensland

Filmed in a one-take style, Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham’s new crime drama Adolescence is being hailed by critics as a technical masterpiece.

Out now on Netflix, the four-part series follows the fallout surrounding 13-year-old Jamie Miller (Owen Cooper) after he is arrested and later charged for the murder of his classmate, Katie. Co-creator Stephen Graham stars as Jamie’s father, Eddie.

Adolescence draws inspiration from the United Kingdom’s knife crime epidemic, the rise of incel culture and the brutality of online bullying. These malignant forces combine to create every parent’s worst nightmare.

However, unlike true crime, where there is often a resolution, there is no escape from the horror.

The show’s continuous filming style offers no reprieve, and the story itself provides no easy outs – refusing to provide a simple explanation for why an intelligent boy from an “ordinary” loving family would borrow a knife from a friend and, on a casual Sunday evening, stab another child to death.

While Jamie’s motives remain murky, the show makes one thing clear: today’s teens inhabit an online world that adults, however well-intentioned, are incapable of understanding if they do not listen.

Anxieties distorted by algorithms

At the centre of the show’s broken heart is a devastating truth: the most dangerous place in the world for a teenager is alone in their bedroom.

Trapped in the dark mirror of social media, Jamie – like a growing number of teenage boys – turns to the digital “manosphere” and the grim logic of online misogynists.

Read more:
The draw of the ‘manosphere’: understanding Andrew Tate’s appeal to lost men

He subscribes to the “red pills” of incel culture, so-called truth groups and the 80/20 rule (the theory that 80% of women are attracted to 20% of men, and that women only seek out men who are physically and socially desirable).

While Jamie is, for the most part, an outwardly “normal” and well-adjusted teen, his explosive rage and aggrieved entitlement is revealed in a climatic scene in episode three, when he intimidates and shouts down a female psychologist (Erin Doherty).

“You do not control what I do!” he yells. “Get that in that fucking little head of yours!”

Jamie is quick to apologise when a guard intervenes. “I shouted,” he says. “I’m sorry. Can I have another hot chocolate, please?”

In one particularly unnerving moment, Jamie recalls his decision to ask Katie out after receiving a topless photo of her on Snapchat.

“I thought she might be weak cause everyone was calling her a slag,” he says. “I just thought that when she was that weak, she might like me. It’s clever, don’t you think?”

While the sinister child-teen killer trope has been a mainstay of horror, from Child’s Play (1988) to The Exorcist (1973), Adolescence out-scares its predecessors in its unflinching portrayal of a radicalised misogynist-turned murderer.

A nightmare with no end

The show’s most stunning achievement is without a doubt its one-take style. Each hour-long episode is filmed in a single take which, as director Philip Barantini explains, “basically means that we press record on the camera, and we don’t stop until the very end of the hour”.

Tapping into today’s true crime zeitgeist, the series renders Jamie’s story more real than it actually is by imitating the cinéma vérité style of documentary filmmaking.

Each episode creates an immersive fly-on-the wall experience that is deeply compelling and uncomfortable. The lack of breaks forces viewers to feel as trapped as the characters, in an unfathomable spiral through confusion, guilt and shame.

This unease is heightened when the action is shot in claustrophobic spaces, such as inside the family van or a police interrogation room.

The soundtrack adds another layer of gritty true crime trauma, with random sirens, slamming doors and thumping discordant notes designed to mirror the inner turmoil of the characters.

As the story unfolds, it charts the devastating impact of Jamie’s crime on those around him. While Katie’s school friends struggle to process their unfathomable grief, Jamie’s parents must also confront their son’s capacity for cruelty.

“We made him,” despairs Jamie’s mother (Manda Miller).

The unbroken style, in this regard, is important for understanding how broken this family is. Because there are no cuts, there is no escape from the nightmare.

Indeed, Jamie seems to have fallen through the cracks of the social institutions we relied on in the pre-internet age: the schooling system, the judiciary and the family itself.

The generational chasm

The show’s true sympathy lies not with its cast of troubled teens but with the baffled adults around them. Like Jamie’s parents, viewers must surrender to the sorrow and disbelief of never truly understanding what went wrong.

Adolescence is a convincing portrayal of the widening chasm between parents and their teenage children in a savage, unregulated digital age.

It is also a social commentary on how little we know about how to communicate with teens effectively.

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. Adolescence is a technical masterpiece that exposes the darkest corners of incel culture and male rage – https://theconversation.com/adolescence-is-a-technical-masterpiece-that-exposes-the-darkest-corners-of-incel-culture-and-male-rage-252390

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yucong Wang, Lecturer, School of Law and Justice, University of Newcastle

In the first few months of 2025, there’s been a flurry of private venture space missions. Some have been successful, such as American company Firefly Aerospace landing its spacecraft Blue Ghost Mission 1 on the Moon. This was the first successful lunar landing of a privately owned spacecraft.

But there have also been several recent failures. None have been more spectacular than the repeated explosions of tech billionaire Elon Musk’s SpaceX Starship rockets in January and March.

In theory, there are a range of international laws governing these activities. However, most were established roughly half a century ago, before space was within reach of private companies eager to explore it and exploit its untapped resources.

With this development, there is an urgent need to update laws governing what happens in space, in order to prevent it becoming a kind of “wild west” where tech billionaires and the companies they own can do as they please with little to no accountability, consequence or regard for the public good.

Laws as old as the Cold War

Space activities are mainly governed by United Nations treaties. These include the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the 1972 Liability Convention, and the 1979 Moon Agreement.

But these agreements were created during the Cold War, when space exploration was shaped by military sensitivities and mainly conducted by nation states.

Yet private companies are now major players in space. They can bring the allure of space to the masses, for a pretty penny. For example, most of the roughly 11,000 active satellites orbiting Earth are privately owned.

NASA now relies on partnerships with companies to combine expertise and save costs. The European Space Agency does the same, as do many of the 77 countries with space programs

Elon Musk has expertly tapped into this trend, securing US$22.6 billion in United States government funding for SpaceX.

Private spacecraft journeys may combine commercial and national goals. For example, the Blue Ghost Mission 1 was contracted by NASA through its Commercial Lunar Payloads initiative. It carried a suite of NASA science and technology instruments.

Just days later, another company put a spacecraft on the Moon. Yet the Intuitive Machines Athena spacecraft landed awkwardly. It toppled over and was soon declared dead. It too was carrying expensive NASA cargo.

National space agencies will continue to rely on company partners in more ambitious ventures. But what happens when things go wrong? How can private companies be held accountable if they damage the property of others, or cause environmental harm on celestial bodies?

Space traffic

There is an increasing risk of collisions among satellites, spacecrafts and space debris. And while there are some mechanisms for collision warnings, there is no global approach to assess the risk of collisions.

The 1972 Liability Convention provides guidance about addressing liability after satellite collisions. However, it only directly applies to states, not private companies.

If a private company’s spacecraft causes damage, the affected party can only initiate a claim via diplomatic channels against the launching state, not the company itself. The claims pathway can be complex, slow and subject to diplomatic negotiations.

Also, some satellite operators purchase insurance to cover damage from collisions, wisely bypassing the convention. Insurance creates an efficient private mechanism to address damages, avoiding the need to involve states or navigate the diplomatic processes required under the Convention.

But space insurance is incredibly expensive, so most satellites are not insured.

The Outer Space Treaty says countries must avoid contamination of space. But it does not specifically address the problem of accumulated space debris.

The long-term sustainablity of space activities, including the build up of debris, was not the pressing issue for the treaty’s drafters. Moreover, the treaty’s language is vague, requiring states to act with “due regard” for others’ interests and conduct “appropriate” consultation before undertaking potentially harmful activities. However, it does not define what these terms mean.

Who owns the resources in space?

The prospect that humans will be able to collect and sell mineral resources from astronomical objects is edging closer to reality. Initial focus is on the Moon. But who owns the resources on the Moon?

There is no internationally agreed-upon property rights regime beyond Earth. The US is trying to achieve private ownership of space resources through its 2020 “Artemis Accords”.

This effort is a big boost to the privatisation of space. But it contrasts with the “common heritage of mankind” concept – the cornerstone of the 1979 Moon Agreement.

So far 53 countries have signed the Artemis Accords. But only 17 countries are parties to the Moon Agreement. Without clear rules applicable to all space players, lunar exploration and mining by private entities may run into trouble.

There are many worrying scenarios. A private spacecraft might crash into a country’s lunar accommodation facility due to a lack of “rules of the road” on the Moon. Lunar traffic and mining might cause damage to the Moon’s surface.

Can private entities be held accountable for this damage? The current space law regime does not address such hypothetical problems that may become real in coming years.

Safe and sustainable space exploration

Space law must evolve to ensure safe and sustainable commercial space travel and lunar exploration. This can only be achieved by building international consensus on new rules for space missions.

This requires many challenging discussions.

What types of damage to the Moon should be remediated, and by who? What is the most suitable avenue for affected entities to apply for compensation? What rules should be in place to manage the increased traffic volume in outer space? How can countries be incentivised to strengthen their oversight of their private entity partners in joint missions?

Perhaps the easiest issue to solve is which side of future lunar highways to drive on. With the US and China leading the way at the moment, it would be on the right side.

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. Laws governing space are 50 years old. New ones are needed to prevent it becoming a ‘wild west’ – https://theconversation.com/laws-governing-space-are-50-years-old-new-ones-are-needed-to-prevent-it-becoming-a-wild-west-252014

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

We’re roughly half way through this parliamentary term, and it looks as though the 2026 election could deliver “Christopher vs Chris: the sequel”.

Neither leader is currently riding high, though. National’s Christopher Luxon and Labour’s Chris Hipkins are both scoring in the low 20s in the most recent preferred prime minister polls.

Most voters, it seems, are ambivalent or unimpressed with them. And Luxon has been the subject of media speculation about a possible leadership change.

But it pays to be cautious, especially this far from an election. Leadership is a complex mix of individual ability, career stage and political context.

We can think of political leaders having a “stock” of leadership “capital” that fluctuates over time. They build up credit or authority, but they have to spend it. Former supporters can become bored, disappointed or disillusioned.

Any assessment of a leader will involve some subjective judgements. But the Leadership Capital Index (LCI) was developed by three British and European political scientists as a framework for scoring leadership on a range of sliding measures.

As this example using former British prime minister Tony Blair shows, the LCI accounts for a leader’s skills, support and reputation based on their performance, polling and prospects over time.

I applied the LCI to Hipkins and Luxon. Ideally, this would be conducted by a panel, and more than once over a career. But readers are welcome to examine and comment below on my assessments – a virtual panel, if you like. You can see more detail about my reasoning here.

The LCI’s ten factors are a mixture of the objective and subjective, adding up to an overall ranking of a leader’s political capital on a five-point scale:

• depleted – “lame duck”

• low – “politically weakened”

• medium – “muddling through”

• high – “momentum”

• exceptional – “political weather maker”.

Neither Luxon nor Hipkins performed very well: Luxon came out on the low-capital range looking “politically weakened”, while Hipkins was “muddling through” on medium capital.

Leadership capital changes over time, and the LCI takes account of that. This assessment relates to mid-March 2025.

The Leadership Capital Index

1. Political/policy vision: (1. Completely absent. 2. Unclear/inconsistent. 3. Moderately clear/consistent. 4. Clear/consistent. 5. Very clear/consistent.)

I’ve given both leaders 4 out of 5 here. Both have presented clear and consistent political and policy visions. Readers who disagree will see I take some relevant issues into account in the items below.

2. Communication performance: (1. Very poor. 2. Poor. 3. Average. 4. Good. 5. Very good.)

Luxon has been struggling here. His failure to give broadcaster Mike Hosking a straight answer about a cabinet sacking didn’t help, and he has been criticised for his corporate speaking style. Hipkins has performed better as a communicator (regardless of your views on his values). I’ve given Luxon 2/5 and Hipkins 4/5.

3. Personal poll rating relative to the most recent election: (1. Very low (–15% or less), 2. Low (–5 to –15%), 3. Moderate (–5% to 5%), 4. High (5-15%), 5. Very High (15% or more).)

This is an objective numerical measure based on preferred prime minister polls just before the 2023 election compared with the most recent ones. Both Luxon and Hipkins score 3/5.

4. Longevity (time in office as prime minister): (1. less than 1 year. 2. 1-2 years. 3. 2-3 years. 4. 3-4 years. 5. More than 4.)

At March 2025, Luxon gets 2/5 and Hipkins gets 1/5. If we included time in office as party leaders, the numbers would be higher.

5. Selection margin for party leadership: (1. Very small (less than 1%). 2. Small (1-5%). 3. Moderate (5-10%). 4. Large (10-15%). 5. Very large (more than 15%).)

Both leaders were elected as party leader by their respective caucuses. These votes are private, but it’s known Hipkins’ selection was unanimous. I believe Luxon also won by a large margin (greater than 15%). So they both get 5/5.

6. Party polling relative to most recent election result: (1. –10% or lower. 2. –10% to –2.5%. 3. –2.5% to +2.5%. 4. +2.5% to 10%. 5. More than 10%.)

In early March, Labour was polling in the low 30s, up from an election result of 26.9%. So Hipkins gets 4/5. National was also polling in the low 30s, down from 38.1%. So Luxon gets 2/5.

7. Levels of public trust: (1. 0-20%. 2. 20-40%. 3. 40-60%. 4. 60-80%. 5. 80-100%.)

Going back to a “trust” poll in early 2023 and a similar one in May that year, Luxon scored a lower trust level (37%) than Hipkins (53%). So Luxon gets 2/5 and Hipkins gets 3/5.

8. Likelihood of credible leadership challenge within next 6 months: (1. Very high. 2. High. 3. Moderate. 4. Low. 5. Very low.)

This relies on predictions, but Luxon is in greater danger than Hipkins. National’s polling is down, with some predicting a leadership change (although others acknowledge this could carry more costs than benefits). Hipkins lost the 2023 election but seems secure as Labour leader. Luxon gets 3/5 (moderate risk) and Hipkins gets 4/5 (low risk).

9. Perceived ability to shape party’s policy platform: (1. Very low. 2. Low. 3. Moderate. 4. High. 5. Very high.)

This is subjective but not about liking or disliking the policies. Both leaders perform moderately well here on 3/5. Luxon has put his own managerial style on policymaking, notably with quarterly targets. When Jacinda Ardern resigned as prime minister, Hipkins lit a “policy bonfire” to begin afresh. But he is taking time to announce new ones. We’d expect to see improvements for both leaders closer to the election.

10. Perceived parliamentary effectiveness: (1. Very low. 2. Low. 3. Moderate. 4. High. 5. Very high.)

Hipkins has an advantage, given his greater parliamentary experience. Luxon hasn’t dealt decisively with two attention-grabbing coalition partners, especially over ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill. Hipkins gets 4/5, Luxon 2/5.

Final scores – now have your say

The results add up to a ranking on the leadership capital index. Out of a possible 50, Luxon scores 28 and Hipkins 35. Neither is a great score; both careers look stalled.

On the index, this defines Luxon as “politically weakened”. This could improve through better communication, sounder leadership of an ambitious team, and greater control over coalition dynamics.

But Luxon’s leadership capital has never been particularly high. He didn’t enjoy a post-election “honeymoon” and may have peaked early – and low. More low polls may see National remove him, but there is also still time for his policies to pay off.

The index has Hipkins “muddling through”. He needs to connect with voters, boost his reputation as a future leader (rather than election loser) and sharpen Labour’s policy platform.

Hipkins’ leadership capital might have peaked in early 2023 when he became prime minister. Labour party polls are up a bit since the election, but his own preferred prime minister polling has stayed relatively low.

Finally, neither leader has performed well compared with their predecessors John Key and Jacinda Ardern at their heights. But political fortunes can be unpredictable, and crises can even boost them, so the future remains unwritten.

Is this assessment fair or unfair? Readers are welcome to critique my analysis and offer alternative ratings in the (moderated) comments section below.

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

– ref. ‘Politically weakened’ or ‘muddling through’ – Luxon and Hipkins ranked on their mid-term prospects – https://theconversation.com/politically-weakened-or-muddling-through-luxon-and-hipkins-ranked-on-their-mid-term-prospects-252483

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marika Sosnowski, Postdoctoral research fellow, The University of Melbourne

When a ceasefire in the war between Hamas and Israel finally came into effect on January 19, the world breathed a collective sigh of relief.

However, that ceasefire agreement, and its associated negotiations, have now been cast aside by new Israeli attacks on Gaza.

A statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said the strikes came after Hamas’ “repeated refusals” to “release our hostages”, and the group’s rejection of all proposals presented by US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff.

Even before Israel cut off all humanitarian aid and electricity to Gaza in the past two weeks, Hamas claimed it had not met the levels of humanitarian aid, shelter and fuel it agreed to provide in the terms of the ceasefire. However, this is a distraction from a larger issue.

This ceasefire was always more like a strangle contract than a negotiated agreement between equal parties. Israel, as the party with far greater military and political power, has always had the upper hand.

And while the first phase of the ceasefire, which lasted 42 days, saw the successful release of 33 hostages held by Hamas in exchange for nearly 1,800 Palestinian prisoners, the ceasefire also enabled Israel to use it for its own political and military ends.

Buying time

The most common conventional concern about ceasefires is that the parties to a conflict will use them for their own ends.

Typically, the worry is that non-state armed groups, such as Hamas, will use the halt in violence to buy time to regroup, rearm and rebuild their strength to continue fighting.

But states such as Israel have this ability, too. Even though they have standing armies that might not need to regroup and rearm in the same way, states can use this time to manoeuvre in the international arena – a space largely denied to non-state actors.

Trump’s rise to power in the US has seemingly given the Israeli government carte blanche to proceed in ways that were arguably off limits to previous US presidents who were also largely supportive of Israel’s actions.

This includes the plan of forcing Gaza’s population out of the strip. This plan was raised earlier in the war by Trump advisor Jared Kushner and Israeli officials as a supposed humanitarian initiative.

Trump has now repeated the call to relocate Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt and Jordan – or possibly other parts of Africa – and for the US to take “ownership” of the coastal strip and turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East”.

On the face of it, this plan would be a war crime. But even if it is never fully implemented, the fact it is being promoted by Trump after many years of domestic Israeli and international opprobrium shows how political ideas once thought unacceptable can take on a life of their own.

Political and military maneouvering

Israel has also used the ceasefire to pursue larger political and military goals in Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon and Syria.

Even though the ceasefire did reduce overall levels of violence in Gaza, Israel has continued to carry out attacks on targets in the strip.

It has also escalated the construction of settlements and carried out increasingly violent operations in the West Bank. In addition, there have been egregious attacks on Palestinian residents in Israel.

And though nearly 1,800 Palestinian prisoners were released during the ceasefire, Israel was holding more than 9,600 Palestinians in detention on “security grounds” at the end of 2024. Thousands more Palestinians are being held by Israel in administrative detention, which means without trial or charge.

During the ceasefire, Israel also accelerated efforts to evict the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, from its headquarters in East Jerusalem. And the Israeli government has also proposed increasingly draconian laws aimed at restraining the work of Israeli human rights organisations.

On the military front, the ceasefire arguably alleviated some pressure on Israel, giving it time to consolidate its territorial and security gains against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and in Syria.

In the past two months, two deadlines for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon passed. Israel has instead proposed establishing a buffer zone on Lebanese territory and has begun destroying villages, uprooting olive trees and building semi-permanent outposts along the border.

In a speech in February, Netanyahu also demanded the “complete demilitarisation of southern Syria” following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. And Defence Minister Israel Katz said this month Israel would keep its troops in southern Syria to “protect” residents from any threats from the new Syrian regime.

Be careful what you wish for

While Palestinians are known for their sumud – usually translated as steadfastness or tenacity – there is a limit to what humans can endure. The war, and subsequent ceasefires, have created a situation in which Gazans may have to put the survival and wellbeing of themselves and their families above their desire to stay in Palestine.

There is a general assumption that ceasefires are positive and humanitarian in nature. But ceasefires are not panaceas. In reality, they are a least-worst option for stopping the violence of war for often just a brief period.

A ceasefire was never going to be the solution to the decades-old conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, it has turned out to be part of the problem.

Marika Sosnowski 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 Israel-Hamas ceasefire failed to resolve many deep-seated issues. Now, it appears to be shattered – https://theconversation.com/the-israel-hamas-ceasefire-failed-to-resolve-many-deep-seated-issues-now-it-appears-to-be-shattered-249944

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

Next week’s budget will have cost-of-living assistance that will be meaningful and substantial but “responsible”, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has said.

In a Tuesday speech framing the budget Chalmers said, “it will be a responsible budget which helps with the cost of living, builds our future, and makes our economy more resilient in the new world of global uncertainty”.

He said the budget would have five major priorities:

• helping the recovery and rebuild following Cyclone Alfred, for which it will provide $1.2 billion

• helping with the cost of living and finishing the fight against inflation

• strengthening Medicare and funding more urgent care clinics

• putting money into every stage of education

• making the economy more competitive and productive.

In the question-and-answer part of his appearance at the Queensland Media Club Chalmers refused to be drawn on whether the cost-of-living relief would include more help on power bills, as is widely expected.

He was also put on the spot about his future leadership ambitions, initially being asked whether, given federal Labor’s poor showing in Queensland, it would do better with a leader from that state.

After diverting the question with a joke and a vigorous defence of Anthony Albanese’s “practical pragmatism” and his appreciation of Queensland, he was asked directly, “So you don’t have aspirations to become leader one day yourself?” “No”, he replied.

Chalmers is lowering expectations of extensive new initiatives being announced next Tuesday, because big spending measures in health, education and infrastructure have been announced.

The budget will project deficits throughout the forward estimates. But Chalmers said Treasury did not expect the bottom line this year or the coming years to be substantially changed from the mid year update.

In the mid-year update release in December, Treasury said it expected the deficit this financial year to be $26.9 billion. The deficit was forecast to increase further next year to $46.9 billion, compared with $42.8 billion forecast in last year’s budget.

Chalmers sought to scotch incorrect predictions he said had been made.

“For example, some commentators have made wild and wide-of-the-mark predictions about big surges in revenue.

“Some wrongly predict the tax-to-GDP ratio will go up this year, when Treasury expects it to be stable or even a bit down.

“Revenue upgrades have actually come off very significantly since the highs of October 2022.”

Chalmers argued the Australian economy “has turned a corner” but acknowledged “a new world of uncertainty” in which it was operating.

“The global economy is volatile and unpredictable.

“There’s a new US administration disrupting trade, a slowdown in China, war in eastern Europe and a fragile ceasefire in the Middle East, division and dissatisfaction around the world.

“Overnight, the OECD downgraded its growth expectations for next year and the year after.”

The OECD cut its forecasts for GDP growth to just 1.8% in 2026, down from an earlier forecast of 2.5%.

“Treasury forecasts in the Budget will have Chinese and American growth slowing to around 4.5 and 2 per cent next year, respectively.

“The forecasts for the US are the same as the mid-year update but the downside risks are weighing more heavily now.

“Unemployment is rising overseas from higher interest rates, and in the UK inflation is going up again.

“This is the global backdrop for the Budget.”

Chalmers repeated the government’s criticism of the US failure to grant an exemption from the steel and aluminium tariffs.

He said Treasury had modelled the impact of tariffs on our economy, both before the US election, and after the inauguration.

“Treasury estimates the direct hit to GDP from steel and aluminium tariffs would be less than 0.02 per cent by 2030. So the direct overall impacts on Australia should be manageable.

“But when you add in the indirect effects, the hit to GDP could be more like 0.1 per cent by 2030.

“In fact, over a range of scenarios, Treasury found the indirect GDP impacts of a trade war could be up to four times larger than the direct effects of tariffs on our economy.

“In a world of retaliation and escalation, the impacts of tariffs are amplified, they linger for longer, resulting in a bigger reduction in GDP and a bigger increase in prices.”

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

– ref. Treasurer Chalmers promises ‘meaningful and substantial’ cost of living help in Tuesday’s budget – https://theconversation.com/treasurer-chalmers-promises-meaningful-and-substantial-cost-of-living-help-in-tuesdays-budget-252173

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

The Greens have heaped a lot of pressure on the government during this term, from issues of the environment, housing, and Medicare, to the war in the Middle East.

With the polls close to a dead heat and minority government appearing a real possibility, would the Greens push a minority Labor government even harder in pursuit of their agenda?

To talk about the Greens’ policies and prospects, we’re joined by South Australian Greens senator Barbara Pocock, who is the party’s spokeswoman on employment, the public sector and finance.

After their efforts in this term, Pocock says the Greens would be just as tough in pushing a possible Labor minority government next term:

People can judge us on our record in the last few years. People saw us really fight hard on housing – we wanted to see something meaningful. It is the most significant post-war crisis in housing that is affecting millions of Australians’ lives and certainly an intergenerational crisis.

So we held out for a long time to try and push Labor to improve its offering on public housing [and] on housing spending and we achieved some real wins there. We will fight hard for the things that matter.

We will push very hard on those core issues of a better health system, putting dental into Medicare. We pushed very hard on that in the last time there was a minority government and won it for kids. We want to see everyone be able to get to the dentist, and we really want to see reductions in student debt.

However, Pocock stresses that keeping Peter Dutton out of government remains a key focus:

We are very focused on preventing a Dutton Coalition government, because everything we hear from that stable sends a shiver down my spine.

Pocock did a lot of work during the Senate inquiry investigating consulting services and she warns Dutton’s policy to cut 36,000 public servants would lead to a return to consultants:

In that last year of the Morrison government, we saw a spend of $20 billion on consulting and labour hire and a hollowing out in the public sector. We are still seeing a slow regrowth of the capability of the federal public sector following the scandals relating to the consulting industry and the way it worked with government.

I am very worried about the Coalition’s proposals for a 36,000 cut in the public sector. That’s one in five public sector workers gone and that means services like Centrelink, Veterans Affairs, services that Australians depend on cannot deliver on what they suggest. And we also need to remember that a very significant number – something like two-thirds of our public service, federal public service – actually live outside Canberra.

All they would be doing is taking that money, which pays for public servants, doing a whole range of many different things and taking it across to, in many cases, their supporters and buddies and donors in the consulting and labour hire industry and it’s a very bad value-for-money proposition for the Australian voter.

As spokeswoman on employment, Pocock is a strong advocate for the Greens policies on a four-day work week:

If we go right back to 1856 when Australia led the world on reducing working hours, and the eight-hour day, now we were the first to adopt that internationally for stonemasons in Melbourne. And in the last 40 years, [we] have not seen any reduction in average working time. It’s been 38 hours now since 1983. In that 40 years, we’ve seen massive changes in technology. We have seen increases in productivity. And in the last 10 years, we’ve seen private profit increase by 97% while wages have gone up by 50%. And what we’re saying is, let’s look at the length of the average full-time working week and let’s see how we can move the dial on that.

We’d certainly like to see a wide range of pilots, diverse experimentation, real change, working with those who are ready for it, who are up for it, but making sure we collect the evidence and then move over time towards a national test case, which is the way in which over decades we have slowly ratcheted back the length of the working week.

On the attack from the opposition and others that the Greens are anti-Semitic, Pocock defends the Greens as an anti-racist party.

I think there are diverse views out there in the community and certainly, and we can see it every day, but I think that there are also many people, including many Jewish people, who understand that you can have a critique of a war that’s had such a terrible consequence for civilian women and children in Gaza, and you can still take a very strong position in relation to the kinds of attacks we’ve seen on the Jewish community, for example.

We are an anti-racist party. We want to call out behaviour which is wrong wherever it happens and we have certainly been critical of the behaviour of the Israeli state, their military, and the way they continue to conduct a war against the civilians in Gaza.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Barbara Pocock on the Greens’ policy priorities – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-barbara-pocock-on-the-greens-policy-priorities-252502

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabrielle Meagher, Professor Emerita, School of Society, Communication and Culture, Macquarie University

On Monday, an ABC’s Four Corners investigation reported shocking cases of abuse and neglect in Australian childcare centres. This included examples of children being sexually abused, restrained for hours in high chairs, and fed nutritionally substandard meals such as pasta with ketchup.

While acknowledging there are high-quality services operating in the community, the program also showed how centre-based childcare is big business, dominated by for-profit providers, who may not be meeting regulatory standards.

What is going wrong with childcare in Australia?

Differing levels of quality

Data from Australia’s childcare regulator consistently shows for-profit childcare services are, on average, rated as lower quality than not-for-profit services.

Of those rated by regulators, 11% of for-profit long daycare centres are not meeting national minimum quality standards (they are just “working towards”). This compares with 7% of not-for-profit centres not meeting minimum standards.

There are 13% of for-profit centres exceeding the standards, compared to 28% of not-for-profits.

Inquiries suggest this divergence is due to staffing levels, qualifications and pay. In 2023, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) found large for-profit providers spend significantly less on staffing than not-for-profit providers.

Large for-profit providers have a higher proportion of part-time and casual staff than not-for-profits. They also employ less experienced early childhood teachers. On top of this, they are more likely to use award rates of pay, which are typically lower than enterprise agreement rates.

Lower pay and less job security is related to higher turnover of staff, which makes it difficult for educators to establish and maintain the trusting relationships with children and families that underpin high quality.

Despite this, the federal government continues to support for-profit services through childcare subsidies.

These subsidies are designed to help families with the costs of childcare. But they do not stop some providers increasing their fees. The ACCC found a consistent pattern of increased government subsidies leading to higher out-of-pocket expenses for families, due to subsequent fee increases.

It hasn’t always been like this

Childcare subsidies haven’t always worked in this way. “Operational subsidies” were introduced in 1972 through the historic Child Care Act, which set the precedent for Australian governments to fund childcare.

This aimed to support women’s workforce participation through an expanded, high-quality childcare sector. Subsidies at the time were only available to not-for-profit services and required the employment of qualified staff, including teachers. In these ways, Commonwealth funding positioned childcare as a public good, like school education.

Then, in 1991, federal government subsidies were extended to for-profit providers. This prompted dramatic changes in the childcare landscape, leading to a dominance of for-profit centres.

Today, more than 70% of all long day-care centres are operated by private providers. Between 2013 and 2023, the number of for-profit long daycare services jumped by 60%, while not-for-profits only grew by 4%.

Quality concerns

There are 25 large long daycare providers in Australia and of these, 21 are run for profit. Large for-profit providers impact sector quality in several ways.

Many have disproportionately high numbers of staffing waivers, granted by regulators, permitting them to operate centres without the required number of qualified staff.

According to unpublished research by Gabrielle Meagher, as of October 2024, 11 large for-profit providers held waivers for a quarter or more of their services and five held waivers for more than a third. This compares to 15% of the sector overall.

Large for-profit providers also serve investors as well as families. So there are extra incentives to cut costs and maximise profits.

The dominance of for-profit providers also makes them powerful players in policy-making circles, as governments depend on them to provide an essential service.

Why isn’t the system working?

Given Australia has a regulatory and quality assurance system for childcare services, why do we have these quality issues?

As the Productivity Commission found, regulators are under-resourced, and inspections are infrequent. Services that repeatedly fail to meet the minimum standards are still allowed to operate, sometimes for more than a decade.

Services are notified about upcoming inspections, potentially giving them time to give a false impression of their quality and safety standards.

As Four Corners highlighted, poor-quality services, with bad pay and working conditions are driving good educators away from the sector.

What next?

The Albanese government recently passed legislation to “guarantee” eligible families three days of subsidised childcare per week from January 2026.

But families need more than access. They also require a guarantee this childcare will be high-quality and keep children safe.

Even without the extra spending on the three-day guarantee, government spending on childcare subsidies is due to reach nearly A$15 billion by 2026–27. Thus there is also a corresponding duty to taxpayers to ensure these funds are going to high-quality providers.

In the wake of the Four Corners report, the Greens are calling for a royal commission into childcare. But we do not need this level of inquiry to tell us the current system needs fundamental change.

Stronger regulatory powers, while important, will not be enough on their own. High-quality services need well-educated and well-supported staff. They also need governance and leadership that value educators’ expertise and enable consistently high standards.

Gabrielle was interviewed as part of the 4 Corners program mentioned in the article.

Marianne Fenech receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Amid claims of abuse, neglect and poor standards, what is going wrong with childcare in Australia? – https://theconversation.com/amid-claims-of-abuse-neglect-and-poor-standards-what-is-going-wrong-with-childcare-in-australia-252493

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

On April 2 the United States is set to implement a new wave of tariffs under its Fair and Reciprocal Trade Plan. Details of the plan that will impact all US trading partners are not yet known, but the US administration has suggested these tariffs will target any rules it considers “unfair”.

This means the April 2 tariffs may take aim at a range of Australian domestic policies, such as biosecurity rules that govern food imports, and the government’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).

The size of the hit is uncertain. One report indicates a relatively modest tariff between 2% and 8% is being considered, below the 25% rate imposed on steel and aluminium on March 12. But it will apply to a much larger set of exports.

Read more:
With Australian steel and aluminium set to incur US tariffs, global uncertainty will be our next challenge

Australia and the US have been allies for over a century. The two nations celebrated a “century of mateship” in 2018. More formally, the two countries have a current free trade agreement, Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA).

The agreement was negotiated in good faith, and entered into force on January 1, 2005. It called for the elimination of tariffs between the two nations over time, and until now both parties have upheld their respective bargains. The so-called “reciprocal” tariff plan would breach that agreement.

What sectors are likely to be targeted?

The Trump reference to non-tariff barriers raises two main concerns for Australian products: meat and pharmaceuticals.

These exports to the US are worth about A$3.3 billion and $1.6 billion a year respectively. That’s about five times the total value of our steel and aluminium exports to the US.

In Australia, domestic beef products are subject to strict traceability rules. Similarly, imported beef has rigid biosecurity requirements as it is classified as a high-risk food.

This is because of the potential risk of mad cow disease (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy). This disease was detected in the US in 2002 and triggered an Australian ban on US beef products.

The ban was partially lifted in 2018, but some restrictions remain, which the US says are a barrier to trade. This was also raised by the Biden administration in a 2024 report on trade barriers.

The US cannot force Australia to change its laws on the basis of tariffs – but they can make products coming from Australian suppliers more expensive and therefore restrict market access to the US, which many Australian producers rely on.

A tariff on Australian-sourced beef products would also push up prices for American consumers. Trade Minister Don Farrell has warned the price of a McDonald’s burger may increase.

Medicines are also in the line of fire

Turning to pharmaceuticals, the Australian PBS has been a sticking point between US and Australian trade negotiators for the past 20 years.  

The PBS, which has been in place since 1948, ensures Australians have affordable access to essential medicines. It formed part of discussions during the free-trade negotiations and has been raised as a potential barrier to trade.

The US argues innovation and unfettered market access for American drug companies should be prioritised over Australia’s reference pricing arrangements. Reference pricing means medicines with similar outcomes should have similar pricing.

The reason the US has a problem with this scheme is because some of their companies are not able to charge higher prices for medicines.

Although these are the categories of most concern, there is no assurance the “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” will be limited to beef and pharmaceuticals.

For instance, there are no barriers imposed on the import of wine into Australia. But there has been some concern tariffs could be introduced regardless.

Wine is often the target of trade wars and President Donald Trump has threatened the European Union with a 200% tariff on all wine and spirits entering the US. As Australian wine makers have only recently recovered from Chinese and Canadian tariffs, any US tariffs would deal a harsh blow to the industry.

An old clip of the former Republican President Ronald Reagan went viral this week, highlighting his quite different view:

Is there any avenue for appeal?

There is one thing that is clear about these tariffs. Their imposition will be in violation of both the WTO rules and the free-trade agreement.

Both have provisions to settle disputes and Australia does have options for filing complaints. However, the rule of law and existing norms of the international order do not appear to be persuasive to the Trump administration.

Despite this, it is important to note the US cannot force Australia to change its longstanding laws that protect consumers and ensure accessibility to medicines. This remains the choice of the Australian government.

If the tariffs are introduced in the range of 2% to 8%, there may not be a significant direct economic impact. But they will have other consequences. Trade negotiations, and international agreements, are largely based on goodwill. These acts of the US will erode much of what has been built up over the past century.

The downturn we are seeing in financial markets has so far been dismissed by the Trump administration as necessary. But if the correction turns into a crash, it may give President Trump pause. Given his lack of interest in negotiating, this may be the only thing that could change his mind.

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

– ref. The next round in the US trade war has the potential to be more damaging for Australia – https://theconversation.com/the-next-round-in-the-us-trade-war-has-the-potential-to-be-more-damaging-for-australia-252377