Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Koplin, Group Leader, Childhood Allergy & Epidemiology, The University of Queensland

At one time or another, you’ve probably come across someone who is lactose intolerant and might experience some unpleasant gut symptoms if they have dairy. Maybe it’s you – food intolerances are estimated to affect up to 25% of Australians.

Meanwhile, cow’s milk allergy is one of the most common food allergies in infants and young children, affecting around one in 100 infants.

But what’s the difference between food allergies and food intolerances? While they might seem alike, there are some fundamental differences between the two.

What is an allergy?

Australia has one of the highest rates of food allergies in the world. Food allergies can develop at any age but are more common in children, affecting more than 10% of one-year-olds and 6% of children at age ten.

A food allergy happens when the body’s immune system mistakenly reacts to certain foods as if they were dangerous. The most common foods that trigger allergies include eggs, peanuts and other nuts, milk, shellfish, fish, soy and wheat.

Mild to moderate signs of food allergy include a swollen face, lips or eyes; hives or welts on your skin; or vomiting. A severe allergic reaction (called anaphylaxis) can cause trouble breathing, persistent dizziness or collapse.

What is an intolerance?

Food intolerances (sometimes called non-allergic reactions) are also reactions to food, but they don’t involve your immune system.

For example, lactose intolerance is a metabolic condition that happens when the body doesn’t produce enough lactase. This enzyme is needed to break down the lactose (a type of sugar) in dairy products.

Food intolerances can also include reactions to natural chemicals in foods (such as salicylates, found in some fruits, vegetables, herbs and spices) and problems with artificial preservatives or flavour enhancers.

Symptoms of food intolerances can include an upset stomach, headaches and fatigue, among others.

Food intolerances don’t cause life-threatening reactions (anaphylaxis) so are less dangerous than allergies in the short term, although they can cause problems in the longer term such as malnutrition.

We don’t know a lot about how common food intolerances are, but they appear to be more commonly reported than allergies. They can develop at any age.

It can be confusing

Some foods, such as peanuts and tree nuts, are more often associated with allergy. Other foods or ingredients, such as caffeine, are more often associated with intolerance.

Meanwhile, certain foods, such as cow’s milk and wheat or gluten (a protein found in wheat, rye and barley), can cause both allergic and non-allergic reactions in different people. But these reactions, even when they’re caused by the same foods, are quite different.

For example, children with a cow’s milk allergy can react to very small amounts of milk, and serious reactions (such as throat swelling or difficulty breathing) can happen within minutes. Conversely, many people with lactose intolerance can tolerate small amounts of lactose without symptoms.

There are other differences too. Cow’s milk allergy is more common in children, though many infants will grow out of this allergy during childhood.

Lactose intolerance is more common in adults, but can also sometimes be temporary. One type of lactose intolerance, secondary lactase deficiency, can be caused by damage to the gut after infection or with medication use (such as antibiotics or cancer treatment). This can go away by itself when the underlying condition resolves or the person stops using the relevant medication.

Whether an allergy or intolerance is likely to be lifelong depends on the food and the reason that the child or adult is reacting to it.

Allergies to some foods, such as milk, egg, wheat and soy, often resolve during childhood, whereas allergies to nuts, fish or shellfish, often (but not always) persist into adulthood. We don’t know much about how likely children are to grow out of different types of food intolerances.

How do you find out what’s wrong?

If you think you may have a food allergy or intolerance, see a doctor.

Allergy tests help doctors find out which foods might be causing your allergic reactions (but can’t diagnose food intolerances). There are two common types: skin prick tests and blood tests.

In a skin prick test, doctors put tiny amounts of allergens (the things that can cause allergies) on your skin and make small pricks to see if your body reacts.

A blood test checks for allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies in your blood that show if you might be allergic to a particular food.

Food intolerances can be tricky to figure out because the symptoms depend on what foods you eat and how much. To diagnose them, doctors look at your health history, and may do some tests (such as a breath test). They may ask you to keep a record of foods you eat and timing of symptoms.

A temporary elimination diet, where you stop eating certain foods, can also help to work out which foods you might be intolerant to. But this should only be done with the help of a doctor or dietitian, because eliminating particular foods can lead to nutritional deficiencies, especially in children.

Is there a cure?

There’s currently no cure for food allergies or intolerances. For allergies in particular, it’s important to strictly avoid allergens. This means reading food labels carefully and being vigilant when eating out.

However, researchers are studying a treatment called oral immunotherapy, which may help some people with food allergies become less sensitive to certain foods.

Whether you have a food allergy or intolerance, your doctor or dietitian can help you to make sure you’re eating the right foods.

Victoria Gibson, a Higher Degree by Research student and Research Officer at the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work at the University of Queensland, and Rani Scott-Farmer, a Senior Research Assistant at the University of Queensland, contributed to this article.

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. She was a named investigator on a grant from Sanofi Regeneron for unrelated research and has received a research award from the Stallergenes Greer Foundation.

Desalegn Markos Shifti is supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship funded through the Centre for Food Allergy Research Centre of Research Excellence.

– ref. What’s the difference between a food allergy and an intolerance? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-food-allergy-and-an-intolerance-243685

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yasmine Probst, Professor, School of Medical, Indigenous and Health Sciences, University of Wollongong

Whether with crumbled feta or poached eggs, you’d be challenged to find a cafe in Australia or farther afield that doesn’t have avocado somewhere on the menu.

This fruit (yep, it’s a fruit from a tree, not a vegetable) is widely associated with brunch culture and other trendy eating habits.

The Australian avocado industry developed in the 1960s, 30 years after the start of the first large-scale production in California. Orchards producing avocados now span all parts of Australia, except Tasmania, Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

Avocados are considered a monoculture crop: they’re grown on the same land each year, making them more susceptible to pests and creating a need for increased fertiliser use. The carbon footprint of avos is almost twice as high as that of apples, but much lower than many animal food sources.

There are now over 50 different avocado types globally, but only a few are grown commercially.

Not all avos are the same

You may not notice a difference when you get your avocado toast at a cafe. But at the shops or the market, a striking difference occurs each year in Australia.

In autumn, the familiar dark purple Hass avocado disappears and is replaced with the lighter green Shepard variety. In Australia, this typically happens between February and May.

If you don’t know the difference between the two, you may expect Shepard avos to perform the same way as Hass – and be left disappointed. There are some important differences.

Hass avocados

Hass avocados are known for their dark, pebbly-looking skin that appears almost black when ripe. They have an ovoid shape with a slight pear-like appearance. The thick skin can be a challenge to peel, often requiring a sharp knife or avocado slicer.

Hass avocado flavour is rich, creamy and buttery, with nutty undertones. Their texture is ideal for mashing, blending and spreading, creating a creamy texture in dips, guacamole and smoothies.

Hass avocados ripen – and darken in colour – slowly over several days. They remain firm to the touch when ripe, and will feel squishy when overripe. A slight give when pressed confirms Hass avos are ready to eat.

Available in Australia from May to January, Hass are the dominant variety of commercially grown avocado worldwide. They were cultivated by horticulturalist Rudolph Hass in California in the 1920s.

Shepard avocados

Shepard avocados have smooth, green skin that remains green even when they are fully ripe. They are round to slightly oblong in shape and have a slightly milder and sweeter taste, with less pronounced nutty undertones.

Shepard avocados ripen more quickly than Hass, but you won’t be able to tell that by the colour. Instead, check for softness – Shepard avocados are very soft when ripe. What might feel overripe when handling a Hass will likely be ideal ripeness if it’s a Shepard. The thin, smooth skin makes them easy to peel by hand or with a gentle squeeze.

Their buttery soft texture is firm and creamy, and they hold their shape well when cut, making them ideal for slicing, dicing and spreading despite being structurally firm.

Interestingly, Shepard avocados brown much more slowly than Hass, making them perfect for garnishes. Their milder flavour also makes Shepard avos well suited to sweet dishes, such as chocolate mousse.

Shepard avos account for approximately 10–15% of Australian avocados and are in season from February to April each year while there is a gap in the Hass season.

Australia is the only country in the world that grows Shepard avocados commercially. (They are grown in Queensland.)

Avocados and our health

As avocados contain 59% fat, people wishing to lose weight were previously advised to avoid or limit eating them.

We now know that a majority of this fat is oleic acid, a monounsaturated (healthy) fat that helps to reduce cholesterol and improve heart health.

Additionally, only 1% of an avocado is made up of carbohydrates, making the fruit popular with people following a ketogenic (keto) diet of low carbs and high fat.

People who consume avos also tend to follow a better pattern of eating in general. They eat more whole grains, fruit and vegetables and fewer discretionary or takeaway foods.

As an energy-dense food, consuming a whole avocado is about the same as eating 2.5 whole apples. Per 100 grams, avocado actually gives you less energy than an equivalent amount of cooked white rice.

As avocado dishes are visually appealing and often featured in food photography, they have become a symbol of modern eating habits.

Yasmine Probst receives funding from Multiple Sclerosis Australia and has previously received funding from various industry groups including the Hass Avocado Board. She is presently affiliated with the National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Plus and Multiple Sclerosis Limited.

Karen Zoszak receives funding from MS Australia.

– ref. What’s the difference between Hass and Shepard avocados? It’s not just the colour – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-hass-and-shepard-avocados-its-not-just-the-colour-233243

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marian Sawer, Emeritus Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

In December 1972, the same month the Whitlam government was first elected, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 1975 as International Women’s Year (IWY). This set in train a series of world-changing events, in which Australia was to play a significant part.

The aim of IWY was to end discrimination against women and enable them to participate fully in economic, social and political life. Fifty years later, such participation has become an indicator of development and good governance. But the full promise of International Women’s year has yet to be fulfilled, hampered by pushback and the scourge of gender-based violence.

‘The greatest consciousness-raising event in history’

Dubbed “the greatest consciousness-raising event in history”, the UN’s first World Conference on Women took place in Mexico City in June 1975. Consciousness-raising had been part of the repertoire of women’s liberation. Now it was taken up by government and intergovernmental bodies.

The Mexico City conference was agenda-setting in many ways. The Australian government delegation, led by Elizabeth Reid, helped introduce the world of multilateral diplomacy to the language of the women’s movement. As Reid said:

We argued that, whenever the words “racism”, “colonialism” and “neo-colonialism” occurred in documents of the conference, so too should “sexism”, a term that had not to that date appeared in United Nations documents or debates.

Reid held the position of women’s adviser to the prime minister. In this pioneering role, she had been able to obtain government commitment and funding for Australia’s own national consciousness-raising exercise during IWY.

A wide range of small grants promoted attitudinal change – “the revolution in our heads” – whether in traditional women’s organisations, churches and unions, or through providing help such as Gestetner machines to the new women’s centres.

IWY grants explicitly did not include the new women’s services, including refuges, women’s health centres and rape crisis centres. Their funding was now regarded as an ongoing responsibility for government, rather than suitable for one-off grants.

IWY began in Australia with a televised conversation on New Year’s Day between Reid and Governor-General John Kerr on hopes and aspirations for the year. On International Women’s Day (March 8), Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s speech emphasised the need for attitudinal change:

Both men and women must be made aware of our habitual patterns of prejudice which we often do not see as such but whose existence manifests itself in our language and our behaviour.

The Australian postal service celebrated the day by releasing a stamp featuring the IWY symbol, showing the spirit of women breaking free of their traditional bonds. At Reid’s suggestion, IWY materials, including the symbol, were printed in the purple, green and white first adopted by Emmeline Pankhurst in 1908 and now known as the suffragette colours.

Policy power

Inside government, Reid had introduced the idea that all Cabinet submissions needed to be analysed for gender impact. After the Mexico City conference, this idea became part of new international norms of governance.

Following the adoption at the conference of the World Plan of Action, the idea that governments needed specialised policy machinery to promote gender equality was disseminated around the world.

Given the amount of ground to be covered, IWY was expanded to a UN Decade for Women (1976–85). By the end of it, 127 countries had established some form of government machinery to advance the status of women. Each of the successive UN world conferences (Copenhagen 1980, Nairobi 1985, Beijing 1995) generated new plans of action and strengthened systems of reporting by governments.

The Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing was a high point. Its “platform for action” provided further impetus for what was now called “gender mainstreaming”. By 2018, every country recognised by the UN except North Korea had established government machinery for this purpose.

The global diffusion of this policy innovation was unprecedented in its rapidity. At the same time, Australia took the lead in another best-practice innovation. In 1984, the Commonwealth government pioneered what became known as “gender budgeting”. This required departments to disaggregate the ways particular budgetary decisions affected men and women.

As feminist economists pointed out, when the economic and social division of labour was taken into account, no budgetary decision could be assumed to be gender-neutral. Governments had emphasised special programs for women, a relatively small part of annual budgets, rather than the more substantial impact on women of macro-economic policy.

Standard-setting bodies such as the OECD helped promote gender budgeting as the best way to ensure such decisions did not inadvertently increase rather than reduce gender gaps.

By 2022, gender budgeting had been taken up around the world, including in 61% of OECD countries. Now that it had become an international marker of good governance, Australian governments were also reintroducing it after a period of abeyance.

Momentum builds

In addition to such policy transfer, new frameworks were being adopted internationally. Following IWY, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was adopted in 1979. CEDAW became known as the international bill of rights for women, and has been ratified by 189 countries. This is more than any other UN Convention except that on the rights of the child.

All state parties to CEDAW were required to submit periodic reports to the UN on its implementation. Non-government organisations were encouraged to provide shadow reports to inform the questioning of government representatives. This oversight and dialogue relating to gender equality became part of the norm-building work of the UN.

However, this very success at international and regional levels helped fuel “anti-gender movements” that gathered strength after 1995. No more world conferences on women were held, for fear there would be slippage from the standards achieved in Beijing.

In Australia, the leveraging of international standards to promote gender equality has been muted in deference to populist politics. It became common to present the business case rather than the social justice case for gender-equality policy, even the cost to the economy of gender-based violence (estimated by KPMG to be $26 billion in 2015–16).

The battle continues

Fifty years after IWY, Australia is making up some lost ground in areas such as paid parental leave, work value in the care economy, and recognition of the ways economic policy affects women differently from men.

However, all of this remains precarious, with issues of gender equality too readily rejected as part of a “woke agenda”.

The world has become a different place from when the Australian government delegation set out to introduce the UN to the concept of sexism. In Western democracies, women have surged into male domains such as parliaments. Australia now has an almost equal number of women and men in its Cabinet (11 out of 23 members).

But along with very different expectations has come the resentment too often being mobilised by the kind of populist politics we will likely see more of in this election year.

Marian Sawer 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. 1975 was declared International Women’s Year. 50 years on, the ‘revolution in our heads’ is still being fought – https://theconversation.com/1975-was-declared-international-womens-year-50-years-on-the-revolution-in-our-heads-is-still-being-fought-241791

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben White, Professor of End-of-Life Law and Regulation, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology

Voluntary assisted dying is lawful in all Australian states. This allows terminally ill adults who are suffering and have decision-making capacity to choose to receive help to die.

Victoria’s law was the first, coming into effect in 2019. New South Wales was the last state, with its voluntary assisted dying law beginning in late 2023.

Voluntary assisted dying will be allowed in the Australian Capital Territory in November, and a Northern Territory report has recommended it pass a voluntary assisted dying law too.

While the vast majority of Australians now live in jurisdictions where voluntary assisted dying is permitted, accessing voluntary assisted dying depends on knowing it’s a legal option. But our new research suggests many Australians don’t know this.

A study in Queensland

Voluntary assisted dying became legal in Queensland on January 1, 2023. We conducted an online survey of 1,000 Queensland adults in mid-2024 to find out if the community knew about this new end-of-life choice.

We set quotas for age, gender and geographical location to ensure the people we surveyed represented the overall Queensland population.

First, we asked whether people thought voluntary assisted dying was legal in Queensland. Only one-third (33%) correctly identified it was. Of the 67% who didn’t, 41% thought voluntary assisted dying was illegal and 26% said they didn’t know.

People who did know voluntary assisted dying was legal had generally found out in one of three ways:

• from the media

• from professional experience (for example, working in health care)

• from personal experience (for example, knowing someone who had asked about, requested or accessed voluntary assisted dying).

We then told our survey participants voluntary assisted dying was legal in Queensland and asked if they would know how to go about accessing it if they wished to. Only one-quarter (26%) answered yes.

The survey also asked people where they might look for information about voluntary assisted dying. Most people said they would seek this information online, but asking health practitioners, especially doctors, was also important.

Legal and cultural barriers

Perhaps it’s not surprising so few members of the surveyed public know voluntary assisted dying is a legal choice. It’s still a relatively new law. But there are specific barriers in Australia that can prevent people finding out about it.

One major barrier is health practitioners are often not able to freely discuss voluntary assisted dying with their patients. The laws in all states control how conversations about voluntary assisted dying can occur.

For example, in Queensland, only doctors and nurse practitioners can raise voluntary assisted dying and only if they also discuss available treatment and palliative care options and their likely outcomes.

But the most problematic are Victorian and South Australian laws which prohibit health practitioners from raising the topic with patients altogether. Many people rely on their doctor to tell them about treatment options, so it’s a problem if the onus is on the patient to bring it up first.

Conscientious objection is another significant barrier. Some doctors are opposed to voluntary assisted dying and even if they practise in a state where they can legally raise it, may choose not to tell their patients about it. This is another reason patients may not know voluntary assisted dying could be a choice for them.

It’s important to note our study was only done in Queensland, so we can’t be confident the findings represent the wider Australian population. But given these barriers to knowing about voluntary assisted dying, it’s reasonable to anticipate similar trends in other states.

A national challenge

Raising community awareness of voluntary assisted dying is a challenge around the country. Voluntary assisted dying oversight boards from five states (Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia) have all discussed this issue in their most recent annual reports.

In addition, Western Australia recently reviewed its voluntary assisted dying laws, identifying lack of community knowledge as a problem. The review called for a strategy to fix this.

We see this challenge as one of “voluntary assisted dying literacy”. Greater voluntary assisted dying literacy will enable members of the public to know the options available to them, and how to make the choices they want.

What can we do about this?

We need community awareness initiatives to increase knowledge that voluntary assisted dying is legal and ensure people know where to find information about this option. Information about voluntary assisted dying is already available from all state government health departments, but more action is needed to ensure it reaches more people.

Respondents in our survey suggested using social media campaigns, advertising, and sharing information through Centrelink, health clinics and other trusted community channels.

We also propose targeted information for particular patient groups who may be eligible for voluntary assisted dying, such as people with cancer or neurodegenerative diseases. This means they will know voluntary assisted dying may be one of the treatment options available to them, and how to navigate the process should they wish to.

These initiatives would need to be designed sensitively with a focus on providing information to avoid any perception that people could feel induced or directed to access voluntary assisted dying.

Training for health practitioners is also important. This is particularly needed for GPs and specialists working in end-of-life care. Training will support health practitioners to facilitate informed discussions with patients and families.

Strong community support was a key argument in legalising voluntary assisted dying in Australia. The public wanted this as an end-of-life choice. But that choice is only a real one if people know it exists.

Our online resource End of Life Law in Australia has more information about voluntary assisted dying and contact points for accessing it in each state.

Ben White has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Commonwealth and state governments, and philanthropic organisations for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. In relation to voluntary assisted dying, he (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian, Western Australian and Queensland governments to design and provide the legislatively mandated training for health practitioners involved in voluntary assisted dying in those states. He (with Lindy Willmott) has also developed a model bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider. Ben is a recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project number FT190100410: Enhancing End-of-Life Decision-Making: Optimal Regulation of Voluntary Assisted Dying) funded by the Australian government. He is also a Chief Investigator on a current Australian Research Council Linkage Project on voluntary assisted dying (partnering with Voluntary Assisted Dying (Review) Boards and/or Departments of Health in five Australian States. The research this article discusses was funded by Queensland Health.

Lindy Willmott receives or has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth and state governments for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. She is a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council Linkage Project on voluntary assisted dying (partnering with Voluntary Assisted Dying (Review) Boards and/or Departments of Health in five Australian States. She (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian, Western Australian and Queensland governments to design and provide the legislatively mandated training for health practitioners involved in voluntary assisted dying in those states. She (with Ben White) has also developed a model bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider. Lindy Willmott is also a member of the Queensland Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board, but writes this piece in her capacity as an academic researcher. She is a former board member of Palliative Care Australia.

Rachel Feeney receives funding from the Australian Research Council for research about voluntary assisted dying. Rachel has been employed on multiple research projects as a research fellow at the Australian Centre for Health Law Research. She is also employed on End of Life Law for Clinicians, a training program for clinicians about end of life law, funded by the Commonwealth government. Rachel was previously engaged as a clinical consultant for the Voluntary Assisted Dying Training Education Module for Healthcare Workers in Queensland.

– ref. Voluntary assisted dying is legal in Australia – but many of us don’t know – https://theconversation.com/voluntary-assisted-dying-is-legal-in-australia-but-many-of-us-dont-know-248114

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rajkishore Nayak, Associate Professor , RMIT University Vietnam

If you’ve ever made kombucha, you will be familiar with the term SCOBY – a symbiotic culture of bacteria and yeast. It’s impossible to miss – it’s the floating biofilm on top of your delicious drink.

While a SCOBY looks gross, it is remarkably versatile. If you feed it on sugar and tea or coffee in large vats, it grows rapidly. The reason you need tea or coffee is because caffeine contains nitrogen, which stimulates microorganism growth. Species of bacteria in the SCOBY such as komagataeibacter xylinus have the curious ability to eat sugars and produce bacterial cellulose.

The reason we and other researchers are focused on this unusual substance is because cellulose is extremely useful. Cotton is largely cellulose, as is flax, which we use to produce linen. Cellulose from bacteria has the advantage of being about ten times stronger than cotton.

Traditional methods of making the world’s clothes comes at a large environmental cost. If we can scale up production of bacterial cellulose using common materials such as sugar and tea, we might produce a new kind of versatile, sustainable textile. In our new research, we use this cellulose to make wallets and canvases for painting.

What’s so good about bacterial cellulose?

Deriving cellulose from bacteria isn’t new. It was first discovered back in 1886. Since then, the main use we’ve found for it has been in food and drink.

Kombucha – sometimes known as tea-mushroom – is thought to have been invented in China. In the Philippines, people have long fermented pineapple juice or coconut water to produce enough SCOBY to make chewy, gelatinous desserts. But this source of cellulose could be used for much more.

In recent years, researchers have looked into using food waste to make this cellulose.

Bacterial cellulose is made by cultivating a SCOBY in sugared tea, just like kombucha. But instead of the drink, what we are after is the SCOBY itself. As the microbes feed on the sugar, they spin out cellulose fibre and form a dense mat able to be harvested and processed.

Despite not being from plants, the bacterial cellulose is remarkably similar to cellulose from cotton. In some ways, it might be better – it is incredibly pure, highly absorbent and boasts impressive tensile strength. It’s natural, nontoxic, has a low environmental footprint and is biodegradable.

These traits make it potentially suitable for a range of uses, from clothing through to biomedical use in gauze bandages due to natural antibacterial properties. It can be dyed, sewed and treated to make different textures. It can be used to replace leather in clothing, footwear and accessories.

But clothing is the main game. Researchers have found ways of growing this cellulose in moulds shaped like pieces of clothing to avoid the 15-20% of material wasted by cutting fabric.

Bacterial cellulose might offer a way to reduce our reliance on the fibres we use to make clothes, which come with substantial environmental costs regardless of whether they are natural or synthetic.

Farming cotton requires huge volumes of water and plentiful pesticides and insecticides. To make one kilo of cotton fibre requires between 8,000 and 22,000 litres of fresh water. Synthetic fabrics such as polyester and nylon are made from oil, a fossil fuel.

The textile industry is highly polluting, consuming vast amounts of water and energy. As fashion gets ever faster, many of these clothes have a short lifespan before becoming waste. Synthetic fibres shed huge volumes of microplastics at every step of their lifespans.

The challenge of fermentation

In recent years, there’s been great interest in precision fermentation – using the rapid growth rate of microbes to produce foods and materials we want, such as milk grown without cows.

One of the big challenges with these approaches is scale. Bacterial cellulose is a similar form of fermentation. As a result, it faces similar challenges around scalability and efficiency. While the material has promise, the question is whether it can be produced cheaply and at scale.

To date, we haven’t yet found how to scale bacterial cellulose up to the level needed to meet the demand of large clothing manufacturers. And at present, the fermentation process is water intensive. Fermentation makes the water acidic, meaning it can’t be easily reused.

This fibre could readily replace cotton, but doesn’t have the same extreme durability and elasticity as some synthetic fibres.

Which way forward?

The way we currently make clothes comes at a huge environmental cost. Bacterial cellulose could offer one way to make clothes at vastly lower cost to the planet.

While there are still questions over whether it’s possible to make it competitive, researchers in several countries – including our research group – are coming at the problem from different angles. If they succeed, we might one day see a future where clothes and shoes come from sugar and tea.

Rajkishore Nayak works for RMIT University Vietnam. We received Tier II funding from the the office of Research & Innovation at RMIT University Vietnam & CSIRO Australia.

Donna Cleveland works for RMIT University Vietnam. She received funding from a Tier II grant from the the office of Research & Innovation at RMIT University Vietnam & CSIRO Australia..

– ref. Fermented clothing? Here’s how the biofilm on kombucha can be turned into green textiles – https://theconversation.com/fermented-clothing-heres-how-the-biofilm-on-kombucha-can-be-turned-into-green-textiles-228904

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Leslie, Lecturer in Curriculum and Pedagogy with a focus on Educational Psychology, University of Southern Queensland

It’s back-to-school season around Australia. While many students will be excited to reunite with friends, or have some nerves about the first day, others may feel an overwhelming sense of dread about school.

This can be confusing and worrying for parents.

We are researching child and parent perspectives about what is making school too stressful to attend. We have found it is useful to think about school attendance as a spectrum that may look like reluctance at one end and emotional distress at the other.

Understanding the difference can help you to know which supports to seek for your child.

School attendance in Australia

Last week, new national figures showed school attendance continues to be an issue in Australian schools post-COVID.

In 2024, school attendance rates (the number of days students attend) for Years 1–10 was 88.3%. This is down slightly from 88.6% in 2023. Student attendance levels (the percentage of students who go for more than 90% of the time) was 59.8% in 2024, down from 61.6% in 2023.

In 2019, national attendance rates were 91.4% and attendance levels were 73.1%.

While these reports don’t tell us why the figures are dropping, we know school refusal is a common and growing issue. A 2023 Senate inquiry heard how family requests for support to groups such as School Can’t Australia have almost doubled every year since 2014.

A 2023 Greens-commissioned survey of 1,000 families found 39% said their child had been unable to attend school in the past year because of anxiety or stress.

What is school reluctance?

Sometimes children and young people will not want to go to school but it is not school refusal.

When this is temporary and tied to a specific stressor, such as a test, social conflict, sports lesson or event like a camp or swimming carnival, it can be described as “school reluctance”.

Signs can include clinginess in younger children or teenagers, as well as complaints of seemingly minor ailments such as a tummy ache, headache or “feeling sick”.

In these cases, it is important for parents to validate a child’s feelings. Using phrases such as “I can see you’re nervous about starting a new class” can make children feel seen and heard.

Families should also set up predictable morning routines to help children build self-regulation skills. If you celebrate small wins, such as completing the day, or getting to school on time, you can help boost motivation and confidence.

These early interventions can help avoid escalation into more significant school-related distress.

Read more:
Is your child nervous about going back to school? Try asking them what they are looking forward to

When it’s more than reluctance

But at other times, a child’s issues with school are more serious and a child feels overwhelmed by stressors that make attending school feel threatening, unsafe and impossible. This is what is seen as “school refusal”, although some families and researchers are now using the term “school can’t” to reframe the issue and avoid blaming children in these situations.

Some signs this could be happening to your child include:

• spending significant portions of the school day in the office or sick bay

• extreme difficulty in getting ready in the morning, even with basic tasks such as dressing or making breakfast

• physical symptoms such as nausea or dizziness that worsen on school days, but may also be evident on weekends

• persistent absences from school, even with encouragement and support

• extreme emotional reactions – crying, anger or complete withdrawal – when school is mentioned.

Who can be impacted?

Reports show school refusal is more common in some groups, for example neurodiverse students, gender-diverse students, and students born with innate variations of sex characteristics (also known as intersex variations / traits).

School refusal is closely associated with social anxiety, separation anxiety and school anxiety. This anxiety can become overwhelming and trigger a student’s need to avoid the environment that is causing them emotional distress. For these students, not going to school might be a survival mechanism or a way to respond to burnout.

Whatever the reason, we know this can lead to stress and conflict for families. For students, it can have long-term effects on academic success, social skills and mental health, as well as poorer outcomes after they leave school.

Supporting your child

If your child is refusing or can’t go to school, they need your empathy and support. Listen to them and be their advocate. Remember, you know them best. You can also:

• seek professional help. A psychologist may help uncover and address the root causes of their distress

• work with the school. Talk to teachers and staff about accommodations such as flexible schedules or sensory breaks, and how else they may offer inclusive, affirming and supportive learning environments

• think outside the box. This can include prioritising wellbeing over attendance. Consider a break from schooling or alternative forms of education, which may suit your family better

• seek support from other families. You are not alone – there are many other families who share this experience.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800.

Rachel Leslie is affiliated with the Queensland Guidance and Counselling Association of Queensland and the Australian Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools association. She is working with family support and advocacy organisation School Can’t Australia as part of her research.

Annette Brömdal receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund; Queensland Mental Health Commission; Queensland Sexual Health Research Fund; the Department of Education, Queensland; and the Australian Association of Gerontology. Annette is affiliated with Lifeline Darling Down and South West QLD Ltd as a volunteer Board Director. She is working with family support and advocacy organisation School Can’t Australia as part of her research.

Cris Townley is working with family support and advocacy organisation School Can’t Australia as part of their research. They are also a member of the the School Can’t Australia support network, and of the advocacy network Parents for Trans Youth Equity (P-TYE).

Glenys Oberg is working with family support and advocacy organisation School Can’t Australia as part of her research.

– ref. Is it school reluctance or refusal? How to tell the difference and help your child – https://theconversation.com/is-it-school-reluctance-or-refusal-how-to-tell-the-difference-and-help-your-child-247805

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Colin Bednall, Associate Professor in Management, Swinburne University of Technology

Returning to work after a summer break can be jarring, especially for the many workers dissatisfied with their jobs. Almost half report high levels of job-related stress.

Dissatisfaction can be tied to an unhealthy, even toxic workplace where negative behaviour and poor leadership harm employee wellbeing and productivity.

Key indicators include bullying, harassment, lack of trust, poor communication and high job strain.

The impact of toxic workplaces

If you think your workplace is toxic, it is worth considering the impact it is having on your mental health. You might also consider how committed your organisation is to supporting its employees’ mental health.

Toxicity can develop gradually through subtle patterns of micromanagement, exclusion, or eroding morale. These dynamics create a draining environment that undermines individual wellbeing and business success.

As well as affecting employees’ mental health, there is growing evidence workplace stress may lead to serious physical health problems, such as cardiovascular disease.

According to Safe Work Australia, mental health-related workers’ compensation claims have increased by over a third since 2017-2018.

In 2021-2022, there were 11,700 accepted claims relating to mental health conditions. These cases proved highly costly for employers, with the median compensation paid being A$58,615.

The International Standards Organisation released a global standard in 2021 to help manage psychological health and safety risks in workplaces.

A number of countries, including Canada and Australia, have introduced laws and standards making employers responsible for preventing and managing work-related stress.

To support a safe workplace, some researchers (including one of the authors) have recommended an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to ensure companies respond appropriately to mental health risks.

What your employer is doing in the following three areas can show how committed they are to protecting mental health.

1. Preventing, minimising or managing the negatives

Most work, health and safety legislation and standards in Australia relates to protecting employees from physical hazards, including slips, trips and falls.

More recently, attention has turned to psychosocial hazards.

Safe Work Australia and Comcare, as well as state and territory regulators, keep a list of common hazards.

These include bullying, excessive workloads, low job control, lack of role clarity and exposure to traumatising events, for example, witnessing an accident.

These lists are not exhaustive and there are some problems unique to specific jobs. For instance, teachers are often isolated from their colleagues, face big administrative loads and sometimes have to deal with abusive students and/or parents.

Most employers can make necessary improvements including creating fairer workloads, redefining job roles and providing more support to individual employees.

2. Responding to employee mental health issues

Despite efforts to minimise the impact of psychosocial hazards, some employees will nonetheless experience mental health issues.

Employers should not try to treat an employee’s mental health problems. They should support them and direct them to appropriate mental health care.

Managers can also help by identifying signs of distress, having sensitive conversations with workers about the impact of mental illness and making reasonable changes to their roles.

Giving employees access to support services through employee assistance programs, which can offer confidential short-term counselling, can also help.

Establishing a critical incident investigation procedure for events that have compromised employee mental health can help identify the cause of incidents and shape responses.

3. Promoting the positive

As well as managing the negative aspects of work, organisations can create conditions that promote employee mental health and wellbeing.

One approach for doing this is to provide flexible working arrangements, such as hybrid work, which can offer employees greater choice in work location and scheduling.

Another approach involves fostering social connectedness and inclusion among employees. This could involve team-building, social events and opportunities for employees to build relationships.

Leaders can also promote a culture of psychological safety – where employees feel able to bring their authentic selves to work and speak their minds freely. This has been linked to greater employee wellbeing.

The SMART model suggests employees will be most satisfied in jobs that provide stimulation (for example, solving meaningful problems), mastery (receiving mentoring or constructive feedback), autonomy (creative freedom), social relationships (supportive colleagues) and tolerable demands (lack of psychosocial hazards).

Should I stay or should I go?

Making the decision to leave a workplace requires careful consideration.

In addition to your own wellbeing, you should consider whether your organisation prioritises mental health and how comfortable you would feel initiating a discussion about mental health.

Remember while changing jobs is a big step, staying in a toxic workplace can have serious long-term consequences for both mental and physical health.

Consider seeking advice through your employee assistance program or an independent career counsellor.

Whatever you decide, prioritising your mental health and wellbeing should be central to your decision making.

Timothy Colin Bednall holds a part-time appointment as Head of Data Science with FlourishDx, a consultancy focused on workplace mental health. He receives funding from the National Mental Health Commission.

Kathryn Page has previously received research funding from WorkSafe Victoria, SuperFriend, VicHealth, and the NHMRC in the areas of workplace mental health. In addition to her Adjunct Professor role at Swinburne University she works full time as a Leadership Partner with ByMany. ByMany is a leadership consultancy. It does not do psychosocial risk assessments.

– ref. Changing jobs is a big move but it’s worth considering if your workplace is toxic – https://theconversation.com/changing-jobs-is-a-big-move-but-its-worth-considering-if-your-workplace-is-toxic-246885

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ming Gao, Research Scholar of East Asia Studies, Gender and Women’s History Research Centre, Australian Catholic University

Red envelopes, known as hongbao in Mandarin, are a cherished cultural tradition in China and many other parts of Asia.

In China, the vibrant red colour symbolises good fortune and joy. Hongbao can be given during many various festive and joyful occasions, and they are a prominent feature of Lunar New Year.

Receiving a hongbao is something most Chinese people, particularly children, eagerly anticipate every Lunar New Year. It was also one of my fondest childhood memories. But what’s the history behind this tradition?

A historical tradition

The origins of hongbao can be traced back to the Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) when amulet-like items in the shapes of coins were worn.

Early practices resembling money giving took place in the Tang dynasty court (618–907 CE), where coins were scattered in springtime as part of celebrations.

Giving children money during celebrations became an established custom during the Song and Yuan dynasties (960–1368). In the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368–1911/12), this tradition evolved further with money being given to children threaded on red string.

The modern concept of hongbao emerged in early 20th-century China. Elders would give money wrapped in red paper to children during the Lunar New Year as a talisman against evil spirits, known as sui (祟).

The red envelopes given to children, or in some cases unmarried adults, during Lunar New Year are also called ya sui qian.

Colloquially, ya sui qian translates to “suppressing age money”, as sui (岁) also means age. Ya sui qian reflects the belief this money could ward off misfortune and slow ageing.

In traditional contexts, the amount of money inside the envelope carries symbolic meaning.

Even numbers, except for the number four (considered unlucky due to its phonetic similarity to the word for “death” in Chinese), are regarded as lucky. Six (symbolising smooth progress) and eight (symbolising prosperity) are particularly favoured.

Beyond monetary value, the act of giving and receiving hongbao represents a gesture of goodwill, reinforcing social bonds and conveying respect and care.

The digital revolution

Today, hongbao straddle the worlds of tradition and modernity, adapting to societal changes while preserving their cultural essence.

Super-apps like WeChat and AliPay have transformed this age-old practice from a physical tradition into a digital, virtual experience.

WeChat popularised the concept of “digital red envelopes” in 2014, incorporating gamified elements such as randomised monetary amounts and group exchanges.

In 2017, WeChat recorded a staggering 14.2 billion hongbao transactions on the eve of Lunar New Year alone. While the initial excitement around the digital hongbao has waned over time, the practice remains popular. On Lunar New Year’s Eve in 2024, WeChat users recorded approximately 5.08 billion digital hongbao transactions.

The shift to digital formats aligns with our increasingly cashless society, making it easier for people to participate in the custom, even across great distances. Families separated by migration can partake in this tradition in real time, maintaining connections that might otherwise weaken over long distances.

My child doesn’t get to see my parents very often, but my mother promised to send a “large” hongbao to her grandchild on the eve of the Lunar New Year this year. Despite the geographical distance spanning the ocean between Australia and China, the tradition of giving hongbao transcends borders, connecting our family members across continents every Lunar New Year.

Societal significance

The enduring popularity of hongbao highlights its importance in Chinese culture. It serves not only as a means of giving but also as a way to uphold tradition amid rapid modernisation.

The act of giving hongbao, whether physical or digital, reinforces intergenerational ties and preserves cultural heritage. Parents and grandparents giving hongbao to children during Lunar New Year continue to embody the traditional values of family and unity.

But the digitisation of hongbao has sparked debates about its impact on traditional values. Some argue the ease of sending digital hongbao reduces the personal touch and thoughtfulness inherent in the physical exchange.

Others view it as an evolution that keeps the practice relevant and accessible in a fast-paced world.

Regional variations

While hongbao is most closely associated with Chinese culture, similar traditions exist across Asia, each with notable regional variations.

In Korea, during the Lunar New Year (Seollal), elders give money to young or unmarried adults after receiving their New Year’s bow (sebae). One legend suggests the Korean tradition originates from China. However, unlike the red envelopes used in Chinese culture, the money in Korea can be presented in white envelopes, as whiteness in Korean culture symbolises purity and new beginnings.

In Singapore, where a diverse population blends Chinese, Malay and Indian traditions, the giving of hongbao (also known as ang bao or ang pow in Hokkien) is a common practice. This tradition has extended beyond the Chinese population, reflecting the cultural influence of Chinese diasporic communities.

While red envelopes are traditional, envelopes in other colours, such as pink or gold, are also considered acceptable.

The Future of hongbao

As technology continues to shape societal norms, the practice of giving hongbao is likely to further evolve.

The advancement of E-CNY (China’s digital currency), regardless of its ultimate success, could introduce new dimensions to traditional practices, enabling more innovative and secure forms of exchange.

The enduring appeal of hongbao lies in its core values: the celebration of relationships, the sharing of blessings, and the preservation of cultural heritage.

As the Lunar New Year of the Snake approaches, it’s wise to have some hongbao ready, whether digital or physical, to avoid being caught off guard by a playful youngster cheerfully exclaiming, “May you be prosperous, now hand over the red envelope!” (“gong xi fa cai, hong bao na lai”). This light-hearted and catchy greeting cleverly combines good wishes with a cheeky request for a hongbao.

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

– ref. What is the story of hongbao, the red envelopes given out at celebrations like Lunar New Year? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-story-of-hongbao-the-red-envelopes-given-out-at-celebrations-like-lunar-new-year-247687

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Andreotta, Lecturer, School of Management and Marketing, Curtin University

Think about the last app you downloaded. Did you read every word of the associated privacy policy? If so, did you fully understand it?

If you said “no” to either of these questions, you are not alone. Only 6% of Australians claim to read all the privacy policies that apply to them.

Don’t blame yourself too much, though. Privacy policies are often long – sometimes up to 90,000 words – and hard to understand. And there may be hundreds that apply to the average internet user (one for each website, app, device, or even car you use).

Regular reviews are also required. In 2023, for example, Elon Musk’s X updated its privacy policy to include the possibility of collecting biometric data.

For these reasons, some privacy scholars have argued that it’s nearly impossible for us to properly manage how our personal data are collected and used online.

But even though it might be hard to imagine, we can regain control over our data. Here are three possible reforms to online privacy policies that could help.

1. Visuals-based privacy policies

One way to shorten privacy policies is by replacing some text with visuals.

Recently, the Australian bank Bankwest developed a visual-style terms and conditions policy to explain one of its products. A consulting engineering company also used visuals in its employment contract.

There is evidence that suggests this promotes transparency and helps users understand the contents of a policy.

Could visuals work with online privacy policies? I think companies should try. Visuals could not only shorten online privacy policies, but also make them more intelligible.

2. Automated consent

Adding visuals won’t solve all the problems with privacy policies, as there would still be too many to go through. Another idea is to automate consent. This essentially means getting software to consent for us.

One example of this software, currently being developed at Carnegie Melon
University in the United States, is personalised privacy assistants. The software promises to:

learn our preferences and help us more effectively manage our privacy settings across a wide range of devices and environments without the need for frequent interruption.

In the future, instead of reading through hundreds of polices, you might simply configure your privacy settings once and then leave the accepting or rejecting of polices up to software.

The software could raise any red flags and make sure that your personal data are being collected and used only in ways that align with your preferences.

The technology does, however, raise a series of ethical and legal issues that will need to be wrestled with before widespread adoption.

For example, who would be liable if the software made a mistake and shared your data in a way that harmed you? Furthermore, privacy assistants would need their own privacy policies. Could users easily review them, and also track or review decisions the assistants made, in a way that was not overwhelming?

3. Ethics review

These techniques may have limited success, however, if the privacy policies themselves fail to offer user choices or are deceptive.

A recent study found that some of the top fertility apps had deceptive privacy policies. And in 2022, the Federal Court of Australia fined Google for misleading people about how it used personal data.

To help address this, privacy policies could be subject to ethical review, in much the same way that researchers must have their work reviewed by ethics committees before they are permitted to conduct research.

If a policy was found to be misleading, lacked transparency, or simply failed to offer users meaningful options, then it would fail to get approval.

Would this really work? And who would be included in the ethics committee? Further, why would companies subject their policies to external review, if they were not required to do so by law?

These are difficult questions to answer. But companies who did subject their polices to review could build trust with users.

Testing the alternatives

In 2024, Choice revealed that several prominent car brands, such as Tesla, Kia, and Hyundai, collect people’s driving data and sell it to third-party companies. Many people who drove these cars were not aware of this.

How might the above ideas help?

First, if privacy polices had visuals, data collection and use practices could be explained to users in easier-to-understand ways.

Second, if automated consent software was being used, and users had a choice, the sharing of such driving data could be blocked in advance, without users even having to read the policy, if that was what they preferred. Ideally, users could pre-configure their privacy preferences, and the software could do the rest. For example, automated consent software could indicate to companies that users do not give consent for their driving data to be sold for advertising purposes.

Third, an ethics review committee may suggest that users should be given a choice about whether to share driving data, and that the policy should be transparent and easy to understand.

Benefits of being transparent

Recent reforms to privacy laws in Australia are a good start. These reforms promise to give Australians a legal right to take action over serious privacy violations, and have a greater focus on protecting children online.

But many of the ways of empowering users will require companies to go beyond what is legally required.

One of the biggest challenges will be motivating companies to want to change.

It is important to keep in mind there are benefits of being transparent with users. It can help build trust and reputation. And in an era where consumers have become more privacy conscious, here lies an opportunity for companies to get ahead of the game.

Adam Andreotta 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. Online privacy policies can be 90,000 words long. Here are 3 ways to simplify them – https://theconversation.com/online-privacy-policies-can-be-90-000-words-long-here-are-3-ways-to-simplify-them-247095

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

Elon Musk has emerged as one of the most influential and controversial powerbrokers in the new Trump administration. He spent at least US$277 million (about A$360 million) of his own money to help Donald Trump win re-election, campaigning alongside him around the country.

This significant investment of time and money raises the question of what the world’s wealthiest person hopes to receive in return. Critics have wondered whether Musk’s support for Trump is just a straightforward commercial transaction, with Musk expecting to receive political favours.

Or does it reflect Musk’s own genuinely held political views, and perhaps personal political ambition?

From left to alt-right

Decoding Musk’s political views and tracking how they have changed over time is a complex exercise. He’s hard to pin down, largely by design.

Musk’s current X feed, for example, is a bewildering mix of far-right conspiracy theories about immigration, clips of neoliberal economist Milton Friedman warning about the dangers of inflation, and advertisements for Tesla.

Historically, Musk professes to have been a left libertarian. He says he voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020.

Musk claims that over time, the Democratic party has moved further to the left, leaving him feeling closer politically to the Republican party.

Key to Musk’s political shift, at least by his own account, is his estrangement from his transgender daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson.

After Vivian’s transition, Musk claimed she was “dead, killed by the woke mind virus”. She is very much alive.

He’s since repeatedly signalled his opposition to transgender rights and gender-affirming care, and diversity, equity and inclusion policies more broadly.

However, if the mere existence of a trans person in his family was enough to cause a political meltdown, Musk was clearly already on a trajectory towards far-right politics.

Rather than responding to a shift in the Democratic Party, it makes more sense to understand Musk’s changing politics as part of a much broader recent phenomenon known as as “the libertarian to alt-right pipeline”.

The political science, explained

Libertarianism has historically tended to be divided between left-wing and right-wing forms.

Left libertarians support economic policies of limited government, such as cutting taxes and social spending, and deregulation more broadly. This is combined with progressive social policies, such as marriage equality and drug decriminalisation.

By contrast, right libertarians support the same set of economic policies, but hold conservative social views, such as opposing abortion rights and celebrating patriotism.

Historically, the Libertarian Party in the United States adopted an awkward middle ground between the two poles.

The past decade, though, has seen the Libertarian Party, and libertarianism more generally, move strongly to the right. In particular, many libertarians have played leading roles in the alt-right movement.

The alt-right or “alternative right” refers to the recent resurgence of far-right political movements opposing multiculturalism, gender equality and diversity, and supporting white nationalism.

The alt-right is a very online movement, with its leading activists renowned for internet trolling and “edgelording” – that is, the posting of controversial and confronting content to deliberately stoke controversy and attract attention.

Though some libertarians have resisted the pull of the alt-right, many have been swept along the pipeline, including prominent leaders in the movement.

Making sense of Musk

While this discussion of theory may seem abstract, it helps to understand what Musk’s values are (beneath the chaotic tweets and Nazi salutes).

In economic terms, Musk remains a limited-government libertarian. He advocates cutting government spending, reducing taxes and repealing regulation – especially regulations that put limits on his businesses.

His formal role in the Trump administration as head of the “Department of Government Efficiency”, also known as DOGE, is targeted at these goals.

Musk has suggested that in cutting government spending, he will particularly target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This is the alt-right influence on display.

Alt-right sensibilities are most evident, however, in Musk’s online persona.

On X, Musk has deliberately stoked controversy by boosting and engaging with white nationalists and racist conspiracy theories.

For example, he has favourably engaged with far-right politicians advocating for the antisemitic “Great Replacement theory”. This theory claims Jews are encouraging mass migration to the global north as part of a deliberate plot to eliminate the white race.

More recently, Musk has endorsed the far-right in Germany. He’s also shared videos from known white supremacists outlining the racist “Muslim grooming gangs” conspiracy theory in the United Kingdom.

Whether Musk actually believes these outlandish racist conspiracy theories is, in many ways, irrelevant.

Rather, Musk’s public statements are better understood as reflecting philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s famous definition of “bullshit”. For Frankfurt, “bullshit” refers to statements made to impress or provoke in which the speaker is simply not concerned with whether the statement is actually true.

Much of Musk’s online persona is part of a deliberate alt-right populist strategy to stoke controversy, upset “the left”, and then claim to be a persecuted victim when criticised.

Theory vs practice

Though Musk’s public statements might fit nicely into contemporary libertarianism, there are always contradictions when putting ideology into practice.

For example, despite Musk’s oft-stated preference for limited government, it’s well documented that his companies have received extensive subsidies and support from various governments.

Musk will expect this special treatment to continue under a quintessentially transactional president such as Trump.

The vexed issue of immigration also presents some contradictions.

Across the campaign, both Musk and Trump repeatedly criticised immigration to the US. Reprising the themes of the far-right Great Replacement theory, Musk claimed illegal immigration was a deliberate plot by Democrats to “replace” the existing electorate with “compliant illegals”.

However, after the election Musk has argued Trump should preserve categories of skilled migration such as the H1-B visas. This angered more explicit white supremacists, such as Trump advisor Laura Loomer.

Musk’s motives in arguing for the visas are not humanitarian. H1-B visas allow temporary workers to enter the country for up to six years, making them entirely dependent on the sponsoring company. It’s a situation some have called “indentured servitude”.

These visas have been used heavily in the technology sector, including in companies owned by both Musk and Trump.

An unsteady alliance

So what might we expect from Musk now that he has both political office and influence?

Musk’s stated aim of using DOGE to cut $2 trillion from the US budget would represent an unprecedented transformation of government. It also seems highly unlikely.

Instead, expect Musk to focus on creating controversy by cutting DEI initiatives and other politically sensitive programs, such as support for women’s reproductive rights.

Musk will clearly use his political influence to look after the interests of his companies. Shares in Tesla surged to record highs following Trump’s re-election, suggesting investors believe Musk will be a major financial beneficiary of the second Trump administration.

Finally, Musk will undoubtedly use his new position to remain in the public eye. This last part might lead Musk into conflict with another expert in shaping the media cycle – Trump himself.

Musk has already reportedly fallen out with Vivek Ramaswamy, who will now no longer co-lead DOGE with Musk.

Exactly how stable the alliance between Trump and Musk is, and whether the egos and interests of the two billionaires can continue to coexist, remains to be seen.

If the alliance persists, it will be a key factor in shaping what many are terming the emergence of a “new gilded age” of political corruption and soaring inequality.

Henry Maher 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. Elon Musk now has an office in the White House. What’s his political game plan? – https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-now-has-an-office-in-the-white-house-whats-his-political-game-plan-248011

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

Some communities are “GP deserts”, where there are too few GPs to ensure everyone can get the care they need when they need it. These communities are typically sicker and poorer than the rest of Australia, but receive less care and face higher fees.

At the 2025 federal election, all parties should commit to changing that. The next government – whether Labor or Coalition, majority or minority – should set a minimum level of access to GP care, and fund local schemes to fill the worst gaps.

People in GP deserts miss out on care

About half a million Australians live in GP deserts. These are communities in the bottom 5% for GP services per person. Most GP deserts are in remote Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, and some are in Canberra.

People in GP deserts receive 40% fewer GP services than the national average. This means less of the essential check-ups, screening and medication management GPs provide.

Nurses and Aboriginal health workers help plug some of the gap, but even then GP deserts aren’t close to catching up to other areas.

And some people miss out altogether. Last year, 8% of people older than 65 in these areas didn’t see the GP at all, compared to less than 1% in the rest of the country.

Poorer and sicker places miss out, year after year

GP deserts are in the worst possible places. These communities are typically sicker and poorer, so they should be getting more care than the rest of Australia, not less.

People in GP deserts are almost twice more likely to go to hospital for a condition that might have been avoided with good primary care, or to die from an avoidable cause.

Most GP deserts are in the bottom 40% for wealth, yet pay more for care. Patients in GP deserts are bulk billed six percentage points less than the national average.

These communities miss out year after year. While rises and falls in national bulk billing rates get headlines, the persistent gaps in GP care are ignored. The same communities have languished well below the national average for more than a decade.

Policies to boost rural primary care don’t go far enough

Most GP deserts are rural, so recent policies to boost rural primary care could help a bit.

In response to rising out-of-pocket costs, the government has committed A$3.5 billion to triple bulk-billing payments for the most disadvantaged. Those payments are much higher for clinics in rural areas. An uptick in rural bulk billing last year is an early indication it may be working.

New rural medical schools and programs should help boost rural GP supply, since students who come from, and train in, rural areas are more likely to work in them. A “rural generalist” pathway recognises GPs who have trained in an additional skill, such as obstetrics or mental health services.

But broad-based rural policies are not enough. Not all rural areas are GP deserts, and not all GP deserts are rural. Australia also needs more tailored approaches.

Local schemes can work

Some communities have taken matters into their own hands.

In Triabunna on Tasmania’s east coast, a retirement in 2020 saw residents left with only one GP, forcing people to travel to other areas for care, sometimes for well over an hour. This was a problem for other towns in the region too, such as Swansea and Bicheno, as well as much of rural Tasmania.

In desperation, the local council has introduced a A$90 medical levy to help fund new clinics. It’s also trialling a new multidisciplinary care approach, bringing together many different health practitioners to provide care at a single contact point and reduce pressure on GPs. Residents get more care and spend less time and effort coordinating individual appointments.

Murrumbidgee in New South Wales has taken a different approach. There, trainee doctors retain a single employer throughout their placements. That means they can work across the region, in clinics funded by the federal government and hospitals managed by the state government, without losing employment benefits. That helps trainees to stay closely connected to their communities and their patients. Murrumbidgee’s success has inspired similar trials in other parts of NSW, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania.

These are promising approaches, but they put the burden on communities to piece together funding to plug holes. Without secure funding, these fixes will remain piecemeal and precarious, and risk a bidding war to attract GPs, which would leave poorer communities behind.

Australia should guarantee a minimum level of GP care

The federal government should guarantee a minimum level of general practice for all communities. If services funded by Medicare and other sources stay below that level for years, funding should automatically become available to bridge the gap.

The federal and state governments should be accountable for fixing GP deserts. These regions typically have small populations, few clinicians, and limited infrastructure. So governments must work together to make the best use of scarce resources.

Funding must be flexible, because every GP desert is different. Sometimes the solution may be as simple as helping an existing clinic hire extra staff. Other communities may want to set up a new clinic, or introduce telehealth for routine check-ups. There is no lack of ideas about how to close gaps in care, the problem lies in funding them.

Lifting all GP deserts to the top of the desert threshold – or guaranteeing at least 4.5 GP services per person per year, adjusted for age, would cost the federal government at least A$30 million a year in Medicare payments.

Providing extra services in GP deserts will be more expensive than average. But even if the cost was doubled or tripled, it would still be only a fraction of the billions of dollars of extra incentives GPs are getting to bulk bill – and it would transform the communities that need help the most.

GP deserts didn’t appear overnight. Successive governments have left some communities with too little primary care. The looming federal election gives every party the opportunity to make amends.

If they do, the next term of government could see GP deserts eliminated for good.

Peter Breadon and Wendy Hu do 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. Grattan Institute has been supported in its work by government, corporates, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

.

– ref. Too many Australians miss out on essential medical care every year. Here’s how to fix ‘GP deserts’ – https://theconversation.com/too-many-australians-miss-out-on-essential-medical-care-every-year-heres-how-to-fix-gp-deserts-245253

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Rowley, Honorary Associate Professor, The Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Within hours of taking office last week, President Donald Trump made good on his pledges to wind back the United States’ climate action – including withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement.

This political show comes barely a week after 2024 was revealed as the world’s hottest year and following the catastrophic Los Angeles fires. The fires directly killed 20 people; potentially many more will die from toxic smoke and other after-effects.

The science is clear: achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 is humanity’s only hope of achieving some measure of climate security. It’s time to think deeply on our chances of getting there.

Here, I outline a few reasons for pessimism, and for hope.

Reasons for pessimism

1. The data doesn’t lie

The landmark Paris Agreement, signed by 196 nations in 2015, aimed to limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels while pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. Achieving that requires reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century.

Yet nearly a decade after the agreement, global emissions continue to rise. The Global Carbon Budget estimates a record-high 37.4 billion tonnes of CO₂ was emitted last year.

And 2024 was not just the hottest year on record – it was the first year to exceed the 1.5°C temperature threshold.

It’s not too late to change trajectory. But sadly, the data show the bathtub is fast filling, and the tap is still running hard.

2. Renewable energy rollout is too slow

Renewable energy deployment is increasing and the price is falling. But it’s not happening fast enough.

According to the International Energy Agency, clean energy investment must more than double this decade if the net-zero goal is to be reached by 2050. In particular, clean energy investment in developing countries must increase significantly.

Richer nations – which are largely responsible for the stock of emissions in the atmosphere driving the climate problem – are failing to help developing countries make the clean energy shift. At the COP29 climate talks in Baku last year, developed nations agreed to give only US$300 billion (A$474 billion) a year in climate finance to developing countries by 2035. It is nowhere near enough.

3. The net-zero smokescreen

Net-zero emissions is not the same as zero emissions. It allows some industries to keep polluting, if equivalent emissions are removed from the atmosphere elsewhere to keep the balance at zero.

This means nations that are purportedly committed to the net-zero goal can continue with business as usual, or worse.

In 2023, for example, then-British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced 100 new oil and gas licences in the North Sea, saying it was “entirely consistent” with his government’s net-zero goal. The same logic has allowed Australia’s environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, to approve new coal mines.

Both decisions came from governments that have pledged commitment to reaching net-zero – yet both are clearly making the goal harder to achieve.

These are just a few of the reasons to feel pessimistic about getting to net-zero – there are many more.

Barriers exist to extracting the critical minerals needed in low-emissions technology. Differences in human relationships to nature means we will never reach full agreement on how to respond to environmental risk. And globally, there is rising mistrust in international agreements and institutions.

But it’s not all doom and gloom. Here’s why.

Reasons for hope

1. Renewable energy is cheap

Renewable energy has become the cheapest form of new electricity in history. The technologies are now less expensive than coal and gas in most major countries.

The International Energy Agency projects global renewable capacity will increase by more than 5,520 gigawatts between 2024 and 2030. This is 2.6 times more than the deployment over the six years to 2023.

The growth in rooftop solar is expected to more than triple, as equipment costs decline and social acceptance increases.

2. Commitments to net-zero are many

Global support for the net-zero goal is significant. According to Net Zero Tracker, 147 of 198 countries have set a net-zero target. Some 1,176 of the 2,000 largest publicly traded companies by revenue have also adopted it.

Without seeing the plans, numbers, laws, regulations and investments required to achieve these ambitions, one should be sceptical – but not cynical.

3. Tech innovation and climate response are in lock-step

Twenty-five years ago, smartphones did not exist, email was new and we “surfed” a new thing called the worldwide web with a slow dial-up modem.

Similarly, our technologies will look very different 25 years from now – and many developments will ultimately help deliver the net-zero goal.

Smart electricity grids, for example, use digital technologies, sensors and software to precisely meet the demand of electricity users – making the system more efficient and reducing carbon emissions.

The European Union, United States and China are all investing vast sums to support their development.

Already, we can use smart meters to monitor electricity generation from our roofs to our cars and home batteries. This allows zero-emissions electricity to both be used and sold back to the grid.

Tech innovation is not confined to the electricity sector. As Australia’s Climate Change Authority has stated, technology offers pathways to reduce emissions across the economy – in transport, agriculture, industry and more.

4. Human talent and capacity

Many of humanity’s best minds are now focused on reducing climate risk.

Climate change mitigation is attracting remarkable professionals in roles unimaginable 25 years ago – from engineers developing breakthrough renewable technologies to financial experts designing green investment products, policy specialists crafting new regulations, and climate scientists refining our understanding of climate risk.

And among much of the public, global support for climate action is strong.

No time for despair

The fact that humans caused climate change is an enabling truth: we also have the capacity to make decisions to address the problem.

Our choices today will make a difference. It will be a bumpy road – but to achieve some measure of climate security, net-zero is a goal we must achieve.

Nick Rowley 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. 3 reasons to fear humanity won’t reach net-zero emissions – and 4 reasons we might just do it – https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-to-fear-humanity-wont-reach-net-zero-emissions-and-4-reasons-we-might-just-do-it-247992

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Lewis, Associate Professor of Comparative Education, Australian Catholic University

Year 12 is arguably the most important year of school. It is full of exams, milestones and decisions.

It is both the culmination of formal learning and the gateway to what lies beyond. It is an end and beginning all in one.

Unsurprisingly, many Year 12s find it to be a demanding and stressful time. So, what mindsets and habits can you set up now to give yourself the stamina and support you need for the year ahead?

Put your exams in context

The academic focus of Year 12 is an obvious source of stress for many students. While this is natural, there are many things you can do to put all the assignments and assessments in context.

Remember Year 12 should always be framed as preparing students for life after school. It is about working out where you want to go – be it further study or work – and then keeping open as many possible pathways to get you there.

While students might have a particular career goal in mind, there are always many options and they don’t all hinge entirely on your ATAR.

Know what the entrance requirements are for your preferred option (such as getting into a particular course at university), but also research other pathways if you don’t get your desired grades or preferences.

There are always alternative ways into your dream course or field of study. A TAFE diploma can unlock entrance to a bachelor’s degree and a bachelor of arts can open entry into postgraduate law. Many universities also offer early entry schemes that don’t rely on Year 12 grades or ATAR rankings.

Most of all, try to avoid thinking there is only one right path. It is about finding the right path for you at this point in time.

Read more:
‘Practically perfect’: why the media’s focus on ‘top’ Year 12 students needs to change

Don’t study all the time

While study is going to play a large role this year, it is important to make time for your mental, physical and emotional wellbeing. This will help give you stamina to face your study workload and the other demands of the year.

For example, playing sport or making art can help to enhance cognition, reduce stress and improve self-confidence.

Work out a schedule that allows time for study, rest and the things you enjoy. This could also include catch-ups with friends, walking your dog or cooking dinner with your family.

Remember that it is recommended teenagers get 8-10 hours of sleep per day. If you don’t get enough sleep, it makes it harder to think, learn and regulate your emotions.

And while it might be unpopular, it is also important to avoid excessive screen time. This can also help your sleep and decrease stress.

Create habits that can make you less reactive to technology. For example, put your phone on “do not disturb” mode when you are studying, and try to avoid screens at least an hour before bed.

Read more:
Avoid cramming and don’t just highlight bits of text: how to help your memory when preparing for exams

You’re not alone

If you’re feeling overwhelmed, don’t be afraid to ask for help.

This may be from teachers or school guidance officers, or it may be from parents, older siblings or friends. Reach out to trusted people early if you are worried or anxious, and support your fellow Year 12s to do the same.

Look for signs in yourself and others that could suggest at-risk mental health.

This might be difficulty concentrating, inability to sleep or significant changes in mood and behaviour. Seeking help early can help avoid these issues escalating.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800.

Steven Lewis receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Take breaks, research your options and ditch your phone: how to take care of yourself during Year 12 – https://theconversation.com/take-breaks-research-your-options-and-ditch-your-phone-how-to-take-care-of-yourself-during-year-12-247897

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alicia Bubb, Research & Teaching Sessional Academic, RMIT University

Heard of the “singles tax”? Going it alone can also come with a hidden financial burden you may not be aware of.

Obviously, this isn’t an official levy paid to anyone in particular. It simply refers to the higher costs single people face compared to couples or families.

Single-person households have been on the rise in Australia. It’s projected they’ll account for up to 28% of all households in 2046.

People are marrying later, divorce rates remain high and an ageing population means more people live alone in older age. Many people also make a conscious decision to remain single, seeing it as a sign of independence and empowerment.

This is part of a global trend, with singledom increasing in Europe, North America and Asia.

So, how does the singles tax work – and is it worse for some groups than others? What, if anything, can we do about it?

Why does being single cost more?

One of the biggest drivers of the singles tax is the inability to split important everyday costs. For example, a single person renting a one-bedroom apartment has to bear the full cost, while a couple sharing it can split the rent.

Singles often miss out on the savings from bulk grocery purchases, as larger households consume more and can take better advantage of these deals.

Fixed costs for a house like electricity, water and internet bills often don’t increase by much when you add an extra user or two. Living alone means you pay more.

These are all examples of how couples benefit from economies of scale – the cost advantage that comes from sharing fixed or semi-fixed expenses – simply by living together.

My calculations, based on the most recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), show that singles spend about 3% more per person on goods and services compared to couples.

Compared to couples with children, single parents spend about 19% more per person. While government support mechanisms such as the child care subsidy exist, many single parents find them insufficient, especially if they work irregular hours.

Beyond the essentials

The singles tax extends beyond our “essential needs” and into the costs of travel, socialising and entertainment.

Solo travellers, for example, may encounter something called a “single supplement” – an extra fee charged for utilising an accommodation or travel product designed for two people.

Streaming services such as Netflix and Spotify offer family plans at slightly higher prices than individual ones, making them more cost-effective for larger households.

A global phenomenon

Reports from around the world paint a similar picture.

In the United States, research by real estate marketplace Zillow found singles pay on average US$7,000 ($A11,100) more annually for housing, compared to those sharing a two-bedroom apartment.

In Europe, higher living costs and limited government supports put singles at a disadvantage. And in Canada, singles report feeling the pinch of rising rent and grocery prices.

The tax systems of many countries can amplify the financial burden of being single, by favouring couples and families.

In the United States, for example, tax policies intended to alleviate poverty often exclude childless adults, disproportionately taxing them into poverty.

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) reduces tax liabilities by providing refundable credits to low-income workers. It’s had some significant benefits for families, but offers minimal support to single, childless individuals.

As economist Patricia Apps argues, tax and transfer policies often fail to account for the complexities of household income distribution.

These systems favour traditional family structures by providing benefits like spousal offsets or joint income tax breaks. Single individuals and single-parent households are left bearing a disproportionate financial burden.

Who is affected the most?

The singles tax disproportionately impacts women, who are more likely to live alone than men.

This can compound existing financial pressures such as the gender pay gap, taking career breaks, and societal expectations leaving them with lower retirement savings.

For older women, the singles tax adds another layer of difficulty to maintaining financial security.

And it can seriously exacerbate financial pressures on single mothers. Many rely on child support payments, which are often inconsistent or inefficient, leaving them financially vulnerable.

Working part-time or in casual roles due to caregiving responsibilities further limits their earning potential.

There are unique challenges for single men, too, who may lack the same access to family-oriented subsidies and workplace flexibility. Single men may also face societal expectations to spend more on dating or socialising.

Alarmingly, men are disproportionately represented among the homeless population, making up 55.9% of people experiencing homelessness, and single men have a higher risk of premature death.

Growing recognition

While the singles tax highlights big systemic inequities, there are signs the issue is receiving more attention.

Some advocacy groups are pushing for better financial protections and child support reforms for single mothers.

Similarly, efforts to address homelessness have gained momentum, with increased attention to advocacy and services for single men facing housing insecurity.

There is also the potential to design tax systems to reduce these inequities. Tax systems that treat individuals as economic units, instead of basing benefits on household structures, could mitigate the singles tax and create a fairer system for all.

Nothing to disclose.

Sarah Sinclair 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 ‘singles tax’ means you often pay more for going it alone. Here’s how it works – https://theconversation.com/the-singles-tax-means-you-often-pay-more-for-going-it-alone-heres-how-it-works-247578

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Whiting, Vice-Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow, RMIT University

Predictions for this year’s Hottest 100 countdown revealed an interesting trend that has come to dominate popular music over the past decade: the prevalence of solo artists over bands.

In the past 15 years, only five winners of the Hottest 100 were bands, compared to 13 in the 15 years prior to that. This shift is being replicated across charts globally.

And it’s not just rock bands that are losing out, but bands of all sorts, including pop groups (with the considerable exception of K-pop).

The rise of solo artists doesn’t signify some sort of embrace of a hyper-individual idol culture, nor should we nostalgically lament a mythical “golden era of bands”. Solo artists have always been pervasive within popular music. Also, most bands are driven by one or two key songwriters, and often fronted by a charismatic individual.

The trend towards solo artists is less a product of culture, and more a result of the creative and economic realities of pop music’s production, consumption, distribution and marketing.

Doing more with less

With the emergence of digital audio workstations, home studio technologies, and the widespread availability of video tutorials, musicians and songwriters no longer need costly rehearsal rooms and recording studios to produce new music.

They can record demos and workshop material with less players in the room, or in many cases with no room at all – as a large bulk of the work is done digitally.

This has made writing and producing music cheaper, easier and more efficient. What previously might have required a whole band can now be done by a single artist with the help of a producer and some session musicians.

More revenue between less people

It’s no secret musicians are doing it tough in the streaming era. Many receive limited income from recorded music, and are pushed to depend heavily on touring and merchandise.

Why then, would creatives want to increase their costs by bringing in more mouths to feed? Whether you’re a band or a solo artist, touring can come with financial risk and even major financial loss.

Solo artists retain the lion’s share of whatever profits are made. Rather than negotiating tricky revenue-sharing agreements between members, they can hire session and contract musicians as needed for recording and touring, keeping costs down and side-stepping ownership issues that might lead to tension in a band.

Such arrangements also make it easier to market the artist and music itself.

The artist as a brand

Creating a successful brand as a musician is more effective when working with one or two key identities, rather than a collective such as a band.

Even popular K-pop groups – which stand as an exception to the trend towards solo acts – emphasise individual members, marketing each one to a different part of their fan-base.

Likewise, many bands are strongly identified with a charismatic front-person, who tends to double as an artistic spokesperson.

It’s easier to curate an artistic and aesthetic vision around one individual, rather than several. This also helps streamline marketing activities, as well as touring and media engagements.

Bands break up

It’s a harsh reality that bands break up.

Bands can break up for many reasons, but no doubt the strain of touring plays a major role. With an increased prevalence of mental health issues among international touring musicians, as well as power imbalances and exploitative labour practices entrenched in the live music sector – touring can take a toll on many bands.

In the years since the COVID pandemic, more and more artists have cancelled tours, citing exhaustion and burnout. Solo artists only have to make this decision for themselves (although it effects their touring crew), whereas bands have to negotiate such crucial decisions collectively.

Despite good intentions and industry success, having to maintain creative and business relationships with the same group of people often becomes unsustainable.

Solo artists have a clearer separation between their creative, business and personal relationships. They can maintain a business model that doesn’t necessarily rely on the consistent commitment of three, four or five people.

Then again, this commitment is possibly the very thing that makes bands such an intriguing artistic phenemonen: a group of individuals working together to create something greater than the sum of their parts.

Such demonstrations of collective creative alchemy might be the reason bands continue to captivate our attention, despite the atomising creative and economic realities of the modern music industry.

Read more:
This K-pop band just made US Billboard history. Here’s how Stray Kids conquered the music world

Sam Whiting receives funding from RMIT University and the Winston Churchill Trust.

– ref. Breaking up the band: why solo artists have come to dominate the music charts – https://theconversation.com/breaking-up-the-band-why-solo-artists-have-come-to-dominate-the-music-charts-248123

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Richardson, Senior Lecturer and Deputy Director, Te Puna Ako Centre for Tertiary Teaching and Learning, University of Waikato

Media coverage of the recent fires in Los Angeles showed the heartbreaking damage in Pacific Palisades and elsewhere across Los Angeles County. People lost not only their houses but also the thriving communities of which they had been part.

What was quickly apparent was the desire to rebuild. People often want their lives to bounce back from every crisis or disaster and to recreate what they have lost.

And this points to a broader issue that emerges after many natural disasters. People want to rebuild and return to normal when, in the face of an increasingly volatile climate, the best option may be to adapt and change.

There is a tension between a common understanding of personal resilience and the resilience of complex adaptive systems such as cities. People have a psychological and social need for stability and permanence, but all complex systems are resilient only because they adapt when forced to.

In New Zealand, the same tension emerged in the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle. Ahead of the second anniversary of the devastating cyclone – and as Northland is battered, yet again, by severe weather and flooding – New Zealanders need to ask how we can balance our personal resilience and need for stability while also acknowledging the need for a managed retreat.

The long history of fires in Los Angeles

In his essay The Case for Letting Malibu Burn, writer Mike Davis outlines how fire is an inescapable part of Los Angeles history and how after each fire the city has always been rebuilt.

Davis’ work focuses on Los Angeles but raises important questions about the future of all communities facing increasing risks from climate change.

The repeated rebuilds in Los Angeles have created an expectation that the city will be rebuilt after every fire.

But the city also has unique physical features that make such fires inescapable: the combination of the Santa Ana winds blowing from the desert with chaparral vegetation growing in the steep and dry canyons.

Fire has always been a natural part of the cycle of regeneration in this landscape. What has changed is the encroachment of human dwellings at the foot of these hills and canyons, and into them. Between 1990 and 2020, nearly 45% of the homes built in California were placed in these high fire risk areas.

Climate change is also making both localised rain events and droughts in the Los Angeles environs more extreme, creating larger and then drier fuel loads.

From a systems perspective, a managed retreat from the areas of worst fire risk makes sense. The resilience of cities requires them to be adaptive.

Yet adaptation in Los Angeles is largely not happening. After previous fires, rebuilding has generally occurred within six years and with minimal to no change in building design or placement. People have found comfort in the idea of “bouncing back” like a rubber ball.

Pricing in the risk

There is one group within this complex system which is actually adapting in the face of increasing climate change – in Los Angeles and elsewhere, including in New Zealand.

Home insurers have drastically raised premiums in Los Angeles, or removed cover entirely from many homeowners, to cover ever-growing losses. The insurance bill for these recent fires is predicted to be US$30 billion and the frequency and cost of such climate disasters is increasing.

Together, the 2023 Auckland Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle cost insurers more than NZ$3.5 billion. The cost of insurance in New Zealand rose by 14% in 2024, significantly outpacing general consumer price inflation.

In system terms, increased insurance premiums represent some of the adaptive capacity of a community that insists on rebuilding in the face of increasing risks.

In economic terms, you can also think of insurance premiums as a market signal which is pricing the ever-increasing risk of disaster into the cost of living in such fire or flood zones.

Accepting risk or accepting change in NZ

The approaching second anniversary of Cyclone Gabrielle and the ongoing debate over managed retreat demonstrates the same tension in Aotearoa New Zealand between increasing climate risks and our very human need to rebuild and restore what we have lost.

City and regional councils are facing questions about whether to build (or rebuild) in high-risk areas.

But with two thirds of our population living in flood risk areas and both flood risks and insurance costs increasing, how many times can New Zealand rebuild in these risky areas?

In the end, we need to remember that a crucial, and sometimes overlooked, element of psychological resilience is acceptance of change.

In a world of accelerating climate change and related disasters this is increasingly the more realistic response.

Anthony Richardson 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. Wanting to ‘return to normal’ after a disaster is understandable, but often problematic – https://theconversation.com/wanting-to-return-to-normal-after-a-disaster-is-understandable-but-often-problematic-247884

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

Neale Daniher, a campaigner in the fight against motor neurone disease and a former champion Essendon footballer, is the 2025 Australian of the Year,

Himself a sufferer from the deadly disease Daniher, 63, who lives in Victoria, co-founded the charity FightMND, that has raised and invested more than $100 million into research to seek a cure.

Daniher was diagnosed in 2013. “Neale has lived his condition very publicly, even in the advanced stages of the disease,” a statement announcing the award said. He has also defied the usual odds in surviving with the disease for more than a decade when the average life expectancy is 27 months.

“With amazing courage and relentless drive, he’s dedicated his life to helping prevent the suffering of those who’ll be diagnosed in the future.”

Daniher played for Essendon between 1979 and 1990, and at 20 years old was the club’s youngest ever captain. He was senior coach of Melbourne from 1998 to 2007.

He has made appearances at FightMND’s regular Big Freeze event.

The Senior Australian of the Year is Brother Thomas Oliver Pickett, 84, from Western Australia, co-founder of Wheelchairs for Kids in 1996. The charity provides free adjustable wheelchairs and occupational therapy expertise for children in developing countries.

More than 60,000 custom-made wheelchairs have been given to children in more than 80 countries. The charity has more than 250 retired workshop volunteers (with an average age of 74); another more than 550 people sew covers, rugs and soft toys.

“Olly also spearheaded the development of an innovative, low cost wheelchair design to World Health Organisation standards that grows as the children do – a world first,” the announcement said.

The Young Australian of the Year is scientist Katrina Wruck, 30, from Queensland, a Mabuigilaig and Goemulgal woman.

Based on her research she has set up a profit-for-purpose business, Nguki Kula Green Labs “which is poised to transform the consumer goods sector by harnessing the power of green chemistry, while inspiring others to step into STEM.

“Katrina’s method of converting mining by-products to zeolite LTA – which can remove contaminants from water that cause hardness – will be commercialised.”

Local Heroes are Vanessa Brettell, 31, and Hannah Costello, 32, co- founders of Cafe Stepping Stone.

The business, in two locations in the ACT, “operates as a social enterprise, employing women mostly from migrant and refugee backgrounds and others who experience significant barriers to employment”.

Their “inclusive employment practices involve targeting female workers who are the sole income earners in their households, new arrivals to Australia, those with limited English or minimal employment history, and those experiencing homelessness”.

The awards were presented by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Canberra on Saturday night.

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. Motor neurone disease campaigner, former AFL champion Neale Daniher, is 2025 Australian of the Year – https://theconversation.com/motor-neurone-disease-campaigner-former-afl-champion-neale-daniher-is-2025-australian-of-the-year-248302

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

Peter Dutton has chosen a dark horse in naming David Coleman for the key shadow foreign affairs portfolio, in a reshuffle that also seeks to boost the opposition’s credentials with women.

Coleman has been communications spokesman. He led the opposition’s campaign for an age limit on young people’s access to social media – a policy that was later adopted by the government and now has been legislated by the parliament.

He is one of the opposition’s small band of moderates although not seen as a factional player.

Coleman, who holds the Sydney marginal seat of Banks, has done extensive work with Middle East communities and the Chinese community. He is a former minister for immigration, citizenship, migrant services and multicultural affairs.

The foreign affairs job, previously held by Simon Birmingham, who is departing parliament, was keenly sought by a number of frontbenchers. One of the aspirants was deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley, whose position entitles her to choose her portfolio, at least in theory.

Dutton has also brought Julian Leeser back onto the frontbench, as shadow assistant minister for foreign affairs. Leeser quit the shadow ministry to fight for the yes case in the 2023 Voice referendum.

While his return will be welcomed by many on merit grounds, it also reflects the high profile that Leeser, who is Jewish, has taken in demanding more action against the wave of antiseminism in Australia. Announcing his reshuffle on Saturday, Dutton described Leeser as “a powerhouse of support for Australia’s Jewish community”.

The new shadow cabinet has 11 women, the same number as in the Albanese cabinet.

Melissa McIntosh, from NSW, has been promoted to the shadow cabinet and takes Coleman’s previous job of communications. She stays shadow minister for Western Sydney.

Claire Chandler, from Tasmania and the right, is promoted to shadow cabinet as shadow minister for government services and the digital economy and shadow minister science and the arts. Chandler was in the headlines before the last election for her campaigning against trans women’s access to female sports.

The high profile Jacinta Price receives a promotion. In shades of Elon Musk’s role in the United States, in addition to her current responsibility as shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, she has been given a new role as shadow minister for government efficiency.

Tony Pasin, from South Australia and the right faction, joins the shadow ministry as spokesman on roads and road safety. The government is emphasising its roads program in its campaigning, this month announcing $7.2 billion to upgrade the Bruce Highway.

Matt O’Sullivan, a senator from Western Australia, joins the outer shadow ministry as shadow assistant minister for education.

Ted O’Brien adds energy affordability and reliability to his key role as the opposition’s energy spokesman, in which he is prosecuting the nuclear debate. It has been speculated that the government is likely to do more to give people relief on their power bills.

Kerrynne Liddle adds Indigenous health services to her responsibilities as shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence.

Victorian senator James Paterson, who as home affairs spokesman has been regarded as one of the opposition’s best performers, joins the Coalition leadership group.

Michael Sukkar becomes manager of opposition business in the House of Representatives, the position that has been held by Paul Fletcher, who is retiring at the election.

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. Peter Dutton’s reshuffle: David Coleman the surprise choice as shadow foreign minister – https://theconversation.com/peter-duttons-reshuffle-david-coleman-the-surprise-choice-as-shadow-foreign-minister-248303

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Patrick Taylor, Chief Environmental Scientist, EPA Victoria; Honorary Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

Most of us are fortunate that, when we turn on the tap, clean, safe and high-quality water comes out.

But a senate inquiry into the presence of PFAS or “forever chemicals” is putting the safety of our drinking water back in the spotlight.

Lidia Thorpe, the independent senator leading the inquiry, says Elders in the Aboriginal community of Wreck Bay in New South Wales are “buying bottled water out of their aged care packages” due to concerns about the health impacts of PFAS in their drinking water.

So, how is water deemed safe to drink in Australia? And why does water quality differ in some areas?

Here’s what happens between a water catchment and your tap.

Human intervention in the water cycle

There is no “new” water on Earth. The water we drink can be up to 4.5 billion years old and is continuously recycled through the hydrological cycle. This transfers water from the ground to the atmosphere through evaporation and back again (for example, through rain).

Humans interfere with this natural cycle by trapping and redirecting water from various sources to use. A lot happens before it reaches your home.

The quality of the water when you turn on the tap depends on a range of factors, including the local geology, what kind of activities happen in catchment areas, and the different treatments used to process it.

How do we decide what’s safe?

The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines define what is considered safe, good-quality drinking water.

The guidelines set acceptable water quality values for more than 250 physical, chemical and bacterial contaminants. They take into account any potential health impact of drinking the contaminant over a lifetime as well as aesthetics – the taste and colour of the water.

The guidelines are not mandatory but provide the basis for determining if the quality of water to be supplied to consumers in all parts of Australia is safe to drink. The guidelines undergo rolling revision to ensure they represent the latest scientific evidence.

From water catchment to tap

Australians’ drinking water mainly comes from natural catchments. Sources include surface water, groundwater and seawater (via desalination).

Public access to these areas is typically limited to preserve optimal water quality.

Filtration and purification of water occurs naturally in catchments as it passes through soil, sediments, rocks and vegetation.

But catchment water is subject to further treatment via standard processes that typically focus on:

• removing particulates (for example, soil and sediment)

• filtration (to remove particles and their contaminants)

• disinfection (for example, using chlorine and chloramine to kill bacteria and viruses)

• adding fluoride to prevent tooth decay

• adjusting pH to balance the chemistry of the water and to aid filtration.

This water is delivered to our taps via a reticulated system – a network of underground reservoirs, pipes, pumps and fittings.

In areas where there is no reticulated system, drinking water can also be sourced from rainwater tanks. This means the quality of drinking water can vary.

Sources of contamination can come from roof catchments feeding rainwater tanks as well from the tap due to lead in plumbing fittings and materials.

So, does all water meet these standards?

Some rural and remote areas, especially First Nations communities, rely on poor-quality surface water and groundwater
for their drinking water.

Rural and regional water can exceed recommended guidelines for salt, microbial contaminants and trace elements, such as lead, manganese and arsenic.

The federal government and other agencies are trying to address this.

There are many impacts of poor regional water quality. These include its implication in elevated rates of tooth decay in First Nations people. This occurs when access to chilled, sugary drinks is cheaper and easier than access to good quality water.

What about PFAS?

There is also renewed concern about the presence of PFAS or “forever” chemicals in drinking water.

Recent research examining the toxicity of PFAS chemicals along with their presence in some drinking water catchments in Australia and overseas has prompted a recent assessment of water source contamination.

A review by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) proposed lowering the limits for four PFAS chemicals in drinking water: PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS and PFBS.

The review used publicly available data and found most drinking water supplies are currently below the proposed new guideline values for PFAS.

However, “hotspots” of PFAS remain where drinking water catchments or other sources (for example, groundwater) have been impacted by activities where PFAS has been used in industrial applications. And some communities have voiced concerns about an association between elevated PFAS levels in their communities and cancer clusters.

While some PFAS has been identified as carcinogenic, it’s not certain that PFAS causes cancer. The link is still being debated.

Importantly, assessment of exposure levels from all sources in the population shows PFAS levels are falling meaning any exposure risk has also reduced over time.

How about removing PFAS from water?

Most sources of drinking water are not associated with industrial contaminants like PFAS. So water sources are generally not subject to expensive treatment processes, like reverse osmosis, that can remove most waterborne pollutants, including PFAS. These treatments are energy-intensive and expensive and based on recent water quality assessments by the NHMRC will not be needed.

While contaminants are everywhere, it is the dose that makes the poison. Ultra-low concentrations of chemicals including PFAS, while not desirable, may not be harmful and total removal is not warranted.

Mark Patrick Taylor is a full-time employee of EPA Victoria, appointed to the statutory role of Chief Environmental Scientist. He is also an Honorary Professor at Macquarie University. EPA Victoria has previously received funding from the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and Victorian water authorities to understand the presence of contaminants waste water. He has previously received funding from the Australian Government, ARC and other government agencies for environmental pollution research.

Antti Mikkonen is a full-time employee of EPA Victoria, in the role of Principal Health Risk Advisor for chemicals. Antti has previously received funding from the Australian Government Department of Education for research to understand PFAS bioaccumulation in livestock and models for risk management.

Minna Saaristo is a full-time employee of EPA Victoria, appointed to the role of Principal Scientist – Ecological Risk and Emerging contaminants. She is affiliate of the School of Biological Sciences at Monash University. EPA Victoria has previously received funding from the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and Victorian water authorities to understand the presence of emerging contaminants in recycled water. She has previously received funding from the Australian Government, ARC and other government agencies for environmental pollution research.

– ref. How we treat catchment water to make it safe to drink – https://theconversation.com/how-we-treat-catchment-water-to-make-it-safe-to-drink-242206

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glenn Banks, Professor of Geography, School of People, Environment and Planning, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s state-of-the-nation address yesterday focused on growth above all else. We shouldn’t rush to judgement, but at least one prominent financial commentator has concluded the maths behind the goals “just doesn’t add up”.

Luxon specified mining and tourism among a number of sectors where the government was anticipating and facilitating growth. Having researched these sectors across the Pacific and Aotearoa New Zealand for more than 30 years, we would echo a cautionary approach.

There is certainly scope for more activity in both sectors. But there also needs to be a dose of realism about what they can deliver, and recognition of the significant risks associated with focusing solely on growth.

NZ is not Australia

Luxon wants to see mining “play a much bigger role in the New Zealand economy”, comparing the local sector with the “much higher incomes” generated in places such as Australia. If we wanted these, he suggested, we need to be aware it is “mining that pays” them.

But it is simplistic to compare domestic mining’s potential to the industry in Australia, which exports more than 400 times as much mineral wealth as New Zealand.

In addition, mineral wealth does not necessarily translate into significant increases in local or even national wealth. This is especially relevant when the local sector is dependent on foreign investment, high levels of imports and offshore expertise for construction and operations, highly volatile commodity prices and generous taxation regimes.

Luxon cited Taranaki and the West Coast as potential areas where mining could deliver “higher incomes, support for local business and families, and more investment in local infrastructure”.

This echoes Regional Development Minister Shane Jones’ linking of mining and regional development. But it flies in the face of historical trends and empirical evidence.

The West Coast has seen the longest continuous presence of large- and small-scale gold and coal mining (for well over a century). And yet the region consistently scores among the worst for socioeconomic deprivation. Mining itself does not create regional development.

The ‘critical minerals’ cloak

The prime minister also gave a nod to the minerals “critical for our climate transition”.

While it’s true that “EVs, solar panels and data centres aren’t made out of thin air”, they are also not made in any significant way with the minerals we currently or might potentially mine (aside from some antimony, possibly).

The “critical minerals” argument risks being a cloak for justifying more mining of coal and gold.

So, even leaving aside the very real (though unacknowledged by Luxon) environmental risks, mining will not be the panacea the government suggests, and certainly not in the short term.

New Zealand does need mining, of course. Aggregates for roads and construction are the most obvious “critical mineral”. But the country also deserves a 21st-century sector that is environmentally responsible and transparent, and which generates real returns for communities and the national economy.

The tourist trap

Echoing Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ speech earlier in the week, Luxon also said “tourism has a massive role to play in our growth story”.

Willis said, “We want all tourists.” But this broad focus on high-volume tourism goes against international best practice in tourism development.

The negative impacts of a high-growth tourism model have been well documented in New Zealand. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s 2019 report – titled “Pristine, popular … imperilled?” – warned of the environmental damage that would be caused by pursuing this approach.

Mayors and tourism industry officials have responded to the Willis and Luxon speeches this week by expressing concern that boosting tourism numbers will only work if there is more government funding.

This is needed to manage growth and provide infrastructure, particularly in areas with low numbers of ratepayers. The need stretches from providing public toilets for busloads of tourists flowing through MacKenzie District, to maintaining popular tracks such as the West Coast Wilderness Trail.

A 2024 report from Tourism New Zealand showed 68% of residents experienced negative impacts from tourism, including increased traffic congestion and rubbish.

Further expansion could see tourism losing its social licence – a dire outcome when international tourists particularly value the “warm and welcoming” nature of locals.

High value vs high volume

Luxon and Willis point to major employment wins from tourism growth. But tourism is notorious for creating low-income, insecure jobs. This is not the basis for strong and sustainable economic development.

While we agree with Luxon that our tourism industry is “world class”, we risk seriously damaging that reputation if we compromise the quality of experience for visitors.

Post-COVID, there have been significant efforts by the tourism industry to support and implement a regenerative approach. This aligns with a high-value – or “high values” – approach, rather than being fixated on high volume.

We are not arguing against mining or tourism per se. Rather, we are sounding a caution: they are sectors that need careful assessment and regulation, and reputable operators, to deliver sustainable and equitable growth, regionally and nationally.

Simply generating profits for foreign investors and leaving local communities to deal with the costs cannot be a sustainable model.

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. Luxon goes all out for growth in mining and tourism – we should be careful what he wishes for – https://theconversation.com/luxon-goes-all-out-for-growth-in-mining-and-tourism-we-should-be-careful-what-he-wishes-for-248131

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claudio Bozzi, Lecturer in Law, Deakin University

On his way to the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro in November, Chinese President Xi Jinping met with Peruvian President Dina Boluarte to officially open a new US$3.6 billion (A$5.8 billion) deepwater mega-port in Peru called Chancay.

China’s state-owned Cosco shipping giant had purchased a 60% stake in the port for US$1.6 billion (A$2.6 billion), which gave the company exclusive use of the port for 60 years.

Days later, the first ship departed for Shanghai loaded with blueberries, avocados and minerals.

Chancay is part of China’s vision of a 21st century maritime Silk Road that will better connect China’s manufacturing hubs with its trading partners around the world. This has involved a heavy investment in ports in many countries, which has the West concerned about China’s expanding influence over global shipping routes.

Newly re-elected US President Donald Trump made clear these concerns when he claimed China was “operating” the Panama Canal and the US intended to take it back.

China does not operate the canal, though. Rather, a Hong Kong company operates two ports on either side of it.

A booming port expansion

The scale and scope of the maritime Silk Road is impressive. China has invested in 129 ports in dozens of countries through its state-owned enterprises, mostly in the Global South. Seventeen of these ports have majority-Chinese ownership.

According to one estimate, Chinese companies invested US$11 billion (A$17.7 billion) in overseas port development from 2010–19. More than 27% of global container trade now passes through terminals where leading Chinese firms hold direct stakes.

China has entered Latin America aggressively, becoming the region’s top trading partner. Its port strategy has clearly signalled a long-term goal to access the exports essential to its food and energy security: soybeans, corn, beef, iron ore, copper and battery-grade lithium.

Last year, for example, Portos do Paraná, the Brazilian state-owned enterprise that acts as the port authority in the state of Paraná, signed a letter of intent with China Merchants Port Holdings to expand Paranaguá Container Terminal, the second-largest terminal in South America. China may invest in even more Brazilian ports, as 22 terminals are scheduled to be auctioned before the end of 2025.

In Africa, Chinese investment grew from two ports in 2000 to 61 facilities in 30 countries by 2022.

And in Europe, Chinese enterprises have complete or majority ownership of two key ports in Belgium and Greece – the so-called “dragon’s head” of the Belt and Road Initiative in Europe.

What’s driving this port strategy?

China’s emergence as a maritime and shipping power is central to Xi’s ambition for global economic dominance.

For one, China requires stable access to key trading routes to continue meeting the demand for Chinese exports globally, as well as the imports Beijing needs to keep its economy humming.

Controlling ports also enables China to create economic zones in other countries that give port owners and operators privileged access to commodities and products. Some fear this could allow China to disrupt supplies of certain goods or even exert influence over other countries’ politics or economies.

Another key driver of this strategy is the metals and minerals needed to fuel China’s rise as a tech superpower. Beijing has concentrated its port investment in regions where these critical resources are located.

For example, China is the world’s largest importer of copper ore, mainly from Chile, Peru and Mexico. It is also one of the world’s major lithium carbonate importers.), mainly from Chile and Argentina. And its port deals in Africa give it access to rare earths and other minerals.

In addition, tapping into Latin America counteracts the trade tensions China has experienced recently with Europe. It also preempts concerns about possible US tariffs imposed on Chinese goods by Trump.

Military concerns

These moves have prompted concern in Washington that China is challenging US influence in its own backyard.

China maintains that its seaport diplomacy is market oriented. However, it has established one naval base in the strategically located African nation of Djibouti. And it is believed to be building another naval base in Equatorial Guinea.

According to a recent report by the Asia Society Policy Institute, strategy analysts believe China is seeking to “weaponise” the Belt and Road Initiative.

One way it is doing this is by requiring the commercial ports it invests in to be equally capable of acting as naval bases. So far, 14 of the 17 ports in which it has a majority stake have the potential to be used for naval purposes. These ports can then serve a dual function and support the Chinese military’s logistics network and allow Chinese naval vessels to operate further away from home.

US officials are also concerned China could leverage its influence over private companies to disrupt trade during a time of war.

How is the West responding?

While China’s investments are raising suspicions, the West’s willingness to invest in ports at this scale is limited. The US International Development Finance Corporation, for instance, has a much slower, rigorous process for its investments, which generally leads to fairer outcomes for both investors and host nations.

However, some Western companies are acquiring stakes in established and newly built ports in other countries, albeit not to the extent of Chinese enterprises.

The French shipping and logistics company CMA CGM’s global port development strategy, for example, includes investments in 60 terminals worldwide. In 2024, it acquired control over South America’s largest container terminal in the Port of Santos, Brazil.

Trump has threatened tariffs as one way of countering China’s global sea power. An advisor on his transition team has proposed a 60% tariff on any product transiting through the Chancay port in Peru or any other Chinese-owned or controlled port in South America.

Rather than making nations reluctant to sign port deals with Beijing, however, this kind of action just erodes Washington’s regional influence. And China is likely to take retaliatory measures, like banning the export of critical minerals to the US.

Host nations like Peru and Brazil, meanwhile, are using the competition for port investment to their advantage. Attracting interest from both the West and China, they are increasingly asserting their autonomy and adopting a strategy of using ports to “play everywhere” on the global stage.

Claudio Bozzi 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. China has invested billions in ports around the world. This is why the West is so concerned – https://theconversation.com/china-has-invested-billions-in-ports-around-the-world-this-is-why-the-west-is-so-concerned-244733

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

Before the end of its first full day of operations, the new Trump administration gutted all advisory panels for the Department of Homeland Security. Among these was the well-respected Cyber Safety Review Board, or CSRB.

While this change hasn’t received as much notice as Trump’s massive announcement about AI, it has potentially significant implications for cyber security. The CSRB is an important source of information for governments and businesses trying to protect themselves from cyber threats.

This change also throws into doubt the board’s current activities. These include an ongoing investigation into the Salt Typhoon cyber attacks which began as early as 2022 and are still keeping cyber defenders busy, attributed to hackers in China.

Salt Typhoon has been described as the “worst telecommunications hack” in US history. Among other activities, the hackers obtained call records data made by high-profile individuals and even the contents of phone calls and text messages. The phones of then presidential nominee Donald Trump were reportedly among those targeted.

What does the Cyber Safety Review Board do?

The board was established three years ago by the Biden administration. Roughly speaking, its job is the cyberspace equivalent of government air traffic investigation bodies such as the US National Transportation Safety Board, or the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

The CSRB investigates major cyber security incidents. Its job is to determine their causes and recommend ways government and businesses can better protect themselves, including on how to prevent similar incidents in future.

Its members include global cyber security luminaries from industry, such as cyber executives from Google and Microsoft, and US government leaders from several departments and agencies concerned with security.

The US CSRB has previously published three major reports. Its first covered the infamous 2021 Log4j vulnerability, described at the time as the “single biggest, most critical vulnerability ever”. (A vulnerability is a weakness in a computer system that cyber criminals can exploit.)

The board’s most recent published investigation involved a very sophisticated hacking campaign that targeted Microsoft’s cloud email services in 2023. As a result, hackers even gained access to the emails of various US government agencies.

Cyber security experts widely consider the CSRB as a positive thing. Late last year, Australia even committed to establish its own version, the Cyber Incident Review Board.

At the time of writing, it’s unclear whether the CSRB will continue – perhaps with different membership – or whether its activities will cease entirely.

Either way, the decision to fire the board’s members has significant security implications. It comes at a moment in history when cyber threats have never been more severe.

What is Salt Typhoon?

The CSRB has been investigating the Salt Typhoon hacking campaign. Salt Typhoon is the name Microsoft assigned to a sophisticated group of hackers believed to be operated by China’s Ministry of State Security. The ministry is somewhat like a combination of an intelligence agency and a secret police service.

Salt Typhoon is best known for hacking into several US telecommunication companies, first reported in August 2024. In December, it came to light Salt Typhoon’s telco hacks may also have impacted countries beyond the US. American, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand authorities also jointly issued public guidance to organisations to help defend against Salt Typhoon.

Salt Typhoon reportedly targeted prominent figures, including political leaders. The hackers’ goal appears to have been to collect intelligence, rather than cause damage.

For example, it has been reported Salt Typhoon collected a list of all phone calls made near Washington DC, which could help them determine who was talking to whom in the US capital.

Salt Typhoon also reportedly obtained a list of phone numbers wiretapped by the US Justice Department. This confirmed the fears of many people opposed to the government’s powers to lawfully wiretap citizens’ phones.

It is unclear why the hackers obtained that information. Some have speculated it would identify which of their own operatives were being monitored by US law enforcement.

To say the Salt Typhoon revelations created waves in government and cyber security circles is putting it mildly. Telecommunications are critical infrastructure, as well as highly valuable targets for intelligence collection.

The idea that foreign spies could burrow so deeply into the communication fabric of the US was unprecedented and disturbing.

In October 2024 the CSRB was tasked with investigating Salt Typhoon’s activities.

An uncertain future

With the board now fired, the future of the Salt Typhoon investigation remains unclear.

A thorough and impartial investigation of the Salt Typhoon hacks, had it been allowed to run, was likely to have delivered highly valuable cyber security lessons. Those lessons are important for both US companies and those in Australia, which have also been the targets of Chinese intelligence collection.

The future of the CSRB itself is now also in question. The board and its overseas equivalents serve a vital role in promoting cyber information-sharing that helps to improve best practices.

It is imperative these bodies are staffed with a diverse collection of impartial experts, able to carry out their work free from government and corporate interference.

It remains to be seen whether dissolving the current CSRB will be a gift to Chinese hackers (as some have claimed), or simply a speed bump in the evolution of the board.

Toby Murray is the Director of the Defence Science Institute, which receives Commonwealth and State government funding. Toby receives research funding from the Australian government and has previously received funding from the US Department of Defense, Facebook and Google.

– ref. Trump has fired a major cyber security investigations body. It’s a risky move – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-fired-a-major-cyber-security-investigations-body-its-a-risky-move-248106

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Lowe, Chair in Contemporary History, Deakin University

After many years of heated debate over whether January 26 is an appropriate date to celebrate Australia Day – with some councils and other groups shifting away from it – the tide appears to be turning among some groups.

Some local councils, such as Geelong in Victoria, are reversing recent policy and embracing January 26 as a day to celebrate with nationalistic zeal. They are likely emboldened by what they perceive as an ideological shift occurring more generally in Australia and around the world.

But what of young people? Are young Australians really becoming more conservative and nationalistic, as some are claiming? For example, the Institute for Public Affairs states that “despite relentless indoctrination taking place at schools and universities”, their recent survey showed a 10% increase in the proportion of 18-24 year olds who wanted to celebrate Australia Day.

However, the best evidence suggests that claims of a shift towards conservatism among young people are unsupported.

The statement “we should not celebrate Australia Day on January 26” was featured in the Deakin Contemporary History Survey in 2021, 2023, and 2024. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement level. The Deakin survey is a repeated cross-sectional study conducted using the Life in Australia panel, managed by the Social Research Centre. This is a nationally representative online probability panel with more than 2,000 respondents for each Deakin survey. With its large number of participants, weighting and probability selection, the Life in Australia panel is arguably Australia’s most reliable and robust social survey.

The Deakin Contemporary History Survey consists of several questions about the role of history in contemporary society, hence our interest in whether or how Australians might want to celebrate a national day.

Since 1938, when Aboriginal leaders first declared January 26 a “Day of Mourning”, attitudes to this day have reflected how people in Australia see the nation’s history, particularly about the historical and contemporary dispossession and oppression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

In 2023, we found support for Australia Day on January 26 declined slightly from 2021, and wondered if a more significant change in community sentiment was afoot. With the addition of the 2024 data, we find that public opinion is solidifying – less a volatile “culture war” and more a set of established positions. Here is what we found:

This figure shows that agreement (combining “strongly agree” and “agree”) with not celebrating Australia Day on January 26 slightly increased in 2023, but returned to the earlier level a year later.

Likewise, disagreement with the statement (again, combining “strongly disagree” and “disagree”) slightly dipped in 2023, but in 2024 returned to levels observed in 2021. “Don’t know” and “refused” responses have consistently remained below 3% across all three years. Almost every Australian has a position on when we should celebrate Australia Day, if at all.

The 2023 dip might reflect a slight shift in public opinion or be due to statistical factors, such as sampling variability. Either way, public sentiment on this issue seems established. As Gunai/Kurnai, Gunditjmara, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta writer Nayuka Gorrie and Amangu Yamatji woman Associate Professor Crystal McKinnon have written, the decline in support for Australia Day is the result of decades of activism by Indigenous people.

Though conservative voices have become louder since the failure of the Voice Referendum in 2023, more than 40% of the population now believes Australia Day should not be celebrated on January 26.

In addition, the claim of a significant swing towards Australia Day among younger Australians is unsupported. In 2024, as in earlier iterations of our survey, we found younger Australians (18–34) were more likely to agree that Australia Day should not be celebrated on January 26. More than half of respondents in that age group (53%) supported that change, compared to 39% of 35–54-year-olds, 33% of 55–74-year-olds, and 29% of those aged 75 and older.

Conversely, disagreement increases with age. We found 69% of those aged 75 and older disagreed, followed by 66% of 55–74-year-olds, 59% of 35–54-year-olds, and 43% of 18–34-year-olds. These trends suggest a steady shift, indicating that an overall majority may favour change within the next two decades.

What might become of Australia Day? We asked those who thought we should not celebrate Australia Day on January 26 what alternative they preferred the most.

Among those who do not want to celebrate Australia Day on January 26, 36% prefer replacing it with a new national day on a different date, while 32% favour keeping the name but moving it to a different date. A further 13% support keeping January 26 but renaming it to reflect diverse history, and 8% advocate abolishing any national day entirely. Another 10% didn’t want these options, and less than 1% were unsure.

If the big picture suggests a lack of clarity – with nearly 58 % of the population wanting to keep Australia Day as it is, but 53 % of younger Australians supporting change – then the task of finding possible alternatives to the status quo seems even more clouded.

Gorrie and McKinnon point to the bigger issues at stake for Indigenous people: treaties, land back, deaths in custody, climate justice, reparations and the state removal of Aboriginal children. Yet, as our research continues to show, there are few without opinions on this question, and we should not expect it to recede as an issue the animates Australians.

David Lowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

Andrew Singleton currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Joanna Cruickshank receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Support for changing date of Australia Day softens, but remains strong among young people: new research – https://theconversation.com/support-for-changing-date-of-australia-day-softens-but-remains-strong-among-young-people-new-research-247571

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Whiterod, Science Program Manager, Goyder Institute for Water Research Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Research Centre, University of Adelaide

Murray crayfish once thrived in the southern Murray-Darling Basin. The species was found everywhere from the headwaters of the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers in the Australian Alps all the way down to Wellington in South Australia.

For thousands of years, First Nations people managed harvesting sustainably. But crayfish stocks crashed after European settlement. This was partly due to commercial and recreational harvest, which began in the late 1860s. At its peak in 1955, 15 tonnes of Murray crayfish were taken from the river in New South Wales and sent to markets in Melbourne and Sydney.

In South Australia, the commercial fishery was unsustainable by the 1960s and the species was no longer targeted. In the 1980s, Murray crayfish became a protected species in the state. But the damage was done.

Over-harvesting was not the only problem. Murray crayfish prefer free-flowing, oxygen-rich water, so they suffered from efforts to regulate river flows using dams and weirs. Poor water quality, including pollution from pesticides and other agricultural chemicals, made matters worse.

Murray crayfish disappeared from South Australia sometime in the past 40 years. Targeted surveys over a five-year period couldn’t find them anywhere in the state.

But that all changed in the winter of 2023 when our reintroduction program began. Now we’re preparing for the third release of crayfish and there are positive signs many crays from earlier releases are still going strong.

A species in need of support

Like many species from the highly threatened Euastacus genus, Murray crayfish grow slowly. It takes almost ten years for a female to reach sexual maturity, and she only produces a small number of eggs. Dispersal is also limited. This makes it hard for the population to recover in both number and range.

Following a recent assessment, the species Euastacus armatus is expected to soon be listed as vulnerable to extinction under Australia’s conservation laws.

Conservation actions such as reintroductions will be necessary to aid recovery of the species.

A long time coming, shaped by adversity

The idea of returning Murray crayfish to the river in South Australia is not new.

Two University of Adelaide ecologists, the late Keith Walker and Mike Geddes, first suggested it in the 1990s. They even conducted trials involving crayfish in cages to show sections of the river would be suitable for the species.

Then in 2007, the reintroduction idea was floated again. It was one of the main recommendations in a report identifying gaps in knowledge of the species.

But the idea really gathered momentum after disaster struck. Widespread flooding across the southern Murray-Darling Basin in 2010–11 led to a “hypoxic blackwater” event. This is where leaf litter and debris from the floodplain wash into the river, depleting levels of oxygen and causing mass deaths of both fish and crayfish.

This inspired further research into crayfish genetics, recovery potential and preferred habitat. It guided a 2019 strategy outlining how the species could be successfully reintroduced. A trial five-year reintroduction program in the New South Wales range of the species helped refine the strategy.

Then another Murray blackwater event in 2022–23, in NSW and Victoria, forced crayfish out of the water and up the riverbanks.

Vision of dying crayfish leaving the water, only to be consumed by predators or poached by people, prompted the community to respond. Guided by fisheries agencies and a fishing conservation charity, they rescued crays and held them safely in aquaculture facilities until they could be released back into the wild.

Many of these crayfish were later returned to the river where they came from. But a small number were held for release into SA as part of our new reintroduction program.

In a truly collaborative effort, a small environmental not-for-profit organisation, Nature Glenelg Trust, worked in partnership with a natural resource management agency, First Nations community, fisheries agencies from three states and a private aquaculture facility to turn the idea into reality.

Positive signs from crayfish releases

Murray crayfish were first released back into South Australia in winter 2023. It was a big moment for people who have long championed the species’ return.

A further 200 crayfish were released during winter 2024.

During each release, some of the crayfish were tagged with trackers. This has provided world-first movement and activity information. It shows all tagged crayfish being regularly detected, indicating they are flourishing.

Field surveys each season at the reintroduction site have also found the species alive and well, representing the first Murray crayfish found in the state for more than 40 years.

Returning a totemic and iconic species

The reintroduction of Murray crayfish into a closely guarded location in South Australia’s Riverland is both culturally and ecologically significant.

It signals the return of a important totem to the Erawirung people of the region, and provides a way to reconnect with the species.

Reestablishing a population of the species in South Australia, where hypoxic blackwater events have not been as severe, also provides insurance against extinction.

The species is considered a keystone species, meaning it plays a disproportionately large role in the ecosystem. So returning it to the river may have even greater ecological benefits.

The first of many steps

Reintroduction programs require ongoing commitment if they are to be successful. Extra crayfish will need to be added to the reintroduced population over the coming years.

The reintroduced population will continue to be monitored to ensure numbers are increasing and the range expanding. It will remain protected from fishing by local fisheries authorities.

If successful, further reintroductions may be undertaken into other parts of South Australia.

This initiative is a partnership between Nature Glenelg Trust and the Murraylands and Riverland Landscape Board through funding from the landscape levies, with support from NSW Fisheries, Victorian Fisheries Authority, not-for-profit organisation OzFish Unlimited, North West Aquaculture, the River Murray & Mallee Aboriginal Corporation (RMMAC), CSIRO and the Department of Primary Industries and Regions SA (PIRSA).

Nick Whiterod works for the Goyder Institute for Water Research, Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth (CLLMM) Research Centre, which is funded by the national government to deliver research in the region. He is a member of the New South Wales Fisheries Scientific Committee.

Sylvia Zukowski works for not-for-profit organisation Nature Glenelg Trust, which receives funding from state and national government for conservation projects.

– ref. The world’s second largest freshwater crayfish was once plentiful in Australia’s longest river – we’re bringing it back – https://theconversation.com/the-worlds-second-largest-freshwater-crayfish-was-once-plentiful-in-australias-longest-river-were-bringing-it-back-236520