Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Albert Zomaya, Professor, School of Computer Science, University of Sydney

The global trade war triggered by US President Donald Trump earlier this month shows no signs of ending anytime soon. In recent days, China suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals that are vital ingredients in everything from electric cars and drones to the semiconductor chips that power artificial intelligence (AI) servers.

Around the same time, Trump also indicated he would soon impose new tariffs on semiconductor chips.

All of this is happening at the same time the US is forging ahead with a US$500 billion (A$784 billion) project known as “Stargate” to accelerate the development of AI in the country.

But the escalating trade war does not square with America’s ambitious AI plans. In fact, Trump’s tariffs (which, in the case of China, now total 145%) are set to undermine these plans by increasing the cost of AI development and disrupting supply chains for AI goods.

In turn, this will hinder the pace of AI innovation and adoption in the US – and potentially elsewhere.

Inflating the prices of essential components

AI development requires significant computational power and specialised hardware such as high-end graphic processing units (GPUs), which are predominantly manufactured in Taiwan and South Korea and often assembled in China.

US tariffs will directly inflate the prices of these essential components. One analysis estimates tariffs could increase the material costs of data centre building by around 20%, with IT hardware components potentially rising by 25%.

This is a major concern for AI industry leaders such as OpenAI, which operates ChatGPT. For example, the company’s chief executive, Sam Altman, recently said his team is “working around-the-clock” to determine how the trade war would affect the cost of running their AI models.

But the increased cost on AI development caused by the trade war will also mean tech startups in the US will have higher barriers to entry and fewer opportunities to test AI capabilities. In turn, this will harm AI innovation.

In theory, tariffs might support the reshoring of chip production in the US through initiatives such as the CHIPS and Science Act, which promotes domestic US semiconductor production. But it would take years for such efforts to fully bear fruit. And Trump has also recently taken steps to walk away from the CHIPS and Science Act.

Aggressive AI nationalism

The trade war also creates risks for the international development of AI.

For example, the cost increases that flow from tariffs could create a reluctance to invest in AI infrastructure – particularly data centres. Other tech companies might also cancel or delay plans to build data centres in the US partly because of higher equipment prices.

In addition, tariffs could push countries into further fortifying their AI efforts, creating a kind of aggressive AI nationalism. They could also encourage domestic AI development to promote national interests. This could lead to isolationism and put another nail in the coffin of the open-source culture that once fuelled AI innovation.

Tariffs are supposed to promote domestic industries. But high costs and a fracturing of the cooperation that is indispensable to the continuation of the AI landscape might well be the outcome.

Knock-on effects for Australia

Australia is not the direct target of most US tariffs. But the tariffs on advanced technologies and critical components pose risks to its ability to develop AI.

Although Australia aims to bolster its domestic AI capabilities, it currently relies heavily on imported hardware for AI development. Tariffs will likely make it more expensive for Australian companies and research institutions to acquire the necessary infrastructure, such as semiconductors, GPUs, and cloud computing equipment. In turn, this will potentially hinder their technological progress.

As the US clamps down on trade and technologies, Australia may find itself locked out of international research projects, perhaps those involving US companies or technologies.

Such limits on data sharing, international cross-border AI talent, and cloud infrastructure risk slowing the rate of innovation.

To mitigate the above risks, Australia must invest more in developing domestic AI capacity and diversifying its technological partnerships.

Albert Zomaya receives funding from a variety of government sources. He is also a member of the Australian Academy of Science.

– ref. Trump’s trade war puts America’s AI ambitions at risk – https://theconversation.com/trumps-trade-war-puts-americas-ai-ambitions-at-risk-254462

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, The University of Melbourne

Worrying signs are emerging about aspects of Australia’s health system, which will require the attention of whoever wins the May election.

Despite big money pledged for Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), only limited attention has been paid by the major parties to key reform priorities.

Any fresh reform agenda will be starting from a position of relative strength. Australia has a good health system that consistently ranks well compared with other wealthy nations, including on life expectancy, which is on the high side.

Medicare remains the right infrastructure for funding primary care. But it is now more than 40 years old and needs to be updated and improved.

Policy action is necessary on five fronts:

• financial barriers to care
• managing chronic conditions
• mental health and dental care
• public hospitals
• workforce

Priced out of care

Despite Medicare’s promise of universality, around one in ten people defer seeing a doctor because of the cost.

And despite the provision of subsidised drugs via the PBS, people also report missing out on filling prescriptions.

Labor has announced big-ticket measures to improve bulk-billing rates and cap PBS prices at A$25 a prescription. Given cost-of-living pressures are central to the election, it’s unsurprising the Coalition has pledged to match both policies.

But, critically, neither party has announced anything to improve access to other medical specialists. The gap continues to grow between what specialists charge and what Medicare will cover. This means some patients are delaying or avoiding necessary care altogether.

Complex chronic conditions

The health system has not adapted to the rising prevalence of chronic disease in the Australian community. In 2023–24, 18% of the population saw three or more health professionals. But for 28% of those people, no single provider coordinated their care.

Medicare was designed in a different age and needs to be refurbished to respond to this new reality of more patients who are suffering multiple health conditions.

The Strengthening Medicare Task Force and the GP Incentives Review have proposed new systems to fund general practices to facilitate multidisciplinary care.

Work needs to continue in this direction, regardless of who forms the next government.

Forgotten care

Dental and mental health are largely the forgotten sectors of health care. The number of people delaying access to oral health services because of affordability issues is more than twice the 10% who are missing out in other areas of the health system.

Seeing a dentist is very much dependant on income. More than a quarter of Australians living in the most disadvantaged areas defer getting their teeth fixed because of the cost involved. Uncapped access to dental care, as proposed by the Greens, is not the answer. What is needed is a more sophisticated route towards universal access.

By contrast, the pattern for mental health care is different, with people in both poor and rich areas facing access problems.

The Coalition has promised to restore the maximum number of Medicare-subsidised fee-for-service mental health sessions to 20, despite it being regarded as an inequitable policy.

More fee-for-service mental health care is not the right approach. By contrast, Labor is making a $1 billion commitment to expanding services which are free to the consumer. This includes Medicare Mental Health Services and headspace clinics, which generally employ salaried professionals.

Both parties should support another initiative already underway: the universal program for people with low-to-moderate mental health needs, which doesn’t require either a referral or a co-payment. Labor announced the plan in the last budget, scheduled to start in January 2026.

Inadequate hospital funding

The Commonwealth share of public hospital funding has been trending down for the last few years, reversing the growth in its share over much of the last decade.

Some states have fared worse than others, which means some hospitals have become squeezed and waiting times have blown out.

In late 2023, National Cabinet reached a new funding deal which would lift the Commonwealth share to 45% by 2035–36.

But subsequent negotiations have become bogged down in a quagmire of claims and counter-claims. The Albanese government has responded with an interim one-year funding down payment. But both major parties need to address this issue and commit to implementing the full 45% in the agreed time frame.

No doctor in the house

In 2014, the Abbott government abolished Health Workforce Australia, the national agency responsible for health workforce planning. Ten years later, it’s no surprise we are in the middle of a critical shortage of doctors and nurses.

The Albanese government has implemented changes to speed up the recruitment of internationally trained health professionals. It is also offering incentives to encourage more clinicians to work in rural and remote Australia.

But these are just more of the same, similar to the plethora of policies which have left us in the mess we are in. Ensuring we have the right workforce mix to address rural health needs requires a fresh approach. That includes revised funding models – as proposed in the GP incentives review – and allowing all health professionals to work to their full scope of practice.

Reform hard slog

Although health often ranks in the top three issues people say are important to them in elections, cost of living is the main focus of media and political commentary.

The promise to increase bulk billing will help lower primary care costs.

But genuine health care reform does not attract much media attention, which means it doesn’t get the profile necessary to prompt the right political promises.

The hard slog of change takes years, and involves much more than a few carrots thrown to voters in an election. It takes careful negotiation with stakeholders and getting the infrastructure right.

Given the initiatives listed above, Health Minister Mark Butler has done well on reform this term. Unfortunately, voters don’t see that, and appear not to value systematic and coherent reform strategies.

It is hoped that whoever is health minister after the election will continue on the reform path to a more sustainable and affordable health system.

This is the eighth article in our special series, Australia’s Policy Challenges. You can read the other articles here.

Stephen Duckett was a member of the Strengthening Medicare Task Force, the Review of General Prcatice Incentives, the Mental Health Reform Advisory Group, and the Expert Panel on the National Early Intervention Service

– ref. More bulk billing is fine. But what the health system really needs this election is genuine reform – https://theconversation.com/more-bulk-billing-is-fine-but-what-the-health-system-really-needs-this-election-is-genuine-reform-250644

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Mills, Honorary Senior Lecturer, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney

More than two weeks in, we know one thing for sure. This time, the election campaign does matter.

In decades past, when voters were more loyally rusted on to the major parties, news cycles more sedate, policy platforms fixed and “safe” seats truly safe, it was arguable that election outcomes were largely determined before the campaigns began.

But in 2025, the campaign period has witnessed a dramatic shift in voting intentions, as measured by public opinion polls.

Before the campaign, Labor trailed. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese seemed flat-footed, burdened by a poor track record in the 2022 elections and the 2023 Voice referendum.

But even as Cyclone Alfred blew itself out, parliament returned, and the budget was brought down, Labor’s poll numbers were improving. This trend continued through the first weeks of the campaign, such that Labor now seems the likely winner, either in minority or perhaps majority.

Why? Election campaigns can reveal how leaders and their teams behave under pressure. They also require trust and lock-step coordination between the leader and the party’s team of campaign professionals.

Unflashy incrementalism

Albanese has performed solidly and been relentlessly on-message and on-brand. His campaign has rolled out a well-prepared procession of announcements on Medicare urgent care clinics, pharmaceuticals, childcare and TAFE, each with local funding attached.

Albanese does not campaign with Hawke-like charisma, Keating-like oratory or Whitlam-like policy. His one truly visionary change commitment – the Voice – collapsed in a heap.

Instead, as he has shown over the last two weeks, his true identity is as a (Chifley-like?) incrementalist. He boasts a strong grasp of systems – health, roads, renewables – and his campaign is all about fixing, improving and expanding those systems within practical fiscal constraints.

His vision of the future is the present that just works better for more people.

Fattening the policy pig

By contrast, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton seemed ready to shoot the lights out, as an uncompromising conviction politician exploiting voter grievances about cost-of-living issues.

But he wasted a large part of his first week recovering from an off-strategy indulgence about living in Kirribilli House (“we love the harbour”), and much of the second week explaining his backflip on public service working conditions.

The first was a campaign blunder, pure and simple. But the second spoke to a deeper malaise within the Coalition about policy development. The Coalition appeared unprepared for the cut and thrust of the campaign.

Combined with blithe me-tooing of Labor promises on health and roads, and incomplete announcements on cutting foreign student numbers and reserving natural gas for domestic use, the backflip suggested Coalition policy-making has become a bit random: a series of tactical choices, not a strategic plan for government.

Contrary to long-standing Liberal Party campaign wisdom that “you can’t fatten a pig on market day”, this time the Liberals are trying to force-feed their policy pig en route to the market.

Dutton has been much more effective pitching his fuel excise promise. The decision to eschew Labor’s budgeted tax cuts for an immediate reduction at the bowser was bold, instinctive and entirely consistent with the Coalition’s outer-metropolitan electoral strategy.

It took until the second week, but the daily scenes of Dutton pumping petrol into cars – “and utes” as he always adds – is steadily reinforcing his message, however wearying it has become for the travelling press party.

The comfort of incumbents

The first leaders’ debate highlighted this difference. Both leaders remained poised and polished (especially creditable by Dutton given he learned of his father’s heart attack immediately beforehand).

But Albanese simply had more to talk about, more first-term achievements and more commitments on his future shopping list. Dutton articulated grievances without providing many policy solutions.

The contest on the economy was a draw: Dutton conjures up Albanese’s non-delivered pledge on power prices, while Albanese points to high employment and downward trends on inflation and interest rates.

All this has played out against the backdrop of the Donald Trump tariff wars. Like previous mid-campaign crises – Tampa in 2001 and, for those with very long memories, the Kennedy assassination in 1963 – global uncertainty reinforces an Australian incumbent. Albanese’s measured response struck the right note.

Dutton has repeatedly tried to insert himself into the tariff story – difficult for an opposition – but had to take risks to do so. His assertion that AUKUS and ANZUS should be somehow involved was left hanging once Liberal icon John Howard made clear he disagreed.

With policy speeches delivered, and rival policies on housing finally released, the campaign is in its final week, interrupted by Easter, before early voting starts.

The challenge for Albanese will be to maintain his momentum, in all his unflashy, incrementalist style. Labor is likely to ramp up its Dutton-Trump comparison. Dutton will need to put further flesh on the bones of putting Australia “back on track”.

Stephen Mills was a staff member (1986-91) for Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke and since 2015 has volunteered for local Labor election campaigns.

– ref. Half way through the campaign, how are the major party leaders faring? – https://theconversation.com/half-way-through-the-campaign-how-are-the-major-party-leaders-faring-254387

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anam Bilgrami, Senior Research Fellow, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University

On his campaign trail, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese pledged A$200 million to upgrade St John of God Midland Public Hospital in Perth. He promised more beds and operating theatres, and a redesigned obstetrics and neonatal unit.

It followed other recent election promises from the Labor government, including $120 million for new birthing facilities at Sydney’s planned Rouse Hill Hospital and $150 million to build a health centre in southern Adelaide.

New and expanded health facilities are welcome in fast-growing communities. But are hospital funding pledges in election campaigns based on health-care or political needs?

Does pork-barrelling drive health funding decisions?

Labor and the Coalition have faced allegations of pork-barrelling this election campaign.

Pork-barrelling means using public funds to target specific electorates to win votes, rather than allocating resources based on need. Four in five Australians consider pork-barrelling to be corrupt.

Former New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian suggested pork-barrelling was “business as usual” in her government.

It also seems to occur at the federal level. The Australian National Audit Office found a $1.25 billion Community Health and Hospitals Program implemented by the former Morrison government “fell short of ethical requirements” and deliberately breached Commonwealth grant guidelines.

Of the 63 major projects funded, only two were rated “highly suitable” – the usual benchmark for shortlisting. In fact, most approved projects were picked by the government outside of the established expression of interest processes.

Who funds and manages public hospitals?

The National Health Reform Agreement makes states and territories responsible for managing public hospitals. States and territories contribute around 58% of hospital funding. They also oversee planning and infrastructure.

Local hospital networks help plan and implement capital projects such as new hospitals and facility upgrades.

Under the National Health Reform Agreement, the Commonwealth government also contributes public hospital funding through:

• activity-based funding. This is tied to the number and type of patients treated

• block funding for smaller regional and rural hospitals

• public health funding for initiatives such as vaccination programs.

The reform agreement outlines the Commonwealth’s responsibility for supporting public hospital services. But it doesn’t restrict the Commonwealth from making hospital infrastructure promises.

The Commonwealth often pledges direct hospital funding through supplementary agreements or ad hoc initiatives. Earlier this year, it announced an additional one-off $1.7 billion payment to ease pressure on public hospitals.

State planning vs federal politics: who decides?

States use formal planning frameworks to plan and prioritise health infrastructure projects. NSW Health, for example, applies a structured Facility Planning Process for projects over $10 million. This considers local population needs, health and community benefits, costs and workforce capacity.

These types of frameworks help ensure health capital investment decisions are transparent and evidence-based.

What is less transparent is how the Commonwealth decides which specific hospitals to pledge money to, particularly during election campaigns.

While some federal funding announcements may align with state priorities, picking one hospital over another comes with an “opportunity cost”. For every community that benefits from a new or upgraded hospital, another potentially higher-need community may miss out.

To prevent Commonwealth funding decisions being swayed by political priorities, more transparent processes for setting priorities and making decisions are needed.

What would a better system look like?

The way funds are allocated to medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) provides the federal government with an exemplary approach to good health-care investment decisions.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) provides independent advice to the Minister for Health on whether the government should allocate millions to new medicines. The PBAC uses rigorous, transparent processes to make listing recommendations based on patient need and cost-effectiveness.

Federal government hospital infrastructure funding decisions should also follow open, competitive, merit-based processes.

Prioritising evidence and having transparent decision-making guidelines would mean funding is more likely to be allocated based on the greatest population need rather than electoral considerations.

Other ways to improve federal government hospital funding decisions may include:

• incorporating nationally agreed principles for hospital capital funding in future National Health Reform Agreements

• increasing transparency. This could be achieved through a national public register of hospital development proposals, ranked by urgency and need

• strengthening safeguards on election-period pledges. This could improve disclosures and ensure hospital funding decisions align with independent needs assessments.

More hospitals or better prevention?

Former St Vincent’s Health CEO Toby Hall put it bluntly:

If Australia is to make the most of its healthcare future, it will likely need fewer hospitals, not more.

He pointed to Denmark, which cut its number of hospitals by 67% over 1999–2019. This was achieved by shifting as many services as possible from hospitals to other types of health care including primary care, health centres and outpatient clinics.

While more hospitals in Australia may be inevitable as the population ages, health policy should also focus on keeping people out of hospital in the first place. That means investing in prevention, early intervention and technology to support care at home.

Australia lags behind other wealthy nations in this space, ranking 20th out of 33 OECD countries in per capita spending on prevention. It ranks 27th when measured as a share of total health expenditure.

Some local health districts are showing what’s possible. This includes using home monitoring to help people manage chronic conditions. These kinds of innovations can improve health and reduce pressure on hospital infrastructure.

While new hospitals and wards make for compelling election promises, a better health system will come not just from “bricks and mortar”. It will come from smarter investments in prevention, early intervention and innovative care that keeps people healthier and out of hospital.

Henry Cutler was a member of an Expert Advisory Panel where he received remuneration from the Department of Health and Aged Care for this role. Henry has also previously received funding from NT Health.

Anam Bilgrami 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. Safe seat syndrome? Why some hospitals get upgrades and others miss out – https://theconversation.com/safe-seat-syndrome-why-some-hospitals-get-upgrades-and-others-miss-out-253750

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Thomas, PhD candidate in Environmental Policy, The University of Queensland

Queensland is widely known as the land clearing capital of Australia. But what’s not so well known is many of the cleared trees can grow back naturally.

The latest state government figures show regrowth across more than 7.6 million hectares in Queensland in 2020-21. These trees, though young, still provide valuable habitat for many threatened species – as long as they’re not bulldozed again.

Our new research explored the benefits of regrowth for 30 threatened animal species in Queensland. We found regrown forests and woodlands provided valuable habitat and food for species after an average of 15 years. Some species were likely to benefit from trees as young as three years.

This presents an opportunity for governments to support landowners and encourage them to retain more regrowing forest and woodland, especially where it can provide much-needed habitat for wildlife. But it’s a challenge because there is strong pressure to clear regrowth, largely to maintain pasture.

When do young forests and woodlands become valuable habitat?

We focused on threatened animal species that depend on forests and woodlands, and occur in regions with substantial regrowth.

We wanted to find out which species use regrowth, and how old the trees need to be. But there’s not much survey data available on threatened species living in naturally regenerated forest and woodlands.

To elicit this information we asked almost 50 experts to complete a detailed questionnaire and attend a workshop.

We found 15 years was the average minimum age at which regrowth became useful to threatened species. But the full range was 3-68 years, depending on factors such as what a species eats, how it moves through the landscape and whether it needs tree hollows for shelter or breeding.

For example, one threatened bird (the squatter pigeon) could use woodlands as young as three years old. Koalas benefited from regrowth as young as nine years old.

Some species, such as the greater glider, need much older forests. This is because they require large tree hollows to shelter in during the day, and large trees to feed on and move between at night.

So young forests shouldn’t be seen as an alternative to protecting old forests. We need both.

Understanding the extent of habitat loss

We also estimated the proportion of each species’ current habitat that comprises regrowth, using satellite data and publicly available data.

For some species, we found regrowth made up almost a third of their potential habitat in Queensland. On average, it was 18%.

However, nearly three-quarters of the habitat lost in Queensland since 2018 was regrowth forests and woodlands. So while the loss of older, “remnant” vegetation is more damaging per unit area, the regrowth habitat is being lost on a bigger scale.

Our research suggests retaining more regrowth could be an easy and cost-effective way to help save threatened species.

In contrast, tree planting is time-consuming and expensive. What’s more, only 10% of our native plants are readily available as seeds for sale. This, combined with more extreme weather such as prolonged droughts, often causes restoration projects to fail.

Encouraging landholders to retain regrowth

The fact that habitat can regrow naturally in parts of Queensland is a huge bonus. But farmers also need to maintain productivity, which can decrease if there’s too much regrowth.

So, how do we help these landowners retain more regrowth?

One way is to provide incentives. For example, government-funded biodiversity stewardship schemes provide payments to cover the costs of managing the vegetation – such as fencing off habitat and managing weeds – as well as compensation for loss of agricultural production. Targeting areas of regrowth with high habitat values could be a way for such schemes to benefit wildlife.

Alternatively, market-based schemes allow landowners to generate biodiversity or carbon “credits” by keeping more trees on their property. Then, businesses (or governments) buy these credits. For example, some big emitters in Australia have to purchase carbon credits to “offset” their own emissions.

However, Australia’s carbon market has been accused of issuing “low integrity” carbon credits. This means the carbon credits were paid for projects that may not have captured and stored the amount of carbon they were supposed to. To make sure these markets work, robust methods are needed – and until now, there hasn’t been one that worked to retain regrowth.

Trees are good for the land, air and sea

In February, the Queensland government released a method by which landholders could generate carbon credits by agreeing not to clear their regrowing woodlands and forests.

The new carbon method provides a promising opportunity to allow landowners to diversify their farm income.

In addition, tree cover brings direct, on-farm benefits such as more shade and shelter for livestock, natural pest control and better soil health.

At a landscape level, greater tree cover can improve local climate regulation, reduce sediment run-off to the Great Barrier Reef and reduce Australia’s carbon emissions.

Ideally, Australia’s carbon and biodiversity markets would work alongside sufficient government funding for nature recovery, which needs to increase to at least 1% (currently it’s around 0.1%).

Meanwhile, our research has shown embracing natural regeneration potential in Queensland will have benefits for a range of threatened species too.

We acknowledge our research coauthors, Jeremy Simmonds (2rog Consulting), Michelle Ward (Griffith University) and Teresa Eyre (Queensland Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation).

Hannah Thomas received an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship with a $10,000 top-up from WWF-Australia. She is an early-career leader with the Biodiversity Council.

Martine Maron has received funding from various sources including the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Department of Environment and Science, and the federal government’s National Environmental Science Program, and has advised both state and federal government on conservation policy. She is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, a director of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, a councillor with the Biodiversity Council, and leads the IUCN’s thematic group on Impact Mitigation and Ecological Compensation under the Commission on Ecosystem Management. She currently sits on the Protect and Enhance advisory panel to the NSW Natural Resources Commission.

– ref. Allowing forests to regrow and regenerate is a great way to restore habitat – https://theconversation.com/allowing-forests-to-regrow-and-regenerate-is-a-great-way-to-restore-habitat-254325

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kat Bolstad, Associate professor, Auckland University of Technology

The colossal squid was first described in 1925 based on specimens from the stomach of a commercially hunted sperm whale. A century later, an international voyage captured the first confirmed video of this species in its natural habitat – a 30-centimetre juvenile, at a depth of 600 metres near the South Sandwich Islands.

Colossal squid can grow up to seven metres and weigh as much as 500 kilograms, making them the heaviest invertebrate on the planet. But little is known about their life cycle.

The footage of a young colossal squid in the water column was a serendipitous sighting, as many deep-sea squid observations are.

It was seen during the live “divestream” feed of a remotely operated vehicle during the Schmidt Ocean Institute and Ocean Census partner expedition searching for new deep-sea species and habitats in the far south Atlantic, mostly focusing on the seafloor.

Those tuned into the stream had the remarkable experience of seeing a live colossal squid in its deep-sea home, although its identity was not confirmed until the high-definition footage could be reviewed later.

Predators such as whales and seabirds are still one of our best sources of information about the colossal squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni) because they are much better at finding it than we are.

This partially explains why we have only just filmed this species in its natural habitat. Not only do these animals live in an enormous, dark and three-dimensional environment, they are also probably actively avoiding us.

Most of our deep-sea exploration equipment is large, noisy and uses bright lights if we are trying to film animals. But the colossal squid can detect and avoid diving sperm whales, which probably produce a strong light signal as they swim down and disturb bioluminescent animals.

The squid best able to avoid such predators have been passing on their genes for millions of years. This leaves us with a current population of visually acute, likely light-avoiding animals, well capable of detecting a light signal from many metres away.

Delicate beauty of deep-sea animals

The colossal squid is part of the “glass” squid family (Cranchiidae). Three known glass squid species are found in the Antarctic ocean, but it can be difficult to distinguish them on camera.

Researchers from the organisation Kolossal, aiming to film the colossal squid, observed a similarly sized glass squid during their fourth Antarctic mission in 2023. But since the characteristic features needed to identify a colossal squid – hooks on the ends of the two long tentacles and in the middle of each of the eight shorter arms – weren’t clearly visible, its exact identity remains unconfirmed.

In the Schmidt Ocean Institute footage, the mid-arm hooks are visible. And for this young individual, the resemblance to other glass squids is also clear. With age and size, colossal squid likely lose their transparent appearance and become much more of an anomaly within the family.

While many will be amused by the idea of a “small colossal” squid, this footage showcases a beauty shared by many deep-sea animals, in contrast to the monster hype and “stuff of nightmares” click-bait titles we see all too often.

This colossal squid looks like a delicate glass sculpture, with fins of such fine musculature they are barely visible. It has shining iridescent eyes and graceful arms fanned out from the head.

At full size, the colossal squid may be a formidable predator, with its stout arms and array of sharp hooks, able to tackle two-metre-long toothfish. But in our first confirmed view of it at home in the deep sea, we can marvel at the elegance of this animal, thriving in an environment where humans require so much technology even to visit remotely.

Stranger than science fiction

Until recently, few people were able to take part in deep-sea exploration. But now, anyone with an internet connection can be “in the room” while we explore these habitats and observe animals for the first time.

It’s hard to overstate the importance of the deep sea. It holds hundreds of thousands of undiscovered species, it is probably where life on Earth started, and it makes up 95% of the available living space on our planet.

It has animals more splendid and strange than our most creative science fiction imaginings. This includes squids that start life looking like small light bulbs and then grow into true giants; colonies of individuals living together with each contributing to the group’s success; animals where males (often parasitic) are orders of magnitude smaller than females.

This first confirmed sighting of a colossal squid inspires and reminds us how much we have left to learn.

The expedition that captured the footage of the colossal squid was a collaboration between the Schmidt Ocean Institute, the Nippon Foundation-NEKTON Ocean Census, and GoSouth (a joint project between the University of Plymouth, GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research and the British Antarctic Survey).

Kat Bolstad 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. A century after its discovery, scientists capture first confirmed footage of a colossal squid in the deep – https://theconversation.com/a-century-after-its-discovery-scientists-capture-first-confirmed-footage-of-a-colossal-squid-in-the-deep-254584

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate E. Williams, Professor of Education, University of the Sunshine Coast

Many teachers and parents know neuroscience, the study of how the brain functions and develops, is important for children’s education.

Brain development is recommended as part of teacher education in universities. Neuroscience is even mentioned in Australia’s “early years framework”, which guides early childhood programs.

Previous research has shown there are misunderstandings about how neuroscience works (or “neuromyths”) among teachers both in Australia and overseas.

Our new study shows there are also some widespread neuromyths among early childhood educators.

What are the myths? And what does the evidence say?

Our research

We surveyed more than 520 Australian early childhood educators in 2022 to understand their neuroscience knowledge.

We chose to study early childhood educators because there is a research gap in our understanding of those teaching and caring for younger children. The surveys were distributed online via multiple channels including email lists, social media and professional associations.

About 74% of respondents worked in a long daycare or a preschool/kindergarten (educating children in the final years before formal school). About 63% had either a bachelors degree or postgraduate qualification.

Our findings

We asked respondents whether various false statements were true, in order to assess their level of knowledge about neuroscience. The average correct score was 13.7 out of 27.

Some myths presented in our study were widely, and correctly, understood to be false. For example, more than 90% of respondents correctly identified “when we sleep our brains shut down” and “mental capacity is solely hereditary and cannot be changed by the environment or experience” as untrue.

But for other myths, most respondents were either unsure or believed the statement to be correct. For example:

• only 7% of respondents correctly identified “teaching to different learning styles will improve learning” as false.

• only 15% of respondents correctly identified “students are either left or right brained” as false.

This suggests educators need more evidence-based neuroscience content as part of their professional education and development. While some neuromyths may seem harmless, others can have real implications for teaching decisions and student learning.

What is the problem with these neuromyths?

Myth 1: ‘teaching to different learning styles will improve learning’

The idea of learning styles became popular in the 1970s. This argued students will show improved learning if they receive information in a very specific way. For example, “visual learners” need to see information to be able to learn, while “aural learners” need to hear it.

This has been recognised as a myth since the mid-2000s, but the idea of learning styles still persists among educators.

While people may have preferred ways of accessing information, there is no evidence learning suffers if information isn’t provided in this format. Research has also shown teachers’ ideas of a student’s learning style do not tend to match students’ self-reported preferences.

So teaching decisions made on assumed student “learning styles” may be flawed in any case.

Myth 2: ‘students are either left or right brained’

Another enduring idea is we have personality traits that are either right-brained (intuitive and creative) or left-brained (analytical and logical)

There is evidence some brain functions hang out a little more on one side of the brain than the other. For example, language is more on the left and attention is more on the right. However, there’s no evidence your personality or your aptitude comes particularly from the left or right brain hemisphere.

The harm in this myth comes from students thinking they are “more left-brained than right” and teachers reinforcing this view. And from here, young people might think they should just stick to humanities or just stick to maths or science.

This could rob a student of exploring multiple academic and career paths. Sure, some students will seem to really flourish as an artist, some as mathematicians and some as both. But we should not be labelling students, based on a neuromyth, potentially impacting self-confidence and their potential.

Kate E. Williams receives funding from the Australian Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Government Department of Education, and Australian Government Department of Social Services. She is affiliated with Play Matters Australia as Chair of the Board of Directors.

– ref. Students are neither left or right brained: how some early childhood educators get this ‘neuromyth’ and others wrong – https://theconversation.com/students-are-neither-left-or-right-brained-how-some-early-childhood-educators-get-this-neuromyth-and-others-wrong-248888

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Historian, Australian Catholic University

Hot cross buns aren’t just a sweet snack that appears around Easter. They carry centuries of storytelling in their dough. From ancient gods to modern supermarkets, these sticky spiced buns have crossed many borders and beliefs.

Today, you can buy them in all kinds of flavours. But their story is far richer than chocolate chips and salted caramel.

Ancient beginnings

In some ancient cultures, bread was more than just food. It was a symbol of faith. Ancient Greeks baked small round loaves marked with crosses to honour their gods. According to some historians, these marks could represent the four seasons or four phases of the moon.

Jewish people have also shared special bread during holy times like Passover, and scholars have debated whether these customs influenced early Christian bread traditions.

Pagan Saxons worshipped a spring goddess named Eostre. They baked bread during springtime festivals to celebrate new life and longer days. The name “Eostre” is where we get the English word “Easter”. Over time, some of these springtime bread traditions blended with Christian customs.

From Pagan loaves to Christian buns

Early Christians started marking bread with a cross to show their devotion, and ate it throughout the year.

They believed the cross kept away evil spirits and helped the dough rise. Over time, the Christian view of the bread marked with the cross shifted to focus on Jesus’ crucifixion and became associated with Easter.

By the Middle Ages, many bakers only kept the cross on Good Friday bread.

According to popular tales, one 12th-century English monk made spiced buns marked with a cross on Good Friday, because that day is the “Day of the Cross”.

Monks often used spices to show the day was special. These spiced buns helped people remember the crucifixion of Christ and the spices used in his burial.

In 1592, Queen Elizabeth I restricted the sale of spiced bread and buns, perhaps because of religious tensions. England had broken away from the Catholic Church, and new Church of England officials worried that “holy” buns looked too much like Catholic superstition. Others say it was an issue of bread prices and profits. Then again maybe they were just too special for just everyday.

Under these laws, commercial bakers could only make spiced bread on Christmas, Easter and for funerals.

Good Friday and magic buns

By the 18th century, English street vendors sold “hot cross buns” on Good Friday. We even see an old rhyme about them in Poor Robin’s Almanac in 1733, which says:

Good Friday comes this month, the old woman runs,
With one a penny, two a penny, hot cross buns.

Soon, people believed these Good Friday buns had magical powers. Some hung them from kitchen rafters, believing they would never go mouldy. They kept them for protection against evil or illness. If someone felt sick, they crumbled part of an old hot cross bun into water, hoping it would cure them. Others placed buns in their grain stores to keep pests away.

These beliefs might sound odd today, but they were part of daily life for many.

In Victorian England, people exchanged hot cross buns with friends on Good Friday and said, “Half for you and half for me, between us two good luck shall be”.

Whatever ancient superstition the cross once warded off, today it’s the flavour roulette that keeps us coming back. Proof that tradition now serves taste, not fear.

An enduring symbol

Traditional buns contain dried fruit and spices like cinnamon and nutmeg, but many modern versions swap sultanas for chocolate chips or add flavours like salted caramel, orange – or even Vegemite and cheese. They have become a secular treat. Yet the crisscross pattern remains on top, hinting at the Christian origins.

When you smell a fresh batch of these buns, you’re sharing an experience people enjoyed centuries ago. Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Poles, Romans, Saxons, medieval monks and 18th-century street sellers all had their versions of spiced, crossed bread. Each group gave the buns its own meaning, from honouring gods to celebrating Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.

Eating hot cross buns at Easter also shows how traditions change with each generation. At first, they were hard to find outside Good Friday. Now, you might see them in shops just after New Year’s. They once symbolised pagan festivals, then moved into Christian rites, survived royal bans, and sailed through waves of superstition. Yet they remain a symbol of Easter in Australia and around the world.

Darius von Guttner Sporzynski 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. Pagan loaves, Christian bread, a secular treat: a brief history of hot cross buns – https://theconversation.com/pagan-loaves-christian-bread-a-secular-treat-a-brief-history-of-hot-cross-buns-246782

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

The significant turn-around in the federal polls ahead of the 2025 federal election, with the momentum now moving firmly in Labor’s direction.

A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted April 9–13 from a sample of 1,642, gave Labor a 53.5–46.5 lead, a 3.5-point gain for Labor since the previous Resolve poll that was conducted after the March 25 budget. In late February, the Coalition had led by 55–45 in Resolve, so this is a big turnaround for Labor.

Primary votes were 34% Coalition (down three), 31% Labor (up two), 13% Greens (steady), 6% One Nation (down one), 12% independents (up three) and 5% others (steady).

Independents were probably offered as an option everywhere. Future Resolve polls are likely to account for the declaration of nominations on Friday by giving voters in each seat a full ballot readout. Only viable independents will attract significant support, so the overall independent vote will drop.

The preferencing method isn’t stated, but Resolve has used respondent preferences for its headline in its previous polls. By 2022 election preference flows, this poll would be about 53.5–46.5 to Labor, so it’s likely there was no difference between the two methods.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval surged 12 points to +1, with 45% saying he was doing a good job and 44% a poor job. Albanese had suffered negative double digit ratings for more than a year. Peter Dutton’s net approval slumped eight points to -18. Albanese led Dutton as preferred PM by 46–30 (42–33 previously).

Now 68% believed Donald Trump’s election was bad for Australia, up from 60% in the post-budget poll that was taken before the stock market slump that followed Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs announcement on April 2.

On Trump’s influence on the election, 33% said it made them less likely to vote for the Coalition while 14% said more likely (35–15 with uncommitted voters). When this question was asked of Labor, it was 22% more likely to vote Labor and 21% less likely (24–24 with uncommitted).

The Liberals continued to lead Labor on economic management by 36–31 (36–29 previously). On keeping the cost of living low, Labor and the Liberals were tied at 30–30 (31–27 to the Liberals previously). The last time the Liberals didn’t lead on cost of living was in October 2023.

Two other national polls also had Labor gaining, with Labor now leading by 50–45 including undecided in Essential, and by 54.5–45.5 in Morgan. Here is the poll graph.

With Labor’s two-party vote between 52% and 54.5% in the five most recent national polls (YouGov, Newspoll, Essential, Morgan and Resolve), they would be very likely to win a majority in the House of Representatives if the election results reflect this polling.

Single-member systems are not proportional. If Labor wins the national two-party vote by about 53–47, they will win a large majority of the seats in two-party terms against the Coalition. While Labor would lose some of their two-party win seats to Greens and independents, they would still win enough seats for a clear House majority.

Does the Coalition have any chance?

The current polls were taken after a period of stock market turmoil following Trump’s tariffs announcement. If there are no more major stock market slumps before the May 3 election, perhaps the Coalition can recover. Or Albanese could perform badly in Wednesday night’s ABC debate with Dutton. In-person early voting begins next Tuesday, so there’s less time left for recovery before many votes are cast.

The current polls all used respondent preferences for their headline, but there was no difference between respondent and 2022 election flows. Previously, polls were showing a difference of about one point in the Coalition’s favour. The Trump effect has increased Labor’s share of respondent preferences.

The Coalition’s main chance is that the polls are overstating Labor. In 2022, Labor’s primary vote was overstated, but preference flows were better for Labor than expected, causing cancellation of errors. In 2019, the polls suggested Labor would win by 51.5–48.5, but they lost by that margin.

In the US, polls have understated Trump in the 2016, 2020 and 2024 elections. I don’t believe that we should expect the polls are overstating Labor just because they overstated them in 2019 and 2022. But this is the Coalition’s best hope of an unexpected good result on election night.

Essential poll: Labor gains five-point lead

A national Essential poll, conducted April 9–13 from a sample of 2,254 (double the normal sample), gave Labor a 50–45 lead including undecided by respondent preferences (a 48–47 Labor lead in the post-budget Essential poll). This is Labor’s biggest lead in Essential since October 2023. If the undecided were excluded, Labor would lead by 53–47 according to The Guardian’s poll report.

Primary votes were 32% Coalition (down two), 31% Labor (up one), 13% Greens (up one), 9% One Nation (steady), 2% Trumpet of Patriots (steady), 9% for all Others (up one) and 4% undecided (down one). By 2022 election flows, this would give Labor about a 53–47 lead.

Albanese’s net approval was down one to -3 (47% disapprove, 44% approve), while Dutton’s net approval was down three to -9, his worst in Essential since May 2023. Albanese was trusted over Dutton on addressing cost of living by 34–28. By 50–33, voters thought the country was on the wrong track (52–32 previously).

By 49–18, voters wanted Australia’s annual immigration intake to decrease, with 33% wanting it to stay about the same. By 81–19, voters said they don’t pay for news via subscriptions or donations. On where they get information about news and current events, 54% selected commercial media, 24% public broadcasters, 14% social media influencers and 7% podcasters.

Morgan poll: Labor gains nine-point lead

A national Morgan poll, conducted April 7–13 from a sample of 1,708, gave Labor a 54.5–45.5 lead by headline respondent preferences, a one-point gain for Labor since the March 31 to April 4 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 33.5% Coalition (up 0.5), 32% Labor (down 0.5), 14.5% Greens (up one), 6% One Nation (steady), 1% Trumpet of Patriots (down 0.5), 10% independents (up one) and 3% others (down 1.5). By 2022 election flows, this gave Labor an unchanged 54.5–45.5 lead.

By 48.5–34.5, voters thought the country was going in the wrong direction (52–33 previously). This is the smallest lead for wrong direction since September 2023. Morgan’s consumer confidence index was down 2.6 points to 84.2.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Labor surges to 7-point lead in Resolve poll, and has sizeable leads in two other national polls – https://theconversation.com/labor-surges-to-7-point-lead-in-resolve-poll-and-has-sizeable-leads-in-two-other-national-polls-254516

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margaret Murray, Senior Lecturer, nutrition, Swinburne University of Technology

With Easter around the corner, you’ll have seen chocolate Easter eggs on supermarket shelves. Maybe you’ve bought some already.

But is there a difference between Easter chocolate and the everyday kind? Does Easter chocolate really taste better, as some people say?

As we’ll see, any difference is less about the ingredients and more about how we experience the chocolate when we eat it.

What do they contain?

When we compared the ingredients and nutrients of Easter egg chocolate and regular chocolate from the same company, we found no major differences.

Cadbury Dairy Milk hollow easter egg and Cadbury Dairy Milk chocolate block both contain per 100 gram:

• about 2,200 kilojoules of energy

• 7g protein

• 31g fat

• 55g sugar

Both products have a minimum 24% milk solids. The egg has a marginally higher percentage of cocoa solids (28%) than the block (27%).

So if they contain pretty much the same ingredients, what else is going on?

It’s more about the taste, texture and smell

The difference between Easter chocolate and regular chocolate is more about how we experience the flavour of chocolate – via taste, texture and smell.

Taste is the recognition of simple ingredients dissolving in saliva and entering the taste pores on our tongue. In the case of chocolate, we perceive the taste as sweet (sugar), fatty (cocoa butter) and potentially bitter (caffeine and other cocoa-based compounds).

However, texture and smell make us most likely to tell the difference between Easter and regular chocolate.

The mouth is incredibly sensitive to the texture of foods. We perceive multiple physical qualities of a food, which we call “mouthfeel”.

Smoothness, creaminess and mouthcoating (for example, an oily feeling) are important components of chocolate’s mouthfeel.

Consumers also expect round-shaped chocolate to be creamier than angular-shape chocolate.

So even before we’ve taken a bite, we perceive a chocolate egg will be creamier than a block. These expectations can shape how we experience the flavour of chocolate.

However, if the chocolate egg is not as creamy as expected, this can be disappointing.

The temperature at which chocolate is made and stored also impacts its texture. Sometimes chocolate gets a whitish haze on its surface called chocolate bloom. This is when the fat and sugar separate from each other, forming fat or sugar crystals.

It is safe to eat chocolate with bloom, but it may taste less creamy or more gritty than chocolate without bloom.

Because the demand is so high during Easter, chocolate manufacturers sometimes use rapid-cooling techniques to produce hollow Easter eggs at a faster rate. This may make them more susceptible to chocolate bloom. Cheaper Easter chocolates using these rapid procedures may have a different texture than chocolate made the traditional way.

Finally, smell contributes the most to how we perceive flavour in foods. When chocolate starts to melt in our mouth, aromas are released. These aromas make their way through the back of the nose where we smell the complex scents and notes of chocolate. Depending on the chocolate, this could include fruity, earthy, buttery or floral aromas.

The shape of chocolate

We’ve already heard the shape of chocolate influences how creamy we think it is. But the shape of chocolate also influences other aspects of our eating experience.

Easter chocolate in the shape of an egg or an animal provides a large contact area inside the mouth meaning it will melt faster than a block. This impacts how quickly aroma compounds are released from the chocolate.

Biting into hollow chocolate, such as eggs and animals, may also require more time to chew and swallow. This results in Easter chocolate spending longer in our mouths with a greater release of aromas. This means we perceive a greater intensity or diversity of flavours compared to eating small squares.

Are you a sucker or a chewer?

How someone eats chocolate can also change its flavour. One study categorised people who ate chocolate as “suckers” or “chewers”.

Chewers tend to swallow chocolate more quickly and may perceive it to have a weaker flavour because of the shorter time for aromas to be released.

So how a person eats Easter chocolate may also impact whether they prefer it over regular chocolate.

Easter is only once a year

Last of all, eating Easter eggs (and hunting for them) are often part of a shared family ritual. This can make Easter chocolate seem special. No wonder we enjoy the whole Easter egg experience.

So whether you are a sucker or a chewer, Easter is a great time to slow down and celebrate with loved ones. Enjoy and savour your Easter chocolate in moderation, egg-shaped or otherwise.

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. What’s the difference between Easter egg chocolate and regular chocolate? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-easter-egg-chocolate-and-regular-chocolate-252026

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Grantham, Lecturer in Communication, Griffith University

From Abbie Chatfield and Hannah Ferguson to Ozzy Man, influencers have never been more central to an Australian election campaign.

Much has been made of the increasingly common site of politicians on TikTok or Instagram reels. Some political groups don’t like it, as don’t some in traditional media.

But in the first election in which Millennials and Gen Z voters will outnumber Baby Boomers, it’s an inevitable, politically necessary change – though not without its pitfalls.

A messy scene

Politics in the social media sphere is already starting to get messy.

A few weeks ago, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) investigated whether influencer content promoting political messages constitutes electoral advertising.

The findings suggest it does not, but the AEC has proceeded to ask that this content is accompanied with authorisations.

Late last week, Independent MP Allegra Spender admitted to commissioning influencer content through a talent agency.

This doesn’t seem to breach electoral rules, but the lines are being blurred, particularly given the content included glowing remarks about Spender and only suggested they were created “in collaboration”, not as a paid advertisement. This has since been fixed.

The scrutiny reveals growing discomfort around this emerging form of political communication – including from politicians themselves.

As influencer Chatfield said:

there’s this like moral panic about influencers in politics as well, this whole idea influencers can’t be trusted with something as serious and as high brow as politics.

But is that the case, especially if money has changed hands?

A politicised sphere

In what is perhaps a sign of the globally uncertain times, influencing is more political than ever.

Look at the recent clash involving Holly MacAlpine, who is mounting a legal challenge to the Liberal Party’s social media strategy. She accused them of deliberately editing a clip of her supporting The Greens to make it look like she was instead criticising the party. Last night she launched a crowdfunding campaign for legal representation that reached its goal amount within hours.

Influencers are becoming more than messengers. They are political actors in their own right.

In response, TikTok has adjusted its algorithm to recognise political content at the point of upload. The content is now being held for review prior to going live.

It’s also running an election safety campaign alongside the AEC.

However, at the time of writing, these guidelines don’t appear on all content that discusses politics or elections. It doesn’t appear to be attached to Australian political content in the same way this style of guideline was used during other events, like COVID.

Politics with personality

All this matters because younger generations don’t get their political information from newspapers or nightly news bulletins.

Instead, they turn to short-form video platforms like TikTok and Instagram Reels, where politics is often delivered with humour, personality, and authenticity (real or perceived).

The algorithms that drive these platforms reward familiarity and engagement. When a well-known face appears on screen, users linger, boosting the reach of that post. Political messages, even subtle ones, can travel far beyond the original audience.

Influencers have a lot to contribute to political discourse, particularly in podcasts, but the way they formulate and deliver messages varies widely.

Some are not explicitly aligned with a political party, while others are transparent about where their preferences sit. How much they affect the election campaign heavily depends on their specific niche and how that relates to broader election commentary.

Glenn James, host of the Money Money Money podcast and a figure in the personal finance space was recently invited to the budget lock-up. He asked questions about student debt.

His content sits at the intersection of finance and policy, making it particularly powerful in an election where cost-of-living pressures and education debt are key issues for younger voters.

It’s an example that not all political influence on social media is overtly partisan. Sometimes, it’s about asking the right questions.

Reaching eyeballs

Perhaps influencers’ most significant contribution is not just persuasive power, but reach.

Their ability to cut through and capture attention is unmatched in today’s fragmented media landscape. In the past, audiences followed specific news outlets aligned with their values.

Now, thanks to TikTok’s “For You” Page and Instagram Reels’ algorithmic curation, users are increasingly exposed to political content from creators they don’t necessarily follow and would not otherwise encounter.

Another example is Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s recent use of “delulu with no solulu” (delusional with no solution) in parliament following a dare from podcast Happy Hour with Lucy and Nikki.

Even though it made no sense to a portion of the population, it gained significant momentum and was trending across platforms.

Adopting the blueprint

Influencers aren’t journalists, and most aren’t claiming to be. They’re generally upfront about the fact they’re not wedded to journalistic standards of impartiality, objectivity and holding the powerful to account.

So in an attempt to ensure traditional media reporting is also noticed by social media users, media outlets are using similar techniques, albeit through a journalistic lens.

From playing to the algorithm to providing behind the scenes content from the campaign trail, traditional media are solidifying their place in this election commentary and getting noticed.

It’s a new playing field in political campaigning. But whether it meaningfully shifts voter behaviour, or just adds to the already overwhelmed digital chatter, remains to be seen.

Susan Grantham 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. Social media is the new election battleground. Is embracing influencers smart, risky or both? – https://theconversation.com/social-media-is-the-new-election-battleground-is-embracing-influencers-smart-risky-or-both-253537

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenton Griffin, Casual Lecturer and Tutor in History, Indigenous Studies, and Politics, Flinders University

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has announced it will build 15 new temples in countries across the world, including one in Liverpool, New South Wales.

This follows a similar announcement last year of plans to build a second temple for Queensland, in South Brisbane.

The two new structures – together with existing temples in Sydney (1984), Adelaide (2000), Melbourne (2000), Perth (2001) and Brisbane (2003) – will bring the total number of Australian temples to seven.

In a nation with fewer than 160,000 practising Mormons, these new buildings seek to increase the legitimacy and visibility of the church.

The significance of temples

There are currently at least 200 completed Mormon temples around the globe, with an additional 182 under construction or announced.

Temples have a different purpose and scope to Mormon chapels, which are far more common: Australia has about 190 Mormon chapels.

Chapels are used for weekly sacrament (or communion) and weekly sermons. They are open to visitors, and often hold cultural events, extra church activities and family history centres.

Temples, on the other hand, represent the blending of the divine and temporal. According to the Mormon worldview and doctrines, they are the world’s most sacred structures.

Each temple is emblazoned with the phrase “The House of the Lord, Holiness to the Lord”. This isn’t just symbolic. Mormons believe each temple is literally the house of God, in which his presence may be felt.

Given the gravity of this belief, these spaces are reserved for those who have been deemed worthy to enter by Mormon leaders.

Inside the House of the Lord

The church itself maintains that temples are “sacred, not secret”. It has long worked to dispel speculation over what happens within temple bounds.

One way it does this is through “open houses”, in which a newly-built temple may be toured by anyone for a brief period. Once the open house has ended and the temple has been “dedicated” by a church leader – a process that includes blessing the building and those who will use it – it becomes entirely closed to the public.

Within the temples, the most sacred rituals and knowledge of “the gospel” are imparted upon faithful members. Rituals can be performed for both living people and deceased ancestors. They must never be conducted – or even discussed – outside the sacred temple space.

One of these rituals is baptism and confirmation for the dead by proxy (baptisms for the living are conducted in chapels or other spaces). This provides the deceased individuals “ordinances” that are necessary for salvation, which they did not receive during life.

These baptisms have been controversial at times, with ordinances performed on individuals who were not direct ancestors of Latter-day Saints, including Holocaust victims and historical figures such as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Even prominent Australians such as Ned Kelly, Malcolm Fraser, Neville Bonner and Truganini have allegedly appeared as “baptised” in Mormon records.

Other temple ceremonies, conducted for both the dead and living, include washing and anointing with oil, “endowment” and “sealing”.

The rituals are accompanied by various stages of knowledge progression for attendees. As with the rituals, temple knowledge is not to be discussed outside.

Local opposition

The air of secrecy and exclusivity surrounding Mormon temples has resulted in a flood of negative attention from Australian media, other religious institutions and society at large. News reports from as far back as the early 20th century sought to expose “Mormon temple secrets”.

The first temple, built in Sydney in 1984, was widely protested by community groups and organisations. The building had to be modified by the church before it was eventually approved. A similar situation transpired in Brisbane in the early 2000s.

In other cities, such as Adelaide and Melbourne, temples were not directly protested, but were still critiqued for their lavishness, with the average Australian temple costing around A$8 million in the late 1990s/early 2000s.

Given the cost of living crisis, and contention over the place of religion in contemporary Australia, the two proposed temples will likely also face criticism.

Reputational management

The church’s reputation in Australia has become ever more complicated over the past 20 years, not least due to several controversies.

In 2022 and 2023, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald reported the church was allegedly abusing tax laws, to the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars. This was addressed, but not confirmed or denied, in the November 2022 Senate Estimates by Australian Tax Office Assistant Commissioner Jeremy Hirschhorn, after questioning by Greens Senator David Shoebridge. Accusations of tax evasion have also been made in New Zealand and the United States.

Other controversies relate to LGBTQIA+ discrimination, the church’s influence in Australian and global politics, and allegations resulting from the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse.

The new Australian temples will be completed under a pall of critiques and accusations around church finances and other controversies. And while they might be briefly open to the public, their doors will just as quickly shut – adding more fuel to the speculation.

Brenton Griffin was raised as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but is no longer a practising member of the church. His current research is focused on the religion’s place in Australian and New Zealand popular culture, politics, and society from the nineteenth century to present.

– ref. Why the Mormon church is on an expansion project, with 2 secretive new temples planned for Australia – https://theconversation.com/why-the-mormon-church-is-on-an-expansion-project-with-2-secretive-new-temples-planned-for-australia-254217

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Meade, Adjunct Associate Professor, Griffith University, Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research, Griffith University

Winter is coming to New Zealand and Australia, and with it come those inevitably higher power bills from heating our homes.

But even without that seasonal spike, household power bills were already set to rise by NZ$10 to $25 a month in New Zealand and up to A$9 a month in parts of Australia.

This is not, as some might assume, because electricity suppliers are acting uncompetitively. It’s because regulators are increasing charges for long-distance electricity transmission (pylons and substations) and short-distance distribution (poles and wires).

Those charges together make up around 40% of power bills on average, so the price increases matter. In New Zealand, an average 15% of household budgets is spent on electricity. The proportion going towards those infrastructure costs is higher for low-income, regional and rural households.

To put this another way, these fixed parts of our power bills can equal what a typical household spends on mobile phones, public transport or water services.

Transmission and distribution services are regulated because they are provided by monopolies. Regulators such as the Commerce Commission in New Zealand and the Australian Energy Regulator in eastern Australia try to set reasonable prices while still allowing those firms enough money to provide reliable services.

However, this old regulatory model is being challenged by changing consumer behaviour. Households are increasingly electrifying, switching to heat pumps for space and water heating, and electric vehicles (EVs) for personal transport.

Regulators want to ensure the reliability of electricity supply doesn’t significantly decline. But households that rely on electricity want greater reliability – especially with growing demand for “smart” appliances that can be damaged by outages.

Quality versus quantity

Unfortunately, history is a poor guide to how regulation should ensure these future reliability needs are met. Furthermore, electricity is an unusual “product” – the quantity we consume is often an afterthought, while the affordability and quality of supply are more top of mind.

Importantly, quality means much more to consumers than just reliability. It includes how well outages are planned and communicated, how easy it is to get help and updates when things go wrong, new connection times, and the voltage stability modern appliances require.

What constitutes good service might also include customer charters or other guarantees of minimum acceptable expectations, as well as compensation schemes.

Beyond these options, however, the very basis for regulation is being upturned as households invest in rooftop solar panels, home batteries and electric vehicles (EVs). The competition offered by these new technologies means distribution companies are no longer monopoly providers because households can get electricity in new ways.

This also means households expect new services from those providers – such as being able to sell electricity to others (including to distribution companies themselves to help them maintain reliable supply).

What customers really want

Historically, electricity regulation has responded to emerging challenges like these with “bolt-on” solutions. Each one tries to address a specific issue individually, but not in a coherent and joined-up way.

Overall, how and why we regulate electricity transmission and distribution need rethinking from the ground up, not more rounds of regulatory whack-a-mole. Consumer preferences need to be more than a vague overriding objective. They need to be at the heart of regulation.

New Zealand’s Commerce Commission already exempts many distribution firms from much regulation because they are owned and governed by customers. And regulators in other English-speaking countries, including Australia, increasingly rely on consumer forums and other channels to indirectly and only partially identify consumer preferences.

But neither model obtains directly usable information about what consumers want – from those consumers themselves. Unsurprisingly, customer preferences are not widely or systematically reflected in regulation.

Besides, asking customers about quality and reliability of service assumes they can clearly articulate what they care about and what value they attach to them in ways regulators can use.

Value for money

One solution is to use a direct measure of consumer satisfaction. We developed and applied a version of this in recent research involving a survey of Swedish electricity customers.

We measured satisfaction by asking consumers to rate the “value for money” they perceived from their distribution firm, ranging from zero (lowest) to five (highest).

Perceptions of quality can vary and are inherently subjective. But value for money can be interpreted as a ratio of quality to price: higher quality means higher value for money, higher price means lower value for money. From this, we obtained an objective measure of overall customer satisfaction levels.

As might be expected, we found value for money tended to be higher for customers of distribution firms owned and controlled by those customers. But directly measuring customer satisfaction in this way could be a good basis for regulation reform in general.

We still need to better understand how customer satisfaction is affected by regulatory decisions. This has always been the case, but it is especially true now that fundamental changes are happening in the sector.

Electricity customers heading into winter might be happier with rising transmission and distribution prices if they were confident regulation genuinely improved their overall value for money.

Business as usual, on the other hand, may offer them only cold comfort.

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

– ref. Winter electricity prices are rising – how do we know we’re getting value for money? – https://theconversation.com/winter-electricity-prices-are-rising-how-do-we-know-were-getting-value-for-money-254198

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Ong ViforJ, John Curtin Distinguished Professor & ARC Future Fellow, Curtin University

As the election campaign rolls on, housing has been, unsurprisingly, a major campaign focus. We’ve seen a series of housing policy announcements from across the political spectrum, including duelling announcements from the major parties in recent days.

Labor will expand access to their Help to Buy and Home Gurantee schemes by either raising or removing income limits and price caps.

The Liberals will allow first homebuyers to access their super for housing and deduct mortgage repayments from their income tax, while lowering the mortgage serviceability buffer.

While the politicians make big promises, it’s worth thinking about what evidence shows would actually make a meaningful difference. We have five ideas.

But first, the extent of the problem

It’s old news that we have a significant housing affordability problem in Australia.

Between 2004 and 2024, the national dwelling price to income ratio climbed rapidly from five to eight, hitting ten in Sydney.

Advertised rents have climbed by more than 20% since the start of COVID.

The public housing waitlist is around 170,000 households, and the number of homeless persons rose from 95,000 to 122,000 in the two decades to 2021.

Policies of the past decade have not worked, and in some cases they’ve made it worse. So what would help?

Read more:
Labor and Coalition support for new home buyers welcome but other Australians also struggling with housing affordability

1. It’s a cluster problem that needs a cluster solution

When we talk of the affordability crisis, what we’re really talking about is a complicated cluster of interrelated problems that make housing unaffordable to buy, build and rent.

Unaffordable housing comes from the interaction between the global economy, interest rates, inefficiencies in our construction and planning systems, as well as the outcomes of poor government policies. We should be wary of hitching our wagon to any of these alone.

Reform of the planning system, for example, is held up by some as the simple solution. While the planning system needs to be improved, it does not make up the entirety of the housing production pipeline – and it’s definitely not a magical solution.

Equal attention needs to be given to workforce shortages, productivity concerns in the construction industry, development financial risk and developer behaviour. These are all arguably as important as planning in delivering new supply.

2. It’s not about supply versus demand. It’s both

Many major housing policy announcements are either supply-focused or demand-focused. What Australia needs are coherent and integrated policy packages addressing both sides of the problem at the same time.

During this election campaign, both major parties have made a series of demand-boosting policy announcements in rapid succession, designed to put more cash into the hands of first homebuyers.

All these measures will further fuel increases in house prices at a pace that income growth cannot match.

It is true both parties have proposed supply measures, such as Labor’s plan to build 100,000 new homes exclusively for first homebuyers.

However, supply lags mean these houses will not be delivered in time to offset any rise in demand (and price) from the expansion of the demand-boosting schemes.

3. Think beyond new supply

The shortfall of dwellings in Australia is certainly a problem, but even an ambitious construction target is likely to add only about 2% to our existing stock each year.

We need to look to the homes already built and how they can better meet demand. This might include measures to promote granny flats, or enable additional subdivision.

4. Aim before shooting

Too many housing programs are poorly targeted. We need to zero in on those in housing need. We shouldn’t be providing assistance to those who don’t need it.

Policymakers need to confront the targeting errors that afflict their proposed plans.

Currently, 11% of aspiring first homebuyers are able to meet deposit and repayment requirements to purchase a home.

Labor’s plan to lift the income limits and caps on available places will open up the scheme to many homebuyers who don’t need government-funded assistance for a home purchase.

The Liberals’ super for housing plan will also benefit higher-income and older groups.

5. Design policies through an intergenerational lens

As we live longer, policymakers must embrace the challenge of meeting the housing needs of multiple generations. This co-existence in society is the new normal.

For instance, economists have consistently called for the abolition of stamp duties in home purchases, favouring instead a broad-based land tax. This removes a major upfront sum that would otherwise be paid by both young people looking to buy their first home and older “empty nesters” looking to downsize.

Read more:
25 years into a new century and housing is less affordable than ever

Stamp duty is a major revenue source for state and territory governments. This reform needs Australian government financial support as we move to a more affordable future. Australia’s reliance on stamp duty is second only to South Korea among OECD countries.

But even if stamp duties are not abolished, we could better use this revenue to meet housing needs, including building additional social housing, bolstering homelessness services and constructing new housing infrastructure.

The elephant in the housing policy room

At the end of the day, it’s worth remembering that housing isn’t all about supply, buildings, investment and construction. Our housing is also where we live, sleep and grow old.

Our population aren’t just passive players in the housing system, they actively shape it, in their choices to buy housing, to rent, seek out major cities and renovate.

By demonstrating, de-risking, and promoting a broader range of housing options (such as making rental an attractive lifetime tenure, expanding shared equity options, or championing advances in modular and prefabricated construction), governments can shape demand towards more affordable homes.

Rachel Ong ViforJ is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project FT200100422). She also receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Andrew Beer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the City of Lithgow.

Emma Baker receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

– ref. Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here’s 5 ideas – https://theconversation.com/amid-the-election-promises-what-would-actually-help-fix-the-housing-crisis-heres-5-ideas-253332

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nikki-Anne Wilson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA), UNSW Sydney

In the 21st century, digital technology has changed many aspects of our lives. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is the latest newcomer, with chatbots and other AI tools changing how we learn and creating considerable philosophical and legal challenges regarding what it means to “outsource thinking”.

But the emergence of technology that changes the way we live is not a new issue. The change from analogue to digital technology began around the 1960s and this “digital revolution” is what brought us the internet. An entire generation of people who lived and worked through this evolution are now entering their early 80s.

So what can we learn from them about the impact of technology on the ageing brain? A comprehensive new study from researchers at the University of Texas and Baylor University in the United States provides important answers.

Published today in Nature Human Behaviour, it found no supporting evidence for the “digital dementia” hypothesis. In fact, it found the use of computers, smartphones and the internet among people over 50 might actually be associated with lower rates of cognitive decline.

What is ‘digital dementia’?

Much has been written about the potential negative impact from technology on the human brain.

According to the “digital dementia” hypothesis introduced by German neuroscientist and psychiatrist Manfred Spitzer in 2012, increased use of digital devices has resulted in an over-reliance on technology. In turn, this has weakened our overall cognitive ability.

Three areas of concern regarding the use of technology have previously been noted:

1. An increase in passive screen time. This refers to technology use which does not require significant thought or participation, such as watching TV or scrolling social media.

2. Offloading cognitive abilities to technology, such as no longer memorising phone numbers because they are kept in our contact list.

3. Increased susceptibility to distraction.

Why is this new study important?

We know technology can impact how our brain develops. But the effect of technology on how our brain ages is less understood.

This new study by neuropsychologists Jared Benge and Michael Scullin is important because it examines the impact of technology on older people who have experienced significant changes in the way they use technology across their life.

The new study performed what is known as a meta-analysis where the results of many previous studies are combined. The authors searched for studies examining technology use in people aged over 50 and examined the association with cognitive decline or dementia. They found 57 studies which included data from more than 411,000 adults. The included studies measured cognitive decline based on lower performance on cognitive tests or a diagnosis of dementia.

A reduced risk of cognitive decline

Overall, the study found greater use of technology was associated with a reduced risk of cognitive decline. Statistical tests were used to determine the “odds” of having cognitive decline based on exposure to technology. An odds ratio under 1 indicates a reduced risk from exposure and the combined odds ratio in this study was 0.42. This means higher use of technology was associated with a 58% risk reduction for cognitive decline.

This benefit was found even when the effect of other things known to contribute to cognitive decline, such as socioeconomic status and other health factors, were accounted for.

Interestingly, the magnitude of the effect of technology use on brain function found in this study was similar or stronger than other known protective factors, such as physical activity (approximately a 35% risk reduction), or maintaining a healthy blood pressure (approximately a 13% risk reduction).

However, it is important to understand that there are far more studies conducted over many years examining the benefits of managing blood pressure and increasing physical activty, and the mechanisms through which they help protect our brains are far more understood.

It is also a lot easier to measure blood pressure than it is use of technology. A strength of this study is that it considered these difficulties by focusing on certain aspects of technology use but excluded others such as brain training games.

These findings are encouraging. But we still can’t say technology use causes better cognitive function. More research is needed to see if these findings are replicated in different groups of people (especially those from low and middle income countries) who were underrepresented in this study, and to understand why this relationship might occur.

A question of ‘how’ we use technology

In reality, it’s simply not feasible to live in the world today without using some form of technology. Everything from paying bills to booking our next holiday is now almost completely done online. Maybe we should instead be thinking about how we use technology.

Cognitively stimulating activities such as reading, learning a new language and playing music – particularly in early adulthood – can help protect our brains as we age.

Greater engagement with technology across our lifespan may be a form of stimulating our memory and thinking, as we adapt to new software updates or learn how to use a new smartphone. It has been suggested this “technological reserve” may be good for our brains.

Technology may also help us to stay socially connected, and help us stay independent for longer.

A rapidly changing digital world

While findings from this study show it’s unlikely all digital technology is bad for us, the way we interact and rely on it is rapidly changing

The impact of AI on the ageing brain will only become evident in future decades. However, our ability to adapt to historical technological innovations, and the potential for this to support cognitive function, suggests the future may not be all bad.

For example, advances in brain-computer interfaces offer new hope for those experiencing the impact of neurological disease or disability.

However, the potential downsides of technology are real, particularly for younger people, including poor mental health. Future research will help determine how we can capture the benefits of technology while limiting the potential for harm.

Nikki-Anne Wilson has previously received funding from the UNSW Ageing Futures Institute and the Australian Association of Gerontology.

– ref. New study finds no evidence technology causes ‘digital dementia’ in older people – https://theconversation.com/new-study-finds-no-evidence-technology-causes-digital-dementia-in-older-people-254392

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Ong ViforJ, John Curtin Distinguished Professor & ARC Future Fellow, Curtin University

As the election campaign rolls on, housing has been, unsurprisingly, a major campaign focus. We’ve seen a series of housing policy announcements from across the political spectrum, including duelling announcements from the major parties in recent days.

Labor will expand access to their Help to Buy and Home Gurantee schemes by either raising or removing income limits and price caps.

The Liberals will allow first homebuyers to access their super for housing and deduct mortgage repayments from their income tax, while lowering the mortgage serviceability buffer.

While the politicians make big promises, it’s worth thinking about what evidence shows would actually make a meaningful difference. We have five ideas.

But first, the extent of the problem

It’s old news that we have a significant housing affordability problem in Australia.

Between 2004 and 2024, the national dwelling price to income ratio climbed rapidly from five to eight, hitting ten in Sydney.

Advertised rents have climbed by more than 20% since the start of COVID.

The public housing waitlist is around 170,000 households, and the number of homeless persons rose from 95,000 to 122,000 in the two decades to 2021.

Policies of the past decade have not worked, and in some cases they’ve made it worse. So what would help?

Read more:
Labor and Coalition support for new home buyers welcome but other Australians also struggling with housing affordability

1. It’s a cluster problem that needs a cluster solution

When we talk of the affordability crisis, what we’re really talking about is a complicated cluster of interrelated problems that make housing unaffordable to buy, build and rent.

Unaffordable housing comes from the interaction between the global economy, interest rates, inefficiencies in our construction and planning systems, as well as the outcomes of poor government policies. We should be wary of hitching our wagon to any of these alone.

Reform of the planning system, for example, is held up by some as the simple solution. While the planning system needs to be improved, it does not make up the entirety of the housing production pipeline – and it’s definitely not a magical solution.

Equal attention needs to be given to workforce shortages, productivity concerns in the construction industry, development financial risk and developer behaviour. These are all arguably as important as planning in delivering new supply.

2. It’s not about supply versus demand. It’s both

Many major housing policy announcements are either supply-focused or demand-focused. What Australia needs are coherent and integrated policy packages addressing both sides of the problem at the same time.

During this election campaign, both major parties have made a series of demand-boosting policy announcements in rapid succession, designed to put more cash into the hands of first homebuyers.

All these measures will further fuel increases in house prices at a pace that income growth cannot match.

It is true both parties have proposed supply measures, such as Labor’s plan to build 100,000 new homes exclusively for first homebuyers.

However, supply lags mean these houses will not be delivered in time to offset any rise in demand (and price) from the expansion of the demand-boosting schemes.

3. Think beyond new supply

The shortfall of dwellings in Australia is certainly a problem, but even an ambitious construction target is likely to add only about 2% to our existing stock each year.

We need to look to the homes already built and how they can better meet demand. This might include measures to promote granny flats, or enable additional subdivision.

4. Aim before shooting

Too many housing programs are poorly targeted. We need to zero in on those in housing need. We shouldn’t be providing assistance to those who don’t need it.

Policymakers need to confront the targeting errors that afflict their proposed plans.

Currently, 11% of aspiring first homebuyers are able to meet deposit and repayment requirements to purchase a home.

Labor’s plan to lift the income limits and caps on available places will open up the scheme to many homebuyers who don’t need government-funded assistance for a home purchase.

The Liberals’ super for housing plan will also benefit higher-income and older groups.

5. Design policies through an intergenerational lens

As we live longer, policymakers must embrace the challenge of meeting the housing needs of multiple generations. This co-existence in society is the new normal.

For instance, economists have consistently called for the abolition of stamp duties in home purchases, favouring instead a broad-based land tax. This removes a major upfront sum that would otherwise be paid by both young people looking to buy their first home and older “empty nesters” looking to downsize.

Read more:
25 years into a new century and housing is less affordable than ever

Stamp duty is a major revenue source for state and territory governments. This reform needs Australian government financial support as we move to a more affordable future. Australia’s reliance on stamp duty is second only to South Korea among OECD countries.

But even if stamp duties are not abolished, we could better use this revenue to meet housing needs, including building additional social housing, bolstering homelessness services and constructing new housing infrastructure.

The elephant in the housing policy room

At the end of the day, it’s worth remembering that housing isn’t all about supply, buildings, investment and construction. Our housing is also where we live, sleep and grow old.

Our population aren’t just passive players in the housing system, they actively shape it, in their choices to buy housing, to rent, seek out major cities and renovate.

By demonstrating, de-risking, and promoting a broader range of housing options (such as making rental an attractive lifetime tenure, expanding shared equity options, or championing advances in modular and prefabricated construction), governments can shape demand towards more affordable homes.

Rachel Ong ViforJ is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project FT200100422). She also receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Andrew Beer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the City of Lithgow.

Emma Baker receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

– ref. Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here are 5 ideas – https://theconversation.com/amid-the-election-promises-what-would-actually-help-fix-the-housing-crisis-here-are-5-ideas-253332

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter McDonald, Honorary Professor of Demography, Centre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne

Immigration is shaping as one of the most potent policy issues of the election campaign.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has announced a Coalition government would cut the two major migration programs – permanent and net overseas. He has directly linked the number of people coming into the country to high house prices, which feeds into the election’s hot button issue of cost of living:

the first and foremost interest in mind is to get young Australians into housing.

But will cutting immigration help fix the housing crisis? Or is this a smokescreen for other problems with the migration system that are not being addressed by the major parties?

Fewer permanent migrants

The Coalition is campaigning on its plans to reduce the Permanent Migration Program, from 185,000 a year to 140,000.

This is the wrong time to make such a large cut. Permanent migration, more than temporary, is critical for Australia’s economic growth. It also helps offset the ageing of the population.

For its part, Labor failed to include the permanent migration number in last month’s budget, so we have no idea about its plans if it is re-elected.

It is best for our economy when the annual migration intake is between 160,000 and 220,000. From the Gillard government until today, the Permanent Migration Program has been set by governments of both shades within that range.

Th Coalition’s proposed cut is problematic because extreme pressure is building in two visa categories that have close to 100% grant rates: Partners and Children in the Family stream and Employer Sponsored workers in the Skill stream.

If recent experience is anything to go by, the number of applications lodged by family members of Australian citizens or permanent residents will skyrocket to 110,000 by June 30. It is important to note this category is largely demand-driven. These family members have a right to permanent residence under Section 87 of The Migration Act.

Demand is also exploding in the visa category that allows employers to address labour shortages, which has a grant rate of over 98%. Almost 100,000 applications are expected in 2024–25. However, only 44,000 places have been allocated. Employers are going to be very unhappy whichever side is elected.

Given the pent-up demand, the Coalition is avoiding the tricky questions about which parts of the Permanent Program it would cut and by how much. Labor is shirking the issue altogether by not providing any target.

Dutton’s planned reduction to permanent migration numbers would have only a small impact on housing. In a normal year, 60% of grantees are already living in Australia. They won’t be adding to housing demand, because they are already here.

The numbers don’t add up

The other major category, Net Overseas Migration, includes temporary arrivals – mainly skilled workers, working holiday makers and international students. Treasury estimates 260,000 migrants in this category in 2025–26

Dutton says the Coalition would cut this number by 100,000 people and would do it “straight away, once we get into government”.

But this number is not achievable, at least not “straight away”. Arrivals can be lowered. But the number of departures will be way too low to reach the target.

The category has already fallen by 100,000 in each of the past two years. It will continue to decline gradually over the next couple of years, but not nearly as fast as the Coalition target requires.

The number of departures has been low due to the surge in temporary migrants that followed the COVID border closures. The majority of these people have valid visas until at least 2027–28. Only then, is there likely to be a flow of migrants leaving Australia.

Dutton should have said a Coalition government would reach this target in its third year, not its first. But this would not have suited the false argument that net overseas migration has a big impact on housing affordability. It’s spurious because net overseas migration largely consists of temporary residents who rarely buy houses. And both major parties have policies banning temporary residents from purchasing established properties.

New temporary migrants do have an impact on rental demand, but it’s highly localised near universities and along public transport routes. Even this demand is somewhat muted. According to 2021 Census data, a large minority (30–40%) of students and working holiday makers live in specialist accommodation or in very large households.

Problems beyond the election

Australia is facing an estimated shortfall of 130,000 housing construction workers. Both sides of politics are taking worthwhile steps to expand the number of apprentices. But the apprenticeship route is slow and likely to fall short of requirements.

We need more skilled tradies from overseas, but it’s not happening due to obstacles in the migration system. Neither side of politics seems to be looking for creative solutions. Certainly, cutting the Permanent Program is not the answer.

Another major issue is the difficulty successive governments have had in getting people to leave Australia once all their options to remain have been exhausted.

As of January 2025, there were 92,000 individuals who had been refused a final Protection Visa, but had not yet departed. This number accumulated under the previous Morrison government and has continued to expand under Labor.

Policy not politics

Undue panic over the level of net overseas migration in an election context has made a mess of Australian migration policy.

This is evidenced by the policy shambles over international education. The major parties both have plans to limit the number of foreign students, but the cap in both cases is not much below pre-COVID enrolments.

On a more positive note, both sides of politics should be commended for not allowing racism and the “otherness” of migrants to enter the debate.

But it’s time to drop the fantasy that cutting migration will help young Australians enter the housing market. This a blatant distraction from the real and tangible problems with the migration system that must be dealt with by whoever wins on May 3.

This is the seventh article in our special series, Australia’s Policy Challenges. You can read the other articles here

Peter McDonald has received funding from the Australian Research Council and from the Department of Home Affairs (including its predecessors) for studies of migration issues, but not in the past decade.

– ref. Cutting migrant numbers won’t help housing – the real immigration problems not being tackled this election – https://theconversation.com/cutting-migrant-numbers-wont-help-housing-the-real-immigration-problems-not-being-tackled-this-election-250646

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Guastella, Professor and Clinical Psychologist, Michael Crouch Chair in Child and Youth Mental Health, University of Sydney

When parents are concerned about their child’s development, they often seek an assessment to address concerns and identify any conditions, such as autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or learning disorders.

Common worries include difficulties making friends, focusing on tasks, or meeting educational goals.

It might seem counter-intuitive but assessments are starting to focus on a child’s strengths during this process. This can create powerful opportunities to improve child and family outcomes, particularly when too much of the focus is on challenges in the family home, school and play settings.

There is, however, a lack of evidence about how to do such assessments and how certain strengths can be used in assessment.

In a new research paper, we have developed a strengths checklist for parents, carers and clinicians to more easily identify children’s skills, talents and positive qualities – and understand the type of support they need at home, school or socially.

The aim was to provide an easy way for parents and clinicians to identify strengths in children, and to provide a method for studying the role of strengths in development. This assessment can be used alongside more established assessments of challenges.

Why highlight a child’s strengths?

Focusing on a child’s strengths can have a powerful impact on children and parents. It can boost a child’s motivation, self-esteem, cognitive skills, language development, problem-solving abilities and build stronger relationships.

For parents and caregivers, it can increase their own feelings of self-worth and improve the quality of their relationship with their own children.

When parents and caregivers believe in their child’s abilities and encourage their strengths, children and families thrive.

However, there are many gaps in research about how to apply a strengths-based approach in the context of a neurodevelopmental assessment.

Currently, while the basic principle of incorporating strengths is clear, clinicians need to rely on intuition and creativity to guide their practices.

We have long needed better evidence-based methods to guide this.

This is where our research comes in

Our new study used the Sydney Child Neurodevelopment Research Registry, which aims to improve the neurodevelopmental assessment processes and the evidence for what works for families and clinicians. We asked caregivers to identify their child’s strengths on their first assessment visit.

Nearly 700 caregivers reported an average of 2.8 strengths about their children. Using these themes, we developed a child strengths checklist to use for clinical assessments.

We showed caregivers identified six categories of child strengths: cognitive and intellectual, social and interpersonal, hobbies and passions, character and personality, physical, and resilient behaviours.

Some caregivers might report that while their child had difficulty with peer interactions, they were also kind, affectionate, honest and caring.

Other caregivers described concerns about cognitive delays, but they also described how children persevered and persisted with tasks.

Analysing the data qualitatively – where we read caregiver transcripts and extracted themes – we captured the richness and detail of unique strengths. In total, we identified 61 unique strengths.

With community representatives and clinicians, we used this to develop a strengths-based checklist we’re calling the Child Autism and Neurodevelopment Strengths Checklist, or the CANS checklist.

This type of research will provide the evidence needed to be able to implement national guidelines and to develop better evidence about how strengths can be used to improve outcomes. We want to develop best practices for combining concerns and strengths into feedback, support plans and intervention strategies.

What can caregivers and clinicians do now?

Support schemes including the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) often require families to highlight what children can’t do. Still, there are some practical ways caregivers and clinicians can ensure a child’s strengths are kept front and centre.

For caregivers, along with discussing concerns, reflect on and talk with your clinicians about your child’s strengths. Make sure clinicians keep these in mind when devising supports.

For both caregivers and clinicians, it can be helpful to think about characteristics often seen as challenges – such as a strong need for routine – as also potential strengths. It may lead to new ways of supporting children. With the right environment and support, these traits can be valuable assets in a child’s development.

For clinicians, consider how a child’s strengths can inform your assessment and intervention strategies. Make sure you don’t only focus on what children can’t do or need support with.

Communicate clearly about the child’s strengths and consider how these strengths can:

• support the child’s long-term development and goals. If the child thrives on routine and pays close attention to details, showing them how to embrace these strengths can teach them how to use them to reach their own goals and to be more independent

• be the target of an intervention. Everyone needs to experience success. Designing activities around strengths can make intervention more enjoyable and engaging, and the effects are more likely to be long-lasting

• be used to support the wellbeing of families. Helping families focus on each other’s strengths and improve the way family members talk about and support one another creates a positive environment where they can all feel valued, respected and cared for.

By focusing on strengths, we want to create more effective and personalised support for children with neurodevelopmental conditions to reach their full potential.

Building a strong, evidence-based approach will help ensure children’s strengths are consistently considered in assessments and intervention planning.

Read more:
Wondering about ADHD, autism and your child’s development? What to know about getting a neurodevelopmental assessment

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. Focusing on a child’s strengths can transform assessments – and help them thrive after an ADHD or autism diagnosis – https://theconversation.com/focusing-on-a-childs-strengths-can-transform-assessments-and-help-them-thrive-after-an-adhd-or-autism-diagnosis-250640