Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University

This week Prince Harry achieved something few before him have: an admission of guilt and unlawful behaviour from the Murdoch media organisation. But he also fell short of his long-stated goal of holding the Murdochs to account in a public trial.

The Duke of Sussex, along with Tom Watson, the Labour MP who had led the charge against the Murdochs’ News Group Newspapers (NGN) in the United Kingdom during the 2011–12 phone hacking scandal, are the last to settle their claims against News over their privacy being invaded by phone hacking or through the use of private investigators.

They join a list of around 1,300 people, including celebrities such as Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller, who have already settled their claims against The Sun newspaper at an estimated cost to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch’s company of more than £1 billion (almost A$2 billion).

This one is significant because unlike previous settlements, it came with an admission of wrongdoing and an apology, as well as the perfunctory wheelbarrow full of cash.

Until now, The Sun has simply refused to say sorry or admit liability. But that stance has become increasingly absurd.

As Grant posted on X last year when he settled his claim:

News Group are claiming they are entirely innocent of the things I had accused The Sun of doing. As is common with entirely innocent people, they are offering me an enormous sum of money to keep this matter out of court.

Prince Harry wrung from News considerably more. In a statement released after the case was settled on Wednesday morning in London, NGN said:

NGN offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the serious intrusion by The Sun between 1996 and 2011 into his private life, including incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun.

It went on:

NGN also offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information by journalists and private investigators instructed by them at the News of the World. NGN further apologises to the Duke for the impact on him of the extensive coverage and serious intrusion into his private life as well as the private life of Diana, Princess of Wales, his late mother, in particular during his younger years. We acknowledge and apologise for the distress caused to the Duke, and the damage inflicted on relationships, friendships and family, and have agreed to pay him substantial damages. It is also acknowledged, without any admission of illegality, that NGN’s response to the 2006 arrests and subsequent actions were regrettable.

Let’s break down what this is actually saying, and what it isn’t.

Carefully crafted wording

First, it is undoubtedly a significant admission that in pursuit of stories, The Sun engaged in unlawful activity. That is a big step up (or down, depending on your point of view) from previous settlement statements.

Note, though, it carefully pins the unlawful activity on private investigators working for The Sun rather than on journalists and, more importantly, editors. The word “incidents” is doing a lot of work here: “widespread” and “industrial-strength” come to mind as more appropriate.

Harry’s lawyer, David Sherborne, said immediately after the settlement was reached that “NGN unlawfully engaged more than 100 private investigators over at least 16 years on more than 35,000 occasions”.

He continued: “this happened as much at The Sun as it did at the News of the World with the knowledge of all the Editors and executives, going to the very top of the company.”

NGN’s statement, then, continues to assert phone hacking did not happen at The Sun but in a roundabout way, somehow, the newspaper benefited from it. Sort of.

Dancing to avoid perjury

The company has been engaged in this kind of casuistry ever since 2006 when it said the journalist and private investigator who were found guilty of phone hacking (Clive Goodman and Glen Mulcaire, respectively) were just two bad apples in an otherwise orchard-kissed media basket.

The hundreds of people who have received payments because their phones were hacked know this only too well, but there is an important reason NGN feels it still has to maintain this charade. To do otherwise would be an admission that it has perjured itself in courts and before inquiries.

The Murdochs’ company can hardly deny that journalists at the newspaper it was forced to close over phone hacking – The News of the World – were engaged in the practice. Several of them were jailed over it, most notably former editor Andy Coulson.

As one of Coulson’s former reporters, Dan Evans, testified at his editor’s trial in 2014, “even the office cat knew” phone hacking was happening at the newspaper.

The newspaper was closed, in large part, to try and persuade the public that the problem of unethical reporters was confined to that newspaper alone.

They weren’t expected to notice that months later, News set up a Sunday edition of The Sun that continues to be published.

The legal war continues

For Prince Harry, this has been a deeply personal campaign, especially as News has admitted seriously intruding into his private life since he was 12, and into his mother’s too, for many years.

NGN also acknowledged, without any admission of illegality, that its response to the 2006 arrests and its subsequent actions were “regrettable”. This is PR-speak for when you can’t bring yourself to actually apologise.

Harry’s lawyer went on the attack over these evasions and euphemisms:

there was an extensive conspiracy to cover up what really had been going on and who knew about it. Senior executives deliberately obstructed justice by deleting over 30 million emails, destroying back-up tapes, and making false denials – all in the face of an ongoing police investigation. They then repeatedly lied under oath to cover their tracks – both in Court and at the Leveson Public Inquiry.

Beneath the duelling statements, though, is the sense that this settlement, important though it is, may not be the end of the saga.

It seems clear those backing and advising Prince Harry see the settlement as an important step in pursuing criminal charges against NGN executives, as well as winning a personal apology from Rupert Murdoch himself.

Will that actually happen? We do know that in Murdoch’s long history in the media, apologies are vanishingly rare.

We also know that the second part of the Leveson inquiry was shelved by the former Conservative government. The recently elected Labour government has been under pressure from Hacked Off, the public interest group that has been advocating for victims of media intrusion and for reform of media laws ever since the phone hacking came to light in 2011.

Will Britain’s police and government build on NGN’s partial admissions and apologies? Will they investigate News executives, therefore fulfilling what was meant to occur in the second stage of the Leveson inquiry, whose terms of reference singled out News’s activities as a company?

Or will they take the cautious view that this rare settlement means justice has now been served and hope, like Murdoch and many of his senior executives, this long-running issue will now just quietly go away?

It is too early to tell. What we do know is that in recent years, the Murdochs’ once brilliant batting average has dropped like a stone. First, there was the historically high payout in the Dominion lawsuit, then the failed attempt to revoke an irrevocable trust that is tearing apart the family, and now the settlement with Prince Harry.

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. Murdoch’s UK newspapers have apologised to Prince Harry. Where does it leave the legally embattled media empire? – https://theconversation.com/murdochs-uk-newspapers-have-apologised-to-prince-harry-where-does-it-leave-the-legally-embattled-media-empire-248110

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Rowe, Associate Professor in Education, Deakin University

As Australian families prepare for term 1, many will receive letters from their public schools asking them to pay fees.

While public schools are supposed to be “free”, parents are regularly asked to pay “voluntary” annual contributions. The price tag can be significant. For example, in 2023, Victorian public schools received on average A$570 per student in fees, charges and parent contributions. These voluntary fees go towards a range of items, depending on the school – and could include stationary, excursions or other resources.

This week, the Greens announced a A$10 billion election policy to address public school costs.

Are fees really voluntary at public schools, and why are schools asking parents for funds?

What’s the Greens’ policy?

The Greens’ plan has two components. First, it would give public schools extra funding to cover school expenses, so parents would no longer be asked for voluntary contributions.

Second, the party is pledging to pay families $800 per year for every child attending a public school to cover back-to-school costs, including “uniforms, technology and school supplies”.

The Greens say this will make public schools “truly free”, adding, “public schools shouldn’t need to rely on the generosity of parents”.

The policy, which has been costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, includes $2.4 billion to end school fees and $7.6 billion for the back-to-school payment.

Are fees really voluntary?

Fees at public schools are supposed to be voluntary. For example, the New South Wales Education Department notes:

These contributions are voluntary. The payment of voluntary school contributions is a matter for decision by parents and carers. Schools must not deny any student the opportunity to meet syllabus requirements because of non-payment of voluntary school contributions.

But parents often receive an official letter from the school at the start of the year (on school stationary, looking like an itemised bill).

Public pressure can also be a factor. In 2019, children at Bondi Public School in Sydney received free popcorn if their parents had paid their fees.

How much are public school fees?

In a 2019 study, a colleague and I examined voluntary school fees at 150 metropolitan public schools in Melbourne between 2013 and 2016. We also studied voluntary school fees at 386 public schools in NSW over five years (2013–17). In a 2022 study, we compared these to public selective-entry schools in NSW.

While we found fees were relatively stable over our study period, there were significant differences depending on the socioeconomic status of the school (measured by asking parents their profession and level of education).

In NSW, the average annual parent contribution in a high socioeconomic status school was $1,055 per student, compared with $419 in a low socioeconomic status school.

In metropolitan Melbourne, the average annual parent contribution in a high socioeconomic status school was $1,430 per student, compared with $408 in a low socioeconomic status school. The average annual parent contribution in a selective-entry public school was $2,057.

While the precise figures will have changed since we did our study – and are likely to be higher – the comparisons are concerning. They suggest significant gaps between public schools’ resources, depending on whether they are in an advantaged or disadvantaged area.

Schools are struggling for funds

Other research also suggests many public schools are struggling for funds. In my co-authored 2024 study, public school principals spoke of how they need to apply for competitive government grants to prop up school funds and provide basic services and building maintenance.

As part of this, principals talked about how their schools no longer had the capacity to help families in their communities. As one Victorian primary school principal told us:

We don’t have the flexibility [in our budget] that we once had. Once upon a time we probably had more flexibility to cover those families that are in dire need.

Another 2024 study found NSW students are being asked to pay for core physical education lessons at public schools, which have to outsource these lessons due to teacher shortages.

Read more:
‘Very frustrating’: for public school principals, applying for grants is now a big part of their job

The bigger picture

At a broader level, Australian schools are still not “fully funded”, according to the Gonski reforms more than a decade ago.

This is based on the “schooling resource standard”, whereby schools get funding based on the level of students’ needs. So far, only public schools in the ACT have had full funding allocations (for recurrent funding) under this model.

Funding for infrastructure or capital works is done separately, and is not tied to any needs-based measure.

Read more:
As more money is flagged for WA schools, what does ‘fully funded’ really mean?

School fees create barriers

Some parents may be happy to pay voluntary school fees in a public school – seeing it as a way to support their children’s education and the local community. Voluntary payments mean schools can afford more resources, which benefit their students.

However, the bigger issue is public schools should be accessible to everyone. Any school fees create potential barriers and access issues for families who cannot afford to pay. They also create gaps between different public schools, with some schools having far more money than others.

The solution is to ensure public schools are not only funded adequately, but robustly. At the moment, our funding system is not meeting the bare minimum agreed targets, and therefore it is unsurprising costs are being passed to parents.

Emma Rowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Are public schools really ‘free’? Families can pay hundreds of dollars in voluntary fees – https://theconversation.com/are-public-schools-really-free-families-can-pay-hundreds-of-dollars-in-voluntary-fees-248107

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC L3 Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney

Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) has been met with dismay in the public health field.

Some have called one of the US president’s first executive orders “a grave error” and “absolutely bad news”.

What does the WHO do?

The WHO is a United Nations agency that aims to expand universal health coverage, coordinates responses to health emergencies such as pandemics, and has a broad focus on healthy lives. It does not have the power to enforce health policy, but influences policy worldwide, especially in low-income countries.

The WHO plays an essential coordinating role in surveillance, response and policy for infectious and non-infectious diseases. In fact, infectious diseases have the most pressing need for global coordination. Unlike non-communicable diseases, infections can spread rapidly from one country to another, just as COVID spread to cause a pandemic.

We have much to thank the WHO for, including the eradication of smallpox, a feat which could not have been achieved without global coordination and leadership. It has also played a leading role in control of polio and HIV.

Why does the US want to withdraw?

The reasons for withdrawing include:

mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic … and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.

The executive order also cites the disproportionately higher payments the US makes to the WHO compared to China. In 2024-25, the US contributed 22% of the organisation’s mandatory funding from member states compared to about 15% for China.

President Trump initiated withdrawal from the WHO over similar concerns in 2020. But this was reversed by President Biden in 2021.

What happens next?

The withdrawal may take a year to come into effect, and may need approval by the US Congress.

How this will play out is unclear, but it seems likely the WHO will lose US funding.

The US withdrawal may also be the final nail in the coffin for the WHO Pandemic Agreement, which faltered in 2024 when member states could not agree on the final draft.

Trump’s executive order states all negotiations around the pandemic agreement will cease. However, the order hints that the US will look at working with international partners to tackle global health.

The US Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) already has such international partners and could feasibly do this. It already convenes a global network of training in outbreak response, which could provide a model. But to move in this direction needs finessing, as another objective of the new US government is to reduce or cease international aid.

The WHO also convenes a range of expert committees and networks of reference laboratories. One among many network of laboratories is for influenza, comprising more than 50 labs in 41 member states. This includes five “super labs”, one of which is at the CDC. It’s unclear what would happen to such networks, many of which have major US components.

With the threat of bird flu mutating to become a human pandemic these global networks are critical for surveillance of pandemic threats.

WHO expert committees also drive global health policy on a range of issues. It is possible for the WHO to accredit labs in non-member countries, or for experts from non-member countries to be on WHO expert committees. But how this will unfold, especially for US government-funded labs or experts who are US government employees, is unclear.

Another potential impact of a US withdrawal is the opportunity for other powerful member nations to become more influential once the US leaves. This may lead to restrictions on US experts sitting on WHO committees or working with the organisation in other ways.

While the US withdrawal will see the WHO lose funding, member states contribute about 20% of the WHO budget. The organisation relies on donations from other organisations (including private companies and philanthropic organisations), which make up the remaining 80%. So the US withdrawal may increase the influence of these other organisations.

A chance for reform

The Trump administration is not alone in its criticism of how the WHO handled COVID and other infectious disease outbreaks.

For example, the WHO agreed with Chinese authorities in early January 2020 there was no evidence the “mystery pneumonia” in Wuhan was contagious, while in reality it was likely already spreading for months. This was a costly mistake.

There was criticism over WHO’s delay in declaring the pandemic, stating COVID was not airborne (despite evidence otherwise). There was also criticism about its investigation into the origins of COVID, including conflicts of interest in the investigating team.

The WHO was also criticised for its handling of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa a decade ago. Eventually, this led to a series of reforms, but arguably not enough.

More changes needed

US public health expert Ashish Jha argues for reform at WHO. Jha, who is the dean of the Brown University School of Public Health and former White House COVID response coordinator, argues the organisation has an unclear mission, too broad a remit, poor governance and often prioritises political sensitivities of member states.

He proposes the WHO should narrow its focus to fewer areas, with outbreak response key. This would allow reduced funding to be used more efficiently.

Rather than the US withdrawing from the WHO, he argues the US would be better to remain a member and leverage such reform.

Without reform, there is a possibility other countries may follow the US, especially if governments are pressured by their electorates to increase spending on domestic needs.

The WHO has asked the US to reconsider withdrawing. But the organisation may need to look at further reforms for any possibility of future negotiations. This is the best path toward a solution.

C Raina MacIntyre receives funding from NHMRC (L3 Investigator Grant and NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence), the US Department of Defence (for a pandemic war game Able Resolve 2024 and 2025) and Sanofi (investigator driven research on influenza and pertussis). She is on the WHO SAGE Mpox and smallpox advisory group, and was on the WHO Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (2021-2024).

– ref. The US intends to leave the World Health Organization. What happens next? – https://theconversation.com/the-us-intends-to-leave-the-world-health-organization-what-happens-next-247997

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Williamson, Senior Tutor in English, University of Canterbury

“Motherhood,” the beleaguered stay-at-home mother of Nightbitch tells us in contemplative voice-over, “is probably the most violent experience a human can have aside from death itself”.

Increasingly depicted as a source of frustration, resentment and rage, the film sets out to show motherhood is also far more savage and feral than the anodyne images posted on social media by retrograde tradwives or mumfluencers would have us believe.

As Nightbitch puts it, it’s “fucking brutal”.

Adapted by Marielle Heller from Rachel Yoder’s 2021 novel of the same name, the film stars Amy Adams as Mother, an unnamed installation artist who places her career on hold to raise her young son.

Wrung out by the demands of motherhood and increasingly furious with the lack of support she receives from her incompetent and often absent Husband (Scoot McNairy), Mother starts to spiral out of control, morphing into a dog complete with tail, sharpened canines, extra nipples and a ravenous desire for raw meat.

This transformation places the film squarely within a long representational history of monstrous mothers.

Monstrous motherhood

Writing in 1993, feminist film scholar Barbara Creed famously declared

all human societies have a conception of the monstrous-feminine, of what it is about woman that is shocking, terrifying, horrific, abject.

Anxieties about women’s bodies and their sexuality permeate cultural products, ranging from Freudian jokes to the duplicitous femme fatale of film noir.

This is especially true for the reproductive female body, whose unsettling ability to transform and multiply simultaneously threatens and fascinates. The horror genre is rich with examples, which critic Erin Harrington has helpfully termed “gynaehorror”.

Nightbitch takes this fear literally, drawing on magic realism and horror tropes to show the visceral and psychological metamorphosis women undergo on becoming mothers (a phenomenon known as matrescence).

In one scene, Mother gouges into a cyst on her spine, releasing oozing, seeping pus before pulling out a tail. In another, she gluttonously devours cafeteria mac and cheese with her bare hands.

This surrealist turn promises to take us into the terrain of full feminist body horror (an experience that audiences are clearly up for, if the success of last year’s The Substance is anything to go by). But Nightbitch loses the courage of its convictions. By her own admission, Heller has an aversion to violence and the decision to dampen the gore was a deliberate one.

Unfortunately, this is to the detriment of the film. While it is unclear in Yoder’s absurdist novel whether Mother’s transformation is real or merely metaphorical allegory, the adaptation to film demands this be taken literally – at least at a visual level.

Heller’s refusal to lean into the body horror results in a neutered narrative with more bark than bite.

Death of the self

Nightbitch is the latest in a string of contemporary films and television series about motherhood and its discontents. Other titles include Tully (2018), The Let Down (2017–19), Working Moms (2017–23), Big Little Lies (2017–19) and the Bad Moms films (2016–17).

These texts put mothers front and centre. Stylistically different, and not without their individual problems, they are unified in their efforts to portray the messy reality of motherhood.

Adams’ portrayal of the invisibility and grief she experiences as a new mother will resonate with many viewers. An opening montage of Mother frying hashbrowns, reading bedtime stories and playing trucks ad nauseam deftly establishes the boredom and inertia of early motherhood. Sleep-deprived and terrified she’ll never be “smart or happy or thin ever again”, Mother has become unrecognisable to her pre-baby self.

When Husband asks in the middle of a fight “What happened to the girl I married?”, she replies, “She died in childbirth”.

The idea that motherhood is akin to a loss of selfhood isn’t revelatory or new; nor is Nightbitch’s approach. The film’s over-reliance on Adams’ voice-over to deliver lengthy didactic monologues is heavy-handed.

More unusual is Nightbitch’s suggestion that successful motherhood can also be depleting and a source of profound ambivalence.

Nightbitch is quick to show us Mother is, in fact, a good mum – playful, attentive and affectionate with her son. Warm, golden lighting infuses their scenes together creating an intimate private world shared by mother and child.

Mother, it would seem, is doing everything right.

Her guilty admission she is “not doing OK” comes in spite of this. Nightbitch teases us with the idea the problem lies not with Mother but with motherhood itself.

This is an important distinction maternal scholars have been championing since the publication of Adrienne Rich’s groundbreaking work Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution in 1976.

Once again, however, Nightbitch disappointingly fails to deliver.

Despite having laboured to show the corrosive impacts that rigid gender norms and societal expectations can have on mothers, Nightbitch offers an individualised solution to this systemic problem.

Fed up with Husband’s ineptitude, Mother initiates a separation, bonds with her fellow mum-friends, takes up running and throws herself back into her art. Apparently, all she really needed to do was find her pack and carve out some “me time”. Although Yoder’s book likewise concludes with Mother channelling her rage into her art, the separation and subsequent reconciliation subplot with Husband is an addition to the film.

This curious pivot shuts down the film’s articulation of maternal ambivalence and perinatal depression, as well as its critique of the weaponized incompetence exhibited by straight men in their romantic and family relationships.

Nightbitch’s ending certainly feels weird and surreal – just not in the way audiences might hope.

Nightbitch is streaming on Disney+ in Australia and New Zealand from today.

Rachel Williamson 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 new wave of filmmakers are exploring motherhood’s discontents. Nightbitch makes this monstrous – https://theconversation.com/a-new-wave-of-filmmakers-are-exploring-motherhoods-discontents-nightbitch-makes-this-monstrous-246414

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

A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted January 15–21 from a sample of 1,610, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead using 2022 election preference flows, unchanged from the early December Resolve poll. The Coalition had a wider 52–48 lead by respondent preferences.

Primary votes were 38% Coalition (steady), 27% Labor (steady), 13% Greens (up one), 7% One Nation (steady), 10% independents (down one) and 6% others (up one). Labor’s primary vote fell three points to 27% in December.

Peter Dutton held a 39–34 lead over Anthony Albanese as preferred PM, after they were tied at 35% each in December. This is easily Dutton’s biggest lead in any poll on this measure, which usually favours the incumbent relative to voting intentions.

Albanese’s net approval improved four points to -22, with 55% rating him poor and 33% good. However, this came after a 12-point slump in December. Dutton’s net approval surged eight points to +6.

Inflation and the cost of living is still the major cause of Labor’s problems. By 50–17, respondents expected inflation to get worse in the near future. By 46–29, they said their income would not keep up with inflation this year.

The Liberals led Labor by a large 42–23 on economic management (41–23 in December). On keeping the cost of living low, the Liberals led by 37–22 (38–22 previously).

I explained the chart below in Monday’s article. Since Monday, Morgan, Essential and Resolve polls have been released, and none have been good for Labor. The latest Freshwater and Resolve polls occupy the same space on the chart.

There have been five polls released in the last week. By 2022 election flows, the Coalition leads in four, with Essential tied. Actual preferences will probably be better for the Coalition than in 2022, so Labor is probably further behind.

Although Labor’s position is poor, they’re not behind by 55–45. If Labor can use the lead-up to the election to increase fears about a Coalition government, they can still win the next election. The federal election is due by May.

But on current polling, the Coalition will probably win the two-party count, though not necessarily a majority of House of Representatives seats.

Essential poll good for Labor except on voting intentions

A national Essential poll, conducted January 15–19 from a sample of 1,132, gave the Coalition a 48–47 lead by respondent preferences including undecided, unchanged since mid-December.

Primary votes were 37% Coalition (up two), 30% Labor (steady), 12% Greens (down one), 7% One Nation (up one), 2% UAP (up one), 7% for all Others (down four) and 5% undecided (steady). These primary votes would give about a 50–50 tie by 2022 election preference flows, a two-point gain for the Coalition.

However, Albanese’s net approval jumped 11 points to net zero, with 45% both approving and disapproving. This is his highest net approval in Essential since October 2023, and his highest from anyone since a May 2024 Newspoll. Dutton’s net approval was down four points to -1.

By 46–38, respondents thought Australia is on the wrong track (51–31 in December), This is the smallest margin for wrong in this poll since May 2023.

On whether Australia should have a separate national day to recognise Indigenous Australians, 40% (steady since January 2024) did not want a separate day, 30% (down one) supported a separate day and keeping Australia Day and 19% (up one) supported a separate day to replace Australia Day.

By 42–27, respondents supported banning TikTok in Australia (45–25 in March 2024). By 54–12, they thought social media companies should be regulated more (57–9 in March 2024). By 77–7, respondents thought dental and oral healthcare should be included in Medicare.

Morgan poll: Coalition gains clear lead

A national Morgan poll, conducted January 13–19 from a sample of 1,564, gave the Coalition a 52–48 lead by headline respondent preferences, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition since the January 6–12 poll.

Primary votes were 42% Coalition (up 1.5), 28.5% Labor (down 1.5), 13% Greens (up 0.5), 4% One Nation (down 0.5), 8.5% independents (down 0.5) and 4% others (up 0.5).

Using 2022 election flows, the Coalition led by 52–48, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition. This is the worst Morgan poll for Labor by this measure this term, beating the 51.5–48.5 to the Coalition in mid-December.

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. Coalition has lead in most polls as Dutton gains five-point preferred PM lead in Resolve – https://theconversation.com/coalition-has-lead-in-most-polls-as-dutton-gains-five-point-preferred-pm-lead-in-resolve-248001

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa French, Professor & Dean, School of Media and Communication, RMIT University

In 1961, aged 19, Bob Dylan left home in Minnesota for New York City and never looked back. Unknown when he arrived, he would later be widely described as the voice of a generation.

A Complete Unknown follows Dylan’s transformation from his arrival in 1961 to when he was booed at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965 for playing electric guitar instead of acoustic.

Loosely based on Elija Wald’s 2015 book Dylan Goes Electric!, the film is a snapshot of an era of generational and social upheaval through the prism of Dylan’s music.

In the 60s and 70s, my home was filled with Dylan’s songs, and those relating to the antiwar movement had particular resonance. My mother, who loved Dylan’s music, was aligned with Save Our Sons, which campaigned against the Vietnam War and hid young men from conscription. She worried her eldest son might get swept into the war.

In 1978, three years after the war ended, I went with my teenage friends to hear Dylan play at the Sidney Myer Music Bowl in Melbourne. He began with A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall, and it literally did. A transfixed concert audience endured the deluge of pouring rain through 29 songs.

Crafting a biopic

Director James Mangold looks at the period where Dylan (Timothée Chalamet) emerged from obscurity, using his shift to electric music to show how his artistic evolution and pursuit of his own path led to fame.

The film does not shrink from portraying Dylan in an unflattering light. His focus is on music at the expense of everything else. He hardly notices his impact on others and does not show loyalty to anyone. Male rock stars are Teflon: their mystique wins over, self-centeredness is accepted.

Music biopics about men often romanticise them as visionaries and laud the artist for their genius, from Mozart in Amadeus (1984) to Brian Wilson from The Beach Boys in the film Love & Mercy (2014).

Biopics about female musicians tend to emphasise their unique challenges, including sexism and exploitation, or issues around race or gender, rather than their status as legendary artists.

The Billie Holiday biopic Lady Sings the Blues (1972) examined addiction and racism. Judy (2019), about Judy Garland, explored addiction and the pressures of stardom. What’s Love Got to Do with It (1993) depicted Tina Turner’s journey to become a solo performer despite an abusive relationship.

A Complete Unknown shares the major approaches of recent biopics, including a focus on a key period of the artist’s transformation, such as the portrait of the first 15 years of Queen’s Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody (2018).

Others explore the artist as innovator, as in the Elton John biopic Rocketman (2019). The majority examine the musician’s cultural impact, for example Aretha Franklin’s influence on civil rights and feminism in Respect (2021).

There are many traditions both male and female biopics share: the cost and burden of fame, the music as a lens for understanding struggle or triumph, the artist as a figure challenging society. A Complete Unknown examines those, and includes romantic and professional relationships, but they are secondary to the story of Dylan’s achievement.

A Complete Unknown is more open than some of its predecessors to acknowledging the difficulties women encounter, but it hints at them rather than fleshing them out.

The pressure on Joan Baez (Monica Barbaro) as a woman in a male-dominated industry is invisible, and the film does not substantially break with gender stereotypes which inform the narrative, character development and themes.

The women of Dylan’s life

Chalamet’s performance as Dylan has enormous resonance. Elle Fanning’s Sylvie Russo, a character inspired by Dylan’s real-life girlfriend at the time, is played as a quiet yet strong presence. Vulnerable but independent, she supports and inspires him during his unknown early days, clearly motivated by genuine care for him rather than his stardom.

The film depicts Dylan as having simultaneous relationships with both Sylvie and Joan (although this is apparently a liberty of fiction, his manager at the time has said the real-life characters had relationships at different times). The film communicates this through the characters’ various gazes at Dylan. Sylvie watches Bob with Joan; Joan sees him with Sylvie.

Joan and Sylvie gaze at Dylan as if trying to fathom a mystery: Dylan is unpredictable and unknowable. Sylvie tries to go with the flow, but ends up saying she can’t do it. Joan, a singer with a reputation far greater than Dylan’s at the beginning of the film, ends up throwing him out of her room when it becomes clear all he wants to do is write another song.

They both cut him loose. Dylan’s 1964 song One Too Many Mornings is about the newly single man and a failure of communication. It speaks of a post-breakup reflective solitude, and how men and women don’t always understand each other.

A cultural turning point

Dylan’s artist girlfriend Suze Rotolo, upon whom Sylvie is based, reportedly resented being cast simply as a musician’s chick. In the film she stands in for the emotional and intellectual support women offer but she is not portrayed as the artist she was.

The only woman represented in the male dominated folk music industry is Joan Baez, which along with her forthrightness in calling Dylan out as “kind of a jerk”, symbolises the times were changing for women too.

But the focus is Dylan. Everyone else is just those he abandoned along the way.

A Complete Unknown depicts the cultural turning point of the times as the context for Dylan’s own musical transformation – from acoustic folk to electrified rock. The film stays with you, ricocheting around in your memory. That, for me, is a sign of a good one.

Lisa French 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. Bob Dylan biopic A Complete Unknown has enormous resonance – but doesn’t break with gender stereotypes – https://theconversation.com/bob-dylan-biopic-a-complete-unknown-has-enormous-resonance-but-doesnt-break-with-gender-stereotypes-246234

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Van Amber, Senior Lecturer in Fashion & Textiles, RMIT University

Last year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) issued at least nine recall notices on products that didn’t comply with the mandatory standard for nightwear for children. All of these items posed a fire hazard, but didn’t have the required labelling.

The latest of these recalls, a glow-in-the-dark jumper sold on the website Temu, caused severe burn injuries to an 8-year-old Queensland girl. The incident has exposed significant gaps in Australian product safety standards.

Brands will use warning labels to meet legal requirements (such as the mandatory standard mentioned above), but they continue producing and selling these dangerously flammable textiles. This shifts the responsibility to shoppers who purchase items with fire warning labels, but may not fully understand the implications of the warning.

Highly flammable fabrics are far more common than you might realise – and it’s not just synthetic ones that can easily catch flame.

What makes a fabric flammable?

Textiles are lightweight materials, often with a high surface area meaning they ignite and burn easily. The next time you light a candle, just look at the wick – it’s usually a cotton yarn.

The only naturally flame-resistant fibre is wool, along with all other animal protein fibres such as silk, alpaca, mohair, cashmere and others. These fibres are slow to ignite and form ash when burned.

Synthetic materials melt when burning. If they stick to the skin, they can cause severe injuries that are difficult to treat. Polyester made up over 57% of global fibre production in 2023.

Acrylic is the most flammable of all synthetics. Acrylic fibres are commonly used to make jumpers that look and feel like wool, but are much less expensive to produce. Without checking the label, shoppers can easily mistake acrylic sweaters for wool ones.

Not all synthetic fibres are equally flammable. Somewhat confusingly, there is a flame-resistant fibre called modacrylic. Modacrylic was developed to address the flammability problems with acrylic. Other flame-resistant human-made fibres are kevlar and glass.

However, there is more to fabric flammability than just the fibres alone. Textile fabrics are complex materials – a fabric’s flammability is affected by the fibres, yarns, structure (knit or weave), and any finishes used.

For example, smooth, tightly woven or knitted fabrics will be slower to burn than lightweight or fuzzy fabrics. Fabrics can also be treated with flame retardant finishes.

Fabrics with the highest fire risk are those with a pile or brushed surface (think cosy, fuzzy or furry fleeces, flannelettes and faux furs) and are composed of cotton, acrylic, polyester and other synthetic fibres. These soft and fuzzy (and highly flammable) textile products are everywhere, and often at affordable prices.

‘Not intended for children’s sleepwear’

Despite well-known fire risks of different materials, Australian rules for fibre content labelling lapsed in 2019. Now, products only legally need care instructions.

Most brands still list the fibre content (for example, “100% cotton”) to meet American and European requirements, but it’s no longer legally required here.

Current safety rules focus mainly on protecting children, particularly in sleepwear and some daily clothes. However, risk from flammable clothing extends beyond children. Women, older people and any person who tends to wear loose-fitting garments that can catch fire more easily are at risk.

Many costume pieces like capes, hoods, wings and tutus are also excluded from children’s product safety rules in Australia. The exclusion of these types of items from regulation is especially baffling, as they often pose a high flammability risk due to their combination of materials and loose-fitting designs.

All this means shoppers may not know the item they are purchasing is highly flammable.

Consider a shopper who encounters flannel fabrics printed with bunnies and dogs at a major Australian retailer. These fabrics come with mandatory warnings like “not intended for children’s sleepwear” or “fire warning: flannelette is a flammable material and care should be taken if using flannelette for children’s sleepwear and loose-fitting garments”.

What are these cutesy flannel fabrics to be used for, if not children’s products?

We need stronger consumer protection

While Australia has consumer protection laws, the ACCC has acknowledged there is no direct ban on selling unsafe products.

Without stronger legislation prohibiting the production and sale of highly flammable textiles, Australia risks becoming a market for hazardous clothing and textile products that don’t meet stricter international standards.

At the very minimum, Australia needs to reintroduce mandatory fibre content labelling for textiles and clothing products to be in line with US and EU requirements.

In the meantime, consumers need to take action in other ways. Take any product with a “fire warning” label seriously – don’t let children wear fuzzy, fleecy, furry or loose clothing items such as costumes around open flames or as sleepwear. Older adults can also be at risk. Wearing a favourite fuzzy bathrobe when cooking over open flames, such as a gas stove top, is extremely dangerous.

Better yet, don’t purchase any items with a “fire warning” label – brands will stop producing items that don’t sell.

Consumers are encouraged to report any products they suspect are unsafe to the ACCC.

Rebecca Van Amber is currently the Honorary Secretary of the Textile Institute Australia, and has previously received funding from The New Zealand Wool Industry to undertake her postdoctoral research from 2014–2016 in New Zealand.

– ref. Your fuzzy flannel pyjamas could be incredibly flammable – here’s what to know – https://theconversation.com/your-fuzzy-flannel-pyjamas-could-be-incredibly-flammable-heres-what-to-know-247448

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Carson, Senior Research Fellow, School of Medicine, The University of Western Australia

The war in Gaza will leave its mark in many ways, long after the recently negotiated ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas.

One legacy relates to how the chaos of war provides the perfect storm for the rise in antimicrobial resistance.

This is when microbes evolve to withstand the medicines designed to kill them. These microbes turn into superbugs, rendering previously effective treatments ineffective, and previously survivable infections, deadly.

We’ve already seen examples of antimicrobial resistance in Gaza and other conflict zones around the world.

Antimicrobial resistance is a growing problem globally. It not only threatens human health, but also agriculture, food security and economies.

Managing antimicrobial resistance is complex. It requires approaches including preventing infections in the first place, strategic limits on how antimicrobial agents are used, and robust health-care systems.

In conflict zones, the reverse is starkly evident.

Health-care systems are disrupted

Armed conflicts devastate health-care infrastructure. Such conflicts often occur in places with limited resources to start with.

Hospitals and diagnostic laboratories are damaged or destroyed, and supplies are depleted. Health-care workers are killed or displaced.

Conflict zones are left with less-than-ideal diagnostic capabilities, treatment and care.

This makes preventing and controlling infections incredibly difficult.

Vaccination is disrupted too

Disrupted vaccination programs can affect the development of antimicrobial resistance in a number of direct and indirect ways.

For instance, in conflict zones, less vaccination against bacterial disease leads to more infections, increasing the need for antibiotics, and the risk that antimicrobial resistance develops.

Less vaccination against viral diseases can leave people in conflict zones vulnerable to those viral infections and in turn, secondary bacterial infections. This leads to antibiotic use as a preventive measure, or as treatment, promoting the development of antimicrobial resistance.

Antibiotics are overused and misused

Widespread injuries, infections, and poor hygiene in conflict zones are common. This leads to an over-reliance on antibiotics, especially those acting against the broadest range of bacteria.

Ideally, broad-acting antibiotics would be used sparingly and after diagnostic tests. However, treatment is needed and diagnostic capabilities are compromised. So broad-acting antibiotics are used much more often, further promoting the development of resistance.

Fewer controls over who has access to antibiotics in war-torn regions is also a problem. Without prescriptions, professional oversight or diagnostic tests, antibiotics are used in ways that drive further resistance. This includes using them “just in case”, using ones not effective for that infection or injury, or using them for too long, or not long enough.

For all these reasons, overuse and misuse of antibiotics, while often unavoidable, make it more likely for resistant microbes to arise and spread.

Wounds, infections, antibiotics

Armed conflict leads to large numbers of traumatic injuries. As Chief Surgeon Sergiy Kosulnykov at Mechnikov Hospital in Dnipro, Ukraine said last year:

Every blast is an open wound, and every open wound is an infection.

Treating these injuries requires antibiotics. However, in conflict zones, the infecting microbes are often ones resistant to multiple drugs. This is especially when those microbes are acquired on the battlefield, in field hospitals or in other high-risk environments. Once antimicrobial resistance has started, these circumstances makes it easier for microbes to become resistant to additional antibiotics.

Unsanitary living conditions

Refugee camps and shelters for displaced populations are often overcrowded and lack access to clean water and proper sanitation.

So infections and resistant microbes are more likely to occur and spread, worsening outbreaks and fostering the evolution and spread of resistant microbes.

The wider breakdown in water and sanitation infrastructure also fosters the spread of waterborne microbes, increasing the prevalence and spread of resistant microbes.

Lack of surveillance and monitoring

Effective management of antimicrobial resistance depends on accurate diagnostic tests, and robust surveillance systems to track resistance patterns and inform treatment recommendations.

Conflict disrupts these systems, leaving authorities blind to emerging resistance trends. This disruption also delays the implementation of effective countermeasures.

Global spread of resistant pathogens

Conflict generates a large pool of antimicrobial-resistant microbes that may infect or colonise many people, in and beyond the conflict zone. Movement of people in and out of the conflict zone contributes to this spread across borders.

Refugees and displaced people often carry resistant microbes to regions with no or less prior exposure, contributing to the global spread of antimicrobial resistance.

Acinetobacter baumanii bacteria that are highly resistant to multiple antibiotics are one example. These have proven problematic to treat in United States military personnel that returned with combat injuries from Afghanistan and Iraq. The same bacteria have been noted in the United Kingdom as a potential source of life-threatening infections that spread readily in hospitals.

In Afghanistan, Gaza, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen and elsewhere, bacteria resistant to multiple antibiotics have emerged and thrived during conflicts, and continue to do so.

What should we do about it?

Antimicrobial resistance in regions affected by conflict requires urgent action, as well as peace. This includes rebuilding and maintaining health-care systems, improving sanitation, regulating antibiotic use, and ensuring access to clean water and vaccines.

International cooperation and sustained investment are essential to mitigating the devastating impact on those already affected by conflict.

Without this, antimicrobial resistance becomes yet another catastrophic legacy of war, threatening human health and security for generations to come.

Christine Carson is a founder with a financial interest in Cytophenix, a company developing new diagnostic tests. Her work is supported by government funding sources, philanthropy and private companies.

– ref. ‘Every blast is an open wound’: how the chaos of war breeds deadly superbugs that spread around the world – https://theconversation.com/every-blast-is-an-open-wound-how-the-chaos-of-war-breeds-deadly-superbugs-that-spread-around-the-world-245946

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luis Gómez Romero, Senior Lecturer in Human Rights, Constitutional Law and Legal Theory, University of Wollongong

On his first day in office, Donald Trump launched his second term with a barrage of executive orders. Unsurprisingly, many could have a major impact on Mexico, which shares a 3,145-kilometre border with the US and more than 200 years of diplomatic and economic ties.

Yet, this deep interdependence has not stopped Trump from making Mexico a prime target of his divisive political rhetoric.

He entered the public arena in 2015 by condemning Mexicans as dangerous “rapists” and criminals who were “bringing drugs” into the US. He also vowed to build “a great, great wall” along the border – one he claimed Mexico would pay for – to stop undocumented immigrants.

During his second presidential campaign, Trump doubled down on his anti-Mexico rhetoric and agenda. He threatened mass deportations of undocumented migrants residing in the US, sweeping tariffs of over 200% on Mexican vehicle imports and sending special forces into Mexico to attack drug cartels.

Trump’s executive orders are now putting these threats into action. Among the most concerning:

• designating migrant crossings as a national emergency

• directing the military to prioritise sealing the Mexico-US border

• reinstating the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which would require asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while their claims are assessed

• starting the process to designate drug cartels as terrorist organisations, and

• enacting new tariffs on Mexican imports.

Though largely symbolic, the order to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” further strains bilateral relations.

Given this focus, Trump’s long shadow will loom over Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum’s own time in office. She will have to navigate his hostility while tackling domestic challenges, including a controversial judicial reform plan and relentless violence.

She has responded to Trump’s actions with measured remarks so far:

We have to avoid confrontations […] At the same time, we have to behave as equals, never subordinate. Defend our sovereignty, our independence and defend Mexicans.

A heavily securitised border

Trump’s declaration of a national emergency allows him to deploy the military to the border and continue building a border wall without Congressional approval. He could also enact measures to expand detention facilities, transportation (including aircraft) and other logistical support for law enforcement.

Illegal border crossings actually declined dramatically in 2024. This was, in part, due to steps Mexican authorities have taken to stop migrants attempting to reach the US.

Mexican authorities reported detaining over 475,000 migrants in the last quarter of 2024 — nearly 68% more than in the same period a year earlier.

Despite these efforts – which have drawn criticism for human rights groups – Trump has labelled migrant crossings an “invasion.”

This belligerent rhetoric is dangerous, as an invasion implies military aggression.

Indeed, Trump’s executive order authorises the deployment of US troops on the border, though details are thin. He could seek the assistance of the National Guard, a state-based military force made up of civilian soldiers. US law, however, prohibits the use of regular military forces on domestic soil.

In any case, Mexico serves as a stark example of why using the military for law enforcement is unwise. More than a decade of data shows that military involvement fails to encourage lawful behaviour and instead fuels corruption and violence.

Prospects for unilateral military action

Trump has also initiated the process to designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organisations – an action Mexico has long opposed.

Combined with his directive for the US secretary of defence to halt “the unimpeded flow of opiates” across the Mexico-US border, this could ultimately lead to US military action against organised crime in Mexico.

Sheinbaum responded by reaffirming Mexico’s sovereignty. She noted that while the US can act within its territory, Mexico remains an independent state.

In a letter to Trump last November, she highlighted that in 2024, Mexican law enforcement seized 10,340 weapons and arrested 15,640 people for drug-related violence. She also correctly pointed out that Mexico neither produces weapons, nor has a national public health crisis linked to synthetic drugs like fentanyl.

Yet, she lamented that Mexicans “bear the brunt of the deaths caused by crime” driven by the demand for drugs north of the border.

Any unilateral US military action inside Mexico could seriously imperil relations between the two neighbours.

The last time the US seriously considered military action against Mexico was in 1927, when Mexico enacted petroleum and land laws that affected American interests. Since then, the relationship has had its ups and downs, but has never involved military force.

And these kinds of threats could have ripple effects across Latin America. As former Colombian President Ernesto Samper has warned, an intervention in Mexico could spark a “Vietnam syndrome” of anti-American sentiment throughout the region.

Tariffs will hurt both sides

In addition, Trump has vowed to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada starting on February 1.

Such tariffs, however, could not be implemented without also hurting US industries.

Mexico overtook China as the US’s top trading partner in 2023, with bilateral trade reaching US$807 billion (A$1.2 trillion). Mexico’s economy relies heavily on trade, with 83% of exports destined for the US.

In return, Mexico’s direct investments in the US totalled US$33.8 billion (A$54 billion) in 2022 – an impressive 21.5% increase over the previous year.

The Mexican and US economies are tightly intertwined. If Trump imposes tariffs on Mexican beer, for example, he will also be imposing them on barley from Idaho, Montana and North Dakota that’s used to make the beer.

Sheinbaum has accurately warned Trump that tariffs are not just unacceptable under the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement – they will also result in “inflation and job losses” across both the US and Mexico.

A relationship on the rocks?

Sheinbaum has advised Mexicans to “keep their heads cool”.

But as Trump continues to exert pressure on Mexico, it will become increasingly difficult for her to convince the Mexican public of the benefits of maintaining a cooperative relationship with the US.

The potential deterioration of relations between Mexico and the US could signal a new era in which brute force, paradoxically, will diminish American influence in the international community.

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

– ref. Trump’s war on migrants could make an enemy of the country he needs most: Mexico – https://theconversation.com/trumps-war-on-migrants-could-make-an-enemy-of-the-country-he-needs-most-mexico-247894

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carolina Quintero Rodriguez, Senior Lecturer and Program Manager, Bachelor of Fashion (Enterprise) program, RMIT University

When a tennis player serves at 200km/h in 30°C heat, their clothing isn’t just fabric. It becomes a key part of their performance.

Modern tennis wear functions as a mini climate-control system that responds to the athlete’s physiological changes in real time.

The 2025 Australian Open has showcased several groundbreaking technologies in action. Here are a few of the best examples.

Thousands of microscopic vents

Developed by sportswear company Asics, the outfit worn by Australia’s Alex de Minaur demonstrates an example of thermal regulation technology.

The science behind this innovation involves thousands of microscopic vents that automatically adjust position based on body heat.

This is aimed at maintaining a consistent skin temperature of between 36°C and 36.8°C.

The technology works through a network of heat-sensitive polymer structures. These structures expand and contract in response to temperature changes.

Real silver

The gear worn by United States player Frances Tiafoe showcases technology developed by sportswear company Lululemon which incorporates actual silver threads to improve body cooling.

The science here is twofold.

Silver’s natural antimicrobial properties fight bacteria, while its high thermal conductivity helps distribute heat away from the body.

Laboratory testing has demonstrated these garments maintain antimicrobial effectiveness through 50 washes while reducing skin temperature by up to 3°C during extended activity.

Advanced moisture management system

The outfit worn by US player, Coco Gauff, was developed by sportswear company New Balance and employs an advanced moisture-management system.

The science involves engineered fibre and fabric structures with channels that create a slight change in air pressure. This actively pulls moisture away from the skin and distributes it across the fabric’s surface for optimal evaporation.

Research shows that during intense physical activity, individuals wearing cotton garments may experience skin temperature increases of up to 5°C above normal.

On the other hand, the advanced technical fabrics worn by tennis stars like Coco Gauff and Alex de Minaur help maintain more stable skin temperatures, with variations limited to just 1.5°C above or below normal during intense play.

Beyond temperature control, these fabrics also improve drying time by 63% compared to traditional materials.

For the average person, that means it dries quicker. For an elite athlete at the Australian Open, it rapidly dispels sweat in the hot Australian summer. This makes their clothing lighter and more comfortable to play in.

Compression technology

Some garments worn by players also use compression technology. These are garments designed to apply pressure to specific areas of the body and are used during and/or after exercise.

This technology provides a 15% improvement in the time it takes the body to recover after intense exercise. It also reduces reported muscle soreness by 23%.

The magic lies in the precise fabric blends.

Some outfits use 89% polyester with 11% elastane for maximum stretch. Others combine recycled materials with elastane for movement.

A big difference to the environment

Sportswear manufacturers are increasingly using recycled polyester instead of newly manufactured synthetic materials

This switch makes a big difference to the environment. Recycled polyester manufacturing and production generates 42% less carbon dioxide than making new polyester from scratch.

To put it in perspective, for every kilogram of recycled polyester in these tennis outfits, about 60 plastic bottles are kept out of landfills.

The future of sports performance clothing

Tennis wear is set to become even more high tech in the future.

Researchers are currently testing fabrics with embedded biosensors for real-time monitoring of breathing, pulse, blood pressure and other physiological features. They’re also testing materials capable of regulating compression based on muscle fatigue levels, and biodegradable synthetics that take just three years to decompose.

We could also see clothing that activates particular muscles through targeted compression, contains impact-absorbing structures to help prevent injury and anticipates the athlete’s body temperature changes, helping them cool down or keep warm.

Research indicates these emerging technologies could yield a 25% improvement in thermal regulation, a 40% reduction in muscle fatigue, a 50% increase in garment lifespan and a 75% reduction in environmental impact.

Proper care is crucial

For amateur players, this high-performance tennis wear is becoming increasingly accessible, although it is still typically more expensive than traditional alternatives.

For those with performance clothing in their wardrobe, proper care is crucial. Avoid fabric softeners, wash in cool water and only air dry.

With appropriate maintenance, these garments maintain their performance characteristics for up to 200 wash cycles.

Carolina Quintero Rodriguez 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 mini climate-control system’: the tech behind sportswear at the Australian Open – https://theconversation.com/a-mini-climate-control-system-the-tech-behind-sportswear-at-the-australian-open-247889

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jayashri Kulkarni, Professor of Psychiatry, Monash University

Last week, Australian Open player Destanee Aiava revealed she had struggled with borderline personality disorder.

The tennis player said a formal diagnosis, after suicidal behaviour and severe panic attacks, “was a relief”. But “it also felt like a death sentence because it’s something that I have to live with my whole life”.

A diagnosis is often associated with therapeutic nihilism. This means it’s viewed as impossible to treat, and can leave clinicians and people with the condition in despair.

In fact, people with this disorder can and do recover with adequate support. Understanding it is caused by trauma is fundamental to effectively treat this complex and poorly understood mental illness.

A stigmatising diagnosis

The name “borderline personality disorder” is confusing and adds greatly to the stigma around it.

Doctors first used “borderline” to describe a condition they believed was in-between two others: neurosis and psychosis.

But this implies the condition is not real in itself, and can invalidate the suffering and distress the person and their loved ones experience.

“Personality disorder” is a judgemental term that describes the very essence of a person – their personality – as flawed.

What is borderline personality disorder?

People with the disorder can express a range of symptoms, but high levels of anxiety – including panic attacks – are usually constant.

Symptoms cluster around four main areas:

• high impulsivity (leading to suicidal thoughts and behaviour, self-harm and other risky behaviours)

• unstable or poor sense of self (including low self-esteem)

• mood disturbances (including intense, inappropriate anger, episodic depression or mania)

• problems in relationships.

People with the disorder greatly fear being abandoned and as a result, commonly have distressing difficulties in interpersonal relationships.

This creates a “push-pull” dynamic with loved ones, as people with borderline personality disorder seek closeness, but push away those they love to test the strength of the relationship.

For example, they may escalate a small issue into a major disagreement to see if the loved one will “stick with them” and reinforce their love.

Conversely, if a loved one appears distant or fed up – for example, is thinking about ending the relationship – the person with borderline personality disorder will make major efforts to “pull” them back. This might look like a flurry of messages, expressions of despair, or even suicidal behaviours.

Who does it affect?

The disorder affects one in 100 Australians, although this is likely a conservative estimate, as diagnosis is based on the most severe symptoms.

Women are much more likely to be diagnosed with it than men – but why this is so remains a major debate, with political and sociological factors playing a role in making psychiatric diagnoses. Symptoms usually begin in the mid to late teens.

While an initial response to receiving a diagnosis can be comforting for some, it is commonly seen as a chronic, relapsing condition, meaning symptoms can return after a period of improvement.

Borderline personality disorder can fluctuate in intensity and mimic other conditions such as major depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders and psychosis.

Estimates suggest 26% of presentations at emergency departments for mental health issues are by people diagnosed with personality disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder.

What causes it?

The main cause for borderline personality disorder appears to be trauma in early life, compounded by repeated traumas later.

Early life trauma can lead to biological changes in the brain that cause behavioural, emotional or cognitive shifts, leading to social and relationship issues. This is known as complex post-traumatic stress disorder.

Aiava has acknowledged the disorder is “mainly from childhood trauma”, although she has not given details about her specific experiences.

People with borderline personality disorder usually have complex post-traumatic stress disorder. But complex post-traumatic stress disorder doesn’t always result in a borderline personality disorder diagnosis.

Although the two disorders are not identical, they share many similarities, in particular that they are both caused by complex and repeated trauma.

However those with borderline personality disorder tend to experience more rage, emotional disturbances and have a greater fear of abandonment.

They also face greater stigma, whereas the term “complex post-traumatic stress disorder” doesn’t carry the same negative connotations and focuses on the cause of the condition – trauma – rather than “personality”, leading to better treatment options.

The recognition of the major role of trauma in borderline personality disorder is an important step forward in treating the disorder. But because of the stigma associated with it, using the diagnosis of complex post-traumtic stress disorder maybe a better step forward in the future.

Can it be treated?

There are many effective psychological therapies and other treatments for people with borderline personality disorder or complex post-traumatic stress disorder.

For example, dialectical behavioural therapy is a type of cognitive therapy that helps people learn skills such as tolerating distress, managing relationships, regulating emotions and practising mindfulness.

The treatment of people with post-traumatic stress disorder, including victims of war and rape, has taught us a lot about how to treat complex, underlying trauma. For example, with trauma-focused psychological therapies.

Other new treatments, such as eye movement desensitisation and reprogramming, have also shown to be effective.

Many people with borderline personality disorder who receive treatment and have supportive relationships are able to “outgrow” the condition. Others may need to continue to manage symptoms while pursuing a good quality of life.

Treating trauma, not personality

Rethinking borderline personality disorder as a trauma disorder enables a more effective and understanding approach for those with it.

Understanding what trauma does to the brain means newer, targeted medications can also be used.

For example, our research has shown how the brain’s glutamate system – the chemicals responsible for learning and making sense of one’s environment – is overactive in people with complex post-traumtic stress disorder. Medications that work on the glutumate system may therefore help alleviate borderline personality disorder symptoms.

Educating partners and families about borderline personality disorder, providing them support and co-designing crisis strategies are also important parts of total care. Preventing early life trauma is also critical.

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

Jayashri Kulkarni receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and educational plus clinical trial grants from pharmaceutical companies that manufacture psychotropic medications.

Eveline Mu 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. For tennis star Destanee Aiava, borderline personality disorder felt like ‘a death sentence’ – and a relief. What is it? – https://theconversation.com/for-tennis-star-destanee-aiava-borderline-personality-disorder-felt-like-a-death-sentence-and-a-relief-what-is-it-247451

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Simon, Senior Lecturer in Media, Macquarie University

Australian photographer Carol Jerrems took an expansive approach to portraiture. She experimented with seriality – constructing narratives and meaning across multiple frames – and understood photography as a collaboration between her subjects, her camera and herself.

Born in Ivanhoe, Victoria, in 1949, Jerrems worked primarily with black and white photography until her early death in 1980.

Over 140 of her photographs are currently on display at the National Portrait Gallery in Canberra.

Everyday scenes, collective portraits

Faces are just one element of Jerrems’ portraits. Equally significant are the spaces she chose to photograph.

Many photographs depict her subjects in everyday realms: bedrooms, living rooms, suburban backyards and streets in Melbourne and Sydney in the 1970s.

She focused on faces and bodies amid the rumpled sheets of a bed, the clutter of a room, suburban street signage, the drape of a hospital curtain – always attentive to the interior frames of windows, tables, doorways.

Many images are taken in spaces dedicated to creativity or protest, speaking to the feminist politics of 1970s Australia and the mesh of domestic life, creative labour and resistance. There are artists’ studios, protests, the Filmmakers Co-Op in Sydney and the National Black Theatre in Redfern. There are film reels and fridges, sewing machines and slogans.

There are scenes at a university campus (a commission for Macquarie University), and eventually, and with finality, the interior of a Hobart hospital in the last series before her death from the rare illness Budd-Chiari syndrome in 1980.

These environmental portraits position the subject in a familiar context, such as their workplace or home. They treat space as part of the complexity of her human subjects.

This is not to say faces, and individuals, are not key: they are everywhere in this exhibition. Some are well-known, others are not.

Many of the portraits in the exhibition are photographs taken as part of Jerrems and Virginia Fraser’s 1974 photobook, A Book About Australian Women.

The book collates photographs of children, activists, writers, artists, historians and sex workers. There are the recognisable faces of a young Evonne Goolagong (1973) and an elderly Grace Cossington Smith (1974).

Portrait of Anne Summers (1974) pictures the author in her home, half her face in shadow, a pile of books behind her. Bobbie Sykes is at the podium in Black Moratorium, Sydney ’72 (1972) and elbows jutting out, hands on hips looking away from the camera in Bobbi Sykes, Aboriginal Medical Service (1973).

Shadows, patterns, frames

Looking at photographs can bring the temptation to focus on the singular, to seek out the one image that “speaks”.

But Jerrems’ life work, and the curation of this exhibition, suggest a different project. The meaning here accumulates across and between images.

The photograph Caroline Slade (1973) pictures a young girl, a solemn chameleon in a floral printed dress surrounded by floral wallpaper. This moment of camouflage has echoes in the image Enid Lorimer and Kate Fitzpatrick (1974). This photograph shows the actors gazing at each other in floral dresses that merge with the patterning of leaves in the garden behind them.

Sites of mimicry are coupled with other patterns, other photographs in conversation. Shadows repeat across images and years.

Lynn Gailey sewing (1976) features the right half of Gailey’s face in shadow. In the earlier photograph of Myra Skipper (1974), the bottom half of her face is in shadow and her eyes are averted upwards. Esben Storm’s face, repeatedly held by Jerrems’ gaze, regularly emerges from shadow, dappled with light.

Cuts, exchanges, phases

There is an autobiographical bent to many of the portraits. Jerrem’s presence enters the frame of Rita on the couch at Kilcare Beach (1976). The shadow of Jerrems’ arm, holding camera to eye, mirrors the angle of Rita’s crossed limbs.

Jerrems’ photograph of Ambrose Campbell (1973) shows him relaxed on a bed covered in white sheets. The photograph is framed to include her mirrored reflection, dressed and standing camera to eye. She is composed and appears distant, framed by the bright light of the window behind her.

In Self portrait after surgery (1979) Jerrems pulls the photographic frame in tightly around herself, her elbows raised but her camera and face are out of frame. There is a long stitched incision down her abdomen, the bruises and residues of medical tape telling a story on her skin.

In 1969 Jerrems produced the handmade, accordion photobook A Continuum of Age as an assignment while a student at Prahran Technical College.

In the front of the book strips of cut-and-pasted typewriter text explain the relevance of age to “every speck of matter”. The photographs compiled in the book are “not concerned with individuals, but with states, with phases, with specific periods of existence”.

This conceptual framing of the photobook (which, wonderfully, is on display, splayed open behind glass) offers another entry point to understanding Jerrems’ work and portraiture made during the following decade.

The photographs in this exhibition are all small prints, intended to be looked at closely, and, crucially, in relation to each other. This approach is reflected in the decision to exhibit several of Jerrems’ contact prints – sheets containing grids of images – which reveal their own history of being held, written on, cut into.

These imperfections are themselves part of the photographic exchange. They reflect the chain of decisions made by Jerrems, a glimpse into her process.

Carol Jerrems: Portraits is at the National Portrait Gallery, Canberra, until March 2.

Jane Simon 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. Carol Jerrems captured Melbourne and Sydney of the 1970s, understanding photography as a collaboration – https://theconversation.com/carol-jerrems-captured-melbourne-and-sydney-of-the-1970s-understanding-photography-as-a-collaboration-247446

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Lindenmayer, Professor, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University

Humans are causing enormous damage to the Earth, and about one million plant and animal species are now at risk of extinction. Keeping track of what’s left is vital to conserving biodiversity.

Biodiversity monitoring helps document changes in animal and plant populations. It tells us whether interventions, such as controlling feral predators, are working. It also helps experts decide if a species is at risk of extinction.

However, long-term biodiversity monitoring can be expensive and time consuming – and it is chronically underfunded. This means monitoring is either not done at all, or only done in a small part of the range of a species.

Our new research shows these limitations can produce an inaccurate picture of how a species is faring. This is a problem for conservation efforts, and Australia’s new “nature repair market”. It’s also a problem for Australia’s unique and vulnerable biodiversity.

How monitoring works

Biodiversity monitoring involves looking for a plant or animal species, or traces of it, and recording what was found, as well as when and where.

Depending on the species, scientists might physically count individual plants or animals, or review sound or video recordings. Or they might look for evidence of an animal’s presence, such as scats (poos).

But long-term monitoring programs can be challenging to maintain. Robust programs typically require money, and a lot of time and expertise. A lack of funding means monitoring programs are often short lived or conducted across a small geographic area.

Such limitations can mean the results do not reflect the trajectory of a species across its entire range. We decided to test how this problem might be playing out in Australia, with monitoring of birds.

What our study involved

Our new study focused on 18 common species of birds. We have monitored them (and hundreds of other bird species) for more than two decades across more than 570 sites in Australia’s southeast. The programs aimed to gauge how the birds responded to threats such as bushfires and logging, as well as conservation efforts such as vegetation restoration.

But we used the monitoring results for a different purpose. We wanted to know if different populations of the same species showed similar patterns of change. As a hypothetical example, did a group of crimson rosellas in one area increase in size at the same rate as a group of crimson rosellas living 150 kilometres away?

Answering this question is important. If all populations show the same pattern of change over time, then the trends from a single population would serve as a good indicator for other populations.

But if there are strong differences in patterns between populations, then a single monitoring program in the middle of a species’ range would not accurately indicate how that species is faring at the edge of its range, or overall.

The 18 bird species we examined in detail included – aside from the crimson rosella – the red wattlebird, grey shrike-thrush, superb fairy-wren and brown thornbill.

What we found

We discovered marked differences in how many individuals of a species were detected in different parts of its range. For example, some populations of the grey shrike thrush were stable, others increased, and yet another declined steeply.

We also wanted to determine if there were ways to predict which populations of a given species might be more likely to be increasing or decreasing.

For example, if the monitoring program was at the centre of a species’ distribution – where the climate and food availability was optimal – a population there might be expected to be increasing faster than populations at the edge of that species’ distribution, where conditions could be less suitable.

Surprisingly, however, we found no evidence to support this hypothesis.

We also thought particular traits of a bird species, such as diet or body size, might affect whether numbers were rising, falling, or steady.

For instance, small bush birds might be more likely to decline due to being killed by predators or losing the competition for food to larger birds. Conversely, we expected that larger birds might be more resilient and their numbers more likely to increase. But again, we found no evidence of this.

These results indicate it is difficult to predict in advance which populations of a species will be declining versus those that are increasing or stable. It means scientists can’t reliably use such predictions when determining which parts of a species’ distribution should be monitored.

Our findings suggest that to get an accurate picture of a species’ overall trend, monitoring should cover, at a minimum, several populations of that species in different parts of its overall distribution. Importantly, this information can help identify those locations where populations are declining and conservation programs are needed.

And where a species is declining everywhere it is monitored, we should be extremely concerned. It shows a need for decisive conservation action. A species should not be allowed to go extinct while it is being observed, as occurred with the Christmas Island Pipistrelle bat.

Getting it right

Biodiversity monitoring in Australia is, overall, extremely poor. However, some excellent biodiversity monitoring programs do exist.

They include one on native mammals in south-west Western Australia and another on waterbirds across large parts of inland Australia. These programs demonstrate what’s possible when funding and resources are adequate.

The federal government is currently setting up Australia’s new “nature repair market”. Under the scheme, those who run projects to restore and protect the environment are rewarded financially. But how will we know if these projects are successful and biodiversity is increasing? Only monitoring can answer this question.

If the nature repair market is to be credible, Australia must markedly lift its game on biodiversity monitoring. Otherwise, environmental gains under the scheme may be purely fictional.

David Lindenmayer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Government, the Victorian Government and the NSW Government. He is a Councillor with the Biodiversity Council.

Benjamin Scheele receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Government.

Elle Bowd receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Government.

Maldwyn John Evans receives funding from the Australian Government, the Victorian Government and the NSW Government.

– ref. To save Australia’s animals, scientists must count how many are left. But what if they’re getting it wrong? – https://theconversation.com/to-save-australias-animals-scientists-must-count-how-many-are-left-but-what-if-theyre-getting-it-wrong-247456

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mandy Paul, Visiting Research Fellow, School of Humanities, University of Adelaide

The Black Friday bushfires which swept across southeastern Australia in January 1939 have been remembered as a deadly and traumatic event.

Most human deaths, however, occurred during the preceding heatwave – 78 lives were lost to bushfires in mainland southeastern Australia but at least 420 people died as a result of the high temperatures during the preceding week.

Globally, heatwaves still remain one of the deadliest natural hazards.

Our research examines how people in the past understood and adapted to extreme weather — without the contemporary comforts of airconditioning and refrigeration.

The fortnight when Adelaide sweltered

Adelaide is the most heatwave affected capital city in Australia.

In the first fortnight of 1939, the city endured 13 days of temperatures exceeding 34°C. January 12 was Adelaide’s hottest day since records began: 46.1°C (recorded at the time as 117.7°F) — a record that stood until 2019.

Record highs were also recorded across the southeastern states.

Diaries, press reports and oral history accounts reveal how Adelaidians coped with the heat.

Noel Weller, who lived on a suburban block in Glandore with his wife and two children, kept a daily diary. On January 12, 1939 he wrote:

117.7%
A Record Hot Temperature day.
I went to work in shirt sleeves. Lil & Peace Tenell who are on holiday came to tea & had shower & so did I morn(ing), night & before bed. We had Ice Blocks & Cool drinks on the front lawn & Chook & Doris came & all left at 11.15.
WE ALL SLEPT OUTSIDE on the back lawn.

Like most households, the Wellers relied on an icebox to keep their food and drinks cool. Demand for ice, and prices, soared during the heatwave, and supply ran short, made worse by a mechanical failure at the government ice works.

By January 13, the situation was so dire the police had to manage crowds at some suburban ice depots.

General Motors Holden’s at Woodville was among the industrial workplaces that shortened shifts in response to the heat; others declared holidays to give workers a chance to recover.

Manufacturers of ice cream and cold drinks were extending hours and taking on casual staff to meet unprecedented demand.

How people tried to beat the heat

During this week, a small fashion war was being waged in the press.

Advocates for attire more suited to the climate ridiculed businessmen who determinedly wore suits and ties. Others hailed “courageous” young men for wearing shorts to work.

Women, meanwhile, were advised to wear sandals and go without gloves.

Florence Bond, a well-connected expat visiting from England, wrote of her difficulty sleeping in the heat. She attempted to sleep on a cane lounge in the garden with her dogs – it was an uncomfortable night, disturbed by hot winds and insects.

As the heatwave unfolded, she despaired that a good sleep would be “impossible.”

Those without verandas or gardens slept in Adelaide’s public squares and beaches.

Irene Ingram lived in the closely-packed row cottages of Adelaide’s East End in the 1930s with her husband and son. Interviewed in 2000, she vividly recalled sleeping outdoors to escape the heat of the house:

We used to have heat in those days, (one) hundred and ten, hundred and 12, hundred and fourteen (degrees) every day – that’d go on for two weeks. We used to sleep down in Hurtle Square, bring our blanket and a pillow down there, because the little houses we lived in were just so hot. Oh it was great fun; we used to think it was great. Everyone was down there.

The newspapers reported Adelaide’s beaches were crowded as thousands slept on the sand, taking the opportunity to start the next day with a reviving swim.

Some tragic consequences

Hospitals, meanwhile, were facing a rise in heat-related admissions.

Some doctors broke ranks to describe the conditions in some wards of Adelaide Hospital as “a reproach to the main hospital of a capital city”, pointing out the heat in some wards was affecting patients admitted for unrelated conditions.

What wasn’t publicly known until after the event was the death toll. A government statist reported that heat caused 64 deaths in January 1939 across South Australia and was a contributing factor in another 68.

Our detailed study (yet to be published) of death certificates reveals a slightly higher figure for the metropolitan area: 68 deaths for which heat was the only or a primary cause.

Most vulnerable were the very young and the old: two thirds of deaths were people older than 60, with a high proportion in psychiatric, aged or residential care.

Modern solutions

Since 1939, social and technological changes have transformed how Australians live – refrigerators are widespread, as is airconditioning in homes and public buildings.

In 2025, people may not choose to sleep outdoors but other strategies to manage heat remain relevant: using natural ventilation, taking rest, and wearing lightweight, loose-fitting clothing.

Noel Weller and his family visited and entertained friends and family throughout the heatwave, sharing ice cream and soft drinks in the cool of the evening.

Staying socially connected during extreme weather means others can keep an eye out for your welfare – and is as important now as it was in 1939.

Rochelle Schoff is researching drought and extreme weather with the Parched Research Project which is funded by an Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative.

Mandy Paul 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. Sleeping on beaches and staying social: how Australians kept cool in heatwaves before modern technology – https://theconversation.com/sleeping-on-beaches-and-staying-social-how-australians-kept-cool-in-heatwaves-before-modern-technology-247326

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Hume, Lecturer In Theatre (Voice), Victorian College of the Arts, The University of Melbourne

The Brutalist has drawn attention this week for its use of artificial intelligence (AI) to refine some of the actors’ dialogue.

Emilia Pérez, a musical crime comedy, also used AI to extend lead star Karla Sofía Gascón’s vocal range. Her singing voice was blended with that of French popstar Camille, who co-wrote the film.

Earlier this month, Adrien Brody won the Golden Globe for best male actor for The Brutalist for his portrayal of the fictional Hungarian-Jewish Holocaust survivor László Tóth. He is a favourite to win the award at the Oscars, and Emilia Pérez is also a strong contender this awards season.

But should actors be eligible for awards if AI was used to refine a performance?

Can AI make ‘perfect’ possible?

The Brutalist’s editor, Dávid Jancsó, was the first to discuss the film’s use of AI. A native Hungarian speaker, Jancsó wanted the Hungarian language dialogue to sound flawless, “so that not even locals will spot any difference”.

Director Brady Corbet has been quick to clarify exactly how AI was used, emphasising the performances of Brody and his co-star Felicity Jones are their own.

In a statement, Corbet explained an AI tool from Ukrainian software company Respeecher was used only to edit the Hungarian language dialogue, “specifically to refine certain vowels and letters for accuracy”.

Corbet insists Brody’s and Jones’ performances in The Brutalist haven’t been replaced. Instead, they consented to a process of their voices being merged with dialogue recorded by Jancsó to ensure accurate Hungarian pronunciation. Their English dialogue remains untouched.

For Emilia Pérez, the film’s re-recording mixer Cyril Holtz said the process of extending Gascón’s range required collaboration from multiple artists.

AI in the film and television industry was a major concern of the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike – and the fight for protections in the industry is far from over.

While the use of AI here may be limited to refining language portrayal, or extending a singer’s vocal range, it raises broader questions: what level of authenticity and accuracy are we comfortable with? If AI makes “perfect” possible, are we setting “perfect” as the new standard?

The role of the accent coach

Brody and Jones worked with accent coach Tanera Marshall to hone their Hungarian accents for The Brutalist. This accent is used in their English dialogue, which comprises the majority of the film.

As a voice and accent coach, my work involves training and supporting an actor’s voice to meet the demands of performance spaces, character and script. This includes building stamina for healthy, sustainable vocal use and equipping actors with skills to learn different accents.

By working with an accent coach, actors develop a dexterity key for mastering new accents and sustaining them throughout a performance.

Voice and accent work is central to a transformation into a character. Accents aren’t merely about modifying vowels and consonants. They involve rhythm, intonation, melody, and resonance. These elements inform and are informed by the life of the character.

For Brody and Jones, learning a Hungarian accent would have been integral to their process. The accent is inseparable from the portrayal of their characters.

It’s standard practice for actors to re-record some dialogue in automated dialogue replacement (ADR) during post-production. This can address background noise, minor script changes or accent slips. The accent coach typically accompanies the actor in the sound studio to ensure consistency.

However, according to Jancsó, even ADR wasn’t enough to perfect the Hungarian dialogue in The Brutalist. That’s when AI was introduced.

Accents are expressions of cultural identity, conveying as much about a character as their appearance. There is always a degree of variance as the actor makes the accent and performance their own. That’s part of creating a believable performance.

Unfortunately, filmmakers sometimes overlook the importance of accurate accent portrayal, opting instead for what they perceive as more universally accessible or commercially viable accents, or prioritising other elements of production like pacing or visual effects over linguistic precision.

The Brutalist’s commitment to linguistic precision is commendable. But are we comfortable with AI being the solution?

Read more:
Why bad posh English accents still rule Hollywood, from Nosferatu to Gladiator II

And the award goes to … AI?

The editing process revealed by The Brutalist and Emilia Pérez may be more common than we realise.

Rami Malek’s singing as Freddie Mercury in the biopic Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) was a mix of Queen master tapes, recordings by Canadian Christian rock singer Marc Martel (known for sounding like Mercury) and Malek’s voice.

Malek still won the best actor Oscar for his performance, even though the vocals were a blend. They were just one element of Bohemian Rhapsody, in the same way the Hungarian dialogue is just one aspect of The Brutalist.

In September 2024, Screen Australia released key principles to guide its approach to AI, prioritising human talent, transparency, ethical design, diversity, equity and inclusion, fairness and responsibility.

Much like these guidelines suggest, in The Brutalist and Emilia Pérez, the actors gave their consent, their talent was prioritised, and the filmmakers were transparent about the process. There’s even an argument that The Brutalist’s dedication to accurate Hungarian representation promotes inclusivity for an underrepresented language in Hollywood.

But it’s a slippery slope. When does refining turn into creating an entire voice through AI? And if accents and vocal ranges become easily modifiable, how long before actors themselves are at risk of redundancy?

The Brutalist is an exploration of complex themes around artistic integrity. Ironically, it may lean on technology that risks undermining the authenticity it strives to achieve. This paradox is worth reflecting on. In perfecting the portrayal of the human experience, are we losing some of its essence?

Amy Hume 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. When does an actor stop, and AI begin? What The Brutalist and Emilia Pérez tell us about AI in Hollywood – https://theconversation.com/when-does-an-actor-stop-and-ai-begin-what-the-brutalist-and-emilia-perez-tell-us-about-ai-in-hollywood-247796

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Marie Brennan, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Waikato

Every day, about 48.5 tonnes of space rock hurtle towards Earth. Meteorites that fall into the ocean are never recovered. But the ones that crash on land can spark debates about legal ownership.

Globally, meteorite hunting has become a lucrative business, with chunks of alien rock traded online and shipped between countries.

Meteorites hold the key to the mysteries of the universe, but increasingly, significant scientific finds are being lost to private collectors.

Last year, New Zealand formally recorded an apple-sized meteorite weighing 810g. It fell on Department of Conservation land in the central South Island, near Takapō. Recovered by Jack Weterings, a member of Fireballs Aotearoa (a citizen science group tracking meteorites), the meteorite has reignited discussion about the regulation of such finds.

Over the years, several meteorites have been recorded in New Zealand. Most notably, the 1.3kg Ellerslie meteorite crash-landed through the roof of the Archer family home in Auckland on June 12, 2004.

Bouncing off the sofa and eventually settling in the middle of the living room floor, the meteorite caused an international stir, with several individuals worldwide offering to purchase it.

The Archers, a retired couple, refused these offers, opting instead to sell it to the Auckland War Memorial Museum for public display.

The Takapō meteorite spent much of 2024 being pored over by geologists at the University of Otago. But the question of rightful ownership remains open because it was found on public land.

How New Zealand law deals with meteorites

Despite their interstellar origins, ownership of meteorites is determined by the law of the country where they are found. Approaches vary from country to country. Some allow private meteorite ownership while others require mandatory state ownership with no compensation of any kind.

New Zealand – along with Canada, France, the US and the UK – has adopted an approach that depends on where the meteorite crashes. If it lands on private property, the land owner is the rightful legal owner of the space rock.

With meteorites found on public property, as was the case with the Takapō meteorite, the “finders keepers” approach prevails and Fireballs Aotearoa, thanks to Jack Weterings, is the legal owner.

While the organisation professes to “have no commercial interest in meteorites” and pledges to donate all to museums, not all meteorite hunters are so willing to donate the spoils of their discoveries.

Commercial meteorite hunting appears to be on the rise internationally, especially in China, where it is a lucrative source of income. Some meteorites can fetch millions online. With collectors reportedly including Elon Musk, Steven Spielberg, Nicholas Cage and Uri Geller, the hobby is now seen as glamorous. The world’s fascination with the ultimate antique is expected to grow.

Trading meteorites

Several states have stepped in to regulate meteorite hunting within their borders. In New Zealand, the export of movable protected objects, including taonga tūturu (objects with Māori links), is heavily restricted.

Under the Protected Objects Act 1975, which incorporates both the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the prevention of illicit transfer of ownership of cultural property, and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on stolen cultural objects, permission must be obtained from the chief executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage before protected objects can be exported.

Meteorites are listed as protected objects under the legislation and as a result, the chief executive must consult two expert examiners in determining any export licence application.

Penalties for illegally exporting or attempting to export meteorites without a licence are hefty. They include automatic confiscation of the item to the Crown, a term of imprisonment of up to five years and a fine of up to NZ$100,000 for an individual and $200,000 for a body corporate.

If the export licence application is declined, for whatever reason, there is a right to appeal the decision directly to the minister for arts, culture and heritage. If the minister opts to uphold the decision, or if the applicant decides not to lodge an appeal, the object is automatically listed in the nationally significant objects register.

While New Zealand has adopted legislative measures to regulate meteorite exports, the relationship between finders and scientists could become increasingly tense. Perhaps meteorite collection should be strongly dissuaded unless it is strictly for scientific purposes? Time will tell whether an easy compromise can be found.

Dr Anna Marie Brennan is currently the Borrin Foundation’s Women Leader in Law Fellow.

– ref. Earth is bombarded with rocks from space – but who gets to keep these ultimate antiques? – https://theconversation.com/earth-is-bombarded-with-rocks-from-space-but-who-gets-to-keep-these-ultimate-antiques-245741

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Orlando, Researcher, Digital Literacy and Digital Wellbeing, Western Sydney University

Roblox isn’t just another video game – it’s a massive virtual universe where nearly 90 million people from around the world create, play and socialise. This includes some 34 million children under 13 who spend an average of 2.6 hours daily on the platform, making Roblox one of the most influential digital platforms for kids and teenagers.

The attraction for young people is the millions of virtual experiences they can have – from raising and dressing up virtual pets, to playing an online game of hide and seek using GPS. Kids can even develop their own games for others to play.

But the joys of the platform come with risks – especially for children. These risks range from cyberbullying to sexual exploitation, to grooming by pedophiles and violent extremists.

Roblox recently introduced a range of new safety features to reduce the risk of harm to children, following consultations with a number of experts (including myself).

Even with these new safety features, however, many parents might still be wondering: “Should I let my kid play Roblox?”

What are the new safety features?

The new features centre on limiting who kids can communicate with on Roblox, the content they play with, and the control parents have on what their kids do on Roblox.

Parents now have more fine-grained controls they can use to manage the type of content, advertisements, friend lists and communication their children have access to. They can also set daily screen-time limits for their children.

Roblox has also changed the ratings of the experiences from age-based ratings to maturity-based ratings (much like the ratings you might see for movies).

The labels are voluntary. But experiences published without one will only be accessible to users 13 and over. This removes the one-size-fits-all idea about kids. Parents know all kids are different – what one 13-year-old is ready for is different to what another 13-year-old is ready for.

Under 13s are no longer allowed to speak to other users outside of mini-games and experiences.

These are all positive steps.

The elephant in the room

To access this new suite of parent controls, parents first need to create a Roblox account, and then link it to their child’s account. To do this parents need to add their ID or credit card details. This is a risk for parents. Our data is being commodified at a rapid rate and scams are rampant, making it difficult for platforms such as Roblox to guarantee the safety of personal information.

What often goes under the radar about Roblox is ongoing messages to spend money. Buy accessories to wear on your avatar while you play, in-game upgrades to make gameplay more fun, accessories for your virtual pets – the list goes on. This reinforces the idea that you need to spend money to have more fun.

The elephant in the room is that the changes made to keep kids safe are housed within parental controls. This requires parents to be very hands on – and digital skills, time, work, busy family life are all barriers to this.

Safety features musn’t just revolve around parents.

Enhanced safety measures could include more defined segregation of experiences, similar to having separate playgrounds for primary school, junior high school and older users, allowing parents greater confidence in age-appropriate content.

A subscription-based model could also replace the current system, potentially reducing the constant pressure on children to spend money.

Implementing youth-led safety initiatives, where older children mentor peers and younger players about online safety, could prove more effective than traditional parent-led guidance. Children often respond better to peers who understand their digital experiences firsthand.

The bottom line?

The new safety features are a step in the right direction. They won’t eliminate inappropriate content and communication risks. But they should help reduce children’s exposure to concerning content and provide parents with better tools to manage their children’s online experience.

Would I let my child use Roblox? Yes – but not in a “set and forget” way. Keeping kids safe on the platform requires constant communication about what they see and do on it.

Realistically, we can’t let our kids play in these huge virtual spaces without this. We have our own parental control – talking to our child – which is powerful as well.

Joanne Orlando received funding from eSafety Commissioner.

– ref. ‘Should I let my kid play Roblox?’ New safety features reduce risks – but more are needed – https://theconversation.com/should-i-let-my-kid-play-roblox-new-safety-features-reduce-risks-but-more-are-needed-246971

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Lee, Adjunct Professor at the National Drug Research Institute (Melbourne based), Curtin University

Anecdotal reports from some professionals have prompted concerns about young people using prescription benzodiazepines such as Xanax for recreational use.

Border force detections of these drugs have almost doubled in the past five years, further fuelling the worry.

So why do young people use them, and how do the harms differ to those used as prescribed by a doctor?

What are benzodiazepines?

You might know this large group of drugs by their trade names. Valium (diazepam), Xanax (alprazolam), Normison (temazepam) and Rohypnol (flunitrazepam) are just a few examples. Sometimes they’re referred to as minor tranquillisers or, colloquially, as “benzos”.

They increase the neurotransmitter gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA). GABA reduces activity in the brain, producing feelings of relaxation and sedation.

Unwanted side effects include drowsiness, dizziness and problems with coordination.

Benzodiazepines used to be widely prescribed for long-term management of anxiety and insomnia. They are still prescribed for these conditions, but less commonly, and are also sometimes used as part of the treatment for cancer, epilepsy and alcohol withdrawal.

Long-term use can lead to tolerance: when the effect wears off over time. So you need to use more over time to get the same effect. This can lead to dependence: when your body becomes reliant on the drug. There is a very high risk of dependence with these drugs.

When you stop taking benzodiazepines, you may experience withdrawal symptoms. For those who are dependent, the withdrawal can be long and difficult, lasting for several months or more.

So now they are only recommended for a few weeks at most for specific short-term conditions.

How do people get them? And how does it make them feel?

Benzodiazepines for non-medical use are typically either diverted from legitimate prescriptions or purchased from illicit drug markets including online.

Some illegally obtained benzodiazepines look like prescription medicines but are counterfeit pills that may contain fentanyl, nitazenes (both synthetic opioids) or other potent substances which can significantly increase the risk of accidental overdose and death.

When used recreationally, benzodiazepines are usually taken at higher doses than those typically prescribed, so there are even greater risks.

The effect young people are looking for in using these drugs is a feeling of profound relaxation, reduced inhibition, euphoria and a feeling of detachment from one’s surroundings. Others use them to enhance social experiences or manage the “comedown” from stimulant drugs like MDMA.

There are risks associated with using at these levels, including memory loss, impaired judgement, and risky behaviour, like unsafe sex or driving.

Some people report doing things they would not normally do when affected by high doses of benzodiazepines. There are cases of people committing crimes they can’t remember.

When taken at higher doses or combined with other depressant drugs such as alcohol or opioids, they can also cause respiratory depression, which prevents your lungs from getting enough oxygen. In extreme cases, it can lead to unconsciousness and even death.

Using a high dose also increases risk of tolerance and dependence.

Is recreational use growing?

The data we have about non-prescribed benzodiazepine use among young people is patchy and difficult to interpret.

The National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2022–23 estimates around 0.5% of 14 to 17 year olds and and 3% of 18 to 24 year olds have used a benzodiazepine for non medical purposes at least once in the past year.

The Australian Secondary Schools Survey 2022–23 reports that 11% of secondary school students they surveyed had used benzodiazepines in the past year. However they note this figure may include a sizeable proportion of students who have been prescribed benzodiazepines but have inadvertently reported using them recreationally.

In both surveys, use has remained fairly stable for the past two decades. So only a small percentage of young people have used benzodiazepines without a prescription and it doesn’t seem to be increasing significantly.

Reports of more young people using benzodiazepines recreationally might just reflect greater comfort among young people in talking about drugs and drug problems, which is a positive thing.

Prescribing of benzodiazepines to adolescents or young adults has also declined since 2012.

What can you do to reduce the risks?

To reduce the risk of problems, including dependence, benzodiazepines should be used for the shortest duration possible at the lowest effective dose.

Benzodiazepines should not be taken with other medicines without speaking to a doctor or pharmacist.

You should not drink alcohol or take illicit drugs at the same time as using benzodiazepines.

Counterfeit benzodiazepines are increasingly being detected in the community. They are more dangerous than pharmaceutical benzodiazepines because there is no quality control and they may contain unexpected and dangerous substances.

Drug checking services can help people identify what is in substances they intend to take. It also gives them an opportunity to speak to a health professional before they use. People often discard their drugs after they find out what they contain and speak to someone about drug harms.

If people are using benzodiazepines without a prescription to self manage stress, anxiety or insomnia, this may indicate a more serious underlying condition. Psychological therapies such as cognitive behaviour therapy, including mindfulness-based approaches, are very effective in addressing these symptoms and are more effective long term solutions.

Lifestyle modifications – such as improving exercise, diet and sleep – can also be helpful.

There are also other medications with a much lower risk of dependence that can be used to treat anxiety and insomnia.

Read more:
I think my child has anxiety. What are the treatment options?

If you or someone you know needs help with benzodiazepine use, Reconnexions can help. It’s a counselling and support service for people who use benzodiazepines.

Alternatively, CounsellingOnline is a good place to get information and referral for treatment of benzodiazepine dependence. Or speak to your GP. The Sleep Health Foundation has some great resources if you are having trouble with sleep.

Nicole Lee works as a research consultant in alcohol and other drugs. She has previously been awarded grants by state and federal governments, the National Health and Medical Research Council and other public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research. She is a Board member of The Loop Australia, which runs the Queensland and Victorian drug checking services mentioned.

Suzanne Nielsen receives funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the Commonwealth Government. She is the President-elect for the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs (APSAD), Australasia’s leading multidisciplinary organisation for professionals involved in the drug and alcohol field.

– ref. Why do some young people use Xanax recreationally? What are the risks? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-some-young-people-use-xanax-recreationally-what-are-the-risks-247242

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Judy Lundy, Lecturer in Management, Edith Cowan University

It’s been a significant day for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in the United States.

Such initiatives are about providing equality of opportunity and a sense of being valued for all members of an organisation. But a backlash has been brewing for years, led by some familiar, newly emboldened voices on the right.

Now, freshly inaugurated US President Donald Trump has begun to dismantle them, announcing:

This week, I will also end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life.

Trump has just signed a raft of executive orders that will end DEI programs within the federal government. He has also taken actions to proclaim as official US policy that there are only two genders, male and female.

Anticipating Trump’s return to office, many high-profile companies in the US had already announced a rollback of DEI initiatives – including retail giant Walmart.

Could this backlash spill over into Australia? We are seeing some signs of resistance to such initiatives already. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton certainly isn’t a fan of DEI.

There are, however, reasons to believe DEI will remain an important focus in Australian workplaces. Some major achievements have already been made, many now enshrined in law.

What is DEI?

It’s worth briefly explaining what we mean when discussing DEI’s three key components of diversity, equity and inclusion.

Broadly speaking, when we talk about diversity, we’re referring to the wide range of human differences.

In a work setting, that means focusing on the ways people are “different and yet the same” and ensuring different perspectives are heard.

Equity is about enhancing fairness of opportunity to achieve equal outcomes for everyone.

Inclusion is the degree to which people of all identities feel a sense of belonging and are valued for their uniqueness.

Collectively, DEI initiatives aim to maximise the benefits from diversity, remove barriers to equality of opportunity, and help individuals feel valued for who they are.

Why is DEI important?

There are two main schools of thought on why organisations should invest in DEI: the social justice case and the business case.

From a social justice perspective, proponents argue these investments have already made progress on many issues by providing employment and other opportunities for individuals from historically marginalised backgrounds.

The business case is that DEI initiatives are actually good for profit and performance. This has been the most prominent argument in the Australian corporate world.

The Diversity Council of Australia (DCA) makes a case that investments in DEI have brought a wide range of benefits.

Every two years, the DCA’s Inclusion@Work Index surveys 3,000 nationally representative workers in Australia. Its findings suggest that improving diversity and inclusion can tangibly increase innovation, enhance customer service, and improve employees’ wellbeing.

There are also significant reputational – and potentially financial – risks that may come with failing to address DEI concerns.

The push to dismantle it

The US backlash to DEI is nothing new, but came to a crescendo last year with Trump’s election victory.

Trump’s close ally, the billionaire Elon Musk, has also been unequivocal in his disapproval. Last year, Musk posted on his own platform X:

DEI is just another word for racism. Shame on anyone who uses it.

While Musk and Trump are some of the loudest detractors, the backlash has also been fueled by the authors of “Project 2025” and other influential voices on the right.

Project 2025 is a conservative policy wish list released in 2023 by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing US think tank.

Its authors argue that by empowering those facing disadvantage, the “DEI revolution” has discriminated against conservatives and other groups.

They advocate for removing DEI’s influence in workplaces, educational institutions and society more broadly. They also want enforcement actions against organisations that engage in DEI.

Could there be backlash here?

Australia doesn’t suffer the same level of political polarisation as the US. But we could be headed in a similar direction.

One recent survey, for example, found 17% of Australians aged 16 and over believe gender equality is a “non-issue”.

Separately, an independent review commissioned by Rio Tinto into its workplace “Everyday Respect” agenda found that despite progress having been made, there was still some backlash to the social changes being undertaken in the organisation.

Written into law

In Australia, the significant progress we’ve already made could drive a sustained focus on DEI initiatives.

Respect@Work is one such example. This is a government initiative – backed by legislation – that supports individuals and organisations to better understand, prevent and address workplace sexual harassment.

Similarly, a focus on reducing psychosocial hazards (anything that could cause psychological harm) is now embedded in the work health and safety laws of all states and territories except Victoria.

Safe Work Australia’s code of practice specifically lists harassment due to personal characteristics as a potential psychosocial hazard.

These include age, disability, race, nationality, religion, political affiliation, sex, relationship status, family or carer responsibilities, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

In 2022, the federal government also introduced a new positive duty on organisations and businesses under the Sex Discrimination Act.

This requires them to actively foster a culture that is safe, respectful and inclusive, valuing both diversity and gender equality.

Merit or opportunity?

In his inauguration speech, Trump promised to “forge a society that is colour blind and merit-based”.

DEI practitioners and academics have long had concerns about “the myth of merit”, which is considered to perpetuate gender and other social inequalities.

The premise of the “myth of merit” is that what we perceive as merit is often the product of unequal opportunity. Those who miss out on such opportunities, due to systemic barriers and other life circumstances, will be decried as lacking in merit and denied its rewards.

In Australia, where important progress has already been made, organisations should resist the backlash and continue to focus on making workplaces safer and more respectful.

DEI is ultimately about making sure everyone has the opportunity to add value and belong, regardless of their individual identity.

Judy Lundy has received funding from the Western Australian government and Rutgers University in the US.

Uma Jogulu has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Western Australian government, and the Australian Medical Association (WA).

– ref. Trump has begun dismantling America’s diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Here’s why Australia may not follow suit – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-begun-dismantling-americas-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-initiatives-heres-why-australia-may-not-follow-suit-247694