Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominic O’Sullivan, Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University and Adjunct Professor Stout Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington and Auckland University of Technology., Charles Sturt University

Time is apparently running out for the three Te Pāti Māori MPs whose haka in parliament during the Treaty Principles Bill debate last year attracted huge international attention.

Parliament’s Privileges Committee has summoned the MPs to appear on Wednesday (April 23). But given their previous resistance to fronting up, it seems unlikely they will.

The committee is investigating whether the haka broke parliament’s rules. The MPs say they don’t think they’ll get a fair hearing because the committee won’t allow legal representation or evidence from an expert in tikanga Maori.

According to Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngawera-Packer, this “is a display of power designed to silence us”.

But the case is about more than possible breaches of parliamentary protocol and standing orders. It also asks serious questions about our liberal democracy in general.

Everybody needs to express themselves freely and without fear. So, when MPs leave their seats and come close to their opponents, does it cross a line? That was certainly the ruling last year when Green MP Julie Anne Genter was censured for crossing the floor and confronting another MP.

Perhaps there is still good reason for New Zealand following the British parliamentary tradition of the government and opposition benches being two and a half sword lengths apart.

But it has already been established that haka are allowed in parliament. The real questions are how, when, why and according to which rules or tikanga?

The problem with ‘partnership’

According to the political philosopher Nancy Fraser, democracy should support every citizen to participate in public life equally:

[Justice] requires social arrangements that permit all members to participate in social interaction on a par with one another. So that means they must be able to participate as peers in all the major forms of social interaction.

If parliament and the democratic system belong equally to everyone, then everyone should be able to say this ideal matches their experience. In other words, people have one voice of equal value, not just one vote.

This is why the appropriate use of haka in parliament needs to be worked out. At one level it is about people being able to express their ideas in ways that make sense to them and the people they represent.

At a deeper level, the issue revolves around who actually “owns” parliament. Everyone? Or everyone except Māori people and their representatives? Does everyone have a voice of equal value?

Part of the problem is the notion of “partnership” between Māori and the Crown proposed by the Court of Appeal in 1987. Well intentioned as it might have been, this also created an “us and them” way of thinking.

In this sense, the Crown and its institutions are seen as separate or foreign to Māori – as belonging to other people. If that’s the case, parliament can’t then belong to everybody or reflect everybody’s customs and ways of being.

But if parliament belongs to everyone and sovereignty is not simply the oppressive authority of a distant king, but rather the shared property of every citizen, then the haka belongs as a distinctive form of political expression. It becomes part of the tikanga of the parliament.

Tikanga Māori in practice

However, tikanga is not simply about how parliamentary procedure deals with haka, waiata or the Māori language itself.

As an authority on tikanga, Hirini Moko Mead, put it, the concept is

a set of beliefs and practices associated with procedures to be followed in conducting the affairs of a group or an individual. These procedures, as established by precedents through time, are held to be ritually, are validated by usually more than one generation and are always subject to what a group or an individual is able to do.

Like parliamentary standing orders, tikanga is procedural and grounded in broader principles of justice and ethics.

Legal scholars Māmari Stephens and Carwyn Jones describe how tikanga prioritises relationships, collective obligations and inclusive decision-making. The Māori concept of wānganga or “active discussion”, Jones has written, is a framework for robust debate to enhance mutual understanding, but which doesn’t necessarily require consensus.

Tikanga Māori and deliberative democracy

The idea that political decisions should be based on reasoning, listening and serious reflection is known as deliberative democracy. It’s basically the opposite of outright majority rule based on “having the numbers”, which sometimes happens without any debate at all.

Political theorists Selen Ercan and John Dryzek define deliberative democracy as being about

putting communication at the heart of politics, recognising the need for reflective justification of positions, stressing the pursuit of reciprocal understanding across those who have different frameworks or ideologies.

If that is true, then shouting across the parliamentary debating chamber doesn’t help. Nor does using the haka to intimidate.

But using it to make a fair and reasonable point, to which others may respond, is essential to a parliament that is genuinely a “house of representatives”. Tikanga Māori and deliberative democratic processes offer complementary ways of working out what this could mean in practice.

Dominic O’Sullivan 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. Haka in the House: what will Te Pāti Māori’s protest mean for tikanga in parliament? – https://theconversation.com/haka-in-the-house-what-will-te-pati-maoris-protest-mean-for-tikanga-in-parliament-254772

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science, Harvard University

President Donald Trump has issued an executive order that would block state laws seeking to tackle greenhouse gas emissions – the latest salvo in his administration’s campaign to roll back United States’ climate action.

Under Trump, the US has clearly abdicated climate leadership. But the US has in fact obstructed climate action for decades – largely due to damaging actions by the powerful fossil fuel industry.

In 20 years studying attacks on climate science and the powerful forces at work behind the scenes, I’ve come to think the United States is simply not going to lead on climate action. The fossil fuel industry has so poisoned the well of public debate in the US that it’s unlikely the nation will lead on the issue in our lifetimes.

Australia, on the other hand, has enormous potential.

I recently visited Australia from Harvard University for a series of public talks. This nation is very close to my heart. I trained as a mining geologist and spent three years in outback South Australia, before returning to academia.

The vacuum Trump has created on climate policy provides a chance for other countries to lead. Australia has much more to gain from the clean-energy future than it stands to lose – and your climate action could be pivotal.

The climate crisis: a long time coming

Scientists first warned against burning fossil fuels way back in the 1950s. When the US Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, the words “weather” and “climate” were included because scientists had already explained to Congress that carbon dioxide was a pollutant with serious — even dire — effects.

In the late 1980s, scientists at NASA observed changes in the climate system that could only be explained by the extra heating effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The predictions had become reality.

When George H.W. Bush ran successfully for president in 1988, he promised to use the power of the “White House effect” to fight the “greenhouse effect”. In 1992, Bush and other world leaders gathered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Together, 178 countries promised action to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with Earth’s climate. But that action never came.

Trump has undoubtedly been bad news for global climate action. He makes preposterous claims about science and is dismantling the federal agencies responsible for supporting climate science and maintaining climate data.

But the US has long failed to play its part in cutting dangerous greenhouse gas emissions. The reason for this lies largely outside the White House.

A long-running campaign of disinformation

The fossil fuel industry has known about climate change for as long as scientists have.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, scientists at Esso (later ExxonMobil) actively researched the topic, building climate models and coauthoring scientific papers.

The scientists informed their managers of the risk of catastrophic damage if the burning of oil, gas and coal continued unabated. They even suggested the company might need a different business model – one not so dependent on fossil fuels.

But managers at ExxonMobil made a fateful decision: to turn from information to disinformation. Working in tandem with other oil, gas and coal companies, as well as automobile and aluminium manufacturers, ExxonMobil launched an organised campaign, sustained over decades, to block climate action by casting doubt on the underlying science.

They ran ad campaigns in national and local newspapers insisting the science was too unsettled to warrant action. They created “astroturf” organisations that only pretended to be green, and funded “third-party allies” to argue that proposed remedies would be too expensive, cost jobs and damage the economy.

The company funded outlier scientists to publish papers claiming atmospheric warming was the result of natural climate variability. They pressured journalists to give equal time to “their side” of the story in the name of “balance”.

Over the next three decades, whenever any meaningful climate policy seemed to be gaining traction, the industry and its allies lobbied Congress and state legislatures to block it. So, neither Democratic nor Republican administrations were able to undertake meaningful climate action.

While people were dying in climate-charged floods and fires, the fossil fuel industry persuaded a significant proportion of the US population, including Trump, that the whole thing might just be a hoax.

Rise up Australia

In a matter of weeks after becoming president, Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming, shut down government websites hosting climate data, and withdrew support for research that dares to mention the word “climate”.

This has created a vacuum that other countries, including Australia, can step up to fill.

Few countries have more to lose from climate change than Australia. The continent has already witnessed costly and devastating wildfires and floods — affecting remote areas and major cities. It’s not unreasonable to worry that in coming years, significant parts of Australia could become uninhabitable.

Like the US, Australia has a powerful fossil fuel industry that has disproportionately influenced its politics. Unlike the US, however, that industry is based mainly on coal for export, which Australians do not depend on in their daily lives.

And Australia is truly a lucky country. It has unsurpassed potential to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.

More than 15 years ago, Australian researchers in the Zero Carbon Australia project offered a blueprint for how the country could eliminate fossil fuel use entirely. Since then, renewable energy has only become cheaper and more efficient.

South Australia has proved the point: the state was 100% reliant on fossil fuels for electricity in 2002, but now more than 70% comes from renewables.

Across Australia, the share of renewable electricity generation is growing. Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are vying for second place after SA. It’s fascinating to watch the National Electricity Market balance supply and demand in real time, where a large proportion of the electricity comes from rooftop solar.

For decades, the fossil fuel industry has told the public our societies can’t manage without fossil fuels. Large parts of Australia have proved it’s just not so. The rest of the nation can follow that lead, and model the energy transition for the world. Here’s your chance.

Over the past two decades, Naomi Oreskes has received grant funding from various governments and non-government organisations to support the research upon which this piece is based. She serves on the board of The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which works to protect the integrity of climate science, and climate scientists, from politically motivated attacks. The Fund is a registered 501 c(3) non-profit organisation, meaning it does not engage in political activities. She is also an emerita board member of Protect our Winters, a 501 c (3) that works with the winter sports community to educate people about climate change and the threat it poses to winter sports. Naomi serves on the board of the Kann-Rasmussen foundation (Denmark), a non-profit foundation that works “to support the transition to a more environmentally resilient stable, and sustainable planet”.
Naomi currently serves as a consultant to a number of groups pursuing climate litigation in the United States, and recently submitted an expert report to the International Court of Justice on behalf of Vanuatu. She also receives speaking fees and book royalties for talks and publications on the history of climate science and climate change denial. Co-author, with Erik M. Conway, of Merchants of Doubt (2010) and The Big Myth (2023).

– ref. Fossil fuel companies ‘poisoned the well’ of public debate with climate disinformation. Here’s how Australia can break free – https://theconversation.com/fossil-fuel-companies-poisoned-the-well-of-public-debate-with-climate-disinformation-heres-how-australia-can-break-free-251221

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Duncan Ian Wallace, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University

If you’ve ever heard the term “wage slave”, you’ll know many modern workers – perhaps even you – sometimes feel enslaved to the organisation at which they work.

But here’s a different way of thinking about it: for-profit business corporations are themselves slaves.

Corporations such as Microsoft, Google and Tesla are what the law describes as “legal persons”, with many of the same rights and duties in law as individual persons have.

One right that they do not share with individuals, however, is the right not to be owned as property – the right not to be enslaved.

For though Microsoft, Google and Tesla are persons in law, they are also owned by their shareholders as property. And as legal persons that are owned as property, I argue, such corporations are slaves.

Wait, what?

As someone who’s spent years researching the history and philosophy of corporate legal personhood, I’ve done a lot of thinking about the corporation as a kind of organism, or person.

I have come to the belief that corporations are persons not only in law, but are persons also in reality. Their legal personalities are only the recognition of real, underlying, group personalities.

I am far from the only person to believe in the reality of corporate personality.

Philosophers Christian List and Philip Pettit, for example, advance the idea in their influential 2011 book, Group Agency.

In the book, List and Pettit argue that an appropriately organised social group, such as a corporation, has attitudes independent of the attitudes of the group’s individual members.

More than the sum of its parts

Such a group is more than the sum of its parts. It has its own personality, which emerges from the coordinated action of its individual members. This personality can survive changes in membership.

This shows, List and Pettit claim, such groups have “minds of their own”. They possess a sophisticated psychology enabling them to reflect on their choices and actions, make judgements on the basis of evidence and understand concepts such as right and wrong, or life and death.

In short, appropriately organised social groups really are capable of being understood as persons – “group persons”. They exist, alongside individual persons, as a normal part of human society.

And these group persons are capable of being owned as property. Consider for-profit corporations. They are traded on markets as commodities; are bought, sold and exploited; and are forced to maximise profits in the interests of their owners – their shareholders.

They are persons owned as property. They are, in other words, in the condition of slavery.

Look at Roman slave law

The idea that group persons can be slaves is an old idea. With respect to the for-profit corporation, however, it is generally rejected by modern corporate law scholars.

They argue that because corporations are persons in law, this demonstrates such entities cannot be owned.

They also point out that shareholders have limited liability for the debts of their corporations. This shows, they say, that shareholders cannot be thought of as true owners.

Such objections can be met, however, by examining the slave laws of societies where slavery was legal.

Under Roman law, for instance, slaves – though the personal property of their masters – were clearly recognised as persons in law. They were able to own property, could contract, go into debt, be held responsible for wrongs, and sue others for wrongs committed against them.

Indeed, it was common for such slaves to run businesses of their own (though ultimately for the financial benefit of the master).

And when slaves ran such businesses, their masters had limited liability for the debts of their slaves – just as shareholders have limited liability for the debts of their for-profit corporations today.

Roman slave law is no exception in these respects. The same can be found under the slave laws of Ancient Greece, medieval Islam, and in those of the 19th century American South.

4 reasons this matters

Identifying for-profit corporations as slaves matters for four reasons.

First, it highlights potential moral problems with owning corporations. When we have shares in the ownership of for-profit corporations, we are participating as masters in a system of slavery.

Second, the ability to own for-profit corporations as “slaves” is a major driver of inequality. The richest people in the world have all made their money from owning corporations, and their ability to amass such wealth would be unimaginable otherwise.

The third reason identifying for-profit corporations as slaves matters is because it provides an explanation for why corporations maximise profits in the interests of shareholders. It is because shareholders own them, and force this behaviour upon them.

Fourth, identifying corporations as slaves offers a solution to the problem of corporate profit-maximising behaviour (a behaviour causing great social and environmental harm): getting rid of shareholders.

Consider, for example, worker cooperatives like Mondragon Corporation in Spain and the John Lewis Partnership in the United Kingdom.

They are share-less corporations. They are unowned. They are corporations free from enslavement.

The effect is that they do not maximise profits. Instead, they value the wellbeing of their workers.

Duncan Ian Wallace 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. Is a corporation a slave? Many philosophers think so – https://theconversation.com/is-a-corporation-a-slave-many-philosophers-think-so-253226

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guy C. Charlton, Adjunct Associate Professor at Auckland University of Technology and Associate Professor, University of New England

You might have recently received voting papers for your local body elections. Going by our historically low participation rates, many of those envelopes will remain unopened.

This is a shame, because New Zealand’s local authorities face major financial challenges that affect nearly everyone. Only by increasing democratic engagement and giving ratepayers more reason to vote will real change happen.

Local Government New Zealand recently estimated an extra NZ$11 billion is needed over the next seven years to meet unexpected cost increases. The credit rating agency S&P Global has downgraded 18 councils and three council-controlled organisations, and given negative outlooks to three more councils.

The auditor-general reported in February that inflation has driven up the costs of construction, insurance and debt servicing. This is putting pressure on operational expenses and capital improvements at the same time as demand for council services is increasing.

The central government problem

Central government supports councils primarily through grants, subsidies, shared revenue (such as from road taxes) and development contributions. But its main response to the financial stress now being felt has been to urge local governments to focus on “core tasks”, not “pet” and “vanity” projects.

To that end, the government has introduced annual council benchmark reports that will compare rates, debt levels, capital spending breakdowns and road conditions. It is also amending in the Local Government Act to remove references to the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of communities.

It also wants to encourage inter-council cooperation with its Regional Deals Strategic Framework and streamline resource management requirements that it believes hinder economic development.

It is unlikely these measures will be enough. Government contributions to councils have averaged around 10% of local government operating income since 2000, not enough to meet increasing legal and infrastructure costs.

Other OECD countries transfer significantly higher proportions of central taxes to local governments. In New Zealand, this might include central government reimbursing taxes and other revenues it captures due to local government activity (such the GST on rates).

The government could also pick up local costs that have national benefits, such as water and wastewater capacity at prime international tourism destinations. But more fundamental reform is needed.

Rates aren’t enough

At the moment, councils generate about 80% of their income from general and targeted rates, with the rest coming from things such as parking fines, amenities fees and investment interest.

This heavy reliance of rates is clearly inadequate to pay for local operational and infrastructure costs. This is despite recent court decisions giving councils more leeway to set, raise and target rates.

But to really make a difference, councils must also be given the legal authority to raise additional revenue themselves. This could include excise taxes on petrol and visitor accommodation, sales taxes and stamp duties.

As the recently repealed Auckland regional fuel tax demonstrated, excise taxes can be an effective way to raise funds for specific activities. The roughly $780 million it raised helped pay for the Eastern Busway ($272 million) and new commuter train cars ($330 million).

Room or lodging levies on overnight stays in hotels, motels, campgrounds, Airbnb and other short-term visitor rentals can help mitigate the impacts of tourism on local infrastructure and services.

In the Queenstown Lakes district, for example, a 5% levy on the estimated $413 million spent on accommodation in 2023 would generate $210 million over ten years, about 30% of the $756 million cost attributed to tourism.

Councils could also add a small extra levy on GST in their regions, a common practice in many large American cities and counties. Or they could apply a stamp duty on things like real estate transactions as Australia does.

Stamp duties might be a political non-starter in New Zealand. But what are known as “tax incremental districts” could be an effective way of offsetting the infrastructure and public facilities costs of new developments or economic revitalisation projects.

These schemes work by applying incremental increases in rates during the private development of an area. Done properly, they can be useful in brownfield redevelopment sites, as well as speeding up housing developments on city fringes.

Reinvigorating local democracy

New taxes are rarely popular, and selling the idea of local governments levying other sources of revenue to already stretched ratepayers will be difficult. But infrastructure and other costs cannot simply be ignored and passed down to future generations.

On top of more funding from central government, local authorities need the flexibility to creatively address their financial and infrastructure needs. The decision on whether and how they do this ultimately resides with ratepayers and electors.

Having more authority would also create more accountability in local government, reinvigorate local democracy and encourage overall policy innovation.

Without greater funding authority and fewer constraints on their activities, elected community representatives risk becoming mere administrators of central government policy rather than truly reflecting and shaping their electorates.

The author thanks Avi Charlton Diesch, a post-graduate student in finance at the University of Hong Kong, for his help with the preparation of this article.

Guy C. Charlton 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. Rates will never be enough – councils need the power to raise money in other ways – https://theconversation.com/rates-will-never-be-enough-councils-need-the-power-to-raise-money-in-other-ways-252718

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zareh Ghazarian, Senior Lecturer in Politics, School of Social Sciences, Monash University

More than 18 million Australians are enrolled to vote at the federal election on May 3.

A fair proportion of them – perhaps as many as half – will take advantage of early voting, which starts Tuesday April 22.

Hundreds of locations around Australia will morph into pre-polling centres for the next couple of weeks as we enter the final phase of the campaign.

Australians have enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to vote early in recent elections. But there are some risks for voters if they jump the gun too quickly. And it’s upending the way parties and other candidates organise their campaigns.

Go early

The popularity of voting early has been on an upward trajectory in recent decades.

Research shows that in 2004, for instance, over 80% of Australians waited until polling day to cast their ballots.

But at the 2022 federal election, almost half of all Australians on the electoral roll voted early.

There were variations across jurisdictions. Queensland had the highest rate of pre-poll voting at 56.6%, while Tasmanians had the lowest at just 36.8%.

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) was actively encouraging people to vote early due to COVID concerns. Nonetheless, the trend is unmistakable. Voters want to skip the queues on election day.

Logistical problems

Early voting has been the subject of much scrutiny, especially the length of time it is available to voters. The major political parties have expressed concern about the impact it has on campaign planning and logistics.

In its submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the 2019 election, the Liberal Party highlighted how pre-poll voting placed “significant pressure on political parties” and their ability to provide booth workers for the entire early voting period, which was almost three weeks long.

Similarly, Labor acknowledged “significant practical implications for political parties and campaign managers”. The Greens also indicated they were in favour of limiting the pre-poll period.

Following the rise in early voting at the 2016 and 2019 elections, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended pre-polling be restricted to a fortnight before election day.

The committee noted:

a two week period best balances the opportunity to participate in an election as a voter, with the logistic demands placed on those who participate as contestants.

The electoral laws were subsequently changed by the Morrison government in 2021.

But given Easter Monday and Anzac Day both fall within the fortnight preceding May 3, the early polling window for this election will be further reduced.

Campaign disruption

The rising popularity of early voting plays havoc with the campaign plans of all candidates.

In the past, when the overwhelming majority of voters waited for election day, it made sense for the major parties in particular to continually drip feed promises and announcements until the last day of voting.

Parties now have less time to pitch for support during the campaign. The critical window of opportunity to appeal to voters is the time between the election being called and when Australians flock to the polls at the start of early voting.

It is highly likely we have already seen all the major policies in this election, including the voter-friendly cost-of-living measures.

But the parties are in a bind, because they must continue to appeal to the significant number of voters who will be considering who to vote for right up until election day itself.

Skip the queue

While many people will be tempted to vote early, the Australian Electoral Commission’s website reminds us there are some conditions for pre-poll voting.

You can only vote early, either in person or by post, if on polling day you are:

• travelling or unable to leave your workplace to vote
• sick or due to give birth, or caring for someone who is
• a person with a disability, or caring for someone who is
• in prison serving a sentence of less than three years
• prevented by religious beliefs from attending on election day
• a silent elector, or reasonably fearful for your safety or wellbeing.

Aware of the temptation to pre-poll, the AEC says people who wait until election day won’t have to battle long queues. In fact, 75% of them will be in and out of the polling place in under 15 minutes.

Voter beware

The numbers don’t lie. More and more voters are keen to participate in the democratic process before election day.

However, voting early could be a double-edged sword. It may be convenient, but there is always the risk candidates or parties could say or do something that antagonises a voter after they have cast their ballot.

As there is no way to withdraw an original vote or cast a new one if they change their minds, early voters are taking a risk.

Moreover, by voting early, people may be missing out on the sausage sizzle, the craft stands, and the bake sales that many communities hold on voting day. These election day traditions raise funds and add a special community feeling to the ultimate exercise of democracy – choosing a government.

Zareh Ghazarian 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. Early voting opens in the federal election – but it brings some problems for voters and parties – https://theconversation.com/early-voting-opens-in-the-federal-election-but-it-brings-some-problems-for-voters-and-parties-254172

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Houlihan, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast

If you ever find yourself stuck in repeated cycles of negative emotion, you’re not alone.

More than 40% of Australians will experience a mental health issue in their lifetime. Many are linked to deep-rooted feelings that develop from childhood experiences.

Changing these lifelong patterns takes time, energy and support. For some people, schema therapy can help.

What is schema therapy?

Schema therapy was developed in the 1990s by psychologist Jeffrey Young as an extension of cognitive behaviour therapy.

Cognitive behaviour therapy is a popular psychotherapy that helps people change problematic patterns in their thoughts and behaviour, improving how they feel.

Among psychological interventions, cognitive behaviour therapy has the strongest evidence for successfully treating the majority of mental health problems.

However, not all conditions benefit from it.

Cognitive behaviour therapy is brief (usually delivered across 10–12 sessions) and focuses on changing the “here and now”. But more complex issues – or those tied strongly to past experiences, such as multiple traumas – may need longer-term therapy.

Like cognitive behaviour therapy, schema therapy aims to help reframe unhelpful ways of thinking through regular sessions with a psychotherapist.

But instead of prioritising everyday challenges, it uncovers deep-rooted beliefs, explores how and why they formed, and how they affect day-to-day life and people’s perceptions of themselves.

What are schemas?

“Schemas” are mental blueprints that filter how we see ourselves, others and the world. Most of us are not consciously aware of them.

Yet schemas run deep. Problematic ones – such as “I am a failure” or “others can’t be trusted” or “the world is scary and unsafe” – can affect our mental health and lead us to destructive patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving.

For example, someone with a “failure” schema may be highly sensitive to criticism, experience crippling anxiety, and have low self-worth. Having a “mistrust” schema may cause issues with forming close relationships and lead to loneliness and depression.

How does schema therapy work?

Therapists may specialise in schema therapy through additional training and supervision, which can lead to accreditation with the International Society of Schema Therapy.

During schema therapy you and your therapist will discuss your current concerns and develop a safe and trusting relationship before exploring the problematic schemas that are affecting you today. Schema therapy may involve talking, completing a schema questionnaire, and engaging in therapeutic activities during and in between sessions.

These activities are tailored to your situation, once you’ve explored which schemas affect you and what negative emotions arise. They are designed to help you process and heal from negative feelings such as helplessness, anger and shame.

One such activity involves using mental imagery to revisit challenging experiences in your past and to reframe how you think about them.

Another is to use empty chairs in the therapy room to speak to the different parts of yourself that are connected to the negative emotions. For example, talking to your child self, or to the side of you that tries to hide your feelings from others.

After this you will work with your therapist to come up with positive behaviour change strategies and apply them in daily life. These could include things such as reducing procrastination and self-sacrificing behaviour (prioritising others’ needs over your own), regulating emotions, and setting healthy boundaries in relationships.

Who does it work for?

Schema therapy was specifically designed to help conditions that don’t respond to cognitive behaviour therapy. Since the early nineties, it has shown promise among people experiencing chronic depression and personality disorders, and people in prisons.

Schema therapy is increasingly being used with children and adolescents, as it can effectively be adapted to suit younger age groups and help them understand the complex psychological processes involved.

Schema therapy can take more time than some other approaches, including cognitive behaviour therapy. You may be working with your therapist for several months to a year before seeing real results.

It is likely to benefit people who can commit to the time needed and prioritise their therapy tasks over other things.

Like all therapies, schema therapy will take emotional energy. As you implement changes planned in therapy, enlisting the support of close friends or family may help you achieve long-lasting change.

I’m interested in schema therapy – what next?

Maybe you are experiencing a problem that short-term therapies don’t easily address.

Perhaps you have already tried cognitive behaviour therapy and have noticed some improvements in your mental health, but realise you still have some way to go. Or it’s possible you have exhausted self-help options and are looking for something that will change the deep-rooted feelings you think are connected to your past.

Learning about different therapy approaches is the first step in finding the right help for you.

The Schema Therapy Institute Australia has a list of schema therapists practising around the country.

You may see “schema therapy” listed as a therapy approach on your local psychology practices’ web pages. You can also ask your GP about referrals using Medicare options.

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. ‘I’m a failure’: how schema therapy tackles the deep-rooted beliefs that affect our mental health – https://theconversation.com/im-a-failure-how-schema-therapy-tackles-the-deep-rooted-beliefs-that-affect-our-mental-health-250789

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Penny Van Bergen, Associate Professor in the Psychology of Education, Macquarie University

If you have a child born at the start of the year, you may be faced with a tricky and stressful decision. Do you send them to school “early”, in the year they turn five? Or do you “hold them back” and send them in the year they turn six?

Media reports refer to parents who want to “hold children back”. This is particularly the case for boys. Some parents express concerns boys may develop more slowly and school activities may favour girls.

Our new study surveyed Australian parents to understand their reasons for sending children to school early or on time or holding them back.

School entry in Australia

State regulations for the age of starting school vary across Australia, and between public, Catholic and independent schools.

Typically, however, children born in the first part of the year can be sent to school in either the year they turn five or the year they turn six. This can lead to big age caps in a school year level.

Public school cutoff dates are April 30 in Victoria, May 1 in South Australia, June 30 in Queensland and July 31 in New South Wales.

A 2019 study of more than 160,000 NSW students showed overall, 26% of children were held back, although there was variation between different regions. This is much higher than in many other countries. For example, delayed entry is as low as 5.5% in the United States and 6% in Germany.

Read more:
A push to raise the school starting age to 6 sounds like good news for parents, but there’s a catch

Our research

In our research published in Early Education and Development, we surveyed 226 Australian parents who had a choice about whether to send their child to school in the year they turned five or six. Parents were from a mix of states and recruited via social media and a variety of other media, including parenting magazines.

We found 29% of parents intended to send their child to school in the first year they were eligible and 66% planned to start later. About 5% were unsure. Consistent with trends in other countries, parents were almost four times as likely to report they intended to start boys later than girls.

There were five key factors guiding their decisions.

1. Money and work

One group of factors, which we labelled “practical realities”, meant parents were more likely to send a child on time or early.

This included high early childhood education costs (it is much cheaper to send a child to a government school than pay for daycare) and parents’ work demands (and the benefits of regular school hours). As one parent said:

School is a cheaper option for many parents and community preschool (which is cheaper, depending on the number of days) is not a practical option for many working families.

2. A child’s size

Parents also considered their child’s physical size relative to their peers. Other studies suggest parents worry smaller boys will be bullied and will struggle to demonstrate sporting prowess.

Reflecting on this trend, one parent said:

I would prefer that my child wasn’t starting school with children well over a year older just because other parents think boys need a bit more time to mature. They are then significantly older and bigger by then.

3. Social readiness

Another group of factors involved children’s social, emotional and behavioral readiness for school. This includes their ability to pay attention and sit still, follow instructions, regulate and manage emotions and show empathy and consideration for others.

One parent sending their child to school in the year they turn five said:

Our child will be fine […] He is able, social and confident and hopefully this will mean he will have a positive school experience irrespective of what year he starts.

Another who chose to hold their child back suggested:

I want my child to be introduced to formal schooling as late as possible to ensure his brain development and emotional regulation are mature enough to handle the transition.

4. Family time

Another set of reasons influencing parents’ decisions was a desire to spend time together with their child before formal schooling. As one parent said:

I always hear that no one ever regrets sending their child a bit later but they often regret sending early. I can afford for her to have an extra year of preschool and time at home and that is a luxury I acknowledge not everyone has.

5. Milestones

Parents also looked to the future and considered their child’s age relative to peers. This included when they would be starting high school or completing teenage milestones, such as driving, drinking, managing friendships and finishing school. This might explain why rates of holding children back vary by region. As one parent told us:

The people around me having a choice (and holding their children back) ended up influencing my choice. She [my daughter] could have started school but would have been in a peer group that had been held back.

What about academic concerns?

Interestingly, parents did not typically express academic concerns or motivations (such as a desire to see their child move ahead of others academically) as a factor in their decision. Indeed, as one parent said:

I have very strong beliefs about what school readiness means and for me it is much more than just being academically ready.

Although there is evidence older children have a developmental advantage over younger children when entering school, academic benefits dissipate over time. For example, older children do better on Year 3 and 5 NAPLAN numeracy and literacy tests, but benefits fade or disappear by Year 9.

What does this mean?

Our research suggests the reasons why parents start a child early or hold them back are complex – and very much based on the needs of individual families and children.

Taken together they suggest teachers not only need to accommodate a wide range of ages starting school but a sizeable portion of families who will have “delayed” school for a variety of personal reasons.

Penny Van Bergen receives funding from the ARC, Google and the Marsden Fund.

Naomi Sweller receives funding from the ARC.

Rebecca Andrews receives funding from NSW Department of Education and the Australian Children’s Early Childhood Quality Authority.

Anne McMaugh and Kay Bussey 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. Parents delay sending kids to school for social reasons and physical size. It’s not about academic advantage – https://theconversation.com/parents-delay-sending-kids-to-school-for-social-reasons-and-physical-size-its-not-about-academic-advantage-254076

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dan Golding, Professor and Chair of the Department of Media and Communication, Swinburne University of Technology

Premiering today, the second and final season of Star Wars streaming show Andor seems destined to be one of the pop culture defining moments of the second Trump presidency.

Andor, which began airing in 2022, tells the story of the early days of the Rebel Alliance before the adventures of Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia. The series is the most politically articulate of the Star Wars franchise.

Where older Star Wars entries focused on lightsaber battles and dogfights in space, Andor shows a world of political manifestos, fractious alliances between rebel groups, and surreptitious fundraising for revolution.

Season one of the show followed the political awakening of the titular Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), who progresses from troubled thief to total ideological commitment to fighting the Empire. The show also follows a covert revolutionary leader (Stellan Skarsgård), an ineffective politician who secretly finances the rebellion (Genevieve O’Reilly), and two Imperials manoeuvring for power (Denise Gough and Kyle Soller).

Showrunner Tony Gilroy has so far taken inspiration for Andor from a variety of real historical revolutionary events, from Stalin’s bank robbery in Tiflis of 1907 to the Baader-Meinhof group in West Germany.

Aesthetically, Andor has more in common with the political filmmaking of the likes of The Battle of Algiers (1966), the films of Costa-Gavras, or early Paul Greengrass than the central Flash Gordon-inspired Star Wars saga.

As authoritarian governments and conflicts loom large globally, the final season of Andor in 2025 is perfectly timed to articulate anxieties much closer to home than the galaxy far, far away.

Star Wars has always been political

Andor is far from the first time that Star Wars has captured the political zeitgeist. In fact, much of the franchise’s success stems from the way it provides us with a pop culture language to talk about politics.

In 2016, Trump’s first election win coincided with the release of Rogue One, the Star Wars precursor to Andor.

Within days, two Star Wars creatives made public comparisons between Trump and Rogue One’s villains, with writer Chris Weitz posting on Twitter “the Empire is a white supremacist (human) organization”. Writer Gary Whitta replied: “Opposed by a multi-cultural group led by brave women”.

They were officially reprimanded by the studio. “This is a film that the world should enjoy,” said Disney CEO Bob Iger at the time. “It is not a film that is, in any way, a political film.”

Under the ownership of a risk averse corporation like Disney, Star Wars is supposed to be family friendly, apolitical entertainment.

However, since its very conception, Star Wars has been political.

Inspired by anti-Vietnam war protests, director George Lucas described Darth Vader and the Empire as “Nixonian gangsters” in early drafts of the original film’s script. Lucas, who had developed Apocalypse Now before Francis Ford Coppola ultimately directed the film, has consistently claimed to have thought of the Rebel Alliance as similar to North Vietnamese fighters resisting United States forces.

When it came time for the prequel trilogy in the 2000s, Lucas told a story of democracy willingly falling to dictatorship (beginning with a trade war, something not lost on contemporary observers). In 2005, Lucas even had Darth Vader paraphrase George W. Bush.

It has also shaped politics. Scholars and critics like Andrew Britton and Robin Wood argued Star Wars was so escapist and disconnected from politics here on earth that it set the scene for Ronald Reagan’s good-versus-evil rhetoric.

A galaxy not so far away

It is precisely Star Wars’ apolitical image that gives it so much political utility. A series with such strong heroes and villains inevitably invites comparison.

Almost immediately after its release in 1977, Star Wars became a pop culture language for understanding politics.

When Maggie Thatcher won government in the United Kingdom on May 4 1979, the Conservative Party took out an advertisement in the London Evening News congratulating her with the words “May the Fourth Be With You”.

When Ronald Reagan proposed a “Strategic Defense Initiative” missile system in 1983, critics immediately and famously labelled it “Star Wars” (something Lucas tried unsuccessfully to stop). Reagan himself eventually joined in, too, claiming in a speech in 1985 that “the Force is with us”.

It is easy to find examples of politicians of all stripes being likened to Star Wars villains like Darth Vader (most enduring was Dick Cheney who claimed to not mind the comparison).

Composer John Williams’ Imperial March has even been played at protests as a way to antagonise opponents.

The enduring currency of the political language of Star Wars is in part due to its generalities. In any political conflict it helps to have a way to describe an archetypal evil puppet master (the Emperor), his henchman (Darth Vader), and the soulful heroes putting their lives on the line (the Jedi).

The real trick to Star Wars’ ongoing relevance, however, lies in its very real inspirations. Whether it is George W. Bush, the Viet Cong, or the Bolsheviks, Star Wars has time and again turned the specifics of political history into mythology.

At a time where many see global politics as having set the stage for the Empire to Strike Back, the final season of Andor may give many a language to articulate A New Hope.

Dan Golding 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. Since its very conception, Star Wars has been political. Now Andor will take on Trump 2.0 – https://theconversation.com/since-its-very-conception-star-wars-has-been-political-now-andor-will-take-on-trump-2-0-254208

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

The imbroglio over the reported Russian request to Indonesia to base planes in Papua initially tripped Peter Dutton, and now is dogging Anthony Albanese.

After the respected military site Janes said a request had been made, the Australian government quickly obtained an assurance from the Indonesians there would be no Russian planes based there.

Moreover, the government was able to score a hit on Dutton, who had wrongly named Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto as having said there’d been a Russian approach. Later, Dutton admitted he’d stuffed up.

One might have thought the story would have died as the election caravan moved on. But it continued when it became obvious the government would not say, despite repeated questions, whether it knew a request had in fact been made to the Indonesians.

Then Russia’s ambassador to Indonesia, Sergei Tolchenov, leapt into the fray. Tolchenov wrote a letter to The Jakarta Post, responding to an article by Australian academic Matthew Sussex on The Conversation, which was republished in the Post.

His letter dripping with sarcasm, the ambassador wrote:

It is hard to imagine that any ordinary Australians should be concerned about what is happening 1,300 kilometers from their territory, about matters that concern relations between other sovereign states and have nothing to do with Australia. Perhaps it would be better for them to pay attention to the United States’ Typhon medium-range missile system in the Philippines, which will definitely reach the territory of the continent?

It is clear that the leaders of the two main political parties, replacing each other in power and calling it democracy, are now trying to outdo each other, heating up the situation. They stop at nothing, and the time has come to play the so-called ‘Russian card’. This means to show to overseas mentors who is more anti-Russian and Russophobe. In this regard, I would like to remind them of the words of US President Donald Trump, which he pronounced in the White House on Feb. 28, 2025, to the Ukrainian citizen ‘Z’: ‘You have no cards’.“

Read more:
Russia has long had interest in Indonesia. Australia must realise its partners may have friends we don’t like

Meanwhile, Employment Minister Murray Watt strayed off the government’s script of diplomatic silence when he told Sky on Sunday, “There is no proposal from Russia to have a base anywhere in Indonesia in the way that Peter Dutton and his colleagues have been claiming”.

The questioning intensified.

Late Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles was back on Sky to impose the official blackout over what the government knew of the alleged discussions between Russia and Indonesia.

“What we know about that, and when we knew about it, is obviously not something I’m going to ventilate in the public domain.

“What matters here is that the Indonesians have made it completely clear to us that they have absolutely no intent of having Russian aircraft operating from their nation,” Marles said.

Another instalment of “What the Russians Asked” may come in Tuesday night’s third leaders debate on Nine.

A possible chance for real reform

We keep getting lectured in this campaign about various significant issues (such as tax reform) that are being pushed under the carpet. But there’s something else that’s being overlooked: whether our institutions are in need of a big overhaul.

With public trust low, accountability vital but often wanting, and our democracy sometimes resembling a car urgently needing a service, there are plenty of reforms that could be considered.

John Daley (formerly of the Grattan Institute and now an independent consultant) and Rachel Krust, in a report released Monday and titled Institutional reform stocktake, propose a rich agenda for change. The stocktake was sponsored by the Susan McKinnon Foundation, a non-partisan body committed to promoting all aspects of better government.

The report identifies short-term priority reforms as well as ones that would take longer to achieve.

Parliamentarians often claim we’d be better governed with four-year terms. But given that would require a referendum, it is effectively out of reach. So the stocktake advocates a next-best option: fixed three year terms, which could be legislated. Four year terms would be a more distant aim.

The advantage of fixed terms is they’d stop the disruption of months of speculation about the timing (that we saw before the current election). The disadvantage to the party in power is the prime minister can’t choose the day best suiting them.

The Albanese government recently brought in caps for political donations and spending, to take effect in the coming term. Daley and Krust advocate these be revisited. The donation and disclosure caps should be lowered, they argue, and an expert commission should consider the caps on spending (which were criticised by some as limiting small and new players).

Other priority recommendations are to beef up civics education, enhance parliamentary committees, put more structure around the appointment and termination of departmental secretaries, and better resource independent members of parliament, particularly if they hold the balance of power.

One reason institutional reform is important is to achieve better policy outcomes, the report says. “Australian governments are getting worse at delivering policy changes that make a big difference to long-term problems.”

While identifying a prospective advantage for policy, the report puts its finger on why such reform faces resistance.

Institutional reforms have often not progressed in Australia because they would not serve the interests of incumbent parties. Many of the suggested changes would leave members of the government more exposed to questioning, challenge or censure, reduce the advantages of established political parties relative to new entrants, reduce the power of party officials relative to rank-and-file members, or reduce employment opportunities after a political career.

The report says if the election produces a hung parliament this “may widen the window for reform”.

“Crossbenchers usually have strong electoral incentives to prosecute institutional reforms, because they are usually both popular and not supported by incumbent parties.”

But the crossbenchers need to be quick. “This window of opportunity may narrow again. The power of independents to push for institutional change is greatest during negotiations immediately following an election.”

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

– ref. Election Diary: Albanese government stays mum over whatever Russia may have said to Indonesia – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-albanese-government-stays-mum-over-whatever-russia-may-have-said-to-indonesia-254201

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mathew Schmalz, Professor of Religious Studies, College of the Holy Cross

With the death of Pope Francis, attention now turns to the selection of his successor. The next pope will be chosen in what is called a “conclave,” a Latin word meaning “a room that can be locked up,” or, more simply, “a closed room.”

Members of the College of Cardinals will cast their votes behind the closed and locked doors of the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel, famous for its ceiling frescoes painted by Michelangelo. Distinguished by their scarlet robes, cardinals are chosen by each pope to elect future popes. A cardinal must be under the age of 80 to be eligible to vote in the conclave. Of the 252 members of the College of Cardinals, 138 are currently eligible to elect the new pope.

As a scholar of global Catholicism, I am especially interested in how this will be the most diverse conclave in the history of the Catholic Church.

For many centuries, the College of Cardinals was dominated by Europeans – Italians, in particular. In fact, the first time a non-European cardinal actually cast a ballot in a conclave was only in the 20th century, when Baltimore’s archbishop, James Gibbons, voted in the 1903 papal election. Now, the College of Cardinals has members from over 90 countries, with Francis having appointed nearly 80% of them.

Holding a conclave to elect a pope is a tradition that goes back centuries. The practice was established in 1274 under Pope Gregory X in reaction to the chaos surrounding his own election, which lasted nearly three years. The tradition is old, but the results can be surprising, as when Francis himself was elected in 2013 as the first non-European pope in almost 1,300 years and the first Jesuit pope ever.

The conclave begins

Before the conclave, the College of Cardinals will meet in what are called “general congregations” to discuss issues facing the church. These general congregations will also be an opportunity for new cardinals and those from distant geographical locations to get to know their fellow cardinals.

This can be a time for politicking. In times past, the politicking was rumored to include bribes for votes, as was alleged in the election of Alexander VI, a Borgia pope, in 1492. Nowadays, it is considered to be bad form – and bad luck – for a cardinal to lobby for himself as a candidate. Buying votes by giving money or favors to cardinals is called “simony” and is against church law.

Two to three weeks after the papal funeral, the conclave will begin. The cardinals will first make a procession to the Sistine Chapel, where electronic jamming devices will have been set up to prevent eavesdropping and Wi-Fi and cellphone use. As they file into the chapel, the cardinals will sing, in Latin, the hymn “Come Holy Spirit.” They will then vow on a book of the Gospels to keep the conclave proceedings secret.

After these rituals, the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations will say out loud, in Latin, “Extra Omnes,” which means “Everyone Out.” The doors of the Sistine Chapter will then be locked, and the conclave will begin.

The voting process

The cardinals electing the pope will be seated in order of rank.

Usually, the dean of the College of Cardinals is seated in the first position. But the current dean – Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re – is over the eligible voting age and will not participate in the conclave. Instead, this papal election will be led by the Vatican’s secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin.

When the cardinals have assembled, nine will be chosen at random to run the election, with three of them being “scrutinizers” who will examine the ballots and read them aloud.

After writing down the name of their chosen candidate, the cardinals will bring their ballots to the front of the chapel and place them on a plate that is set on top of an urn in front of the scrutinizers. Using the plate to drop their ballot into the urn, they will say, “I call as my witness Christ the Lord who will be my judge, that my vote is given to the one who before God I think should be elected.”

A new pope is elected by a two-thirds majority. If this majority is not reached during the first ballot, the ballots will be burned in a stove. Black smoke rising through the Sistine Chapel’s chimney will signal to the outside world that the election is still ongoing, a tradition that began with the election of Benedict XV in 1914. Chemical additives are used to make sure the smoke is black because during the election of John Paul II, there was confusion over the smoke’s color.

Following the first day – and on the days thereafter – there will be up to four ballots a day if a two-thirds majority is not reached. Both Benedict XVI and Francis were elected after relatively few ballots: four in the case of Benedict; five with Francis. According to rules set by Benedict, if a new pope is not chosen after 13 days, there will be a day of prayer and reflection. Then the election will be between the top two candidates, one of whom must receive a two-thirds majority.

This new rule, some commentators have suggested, could lead to a longer, or even deadlocked, conclave because a compromise candidate is less likely to emerge.

The Room of Tears

Conclaves are usually short, such as the three-ballot election that chose Pope Pius XII in 1939. On a few occasions, deliberations have been quite long – the longest being the 1740 papal conclave, which elected Benedict XIV and lasted 181 days.

But regardless of the time frame, a new pope will be chosen. Once a candidate receives enough votes, he is asked, “Do you accept your canonical election as Supreme Pontiff?” By saying “Accepto,” or “I accept,” he becomes the new leader of the Catholic Church. This time, the ballots will be burned to create white smoke that will tell the world that the conclave has ended and that a new pope has been chosen.

Immediately after being elected, the new pope decides on his name, as Jorge Maria Bergoglio did when he was the first pope to choose the name Francis. The choice of a name – especially one of an immediate predecessor – often indicates the direction of the new pope’s pontificate. In Francis’ case, his name honored St. Francis of Assisi, a 13th century mystic known for his simplicity and love for nature.

The new pope is then led to the “Room of Tears.” In this chamber, off the Sistine Chapel, he will have moments to reflect on the burdens of his position, which have often brought new popes to tears. He will put on a white cassock and other signs of his office. His election will be announced from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica.

From the balcony, the new pope will greet the crowd below and deliver his first blessing to the world. A new pontificate will have begun.

Mathew Schmalz is Roman Catholic and a political independent.

– ref. How the next pope will be elected – what goes on at the conclave – https://theconversation.com/how-the-next-pope-will-be-elected-what-goes-on-at-the-conclave-164363

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Reardon, Postdoctoral Researcher, Pulsar Timing and Gravitational Waves, Swinburne University of Technology

With the most powerful radio telescope in the southern hemisphere, we have observed a twinkling star and discovered an abundance of mysterious plasma structures in our cosmic neighbourhood.

The plasma structures we see are variations in density or turbulence, akin to interstellar cyclones stirred up by energetic events in the galaxy.

The study, published today in Nature Astronomy, also describes the first measurements of plasma layers within an interstellar shock wave that surrounds a pulsar.

We now realise our local interstellar medium is filled with these structures and our findings also include a rare phenomenon that will challenge theories of pulsar shock waves.

What’s a pulsar and why does it have a shock wave?

Our observations honed in on the nearby fast-spinning pulsar, J0437-4715, which is 512 light-years away from Earth. A pulsar is a neutron star, a super-dense stellar remnant that produces beams of radio waves and an energetic “wind” of particles.

The pulsar and its wind move with supersonic speed through the interstellar medium – the stuff (gas, dust and plasma) between the stars. This creates a bow shock: a shock wave of heated gas that glows red.

The interstellar plasma is turbulent and scatters pulsar radio waves slightly away from a direct, straight line path. The scattered waves create a pattern of bright and dim patches that drifts over our radio telescopes as Earth, the pulsar and plasma all move through space.

From our vantage point, this causes the pulsar to twinkle, or “scintillate”. The effect is similar to how turbulence in Earth’s atmosphere makes stars twinkle in the night sky.

Pulsar scintillation gives us unique information about plasma structures that are too small and faint to be detected in any other way.

Twinkling little radio star

To the naked eye, the twinkling of a star might appear random. But for pulsars at least, there are hidden patterns.

With the right techniques, we can uncover ordered shapes from the interference pattern, called scintillation arcs. They detail the locations and velocities of compact structures in the interstellar plasma. Studying scintillation arcs is like performing a CT scan of the interstellar medium – each arc reveals a thin layer of plasma.

Usually, scintillation arc studies uncover just one, or at most a handful of these arcs, giving a view of only the most extreme (densest or most turbulent) plasma structures in our galaxy.

Our scintillation arc study broke new ground by unveiling an unprecedented 25 scintillation arcs, the most plasma structures observed for any pulsar to date.

The sensitivity of our study was only possible because of the close proximity of the pulsar (it’s our nearest millisecond pulsar neighbour) and the large collecting area of the MeerKAT radio telescope in South Africa.

A Local Bubble surprise

Of the 25 scintillation arcs we found, 21 revealed structures in the interstellar medium. This was surprising because the pulsar – like our own Solar System – is located in a relatively quiet region of our galaxy called the Local Bubble.

About 14 million years ago, this part of our galaxy was lit up by stellar explosions that swept up material in the interstellar medium and inflated a hot void. Today, this bubble is still expanding and now extends up to 1,000 light-years from us.

Our new scintillation arc discoveries reveal that the Local Bubble is not as empty as previously thought. It is filled with compact plasma structures that could only be sustained if the bubble has cooled, at least in some areas, from millions of degrees down to a mild 10,000 degrees Celsius.

Shock discoveries

As the animation below shows, the pulsar is surrounded by its bow shock, which glows red with light from energised hydrogen atoms.

While most pulsars are thought to produce bow shocks, only a handful have ever been observed because they are faint objects. Until now, none had been studied using scintillation.

We traced the remaining four scintillation arcs to plasma structures inside the pulsar bow shock, marking the first time astronomers have peered inside one of these shock waves.

This gave us a CT-like view of the different layers of plasma. Using these arcs together with an optical image we constructed a new three-dimensional model of the shock, which appears to be tilted slightly away from us because of the motion of the pulsar through space.

The scintillation arcs also gave us the velocities of the plasma layers. Far from being as expected, we discovered that one inner plasma structure is moving towards the shock front against the flow of the shocked material in the opposite direction.

While such back flows can appear in simulations, they are rare. This finding will drive new models for this bow shock.

Scintillating science

With new and more sensitive radio telescopes being built around the world, we can expect to see scintillation from more pulsar bow shocks and other events in the interstellar medium.

This will uncover more about the energetic processes in our galaxy that create these otherwise invisible plasma structures.

The scintillation of this pulsar neighbour revealed unexpected plasma structures inside our Local Bubble and allowed us to map and measure the speed of plasma within a bow shock. It’s amazing what a twinkling little star can do.

Daniel Reardon receives funding from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery (OzGrav).

– ref. Twinkling star reveals the shocking secrets of turbulent plasma in our cosmic neighbourhood – https://theconversation.com/twinkling-star-reveals-the-shocking-secrets-of-turbulent-plasma-in-our-cosmic-neighbourhood-243022

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joel Hodge, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Theology and Philosophy, Australian Catholic University

Pope Francis has died on Easter Monday, aged 88, the Vatican announced. The head of the Catholic Church had recently survived being hospitalised with a serious bout of double pneumonia.

Cardinal Kevin Farrell’s announcement began:

Dearest brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis. At 7:35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father.

There were many unusual aspects of Pope Francis’ papacy. He was the first Jesuit pope, the first from the Americas (and the southern hemisphere), the first to choose the name “Francis” and the first to give a TED talk. He was also the first pope in more than 600 years to be elected following the resignation, rather than death, of his predecessor.

From the very start of his papacy, Francis seemed determined to do things differently and present the papacy in a new light. Even in thinking about his burial, he chose the unexpected: to be placed to rest not in the Vatican, but in the Basilica of St Mary Major in Rome – the first pope to be buried there in more than 300 years.

Vatican News reported the late Pope Francis had requested his funeral rites be simplified.

“The renewed rite,” said Archbishop Diego Ravelli, “seeks to emphasise even more that the funeral of the Roman Pontiff is that of a pastor and disciple of Christ and not of a powerful person of this world.”

Straddling a line between “progressive” and “conservative”, Francis experienced tension with both sides. In doing so, his papacy shone a spotlight on what it means to be Catholic today.

Between a rock and a hard place

Francis was deemed not progressive enough by some, yet far too progressive by others.

His apostolic exhortation (an official papal teaching on a particular issue or action) Amoris Laetitia, ignited great controversy for seemingly being (more) open to the question of whether people who have divorced and remarried may receive Eucharist.

He also disappointed progressive Catholics, many of whom hoped he would make stronger changes on issues such as the roles of women, married clergy, and the broader inclusion of LGBTQIA+ Catholics.

The reception of his exhortation Querida Amazonia was one such example. In this document, Francis did not endorse marriage for priests, despite bishops’ requests for this. He also did not allow the possibility of women being ordained as deacons to address a shortage of ordained ministers. His discerning spirit saw there was too much division and no clear consensus for change.

Francis was also openly critical of Germany’s controversial
“Synodal Way” – a series of conferences with bishops and lay people – that advocated for positions contrary to Church teachings. Francis expressed concern on multiple occasions that this project was a threat to the unity of the Church.

At the same time, Francis was no stranger to controversy from the conservative side of the Church, receiving “dubia” or “theological doubts” over his teaching from some of his Cardinals. In 2023, he took the unusual step of responding to some of these doubts.

Impact on the Catholic Church

In many ways, the most striking thing about Francis was not his words or theology, but his style. He was a modest man, even foregoing the Apostolic Palace’s grand papal apartments to live in the Vatican’s simpler guest house.

He may well be remembered most for his simplicity of dress and habits, his welcoming and pastoral style and his wise spirit of discernment.

He is recognised as giving a clear witness to the life, love and joy of Jesus in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council – a point of major reform in modern Church history. This witness has translated into two major developments in Church teachings and life.

Love for our common home

The first of these relates to environmental teachings. In 2015, Francis released his ground-breaking encyclical, Laudato si’: On Care for Our Common Home. It expanded Catholic social teaching by giving a comprehensive account of how the environment reflects our God-given “common home”.

Consistent with recent popes such as Benedict XVI and John Paul II, Francis acknowledged climate change and its destructive impacts and causes. He summarised key scientific research to forcefully argue for an evidence-based approach to addressing humans’ impact on the environment.

He also made a pivotal and innovative contribution to the climate change debate by identifying the ethical and spiritual causes of environmental destruction.

Francis argued combating climate change relied on the “ecological conversion” of the human heart, so that people may recognise the God-given nature of our planet and the fundamental call to care for it. Without this conversion, pragmatic and political measures wouldn’t be able to counter the forces of consumerism, exploitation and selfishness.

Francis argued a new ethic and spirituality was needed. Specifically, he said Jesus’ way of love – for other people and all creation – is the transformative force that could bring sustainable change for the environment and cultivate fraternity among people (and especially with the poor).

Synodality: moving towards a Church that listens

Francis’s second major contribution, and one of the most significant aspects of his papacy, was his commitment to “synodality”. While there’s still confusion over what synodality actually means, and its potential for political distortion, it is above all a way of listening and discerning through openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It involves hierarchy and lay people transparently and honestly discerning together, in service of the mission of the church. Synodality is as much about the process as the goal. This makes sense as Pope Francis was a Jesuit, an order focused on spreading Catholicism through spiritual formation and discernment.

Drawing on his rich Jesuit spirituality, Francis introduced a way of conversation centred on listening to the Holy Spirit and others, while seeking to cultivate friendship and wisdom.

With the conclusion of the second session of the Synod on Synodality in October 2024, it is too soon to assess its results. However, those who have been involved in synodal processes have reported back on their transformative potential.

Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge, explained how participating in the 2015 Synod “was an extraordinary experience [and] in some ways an awakening”.

Catholicism in the modern age

Francis’ papacy inspired both great joy and aspirations, as well as boiling anger and rejection. He laid bare the agonising fault lines within the Catholic community and struck at key issues of Catholic identity, triggering debate over what it means to be Catholic in the world today.

He leaves behind a Church that seems more divided than ever, with arguments, uncertainty and many questions rolling in his wake. But he has also provided a way for the Church to become more converted to Jesus’ way of love, through synodality and dialogue.

Francis showed us that holding labels such as “progressive” or “conservative” won’t enable the Church to live out Jesus’ mission of love – a mission he emphasised from the very beginning of his papacy.

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. Pope Francis has died, aged 88. These were his greatest reforms – and controversies – https://theconversation.com/pope-francis-has-died-aged-88-these-were-his-greatest-reforms-and-controversies-229111

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

As it seeks to gain some momentum for its campaign, the Coalition on Monday will focus on law and order, announcing $355 million for a National Drug Enforcement and Organised Crime Strike Team to fight the illicit drug trade.

A Dutton government would put Australian Federal Police teams into the states and territories, which would be nationally led and supported by specialist financial investigative and prosecutorial teams.

This would bring an anticipated “significant increase in the seizure of criminal assets and proceeds of crime, which we will reinvest into communities,” Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and shadow ministers said in a statement.

“This means every dollar seized from drug dealers and criminal cartels will go towards helping the families and communities devastated by their crimes.”

In what it dubs a crackdown on crime from “the border to the backyard” the opposition has brought together its various initiatives in a $750 million “Operation Safer Communities” package. Apart from the taskforce, other measures have been previously announced.

The initiatives include:

• new laws to disrupt organised criminal syndicates

• upgrading border screening to intercept drugs and cracking down on the importation of date-rape drugs used in drink spiking

• extra funding for Crime Stoppers

• more money for the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, and piloting a national child sex offenders disclosure scheme that would provide more information to parents about the risks in their communities

• investment in e-safety education through the Alannah and Madeline Foundation

• introducing national “post and boast” laws making it illegal to post social media material glamorising involvement in crime

• working with other jurisdictions to standardise knife crime laws, and funding a national rollout of detector wands

• restoring the Safer Communities Fund to support local projects to improve social cohesion

• reintroducing fast track processes for visa appeals to deal with bad actors overstaying.

The Coalition is also promising stronger action against antisemitism and against corruption and crime in the construction industry.

Dutton said the community felt less safe than three years ago.

“I have the experience and determination to stand up to the outlaw motor cycle gangs and organised crime syndicates which are wreaking havoc on our streets and in our communities.”

Opposition defence spending announcement this week

The Coalition this week will release its long-awaited defence policy.

The Australian Financial Review is reporting it will be based on two stages. The first would be a target above Labor’s proposed spending over the forward estimates. A second stage would be a target of spending at least 2.5% of gross domestic product annually in the early 2030s.

Greens say public service should prepare a brief on their policies too

The major parties are always saying they don’t want to get ahead of themselves – being seen to assume the outcome before the election is decided. The Greens have no such inhibition.

Greens leader Adam Bandt has written to the Secretary of the
Prime Minister’s Department, Glyn Davis, declaring minority government looks probable.

“It is increasingly clear that whoever forms government will likely rely on crossbench support, and in turn need to be in a position to discuss in detail the policy proposals put forward by members of the crossbench,” he said in his letter, sent on Thursday.

So Bandt wants the public service to prepare a brief on Greens’ policies, to assist any such negotiations.

The context is that the bureaucracy prepares so-called “red” (Labor) and “blue” (Coalition) books, which contain briefs on the policies of each side. The appropriate book is ready for whoever wins.

Bandt wants a “green book” prepared. “This will enable an incoming government to discuss and begin to implement key policy priorities of the Australian Greens, should they agree to them during negotiations in relation to the formation of government.”

Bandt said as a “top priority” in this exercise, the public service should prepare in-depth work on reforming negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. This should cover reducing these concessions for investors owning more than one property, which the Greens support.

Bandt referred the bureaucracy to work done by the Australia Institute, a progressive think tank, and to the views of various economic commentators who have advocated reform.

He also pointed to Treasury advice on the subject, over which debate flared last week, when Anthony Albanese claimed the government had not asked for modelling. Treasurer Jim Chalmers said he had asked for a “view ” from Treasury. The government says it has no plans to change negative gearing arrangements.

Albanese has repeatedly ruled out negotiating with the Greens if he was forced into minority government. But he wouldn’t need to – the Greens have said they would not have a bar of giving support to a Dutton minority government.

How important the Greens were when it came to particular pieces of legislation in a hung parliament would depend on the actual numbers. including how many crossbenchers a minority government needed to pass bills and how big the crossbench was. The bigger the crossbench, potentially the more choice of dancing partners for the government.

The importance of the lower house Greens if there was a minority government would also depend on how many of them there were. Bandt is safe in his seat of Melbourne, but the other three Greens, all from Queensland, won their seats in 2022 and these electorates are being strongly targeted by the major parties.

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

– ref. Election Diary: Coalition makes ‘law-and-order’ pitch, with plan to invest proceeds of drug crime into communities – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-coalition-makes-law-and-order-pitch-with-plan-to-invest-proceeds-of-drug-crime-into-communities-254588

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

With less than two weeks to go now until the federal election, the polls continue to favour the government being returned.

Newspoll was steady at 52–48 to Labor, but primary vote changes indicated a gain for Labor as both leaders dropped on net approval. A Redbridge marginal seats poll had Labor gaining two points since the previous week for a 54.5–45.5 lead, a 3.5-point swing to Labor in those seats since the 2022 election.

A national Newspoll, conducted April 14–17 from a sample of 1,263, gave Labor a 52–48 lead, unchanged on the April 7–10 Newspoll. Primary votes were 35% Coalition (steady), 34% Labor (up one), 12% Greens (steady), 7% One Nation (down one) and 12% for all Others (steady).

In the last two Newspolls, Labor has been a little lucky to get a 52–48 lead as this would have been given by 2022 election preference flows, and Newspoll is making a pro-Coalition adjustment to One Nation preferences. This time the 2022 election flow method would give Labor about a 53–47 lead.

This Newspoll is the only new national poll since Friday’s update. The fieldwork dates were nearly the same as for the Freshwater poll that had Labor ahead by just 50.3–49.7 (April 14–16 for Freshwater). Other polls indicate that Freshwater is likely the outlier. Here’s the Labor two-party vote chart.

In-person early voting begins on Tuesday ahead of the May 3 election, so there isn’t much time for the Coalition to turn around their deficit, if the polls are accurate.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll was down five points to -9, with 52% dissatified and 43% satisfied. Peter Dutton’s net approval was down three points to -22, a record low for him. Albanese led Dutton as better PM by 52–36 (49–38 previously). This is Albanese’s biggest lead since May 2024.

Here’s the graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll this term. The plus signs are data points and a smoothed line has been fitted.

Albanese and Labor were preferred to Dutton and the Coalition on helping with the cost of living by 31–28. Labor also led on dealing with uncertainty caused by Donald Trump (39–32), lowering taxes (33–26) and helping Australians buy their first home (29–24). The Coalition led on growing our economy by 34–29.

For so long, it had appeared that the cost of living issue would sink Labor at this election, so this result will please Labor.

Labor surges further ahead in Redbridge marginal seats poll

A poll of 20 marginal seats by Redbridge and Accent Research for the News Corp tabloids was conducted April 9–15 from a sample of 1,000. It gave Labor a 54.5–45.5 lead, a two-point gain for Labor since the April 4–9 marginal seats poll. Primary votes were 35% Labor (steady), 34% Coalition (down two), 14% Greens (up two) and 17% for all Others (steady).

The overall 2022 vote in these 20 seats was 51–49 to Labor, so this poll implies a 3.5-point swing to Labor from the 2022 election. If applied to the national 2022 result of 52.1–47.9 to Labor, Labor would lead by about 55.5–44.5. Since the first wave of this marginal seats tracker in early February, Labor has gained 6.5 points.

Albanese’s net favourability improved three points since last week to -5, while Dutton’s slumped six points to -22. By 36–26, voters thought Albanese and Labor had better election promises for them than Dutton and the Coalition.

By 56–13, voters agreed with Labor’s attack line that Dutton’s nuclear plan will cost $600 billion, and he will need to make cuts to pay for it. By 42–16, voters agreed with the Coalition’s attack line that this is the highest spending government in the past 40 years.

Additional Resolve questions and a right-wing poll of Wentworth

I previously covered the April 9–13 Resolve poll for Nine newspapers that gave Labor a 53.5–46.5 lead. Asked their biggest concerns about voting Labor, 47% said cost of living (down five since February), 36% economic management (down nine), 31% lack of progress in their first term (steady), 27% union ties (up two) and 24% Albanese’s personality (down six).

Asked their biggest concerns about voting for the Coalition, 45% said Dutton’s personality (up ten), 36% lack of policy detail (up eight), 34% that the Coalition would follow Donald Trump’s example (up six), 32% the performance of the Scott Morrison government (up four) and 31% their nuclear power plan (up five).

The February Resolve poll was the 55–45 to Coalition outlier, so responses in the prior survey were probably too Coalition-friendly.

The Poll Bludger reported Saturday that a seat poll of Wentworth, which teal Allegra Spender holds by a 55.9–44.1 margin over the Liberals after a redistribution, gave the Liberals a 47–28 primary vote lead over Spender with 15% for Labor and 10% for the Greens. This poll was taken by the right-wing pollster Compass.

Canadian election and UK local elections

I covered the April 28 Canadian election for The Poll Bludger on Saturday. The centre-left governing Liberals are down slightly since my previous Poll Bludger Canadian article on April 10, but are still likely to win a parliamentary majority. Debates between four party leaders occurred Wednesday (in French) and Thursday (in English), and we’re still waiting for post-debate polls.

United Kingdom local elections and a parliamentary byelection will occur on May 1. Current national polls imply that the far-right Reform will gain massively, with the Conservatives and Labour both slumping. Two seat polls give Reform a narrow lead over Labour for the parliamentary byelection in a safe Labour seat.

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. Newspoll steady as both leaders’ ratings fall; Labor surging in poll of marginal seats – https://theconversation.com/newspoll-steady-as-both-leaders-ratings-fall-labor-surging-in-poll-of-marginal-seats-254715

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Whittaker, Senior Lecturer in Physics, Nottingham Trent University

What do you think of when it comes to extra terrestrial life? Most popular sci-fi books and TV shows suggest humanoid beings could live on other planets. But when astronomers are searching for extra-terrestrial life, it is usually in the form of emissions from bacteria or other tiny organisms.

A new research paper in the Astrophysical Journal suggests that Cambridge scientists have managed to find this type of emission with a certainty of 99.7% from a planet called K2-18b, 124 light years away. They used Nasa’s James Webb Space Telescope to analyse the chemical composition of the planet’s atmosphere and say they found promising evidence K2-18b could host life.

It’s an exciting breakthrough but it doesn’t confirm alien life.

Let’s look at why scientists largely do not accept the paper as proof of alien life.

Why it’s so hard to detect to alien life

Exoplanet hunting fell out of public interest quickly due to the staggering number of planets scientists are discovering. The first convincing exoplanet around a sun-like star was discovered in 1995 via radial velocity, where you don’t look at the planet but instead observe its effect on its nearest star. As the star wobbles back and forth it causes a tiny shift in the wavelength of the light it emits, which we can measure. We already know of roughly 7,500 planets.

Only 43 (to date) have been observed directly (about 0.5% of them). Most are discovered through indirect means, such as radial velocity or the transit method. The transit method is where you look at how the brightness of the star decreases as the planet passes in front of it. It will block a tiny amount of the light.

An exoplanet atmosphere

Looking at the atmosphere of an exoplanet is even more difficult. Scientists use spectroscopy to do this. The light coming out of the star can be observed directly and a small amount of it will also pass through the atmosphere of the planet. Researchers can estimate what an exoplanet’s atmosphere is made of by studying which light from the star is emitted or absorbed in the atmosphere.

Let’s try an analogy. You have a desk lamp at one end of a long table and you are standing at the other end, looking at the lamp. There is a glass of liquid in between you and the lamp. In very simple terms, the glass of liquid acting as the exoplanet and atmosphere, looks slightly blue, which allows you to identify it as water. In reality for scientists though, it’s more like the glass of water is a tiny glass bead which is rolling around while someone is messing around with a dimmer switch on the lamp. Then, freak weather results in a gentle mist forming on the table. The liquid is 99% pure water and 1% mineral water and the scientist is trying to see what minerals are in the water.

You can see that the expertise required to be perform this work is incredible. They observed molecules with a 99.7% confidence rate, which is a remarkable achievement.

The data from JWST and K2-18b

The key data in this study is in a graph fitting light absorption rates to which kind of molecules could be there and working out how abundant they are. It features in this short film about the discovery.

The graph produced by the study’s authors shows evidence for dimethyl sulphide and dimethyl disulphide (DMS).

Some scientists think of DMS as a biomarker – a molecular indicator of life on Earth. However DMS is not only produced by bacteria, but has also been found on comet 67P and in the gas and dust of the interstellar medium, the space between stars. It can even be generated by shining UV light onto a simulated atmosphere. The authors acknowledge this and claim the amount they determined was present cannot be produced by any of these conditions.

Similar to other claims of life?

Multiple studies have shown indicators for DMS and life in general on K2-18b and there are many other claims for other exoplanets.

The most recent is the idea that phosphine (another biomarker) was discovered in the Venusian atmosphere, so there must be bacteria in the clouds. This claim was quickly refuted by other researchers. Scientists pointed that a tiny error in the matching of data created results that showed a larger abundance of phosphine than was accurate. The Cambridge study is more rigorous and has more certainty in the result. But it is still not strong enough to convince the academic community, which needs 99.999% certainty.

The study authors suggest their findings indicate liquid oceans and a hydrogen atmosphere but others have countered it could be a gas giant, or a volcanic planet full of magma.

The Cambridge study is not proof of life, but it is an important step forward to characterising what other planets might be like and determining if we are alone or not. The study presented the best result yet and should inspire other scientists to take up the challenge.

Ian Whittaker 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. Indicators of alien life may have been found – astrophysicist explains what the new research means – https://theconversation.com/indicators-of-alien-life-may-have-been-found-astrophysicist-explains-what-the-new-research-means-254843

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

Labor increased its lead again in a YouGov poll, but Freshwater put the party ahead by just 50.3–49.7. This article also covers the final WA upper house results for the March 8 election.

A national YouGov poll, conducted April 11–15 from a sample of 1,506, gave Labor a 53–47 lead, a 0.5-point gain for Labor since the April 4–10 YouGov poll. It’s Labor’s biggest lead in YouGov for 18 months. Primary votes were 33% Labor (up one), 33% Coalition (down 0.5), 7% One Nation (down 1.5), 2% Trumpet of Patriots (up one), 9% independents (steady) and 3% others (steady).

Using 2022 election preference flows would give Labor about a 54.5–45.5 lead from these primary votes. YouGov is applying preference flows from its previous poll that was conducted from late February to late March.

However, recent polls that use respondent preferences suggest the gap in the Coalition’s favour between respondent and 2022 preference flows has dropped to nearly zero. This means YouGov’s current preference assumptions may be too pro-Coalition. Analyst Kevin Bonham has more on this.

In contrast to voting intentions, leaders’ ratings moved to Peter Dutton and against Anthony Albanese. Albanese’s net approval was down four points to -6, with 49% dissatisfied and 43% satisfied. Dutton’s net approval was up five points to -10. Albanese had a 48–38 better PM lead over Dutton (48–37 previously).

I’ve said before that changes in leaders’ ratings may indicate the next change in voting intentions in a poll, though this doesn’t always follow.

While YouGov shows Labor’s surge continuing, the Freshwater poll below only gave Labor a 50.3–49.7 lead. However, this was still a gain for Labor from the post-budget Freshwater poll. Freshwater has the Coalition primary vote at 39%, four points higher than in any other poll in the past week.

Here is the poll graph. I’m using the unrounded two-party numbers for Freshwater’s last two polls, improving Labor from a 51–49 deficit in the post-budget poll to a 50.6–49.4 deficit. There’s a big difference between this week’s Freshwater and all other national polls taken in the past week.

Freshwater poll has very narrow Labor lead

A national Freshwater poll for The Financial Review, conducted April 14–16 from a sample of 1,062, had a 50–50 tie by respondent preferences, a one-point gain for Labor since the Freshwater poll conducted after the March 25 budget. Before rounding, Labor led by 50.3–49.7.

Primary votes were unchanged at 39% Coalition, 32% Labor, 12% Greens and 17% for all Others. By 2022 election flows, this poll would give about a 50–50 tie.

Albanese’s net approval was up one point to -10, while Dutton’s was steady at -11. Albanese led as preferred PM by 46–41 (46–45 previously).

The Coalition’s lead over Labor on cost of living has been cut from a high of 14 points last October to two points in this poll. The Coalition held a 17-point lead on economic management last November, which has been reduced to six points. Cost of living remained the most important issue, with 73% citing it as a top issue.

Resolve poll on tax and housing policies

To gauge the popularity of Labor and the Coalition’s housing policy announcements at their April 13 campaign launches, a Resolve poll for Nine newspapers was conducted April 14–15 from a sample of 801. This poll didn’t report voting intentions, which were assessed in the April 9–13 Resolve poll.

By 40–34, voters preferred Labor’s tax policy to the Coalition’s, which were both announced the week of the March 25 budget. By 40–27, they preferred Labor’s housing policy.

JWS polls of Greens-held Brisbane seats

The Greens hold three seats in Brisbane: Ryan (by 52.6–47.4 vs the Liberal National Party), Brisbane (by 53.7–46.3) and Griffith (by 60.5–39.5). The Poll Bludger reported Thursday that JWS polls for Australian Energy Producers gave the LNP a 57–43 lead over Labor in Ryan with the Greens a distant third on primary votes.

In Brisbane, Labor led the LNP by 51–49 with the Greens once again a distant third. In Griffith, Labor led the LNP by 51–49, but the LNP led the Greens by 53–47.

Seat polls conducted by JWS Research have had very strong results for the Coalition. While the Greens could lose these seats to Labor, I believe the massive swings to the LNP shown here are unrealistic. I expect inner city seats to be good for left-wing parties relative to the national swing.

Redbridge poll: Labor close to majority

A national poll by Redbridge and Accent Research, using MRP methodology and reported by the News Corp tabloids, was conducted from February 3 to April 1 from a sample of 9,953. Labor was still polling poorly in February before they started to lift from early March.

The most likely outcome was 72 of the 150 House of Representatives seats for Labor, four short of a majority, 63 for the Coalition and 15 for all Others. The previous MRP poll by Redbridge and Accent Research in December had the most likely outcome as 71 Coalition seats to 65 for Labor.

Unemployment rate steady at 4.1%

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported Thursday that the unemployment rate was 4.1% in March, unchanged from February, with over 32,000 jobs added. The employment population ratio (the percentage of eligible Australians that are employed) was steady at 64.1% after dropping from a near-record high of 64.4% in January.

WA upper house final result

The button was finally pressed on Wednesday to electronically distribute preferences for the upper house for the March 8 Western Australian state election. The upper house used a reformed system with 37 members elected statewide by proportional representation with preferences. A quota was just 1/38 or 2.63%.

Labor won 16 of the 37 seats (down six on 2021 when they won their first WA upper house majority on a massive landslide), the Liberals won ten seats (up three), the Nationals two (down one), the Greens four (up three), One Nation two (up two), Legalise Cannabis one (down one), Australian Christians one (up one) and Animal Justice one (up one). Overall, left-wing parties won the upper house by 22–15 over right-wing parties.

Final primary votes gave Labor 15.54 quotas, the Liberals 10.3, the Nationals 2.1, the Greens 4.2, One Nation 1.45, Legalise Cannabis 1.1, Australian Christians 1.0, an independent group 0.51 and Animal Justice 0.46.

After distribution of preferences, One Nation’s second candidate had 0.83 quotas Labor’s 16th candidate 0.70 quotas, Animal Justice’s top candidate 0.66 quotas and Sophia Moermond, the independent group’s top candidate, 0.63 quotas. Owing to exhaustion, the top three were elected to the last three seats short of a quota.

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

– ref. Labor’s poll surge continues in YouGov, but it’s barely ahead in Freshwater – https://theconversation.com/labors-poll-surge-continues-in-yougov-but-its-barely-ahead-in-freshwater-254708

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

Labor increased their lead again in a YouGov poll, but Freshwater put them ahead by just 50.3–49.7. This article also covers the final WA upper house results for the March 8 election.

A national YouGov poll, conducted April 11–15 from a sample of 1,506, gave Labor a 53–47 lead, a 0.5-point gain for Labor since the April 4–10 YouGov poll. It’s Labor’s biggest lead in YouGov for 18 months. Primary votes were 33% Labor (up one), 33% Coalition (down 0.5), 7% One Nation (down 1.5), 2% Trumpet of Patriots (up one), 9% independents (steady) and 3% others (steady).

Using 2022 election preference flows would give Labor about a 54.5–45.5 lead from these primary votes. YouGov is applying preference flows from its previous poll that was conducted from late February to late March.

However, recent polls that use respondent preferences suggest the gap in the Coalition’s favour between respondent and 2022 preference flows has dropped to nearly zero. This means YouGov’s current preference assumptions may be too pro-Coalition. Analyst Kevin Bonham has more on this.

In contrast to voting intentions, leaders’ ratings moved to Peter Dutton and against Anthony Albanese. Albanese’s net approval was down four points to -6, with 49% dissatisfied and 43% satisfied. Dutton’s net approval was up five points to -10. Albanese had a 48–38 better PM lead over Dutton (48–37 previously).

I’ve said before that changes in leaders’ ratings may indicate the next change in voting intentions in a poll, though this doesn’t always follow.

While YouGov shows Labor’s surge continuing, the Freshwater poll below only gave Labor a 50.3–49.7 lead. However, this was still a gain for Labor from the post-budget Freshwater poll. Freshwater has the Coalition primary vote at 39%, four points higher than in any other poll in the past week.

Here is the poll graph. I’m using the unrounded two-party numbers for Freshwater’s last two polls, improving Labor from a 51–49 deficit in the post-budget poll to a 50.6–49.4 deficit. There’s a big difference between this week’s Freshwater and all other national polls taken in the past week.

Freshwater poll has very narrow Labor lead

A national Freshwater poll for The Financial Review, conducted April 14–16 from a sample of 1,062, had a 50–50 tie by respondent preferences, a one-point gain for Labor since the Freshwater poll conducted after the March 25 budget. Before rounding, Labor led by 50.3–49.7.

Primary votes were unchanged at 39% Coalition, 32% Labor, 12% Greens and 17% for all Others. By 2022 election flows, this poll would give about a 50–50 tie.

Albanese’s net approval was up one point to -10, while Dutton’s was steady at -11. Albanese led as preferred PM by 46–41 (46–45 previously).

The Coalition’s lead over Labor on cost of living has been cut from a high of 14 points last October to two points in this poll. The Coalition held a 17-point lead on economic management last November, which has been reduced to six points. Cost of living remained the most important issue, with 73% citing it as a top issue.

Resolve poll on tax and housing policies

To gauge the popularity of Labor and the Coalition’s housing policy announcements at their April 13 campaign launches, a Resolve poll for Nine newspapers was conducted April 14–15 from a sample of 801. This poll didn’t report voting intentions, which were assessed in the April 9–13 Resolve poll.

By 40–34, voters preferred Labor’s tax policy to the Coalition’s, which were both announced the week of the March 25 budget. By 40–27, they preferred Labor’s housing policy.

JWS polls of Greens-held Brisbane seats

The Greens hold three seats in Brisbane: Ryan (by 52.6–47.4 vs the Liberal National Party), Brisbane (by 53.7–46.3) and Griffith (by 60.5–39.5). The Poll Bludger reported Thursday that JWS polls for Australian Energy Producers gave the LNP a 57–43 lead over Labor in Ryan with the Greens a distant third on primary votes.

In Brisbane, Labor led the LNP by 51–49 with the Greens once again a distant third. In Griffith, Labor led the LNP by 51–49, but the LNP led the Greens by 53–47.

Seat polls conducted by JWS Research have had very strong results for the Coalition. While the Greens could lose these seats to Labor, I believe the massive swings to the LNP shown here are unrealistic. I expect inner city seats to be good for left-wing parties relative to the national swing.

Redbridge poll: Labor close to majority

A national poll by Redbridge and Accent Research, using MRP methodology and reported by the News Corp tabloids, was conducted from February 3 to April 1 from a sample of 9,953. Labor was still polling poorly in February before they started to lift from early March.

The most likely outcome was 72 of the 150 House of Representatives seats for Labor, four short of a majority, 63 for the Coalition and 15 for all Others. The previous MRP poll by Redbridge and Accent Research in December had the most likely outcome as 71 Coalition seats to 65 for Labor.

Unemployment rate steady at 4.1%

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported Thursday that the unemployment rate was 4.1% in March, unchanged from February, with over 32,000 jobs added. The employment population ratio (the percentage of eligible Australians that are employed) was steady at 64.1% after dropping from a near-record high of 64.4% in January.

WA upper house final result

The button was finally pressed on Wednesday to electronically distribute preferences for the upper house for the March 8 Western Australian state election. The upper house used a reformed system with 37 members elected statewide by proportional representation with preferences. A quota was just 1/38 or 2.63%.

Labor won 16 of the 37 seats (down six on 2021 when they won their first WA upper house majority on a massive landslide), the Liberals won ten seats (up three), the Nationals two (down one), the Greens four (up three), One Nation two (up two), Legalise Cannabis one (down one), Australian Christians one (up one) and Animal Justice one (up one). Overall, left-wing parties won the upper house by 22–15 over right-wing parties.

Final primary votes gave Labor 15.54 quotas, the Liberals 10.3, the Nationals 2.1, the Greens 4.2, One Nation 1.45, Legalise Cannabis 1.1, Australian Christians 1.0, an independent group 0.51 and Animal Justice 0.46.

After distribution of preferences, One Nation’s second candidate had 0.83 quotas Labor’s 16th candidate 0.70 quotas, Animal Justice’s top candidate 0.66 quotas and Sophia Moermond, the independent group’s top candidate, 0.63 quotas. Owing to exhaustion, the top three were elected to the last three seats short of a quota.

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

– ref. Labor’s poll surge continues in YouGov, but they’re barely ahead in Freshwater – https://theconversation.com/labors-poll-surge-continues-in-yougov-but-theyre-barely-ahead-in-freshwater-254708

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gode Bola, Lecturer in Hydrology, University of Kinshasa

The April 2025 flooding disaster in Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo, wasn’t just about intense rainfall. It was a symptom of recent land use change which has occurred rapidly in the city, turning it into a sprawling urban settlement without the necessary drainage infrastructure.

Local rains combined with runoff from torrential rains coming from neighbouring Congo Central Province quickly overwhelmed the city’s small urban tributaries. The Ndjili River and its tributary (Lukaya), which run through the city, overflowed and flooded homes on either side.

This led to the deaths of at least 70 people, 150 injured and the temporary displacement of more than 21,000 people. Floods affected the running of 73 healthcare facilities. Access to water and transport services were disrupted in large parts of the city. People could only move around by dugout canoe or by swimming in flooded avenues.

Floods have become recurrent in the DRC. The last quarter of 2023 and the beginning of 2024 saw the most devastating floods there and in neighbouring countries since the 1960s.

According to UN World Urbanisation Prospects (2025), the reason the floods have become this devastating is the growth of Kinshasa. The city is the most densely populated city in the DRC, the most populous city and third-largest metropolitan area in Africa.

Kinshasa’s 2025 population is estimated at 17,778,500. Back in 1950, it was 201,905. In the past year alone, the city’s population has grown by 746,200, a 4.38% annual change. At least 2% of the population live in areas prone to flooding. Urban infrastructure, especially flood-related, is non-existent or inadequate. Where it exists, drainage systems are blocked by solid waste, itself another sign of the city whose public services such as waste collection have become dysfunctional.

We have been studying the characteristics of flooding and the prediction of risk linked to it in the Congo Basin for five years as part of our work at the Congo Basin Water Resources Research Center in Kinshasa. We study the movement of water in natural and modified environments and its interactions with infrastructure over a range of geographical scales. We argue in this article that understanding why Kinshasa floods means recognising two very different water systems at play – and how urban growth has made the city more vulnerable to both.

Kinshasa faces two distinct flood hazards: first, flooding from the Congo River, which typically peaks around December and January; and, second, urban flood events driven by local rainfall and runoff from the hills south of the city around April and December.

Most of Kinshasa’s flood disasters have come from the second type. And as Kinshasa has urbanised, expanding into the floodplains, but without the necessary urban infrastructure, the impact of urban flood events has become worse.

With more sealed surfaces – because of more urban settlements – and less natural water absorption, more rainwater runs off, and faster. This overwhelms the city’s small urban tributaries and the Ndjili river.

Growth of Kinshasa and flood

As the city has expanded, so has its flood exposure. The city’s tributaries drain steep, densely populated urban slopes and are highly responsive to rainfall.

Of Kinshasa’s two flood risks, the impact of Congo River flooding can be observed in large cities located along major rivers, and typically peaks around January. These are seasonal floods driven by rainfall across the whole Congo Basin.

Research at Congo Basin Water Resources Research Center shows that while Congo River high water levels can cause “backwater effects” – the upstream rise in water level caused by reduced flow downstream – most damaging floods result from intense local rainfall overwhelming the city’s small river catchments. The flood risk analysis indicates that 38 territories are the hotspot of flooding in the Congo basin. Kinshasa is a hotspot due to its double risk sources and extensive urbanisation.

Read more:
Kenya’s devastating floods expose decades of poor urban planning and bad land management

The urban flood events are more challenging. They can happen with less rainfall and cause major destruction. They are driven by local rainfall and rapid growth of informal settlements.

Other cities face similar risks. In 2024, Nairobi suffered deadly floods after prolonged rain overwhelmed informal neighbourhoods and infrastructure.

Across Africa, cities are growing faster than their infrastructure can keep up with. Kinshasa has unique exposure, but also strong local research capacity.

The Congo River’s seasonal peaks are relatively well understood and monitored. But urban tributaries are harder to predict.

DRC’s meteorological agency Mettelsat and its partners are building capacity for real-time monitoring. But the April 2025 floods showed that community-level warning systems did not work.

Climate change is expected to intensify extreme rainfall in central Africa. While annual totals may not increase, short, intense storms could become more frequent.

This increases pressure on cities already struggling with today’s rains. In Kinshasa, the case for climate-resilient planning and infrastructure is urgent.

Read more:
Local knowledge adds value to mapping flood risk in South Africa’s informal settlements

What needs to change?

Forecasting rainfall is not enough. Government agencies in collaboration with universities must also forecast flood impact – and ensure people can act on the warnings. There is a need to put in place systems to achieve this under a catchment integrated flood management plan.

The main elements of such a plan include:

• Improved early warning systems: Use advanced technologies (such as satellites) to gather real-time data on environmental conditions.

• Upgraded drainage infrastructure: Identify weaknesses and areas prone to flooding, to manage storm water better.

• Enforcement of land use planning: Establish clear regulations that define flood-prone areas; outline permissible land uses.

• Define safety perimeters around areas at risk of flooding: Use historical data, flood maps, and hydrological studies to pinpoint areas that are at risk. Regulate development and activities there.

• Local engagement in flood preparedness: Educate residents about flood risks, preparedness measures, and emergency response.

Read more:
Nigeria and Ghana are prone to devastating floods – they could achieve a lot by working together

Institutions such as the Congo Basin Water Resources Research Center play a critical role, not just in research but in turning knowledge into action. Rainfall may trigger the flood, but urban systems decide whether it becomes a disaster. And those systems can change.

Gode Bola receives funding support from the Congo River User Hydraulics and Morphology (CRuHM) project (2016-2021), which was entirely funded by The Royal Society-DFID Africa Capacity Building (RS-DFID) under grant number “AQ150005.” He is affiliated with the Regional School of Water (ERE) and the Congo Basin Water Research Center (CRREBaC) of the University of Kinshasa, as well as the Regional Center for Nuclear Studies of Kinshasa.

Mark Trigg received funding support from the Congo River user Hydraulics and Morphology (CRuHM) project (2016-2021), which was wholly funded by The Royal Society-DFID Africa Capacity Building (RS-DFID) under the grant number “AQ150005”. Mark Trigg is affiliated with water@leeds at the University of Leeds and the Global Flood Partnership.

Raphaël Tshimanga receives funding from he Congo River user Hydraulics and Morphology (CRuHM) project (2016-2021), which was wholly funded by The Royal Society-DFID Africa Capacity Building (RS-DFID) under the grant number “AQ150005”. He is affiliated with the Congo Basin Water Resources Research Center and the Regional School of Water of the University of Kinshasa.

– ref. Why Kinshasa keeps flooding – and why it’s not just about the rain – https://theconversation.com/why-kinshasa-keeps-flooding-and-why-its-not-just-about-the-rain-254411