Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chen Zhao, ARC DECRA Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania

One of the biggest challenges in predicting Antarctica’s deeply uncertain future is understanding exactly what’s driving its ice loss.

A vast network of lakes and streams lies beneath the thick ice sheet. This water can lubricate the ice, allowing it to slide more rapidly toward the ocean.

Our new research shows “subglacial water” plays a far larger role in Antarctic ice loss than previously thought. If it’s not properly accounted for, future sea-level rise may be vastly underestimated.

Including the effects of evolving subglacial water in ice sheet models can triple the amount of ice flowing to the ocean. This adds more than two metres to global sea levels by 2300, with potentially enormous consequences for coastal communities worldwide.

Understanding the role of subglacial water

Subglacial water forms when the base of the ice sheet melts. This occurs either due to friction from the movement of the ice, or geothermal heat from the bedrock below.

The presence of subglacial water enables ice to slide over the bedrock more easily. It can also cause further melting under ice shelves, leading to even faster ice loss.

So it’s crucial to understand how much subglacial water is generated and where it goes, as well as its effect on ice flow and further melting.

But subglacial water is largely invisible. Being hidden underneath an ice sheet more than two kilometres deep makes it incredibly difficult to observe.

Scientists can drill boreholes through hundreds to thousands of metres of ice to get to it. But that’s an expensive and logistically challenging process.

Alternatively, they can use ice-penetrating radar to “see” through the ice. Another technique called laser altimetry examines changes in the height of the ice at the surface. Bulges might appear when lakes under the ice sheet fill, or disappear when they empty.

More than 140 active subglacial lakes have been identified beneath Antarctica over the past two decades. These discoveries provide valuable insights. But vast regions — especially in East Antarctica — remain unexplored. Little is known about the connections between these lakes.

What we did and what we found

We used computer simulations to predict the influence of subglacial water on ice sheet behaviour.

We used two computer models:

• an advanced ice sheet model that simulates how the ice sheet flows and responds to climate.
• a specialised hydrology model that predicts subglacial water production and flow.

Then we explored how different assumptions about subglacial water pressure affect ice sheet dynamics. Specifically, we compared scenarios where water pressure was allowed to change over time against scenarios where it remained constant.

When the effects of changing subglacial water pressure were included in the model, the amount of ice flowing into the ocean under future climate nearly tripled.

These findings suggest many existing sea-level rise projections may be too low, because they do not fully account for the dynamic influence of subglacial water.

Our research highlights the urgent need to incorporate subglacial water dynamics into these models. Otherwise we risk significantly underestimating the rate and magnitude of future sea-level rise.

In the video below, the moving dark lines show where grounded ice begins to float. The left panel is a scenario where subglacial water is not included in the ice sheet model and the right panel is a scenario that includes the effects of evolving subglacial water.

A looming threat

Failing to account for subglacial water means global sea-level rise projections are underestimated by up to two metres by 2300.

A two-metre rise would put many coastal cities in extreme danger and potentially displace millions of people. The economic damage could reach trillions of dollars, damaging vital infrastructure and reshaping coastlines worldwide.

It also means the timing of future tipping points are underestimated too. This is the point at which the ice sheet mass loss becomes much more rapid and likely irreversible. In our study, most regions cross this threshold much earlier, some as soon as 2050. This is deeply concerning.

The way forward

Understanding Antarctica’s hidden water system is challenging. The potential for rapid, catastrophic and irreversible ice loss remains.

More observations are needed to improve our models, particularly from remote regions such as East Antarctica. Continuing to gather information from boreholes, ice-penetrating radar and satellites will help us better understand how the underside of the ice sheet behaves. These techniques can then be combined with computer simulations to enable more accurate projections of future ice loss and sea-level rise.

Our new research shows integrating subglacial water dynamics into ice sheet models is a top priority. Understanding this hidden threat is crucial as the world grapples with the consequences of global warming especially rising seas.

Chen Zhao is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award. Dr Zhao is affiliated with Australian Antarctic Program Partnership (AAPP), at the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), University of Tasmania, supported under the Antarctic Science Collaboration Initiative program.

Ben Galton-Fenzi is also affiliated with Australian Antarctic Program Partnership (AAPP), at the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), supported under the Antarctic Science Collaboration Initiative program, and the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, supported under the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative, both based at the University of Tasmania.

– ref. Antarctica’s hidden threat: meltwater under the ice sheet amplifies sea-level rise – https://theconversation.com/antarcticas-hidden-threat-meltwater-under-the-ice-sheet-amplifies-sea-level-rise-250780

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Griffin, Professor, Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, The University of Queensland

Australians are being urged to roll up their sleeves for a flu vaccine amid rising cases of influenza.

It’s an opportune time to think about other vaccines too, particularly because some vaccines can be given at the same time as the flu vaccine.

One is the COVID vaccine.

Should you get another COVID shot?

More than five years since COVID was declared a pandemic, we hear much less about this virus. But it’s still around.

In 2024 there were 4,953 deaths involving COVID. This is nearly 20% lower than in 2023, but still nearly five times that of influenza (1,002).

Vaccines, which do a very good job at reducing the chances of severe COVID, remain an important tool in our ongoing battle against the virus.

Case numbers don’t tell us as much about COVID anymore as fewer people are testing. But based on other ways we monitor the virus, such as cases in ICU and active outbreaks in residential aged care homes, there have essentially been two peaks a year over recent years – one over summer and one over winter.

This doesn’t mean we can predict exactly when another wave will happen, but it’s inevitable and may well be within the next few months. So it’s worth considering another COVID vaccine if you’re eligible.

Who can get one, and when?

There are several risk factors for more severe COVID, but some of the most important include being older or immunocompromised. For this reason, people aged 75 and older are recommended to receive a COVID booster every six months.

In the slightly younger 65 to 74 age bracket, or adults aged 18 to 64 who are immunocompromised, booster doses are recommended every 12 months, but people are eligible every six months.

Healthy adults under 65 are eligible for a booster dose every 12 months.

Healthy children aren’t recommended to receive boosters but those who are severely immunocompromised may be eligible.

What COVID shots are currently available?

We’ve seen multiple types of COVID vaccines since they first became available about four years ago. Over time, different vaccines have targeted different variants as the virus has evolved.

While some vaccine providers may still offer other options, such as the older booster that targeted the Omicron variant XBB.1.5, the recent JN.1 booster is the most up-to-date and best option.

This is a relatively recently updated version to improve protection against some of the newer strains of COVID that are circulating. The new booster only became available in Australia in late 2024.

This booster, as the name suggests, targets a subvariant called JN.1. Although JN.1 has not been the dominant subvariant in Australia for some time, this shot is still expected to provide good protection against circulating subvariants, including new subvariants such as LP.8.1, which is descended from JN.1.

While it’s great we have an updated booster available, unfortunately uptake remains poor. Only 17.3% of people 75 and over had received a COVID vaccine in the six months to March.

Getting a flu and COVID shot together

Data from more than 17,000 people who completed a survey after receiving the JN.1 booster shows that while 27% reported at least one adverse event following vaccination, the majority of these were mild, such as local pain or redness or fatigue.

Only 4% of people reported an impact on their routine activities following vaccination, such as missing school or work.

If you choose to get the flu vaccine and the COVID vaccine at the same time, they’ll usually be given in different arms. There shouldn’t be a significant increase in side effects. What’s more, getting both shots at the same time doesn’t reduce your immune response against either vaccine.

Now is the ideal time to get your flu vaccine. If you’re eligible for a COVID booster as well, getting both vaccines at the same time is safe and can be very convenient.

We’re conducting trials in Australia, as are scientists elsewhere, of combined vaccines. One day these could allow vaccination against COVID and flu in a single shot – but these are still a way off.

If you’re not sure about your eligibility or have any questions about either vaccine, discuss this with your GP, specialist of pharmacist. Australian state and federal government websites also provide reliable information.

Paul Griffin has been the principal investigator on many vaccine clinical trials and received speaker honoraria and been a member of medical advisory boards for vaccine manufacturers. He is also a scientific advisory board member and director of the immunisation coalition.

– ref. Do I need another COVID booster? Which one should I choose? Can I get it with my flu shot? – https://theconversation.com/do-i-need-another-covid-booster-which-one-should-i-choose-can-i-get-it-with-my-flu-shot-252914

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Hartigan, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney

Financial markets around the world have been slammed by the Trump adminstration’s sweeping tariffs on its trading partners, and China’s swift retaliation.

Share markets have posted their biggest declines since the COVID pandemic hit in 2020, as fears of US recession surged. Iron ore, copper, oil, gold and the Australian dollar have all tumbled.

On Wall Street, leading indices have fallen around 10% since the tariffs were announced, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq is down 20% from its recent peak. European and Asian markets have also slumped.

In Australia, the key S&P/ASX 200 slid another 4.2% on Monday to levels last seen in December 2023, taking its three-day losses since the announcement to more than 7%.

Why are markets reacting so badly?

Financial markets reacted so negatively because the tariffs were much larger than expected. They represent the biggest upheaval in global trade in 80 years.

Many traders were hoping the tariffs would be used mainly as a bargaining tool. But comments by US President Donald Trump that markets may need to “take medicine” seem to suggest otherwise.

The tariffs are expected to weaken economic growth in the US as consumers pare back spending on more expensive imports, while businesses shelve investment plans. Leading US bank JP Morgan has put the chance of a US recession as high as 60%.

This comes at a time when the US economy was already looking fragile. The highly regarded GDPNow model developed by the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank indicates US March quarter GDP will fall 2.8%, and that was before the tariff announcement.

Worries about global growth

Fears of a recession in the United States and the potential for a global downturn has led to a broad sell-off in commodity prices, including iron ore, copper and oil. Further, the Australian dollar, which is seen as a barometer for risk, has fallen below 60 US cents in local trading – its lowest level since 2009.

While the direct impact of tariffs on Australia is expected to be modest (with around 6% of our exports going to US), the indirect impact could be substantial. China, Japan and South Korea together take more than 50% of Australia’s exports, and all have been hit with significantly higher tariffs.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said on Monday that the direct impact on the Australian economy would be “manageable”.

The full effect on Australia will depend on how other countries respond, and whether we can redirect trade to other markets.

The rapid decline in the Australian dollar will help offset some of the negative effects associated with a global downturn and the fall in commodity prices.

We can also expect some interest-rate relief. Economists are now predicting three further interest rate cuts by the Reserve Bank, starting in May. This brings economists into line with financial market forecasts.

Read more:
US tariffs will upend global trade. This is how Australia can respond

Hang in there, markets will recover

Watching equity markets tumble so dramatically can be unsettling for any investor. However, it is important to note that equity markets have experienced many downturns over the past 125 years due to wars, pandemics, financial crises and recessions. But these market impacts have generally been temporary.

History suggests that over the long term, equity prices continue to rise, supported by growing economies and rising incomes.

The key thing for investors to remember is to not panic. Now is not the time to decide to switch your superannuation or other investments to cash. This risks missing the next upswing while also crystallising any current losses.

For example, despite the steep market sell-off in March 2020 as the first COVID lockdowns came into effect, the Australian share market had completely recovered those losses by June 2021.

It is good practice for investors to regularly reassess their risk profile to make sure it is right for their current stage of life. This means reducing the allocation to riskier assets as investors get closer to retirement age, while also maintaining a cash buffer to avoid having to sell assets during more turbulent periods such as now.

Super funds are exposed to global risks

The current sell-off has highlighted a potential issue facing the superannuation industry.

So much of our superannuation is now invested in global equity markets, mostly in the US, because Australia’s superannuation savings pool – at more than A$4 trillion – has outgrown the investment opportunities available in Australia.

Another issue facing the superannuation industry is the growth of cyber attacks, with several funds targeted in a recent attack. Given the massive size of the assets held by some funds, it would seem they need to improve their security to be on par with that of the banking system.

Luke Hartigan receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Financial markets are tanking. Here’s why it’s best not to panic – https://theconversation.com/financial-markets-are-tanking-heres-why-its-best-not-to-panic-253929

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rohan Best, Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics, Macquarie University

Over the weekend, Labor promised to subsidise home batteries by 30%. This would save about A$4,000 per household up front for an average battery. The scheme has a goal of one million batteries by 2030, costing an estimated $2.3 billion.

The promise was received broadly favourably as a measure to help with cost of living pressures and encourage the broader shift to clean energy. Labor’s policy has some similarity to an earlier Greens pledge. Last month, the Coalition hinted it was working on its own home battery plan. Opposition leader Peter Dutton has attacked Labor’s plan, claiming the subsidies would benefit the rich.

Dutton makes a good point. Upfront subsidies have to be well targeted. If they’re not, they could easily go to wealthier households and leave poorer ones behind.

To fix it, Labor should start with lower subsidies – and means test them.

What’s the fuss about home batteries?

Homes with batteries can use stored solar energy instead of grid energy, or charge from the grid when power is cheap and use it when grid power is expensive. They can reduce power bills by around $1,000 a year.

Over 300,000 Australian households already have a home battery. Uptake was already accelerating in Australia and overseas, as battery prices fall and power prices climb.

If this policy leads to 1 million batteries by 2030 as Labor hopes, they would boost grid stability, reduce demand for expensive peak power from gas generators and even avoid the need to build some new transmission lines. These would be positive – if the benefits can be spread fairly.

Subsidies must be properly targeted

Caution is necessary, because we have seen very similar issues with previous schemes.

When solar panels were expensive in the 2000s, many state governments offered subsidies to encourage more households to put them on their roofs. On one level, this worked well – one third of all Australian households now have solar. But on another, it failed – richer households took up solar subsidies much more than poorer, as my research has shown. As solar prices have fallen, this imbalance has partly been corrected.

Home batteries are now in a similar situation. Installing an average sized home battery of between 5 and 10 kilowatt hours can cost less than $10,000, without the proposed federal subsidy. But this upfront cost means it’s currently largely wealthy households doing it, as I have shown in other research.

If Labor’s policy isn’t properly targeted, wealthier households are more likely to take it up. This is because they can more easily afford to spend the remaining cost. Studies on electric and other vehicle subsidies in the United States show at least half of the subsidies went to people who would have bought the vehicle regardless. That’s good for wealthy households, but unfair to others.

Targeting has advantages for governments, too. Proper targeting would reduce the cost to the public purse.

So who should be eligible?

Wealthier households are likely to be able to afford home batteries without the subsidy – especially as costs fall.

The cost of living crisis has hit less wealthy households hardest. A home battery policy should focus heavily on giving these households a way to reduce their power bills.

How can governments do this? Largely by means-testing. To qualify for the subsidy, households should have to detail their financial assets.

To begin with, a policy like this should only be eligible for households outside the top 25% for wealth.

What about the 31% of Australians who rent their homes? This diverse group requires careful thought.

Governments may have to offer extra incentives to encourage landlords to install home batteries. The solar roll-out shows landlords do benefit, as they can charge slightly higher rent for properties with solar.

How much should subsidies be?

Labor’s election offering of a 30% subsidy is too generous.

While home batteries can cost more than $10,000, cheaper battery options are now available and state incentive schemes are also emerging. Western Australia, for instance, will have its own generous battery subsidy scheme running before July 1.

Some households might be able to get subsidies at both state and national levels, which would cover most of the cost of a smaller battery.

When governments offer high subsidies at the start of a new scheme, there’s a real risk of a cost blowout.

To avoid this, governments should begin with the lowest subsidy which still encourages household investment. If low subsidies lead to low uptake, the government could then raise subsidies after an annual review.

Another option is to vary how much the subsidy is based on household wealth. Lower wealth households get higher subsidies (say $2,500) while higher wealth households get a much lower subsidy (say $500).

Governments could even consider equitable reverse auctions, where households with similar wealth compete for subsidies. Governments can then choose lower bids in the interest of cost-effectiveness.

At present, Labor’s policy would give higher subsidies for larger batteries. This isn’t ideal. On solar, there’s a lack of evidence higher subsidies lead to larger solar systems, while households with more wealth tend to get larger solar systems.

Good start, improvement needed

Labor’s home battery policy has been welcomed by many in the energy sector. But as it stands, we cannot be sure it will fairly share the benefits of home batteries.

If Labor or the Coalition does offer a well-targeted home battery policy, it would be world leading. Over time, it would directly help with the rising cost of living and ensure less wealthy households benefit.

Rohan Best previously received funding from the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).

– ref. Batteries for all, not just the rich? Labor’s home battery plan must be properly targeted to be fair – https://theconversation.com/batteries-for-all-not-just-the-rich-labors-home-battery-plan-must-be-properly-targeted-to-be-fair-253445

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra James, Research Fellow, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University

News feeds have been flooded with reactions to Adolescence, Netflix’s newest viral hit. Released in March, the limited series racked up over 66 million views in just two weeks, making it the platform’s most-watched limited series to date.

The show follows the arrest of a 13-year-old boy accused of murdering a young girl. It hints at potential radicalisation through the “manosphere” – pointing to emojis, incels and influencers like Andrew Tate.

From the BBC, to Rolling Stone, Harper’s Bazaar, and a range of Reddit threads, Adolescence has quickly become one of the most talked-about UK series in recent memory. While some of the buzz reflects its gripping cinematography and performances, much of it centres on the show’s depiction of online dangers and the risks for young boys exposed to this content.

The show has reignited debate about boys and their relationship to digital spaces, particularly social media. The UK prime minister even backed a proposal to screen the series in schools for free, alongside calls for school smartphone bans – measures already in place in parts of Australia.

This public reaction to Adolescence reveals a broader social anxiety about boys, sex and the digital world. But while the public reaction focuses on fear and internet restrictions, evidence shows that young people – boys included – are already engaging with the digital world in complex, thoughtful ways.

A history of moral panic

The same anxiety underpins Australia’s world-first ban on social media for under-16s – framed as a way to protect young people from sexual content, harmful gender roles, and the influence of platforms like Instagram and TikTok. The federal education minister has described social media as a “cesspit” from which children must be protected.

Yet this policy was introduced in direct response to a rise in women being killed by their intimate partners. It’s a subtle but powerful misdirection – one that offers a political fix while avoiding the more difficult work of addressing men’s violence.

Instead, this policy response draws on a history of moral panic about young people and the internet. Young people are a “problem” we can “fix”, while ignoring deeper social and cultural issues.

This framing of boys and the internet ignores their capacity, skills and how they engage in the digital world. It also ignores the many ways in which they learn about relationships.

Most importantly, it risks further marginalising boys from the conversations and education they urgently need.

Young people engage with online spaces thoughtfully

Our research with young people and experts shows that teens engage with online spaces far more thoughtfully than they’re often given credit. They know how to assess credibility, search for diverse sources and navigate content in ways that reflect their needs.

This process – of searching, comparing, evaluating – isn’t passive consumption. It’s an important part of how young people develop and find space to think about their identities, sex and relationships.

Their engagement is often nuanced: they weigh content against other information, test it against their own experience, and assess how trustworthy or relatable a source might be.

In a context where young people routinely report receiving inadequate education on sex and relationships – via parents or school-based programs – online spaces play an important role in helping them to fill these gaps.

These platforms often provide the only accessible way for young people to explore aspects of their identity, sexuality and relationships.

Boys are left out

Some of our other research shows that cisgender, heterosexual boys are often left out of conversations about sex, relationships and consent. Such conversations could give them space to ask questions, express uncertainty and give adults a chance to hear what the boys are thinking.

Instead of engaging boys with empathy or curiosity, we tend to talk at them, as if they alone are the problem, rather than talking with them.

When pornography is demonised, we also shut down the possibility of honest discussion. This leaves boys, who are often too afraid to ask questions, to interpret what they’re seeing without support. That silence creates a vacuum, one increasingly filled by figures like Tate. The “self-proclaimed misogynist”, with more than 10 million followers on Twitter, is known for promoting harmful views about women, violence and sexual assault.

Banning access to social media won’t fix this; it only deepens the lack of meaningful engagement with what young people might be seeing online.

Educators are also nervous about broaching these topics. This is hard in an environment where talking to kids about sex remains taboo and who is responsible for having these conversations is unclear. Should it fall to schools? Parents? Police?

How we can support young people

What’s needed are policies and education that support youth educators to address this effectively. This also means meeting boys where they are and providing all young people with the digital and relational skills to navigate these issues.

Young people don’t need Adolescence to understand the internet – they already do. What they need is support, space to ask questions and skills to navigate the ideas they’re exposed to, both online and in the world around them. That requires brave policies that prioritise education and equip them with critical digital literacy.

And if we’re serious about supporting young people, we need to stop pretending the problem starts with them.

Alexandra James receives funding from The Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care and Lifestyles Australia.

Andrea Waling receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.

Lily Moor receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.

– ref. What our reaction to Adolescence tells us about our fear of boys, sex and the internet – https://theconversation.com/what-our-reaction-to-adolescence-tells-us-about-our-fear-of-boys-sex-and-the-internet-253746

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caitie Kuempel, Lecturer, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University

As climate change wreaks havoc with the world’s oceans, future production of fish, crustaceans and other aquatic organisms is under threat.

Our new research shows how this disturbance will play out for Australia’s prawn industry, which is concentrated in Queensland. We found by 2100, sea level rise threatens to flood 98% of the state’s approved prawn areas.

The problem is not confined to prawns – Queensland barramundi farming is also at risk from sea-level rise. Climate change also poses challenges for other major seafood industries in Australia, including salmon in Tasmania.

Australian seafood is vital to our culture and diets, and the national economy. We must take steps now to ensure the aquaculture industry thrives in a warmer world.

Spotlight on Queensland prawns

Aquaculture refers to breeding, rearing and harvesting fish, crustaceans, algae and other organisms in water. Australia’s aquaculture industry is expected to be worth A$2.2 billion by 2028–29.

Aquaculture can involve a variety of methods, from ponds and sea cages to indoor tank systems and even giant ships.

Aquaculture is one of Queensland’s fastest-growing primary industries – partly due to burgeoning production in prawn farming.

Queensland is also expected to experience a 0.8m sea-level rise by 2100, under a high-emissions scenario. Our research investigated how this could affect the state’s aquaculture industry.

We did this by examining existing data on coastal inundation and erosion from sea-level rise, combined with data on current and future aquaculture production areas.

We found 43% of sites where aquaculture production is currently occurring are at risk from sea-level rise. Prawn farming is the most vulnerable.

About 98% of areas approved for prawn farming in Queensland are expected to be inundated by seawater by 2100. The risk includes 88% of areas currently producing prawns. Prawns are grown in large ponds on land near the coast with access to saltwater, which makes them particularly vulnerable to inundation. Annual prawn production losses due to sea-level rise could reach up to A$127.6 million by century’s end.

Inundation and coastal erosion can cause breaches in pond walls compromising their structural integrity. These risks may be amplified when sea-level rise coincides with coastal flooding. Rising seas can also increase salinity in surrounding soils and groundwater, further affecting ponds. Other aquaculture infrastructure, such as hatcheries, buildings, and roads, may also be disrupted.

The Gold Coast region – a prawn production hub – is particularly vulnerable. Damage caused by ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred highlights the vulnerability of coastal infrastructure to extreme weather. This will only worsen as the planet warms.

Queensland barramundi farms also face a serious threat. Some 44% of areas producing barramundi are likely to be exposed to inundation, causing up to A$22.6 million in annual production losses. Meanwhile, two of Queensland’s designated “Aquaculture Development Areas” – regions earmarked by the state government for industry expansion – may be unsuitable due to future sea levels. Both are located in the Hinchinbrook Shire Council area.

Beyond rising seas

Globally and in Australia, climate change is posing myriad challenges to seafood farmers.

Rising water temperatures stress animals such as salmon, lowering oxygen levels which slows growth rates and increases their risk of disease. Such depletion is a particular concern in already low-oxygen environments, such as Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour.

Ocean heatwaves can cause mass fish deaths and devastate production. In Tasmania in February, more than 5,500 tonnes of dead fish were dumped at southern Tasmanian waste facilities – a problem linked to warmer water temperatures.

Dead and decomposing fish can further alter oxygen levels in water, spread disease to wild populations and attract scavengers. In the Tasmanian case, fish remains washed up on public beaches, angering the public and leading to calls for greater industry regulation.

Extreme weather further complicates aquaculture operations. Storms, flooding and abnormal rain patterns can affect water salinity which impacts species growth and survival. They can also damage vital infrastructure, which may allow animals to escape.

This occurred in 2022, when repeated flooding and disease outbreaks on oyster farms in New South Wales led to complete stock losses, prolonged farm closures and workers being laid off.

Surviving a warmer future

Not all aquaculture operations will suffer under climate change. Warming waters can lead to longer growing seasons in temperate regions. It can also expand suitable habitat for tropical species such as tilapia, mussels and oysters. Regions previously inhospitable to aquaculture may become viable production zones.

For the countries and producers that are expected to suffer, those that plan for and adapt to climate shifts can minimise losses.

Key steps industry and government can take include:

• planning farms in lower-risk areas and relocating vulnerable sites

• implementing climate-resilient infrastructure and restoring coastal ecosystems near farms to buffer against climate impacts

• expanding to include diverse species and selectively breeding stock that can tolerate the changing conditions

• strategic government policies and planning, financial incentives, and investment in resilient infrastructure to help the industry stay ahead of climate risks.

With the right strategies, Australia’s aquaculture industry can adapt to a changing climate and continue to contribute to food security and community wellbeing.

Caitie Kuempel receives funding from the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre. She is affiliated with BECRC Marine Spatial Planning project.

Marina receives Griffith University International Postgraduate Research Scholarship and Griffith University Postgraduate Research Scholarship as and HDR PhD Student

– ref. 98% of Queensland prawn areas at risk of inundation by rising seas this century – https://theconversation.com/98-of-queensland-prawn-areas-at-risk-of-inundation-by-rising-seas-this-century-253330

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rod McNaughton, Professor of Entrepreneurship, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

When retail executives start swearing during earnings calls, something is clearly amiss. That’s what happened recently when the CEO of United States-based luxury furniture retailer Restoration Hardware saw his company’s share price plunge by more than 25% in after-market trading.

The cause? Donald Trump had just declared “Liberation Day”, announcing sweeping new tariffs on nearly all imports. For companies like Restoration Hardware – which rely on suppliers in China and Vietnam, and now face tariffs of over 50% – the impact was immediate: higher costs, disrupted supply chains and enormous uncertainty.

New Zealand exporters were spared the worst, with exports facing only the 10% baseline tariff under the new regime. But the lesson is clear. In today’s world, the real threat isn’t always direct exposure, it’s volatility.

Trump’s tariffs sparked a nosedive in share markets and reignited concerns about the reliability of global trade. And while tariffs may rise and fall, uncertainty seems here to stay. This is why an idea first developed by journalist and author Jane Jacobs in the 1980s deserves renewed attention.

In Cities and the Wealth of Nations, Jacobs argued that sustainable economic growth isn’t driven by national policy or protectionism but by what she called “import replacement”: where cities and regions develop the capacity to produce goods they once imported.

The concept is often confused with import substitution, where governments impose tariffs or subsidies to protect domestic industries. But Jacobs’ model is different. It’s not about shielding firms from competition. It’s about growing new capabilities from the ground up.

A smarter response to volatility

Import replacement happens when entrepreneurs identify goods currently sourced from elsewhere and start producing them locally, not because tariffs artificially advantage them but because they’ve found a better way to meet local needs. Over time, this drives specialisation, innovation, and eventually new exports.

Jacobs believed this bottom-up process was the real engine of economic resilience. And she was right. In an era marked by pandemics, war, climate volatility and policy shocks, the ability to adapt quickly and locally is more valuable than ever.

New Zealand saw this first-hand during COVID-19. When global supply chains stalled, we found ourselves unable to access essentials from PPE to packaging, diagnostic swabs to digital hardware. Some firms responded with ingenuity. Others waited. In many cases, local capacity simply wasn’t there.

That experience revealed an uncomfortable truth: trade agreements alone don’t secure economic sovereignty. It depends on the capability to make, adapt and substitute when the system falters.

Some entrepreneurs are already seizing the moment. In the US, for example, founder of activewear brand XX-XY Apparel, Jennifer Sey, argues that trade disruption creates space for ethical, transparent supply chains closer to home. For her, localisation is not just risk management, it’s a business opportunity.

But rebuilding domestic capacity isn’t easy. It takes capital, skilled workers and time. And tariff-based incentives can vanish as quickly as they appear. That’s why the kind of import replacement Jacobs envisioned wasn’t a reactive policy tool but a long-term development strategy.

What import replacement could look like

The same logic applies to New Zealand. We are heavily dependent on imported goods in critical sectors like machinery, pharmaceuticals, digital infrastructure, fertilisers and food processing. If any of those supply chains is disrupted, we’re not just inconvenienced, we’re exposed.

To reduce that vulnerability, we need to think strategically. That might mean developing domestic capacity to manufacture essential health products, or supporting entrepreneurs working on substitutes for imported fertilisers or packaging materials.

It could mean encouraging research institutions to develop substitutes for materials we currently source offshore.

Universities and other research organisations can play a vital role. By collaborating with startups and small or medium-sized businesses, they can accelerate innovation. From prototype to production, tertiary institutions can help translate research into real-world resilience.

Public procurement could also be better leveraged. Government contracts could reward suppliers who help reduce import dependency and build options into our domestic supply chains.

Crucially, we need to map our vulnerabilities. Which imports are critical to key sectors? Where are we reliant on a single country or supplier? What could we produce regionally, if not nationally, with the right insight and capability?

Resilience is not retreat

This is not an argument against trade. New Zealand’s economy depends on it. But if we’ve learned anything from COVID and now from “Liberation Day”, it’s that openness without options is a liability.

Tariffs may make headlines. But they won’t build the necessary capabilities in the US or globally for the next crisis. That kind of economic resilience comes from the patient work of entrepreneurs in building, substituting, learning and adapting, at speed and close to home.

Jacobs reminded us that economies don’t grow stronger by walling themselves off. They grow stronger when they learn to make what they once had to import and, in doing so, discover what the world might want next.

Rod McNaughton 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. Looking inward: why Trump’s tariffs highlight the need for NZ to build local capacity – https://theconversation.com/looking-inward-why-trumps-tariffs-highlight-the-need-for-nz-to-build-local-capacity-253826

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

Peter Dutton has raised the white flag on his controversial attempt to force Canberra public servants back into the office, with the opposition now saying there will be no change in current arrangements.

The shadow minister for the public service, Jane Hume, said: “We have listened, and understand that flexible work, including working from home, is part of getting the best out of any workforce”.

The Coalition’s public service policy, released Sunday, says a Dutton government will “support flexible working arrangements for the public service, including working from home, by respecting existing flexible working arrangements, and enshrining them in future agreements.

“There will be no mandated minimum number of days for public servants to work in the office.”

Originally the Coalition wanted to get public servants back into the office five days a week, with Hume saying they had shown a “lack of respect for the work that went into earning the taxes the spend”.

But on Sunday, Hume said, “Many professional men and women in the Commonwealth public service are benefiting from flexible working arrangements, including working from home, which allow them to make valuable contributions to serving Australians.

“We know the importance of flexible work for many Australians, and have always supported the private sector making its own decisions on flexible work arrangements.”

The move to try to return the public servants to the office has been a bugbear for the opposition from the start. Dutton landed in further trouble when he suggested women who were adversely affected by the policy could share jobs.

Many voters feared if the return-to-the-office policy was introduced for public service workers, it could quickly lead to more pressure in the private sector. Many private employers have been trying to limit work-from-home arrangements.

Working from home has become particularly entrenched since the pandemic, and the Liberals’ hard line threatened to lose them votes widely, especially among women.

Dutton has progressively been qualifying and walking back the opposition’s proposal. Now, it’s been ditched completely.

The Coalition’s public service policy would reduce the federal public service by 41,000 jobs over five years, while protecting frontline services and national security positions.

Penny Wong paints Dutton as a ‘risk’ in an uncertain world

The Liberals like to see national security issues as one of their strong suits. But Labor – thanks to US President Donald Trump’s global tariffs – is now boldly casting Dutton as posing a risk to Australia in a changing, uncertain world.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong on Sunday described the opposition leader as stubborn, arrogant and always believing he knows best.

“That leads him to make bad calls,” Wong told the ABC. “You see that in his stubborn insistence on a deal with President Trump at whatever cost. You see that in a reckless and risky linking of defence into this trade dispute.

“What this showed us was this was a man who makes bad calls and this is a man who is a risk to this country when we face these uncertain times.”

Dutton has insisted he would have more chance of winning an exemption from US tariffs than Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Trying to make his point, he was loose in his language last week. Notably, he said one of the things he would invoke was our defence relationship with the US.

This was immediately interpreted as a threat. Later it was clarified he meant offering something positive to the US. But in an election campaign, the clarification seldom catches up with the original statement.

Meanwhile, former Prime Minister John Howard weighed in to say the Australian-American defence relationship should never be brought into such a negotiation.

Albanese is also saying the government will try to change Trump’s mind about applying tariffs to Australia. Like Dutton, he would have Australia’s critical minerals in the negotiating mix, although exactly how is not clear.

The Liberals say if Dutton became PM he’d visit Washington within 60 days. There’d be a lot of pressure on the new prime minister to get a deal.

If Labor is returned, Albanese would no doubt make an effort. But one suspects when push came to shove, he’d be reluctant to cede much, given the direct hit from the 10% tariff on Australian exports is relatively mild.

The 2025 Liberal Party is a narrow congregation

Petro Georgiou, one of the Liberals’ high-profile backbench moderates during the Howard years, died last week. His death reminded people – if they needed reminding – that the Liberal Party is a very different beast these days.

Howard talked about the party being a “broad church”, embracing both conservatives and moderates. Howard, himself, of course, was no moderate but there were a number of small-“l” liberals with strong voices in his government – among them Robert Hill, John Fahey (former NSW premier), and Michael Wooldridge.

While some powerful moderates were in the tent, others were kicking up the sand around it from the backbench. Prominent among them was Georgiou, a former adviser to Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. He and colleagues took on Howard over various issues, especially on refugees.

Fast forward to the Abbott government and, despite Tony Abbott’s conservatism, moderates were prominent: Julie Bishop, Christopher Pyne, Malcolm Turnbull, George Brandis.

One significant reason for the important place the moderates had in the past was the nature of the Liberal Party. Its strongholds were affluent, urban areas, where voters were above average in income and education.

But from Howard’s time on, Liberal leaders increasingly turned their eyes elsewhere. Howard had his “battlers”, and pursued voters from the right in Queensland. Abbott went after his “tradies”. Dutton is looking to outer suburbia to make his gains.

Turnbull, the only moderate among the last four Liberal leaders, has, ironically, undermined the moderates. His trenchant criticisms of subsequent leaders have given many small-“l” liberal voters permission to vote teal.

Last election, the teals dispatched several moderate Liberals, including Josh Frydenberg, who lost to independent Monique Ryan in Georgiou’s old seat of Kooyong. (Frydenberg hadn’t started out as a moderate, but effectively became one.) Other moderates, most notably Simon Birmingham, have exited politics before or at this election.

One of Georgiou’s strongest allies back in the day was Victorian MP Russell Broadbent. Broadbent, who was also close to Turnbull, lost preselection for his seat of Monash and defected to the crossbench in 2023. He’s now running in Monash as an independent against the new Liberal candidate Mary Aldred (whose father was in parliament).

In Monash, the Liberals don’t just have Broadbent snapping at their heels, but a teal candidate, as well. Broadbent says his old party should be glad he’s in the contest.

“The teal would have won it otherwise,” he claims. The Liberals consider the seat pretty safe, but they’ll be thankful he is giving them his preferences.

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: Dutton backs down on working-from-home crackdown after outcry threatens to cost votes – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-dutton-backs-down-on-working-from-home-crackdown-after-outcry-threatens-to-cost-votes-253732

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

A national Newspoll, conducted March 31 to April 4 from a sample of 1,250, gave Labor a 52–48 lead, a one-point gain for Labor since the March 27–29 post-budget Newspoll. This is Labor’s biggest lead in Newspoll since May 2024. This poll was mostly taken before Donald Trump’s tariff announcement on April 3 AEST.

Primary votes were 36% Coalition (down one), 33% Labor (steady), 12% Greens (steady), 7% One Nation (up one) and 12% for all Others (steady). By 2022 election preference flows, Labor would lead by about 52–48. As One Nation flows have been adjusted towards the Coalition, Labor was probably lucky in the rounding to get to 52–48.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval dropped two points to -11, with 53% dissatisfied and 42% satisfied. Peter Dutton’s net approval was up one point to -17. Albanese led as better PM by 48–40 (49–38 previously).

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

The 52–48 Labor leads in Newspoll and Redbridge are the best for Labor during the election period from anyone except Morgan, which has had three polls in a row with Labor ahead by at least 53–47. The polls are trending in Labor’s favour, with Labor ahead in the five polls released since March 30.

In the two trading days after Trump’s tariff announcement, US stock markets suffered brutal falls, and the Australian market is expected to slump on Monday. I believe these falls will undermine Trump’s economic credibility and make it more difficult for the more pro-Trump major party (the Coalition).

There are three electoral events next week as we approach the May 3 election. On Monday at 8pm, the electoral roll closes. People need to register or update their details by then to be able to vote.

On Thursday, candidate nominations close, and on Friday they are declared. It will benefit pollsters to know exactly which candidates are running in particular seats.

Redbridge poll: Labor gains for a 52–48 lead

A national poll by Redbridge and Accent Research for the News Corp tabloids, conducted March 28 to April 1 from a sample of 1,006, gave Labor a 52–48 lead, a one-point gain for Labor since the previous Redbridge poll that was conducted March 13–24. Primary votes were 36% Coalition (down two), 33% Labor (down one), 12% Greens (up one) and 19% for all Others (up two).

By 43–40, voters did not think the Labor government was focused on the right priorities, but this was a big improvement from 52–30 in November 2024. By 43–38, voters did not think the Coalition led by Dutton is ready for government (a reversal from 40–39 agreement last November).

By 40–39, voters preferred the Coalition’s fuel excise cut over Labor’s income tax cut. By 33–28, voters thought Albanese and Labor’s economic vision was better for them than Dutton and the Coalition’s. By 31–29, they thought Labor’s economic vision better for Australia than the Coalition’s.

On type of government, 31% wanted a majority Coalition government and 25% a majority Labor government. The tabloids didn’t provide enough detail on overall figures for minority governments.

Resolve breakdowns and duelling Goldstein seat polls

The post-budget national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers had a 50–50 tie by respondent preferences, representing a 2.1% swing to the Coalition since the 2022 election.

State breakdowns from this poll, which had a large sample of 3,083, had a 50–50 tie in New South Wales (51.4–48.6 to Labor in 2022), a 52–48 Labor lead in Victoria (54.8–45.2 to Labor in 2022) and a 58–42 Coalition lead in Queensland (54.0–46.0 to the Coalition in 2022). In marginal seats, the Coalition led by 51–49 (50.8–49.2 to Labor in 2022).

The February Resolve poll had given the Coalition a 55–45 lead, and is a clear outlier on the poll graph. We should be wary of analysis that measures results in the March poll against the January and February polls.

Labor had two big improvements by demographics between January/February and March, going from 58–42 behind to a 50–50 tie with men, and from 55–45 behind to a 52–48 lead with those aged 35 to 54.

I previously reported that a JWS poll in teal-held Goldstein had the Liberals leading teal Zoe Daniel by 54–46. The Poll Bludger reported last Thursday that a uComms poll for Climate 200, conducted March 18–25, gave Daniel a 54–46 lead. This was a two-point gain for Daniel since late February. Seat polls are unreliable.

NSW, Victorian and Queensland state polls

I covered the federal NSW DemosAU poll on Friday. The state poll, conducted March 24–26 from a sample of 1,013, gave Labor a 54–46 lead (54.3–45.7 to Labor at the March 2023 state election). Primary votes were 34% Coalition, 33% Labor, 14% Greens and 19% for all Others.

Labor incumbent Chris Minns led the Liberals’ Mark Speakman as preferred premier by 42–24. By 43–38, respondents did not think NSW was headed in the right direction.

A Victorian state Resolve poll for The Age, conducted with the February and March federal Resolve polls from a sample of over 1,000, gave the Coalition 41% of the primary vote (down one since January), Labor 24% (up two), the Greens 14% (up one), independents 14% (down three) and others 7% (up one).

This was a small improvement for Labor from the dire January result, but The Poll Bludger gave the Coalition about a 54–46 two-party estimated lead. Liberal Brad Battin led Labor incumbent Jacinta Allan by 36–23 as preferred premier (36–27 in January).

Battin’s net likeability improved five points to +9, while Allan’s net likeability has been dropping since her first poll as premier in December 2023. She’s now at -32 net likeability, down eight points since January.

A Redbridge Queensland state poll, conducted March 17–25 from a sample of 1,507, was provided to The Courier Mail. It gave the Liberal National Party a 56.5–43.5 lead (53.8–46.2 to the LNP at the October 2024 state election). Primary votes were 44% LNP, 27% Labor, 12% Greens, 10% One Nation and 7% for all Others.

LNP Premier David Crisafulli was at net +29 favourable (46% favourable, 17% unfavourable, 25% neutral). Labor leader and former premier Steven Miles was at net -13 favourable (39% unfavourable, 26% favourable, 22% neutral).

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 gains 52–48 lead in Newspoll and Redbridge as poll trend to Labor continues – https://theconversation.com/labor-gains-52-48-lead-in-newspoll-and-redbridge-as-poll-trend-to-labor-continues-253739

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Professor of Higher Education Policy, Monash University

Last year, the Coalition made the surprise decision to oppose Labor’s plans for new international student caps.

On Sunday, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton proposed an even more radical policy of his own to limit the number of international students in Australia.

He announced a combination of tighter enrolment limits, increased visa application fees and changes to temporary graduate visas, which allow some former students to remain in Australia to work.

This is aimed at either deterring potential students from applying or stopping them from going to their preferred university.

What’s the Coalition’s policy?

The Coalition and Labor similarly argue high numbers of international students are putting pressure on housing markets.

But the opposition is also concerned there are too many international students in some courses. They say some courses can have international enrolments of up to 80%.

To address both problems, the Coalition proposes a maximum international student enrolment share at public universities (which is almost all universities in Australia). This would be around 25% of all commencing (or new) enrolments. Other education providers, such as private colleges and TAFEs, would face separate caps.

The Coalition estimates this would result in 30,000 fewer new international students per year than Labor’s policy.

What is happening under Labor?

Last year, Labor wanted to give the education minister wide powers to cap international student enrolments by education provider, campus and course.

Apart from some exempt categories (such as postgraduate research students), vocational and higher education providers would have been allocated 270,000 commencing enrolments between them for 2025. This is compared to 323,000 commencing enrolments in 2023.

But the bill was opposed by the Greens and the Coalition. So Labor had to move to plan B.

Using its migration powers, in December 2024, the government issued a ministerial direction on how the Department of Home Affairs should process applications for student visas. This is arguably a de facto cap.

Immigration officials have been instructed to prioritise student visa applications for all institutions until they near the individual caps that were blocked by the Senate last year.

Once visa applications are at 80% of each provider’s cap, subsequent applications go into a slower visa processing stream.

Read more:
International student numbers in Australia will be controlled by a new informal cap. Here’s how it will work

Signs applications are already down

Prospective international students cannot apply for a visa unless an education provider gives them a “confirmation of enrolment”.

We are seeing signs the ministerial direction is leading to fewer “confirmations of enrolment” and resulting applications.

My analysis below shows student visa applications for January and February 2025 are well down on equivalent months in 2024, 2023 and 2019 (pre-Covid).

In late 2024, demand was below the boom times of 2023 and early 2024, but still above 2019.

What does the Coalition’s plan mean for unis?

Labor’s policy for university caps uses a formula based on past international student enrolments. The Coalition’s caps would be a percentage of total new enrolments. They expect this to be around 25%, but will set the precise number after consultation and receiving the most recent data.

Coalition education spokesperson Sarah Henderson has expressed concerns high concentrations of international students have “not been good for our country or for the education outcomes of Australian students”.

Based on 2023 enrolment data – the latest that also includes domestic students – 35% of new university students in Australia were from overseas. But several universities had international student shares above 50%.

On the Coalition’s estimates, their policy would see no more than 115,000 new international students in public universities each year, down from 139,000 under Labor’s approach.

The Coalition acknowledges this will particularly affect the highly ranked Group of Eight universities, including The University of Melbourne and The University of Sydney. Dutton argues these universities have admitted “excessive numbers” of international students.

Coalition caps for private providers

One reason the Coalition gave for not supporting Labor’s legislation last year was the disproportionate effect on private education providers, which include both vocational and higher education colleges.

Under the Coalition’s plan, private providers will still have caps, but they will be different than those for universities. Exactly how this will work is unclear. Their combined caps will be “at most 125,000”, according to the Coalition. Under Labor’s policy, their combined cap is a little higher, at about 132,000.

A complicating factor here is the government’s existing migration policies have smashed demand for vocational education – as my analysis shows.

This means many vocational education providers may not be able to fully use the places allocated under Labor’s indicative cap. These shortfalls may create space to increase caps for other private education providers.

Visa application fees

Last year, in a bid to cut international student numbers, Labor more than doubled the student visa application fee from A$710 to $1,600. They subsequently reversed this for Pacific Islander applicants.

Under the Coalition, the visa application fee would more than triple to $5,000 for applicants to Group of Eight universities. For students seeking entry to other providers, the fee would be $2,500.

Temporary graduate visas

The Coalition also promises a “rapid review” of the temporary graduate visa program. This would be to prevent its “misuse” as a way to gain access to the Australian labour market and permanent migration.

Labor has already reduced the number of years former students can stay on temporary graduate visas, reduced the age limit to be granted a visa from 50 to 35 years, and increased the minimum English requirements.

Applications for temporary graduate visas are down on past levels.

While Labor’s changes made some potential visa applicants ineligible, recent applications could be the calm before the storm. Large numbers of 2023 and 2024 international students will complete their courses in the coming years, with many of them eligible for temporary graduate visas under current policies.

International education will take a hit regardless

The Coalition’s international student election policy is less of a surprise than its refusal to back Labor’s caps last year. They have foreshadowed tough policies many times in recent months.

But the proposed increased visa application fees and enrolment caps would be painful for both students and education providers.

Universities have repeatedly argued international students are not major causes of the housing crisis. They have also argued international education is a valuable export and it is being undermined by policy changes out of Canberra. But this has had no impact on the stance of either Labor or the Coalition.

So, the number of international students in Australia will fall regardless of the federal election result. The decline is set to be greater under a Coalition government. But regardless of the election result, the days of unlimited international student numbers are over.

Andrew Norton works for Monash University, which is a member of the Group of Eight and would be significantly affected by the policies discussed in this article.

– ref. The Coalition has announced an even more radical plan to cut international students than Labor. Here’s how it would work – https://theconversation.com/the-coalition-has-announced-an-even-more-radical-plan-to-cut-international-students-than-labor-heres-how-it-would-work-253919

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

In the government’s latest initiative on energy prices, Anthony Albanese on Sunday will promise that if re-elected, Labor will reduce the cost of installing a typical home battery by 30% from July 1.

This would cut about $4,000 from the upfront cost of an 11.5 kWh battery, which is the typical household size.

Small businesses and community facilities would be eligible for the discount, as well as households.

The government says the discount would save a household with existing rooftop solar panels up to $1,100 off their power bill every year. For those with new solar panels and battery, the saving would be up to $2,300 annually – up to 90% of a typical power bill.

More than one million installations would be expected by 2030 under the measure. The initiative would cost an estimated $2.3 billion over the forward estimates, including in the 2025-26 budget.

The discount would be applied on installing virtual power plant-ready battery systems beside new or existing rooftop solar until 2030. The absolute value of the discount would decline over the five years in line with the expected fall in the cost of batteries.

Albanese said the measure was “good for power bills and good for the environment”.

Labor’s number one priority is delivering cost-of-living relief. That’s why we want to make sure Australians have access to cheaper, cleaner energy.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen said:

The contrast is clear – a re-elected Albanese government will take pressure off household energy bills, while Peter Dutton’s Liberals will spend $600 billion on a nuclear plan that drives power bills up.

Mixing politics and sport can be risky on campaign trail

For the second election campaign in a row, a Liberal leader has claimed a victim on the football field.

At least, some relieved Liberals might be saying, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton felled a member of the media, not a child.

Dutton, campaigning in Darwin on Saturday with a few million dollars in hand to promise for the local footy ground, was happy to have a kick with kids for the cameras.

But the ball hit a TV camera, which went into the face of Channel Ten cameraman Ghaith Nadir. A federal policeman helped with a bandage for Nadir’s forehead. Dutton promised a compensatory beer.

In the 2022 campaign, Prime Minister Scott Morrison joined some youngsters in their junior soccer training.

Becoming rather too competitive, Morrison crashed into a boy, and they both ended on the ground. It made for plenty of jokes about the man who’d admitted in the campaign that “I can be a bit of a bulldozer”. The clip was replayed again and again.

After Saturday’s incident, Dutton quipped, “If the prime minister kicked it, he would have told you that it didn’t hit anyone”.

Last week, Albanese stepped back off a stage, appearing to fall, during an event. He later insisted he hadn’t fallen. “I stepped back onto a step, I didn’t fall off the stage,” he said. “Just one leg went down, and I was sweet.”

Way back in 1984, there was another unfortunate incident on the sporting field during a campaign. That time, the perpetrator was a journalist and the victim was Prime Minister Bob Hawke.

Hawke had called an election a few days before playing in a cricket match against the parliamentary press gallery. A ball from Gary O’Neill, a journalist with the Melbourne Herald, caught the edge of Hawke’s bat and smashed into his glasses.

Hawke went to the Canberra Hospital, where (after he jumped the queue) a patch was put on his eye. He returned to the match, watching from the sidelines.

At least he scored 27 before the incident. However, the accident set him back for the early days of what was an eight-week campaign.

Over the years there are plenty of examples of leaders losing their (physical) footing.

A few months before the 2007 election, Prime Minister John Howard tripped and fell on his hands on the way to a radio interview in Perth.

Visiting India in 2012, Prime Minister Julia Gillard tumbled when her shoe got stuck in grass. She explained:

For men who get to wear flat shoes all day every day, if you wear a heel it can get embedded in soft grass and when you pull your foot out the shoe doesn’t come.

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 promises 30% discount on household batteries in latest energy bill help – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-albanese-promises-30-discount-on-household-batteries-in-latest-energy-bill-help-253736

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

In the government’s latest initiative on energy prices, Anthony Albanese on Sunday will promise that if re-elected, Labor will reduce the cost of installing a typical home solar battery by 30% from July 1.

This would cut about $4,000 from the upfront cost of an 11.5 kWh battery, which is the typical household size.

Small businesses and community facilities would be eligible for the discount, as well as households.

The government says the discount would save a household with existing rooftop solar panels up to $1,100 off their power bill every year. For those with new solar panels and battery, the saving would be up to $2,300 annually – up to 90% of a typical power bill.

More than one million installations would be expected by 2030 under the measure. The initiative would cost an estimated $2.3 billion over the forward estimates, including in the 2025-26 budget.

The discount would be applied on installing virtual power plant-ready battery systems beside new or existing rooftop solar until 2030. The absolute value of the discount would decline over the five years in line with the expected fall in the cost of batteries.

Albanese said the measure was “good for power bills and good for the environment”.

Labor’s number one priority is delivering cost-of-living relief. That’s why we want to make sure Australians have access to cheaper, cleaner energy.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen said:

The contrast is clear – a re-elected Albanese government will take pressure off household energy bills, while Peter Dutton’s Liberals will spend $600 billion on a nuclear plan that drives power bills up.

Mixing politics and sport can be risky on campaign trail

For the second election campaign in a row, a Liberal leader has claimed a victim on the football field.

At least, some relieved Liberals might be saying, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton felled a member of the media, not a child.

Dutton, campaigning in Darwin on Saturday with a few million dollars in hand to promise for the local footy ground, was happy to have a kick with kids for the cameras.

But the ball hit a TV camera, which went into the face of Channel Ten cameraman Ghaith Nadir. A federal policeman helped with a bandage for Nadir’s forehead. Dutton promised a compensatory beer.

In the 2022 campaign, Prime Minister Scott Morrison joined some youngsters in their junior soccer training.

Becoming rather too competitive, Morrison crashed into a boy, and they both ended on the ground. It made for plenty of jokes about the man who’d admitted in the campaign that “I can be a bit of a bulldozer”. The clip was replayed again and again.

After Saturday’s incident, Dutton quipped, “If the prime minister kicked it, he would have told you that it didn’t hit anyone”.

Last week, Albanese stepped back off a stage, appearing to fall, during an event. He later insisted he hadn’t fallen. “I stepped back onto a step, I didn’t fall off the stage,” he said. “Just one leg went down, and I was sweet.”

Way back in 1984, there was another unfortunate incident on the sporting field during a campaign. That time, the perpetrator was a journalist and the victim was Prime Minister Bob Hawke.

Hawke had called an election a few days before playing in a cricket match against the parliamentary press gallery. A ball from Gary O’Neill, a journalist with the Melbourne Herald, caught the edge of Hawke’s bat and smashed into his glasses.

Hawke went to the Canberra Hospital, where (after he jumped the queue) a patch was put on his eye. He returned to the match, watching from the sidelines.

At least he scored 27 before the incident. However, the accident set him back for the early days of what was an eight-week campaign.

Over the years there are plenty of examples of leaders losing their (physical) footing.

A few months before the 2007 election, Prime Minister John Howard tripped and fell on his hands on the way to a radio interview in Perth.

Visiting India in 2012, Prime Minister Julia Gillard tumbled when her shoe got stuck in grass. She explained:

For men who get to wear flat shoes all day every day, if you wear a heel it can get embedded in soft grass and when you pull your foot out the shoe doesn’t come.

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 promises 30% discount on solar batteries, in latest energy bill help – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-albanese-promises-30-discount-on-solar-batteries-in-latest-energy-bill-help-253736

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University

The United States and Iran are once again on a collision course over the Iranian nuclear program.

In a letter dated early March, US President Donald Trump urged Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to negotiate a new deal. The new deal would replace the defunct nuclear agreement negotiated in 2015 between the United States, Iran and five other global powers.

Trump withdrew from that agreement, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), during his first term.

Trump gave the Iranians a two-month deadline to reach a new nuclear deal. If they don’t, the US will bomb the country. In recent days, American B-2 bombers and warships have been deployed to the region in a show of force.

In response, Tehran has agreed only to indirect negotiations. It has ruled out any direct talks while under a US policy of “maximum pressure”.

Down to the ‘final moments’

The danger of US or combined American-Israeli military actions against Iran has never been greater.

Trump says the US is down to the “final moments” should Tehran persist with moving towards a military nuclear capability.

His national security advisor, Mike Waltz, has gone further, demanding Iran shut down its entire nuclear program.

Khamenei and his generals have promised a “harsh response” to any military venture. Iran has vowed to target all American bases in the region.

France, one of key negotiators in the 2015 deal, said this week a failure to secure a new deal would make a military confrontation “almost inevitable”.

In a positive sign, however, Washington is reportedly “seriously considering” Iran’s offer for indirect negotiations. And Trump is now suggesting Iran may actually be open to direct talks.

On the threshold of a nuclear bomb

It would be a folly to expect a quick result that could satisfy an impatient Trump. This is especially true given Trump is under intense pressure from his close friend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu has long advocated for military action as the best way to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and eliminate its other military capabilities, as well as its regional influence.

The Iranian Islamic regime has repeatedly said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. However, the US and its allies – in particular Israel – have remained highly sceptical of Tehran’s intentions.

Following Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, Tehran has substantially expanded its nuclear program, to the chagrin of the other signatories to the deal (Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China).

It has installed more advanced centrifuges and accelerated uranium enrichment to 60%, just below weapons-grade level. The country is now at a nuclear weapon threshold. It is believed to be capable of assembling an atomic bomb within months, if not weeks.

Israel’s devastating military operations against Iran’s allies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, as well as direct exchanges with Iran, have prompted some in the Iranian leadership to advocate for crossing that threshold.

As I document in my book, Khamenei also remains highly distrustful of Trump and the US political class in general.

Khamenei initially dismissed Trump’s letter last month as a “deception” from the leader of a country he has long considered an “arrogant power” that wants to dictate to Iran, rather than negotiate with it.

One of his senior advisers, former Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, berated Washington for engaging in “psychological warfare”.

And the current foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said direct negotiations would be futile unless Washington changed its policy of maximum pressure against Iran. This would involve removing sanctions against his country.

What the two sides want

Despite this historic distrust of the US, Tehran has found it expedient to offer indirect talks for a possible deal. However, the two sides remain far apart in their respective demands.

Washington, at the very least, would want Tehran to indefinitely limit its uranium enrichment to 3.7% – the level it had agreed to in the 2015 deal. Washington would also demand close oversight by the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Tehran’s minimum demands would include the US unfreezing Iranian assets, lifting all sanctions against Iran and guaranteeing a nuclear deal will not be rescinded by future American administrations.

Neither side could meet these demands, however, without first engaging in substantive confidence-building measures. Since Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, the onus is on him to jump-start the process. He could do this by:

• unfreezing Iranian assets in the United States
• lifting some sanctions to enable Iran to purchase non-lethal items from the West, including new civilian aircraft from Boeing and Airbus which were voided following the JCPOA’s dismantling
• withdrawing the threat of a US, Israeli or combined military action.

Given the depth of the long-standing enmity and distrust between the parties, the chances of reaching a new nuclear deal seem further away than the drums of war.

However, given Trump’s unpredictability and the serious domestic and foreign policy challenges facing the Iranian regime, a deal also cannot not be completely ruled out.

Amin Saikal 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. With US bombers at the ready, can Trump cut a deal with Iran and avoid a war? – https://theconversation.com/with-us-bombers-at-the-ready-can-trump-cut-a-deal-with-iran-and-avoid-a-war-253828

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Bradshaw, Professor of Marketing, Royal Holloway University of London

As politicians around the world scramble to respond to US “liberation day” tariffs, consumers have also begun flexing their muscles. “Boycott USA” messages and searches have been trending on social media and search engines, with users sharing advice on brands and products to avoid.

Even before Donald Trump announced across-the-board tariffs, there had been protests and attacks on the president’s golf courses in Doonbeg in Ireland and Turnberry in Scotland in response to other policies. And in Canada, shoppers avoided US goods after Trump announced he could take over his northern neighbour.

His close ally Elon Musk has seen protests at Tesla showrooms across Europe, Australia and New Zealand. New cars have been set on fire as part of the “Tesla take-down”, while Tesla sales have been on a deep downward trend. This has been especially noticeable in European countries where electric vehicles sales have been high, and in Australia.

This targeting of Trump and Musk’s brands are part of wider boycotts of US goods as consumers look for ways to express their anger at the US administration.

Denmark’s biggest retailer, Salling Group, has given the price label of all European products a black star, making it easy for customers to avoid US goods.

Canadian shoppers are turning US products upside down in retail outlets so it’s easier for fellow shoppers to spot and avoid them. Canadian consumers can also download the Maple Scan app that checks barcodes to see if their grocery purchases are actually Canadian or have parent companies from the USA.

Who owns what?

The issue of ostensibly Canadian brands being owned by US capital illustrates the complexity of consumer boycotts – it can be difficult to identify which brands are American and which are not.

In the UK, for example, many consumers would be surprised to learn how many famous British brands are actually American-owned – for example, Cadbury, Waterstones and Boots. So entwined are global economies that attempts by consumers to boycott US brands may also damage their local economies.

This complexity is also present in Danish and Canadian Facebook groups that are dedicated to boycotting US goods. Consumers exchange tips on how to swap alternatives for American products.

The fact that Facebook is a US-based company only demonstrates how deeply embedded consumer culture is in US technologies. European businesses often depend on American operating systems and cloud storage while consumers rely on US-owned social media platforms for communication.

Even when consumers succeed in weeding out American products, if they pay using Visa, Mastercard or Apple Pay, a percentage of the price will nonetheless be rerouted to the US. If a touch payment is made with Worldpay, the percentage could be even greater.

These American financial services show just how embedded US businesses are in retail in ways that consumers may not appreciate. In practice, an absolute boycott of US business is almost unimaginable.

All-American brands

But American branding is not always subtle. In addition to brands directly connected to the US administration – such as the Trump golf courses and Tesla – many other companies have always been flamboyantly American. Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Budweiser are just some examples where their American identities and proudly on show.

As such, it’s possible that consumers will increasingly avoid blatantly American brands. They may be less concerned about the complexities and contradictions of a more comprehensive boycott.

Consumer actions where the goal is political change are known as “proxy boycotts” because no particular company is the ultimate target. Rather, the brands and firms are targeted by consumers as a means to an end.

Do boycotts work?

A classic example of a proxy boycott took aim at French goods, particularly wine, in the mid-1990s. This was in response to president Jacques Chirac’s decision to conduct nuclear tests in the Pacific. The large-scale consumer boycotts contributed to France’s decision to abandon its nuclear tests in 1996.

In Britain, for example, French wines in all categories lost market share as demand fell during the boycott. At the time, it cost the French wine sector £23 million (about £46 million today).

These boycotts are a reminder that the interplay between corporations, brands and consumer culture are inevitably embedded in politics. The current political impasse demonstrates that consumers can participate in politics, not just with their votes, but also with their buying power.

Trump clearly wants to demonstrate American strength. The “liberation day” tariffs, which were higher than most observers expected, bear this out. But many US corporations will now be worrying about how consumers in the US and around the world might respond. Trump could see a mass mobilisation of consumer power in ways that will give the president something to think about.

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. Consumers are boycotting US goods around the world. Should Trump be worried? – https://theconversation.com/consumers-are-boycotting-us-goods-around-the-world-should-trump-be-worried-253389

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

Anthony Albanese has announced that the government will ensure the Port of Darwin, currently leased by the Chinese company Landbridge, is returned to Australian hands.

“Australia needs to own the Port of Darwin,” the prime minister declared late Friday.

Albanese rang a Darwin radio station after Labor got wind of the fact that Opposition Leader Peter Dutton would on Saturday announce a Coalition government would return the port back to local control.

Both the government and opposition are promising that, if necessary, they would bring the port’s lease into public ownership.

Albanese said the government had been seeking a local buyer, but was prepared to acquire the port’s lease if that was the only solution.

“We prefer that it be through superannuation funds or some other vehicle that doesn’t mean direct taxpayer’s funds, but we’re prepared to go down the road of taxpayer direct involvement, as well.”

Asked to clarify whether the options were that the port remain privately owned or that it be returned to be a government asset, Albanese said, “yes, they are.”

The Northern Territory government leased the port to Landbridge in 2015 for about $500 million. The lease was for 99 years.

The federal government at the time was not directly involved in the deal, but the Northern Territory government sought advice from the Defence Department and security agencies, which didn’t raise objections. Later, US President Barack Obama chided then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull for not giving the Americans a heads-up.

The Chinese deal has caused serious controversy in the years since.

When Dutton was defence minister in the Morrison government, his department did a review of the lease.

A statement on Friday from Dutton and shadow ministers said a Coalition government would seek a private operator to take over the lease, but if one could not be found within six months, the government would acquire it “as a last resort”.

It would use the Commonwealth’s “compulsory acquisition powers”, and the government would then compensate the Landbridge Group.

“In the current geopolitical environment, it is vital that this piece of critical infrastructure, which is directly opposite to the Larrakeyah Defence Precinct, is operated by a trusted, Commonwealth approved entity.

“We will appoint a specialist commercial adviser to work with the Northern Territory Government and officials from the Departments of Treasury, Finance, Defence and Infrastructure to provide advice and engage with potential new operators of the port.”

Dutton said that a Coalition government would not allow the port to be leased by any entity that is “directly or indirectly controlled by a foreign government, including any state-owned enterprise or sovereign wealth fund.”

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. Albanese and Dutton both say they will return the Port of Darwin to Australian hands – https://theconversation.com/albanese-and-dutton-both-say-they-will-return-the-port-of-darwin-to-australian-hands-253735

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Jean Monnet Chair of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

On April 2, United States President Donald Trump unveiled a sweeping new “reciprocal tariff” regime he says will level the playing field in global trade – by treating other countries the way (he claims) they treat the US.

First, Trump’s plan will impose a “baseline” 10% tariff on virtually all goods imported into the US, effective April 5. Then, from April 9, 57 countries will face higher “reciprocal tariffs”.

These vary by country, according to a formula based on individual trade deficits.

On face value, the new tariff regime might sound like a simple solution for fairness. If a particular country was taxing American imports with a 50% tariff, it might seem fair for the US to tax their imports at 50% as well.

But appearances are deceiving.

These new “reciprocal” tariffs ostensibly aim to eliminate the US trade deficit by making imports more expensive so that Americans buy less from abroad until imports equal exports.

But the Trump administration hasn’t directly matched specific foreign tariffs. Instead, they’ve opted for a crude formula based on bilateral trade deficits between the US and each specific country. Those aren’t the same things.

Read more:
New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with the US hit hardest

Trade deficits aren’t tariffs

A country has a trade deficit when the total value of everything it imports from somewhere else exceeds the value of what it exports there. A trade surplus is the opposite.

Trade deficits and surpluses – the balance of trade – can be calculated between specific countries, but also between one country and the rest of the world.

Tariffs are different things altogether – taxes a country charges on imports when they cross the border, paid by the importer.

Read more:
What are tariffs?

Trump’s new reciprocal tariffs have been calculated by taking the US trade deficit with each country, dividing it by total US imports from that country, then halving the resulting ratio and converting it into a percentage.

For example, in 2024, the US imported approximately US$605.8 billion from the European Union, but exported only $370.2 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of $235.6 billion.

Dividing the deficit by total imports from the EU gives a ratio of 39%. The White House interpreted this figure as the EU’s trade “advantage” and subsequently imposed a “discounted” 20% tariff on EU products – roughly half of 39%.

This same calculation led to a 34% tariff on China, 26% on India, 24% on Japan and 25% on South Korea. More export-dependent developing countries, including many in Southeast Asia, face some eye-wateringly high reciprocal tariffs.

Trade experts swiftly criticised the methodology behind the tariffs. James Surowiecki, a financial journalist, labelled it “extraordinary nonsense”.

While the use of economic formulas in the corresponding US Trade Representative document might give it an appearance of being grounded in economic theory, it is detached from the rigours of trade economics.

The formula assumes every trade deficit is a result of other countries’ unfair trade practices, but that is simply not the case. To see why, we need to understand why Trump’s obsession with trade deficits is wrong.

A government isn’t a household

Why does Trump detest trade deficits? He appears to think of the national balance of trade like a business or household’s finances.

Under Trump’s logic, if more money is leaving the “account” than coming in, that’s bad business. A $200 million trade deficit would mean the US is “losing” – with money and jobs being siphoned away.

Trump argues other countries have been taking advantage of America by running up big trade surpluses and “hollowing out” US industry. He has long argued that America’s massive deficits indicate unfair trade deals, foreign protectionism, and even a threat to national security.

Few economists share Trump’s view

The trade gap is not money simply being drained overseas by allegedly rapacious foreigners. Rather, it represents the exchange of value.

American consumer behaviour is a significant driver of the US trade deficit. As a consumption powerhouse, the United States sees its residents and businesses spending vast sums on imported products ranging from iPhones and TVs to clothing and toys.

Many of these are actually produced by US companies but made overseas. Moreover, those US companies licence foreign factories to produce these goods, and the intellectual property revenues earned make up a huge US surplus in services trade.

But services trade does not feature in the formula. This shows the singular obsession with tangible things, or goods trade. Yet in most supply chains it is the services components that yield the most value.

Back on the goods side, when the US economy is robust and people have disposable income, imports naturally increase. Ultimately, while trade deficits indicate economic dynamics, they are not inherently negative nor do they signify economic weakness.

Rather, they often reflect a nation’s economic structure and consumer preference for diverse global products. After all, Australia has run trade deficits for decades, including with the US, and is one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

The real reason for the deficit

The formula used to calculate the reciprocal tariffs is highly misleading. Responsible policy makers would take account of many other factors in their calculations.

Among other variables, the US Trade Representative formula fails to consider strong US consumer demand for imports. It also overlooks the US government’s gigantic fiscal deficit. This requires it to borrow money from overseas, pushing up the value of the US dollar. This strong dollar supports US purchases of imports.

In other words, the US runs large trade deficits not primarily because other nations have high trade barriers but largely because Americans need to fund their debts and want to buy lots of imported goods. The misleading formula places the blame entirely on an ill-conceived notion, and we are all going to pay the price.

Peter Draper receives funding from the European External Action Service and Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, for project-specific work connected to trade policies. He is affiliated with the Australian Services Roundtable (Board Member); the International Chamber of Commerce (Research Foundation Director); European Centre for International Political Economy (non-resident Fellow); German Institute for Development and Sustainability (non-resident Research Fellow); and Friends of Multilateralism Group (member).

Vutha Hing receives funding from Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia. He is affiliated with Trade Policy Advisory Board, Royal Government of Cambodia.

– ref. No, that’s not what a trade deficit means – and that’s not how you calculate other nations’ tariffs – https://theconversation.com/no-thats-not-what-a-trade-deficit-means-and-thats-not-how-you-calculate-other-nations-tariffs-253830

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

Several of Australia’s biggest superannuation funds have suffered a suspected coordinated cyberattack, with scammers stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars of members’ retirement savings.

Superannuation funds including Rest, HostPlus, Insignia, Australian Retirement and AustralianSuper have all reportedly been targeted. However, so far AustralianSuper appears to be the worst affected.

It is Australia’s largest superannuation fund. It has roughly 3.5 million members and manages more than $365 billion in retirement savings. In this cyberattack, a handful of its members have lost about A$500,000 in combined savings.

AustralianSuper is reportedly assisting authorities recover the money. It has not yet confirmed if any remediation will occur.

It’s not yet clear whether the affected accounts had mandatory multi-factor authentication for login or money transfers. But this is a crucial measure to reduce the risk of a similar cyberattack happening in the future.

Strategic timing, stolen passwords

Details of the cyberattack are still sparse. But we do know that it began in the early hours of last weekend. This timing was likely strategic: account holders wouldn’t have noticed anything suspicious as they would have most likely been sleeping.

Cyber criminals are believed to have obtained stolen passwords – either from the dark web or other hacked websites. They then used these passwords to try to access people’s superannuation accounts.

In a statement, AustralianSuper’s Chief Member Officer Rose Kerlin said scammers had accessed up to 600 customer passwords to log into accounts.

So far only four accounts have actually been breached. In those cases, the scammers changed login details and transferred out lump sums of money.

Although members of other superannuation funds do not seem to have lost any money, their personal information may have been compromised.

Different to other attacks

There have been cases in the past of people being scammed out of their retirement savings.

For example, in 2020, Australian man Lee Braz lost all of his retirement savings, worth $180,000, to scammers. The scammers used fraudulent documents to trick his fund, Intrust Super (now owned by HostPlus), into authorising the transfer.

After a four-year legal battle with the fund, Braz retrieved one-third of the money he had lost. However, this amount didn’t cover his legal fees.

But this recent scam seems very different in nature. It didn’t involve scammers using any fraudulent documents or elaborate trickery. Instead, the perpetrators appear to have pulled it off simply by using stolen passwords to access accounts.

Tighter security is crucial

Australian Taxation Office data indicates the average super balance for men is roughly A$180,000, while for women it is roughly A$146,000.

To ensure all of this money is properly protected, financial organisations should implement mandatory multi-factor authentication for user accounts. This would require people to prove who they are with something in addition to a password.

This could include, for example, using a one-time code or an authenticator app on their smartphone. This makes it much harder for criminals who obtain user passwords to take over their accounts.

Other financial organisations, including banks and some superannuation funds, already use multi-factor authentication. But it’s especially important for all superannuation funds to implement it, given many people don’t check their retirement savings for months at a time and are less likely to notice straight away if they’ve been hacked.

In the wake of this cyberattack, the Association of Superannuations Funds of Australia says it is working to improve security across the industry, but it is unclear exactly what this will involve.

Consumers also need to do their part by making sure they do not reuse passwords between websites. This is especially important for passwords used to protect accounts on financial organisations such as their super fund or online banking.

Using a password manager is a great way to make it easy to have unique passwords for each website you visit.

Finally, customers should be on the lookout for potential scams that may target them in the coming days. Scammers have been known to exploit fear and confusion in the wake of data breaches to try to lure victims into giving away personal information or money.

Anyone receiving messages purporting to be from their super fund and who wants to respond to them should call up their super provider directly, using a phone number from their website. Avoid clicking links or phoning numbers listed in messages that purport to be from your super fund.

Anyone receiving messages they suspect are scams can report them to Scamwatch.

Toby Murray receives funding from the Department of Defence and Google. He is Director of the Defence Science Institute, wich receives funding from the Commonwealth and State governments.

– ref. Hackers have hit major super funds. A cyber expert explains how to stop it happening again – https://theconversation.com/hackers-have-hit-major-super-funds-a-cyber-expert-explains-how-to-stop-it-happening-again-253835

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Trembath, Professor of Speech Pathology, Griffith University

If your child is struggling with certain everyday activities – such as playing with other kids, getting dressed or paying attention – you might want to get them assessed to see if they need additional support.

Currently, the way a child is assessed is often fragmented and time-consuming for families. If there’s a concern, you might be talking to your child’s school, have a referral to see a speech pathologist and be on a wait-list to see a psychiatrist.

We’ve developed a framework – in collaboration with 23 other community and professional organisations – to help make this approach more consistent for all Australian children aged 0–12 years.

The framework focuses on a child’s functional strengths (what they can do day-to-day) as well as their challenges and aspirations, to work out what support they might need.

This is useful for all children and it means support can start sooner, whether or not a child has a diagnosis now or might have one in the future.

Working out what support is needed

All children have support needs. But when these needs go beyond what might be expected for their age, or that the people around them can manage, they may need additional help.

Take communication, for example.

Parents use strategies to help their children learn to talk, such as by encouraging them and showing them how to do it.

But for about 3.2% of children, communication difficulties substantially impact their ability to participate in everyday activities. An older child who is struggling to talk will find it harder to play and make friends with other children at childcare.

Understanding each child’s need as well as their day-to-day functioning is the first step to getting appropriate support.

However, there are two main problems with how assessments are currently done.

A fragmented and inconsistent picture

The first problem is inconsistency. Doctors, teachers, childcare workers and allied health practitioners (such as physiotherapists or psychologists) all work hard to understand each child’s strengths and needs. But they tend to do assessments differently.

This is not surprising – they are focusing on different things.

But this means information can be sometimes duplicated or missed, making it harder to join the dots.

For example, let’s say a child with intellectual disability and minimal spoken language is avoiding eating most foods.

A psychologist may look at the child’s behaviour, a speech pathologist at their swallowing, and a doctor at their nutrition. But unless they work together, it may take longer to understand the underlying issue – in this case, that the child has strong sensory sensitivities.

Without a consistent approach, it is difficult to form a holistic picture of a child’s strengths and support needs across settings, let alone come up with a good plan for support.

Focusing on diagnosis, not function

The second problem is assessment often focuses too much on diagnosis and not enough on support.

Yet even children with the same diagnosis can have significantly different needs.

For example, among three autistic children, one may need 24-hour supervision and support to be safe.

The second may face challenges with a specific activity such as communicating at school, and benefit from targeted support from a speech pathologist.

The third child may not need any additional support at this point in time, beyond what is provided for all children.

Support needs also differ based on a range of personal and environmental factors, such as other health conditions, the quality of supports already in place (such as ramps for a wheelchair), or assistive technology (including mobility and communication aids).

What does the new framework recommend?

The framework focuses on what children can actually do and what they need help with, rather than a diagnosis.

It encourages each professional doing an assessment – whether an educator or health professional – to consider the child’s existing context, including what supports they already have, their strengths and challenges. And it should consider their aspirations (what is most important to them and their hopes for the future).

The framework recognises a child’s strengths and needs can change as they grow, and recommends follow-up assessments when there is a change, rather than following a set schedule.

We developed this framework by reviewing the evidence, looking at how assessments work in other countries, consulting widely with the disability community and yarning with Aboriginal parents and health professionals.

It outlines an approach that can be used consistently whenever a child is assessed across health, education, disability and community services.

What needs to happen next?

The framework is already available and is beginning to be used in practice.

But to make the approach consistent, we need to also provide training for professionals who assess children’s strengths and needs, and a tool to gather and share the information consistently across different settings.

We’re currently working on these. They will be ready by the end of the year, along with recommendations to government for supporting their roll-out across health, education, disability and community services.

If you’re a parent, you don’t need to wait for a diagnosis to start seeking support for your child. You can talk to a professional you trust, such as your family doctor or child’s teacher about your concerns.

David Trembath receives funding from the Autism Cooperative Research Centre (Autism CRC), the Commonwealth Government, and the Stan Perron Charitable Foundation. The research featured in this article was commissioned by the Autism Cooperative Research Centre with support from a federal government Department of Social Services Information, Linkages, and Capacity-Building grant.

Rachelle Wicks receives funding from the Autism Cooperative Research Centre, the Commonwealth Government, and the Stan Perron Charitable Foundation. She also receives a small quarterly honorarium as Chair of the Autism Queensland Advisory Committee.

– ref. If a child has extra needs, support can be hard to find. This new approach can help make it easier and quicker – https://theconversation.com/if-a-child-has-extra-needs-support-can-be-hard-to-find-this-new-approach-can-help-make-it-easier-and-quicker-253339

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meltem Weger, Research Fellow, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland

As summer fades into autumn, most Australian states and territories will set their clocks back an hour as daylight saving time ends and standard time resumes.

About one-third of the world also adjust their clocks seasonally, moving forward in spring and back in autumn (remember: spring forward; fall back).

In spring, losing an hour of sleep can leave us feeling tired, groggy and out-of-sync, making it hard to shake off that lingering sleepiness in the following days.

Although getting an extra hour of sleep in autumn might sound great, it’s not entirely positive either, as biannual time shifts – whether you’re gaining or losing an hour – can disrupt our biological clock.

This is why sleep experts and scientists who study the body clock (chronobiologists) often oppose the biannual clock changes. They argue we should eliminate daylight saving time and stick to standard time year-round.

So why do we have daylight saving time in the first place? And why is it contentious?

What’s daylight saving time for?

Daylight saving time was first introduced during World War I as a wartime measure to conserve fuel.

However, modern research shows that daylight saving time does not meaningfully reduce overall energy use. It can even increase it: while Australians use less power for lighting during daylight saving time, we use more for air conditioning during hot weather.

These days, daylight saving is debated mainly for its potential economic and social benefits, such as extended evening daylight for recreation, shopping and traffic safety, as well as for its health implications.

What happens in our body?

Humans have a longstanding, evolutionary-conserved biological or circadian clock.

Our biological clock regulates our sleep and many other bodily functions, including when to eat and when we can achieve optimal physical and cognitive performance.

To keep everything running smoothly, the biological clock depends on natural daylight. Exposure at the right time is particularly important for sleep. Morning sunlight helps wake you up, while evening light signals your body to stay awake, meaning you stay up later and get up later in the morning.

When we adjust the time on our clocks by one hour, we shift our social schedules, such as work or school times and social activities, and the timing of light exposure. When we switch our clocks back to standard time, most people experience sunrise and sunset earlier relative to their biological clock.

Conversely, under daylight saving time, morning light is delayed, so we encounter sunlight later in relation to our internal clock. This “circadian misalignment” can throw our biological clock out of sync, adversely affecting bodily functions.

This is especially problematic for people who already experience a persistent circadian misalignment (social jetlag), such as shift workers and those who prefer to stay up late in the evening and wake up later in the morning (night owls).

How the ‘spring forward’ can affect your health

Most research on biannual clock changes has historically focused on the spring switch, the transition from standard time to daylight saving.

The spring switch can cause sleep deprivation across the week following the time change and is linked with a 5.7% increase in work related injuries.

It’s also associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular and mental health problems, with studies reporting a 4–29% increase in heart attacks and a 6% increase in mental health crises and substance misuse. These are attributed to the acute disruptions in sleep and the body clock.

Daylight saving time is also linked to long-term health consequences, even after several months.

On standard time, mornings are bright and evenings are dark. But with daylight saving time, sunlight comes later, so you might stay up later and still need to wake up at the same time due to social obligations.

When that pattern persists, it can cause longer-term circadian misalignment. This “social jetlag” has been associated with poorer cognitive performance and mental health.

How the ‘fall back’ can affect your health

The autumn transition from daylight saving time back to standard time is often perceived as beneficial because of the extra hour of sleep gained.

However, some research shows the autumn transition from daylight saving time back to standard time can disrupt wellbeing too. It is linked with increased restlessness during the night that compromises sleep.

It has also been linked to a rise in depressive episodes in Denmark, up to ten weeks after the transition to standard time. This may be due to the sudden start of earlier sunsets, which signals the start of a long period of short days.

Where does this leave the debate?

The European Union and United States are on the path to abolishing biannual clock changes.

The EU’s proposal to end biannual clock changes was approved in principle and awaits final agreement by all members states.

The US Senate has passed the Sunshine Protection Act, which now needs additional approval to become law.

From a circadian health perspective, permanent standard time aligns better with our biological clocks than permanent daylight saving time.

But people do not have to sacrifice their lifestyle preferences to live in tune with their biological clocks. Daylight saving time doesn’t provide more sunlight, it only shifts the timing.

So simple lifestyle adaptions, such as flexible work hours, can let people start working earlier in summer months and enjoy longer evenings even without changing the clock twice a year.

Meltem Weger has received funding from the German Academic Scholarship Foundation (PhD fellowship; 2010-2012) and from the European Commission (Marie Curie Curie Postdoctoral fellowships; 2014-2016, 2017-2019).

Benjamin Weger receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council
and the Alzheimer’s Association.

– ref. Daylight saving time ends Sunday. Why do we change our clocks? And how does it affect our bodies? – https://theconversation.com/daylight-saving-time-ends-sunday-why-do-we-change-our-clocks-and-how-does-it-affect-our-bodies-252518