Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eve Warburton, Research Fellow, Department of Political and Social Change, and Director, Indonesia Institute, Australian National University

Last week, the Trump administration signed a deal with Ukraine that gives it privileged access to Ukraine’s natural resources.

Some news outlets described the deal as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “caving” to US President Donald Trump’s demands.

But we see the agreement as the result of clever bargaining on the part of Ukraine’s war-time president.

So, what does the deal mean for Ukraine? And will this be help strengthen America’s mineral supply chains?

Ukraine’s natural resource wealth

Ukraine is home to 5% of the world’s critical mineral wealth, including 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union as vital for defence, construction and high-tech manufacturing.

However, there’s a big difference between resources (what’s in the ground) and reserves (what can be commercially exploited). Ukraine’s proven mineral reserves are limited.

Further, Ukraine has an estimated mineral wealth of around US$14.8 trillion (A$23 trillion), but more than half of this is in territories currently occupied by Russia.

What does the new deal mean for Ukraine?

American support for overseas conflict is usually about securing US economic interests — often in the form of resource exploitation. From the Middle East to Asia, US interventions abroad have enabled access for American firms to other countries’ oil, gas and minerals.

But the first iteration of the Ukraine mineral deal, which Zelensky rejected in February, had been an especially brazen resource grab by Trump’s government. It required Ukraine to cede sovereignty over its land and resources to one country (the US), in order to defend itself from attacks by another (Russia).

These terms were highly exploitative of a country fighting against a years-long military occupation. In addition, they violated Ukraine’s constitution, which puts the ownership of Ukraine’s natural resources in the hands of the Ukrainian people. Were Zelensky to accept this, he would have faced a tremendous backlash from the public.

In comparison, the new deal sounds like a strategic and (potentially) commercial win for Ukraine.

First, this agreement is more just, and it’s aligned with Ukraine’s short- and medium-term interests. Zelenksy describes it as an “equal partnership” that will modernise Ukraine.

Under the terms, Ukraine will set up a United States–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund for foreign investments into the country’s economy, which will be jointly governed by both countries.

Ukraine will contribute 50% of the income from royalties and licenses to develop critical minerals, oil and gas reserves, while the US can make its contributions in-kind, such as through military assistance or technology transfers.

Ukraine maintains ownership over its natural resources and state enterprises. And the licensing agreements will not require substantial changes to the country’s laws, or disrupt its future integration with Europe.

Importantly, there is no mention of retroactive debts for the US military assistance already received by Ukraine. This would have created a dangerous precedent, allowing other nations to seek to claim similar debts from Ukraine.

Finally, the deal also signals the Trump administration’s commitment to “a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine” – albeit, still without any security guarantees.

Profits may be a long time coming

Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration and conservative media in the US are framing the deal as a win.

For too long, Trump argues, Ukraine has enjoyed US taxpayer-funded military assistance, and such assistance now has a price tag. The administration has described the deal to Americans as a profit-making endeavour that can recoup monies spent defending Ukrainian interests.

But in reality, profits are a long way off.

The terms of the agreement clearly state the fund’s investment will be directed at new resource projects. Existing operations and state-owned projects will fall outside the terms of the agreement.

Mining projects typically work within long time frames. The move from exploration to production is a slow, high-risk and enormously expensive process. It can often take over a decade.

Add to this complexity the fact that some experts are sceptical Ukraine even has enormously valuable reserves. And to bring any promising deposits to market will require major investments.

What’s perhaps more important

It’s possible, however, that profits are a secondary calculation for the US. Boxing out China is likely to be as – if not more – important.

Like other Western nations, the US is desperate to diversify its critical mineral supply chains.

China controls not just a large proportion of the world’s known rare earths deposits, it also has a monopoly on the processing of most critical minerals used in green energy and defence technologies.

The US fears China will weaponise its market dominance against strategic rivals. This is why Western governments increasingly make mineral supply chain resilience central to their foreign policy and defence strategies.

Given Beijing’s closeness to Moscow and their deepening cooperation on natural resources, the US-Ukraine deal may prevent Russia — and, by extension, China — from accessing Ukrainian minerals. The terms of the agreement are explicit: “states and persons who have acted adversely towards Ukraine must not benefit from its reconstruction”.

Finally, the performance of “the deal” matters just as much to Trump. Getting Zelensky to sign on the dotted line is progress in itself, plays well to Trump’s base at home, and puts pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to come to the table.

So, the deal is a win for Zelensky because it gives the US a stake in an independent Ukraine. But even if Ukraine’s critical mineral reserves turn out to be less valuable than expected, it may not matter to Trump.

Eve Warburton receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Westpac Scholars Trust.

Olga Boichak is a director of the Foundation of Ukrainian Studies in Australia. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Westpac Scholars Trust.

– ref. Why Zelensky – not Trump – may have ‘won’ the US-Ukraine minerals deal – https://theconversation.com/why-zelensky-not-trump-may-have-won-the-us-ukraine-minerals-deal-255875

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Victoria Stace, Senior Lecturer, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

People coming out of prison in New Zealand face multiple hurdles reintegrating into society – starting with one of the most fundamental elements of modern life: getting a bank account.

Not having a bank account can make it difficult to receive wages or a benefit, and to get a job or rent accommodation.

In our new research we spoke with financial mentors and others working with prisoners on release, along with the Department of Corrections and banks, to better understand the hurdles for ex-prisoners.

We found not having a bank account on release was common and that it hindered reintegration efforts. It also appears to directly increase the chance of an ex-prisoner returning to crime. As a representative from Māori social services organisation Te Pā explained,

It is really important to get them a bank account if we want them to stay on the right side of the law. It is a key part of being part of society. [They] need to be part of mainstream financial services. If not, then [they are] much more likely to go back into crime.

The relationship between not having access to banking and getting back into crime was also noted in a 2016 report from the Salvation Army. And a financial mentor told us the current situation was “making it hard for people to not re-offend”.

A fundamental need

Our research is spread over two reports commissioned by financial services organisation FinCap and includes 40 interviews with people in the banking industry, financial mentoring organisations, community groups and the Department of Corrections.

The first report outlining our data was released in 2023, and the second in April 2025. The latter outlined the steps Corrections and the banking sector need to take to remove the hurdles faced by ex-prisoners trying to access a bank account.

Approximately 10,000 individuals were held in a New Zealand prison in 2024 at any one time, and around half of these were sentenced prisoners with the rest on remand. New Zealand’s reimprisonment rate is high, with about 30% of first-time prisoners likely to return to prison.

The Reserve Bank has argued that broad financial inclusion is important for society as it helps promote prosperity and contributes to a productive economy. Part of this involves ensuring everyone has access to a bank account.

Hurdles to access

There seem to be several things hindering ex-prisoners’ access to banking, with New Zealand’s anti-money laundering rules a major problem.

The law requires banks to complete certain checks before a person is allowed to open an account. Currently, banks require two forms of ID and a verifiable address.

People just out of prison often don’t have these. We found other hurdles include limited access to the internet, banks being unwilling to take on this group of customers, and ex-prisoners’ lack of confidence to engage with banks.

But there are ways we can make access to bank accounts easier for ex-prisoners.

Putting the onus on Corrections to proactively assist people due for release to get whatever documents the banks require, and to apply for the account to be set up before release, would be a good start. But it will likely require additional resourcing for the department.

A recent discussion paper from the Council of Financial Regulators has suggested the introduction of transactional accounts – a new type of bank account requiring less in the way of formal ID.

Basic transactional accounts could help ex-prisoners by making it easier to meet bank requirements. These would be a basic account that could receive wages and benefits and enable payments, but not provide credit.

It could also have limits on the amounts held in the account, which would minimise money laundering risks.

The major banks also have a key role to play in making change happen. Only one major bank – Westpac – has been willing to offer bank accounts to ex-prisoners so far, with a special programme that allows people in prison (both those still not due for release and those on their way out) to open an account. This has been very helpful for those who have had access to it.

During our research, Corrections emphasised the importance of major banks acting as default providers of banking services to prisoners and ex-prisoners (similar to default providers of KiwiSaver).

This approach would aim to ensure prisoners had the freedom to choose their banking provider. Encouraging participation in such a programme was seen as an opportunity for banks to demonstrate corporate social responsibility.

Victoria Stace 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. Locked up then locked out: how NZ’s bank rules make life for ex-prisoners even harder – https://theconversation.com/locked-up-then-locked-out-how-nzs-bank-rules-make-life-for-ex-prisoners-even-harder-255110

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jay Deagon, Senior Lecturer of Home Economics, CQUniversity Australia

One moment, your spaghetti is happily bubbling away in the pot. A minute later, after busying yourself with something else, you turn around to find a hot mess all over your stove.

Boiling liquid can rocket up very quickly, and we often only have a split second to act. But are there ways to prevent the pot boiling over in the first place? One kitchen hack you may have seen on social media is to place a wooden spoon across the top of the pot.

Does it work? As with many kitchen science questions, there is an answer – and there’s lots of nuance, too.

In short, it will work, but not for long periods of time. Let’s dig into the why.

What causes the bubbles?

Interestingly, a pot of rapidly boiling pure water will not rise up the sides of the pot.

Ingredients added to the water are the culprits for overflow and spillage. Pots of pasta, rice, porridge or milk are the most prone to boiling over and making a mess. A heavy stew is less likely to bubble over – unless you overfill the pot.

In cookery, the key food molecules are water, carbohydrates, proteins, lipids (the collective term for fats and oils) and, to a lesser extent, vitamins and minerals.

The main culprits for rapid boiling and overflow are carbohydrates and proteins. When carbohydrates or proteins (or a combination of both) come into contact with heated water molecules, their properties change and structures rearrange.

Changes can happen quickly if the heat is high. Excited by lots of heat, the water molecules begin to boil rapidly. As this occurs, bubbles form.

Why do the bubbles rise so quickly?

The carbohydrates involved in bubbling up and messing up your kitchen are primarily plant starches. Pasta or porridge products are derived from plant starches such as wheat, rice, potato or corn. If you’re boiling anything with milk, a protein called casein can contribute to the bubbles, too.

Casein and starches are known as colloids. “Colloidal dispersion” means that not all such particles will dissolve into a water solution, because some of these particles are too large. As bubbles form, the larger starch and/or protein particles start to coat the bubbles.

For pasta water or porridge, the heat and starch solution starts to form a gel. This gel becomes sticky and, depending on the type of starch and other additives, the temperature of the boiling solution can rise above 100°C.

So, they’re not just bubbles – they’re hot, sticky bubbles. Filled with air and coated with a sticky starch gel, as the solution continues to boil, the bubbles build on top of each other and rise up the sides of the pot.

It’s a little different with milk. Have you ever noticed a film across the top of boiled milk? Milk skin is formed by heated casein. When heated, the casein can become quite strong – like plastic – and coat each bubble. Milk bubbles are smaller and become more of a foam, but they can still rise quickly.

So, how does a wooden spoon stop the bubbles?

Placing a wooden spoon over a boiling pot acts as an interruption to the bubbles – it lowers the surface temperature and provides a porous surface to burst the bubbles. This stops them from climbing over the edge of the pot.

To understand why, picture another porous surface: the structure of a sponge. Because the sponge has a lot of holes in it, you can blow air through a dry sponge. However, air does not pass through a wet sponge because the holes are filled with water.

Wood is a porous material, and a dry wooden spoon is more porous than when it’s wet. On contact with the wood, the air in the bubbles is released.

But you can’t just leave a wooden spoon over the pot indefinitely and expect it to not boil over. As the spoon is exposed to heat, moisture, sticky starch or casein bubbles, it will soon become the same temperature as the liquid. That means it won’t reduce the surface temperature any more, nor be porous enough to burst bubbles.

This is why some people claim the spoon hack doesn’t work – because it has a limited window of effectiveness.

What should I do instead?

Stirring the pot or using the wooden spoon as a fan would work equally as well.

Better yet, try not to get distracted in the kitchen and select the correct kitchen tools for the job: use a bigger pot, and turn down the heat so it’s not just going full blast.

We like to treat working in the kitchen like a meditation. Remain present and in the moment. If you do get distracted, turn the stove to its lowest setting, switch it off or remove the pot from the heat. The phrase “a watched pot never boils” doesn’t count in this situation. Indeed, a watchful eye on the pot is essential.

Jay Deagon is affiliated with the International Federation for Home Economics and the Home Economics Institute of Australia.

Gemma Mann 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. Can a wooden spoon really stop a pot from boiling over? Here’s the science – https://theconversation.com/can-a-wooden-spoon-really-stop-a-pot-from-boiling-over-heres-the-science-252519

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia

It’s almost impossible to go a day without seeing or hearing about sport.

Walk around any city or town and you will almost always catch a glimpse of people playing sports in teams or participating solo.

Turn on the TV or radio and you’ll be able to find some kind of sport being played at international or national level.

Why do people love sport so much?

To answer this question, it’s worth a dive back into ancient history.

An ancient person’s perspective

One of the most famous figures from the ancient world, Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), once wrote that when he was a boy he was obsessed with playing sports:

I liked to play ball as a boy and my playing slowed my progress in learning to read and write.

In fact, Saint Augustine was so preoccupied with playing ball that his teacher was said to sometimes beat him for it. His teacher said it was bad to waste one’s youth on such things – it’s better to study hard.

Why was Saint Augustine obsessed with ball games? He loved to win:

I loved to play games […] in these games I was overmastered by my vain desire to excel, so I used to strive to win, even by cheating.

Plenty of people today probably share Saint Augustine’s view that winning is one of the things that make sport enjoyable.

Of course, there are many other reasons why people might like to play sport.

What sports did they play?

If you walked down a city street in ancient Greek and Roman times, it’s likely you’d come across children or even adults playing a ball game.

The Roman playwright Plautus (3rd/2nd century BC) even has one of his characters complain about people “who play ball in the street”.

Ball games were probably the most popular sporting activity in the ancient world and could be played in many different ways.

In one ball game, called episkyros, two teams competed against each other. If one team got the ball over the line behind the other team, they scored. Feet and hands could be used and tackles were permitted.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Of course, many other sports were also popular: athletics, swimming, wrestling, lifting weights and boxing were all favourites.

Ancient ideas about the origins of sports

For the ancient Greeks, the earliest mention of a ball game appears in the Odyssey, an epic poem composed by the poet Homer in probably the eighth or seventh century BC.

In the Odyssey, Nausicaa, daughter of the King of the Phaeacians, plays a ball game with some other girls on the beach. While they throw the ball, they sing songs:

Then when they had had their joy of food, she and her handmaids, they threw off their headgear and fell to playing at ball, and white-armed Nausicaa was leader in the song.

During the game, Nausicaa throws the ball too far. Her maid can’t catch it and the ball flies into the sea. All the girls shout out when it goes flying.

Already in the 3rd century BC, Nausicaa was sometimes regarded as the inventor of ball games. However, other people attributed the invention of ball games to different regions of Greece, saying the games were invented by the Sicyonians or Spartans.

But it is unlikely any Greeks were the original inventors of ball games.

In Egypt, thousands of years before Homer’s epics, there are already artistic depictions of ball games.

For example, in the tomb of the Nomarch of the 11th Dynasty (c. 2150-2000 BC), Baqet III, there is artwork showing women playing ball games and men wrestling each other.

Baqet III, whose tomb contained these artistic depictions of various sports, was likely a true sports lover.

Why did people like sports?

People liked ball games for many different reasons.

One was for the sheer fun and excitement. Another was because they were considered a healthy type of exercise.

Ancient Greek and Roman doctors even told their patients to play ball games to become healthier.

For example, the famous ancient Greek physician Galen (129-216 AD) wrote an essay titled On Exercise with a Small Ball.

He argued “exercises with a small ball are superior to other kinds of exercises”.

He claimed ball games were especially healthy because they moved all of the muscles and because teamwork was good for the soul.

People in the ancient world also thought just watching sport could be something worth doing.

The writer Lucian of Samosata (born 120 AD), for instance, said watching athletes competing for glory could help to encourage men to achieve similar feats: “many of the spectators go away in love with manfulness and hard work”, wrote Lucian.

So it seems there’s nothing new about our modern love of playing and watching sports, and this obsession will probably continue for thousands of years into the future.

Konstantine Panegyres 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. How did sport become so popular? The ancient history of a modern obsession – https://theconversation.com/how-did-sport-become-so-popular-the-ancient-history-of-a-modern-obsession-254057

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christina Abdel Shaheed, Associate Professor, School of Public Health, University of Sydney

Osteoarthritis is the most common joint disease, affecting more than 3 million Australians and over 500 million people worldwide.

The knee is the most commonly affected joint, but osteoarthritis can also affect other joints including the hips and hands. The condition causes painful and stiff joints.

For someone with knee osteoarthritis, simple activities that many people take for granted such as walking, going up and down stairs or squatting can be very challenging.

There’s currently no cure for osteoarthritis. Most available treatments, such as exercise, walking aids and medicines (including paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), focus on managing symptoms. But it’s important to consider how we can prevent knee osteoarthritis in the first place.

With this in mind, we undertook a systematic review to summarise the risk factors for developing knee osteoarthritis. Our findings, published today in the journal Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, can help us better understand how to lower the risk of this condition.

What we found

We gathered data from studies which followed people over time, to see which risk factors were associated with developing knee osteoarthritis. We included a total of 131 studies, involving more than 5 million people.

We identified more than 150 factors that influenced the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis.

Some key factors which increased the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis included being overweight or obese, past knee injury and occupational physical activity such as lifting heavy objects and shift work.

We also found several other possible risk factors, including:

• eating large amounts of ultra-processed foods (which include “junk foods”, sugary drinks and processed meats)

• poor sleep quality (for example, sleeping less than six hours a day or having 1–2 restless nights per week)

• feeling depressed.

Being overweight or obese and past knee injury together accounted for 14% of the overall risk of developing knee osteoarthritis.

In other words, if we were able to completely remove these two risk factors, we could potentially reduce the incidence of knee osteoarthritis in the population by 14%.

Females had almost double the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis, and older age was slightly related to developing knee osteoarthritis.

Protective factors

On the other hand, we found some factors may lower the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis. These included following a Mediterranean diet (which includes plenty of vegetables, olive oil, nuts, fruit and healthy fats found in fish), and following a diet higher in fibre.

Avoiding the things which increase the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis such as a diet high in ultra-processed foods, knee injury, weight gain and heavy lifting can also help a person reduce their risk of developing the condition.

Exercise is an effective treatment for knee osteoarthritis. It can reduce pain and improve function.

There was not enough information in our study to determine what types of physical activity (for example, walking, running, swimming) and how much time spent doing these activities could lower the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis, so this is an important area for future research.

How can we explain these links?

The studies we included did not generally explore the possible mechanisms linking key risk factors with the development of knee osteoarthritis.

However other research may provide some helpful insights. Knee injury can lead to instability of the knee joint and additional wear on the knee which can lead to knee osteoarthritis. Similarly, occupational physical activity such as kneeling, squatting, climbing or heavy lifting can increase the risk of wear and tear on the knee.

Poor sleep has been linked to weight gain and depression.

The duration and quality of sleep has been found to affect how much we eat and the hormones responsible for regulating metabolism. Depression has been linked to reduced physical activity which can lead to weight gain. Carrying extra weight can increase the load on the knee and contribute to knee osteoarthritis.

Shift work can lead to bad food choices and lack of sleep, which in turn can increase the risk of knee osteoarthritis.

So it seems that while the risk factors we found may be contributing individually to the development of knee osteoarthritis, they may also be interacting together to increase the risk.

It’s not clear why women are at greater risk of developing knee osteoarthritis. However this is likely to be due to a combination of factors, including lifestyle, biological and hormonal factors.

A Mediterranean diet is high in polyphenols, which can reduce inflammation in the body and destruction of cartilage. It may lower the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis in this way.

Most risk factors are modifiable

There were some limitations with the available evidence. Most studies were based on populations from the United States, or did not report on ethnicity. We know little about the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis in certain groups such as people from Hispanic, African and Southeast Asian backgrounds. We need more studies exploring risk factors in other countries and populations.

Nonetheless, a review like this allows us to better understand what can be done to lower the risk of developing knee osteoarthritis.

We found most risk factors associated with developing knee osteoarthritis are modifiable, which means they can be changed or better managed with healthy diet and lifestyle choices. Eating healthy, maintaining a healthy weight and taking proactive steps to prevent injuries in the workplace and sporting communities can potentially lower a person’s risk of developing the condition.

Public health strategies aimed at encouraging healthy eating and weight loss (for example, subsidised nutrition programs and education programs starting from a young age to promote optimal diet and physical activity) could reduce the burden of knee osteoarthritis and have broader health benefits as well.

Programs like these, as well as reducing heavy lifting in the workplace where possible, should be the focus of government strategies to address the burden of this painful condition globally.

Christina Abdel Shaheed holds grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund.

David Hunter receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund.

Lyn March is on the executive committee of the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health (a pro-bono role). This alliance advocates to the World Health Organization for a global strategy for addressing musculoskeletal health that includes promoting osteoarthritis prevention.

Vicky Duong receives funding from Lenity Australia and the Medical Research Future Fund.

– ref. What are the key risk factors for developing knee osteoarthritis? We reviewed the evidence – https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-key-risk-factors-for-developing-knee-osteoarthritis-we-reviewed-the-evidence-253722

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Cull, Associate Professor of Accounting and Financial Planning, Western Sydney University

With a convincing win for a second term of government, the pressure is now on the new Labor government to deliver the economic policies central to its win.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is wary of breaking promises and now has the opportunity to back this up. So, what are the key economic policies affecting everyday Australians that Labor is now set to deliver?

In his victory speech, Albanese said Labor would govern for every Australian “who deserves the security of a roof over their head or dreams of owning their own home”.

First home buyers

Labor has budgeted A$10 billion to help more Australians buy their first home. This involves providing an extra 100,000 new homes. The government plans to work with the states from July to identify where they should be located.

Building these homes is expected to take eight years – so the scheme will not be completed during the government’s second term. It will need to work quickly to ensure many of these homes are built while Labor is still in office.

Helping this is Labor’s policy to increase subsidies to housing apprentices and free TAFE education.

Also assisting first home buyers is the expansion of the 5% deposit Home Guarantee Scheme. This will allow more first home buyers to buy a home with only a 5% deposit without paying Lenders Mortgage Insurance.

The expansion will remove income thresholds and increase eligible property price caps to better reflect the market. Further, more people will be able to apply for the scheme.

In addition, the government is expanding its Help to Buy Scheme by increasing income and property price caps. This enables those on lower incomes to buy a home with a deposit as small as 2%. The government will pay for up to 40% of the cost on their behalf which will ultimately be paid back over time or when the house is sold.

Both the Help to Buy Scheme and Home Guarantee Scheme are extensions of Labor’s existing policies, so the government should be able to deliver this relatively quickly.

Increasing supply for all

Labor’s housing policies are not limited to first home buyers. To further increase housing supply, Labor plans to invest $54 million to speed up the construction of prefabricated and modular homes covered by a new national certification system.

In addition, a $1.5 billion infrastructure program to speed up the building of roads, sewage and water connections should also help increase supply.

Labor is on track to build 55,000 social and affordable homes through the Housing Australia Future Fund and the Social Housing Accelerator. Labor is also offering Build to Rent tax incentives to increase affordable housing rental supply by up to 80,000 new rental properties.

The government has also promised to work with states and territories to strengthen renters’ rights.

Crisis housing

Labor has also made promises for those needing crisis housing.

For women and children fleeing family and domestic violence and for people experiencing homelessness, there is a $1 billion program to provide more crisis and transitional accommodation. There is also $6.2 million of grants for homelessness support.

Workers’ pay rise

Labor has advocated to the Fair Work Commission for a wage increase above inflation for workers in low-paid jobs, such as cleaners, retail workers and early childhood educators.

With inflation currently at 2.4%, we can expect the minimum wage to rise to at least $24.68 an hour. The Fair Work Commission’s next Annual Wage Review should take place before the end of the financial year, with any changes likely to be effective from July.

These wage increases are in addition to the substantial pay increase for aged care nurses as part of the Fair Work Commission’s Aged Care Work Value Case decision.

Tax cuts

The much-discussed tax cuts, costing $17 billion, will reduce the 16% tax rate to 15% (for income between $18,201 and $45,000) in the 2026–27 financial year, and to 14% in 2027–28 – just in time for the next election.

This will save taxpayers $268 and $536, respectively. These tax cuts will be welcomed by many and are likely to increase the labour participation rate. However, more tax reform may be needed to address bracket creep and improve equity in the tax system.

In addition, Labor has promised an automatic instant tax deduction for work-related expenses for labour income taxpayers.

This will take effect from the 2026–27 financial year to reduce the burden of record-keeping on taxpayers. It was also promoted as a way of “helping Australians keep more of what they earn”.

Medicare levy

While low wages are expected to increase and taxes to decrease, Labor also has plans to increase the low-income thresholds for the Medicare levy by 4.7% for singles, families, and seniors and pensioners from July 1 2024.

This should bring immediate relief to those on lower incomes who will be exempt from paying the Medicare levy or pay a reduced levy when lodging their returns for the 2024–25 financial year.

So, what’s next?

Many of these policy announcements are a step in the right direction – the question lies around their ability to be implemented.

Albanese admitted in his victory speech that he is an optimist and his aim is to ensure nobody is left behind.

Once the election hype settles, Labor will need to prove it is delivering on its promises. And, of course, these policies will ultimately have to be paid for. How Labor approaches this in the longer term will become a talking point for the next election.

Michelle Cull is a member of CPA Australia, the Financial Advice Association Australia and President Elect of the Academy of Financial Services in the United States. Michelle is an academic member of UniSuper’s Consultative Committee. Michelle Cull co-founded the Western Sydney University Tax Clinic which has received funding from the Australian Taxation Office as part of the National Tax Clinic Program. Michelle has previously volunteered as Chair of the Macarthur Advisory Council for the Salvation Army Australia.

– ref. We’ve heard the promises. Now it’s up to Labor to deliver its housing, wages and other economic policies – https://theconversation.com/weve-heard-the-promises-now-its-up-to-labor-to-deliver-its-housing-wages-and-other-economic-policies-255865

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dougal Sutherland, Clinical Psychologist, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

A new report from New Zealand’s Classification Office has revealed how young people are being exposed to harmful content online and what it is doing to their mental health.

The Classification Office spoke with ten different groups of young people aged between 12 and 25 from a diverse range of backgrounds.

They found that encountering extremely harmful – and sometime illegal – content is part of the online experience for young people. And they are often trying to deal with this without adequate support or guidance.

Unintentional consumption

The types of content young people talked about most involved graphic depictions of real-world violence – including executions, mass shootings, suicide and extreme cruelty towards animals.

Seeing extremely harmful content was mostly – but not always – described as unintentional or unwanted. Participants described encountering this content in much the same way they engaged with other types of content.

Participants talked about coming across this content in their social media feeds, in chat groups, or having content shared directly by others either online or in person. One male high school student said:

You can just be in like a server that’s for, like, a game that you like, or a YouTuber or something, and someone can just send something that’s crazy.

Another male high school student commented:

Yeah, I got sent something of people shooting themselves.

Even if young people did not actively look for this content, some engaged with it when it was shared or showed up unexpectedly in their social media feeds. Curiosity – or a desire to test their boundaries – lead to some young people looking at content even if they were aware this could be harmful or disturbing.

One male from a community group said:

I’ve seen gore […] Just out of curiosity, me and my friend […] well, someone actually posted it on their WhatsApp status. We asked the guy, “Where did you get this video from?” He said it was from a website, so we went there […] but there was some bad stuff. So […] we decided not to watch it again.

Content depicting real-world graphic violence, injury or death was mentioned in every group the Classifications Office spoke to. Participants also talked about young people sharing sexual images or videos of themselves or others online.

Lingering impacts

Participants described a range of impacts young people may experience when exposed to extremely harmful content, or harmful content more broadly. This includes emotional or psychological impacts, ranging from short-term shock or disgust to a longer-term impact on their mental health and wellbeing.

Young people also discussed the harmful impacts of content on individuals’ attitudes, beliefs, or behaviours. They used words such as “horrified”, “petrified” “traumatised” or “embarrassed”.

Others talked about not being able to “unsee” content.

In a written response, one high school student said:

harm can be something that gets on your mind and doesn’t leave it and keeps coming back again and again at times that you don’t want that thought to come into your head.

Seeking guidance

For many parents, the immediate reaction to finding their teen has watched harmful content might be to take away a young person’s device or attempt to ban them from access to the internet.

But young people involved in this research stressed the importance of being able to talk without fear of criticism or punishment. They felt that judgement or punitive actions – such as taking away devices – tend to hurt rather than help.

Some reported that strong emotional reactions or assumptions can complicate the situation and lead them to avoid reaching out altogether.

A former female Youth Advisory Panel member said:

it’s recognising how unhelpful it is ‘cause it’s just like, “Well, if you weren’t on that damned phone, then you wouldn’t have seen this stuff.” So I imagine if someone was to find objectional content then they wouldn’t feel like they could go to their parents, and then what do you do then? So I guess trying to build that understanding and bridge for communication.

Participants consistently emphasised the need for supportive and understanding responses when seeking help with difficult content or online experiences. They wanted adults to remain calm and allow them to fully share their experiences before reacting.

What they are seeking is practical guidance that acknowledges their efforts and agency in managing challenging situations.

One female high school student said:

[If my parents are] worried about something that’s happened, we’ll sort it out first, and then we’ll talk about their worries afterwards. And so like, if there’s something gone wrong, I will talk to them first because I know that they’ll have my back and they’ll sort it out for me. And then, if there are some worries, we’ll talk about it after things are sorted out.

There are several things parents can do to help young people cope with what they have seen online.

Reassuring young people that it’s not their fault can reduce any feelings of guilt or shame. Helping them to process what they’ve seen by acknowledging the upsetting nature of it and allowing space to discuss it can help process any intense emotions that may arise.

Finally, parents need to be encouraging young people to think critically about how viewing this material might affect them in the long term and any steps they can take to reduce their exposure to it. This will help young people build their own long-term solutions and competence in managing their online experiences.

Dr Dougal Sutherland is principal psychologist at Umbrella Wellbeing.

– ref. ‘I got sent something of people shooting themselves’ – research shows young people can’t avoid harmful content online – https://theconversation.com/i-got-sent-something-of-people-shooting-themselves-research-shows-young-people-cant-avoid-harmful-content-online-255773

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

With 78% of enrolled voters counted, the ABC is calling 85 of the 150 House of Representatives seats for Labor, 39 for the Coalition, zero for the Greens and 10 for all Others, with 16 still undecided. The Poll Bludger has Labor ahead in 94 seats, the Coalition in 41, the Greens in one and all Others in 14.

Undecided seats can be sorted into several categories. In some seats, the Australian Electoral Commission selected the incorrect final two candidates, and is slowly redoing this count with the correct two candidates. From the small number of votes that have been realigned, the ABC has estimates of what the two candidate vote will be when all current votes in that seat are realigned.

This category applies to Greens leader Adam Bandt’s Melbourne, and he’s currently estimated to be trailing Labor’s Sarah Witty by an estimated 2,896 votes. The ABC says the sample of votes counted so far may be skewed against Bandt.

Other seats in this category are Labor-held Fremantle, where a teal is estimated to be ahead by just 196 votes, Labor-held Bendigo (Nationals lead Labor by an estimated 1,285 votes) and Labor-held Bean (an independent leads Labor by an estimated 206 votes).

This election was a disaster for the Coalition, yet they are likely to gain Bendigo, which Labor won by 61.2–38.8 at the 2022 election.

Bradfield, Goldstein and Kooyong are teal independent vs Liberal contests. The Liberals have surged on postals in all three, and Liberal Tim Wilson will regain Goldstein if the remaining postals behave like current postals. The teals look better in Bradfield and Kooyong.

Bullwinkel, Menzies and Longman are standard two-party contests. Labor should win Menzies, and is more likely than not to win the other two, once left-leaning absent votes start being counted.

Calwell is currently undecided because both major parties’ primary votes slumped. It’s possible that an independent could win from third or fourth by getting ahead of the Liberals then using their preferences to beat Labor.

In Monash and Flinders, the Liberals are beating Labor, but a teal independent is close behind Labor and may move ahead of Labor after preferences from the Greens and other minor candidates. The Liberals will probably defeat the teal if these are the final two.

Ryan and Wills are Labor vs Greens contests. In Ryan, the contest is to finish second, then beat the Liberal National Party on the other left party’s preferences. The Greens are just ahead of Labor in Ryan at the moment. Wills is a standard two-candidate contest that Labor is currently winning comfortably.

We won’t have a national two-party result for some time

Current national primary votes are 34.8% Labor (up 2.2% since 2022), 32.1% Coalition (down 3.6%), 11.8% Greens (down 0.4%), 6.2% One Nation (up 1.3%), 1.9% Trumpet of Patriots (down 2.3% on United Australia Pary’s 2022 vote), 7.6% independents (up 2.3%) and 5.6% others (up 0.5%).

The Coalition does best and the Greens do worst on early postals, which have been added since election night. Absent votes need to be posted back to their home electorate before they can be counted. On these votes, the Greens do best and the Coalition does the worst.

As the major parties’ primary votes are low, there are many seats where Labor and Coalition candidates will not be the final two. There are currently 28 “non-classic” seats, where one of the major parties did not make the final two.

The electoral commission’s first priority is to determine which candidate has won every seat. Once this is finished, they will conduct a second count in all non-classic seats between the Labor and Coalition candidates. When all such counts are completed, we will have a final official two-party result, but this won’t happen for at least a few weeks.

The ABC’s current estimate for the two-party vote is a Labor win by 55.0–45.0, while The Poll Bludger estimates a Labor win by 54.1–45.9. The electoral commission’s current figure of 54.7–45.3 to Labor excludes all non-classic seats.

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. Late counting continues in several seats, with Goldstein and Melbourne among those too close to call – https://theconversation.com/late-counting-continues-in-several-seats-with-goldstein-and-melbourne-among-those-too-close-to-call-255868

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

It took an election win, but Anthony Albanese on Monday finally received that much-awaited phone call from US President Donald Trump.

The conversation was “warm and positive,” the prime minister told a news conference, thanking the president for “reaching out”.

“I won’t go into all of the personal comments that he made, but he was very generous in his personal warmth and praise towards myself. He was fully aware of the [election] outcome and he expressed the desire to continue to work with me in the future.”

While they talked about tariffs (as well as AUKUS), the detailed engagement on that sensitive matter was left for later.

Trump, as they say, loves a winner.

When asked earlier in Washington about the Australian election, Trump said he was “very friendly” with Albanese.

“I don’t know anything about the election other than the man that won, he’s very good, he’s a friend of mine,” the president said. Albanese had been “very, very nice to me, very respectful to me.

“I have no idea who the other person is that ran against him.” There’s more than a touch of irony in this, given all the effort by the government and his other opponents to paint Peter Dutton as “Trump-lite”.

The prime minister is likely to meet Trump soon, perhaps in June. Albanese has been invited to the G7 meeting in Canada. Trump may or may not be there but a meeting could be arranged around this.

On the tariff front, the government is readying to defend the local film industry, after Trump announced a 100% tariff on all movies going into the United States.

Arts Minister Tony Burke said: “Nobody should be under any doubt that we will be standing up unequivocally for the rights of the Australian screen industry.”

Indonesia to be Albanese’s first foreign visit of new term

Albanese announced his first overseas visit would be to Indonesia. This will be a particularly important visit, given the significance of the bilateral relationship and the recent Russian request (which Indonesia rejected) to base planes in Papua.

Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto congratulated Albanese on his win in a call on Sunday.

In the call, Albanese asked the president to host his first overseas visit, and the president said it would be “a great honour” to do so.

Meanwhile, in the next few days Labor’s factions will be jostling over the spoils of victory. The factions work out broadly the membership of the frontbench, but Albanese, given he has massive authority with the huge win, will be able to impose his will in this process where he wants to do so. The prime minister allocates the portfolios.

Although there will be changes, Labor sources are expecting substantial continuity between the old and new ministries, especially at the higher level.

Albanese has previously confirmed top cabinet members, notably Treasurer Jim Chalmers, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Defence Minister Marles, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher and Trade Minister Don Farrell, will remain in their present ministries.

Most interest is in whether Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek is moved. Albanese would not say, when asked during the campaign, whether she would remain in environment although he confirmed she would stay in cabinet. Albanese and Plibersek have had a poor relationship over decades. She had expected to become education minister after the last election and was shocked to be given the environment portfolio/

Albanese told his news conference “I want Labor to be the natural party of government”.

Knife out for Angus Taylor

What goes around comes around. Outgoing NSW Liberal senator Hollie Hughes, who blamed shadow treasurer
Angus Taylor for her loss of preselection because he endorsed the candidate who beat her, has unleashed on Taylor’s leadership aspirations.

Hughes told the ABC on Monday she would not support Taylor to be the next leader.

She said the opposition’s economic narrative “was just completely non-existent. I’m not quite sure what [Taylor has] been doing for three years.

“There was no tax plan, I think the economic team has significantly let down the parliamentary team, it’s let down our membership, it’s let down our supporters and it’s let down people in Australia broadly – the fact they had nothing to sell, nothing to say, and clearly had not done the work that was required.”

She said deputy leader Sussan Ley had done “a fantastic job over the past three years and I’m hopeful that she will definitely still be part of our leadership.”

Four names are in the mix for the successor to Peter Dutton, who lost his seat of Dickson in Saturday’s rout. They are Taylor, Ley, immigration spokesman Dan Tehan and defence spokesman Andrew Hastie. None has yet declared their candidature.

Hastie told The West Australian at the weekend, “I certainly want to be able to drive change within the party itself and what that looks like will be up to my colleagues to determine”.

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. View from The Hill: a budding Trump-Albanese bromance? – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-a-budding-trump-albanese-bromance-255619

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and Clinical Academic Gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University

Coeliac disease is not a food allergy or intolerance. It’s an autoimmune disease that makes the body attack the small intestine if gluten (a protein found in wheat, rye and barley) reaches the gut. Even a small amount – a tiny bread crumb – can cause damage and inflammation.

The only treatment is a gluten-free diet. This means completely eliminating foods containing the protein, such as pasta, bread, noodles and many processed products, and preparing food carefully to avoid cross-contamination.

But what about other forms of cross-contamination? One study surveyed 538 adults with coeliac disease about their dating habits and found 39% were hesitant to kiss their partners because of the disease.

But can gluten really be transferred this way, with a kiss? Research is only just beginning to look at this question – here’s what we know.

How harmful is gluten for people with coeliac disease?

Coeliac disease is common: surveys representative of the population estimate it affects one in 70 Australians. However, it tends to be under-diagnosed. Research suggests only 20% of those with coeliac disease have a medical diagnosis.

This means most sufferers are unaware they have coeliac disease, despite experiencing unpleasant symptoms.

When untreated, coeliac disease can stop the small intestine absorbing nutrients and lead to gut symptoms such as diarrhoea, abdominal pain, bloating and flatulence. It can also result in non-gut symptoms such as fatigue, skin rashes and brain fog.

However, touching gluten won’t have any effect. Gluten only causes damage to people with coeliac disease if it enters the gut. This is why it can be effectively treated with a strict gluten-free diet.

How much gluten is harmful?

Researchers have investigated how much gluten can result in harm to people with coeliac disease. One study found some people with coeliac disease experienced damage to their small intestine with as little as 10 milligrams of gluten per day.

For context, one slice of bread contains 2.5 grams of gluten. A very small amount can cause damage if eaten, such a tiny crumb accidentally transferred from a chopping board or plate.

Australian researchers have determined that a dose of gluten below 3mg does not cause an immune response on very sensitive blood tests.

Food regulatory authorities look at how much gluten is concentrated in particular foods to decide what is “gluten free”. In most countries a diet containing gluten at less than 20 parts per million (or 20mg per kilogram) is considered to be safe for people with coeliac disease.

But Australia and New Zealand have much stricter requirements for labelling a food as “gluten free”. Testing methods in Australia allow for detection as low as three parts per million – this is known as the “limit of detection”. Foods below this limit contain no detectable gluten and can be labelled gluten free.

So, what about kissing?

What does this mean for kissing? Can enough gluten be transmitted from one person to another via saliva to cause problems? To date, there is very limited data.

New US research presented today looked at ten couples, each with one partner who had coeliac disease.

In the study, the non-coeliac partner ate ten crackers containing gluten before the couple kissed for ten seconds.

The researchers found gluten transfer was minimal in the saliva. When the non-coeliac partner had a glass of water after eating the crackers, the gluten in their saliva was less than 20 parts per million (the international limit for gluten-free products).

While this data has not yet been peer-reviewed, their preliminary finding seems to support similar research from 2022 which looked at peanut allergy and saliva to estimate gluten levels in saliva.

It estimated that saliva after eating gluten could contain around 250 micrograms of gluten – one-twelfth of the minimum amount (3mg) believed to cause an immune response.

This means, for people with coeliac disease, kissing should not be an issue to worry about.

Other risks

The bigger risk for people with coeliac disease continues to be exposure to gluten from food – even food labelled “gluten free”.

One study found seven out of 256 manufactured food products sold as gluten free had detectable levels of gluten, in some cases as much as 3mg in a single serving.

In 2018 another study found almost 10% of food sold as gluten free at cafes and restaurants across Melbourne actually contained gluten. One food sample contained a gluten concentration of more than 80 parts per million.

Still, given Australia has strictest regulations in the world, the risk of getting sick from eating gluten-free foods is quite low.

The risk from kissing? Even lower.

If you want to look out for your loved one with coeliac disease, how you prepare food is more important. This includes preventing cross-contamination by storing and preparing gluten-free foods well away from foods containing gluten, and thoroughly cleaning equipment and utensils after they’ve been in contact with food containing gluten.

And next time you’re on a date at your favourite eatery – whether they advertise as gluten free, or just have gluten-free items on the menu – it’s a good idea to politely ask about their food handling practices.

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

– ref. Is it dangerous to kiss someone who’s eaten gluten if you have coeliac disease? – https://theconversation.com/is-it-dangerous-to-kiss-someone-whos-eaten-gluten-if-you-have-coeliac-disease-255721

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Wallis, Professor of International Security, University of Adelaide

The re-election of the Albanese Labor government by such a wide margin should not mean “business as usual” for Australia’s security policy.

The global uncertainty instigated by US President Donald Trump means Australia’s security landscape is very different today from when Labor was first elected in 2022, or even when its Defence Strategic Review was released in 2023.

As we argue in our recent book, the Albanese government faces increasingly difficult questions.

How can we maintain our crucial security alliance with the US while deepening partnerships with other countries that have reservations about US policy?

And, given Trump’s recent actions, how much can we continue to rely on the United States and what are the potential costs of the alliance?

With a massive parliamentary majority, the new government has an opportunity for bold thinking on national security. This is not the time for Australia to keep its head down – we need to face the rapidly changing world with our heads held high.

Read more:
Blaming Donald Trump for conservative losses in both Canada and Australia is being too kind to Peter Dutton

Trump 2.0 is not the same as 1.0

We do not advocate Australia step away from the US alliance. We are also realistic that decades of defence procurement mean Australia is heavily reliant on US defence materiel (and its subsequent sustainment) for our security.

The deep interoperability between the Australian Defence Force and the US military is something alliance sceptics too readily gloss over: much Australian military capability cannot function without ongoing American support.

At the same time, many alliance advocates underestimate the impact of the new challenges we face. Some assumed a continuity between the first and second Trump administrations. However, we are not convinced the lessons learned from Trump 1.0 are still valid.

A key difference between Trump 1.0 and 2.0 is the effect of his move away from respecting international law.

For example, the US has voted with Russia against UN Security Council resolutions condemning the Ukraine war, withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement and World Health Organization, and damaged relations with NATO allies, among many other actions.

As a middle power, Australia has long relied on the “rules-based order” to advance its foreign and strategic policy interests.

Even if “normal transmission” resumes under a new US president in 2029, we are concerned the Trump administration’s structural changes to the international order will not easily be wound back. American soft power has been decimated by cuts to the US State Department, USAID and international broadcasting services. This will also not be rebuilt quickly.

A second difference is there are few “adults left in the room” in the Trump administration.

The advisers who kept Trump in check during his first administration have been replaced by loyalists less likely to push back against his ideas and impulses. This includes his long-held grievance that allies have been exploiting the US.

The Albanese government needs to think more deeply about how to hedge against dependence on the US. This means investing in relations with other partners, especially in Asia and the Pacific, and working with them to promote the laws, rules and norms that maintain stability and predictability in global affairs.

An idealistic vision for the future

We are also concerned that many in the national security community base their policy recommendations on the assumption that war between the US and China is inevitable, and such a conflict could draw in Australia as America’s ally.

Rather, the Trump administration’s preference for “deals” opens the possibility the US and China might come to an arrangement that will affect US presence and leadership in our region.

Australia may not be prepared for this. The new government must engage in more open discussion about how we would maintain our security if the US does pull back from the region or makes decisions Australians don’t support.

As a start, we need to consider how Australia can better pursue self-reliance within the alliance structure. We need a range of strategic options in the future that don’t rely on an outdated image of the US as a reliable partner.

This debate should be guided by what we call “pragmatic idealism”.

Rather than accepting the way things are, the government and members of the national security community need to re-imagine how things can be.

We argue the Albanese government should draw confidence from its thumping electoral win to articulate a politics of hope, opportunity and possibility for our future security. This needs to drown out the cynicism, passive acceptance and learned helplessness that often characterises Australian national security debates.

We are conscious that being “idealistic” is often dismissed as impractical, naïve “wishful thinking”. But the new government needs to demonstrate to Australians it has the courage to face the diverse, interlinked and complex security challenges we face – potentially on our own. These extend to issues such as cyber attacks, transnational crime and climate change.

Practical steps

As a first step, the Albanese government urgently needs to commission an integrated National Security Strategy that considers all the tools of statecraft Australia can use to respond to these challenges.

This means engaging more with partners in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. In particular, Australia should consider investing more heavily in information programs and public diplomacy as the US withdraws from this arena.

The government must also engage better with the public and be more transparent about its security options and decisions.

On AUKUS, for instance, the government must build its “social licence” from the public to sustain such a massive deal across generations. Australians need to be better informed about – and consulted on – the decisions they will ultimately pay for.

This also includes being upfront with Australians about the need for greater defence spending in a tumultuous world.

It is understandably tempting for the new Albanese government to continue a “small target” approach when it comes to the US. This has meant minimising domestic debate about the alliance that could undermine support for AUKUS and avoid risking the ire of a thin-skinned Trump.

But the government needs the courage to ask difficult questions and imagine different futures.

Joanne Wallis receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Department of Defence, and the government of South Australia. She is a Senior Nonresident Fellow of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

Rebecca Strating receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

– ref. After its landslide win, Labor should have courage and confidence on security – and our alliance with the US – https://theconversation.com/after-its-landslide-win-labor-should-have-courage-and-confidence-on-security-and-our-alliance-with-the-us-255598

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Skarbek, Climateworks CEO, Monash University

Australians have returned an expanded Labor Party to government alongside a suite of climate-progressive independents. Meanwhile, the Coalition – which promoted nuclear energy and a slower renewables transition – suffered a historic defeat.

Labor also looks set to have increased numbers in the Senate, where the Greens are likely to hold the balance of power.

These numbers mean support for progressive climate and energy policy in Australia’s 48th parliament is shaping as stronger than the last. So what does this mean as Australia seeks to position itself as a leader in the global net zero economy?

In its first term in government, Labor laid the groundwork for stronger climate action, including legislating an emissions-reduction target and putting crucial policies and organisations in place. The next parliament will be well-placed to build on these foundations. Here, we explain where key opportunities lie.

1. National emissions target for 2035

By September this year, all signatories to the global Paris Agreement must set emissions reduction targets out to 2035.

Labor is waiting on advice from the Climate Change Authority before setting its target. The authority’s initial advice last year suggested a target between 65% and 75%, based on 2005 levels.

Some countries have already set their targets. The United Kingdom, for example, will aim for a reduction of at least 81% by 2035, based on 1990 levels.

2. A firm plan for net-zero

Australia has committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. Getting there will require innovation and investment across the economy. In the last term of government, Labor began
developing net-zero plans for each economic sector. They comprise energy, transport, industry, resources, the built environment, and agriculture and land.

The plans are due to be finalised this year. They will act as a tangible map for Australia to meet both net zero and the 2035 emissions-reduction target, and are keenly awaited by state governments, industry and investors.

This policy area presents the broadest opportunity for the crossbench to exert influence for greater ambition, scale and pace. Neither the 2035 target nor the sector plans need to go through parliament – however they could feature in broader parliamentary negotiations.

Separately, the Safeguard Mechanism will be reviewed in 2027, during this parliament. The policy aims to reduce emissions reductions from Australia’s biggest greenhouse-gas polluters. It is key to reaching net zero in Australia’s industrial sector, and an important moment to ensure the policy reduces emissions at the rate needed.

3. Bidding to host COP31

Australia is bidding to host next year’s United Nations global climate talks, or COP, in partnership with Pacific Island nations. The bid was opposed by the Coalition.

A decision on the COP host is expected in June. If Australia succeeds, the federal government will seek to use the high-profile global gathering to showcase its climate credentials – and there will be high expectations from Pacific co-hosts. So all policy between now and then really matters.

4. An energy system to make Australia thrive

Energy produces about 70% of Australia’s emissions. Tackling this means reducing emissions from electricity through renewable generation. Elsewhere in the economy, it means switching from gas, petrol and diesel to clean electricity.

The government’s plan to reach 82% renewable energy by 2030 remains crucial. Australia’s electricity system is expected to reach around 50% renewable energy this year. But there is more work to do.

A review of the National Electricity Market is due this year. It is expected to recommend ways to promote greater investment in renewable generation and storage. This includes what policy might follow the Capacity Investment Scheme, a measure to boost renewables investment which will be rolled out by 2027.

Faster action on the renewable shift can also be achieved through the Australian Energy Market Operator’s next Integrated System Plan – the nation’s roadmap for guiding energy infrastructure and investment.

Labor also has scope to improve energy efficiency, and better match energy demand and supply – especially at times of peak energy use. The government’s commitments to subsidise home batteries, and expand the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, will help achieve this. The crossbench, including the Greens, is likely to seek greater investments to reduce household energy use and costs.

Beyond this, Australia’s electricity grid needs to be double the size of what’s currently planned, to power the entire economy with clean energy.

5. Leverage clean energy export advantages

Australia generates about a quarter of its GDP from exports – many of them emissions-intensive such as fossil fuels, minerals and agricultural products.

In his election victory speech, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese urged Australia to seize the moment at a time of global economic disruption. Key to this will be building on the Future Made in Australia agenda and ensuring Australia makes the most of its competitive advantages as the world transitions to net-zero.

This will include:

• leveraging a strong reputation as a reliable trade partner
• capitalising on our world-leading solar and wind energy resources to produce low-emissions goods for export
• developing the industry around critical minerals and rare earths needed in low-emissions technologies
• helping metals and minerals sectors achieve net-zero emissions pathways.

This will be central to trade negotiations in the years to come. Realising Australia’s green exports aspiration requires action abroad as well as at home.

A game-changing decade

This decade is crucial to Australia’s future economy, and to the success of Australia’s long-term transition to net zero emissions. Our work has shown Australia can slash emissions while the economy grows.

The question now is how quickly the re-elected government – indeed, the next parliament – can realise Australia’s ambition as a renewable energy superpower.

The next three years will provide vital opportunities and they must be seized – for the sake of our energy bills, our economic prosperity and Australia’s reputation on the world stage.

Anna Skarbek is on the board of the Net Zero Economy Authority, SEC Victoria, the Centre for New Energy Technologies, the Green Building Council of Australia, and the Asia-Pacific Advisory Board of the Glasgow Financial Alliance on Net Zero. She is CEO of Climateworks Centre which receives funding from philanthropy and project-specific financial support from a range of private and public entities including federal, state and local government and private sector organisations and international and local non-profit organisations. Climateworks Centre works within Monash University’s Sustainable Development Institute.

Climateworks Centre is a part of Monash University. It receives funding from a range of external sources including philanthropy, governments and businesses. Businesses such as mining companies and industry associations have previously co-funded Climateworks’ research on industrial decarbonisation, and may benefit from policies mentioned in this article.

– ref. 5 huge climate opportunities await the next parliament – and it has the numbers to deliver – https://theconversation.com/5-huge-climate-opportunities-await-the-next-parliament-and-it-has-the-numbers-to-deliver-255772

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Simpson, Senior Lecturer, International Studies, University of South Australia

When the Coalition launched its nuclear plan last year, Labor was on the nose and early polls showed some support for the policy. But then the wheels fell off.

Nuclear didn’t stack up on cost or timeframe. Early support fell away. By the time of the election, support for maintaining Australia’s ban on nuclear power had increased from 51% to 59%.

When Opposition leader Peter Dutton gave his budget reply speech in late March, he barely mentioned the nuclear policy – instead promoting gas and attacking renewables.

After Saturday’s Coalition rout, the prospect of nuclear power in Australia should be dead and buried. But that’s not guaranteed. The National Party strongly backs nuclear power.

With metropolitan Liberals sceptical of nuclear reduced to a rump, the Nationals and regional Liberals will gain influence within the Coalition. If conservative Nationals prevail, we may well see the nuclear policy survive the election post-mortem and be resurrected for the next election.

Why did the Coalition back nuclear?

In the 1990s, the Coalition introduced laws banning nuclear power in Australia. But interest in the technology has never gone away. Australia has abundant uranium, and nuclear power appeals to some demographics.

Politically, Dutton’s choice to back nuclear power was pragmatic. There were real tensions inside the Coalition on climate action. Nuclear power seemed to offer a way past these tensions, as a zero emissions energy source providing baseload power. It would also have meant slowing the renewable rollout and building more gas power plants to cover the gap left by retiring coal.

It appears the nuclear policy wasn’t a Dutton priority. Nationals leader David Littleproud says he and the Nationals pushed the Coalition to adopt nuclear in exchange for continued support for the 2050 net zero target. After Saturday’s wipeout in Liberal-held metropolitan seats, the Nationals will have a stronger hand.

On Sky News yesterday, Littleproud claimed nuclear was not the reason for the Coalition’s loss. National MPs are still backing nuclear.

If the Nationals stick to their guns, we may see the Coalition bring nuclear to the next election.

Three-year federal terms make it difficult for new governments to embark on long term plans. Nuclear energy would take at least 15 years to come online. The Coalition’s last realistic opportunity to go nuclear would have been back in 2007, when there was renewed interest in the technology.

At that time, renewables were quite expensive. But solar, wind and batteries now cost much less, while nuclear was already expensive and has remained so.

Government tenders for renewable and storage projects tend to be massively oversubscribed, with far more interest than opportunities. By contrast, nuclear doesn’t have business backing. The Australian Industry Group has argued the Coalition’s nuclear policy was 20 years too late. This business reticence explains the Coalition’s proposal to build the nuclear reactors with public money.

This year, clean energy levels in Australia’s main grid will reach 44–46%, according to the Clean Energy Regulator. With a strong pipeline of new projects, that could reach 60% by the next election. It’s hard to see what role nuclear could have in any future grid.

Nuclear isn’t quite dead

In contrast to intermittent renewables, nuclear offers reliable zero emissions baseload power. If you talk to nuclear backers, you’ll likely hear a variant of this sentence.

But there’s “no going back” to the old baseload model where large, inflexible coal plants churned out power, as the head of the Australian Energy Market Operator Daniel Westerman pointed out last week. That’s because renewables are the cheapest energy source. Powering Australia on 100% renewables is possible with enough battery storage or pumped hydro to compensate for the solar duck curve, in which solar power drops off in the evening.

So why does nuclear have a hold on the Coalition’s imagination, even as it faces its largest crisis since Menzies founded the Liberal Party?

One likely reason is cultural opposition to renewables. This is especially evident among prominent Nationals such as Littleproud, Matt Canavan and Barnaby Joyce. As the thinking presumably goes, if “latte-sipping greens” in inner city areas back renewables, genuine country Australians should naturally oppose them.

It is, of course, not that simple. Renewables are often just as popular in the bush as in the cities. A Lowy Institute poll found almost two-thirds of regional respondents supported the government’s 82% renewable target for 2030. Farmers hosting solar panels or wind turbines energy generation on their properties see them as guaranteed income even if livestock or grains are having a bad year.

The problem for the Nationals and for the Coalition more broadly is that nuclear just isn’t that popular. Early support for the policy was soft. It melted away as authoritative sources such as the CSIRO pointed to the exorbitant cost and long timeframe to build reactors from scratch.

Labor, with a resounding majority, is likely to accelerate the shift to clean energy. While the urban-rural political divide will still play out in Coalition opposition to clean energy, Labor’s large electoral mandate and dominance in the populous cities will encourage it to press ahead.

As the surviving members of the Coalition lick their wounds and begin to figure out how they did so badly, we can expect to see nuclear up for discussion. But given the new power of the Nationals and regional Liberals in the party room, we may not have seen the last of nuclear fantasies in Australia.

Adam Simpson 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. Pie in the sky? After the Coalition’s stinging loss, nuclear should be dead. Here’s why it might live on – https://theconversation.com/pie-in-the-sky-after-the-coalitions-stinging-loss-nuclear-should-be-dead-heres-why-it-might-live-on-255866

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University

More than 18 million Australians voted on Saturday, after walking past countless corflutes, reading campaign flyers and reviewing how-to-vote cards.

The 2025 federal election was Australia’s biggest yet, with 710,000 more people on the electoral roll than in 2022. The Australian Election Commission amassed 250,000 pencils, 240,000 vests, 80,000 ballot boxes and 5,000 rolls of tamper-proof tape to stock some 7,000 polling places.

So, what happens to these materials after polling day? Some are warehoused, ready for reuse next time around. Others are repurposed. But every election also generates a mountain of waste for landfill.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Australia needs to mandate a cradle-to-grave approach to creating, using, recycling and disposing of election materials. Meanwhile, electronic machines and online voting can reduce the need for paper ballots, just as social media campaigns can reduce paper mail drops.

Where do election materials go after the polls close?

In response to inquiries from The Conversation, the Australian Election Commission said most AEC materials, such as tamper-proof tape, vests and pencils, are stored between elections at counting centres. Other materials, such as cardboard voting booths, are recycled or donated to schools or charities.

Most councils require corflutes to be collected within seven days of an election. But no rules govern reuse or disposal. Corflutes are made from polypropylene, a lightweight plastic that is technically recyclable. But it’s not a straightforward process, so most recycling facilities reportedly cannot accept this waste.

Some candidates donate corflutes to schools, childcare centres and charities, because the white reverse side can be used to mount artworks.

Second-hand corflutes have also been used as shelters for homeless people, heat shields for bee hives, or to repair damaged skylights. But no doubt many end up in landfill.

Are there alternatives?

Many countries are “greening” their elections. In 2019, India’s election commission directed parties to eliminate single-use plastic including corflutes. In 2024, the United Kingdom’s Westminster Foundation for Democracy outlined strategies for reducing election “pollution”, addressing supply chains and packaging.

Australia relies heavily on disposable election materials. While many of these can be recycled, it’s better to avoid single-use materials.

Parties could also display how-to-vote instructions on posters at election sites, rather than handing out individual flyers that are recycled or thrown away.

In 2022, the AEC introduced plain brown cardboard screens and ballot boxes, saying they are easier to recycle and reuse than previous versions “wrapped” in purple-and-white branded paper. However, Australian Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers says elections will probably always be “highly manual and resource-intensive exercises”. We disagree.

Could Australia use electronic or online voting to reduce waste?

Other countries are introducing online voting to reduce waste. One study in Estonia found the carbon footprint of paper-based voting was 180 times greater than internet-based voting. More than 50% of the population voted online in 2023.

India introduced electronic voting machines in 1982 and mandated them, nationwide, in 2004. In 1999 alone this saved 7,700 tonnes of waste.

The United States introduced mechanical voting machines in the 1890s, punch cards and scanned ballots in the 1960s, and “direct-recording” electronic voting machines in the 1970s. Today, touch screens are used in many voting booths, with paper records for auditing. Now just 7% of districts rely on paper ballots and hand-counted ballots are rarely used.

Yet electronic voting machines are not without controversy. Security concerns after the 2016 US election resulted in 94% of districts shifting to optical scanning, and use of “direct-recording” electronic voting machines almost halved.

Ireland invested €50 million (A$88 million) into electronic voting machines in 2002, but they were never used due to concerns about potential tampering.

Australia should explore secure options for electronic voting machines and online voting. In its response to The Conversation, the AEC said this would be a matter for parliament to consider, because the law currently demands that elections are in-person events.

Can social media campaigning help?

Social media enables candidates and voters to engage in new ways. For instance, Labor senators Katy Gallagher and Penny Wong took part in a Facebook “pop quiz” on April 29, which had 55,000 views. But social media can amplify misinformation, so consumers need to fact-check what they see and hear online.

Combined, the parties and affiliated groups spent more than A$39 million on advertisements on YouTube, Facebook and Google during the 2025 campaign. The AEC had to update its authorisation guidelines to cover podcasters and other content creators.

This mirrors global shifts towards social media campaigning. During Canada’s 2025 campaign, Liberal leader Mark Carney (who went on to be elected prime minister) created a video with celebrity Mike Myers, reaching 10 million views.

While such creative approaches may engage voters, they still carry a carbon footprint. Carney and Myers’ video likely produced about six tonnes of CO₂ emissions due to the energy and electricity used in production, streaming and viewing.

Text messages also connect candidates with voters. Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots party sent 17 million texts the election campaign. This equates to 240kg of CO₂ emissions from energy-hungry data centres and personal devices.

This is less than the emissions the average Australian produces in a week. However, the unsolicited texts riled many voters, many concerned about privacy and who wanted to opt out.

What’s the solution?

Australia should mandate a reduction in the disposal of election materials.

Some print materials may always be needed, because not all voters can access digital content or vote online. But the current situation is unsustainable.

Global experiences show innovation is possible. Australia can reduce its reliance on new, physical materials, while maintaining public trust.

Australia’s newly elected officials have an opportunity to green future elections, adopting a more sophisticated approach to voting in a digital age. There’s no excuse for producing mountains of plastic and paper waste every three or four years. Our nation deserves better.

Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and the Association for Information Science and Technology.

Gary Rosengarten receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Renewable Affordable Clean Energy for 2030 CRC, and is a non-executive board member of the Australian Alliance for Energy Productivity.

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

– ref. A rubbish election: voting in Australia produces mountains of waste – but there’s a better way – https://theconversation.com/a-rubbish-election-voting-in-australia-produces-mountains-of-waste-but-theres-a-better-way-255780

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Slade, Associate Professor of Fashion, University of Technology Sydney

Fashion is one of the most powerful tools we have for understanding ourselves and the world around us. Nowhere is this clearer than in the story of Black American tailoring and the legacy of the Black dandy.

Inspired by scholar Monica L. Miller’s groundbreaking book Slaves to Fashion: Black Dandyism and the Styling of Black Diasporic Identity, the theme of The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute spring 2025 show is Superfine: Tailoring Black Style.

The exhibition charts the evolution of the Black dandy from the 18th century to today. The story it tells is about more than suits. It’s about power, pride, resistance and joy.

Each year, the Met Gala takes its dress code from the institue’s spring exhibition. This year’s is “Tailored for You”. So who is the Black dandy, why are they so important to fashion today, and what can we expect to see on the red carpet?

The birth of the Black Dandy

“Black dandy” is a modern term. Figures like American abolitionist Frederick Douglass (1818–95) or Haitian revolutionary leader Toussaint Louverture (1743–1803) would not have called themselves dandies, but they used style with similar effect: as a tool of resistance, self-fashioning and cultural pride.

French poet Charles Baudelaire (1821–67) first wrote about dandies in 1863, describing them as individuals who elevate style to a form of personal and aesthetic resistance.

Baudelaire’s dandy was not just stylish but symbolic. He was an emblem of modernity itself: a time marked by fluid identities, liminal spaces and the collapse of clear boundaries between gender, authenticity and social order.

Dandyism among Black men took root in the 18th and 19th centuries in both the United States and the Caribbean. Tailoring became a way to reclaim dignity under enslavement and colonialism.

Dandies take the clothing of an oppressor – aristocratic, colonial, segregationist or otherwise – and turn it into a weapon of elegance. Through meticulous style and refinement, dandies make a silent yet striking claim to moral superiority.

Douglass famously appeared in immaculate Victorian suits when campaigning for abolition, consciously dressing in the same style as those who denied his freedom.

Louverture used perfectly tailored French military uniforms during the Haitian Revolution against French colonial rule.

In the 1920s, Harlem dandies wore fine tailoring and flamboyant colours, rejecting the idea that poverty or discrimination should dictate presentation.

In perfectly tied cravats, polished shoes and sharply tailored coats, Black dandies refashion power on their own terms.

Presence through style

Dandies also challenge the narrow rules of masculinity.

Conventional menswear often demands restraint, toughness and invisibility. Dandies dare to embrace beauty, self-adornment and performance. This masculinity can be expressive, creative and even flamboyant.

The luxurious silk suits and carefully groomed appearance of American Jazz pioneer Duke Ellington (1899–1974) projected glamour rather than austerity.

The elegantly tailored overcoats and scarves of American poet Langston Hughes (1901–67) suggested a masculinity deeply entwined with creativity and softness.

Figures in Harlem’s ballrooms and jazz clubs blurred gender boundaries decades before mainstream conversations about gender fluidity emerged.

A tradition of Black tailoring

In a world where Black self-presentation has long been scrutinised and politicised, tailored clothing asserted visibility, authority and artistry. Dandies transformed fashion into a political declaration of dignity, resistance and creative power.

Black American tailoring practices blossomed most visibly in the zoot suits of the Harlem Renaissance, though they also had strong roots in New Orleans, Chicago and the Caribbean.

As seen in the Sunday Best of the Civil Rights era, Black tailoring walked the line between resistance and celebration: beautiful but with clear political intent.

In the 1970s, the Black dandy became more flamboyant, wearing tight, colourful clothes with bold accessories. He transformed traditional suits with exaggerated shapes, bright patterns and plaids inspired by African heritage.

Artists popular with a white audience like Sammy Davis Jr (1925–90), Miles Davis (1926–91) and James Brown (1933–2006) embraced the aesthetic, contributing to its widespread acceptance.

Meanwhile, a super stylish contingent of Black men in the Congo, La Sapeur, refined their look so spectacularly they would become the benchmark of the Black dandy for generations to come.

The 1990s saw a new era of Black dandyism emerge through luxury sportswear and hip-hop aesthetics.

Designer Dapper Dan (1944–) revolutionised fashion by remixing luxury logos into bold, custom streetwear, creating a distinctive Black aesthetic that bridged hip-hop culture and high fashion.

Musician Andre 3000 (1975–) redefined menswear by blending Southern Black style with bold colour, vintage tailoring and theatrical flair.

Today, the tradition thrives in the style of influencer Wisdom Kaye, the elegance of LeBron James, and the risk-taking of Lewis Hamilton.

Dressing for the red carpet

Tailored for You invites guests to interpret the dandy’s legacy in personal, bold and boundary-pushing ways.

Whether conforming to tradition, subverting expectations or creating something entirely new, this theme is a celebration of the freedom to dress – and be – on your own terms.

The Black dandy is a figure of defiance and desire, of ambiguity and brilliance, of resistance and beauty. Dandyism blurs boundaries between masculinity and femininity, artifice and authenticity, conformity and rebellion. It unsettles fixed identities and reflects broader tensions within modern life.

Black dandies have shocked, amused, offended, delighted and inspired society since their inception. In the sharp defiance of Douglass’ Victorian suits, the flamboyant spectacle of Harlem ballrooms, and the logo-laced rebellion of Dapper Dan’s streetwear, the Black dandy has continually forced the world to reckon with the politics of presence, pride and performance.

Despite being overlooked by mainstream fashion history, they’ve shaped the way we see elegance, masculinity and self-expression. This Met Gala and the accompanying exhibition are not just a celebration – they are a long-overdue recognition.

Dijanna Mulhearn receives funding from Australian Government Research Training Stipend.

Toby Slade 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. Tailoring and the Black dandy: how 250 years of Black fashion history inspired the 2025 Met Gala – https://theconversation.com/tailoring-and-the-black-dandy-how-250-years-of-black-fashion-history-inspired-the-2025-met-gala-250650

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Wallis, Professor of International Security, University of Adelaide

The re-election of the Albanese Labor government by such a wide margin should not mean “business as usual” for Australia’s security policy.

The global uncertainty instigated by US President Donald Trump means Australia’s security landscape is very different today from when Labor was first elected in 2022, or even when its Defence Strategic Review was released in 2023.

As we argue in our recent book, the Albanese government faces increasingly difficult questions.

How can we maintain our critical security alliance with the US while deepening partnerships with other countries that have reservations about US policy?

And, given Trump’s recent actions, how much can we continue to rely on the United States and what are the potential costs of the alliance?

With a massive parliamentary majority, the new government has an opportunity for bold thinking on national security. This is not the time for Australia to keep its head down – we need to face the rapidly changing world with our heads held high.

Read more:
Blaming Donald Trump for conservative losses in both Canada and Australia is being too kind to Peter Dutton

Trump 2.0 is not the same as 1.0

We do not advocate Australia step away from the US alliance. We are also realistic that decades of defence procurement mean Australia is heavily reliant on US defence materiel (and its subsequent sustainment) for our security.

The deep interoperability between the Australian Defence Force and the US military is something alliance sceptics too readily gloss over: much Australian military capability cannot function without ongoing American support.

At the same time, many alliance advocates underestimate the impact of the new challenges we face. Some assumed a continuity between the first and second Trump administrations. However, we are not convinced the lessons learned from Trump 1.0 are still valid.

A key difference between Trump 1.0 and 2.0 is the effect of his move away from respecting international law.

For example, the US has voted with Russia against UN Security Council resolutions condemning the Ukraine war, withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement and World Health Organization, and damaged relations with NATO allies, among many other actions.

As a middle power, Australia has long relied on the “rules-based order” to advance its foreign and strategic policy interests.

Even if “normal transmission” resumes under a new US president in 2029, we are concerned the Trump administration’s structural changes to the international order will not easily be wound back. American soft power has been decimated by cuts to the US State Department, USAID and international broadcasting services. This will also not be rebuilt quickly.

A second difference is there are few “adults left in the room” in the Trump administration.

The advisers who kept Trump in check during his first administration have been replaced by loyalists less likely to push back against his ideas and impulses. This includes his long-held grievance that allies have been exploiting the US.

The Albanese government needs to think more deeply about how to hedge against dependence on the US. This means investing in relations with other partners, especially in Asia and the Pacific, and working with them to promote the laws, rules and norms that maintain stability and predictability in global affairs.

An idealistic vision for the future

We are also concerned that many in the national security community base their policy recommendations on the assumption that war between the US and China is inevitable, and such a conflict could draw in Australia as America’s ally.

Rather, the Trump administration’s preference for “deals” opens the possibility the US and China might come to an arrangement that will affect US presence and leadership in our region.

Australia may not be prepared for this. The new government must engage in more open discussion about how we would maintain our security if the US does pull back from the region or makes decisions Australians don’t support.

As a start, we need to consider how Australia can better pursue self-reliance within the alliance structure. We need a range of strategic options in the future that don’t rely on an outdated image of the US as a reliable partner.

This debate should be guided by what we call “pragmatic idealism”.

Rather than accepting the way things are, the government and members of the national security community need to re-imagine how things can be.

We argue the Albanese government should draw confidence from its thumping electoral win to articulate a politics of hope, opportunity and possibility for our future security. This needs to drown out the cynicism, passive acceptance and learned helplessness that often characterises Australian national security debates.

We are conscious that being “idealistic” is often dismissed as impractical, naïve “wishful thinking”. But the new government needs to demonstrate to Australians it has the courage to face the diverse, interlinked and complex security challenges we face – potentially on our own. These extend to issues such as cyber attacks, transnational crime and climate change.

Practical steps

As a first step, the Albanese government urgently needs to commission an integrated National Security Strategy that considers all the tools of statecraft Australia can use to respond to these challenges.

This means engaging more with partners in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. In particular, Australia should consider investing more heavily in information programs and public diplomacy as the US withdraws from this arena.

The government must also engage better with the public and be more transparent about its security options and decisions.

On AUKUS, for instance, the government must build its “social licence” from the public to sustain such a massive deal across generations. Australians need to be better informed about – and consulted on – the decisions they will ultimately pay for.

This also includes being upfront with Australians about the need for greater defence spending in a tumultuous world.

It is understandably tempting for the new Albanese government to continue a “small target” when it comes to the US. This has meant minimising domestic debate about the alliance that could undermine support for AUKUS and avoid risking the ire of a thin-skinned Trump.

But the government needs the courage to ask difficult questions and imagine different futures.

Joanne Wallis receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Department of Defence, and the government of South Australia. She is a Senior Nonresident Fellow of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

Rebecca Strating receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

– ref. Australia can no longer take a ‘business as usual’ approach to the US. On security, it’s time for courage and confidence – https://theconversation.com/australia-can-no-longer-take-a-business-as-usual-approach-to-the-us-on-security-its-time-for-courage-and-confidence-255598

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

This year’s election campaign marked a turning point in Australian politics. TikTok has emerged not just as another tool, but as a main battleground.

Although it played a part in the 2022 election, this was the first time the two major parties and the Greens embraced short-form video as a serious campaign strategy.

These videos may seem silly or nonsensical, but for many Gen Z voters, they may have been the only political messages they encountered in the entire five-week campaign. Given the dominance of Gen Z and Millennial voters, social media videos are increasingly important.

A blend of trends, podcasts and thirst traps

The Australian Labor Party’s campaign leaned heavily into TikTok culture, crafting a multi-pronged strategy to reach younger voters where they scroll. This included meme engagement like this absurdist #italianbrainrot trend.

#brainrot refers to deliberately absurd, low-effort videos that thrive on chaos and nonsensical repetition.

It’s an existing TikTok trend that started in early 2025 and is designed to capture attention in an oversaturated feed. In other words, don’t try to understand, just watch and enjoy.

Another standout is a now-viral video of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese edited with the stylistic flair typical of TikTok “thirst trap” content. The editing style and music choice are both characteristic of this sub-genre of video designed to make the subject appear attractive.

It walked a fine line between irony and sincerity: an intentional nod to the platform’s unique language and humour. While some lapped it up as clever, others question whether such tactics undermine the seriousness of politics.

Labor also heavily invested in podcasting, with Albanese appearing on youth-oriented shows with the likes of Abbie Chatfield and Ozzy Man. These long-form interviews were mostly promoted by the podcasters themselves, which was a clever use of their existing audiences. It contributed to a strategy that prioritised personality as much as policy.

Combined with a coordinated influencer outreach, including briefings with popular creators, Labor’s campaign showed a keen understanding of the algorithmic economy. Whether it was cringey or clever, it was undeniably calculated.

Trendsetters with turbulence

The Liberal Party started its TikTok campaigning back in December 2024. These early videos, many AI-generated, saw remarkable traction. The highest-viewed video, an AI voice-change take on a scene from “The Grinch”, has been viewed 2.8 million times.

Then came “Tim Cheese”, a trending fictional character they used to blur the lines in political storytelling. A “bad guy”, Tim Cheese was used by the Liberals to highlight that the known bad guys aren’t always bad.

One standout video was the introduction of “Cheesy Albanese”, which merged political satire with platform-native humour that resonated with the audience.

The Liberals also tapped into trending sounds and aesthetics such as #brainrot and #italianbrainrot. In fairness, they were the first to use it before the official campaign started.

But with any innovative campaign comes risk.

A notable misstep was the repurposing of influencer content, including that of Holly MacAlpine.

Topham Guerin, the strategy company behind the campaign, has a reputation for provocative approaches that can come close to, but don’t actually break, the law. However, this use of content did wear thin for some followers, sparking early signs of disengagement.

The campaign’s second major stumble came on election day.

US-based TikTok creator Ray William Johnson, who has more than 18.5 million followers, called out the Liberals for blocking his account when they clearly used his video and animation style.

Johnson said he had no issue with the mimicry, but the party’s pre-emptive blocking of him fuelled backlash. His response video, now seen more than 12 million times, ends with a blunt directive: “I hope everyone goes out and votes for the other guy.”

It was a viral moment that undid much of the earlier momentum, and demonstrates the high stakes of campaigning in the age of creator culture.

Despite a clever response video from the Liberals, it was overshadowed by the sheer scale of the backlash.

With these lows there was still highs, including a highly effective and trending video game that saw players “Escape Albo”.

The Liberals were early trendsetters, creating boundary-pushing content for all users, even those without strong political views. They experimented with styles that went on to be mimicked, particularly with Labor’s #brainrot-inspired content.

Greens go from giant toothbrushes to DJ sets

In a bid to connect with the gaming community, Tasmanian Senator Nick McKim took to livestreaming sessions of the popular game Fortnite. Donning comfortable clothes and a headset, McKim engaged viewers with gaming lingo and humour, aiming to make politics more relatable to younger audiences.

These videos were a huge success, with this one being viewed 1.4 million times.

A central feature of the Greens social media campaign was the deployment of a giant toothbrush prop, symbolising the party’s commitment to integrating dental care into Medicare. It featured across various platforms and was a nice link to events in Brisbane and Melbourne.

These events featured the support of big-name influencers and prompted spinoff videos launching Greens Leader Adam Bandt’s DJ career.

But despite the flashy props, influencer cameos and party vibes, the Greens’ campaign often felt more like a collection of stunts than a cohesive digital strategy: memorable in moments, but ultimately lacking impact.

Did it make any difference?

While many labelled the 2025 election dull, the TikTok campaign told a different story. It was unpredictable, occasionally “cringe”, but deeply entertaining.

It’s too soon to know if any of this shifted votes or even opinions. Party officials, campaign strategists and academics will all be watching closely to find out.

While social media is ubiquitous in our lives, using it to campaign is still relatively new in our political history. There are no best-practice guidelines or proven approaches. Of all this content thrown at the wall, it will be fascinating to see what sticks.

But to the millions of Australians on TikTok, politics has never looked or sounded quite like it did in 2025.

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

– ref. Thought the election campaign was boring? Maybe you’re just not on TikTok – https://theconversation.com/thought-the-election-campaign-was-boring-maybe-youre-just-not-on-tiktok-255847

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor & Principal Fellow in Urban Risk & Resilience, The University of Melbourne

More than half of the world’s population currently lives in cities and this share is expected to rise to nearly 70% by 2050.

It’s no wonder “smart cities” have become a buzzword in urban planning, politics and tech circles, and even media.

The phrase conjures images of self-driving buses, traffic lights controlled by artificial intelligence (AI) and buildings that manage their own energy use.

But for all the attention the term receives, it’s not clear what actually makes a city smart. Is it about the number of sensors installed? The speed of the internet? The presence of a digital dashboard at the town hall?

Governments regularly speak of future-ready cities and the promise of “digital transformation”. But when the term “smart city” is used in policy documents or on the campaign trail, it often lacks clarity.

Over the past two decades, governments around the world have poured billions into smart city initiatives, often with more ambition than clarity. The result has been a patchwork of projects: some genuinely transformative, others flashy but shallow.

So, what does it really mean for a city to be smart? And how can technology solve real urban problems, not just create new ones?

What is a smart city, then?

The term “smart city” has been applied to a wide range of urban technologies and initiatives – from traffic sensors and smart meters to autonomous vehicles and energy-efficient building systems.

But a consistent, working definition remains elusive.

In academic and policy circles, one widely accepted view is that a smart city is one where technology is used to enhance key urban outcomes: liveability, sustainability, social equity and, ultimately, people’s quality of life.

What matters here is whether the application of technology leads to measurable improvements in the way people live, move and interact with the city around them.

By that standard, many “smart city” initiatives fall short, not because the tools don’t exist, but because the focus is often on visibility and symbolic infrastructure rather than impact.

This could be features like high-tech digital kiosks in public spaces that are visibly modern and offer some use and value, but do little to address core urban challenges.

The reality of urban governance – messy, decentralised, often constrained – is a long way from the seamless dashboards and simulations often promised in promotional material.

But there is a way to help join together the various aspects of city living, with the help of “digital twins”.

Digital twin (of?) cities

Much of the early focus on smart cities revolved around individual technologies: installing sensors, launching apps or creating control centres. But these tools often worked in isolation and offered limited insight into how the city functioned as a whole.

City digital twins represent a shift in approach.

Instead of layering technology onto existing systems, a city digital twin creates a virtual replica of those systems. It links real-time data across transport, energy, infrastructure and the environment. It’s a kind of living, evolving model of the city that changes as the real city changes.

This enables planners and policymakers to test decisions before making them. They can simulate the impact of a new road, assess the risk of flooding in a changing climate or compare the outcomes of different zoning options.

Used in this way, digital twins support decisions that are better informed, more responsive, and more in tune with how cities actually work.

Not all digital twins operate at the same level. Some offer little more than 3D visualisations, while others bring in real-time data and support complex scenario testing.

The most advanced ones don’t just simulate the city, but interact with it.

Where it’s working

To manage urban change, some cities are already using digital twins to support long-term planning and day-to-day decision-making – and not just as add-ons.

In Singapore, the Virtual Singapore project is one of the most advanced city-scale digital twins in the world.

It integrates high-resolution 3D models of Singapore with real-time and historical data from across the city. The platform has been used by government agencies to model energy consumption, assess climate and air flow impacts of new buildings, manage underground infrastructure, and explore zoning options based on risks like flooding in a highly constrained urban environment.

In Helsinki, the Kalasatama digital twin has been used to evaluate solar energy potential, conduct wind simulations and plan building orientations. It has also been integrated into public engagement processes: the OpenCities Planner platform lets residents explore proposed developments and offer feedback before construction begins.

We need a smarter conversation about smart cities

If smart cities are going to matter, they must do more than sound and look good. They need to solve real problems, improve people’s lives and protect the privacy and integrity of the data they collect.

That includes being built with strong safeguards against cyber threats. A connected city should not be a more vulnerable city.

The term smart city has always been slippery – more aspiration than definition. That ambiguity makes it hard to measure whether, or how, a city becomes smart. But one thing is clear: being smart doesn’t mean flooding citizens with apps and screens, or wrapping public life in flashy tech.

The smartest cities might not even feel digital on the surface. They would work quietly in the background, gather only the data they need, coordinate it well and use it to make citizens’ life safer, fairer and more efficient.

Milad Haghani receives funding from The Australian Research Council & The Australian Government.

Abbas Rajabifard receives funding from Victorian Government via Land Use Department.

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

– ref. What is a ‘smart city’ and why should we care? It’s not just a buzzword – https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-smart-city-and-why-should-we-care-its-not-just-a-buzzword-255419

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

Australia’s federal election, held less than a week after Canada’s, has produced a shockingly similar outcome. Commentators all over the world have pointed out the parallels.

In both countries, centre-left governments looked like they were in serious trouble not long ago.

On February 23, a Resolve Strategic poll found the Coalition leading Labor 55-45% on a two-party-preferred basis. An Angus Reid poll in December found voting intention for Canada’s Liberals dropping to just 16%, compared to 45% for the Conservatives.

Yet, both governments are now celebrating historic victories. And in both countries, the conservative opposition leaders, Pierre Poilievre and Peter Dutton, lost their own seats.

US President Donald Trump was undoubtedly a factor in both elections. Even Trump’s most ardent Australian fans admit the reversal of the Coalition’s fortunes in the polls seems to have been precipitated by Trump’s actions, particularly his chaotic tariff announcements and his White House humiliation of Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

In Canada, Trump cheerfully presented himself as an existential threat to the country.

But if anything, Labor’s landslide win in the Australian election on Saturday highlights just how poorly the Coalition fared under Dutton compared to Canada’s Conservatives. The Coalition bottomed out, while the Tories fared reasonably well in the face of difficult circumstances.

A painful but respectable loss for Conservatives in Canada

So, why the huge difference between the two parties? This is largely because of the differences between the Canadian and Australian electoral systems.

Unlike Australia, Canada does not have preferential voting – a vote for one party is a vote against another. The Liberals’ rise in the polls came mostly at the expense of the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) rather than the Conservatives.

Back in December, 21% of voters preferred the NDP, compared to 16% for Justin Trudeau’s deeply unpopular Liberals. But when Trudeau stepped down and Mark Carney became the party’s new leader, the threat posed by Trump unified centre-left Canadian voters behind the Liberals, who had the best chance of winning.

This is the strategic voting that is necessary in winner-take-all systems. The NDP has never won the largest share of seats in a national election, and it never had a chance of winning this one.

The NDP was left with seven seats in last week’s election and under 7% of the vote, losing their party status in parliament and their leader. This was the most significant “Trump effect” on the Canadian election.

Canada’s Conservatives ended up with 41.3% of the vote. This was only a few points down from their December high of 45% in the Angus Reid poll. They also won the greatest share of the national vote by any centre-right party since 1988, and expanded their share of seats in the parliament.

The Liberals, meanwhile, barely won the popular vote and fell three seats short of a majority.

Poilievre was rightly criticised for failing to respond effectively to the challenge posed by Trump’s bullying, instead continuing to campaign as if the election were still a referendum on Trudeau.

That may have cost him a victory that seemed certain months earlier, especially considering Carney made his campaign all about standing up to Trump.

Yet, the Conservatives still performed well enough for Poilievre to retain his position as opposition leader despite losing his seat. Another Conservative sacrificed his own seat to let Poilievre back into parliament.

Dutton’s mistakes were bigger

It’s hard to imagine any member of Dutton’s party doing the same. Dutton handed Labor a staggeringly high two-party-preferred vote and (likely) the most seats it has ever had. Labor won 86 seats in 1987, while Anthony Albanese’s party will have at least 86, with the count continuing.

Dutton’s campaign has been widely described as “shambolic”. But it wasn’t just the last five weeks that doomed the Coalition.

From the moment he became leader, it was clear Dutton had little interest in winning back the former Liberal heartland seats that fell to Teal independents in 2022. Instead, he held out the promise the outer suburbs would become the new heartland.

Following the patterns established by John Howard, Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, he believed the loss of middle-class women, once the backbone of the Liberal vote, could be compensated by gains among working-class men.

This was always a pipe dream, given the flimsiness of the culture war issues that have been Dutton’s preferred terrain. But it drove urban voters further away from the Liberal Party.

The Liberals should have been alarmed that in state elections and byelections last year, they were making almost no gains in metropolitan seats, whether inner suburban or outer suburban.

The Coalition should resist seeing Trump as a natural disaster over which they had no control. Dutton consciously positioned himself as part of the global populist right that Trump leads. Voters recognised this, even when Dutton half-heartedly tried to distance himself from Trump.

Not all right-wing populists are the same. Poilievre and Dutton have their own brands of populism they have spent decades cultivating, as have other right-wing populists like Javier Milei in Argentina. But in the suffocating global environment created by Trump, there is limited room for brand differentiation. He is the unavoidable reference point of right-wing politics.

Last November, many right-wing figures thought this would benefit them. One of them is now a spectacular political casualty.

David Smith 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. Blaming Donald Trump for conservative losses in both Canada and Australia is being too kind to Peter Dutton – https://theconversation.com/blaming-donald-trump-for-conservative-losses-in-both-canada-and-australia-is-being-too-kind-to-peter-dutton-255599

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

Among the many lessons to be learnt by the Liberal-National Coalition parties from the election is that they should stop getting into bed with News Corporation Australia.

Why would a political party outsource its policy platform and strategy to people with plenty of opinions, but no experience in actually running a government?

The result of the federal election suggests that unlike the Coalition, many Australians are ignoring the opinions of News Corp Australia’s leading journalists such as Andrew Bolt and Sharri Markson.

Last Thursday, in her eponymous program on Sky News Australia, Markson said:

For the first time in my journalistic career I’m going to also offer a pre-election editorial, endorsing one side of politics […] A Dutton prime ministership would give our great nation the fresh start we deserve.

After a vote count that sees the Labor government returned with an increased majority, Bolt wrote a piece for the Herald Sun admonishing voters:

No, the voters aren’t always right. This time they were wrong, and this gutless and incoherent Coalition should be ashamed. Australians just voted for three more years of a Labor government that’s left this country poorer, weaker, more divided and deeper in debt, and which won only by telling astonishing lies. That’s staggering. If that’s what voters really like, then this country is going to get more of it, good and hard.

The Australian and most of News’ tabloid newspapers endorsed the Coalition in their election eve editorials.

The election result was a repudiation of the minor culture war Dutton reprised during the campaign when he advised voters to steer clear of the ABC and “other hate media”. It may have felt good alluding to “leftie-woke” tropes about the ABC, but it was a tactical error. The message probably resonated only with rusted-on hardline Coalition voters and supporters of right-wing minor parties.

Read more:
Peter Dutton calling the ABC and the Guardian ‘hate media’ rings alarm bells for democracy

But they were either voting for the Coalition, or sending them their preferences, anyway. Instead, attacking the ABC sent a signal to the people the Coalition desperately needed to keep onside – the moderates who already felt disappointed by the Coalition’s drift to the right and who were considering voting Teal or for another independent.

Attacking just about the most trusted media outlet in the country simply gave those voters another reason to believe the Coalition no longer represented their values.

Reporting from the campaign bus is often derided as shallow form of election coverage. Reporters tend to be captive to a party’s agenda and don’t get to look much beyond a leader’s message. But there was real value in covering Dutton’s daily stunts and doorstops, often in the outer suburbs that his electoral strategy relied on winning over.

What was revealed by having journalists on the bus was the paucity of policy substance. Details about housing affordability and petrol pricing – which voters desperately wanted to hear – were little more than sound bites.

This was obvious by Dutton’s second visit to a petrol station, and yet there were another 15 to come. The fact that the campaign bus steered clear of the sites for proposed nuclear plants was also telling.

The grind of daily coverage helped expose the lateness of policy releases, the paucity of detail and the lack of preparation for the campaign, let alone for government.

On ABC TV’s Insiders, the Nine Newspapers’ political editor, David Crowe, wondered whether the media has been too soft on Dutton, rather than too hard as some Coalition supporters might assume.

He reckoned that if the media had asked more difficult questions months ago, Dutton might have been stress-tested and better prepared before the campaign began.

Instead, the Coalition went into the election believing it would be enough to attack Labor without presenting a fully considered alternative vision. Similarly, it would suffice to appear on friendly media outlets such as News Corp, and avoid more searching questions from the Canberra press gallery or on the ABC.

Reporters and commentators across the media did a reasonable job of exposing this and holding the opposition to account. The scrutiny also exposed its increasingly desperate tactics late in the campaign, such as turning on Welcome to Country ceremonies.

If many Australians appear more interested in what their prospective political leaders have to say about housing policy or climate change than the endless culture wars being waged by the coalition, that message did not appear to have been heard by Peta Credlin.

The Sky News Australia presenter and former chief of staff to prime minister Tony Abbott said during Saturday night’s election coverage “I’d argue we didn’t do enough of a culture war”.

Andrew Dodd has been the recipient of Australian Research Council funding

Matthew Ricketson 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. In its soul-searching, the Coalition should examine its relationship with the media – https://theconversation.com/in-its-soul-searching-the-coalition-should-examine-its-relationship-with-the-media-255846

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

On February 1, on The Conversation’s podcast, Anthony Albanese not only declared that Labor would retain majority government, but held out the prospect it could win the Victorian Liberal seats of Menzies and Deakin.

This was when the polls were still bad for Labor and the Coalition was confident of gaining a swathe of seats in Victoria.

Now Liberal Michael Sukkar has lost Deakin to Labor’s Matt Gregg, while fellow Liberal Keith Wolahan says it is “more likely than not” he’ll be ousted from Menzies.

Obviously Albanese’s political judgement was better than most. Two other points are notable. The first is how quickly things turned around. But there’s a counterpoint: maybe they didn’t turn around in quite the way they seemed. Perhaps a few months ago, voters were expressing their frustrations, but many were always going to be reluctant to endorse Peter Dutton when decision-time came.

Even so, the extent of the decimation of the Liberals was nearly unthinkable. Labor minister Don Farrell said that two days out, Labor’s polling showed a majority but not this result. The Liberals are a rump, without a leader, with no obvious successor, and no clue of what direction to take a party left with hardly any urban seats and the prospect of another two terms, at least, in the wilderness.

First, however, to the government. Albanese is basking in golden days. But he knows Labor must avoid hubris. As he enjoyed Sunday morning at a local coffee shop, he said “we will be a disciplined, orderly government”.

To state the obvious, the win will boost Albanese’s authority. But it will also open him to pressures, externally and internally.

In Labor’s first term, many commentators and stakeholders argued the government was too cautious. Some urged it should tackle more robust economic reform; others wanted it to shift left. Those voices will strengthen now Labor has the numbers to flex its muscles more vigorously. But Albanese is wary of breaking promises – it took a long time for him to go back on his word over the stage three tax cuts – or surprising the electorate.

The person to watch is Treasurer Jim Chalmers.

On Saturday night, the treasurer said, “We do believe we’re an ambitious government but we know there is a sense of impatience as well when it comes to some of our big national challenges”.

Chalmers told the ABC on Sunday, “The best way to think about the difference between our first term and the second term that we won last night [is the] first term was primarily inflation without forgetting productivity, the second term will be primarily productivity without forgetting inflation”.

This is a very big aspiration. Australia’s productivity performance is dreadful. If that’s to improve significantly, Chalmers may have to take on battles in some policy areas, such as industrial relations, that are very sensitive for Labor and the unions.

The win, but more particularly the issues ahead, which focus on the economy here and overseas, will give Chalmers an even more central voice, as well as present even tougher tests for him. Chalmers was lavish in his praise of Albanese on Saturday night and Sunday; he said he had rung the PM during Saturday, before the result, and “I said his was an extraordinary campaign, he’s got a lot to be proud of and we are certainly proud to be part of his team”.

For all that, Chalmers is, and sees himself as, Albanese’s most credible successor, although other aspirants are in the mix. Despite Albanese indicating he will serve a full term and the result leading people to say he will be well placed to lead into the 2028 election, that is not inevitable.

Who will lead the Liberals into that election is absolutely unknowable. The potential field for the post election leadership vote is lacklustre, and whoever wins that vote could be a seat warmer.

That field includes shadow treasurer Angus Taylor, deputy leader Sussan Ley, shadow immigration minister Dan Tehan, and defence spokesman Andrew Hastie.

Taylor, an economic conservative, has faced immense criticism for his performance over the past three years. Ley, who is more towards the centre, has been guilty of overreach, although she’s toned down somewhat recently. Hastie has not broadened out from his defence comfort zone. Tehan is experienced but does not present well to voters.

Dutton had a weak team around him; the next leader will have an even thinner one.

Even more diabolical than who the Liberal Party should choose is where it should go in its positioning. The party has become an identity vacuum. It has lost its more genteel urbanites, and failed to win the aspirational suburbanites. These constituencies have different priorities but to revive themselves the Liberals have to thread the needle between them, which looks, at the moment, an impossible task.

Then there are the problems with women and younger voters. The Liberals’ “women problem” has been debated for years; they seem further than ever from grappling with it. The failure ranges from candidate selection to policy blindness.

On the latter, the working-from-home debacle was a classic example of disconnect with many women’s lives. The policy (later dumped) to bring public servants back to the office five days a week was driven by a woman, shadow finance minister Jane Hume. It wasn’t properly workshopped, but surely it was obvious that running this policy would be a disaster, especially with female voters. You wouldn’t need a focus group to tell you that.

As the baby boomers, already outnumbered, fade further, how are the Liberals to connect with the younger voters who are now the dominant demographic? These voters are increasingly progressive. For them, the Liberals need generational change. But the only new generation contender in the present leadership list is Hastie, and he is a conservative.

Another complication for the Liberals is that the Nationals have done well. This means they’ll have a bigger say in the Coalition, including a bigger share of the frontbench. This might push the Coalition further to the populist right. A few will argue the Coalition parties should separate, but this is not the answer – it hasn’t worked in the past.

There’ll be a policy overhaul, and that could involve a tricky argument over nuclear, to which the Nationals especially are deeply committed. And will the Coalition commitment to the Paris agreement and the 2050 net zero emissions target come under assault?

The Liberals are in an extraordinarily bad place. Politicians in such circumstances search for so-called “narrow goat tracks” to better ground. Debris is littering any track in sight for the Liberals. Their only comfort can be that politics is volatile.

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. Second-term Albanese will face policy pressure, devastated Liberals have only bad options – https://theconversation.com/second-term-albanese-will-face-policy-pressure-devastated-liberals-have-only-bad-options-255618

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maxine Newlands, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Policy Futures, University of Queensland, Adjunct Principal Research Fellow, Cairns Institute, James Cook University

Minor parties were all the rage at the last election when, along with independent candidates, they secured almost a third of votes.

But they have failed to build on that success at this election. The biggest and best funded of the minor parties – the Greens, One Nation and Trumpet of Patriots – have all had disappointing results.

Few green shoots

The Greens are the largest party outside of the traditional two-party system. But they failed to launch on Saturday night.

In 2022, the Greens secured 12.2% of the primary support which returned a record four members to the lower house. This time around, their nationwide vote is up – but only marginally and not where it matters.

The party has lost big in Queensland, with Stephen Bates in Brisbane and Max Chandler-Mather in Griffith relinquishing their seats to Labor. Elizabeth Watson-Brown could hold on in the neighbouring seat of Ryan, though preference flows will be critical.

Peter Dutton might not be the only party leader to lose his seat, with Adam Bandt on a knife’s edge in Melbourne, which he has held for 15 years. Again, it will come down to the spread of preferences.

The Greens had high hopes for two other Melbourne-based seats. They remain a chance in Wills, but got nowhere near it in Macnamara.

And it is unlikely to snatch the New South Wales seat of Richmond from Labor despite running a close second on primary vote.

Balance of power

The Greens have performed much better in the Senate, where they will once again be the largest cross bench party with a predicted 11 seats.

While the ALP will clearly dominate the lower house in the 48th parliament, the Senate is looking to be more of a two-way spilt between Labor and the Coalition.

The Albanese government will likely require only the support of the Greens to pass legislation. This is a much better scenario for Labor than the previous parliament when it needed to stitch together all the Greens and four independents to navigate the Senate.

Once again, the Greens will effectively hold the balance of power. However, Labor will have other crossbench options, such as independents David Pocock, Lidia Thorpe and Fatima Payman if the Greens obstruct bills that are also opposed by the Coalition.

Minor party fizzers

Despite their disappointing result in the lower house, the Greens easily outperformed the right-wing minor parties, most of which flopped.

None more so than Clive Palmer’s newly registered Trumpet of Patriots, which fielded candidates in most lower house seats and in the Senate. It scored 1.8% of the vote, the highest positive swing of all the minor parties.

But it misfired everywhere, despite Palmer’s reported $A50-60 million advertising spend. While Senate votes are still being counted, Trumpet of Patriots is lagging behind both One Nation and the Legalise Cannabis Party.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation recorded just over 6% of first preference votes, up only slightly on its 2022 result and nowhere near enough to win any lower house seats. However, there are enough disaffected voters in Queensland to return Malcolm Roberts to the Senate. Hanson won’t be up for reelection until 2028.

Hanson’s daughter Lee Hanson is an outside chance of securing a Senate spot for One Nation in Tasmania. Her main rivals are Jacqui Lambie and Legalise Cannabis, which is also in the mix to win the final Senate seat in Victoria.

Gerard Rennick’s People First party also failed to make an impression. So too, Fatima Payman’s Australia’s Voice.

What next for the minor parties?

Minor parties play an important role in the Australian political landscape, and have long been players in federal parliament.

The previous two elections have seen shifts away from the two-party system, with one in four voters preferring minor parties or independent candidates in 2019, and one in three in 2022.

On the numbers counted so far in this election, voters have favoured either the traditional major parties or the array of independent candidates.

The trend towards minor parties has been halted, at least for now.

Maxine Newlands 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 flops – a night to forget for minor parties on the left and the right – https://theconversation.com/election-flops-a-night-to-forget-for-minor-parties-on-the-left-and-the-right-255623