Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Belinda Lawford, Senior Research Fellow in Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne

Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of chronic pain and disability, affecting more than two million Australians.

Routine x-rays aren’t recommended to diagnose the condition. Instead, GPs can make a diagnosis based on symptoms and medical history.

Yet nearly half of new patients with knee osteoarthritis who visit a GP in Australia are referred for imaging. Osteoarthritis imaging costs the health system A$104.7 million each year.

Our new study shows using x-rays to diagnose knee osteoarthritis can affect how a person thinks about their knee pain – and can prompt them to consider potentially unnecessary knee replacement surgery.

What happens when you get osteoarthritis?

Osteoarthritis arises from joint changes and the joint working extra hard to repair itself. It affects the entire joint, including the bones, cartilage, ligaments and muscles.

It is most common in older adults, people with a high body weight and those with a history of knee injury.

Many people with knee osteoarthritis experience persistent pain and have difficulties with everyday activities such as walking and climbing stairs.

How is it treated?

In 2021–22, more than 53,000 Australians had knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis.

Hospital services for osteoarthritis, primarily driven by joint replacement surgery, cost $3.7 billion in 2020–21.

While joint replacement surgery is often viewed as inevitable for osteoarthritis, it should only be considered for those with severe symptoms who have already tried appropriate non-surgical treatments. Surgery carries the risk of serious adverse events, such as blood clot or infection, and not everyone makes a full recovery.

Most people with knee osteoarthritis can manage it effectively with:

• education and self-management
• exercise and physical activity
• weight management (if necessary)
• medicines for pain relief (such as paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs).

Debunking a common misconception

A common misconception is that osteoarthritis is caused by “wear and tear”.

However, research shows the extent of structural changes seen in a joint on an x-ray does not reflect the level of pain or disability a person experiences, nor does it predict how symptoms will change.

Some people with minimal joint changes have very bad symptoms, while others with more joint changes have only mild symptoms. This is why routine x-rays aren’t recommended for diagnosing knee osteoarthritis or guiding treatment decisions.

Instead, guidelines recommend a “clinical diagnosis” based on a person’s age (being 45 years or over) and symptoms: experiencing joint pain with activity and, in the morning, having no joint-stiffness or stiffness that lasts less than 30 minutes.

Despite this, many health professionals in Australia continue to use x-rays to diagnose knee osteoarthritis. And many people with osteoarthritis still expect or want them.

What did our study investigate?

Our study aimed to find out if using x-rays to diagnose knee osteoarthritis affects a person’s beliefs about osteoarthritis management, compared to a getting a clinical diagnosis without x-rays.

We recruited 617 people from across Australia and randomly assigned them to watch one of three videos. Each video showed a hypothetical consultation with a general practitioner about knee pain.

One group received a clinical diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis based on age and symptoms, without being sent for an x-ray.

The other two groups had x-rays to determine their diagnosis (the doctor showed one group their x-ray images and not the other).

After watching their assigned video, participants completed a survey about their beliefs about osteoarthritis management.

What did we find?

People who received an x-ray-based diagnosis and were shown their x-ray images had a 36% higher perceived need for knee replacement surgery than those who received a clinical diagnosis (without x-ray).

They also believed exercise and physical activity could be more harmful to their joint, were more worried about their condition worsening, and were more fearful of movement.

Interestingly, people were slightly more satisfied with an x-ray-based diagnosis than a clinical diagnosis.

This may reflect the common misconception that osteoarthritis is caused by “wear and tear” and an assumption that the “damage” inside the joint needs to be seen to guide treatment.

What does this mean for people with osteoarthritis?

Our findings show why it’s important to avoid unnecessary x-rays when diagnosing knee osteoarthritis.

While changing clinical practice can be challenging, reducing unnecessary x-rays could help ease patient anxiety, prevent unnecessary concern about joint damage, and reduce demand for costly and potentially unnecessary joint replacement surgery.

It could also help reduce exposure to medical radiation and lower health-care costs.

Previous research in osteoarthritis, as well as back and shoulder pain, similarly shows that when health professionals focus on joint “wear and tear” it can make patients more anxious about their condition and concerned about damaging their joints.

If you have knee osteoarthritis, know that routine x-rays aren’t needed for diagnosis or to determine the best treatment for you. Getting an x-ray can make you more concerned and more open to surgery. But there are a range of non-surgical options that could reduce pain, improve mobility and are less invasive.

Belinda Lawford receives funding from Arthritis Australia, Medical Research Future Fund and Medibank. She is a Steering Committee Member of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International Rehabilitation Group, and also an Editorial Board member for Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy.

Kim Bennell receives research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medical Research Futures Fund as well as Medibank Private. Some of the consumer resources recommended in this article have been developed by her research team. She consults for Wolters Kluwers UptoDate knee osteoarthritis clinical guidelines

Rana Hinman receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund and Medibank. Some of the consumer resources recommended in this article have been developed by her research team. She is also an Editorial Board member for Journal of Physiotherapy.

Travis Samuel William Haber is a Steering Committee Member of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International Rehabilitation Group and of the Australian and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network Osteoarthritis Special Interest Group.

– ref. Having an x-ray to diagnose knee arthritis might make you more likely to consider potentially unnecessary surgery – https://theconversation.com/having-an-x-ray-to-diagnose-knee-arthritis-might-make-you-more-likely-to-consider-potentially-unnecessary-surgery-249374

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bishal Bharadwaj, Adjunct Research Fellow, Curtin Institute for Energy Transition, Curtin University

Poor people in vast city slums across the Global South are burning plastic to cook their food, warm their homes and boil water for hot showers.

Waste plastic is plentiful and highly flammable. So it’s not surprising people in developing countries, mainly in Africa, Asia and Latin America, are putting it to use – especially as wood is increasingly scarce.

But burning plastic is hazardous, as it releases toxins into the surrounding air – and possibly into the food on the stove.

We wanted to draw attention to this growing problem, which has received little attention to date despite the many potential harms.

In our new “perspective” paper, published in Nature Cities, we explain why so many communities are using plastic as an energy source.

We then explore further research needed and recommend ways for policymakers to tackle the issue.

Mountains of plastic waste

The world has produced more plastic in the past 20 years than the total previously produced since commercial production began in 1950. Roughly half a billion tonnes of plastic is now produced every year.

Plastic production is still accelerating. Global plastic use is predicted to almost triple by 2060 due to soaring demand from a growing population with rising incomes.

Unfortunately, most plastic is not recycled. Instead, it is discarded and ultimately ends up polluting marginal land such as flooded areas and open dumping grounds before making its way into the ocean.

A product of energy poverty in city slums

Increasing urbanisation is reducing access to traditional fuels such as wood and crop residue from farmland.

But plastic is readily available. Low-income households with little or no access to gas or electricity often find themselves living alongside mountains of rubbish.

This plastic, made from fossil fuels, represents a cheap and convenient fuel. It’s lightweight, easy to transport, and a nuisance material that people want to be rid of. Plastic is also relatively easy to dry and store, but can burn even when wet. It’s also flexible and pliable, so it can be used easily in traditional cooking arrangements such as basic stoves.

Burning plastic releases toxins such as dioxins, furans and heavy metals into the air. These chemicals are known to cause cancer, heart disease and lung diseases.

The more vulnerable people in the household – including women and children and those who spend more time indoors – tend to be most exposed to the fumes. But the problem also affects people in the neighbourhood and the wider community.

Burning plastic is likely to also contaminate food. For example, eggs from farms near plastic waste incinerators in Indonesia contained hazardous chemicals from burned plastic. However, more evidence is needed around food contamination.

Furthermore, when households burn plastic bottles and other containers, some of the original contents also burn. Given chemicals are poorly regulated, the consequences of burning plastic could be greater still.

Overcoming the problem

A first step to overcoming the problem is understanding the reality of those living in slums. Policy-makers need to recognise these people’s needs and the challenges they face.

Extensive research is needed to design the most effective and inclusive policy interventions. This needs to be addressed if we are to reduce the associated health and environmental impacts on such large populations across the world.

We have gathered a collaborative, multidisciplinary team of researchers from around 35 countries – mostly in the Global South – to better understand the problem. We recently completed a survey of people exposed to the issue such as local government employees, teachers and community workers in more than 100 cities in 26 countries.

We are also examining the emissions from waste plastic during food preparation to determine the extent of contamination in variety of stoves.

Nobody wants to burn plastic waste to cook food, so policies like ban on burning plastic with out contextual intervention will not work. There is a need to design inclusive policy interventions that provide equitable benefits to the wider community. For example, encouraging people to:

• wash any plastic before it is burned, to remove chemical residues
• use improved cookstoves that vent the fumes outside
• expand basic urban amenities like waste management to low income settlements
• provide support to help lift households out of poverty.

Each approach will depend on the specific requirements of the slum settlement. But by implementing multiple approaches in parallel, we can tackle the problem more effectively.

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

– ref. Households are burning plastic waste as fuel for cooking and heating in slums the world over – https://theconversation.com/households-are-burning-plastic-waste-as-fuel-for-cooking-and-heating-in-slums-the-world-over-250265

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hales, Director, Centre for Sustainable Enterprise, Griffith University

The goal of science is to uncover truths and create new knowledge. But this is not always welcome. Increasingly, scientific findings are being attacked or downplayed. And scientists themselves face intimidation or harassment.

In our global study of more than 2,000 scientists across six areas of science, two-fifths (41%) of respondents had, as a result of their work, been harassed or intimidated at least once over a five-year period.

Intimidation efforts included online abuse, physical threats, and threats to budgets or employment. Harassment, while personal, could be meted out by superiors, colleagues or outsiders. Some scientists felt their leaders had thrown them under the bus to protect the institution’s reputation.

Who’s doing the intimidation? Strikingly, a majority of cases of intimidation and harassment actually came from inside the institution for most fields. That is, it was perpetrated by senior colleagues or managers. But for climate scientists, most intimidation efforts came from outside.

Intimidation of scientists doesn’t happen in a vacuum. In recent years, there has been a rise in populist leaders who pour scorn on “elites” and evidence. Scientific issues are increasingly politicised. Disinformation is rampant. This atmosphere adds to the pressure faced by scientists, especially those working in politically sensitive areas such as climate science or COVID.

What did we find?

We used an online database of scientists to find and contact experts publishing in six fields: climate science, medical health, humanities and social science, food and plant science, astronomy, and other STEM areas.

More than 2,000 responded to our survey on whether they had experienced various types of intimidation or harassment. We asked respondents for more detail on the perpetrators, what triggered the incident, and what effect it had on them.

Many respondents had a clear view as to what the intimidation or harassment was meant to do. The motivations of perpetrators varied greatly. But the most common reasons were to damage their reputation, to stop them from publishing certain types of research, or to “put me in my place”.

Specific fields of science were more prone to harassment and intimidation – in particular climate science, and humanities and social science.

Among those scientists who had been intimidated, climate scientists reported online abuse three times more often than astronomers. Climate science is politically charged, because climate change is clearly linked to pollution from some of the world’s largest industries – oil, gas and coal. Astronomy is not. Half of the climate scientist respondents experiencing intimidation saw the bad behaviour as a way to discourage them from undertaking specific research and speaking about it.

Researchers from humanities and social sciences faced similar levels of online abuse to climate scientists.

When it came to personal harassment, there was a clear gender dimension. Among those who reported experiencing harassment, female scientists were more than four times more likely to report “unwelcome or inappropriate behaviour of a sexual nature” than their male counterparts. Women were affected almost twice as much as men by non-sexual forms of personal harassment.

Our findings follow earlier research finding similar rates of intimidation. For instance, a 2021 survey of 321 scientists working on COVID-19 found 15% had received death threats and 22% received threats of sexual violence.

Intimidation and harassment are damaging

The consequences of intimidation are profound and far-reaching. Many scientists told us the experience had caused lasting damage, whether to wellbeing, career prospects or research activities.

More than 40% of those affected said their career prospects had worsened following incidents of harassment. Just over a third (34%) reported a decline in their desire to work in science. Scientists who experienced intimidation often cut back their collaboration with colleagues (35%), leaving them more isolated.

Many of our respondents described flow-on effects such as decreased access to funding (35% of respondents) and less public communication from their institution about their work (23%).

Scientists targeted with multiple types of harassment reported very damaging effects, from difficulty finding their next job to poor mental health.

Intimidation slows progress

Intimidation and harassment have a chilling effect on science. This, in turn, could hinder progress on crucial issues such as climate change, public health and technological advancements.

The disproportionate impact on women and researchers in politically sensitive fields threatens to undermine diversity and inclusivity in science.

Without targeted interventions, women in science may continue to suffer disproportionate levels of harassment and intimidation. This will have long-term implications for gender diversity in scientific leadership and the direction of research in various fields.

In the United States, the Trump administration’s withdrawals from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization are likely to further embolden anti-science movements. Many American scientific institutions are engaged in anticipatory obedience of the Trump administration’s demands that diversity and anti-discrimination programs be abolished, or climate change stop being mentioned. Many even go beyond what is explicitly sought.

What can be done?

Science and academia is often seen as a bastion of free inquiry and open discussion. One of our most surprising findings was how common intimidation was within scientific institutions.

The key to beating intimidation is organisational support and clear strategies, not obedience. These include:

• genuine commitment to institutional policies protecting scientists from both internal and external intimidation

• formal, well-resourced support systems for researchers facing harassment or pressure (not the HR office)

• programs to increase public understanding of the scientific process to build trust and resilience to misinformation

• boosting international collaboration between scientists and policymakers to ensure resilience against country-specific efforts to undermine science

• educating the public on the importance of scientific independence and of fostering respectful dialogue around contentious topics.

As populist movements gain traction in many countries, scientists working on controversial issues will face heightened scrutiny – and potentially more intimidation.

Climate science is likely to remain a particularly contested field. As the damage wrought by climate change becomes more and more apparent, it will get even more contentious.

Over the last few centuries, science has produced breakthroughs in many areas. But the integrity of science is not guaranteed. Harassment and intimidation from both inside and outside institutions has a very real effect on scientists.

The future of evidence-based decision-making and ability to tackle global challenges depends on fostering an environment where scientists can work free from fear and undue pressure.

Robert Hale receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

David Peetz undertook research over many years with occasional financial support from governments from both sides of politics, employers and unions. He has been and is involved in several Australian Research Council-funded projects, including this one.

Ian Lowe was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 2004 to 2014.

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

– ref. Two in five scientists in our survey reported harassment and intimidation. Often, the perpetrators are inside the institution – https://theconversation.com/two-in-five-scientists-in-our-survey-reported-harassment-and-intimidation-often-the-perpetrators-are-inside-the-institution-248013

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoffrey Brooks, Professor of Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology

Whyalla is a proud steel town. The steelworks physically dominates the townscape, and most jobs in the town are either directly at the steelworks or heavily reliant on it.

In recent months, however, the steelworks have lurched from one setback to another, from serious technical problems that forced shutdowns to rising debts owed to suppliers and the state government.

On Wednesday, the South Australian government forced Whyalla steelworks into administration. To do so, it quickly passed amendments to the Whyalla Steelworks Act. Current owner GFG Alliance will no longer operate the site.

For me, someone intimately involved in the steel industry, the news that the steelworks has been put into administration is not a shock. This has been coming for some time.

On Thursday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese unveiled a A$2.4 billion rescue package.

A portion of this money will be used to address immediate debt issues and keep the plant afloat. But $1.9 billion has been earmarked for major, long-term infrastructure upgrades under a new owner.

The next steps will be crucial if this vital component of Australia’s manufacturing infrastructure – and heart of the town of Whyalla – is to survive.

How we got here

Whyalla’s steelworks was founded by BHP and opened in 1941, originally concentrating on ship building. It later transitioned to producing structural and rail products during the 1970s and ‘80s.

After the steel division was spun out of BHP in 2000, the steelworks operated under the OneSteel banner, which was renamed Arrium in 2012.

The plant has been in decline for a couple of decades. Its products have had difficulty competing against overseas imports and there have been issues with the scale of production and costs.

GFG Alliance took over Whyalla’s struggling steelworks in 2017, to great fanfare and optimism.

GFG is led by Indian-born British billionaire Sanjeev Gupta, who owns steel plants across the world. Until recently, he was a relatively unknown figure in the steel industry, but rapidly built up a steel empire after buying his first major steel plant in the UK in 2013.

Gupta’s business practices have recently drawn close scrutiny from regulators in the UK, particularly the financing arrangements for several of his businesses. GFG’s largest lender, Greensill Capital, collapsed in 2021.

A failure to turn things around

Upon purchasing the plant in 2017, GFG promised to invest in upgrading the equipment and move the steelworks towards “green” steel production.

But these investments never materialised, and the operations have continued to lose money. There have also been significant operational issues over the past year, resulting in months of no production.

These challenges have been compounded by what appears to be poor management of key equipment in the plant, particularly the blast furnace.

Keeping blast furnaces running smoothly is one most important technical issues facing any steelmaker.

A string of recent breakdowns, resulting in major production shutdowns in 2024, does not reflect well on GFG.

On Wednesday, SA Premier Peter Malinauskas said the state government had been forced to step in, given debts of more than $300 million owed by GFG and reports workers weren’t being paid.

Still a valuable asset

The town of Whyalla will be watching the outcome of the state and federal governments’ rescue plan with bated breath. If it’s not to be GFG, who should be trusted with taking over and running the steelworks?

In such times, it is worth pointing out some of the key advantages of the plant that could make it an attractive asset to prospective owners.

Whyalla has good port facilities, a major iron ore deposit (Middleback Range) nearby, and abundant renewable energy.

It also has an experienced and trained workforce, with established product lines that are in demand (particularly rail steel).

Bluescope has been touted as one potential new owner. But there is also likely to be foreign interest, given the potential for linking steel production to renewable energy in Whyalla.

Taking Whyalla into the future

The current scale of the Whyalla steelworks, about 1.2 million tonnes of raw steel per year, is simply too small to be competitive. It is operating in a market where plants producing more than 3 million tonnes per year are common.

The plant’s product range could be broadened and raised in value by investing in key steelmaking equipment.

The general shift towards green production routes also presents opportunities for Whyalla. The local abundance of solar energy is likely to be a significant advantage for the plant’s future.

However, converting from the plant from its current coal-based technology to non-coal based technology (such as hydrogen ironmaking) will take significant investment and technical skill.

Opportunities for Australia

Could Australia simply let the steelworks shut down and import its rail steel instead?

That would draw parallels with Australia’s car manufacturing sector, which the government ultimately allowed to collapse. But I believe this position is unlikely to attract much support.

For one, there would be an enormous human cost to the people of Whyalla. The town of 20,000 people would be economically devastated by the plant’s closure.

There’s also a fear such a move would further weaken Australia’s ability to generate long-term wealth. Historically, the steel industry has been an important generator of long-term jobs and national wealth.

And it would certainly be demoralising for our manufacturing sector. Australia has plentiful ore, energy and a huge railway network. We should be able to run a sustainable steel plant specialising in rail and structural steel.

All these challenges need investment and strong technical leadership. The decisions taken by the state and federal government in the next few months will be vital for Whyalla’s future.

Geoffrey Brooks receives funding from the HILT CRC, ARC Steel Innovation Hub and Victorian Hydrogen Hub for fundamental research into steelmaking. The Liberty GFG company and other steel companies financially invest into these research bodies and directly support some of his steelmaking research. He is also the Chairman of the Association of Iron and Steel Technology Australian and New Zealand Chapter. This organisation organises conferences and seminars on steelmaking topics. His activity in this Chapter is on a voluntary basis.

– ref. With Whyalla steelworks forced into administration, Australia has crucial decisions to make on the future of its steel industry – https://theconversation.com/with-whyalla-steelworks-forced-into-administration-australia-has-crucial-decisions-to-make-on-the-future-of-its-steel-industry-250317

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

The low-productivity bogeyman has long haunted New Zealand, with people working longer hours for lower output than other comparable countries. The country is now one of the least productive in the OECD.

At its most basic level, productivity measures how much output can be produced with a set of inputs. The inputs can be the work of staff, as well as technical innovation, research and development and automation to encourage more efficient processes.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has committed to resolving this persistent productivity crisis with science sector reforms and overseas investment.

But after decades of lagging behind the rest of the world, a growing body of research shows the answer could lie in greater support for workers’ mental health.

Linking productivity and mental health

For many, increasing productivity equates to people working “harder” for longer hours – the implication being that if only we “pulled finger” and “knuckled down” the country’s productivity would magically increase.

Instead, could the answer to our productivity crisis be in improving the psychological functioning and mental health of our workforce?

There is a substantial body of evidence showing poor mental health is related to poor productivity. Recent New Zealand data show workers with the poorest mental health lost more than three times the number of productive workdays annually (71 days) than those with the highest mental health (19 days).

Poor mental health can take a toll in the form of time away from work (absenteeism), loss of focus, and emotional exhaustion (presenteeism).

Conversely, measures taken by employers to improve the mental health of workers show a strong positive relationship with increased productivity.

Data from more than 1,600 publicly listed companies in the United States found employee wellbeing predicts higher company valuations, return on assets, gross profits and stock market performance.

Of those interventions used to improve mental health and productivity at work, the most promising appear to target leadership capability, health screening and psycho-socially healthy working environments.

One of the more notable initiatives happened in our own backyard. Andrew Barnes from Perpetual Guardian has been a vocal proponent of four-day work week.

This doesn’t mean packing a 40-hour week into four days instead of five. Rather, its central tenet is reducing the working week (usually to 32 hours), keeping workers’ salaries at 100%, and continuing productivity at 100% (at least) of its existing level.

Results from a pilot with 61 companies in the United Kingdom show an average increase of 36% per annum in revenue for participating businesses, with over 90% of UK businesses that have trialled the programme choosing to continue with it.

Similarly positive results came from a widespread trial of a shorter working week (at full pay) in Iceland, involving 1% of the working population, including office workers, teachers, and healthcare workers.

More than a ‘nice-to-have’

But despite the need to improve productivity and the growing business case for improving employee wellbeing, demand for organisational mental health services has dipped.

Anecdotally, organisations involved in supporting the mental health of New Zealand workplaces have reported a decrease in demand, with many businesses and government agencies citing budget constraints as a major barrier to investing in this area.

This is likely a sign of the economic times, with more than three-quarters of New Zealand business leaders citing economic uncertainty as a key threat to their organisation in 2025.

To some, providing psychological support to workplaces may appear frivolous at worst, and a “nice-to-have” at best. Understanding the mechanisms by which these interventions can boost productivity may help dispel these doubts.

If we consider some of the core symptoms of poor mental health at work – namely exhaustion, reduced focus and greater sickness absence – it’s easy to see how improving workers’ mental health can improve the productivity of a business.

Maintaining workers

The idea of sustainable labour practices isn’t new or radical, nor is it just another attempt to load businesses with extra responsibility for worker mental health.

It is a way to enable people to work more efficiently in the time they have, and to keep them in their jobs for longer. In turn, this improves overall company performance and, crucially, improves population health.

For many businesses, people are their biggest asset. Ensuring your biggest asset is functioning well is as essential to enhancing productivity as regular maintenance and capital expenditure on physical machinery and buildings.

Like any business strategy worth its while, it’s not always easy. But there is too much at stake not to get it right.

Dougal Sutherland is an Honorary Teaching Fellow at Te Herenga Waka. He is also Principal Psychologist at Umbrella Wellbeing.

Dr Amanda Wallis from Umbrella Wellbeing contributed to this article

– ref. NZ has long suffered from low productivity. A simple fix is keeping workers happy – https://theconversation.com/nz-has-long-suffered-from-low-productivity-a-simple-fix-is-keeping-workers-happy-248752

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jake Kotevski, PhD Candidate, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University and PhD Candidate, Museums Victoria Research Institute

Between 122 and 108 million years ago, the Australian landmass was much farther south than today. Victoria was positioned within the Antarctic Circle, separated from Tasmania by a vast rift valley rather than open sea.

This was the Early Cretaceous, and lush forests filled with dinosaurs dominated the landscape. We still find traces of these animals in Victoria’s fossil record.

Most of the dinosaur fossils found in Victoria belong to small plant-eaters called ornithopods. But there are also a few theropod fossils — a diverse group that includes all known carnivorous dinosaurs, as well as modern birds.

More than 250 theropod bones have been found in the Victorian Cretaceous. In the palaeontology collections of Museums Victoria, we have now identified five theropod fossils of particular importance. Our work on these bones has been published today in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

Shinbones and tail bones

Research over the past decade has revealed striking similarities between Australian and South American dinosaurs. These include megaraptorids with claws shaped like scythes, and small, fleet-footed elasmarian ornithopods. There were also armoured parankylosaurians and colossal sauropods with long necks and small heads.

These parallels may seem surprising at first, but both continents retained a connection to Antarctica throughout much of the Cretaceous Period.

Our newly described fossils show that a bunch of different carnivorous dinosaurs seen in South America also thrived in the Cretaceous of southeastern Australia.

Two shinbones provide the first evidence of carcharodontosaurs (“shark-toothed lizards”) in Australia. A third shinbone provides strong evidence for the presence of unenlagiines, a southern group of dromaeosaurs (“running lizards”).

A fourth shinbone and two tail vertebrae with their chevrons, which are from a megaraptorid, represent one of Australia’s largest-known carnivorous dinosaurs.

A first for Australia

Carcharodontosaurs were apex predators in South America and Africa for much of the mid-Cretaceous. This group of theropods had large skulls, massive teeth and small arms. They were some of the largest predators to ever walk the Earth.

Despite their success in South America and Africa, carcharodontosaur fossils had never been found in Australia – until now. With the two shinbones, we now have the first evidence of the group on this continent.

Curiously, these Australian carcharodontosaurs are much smaller than their African and South American cousins, and the bones we have most closely resemble a carcharodontosaur from Thailand.

One of the Victorian carcharodontosaur shinbones was found on the Otway Coast. The other was found on the Bass Coast, in rocks nearly 10 million years older. This demonstrates these predators were successful in this area for at least 10 million years. It’s a notable find.

The large-bodied carcharodontosaurs of Africa and South America were seemingly specialised for hunting long-necked sauropods. However, this food source was likely not available to the Victorian polar carcharodontosaurs: sauropod fossils have never been found in Victoria.

The Australian ‘raptors’

Unenlagiines were lightly built (and likely feathered) predatory dinosaurs, related to Velociraptor of Jurassic Park fame.

Most unenlagiine fossil remains have been found in South America. Historically, Australia had limited evidence for their presence, as well.

Our description of a new unenlagiine shinbone from Victoria provides robust evidence for their success in polar Australia during the Early Cretaceous.

The snouts of unenlagiines were relatively longer, and their arms relatively shorter than those of their dromaeosaur cousins from the Northern Hemisphere. This implies they had a rather different diet. The Victorian unenlagiine presumably ate fish or small land-dwelling animals. One possibility is the small mammals for which the Victorian Cretaceous is perhaps most famous – more than 50 mammal jaws have been found to date, and some are from ancient relatives of platypus and echidna.

The apex predators of Victoria

Large predatory dinosaurs – on the scale of Tyrannosaurus – are notably absent from the Australian fossil record. Instead, Australian dinosaur populations seem to have been dominated by medium-sized carnivores called megaraptorids.

Megaraptorid fossils are only known from South America and Australia. The most complete skeletons are from South America, including a relatively large one – roughly nine metres long. Australia’s only reasonably complete megaraptorid is Australovenator wintonensis from Winton, central Queensland.

The shinbone and tail vertebrae we describe provide evidence for a large megaraptorid in southeast Australia. Despite being almost 30 million years older than the roughly five- to six-metre-long Australovenator, the Bass Coast megaraptorid was at least 5% larger: approaching the size of its South American relatives.

The large, muscular arms and fingers tipped with fearsome scythe-like claws were presumably the primary weapons of megaraptorids. In contrast to almost every other group of medium-sized carnivorous dinosaurs, megaraptorids had elongated snouts with small teeth.

The abundance of ornithopods in Victoria presumably made this region more suited to smaller prey specialists like megaraptorids, rather than sauropod-stalking carcharodontosaurs.

More discoveries yet to come

We have much to learn about Australia’s Cretaceous dinosaurs. Our study shows how even five isolated and incomplete bones can improve our understanding of our continent’s fossil heritage.

Carcharodontosaurs might have been the apex predators in South America, but megaraptorids ruled the roost in the land down under.

The fantastic dinosaur fossil record of Victoria has grown over nearly 40 years thanks to the efforts of Dinosaur Dreaming, an ongoing volunteer palaeontology project, and citizen scientists like Melissa Lowery. Thanks to their efforts, our window into Victoria’s ancient past continues to become ever clearer.

Jake Kotevski receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Stipend and Monash University – Museums Victoria scholarship.

Stephen Poropat received funding from the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust to observe fossil specimens relevant to this paper.

– ref. Carnivorous dinosaurs thrived in Australia 120 million years ago, new fossils show – https://theconversation.com/carnivorous-dinosaurs-thrived-in-australia-120-million-years-ago-new-fossils-show-242290

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sukhbir Sandhu, Associate Professor in Sustainability, University of South Australia

In 2022, humans generated roughly 62 million tonnes of electronic waste – or e-waste. That’s enough to fill more than 1.5 million garbage trucks. And by 2030, that figure is expected to rise to 82 million tonnes.

Australia is a huge contributor to this problem. Every year each Australian, on average, generates 20kg of e-waste, compared with the global average of 7kg per person.

Less than one quarter of the world’s e-waste – which includes desktop computers, laptops, mobile phones, televisions, kitchen appliances, batteries and solar panels – is recycled. That means most of it ends up in landfill, which can result in major accidents. For example, earlier this month, a rubbish truck in Melbourne caught fire after a laptop battery that had been thrown in the garbage bin exploded.

So what can be done to increase the amount of e-waste that’s recycled? And what actually happens during the e-waste recycling process?

From breakdown to planned obsolescence

The growing problem of e-waste is fuelled by both perceived and planned obsolescence.

Perceived obsolescence happens when we discard functioning products in favour of newer models. For example, we buy the latest iPhone even though our current phone works fine.

Planned obsolescence is when manufacturers “build in” a use-by date. One way they do this is by not offering software updates, which then renders an existing product incompatible with other, newer devices or presents cybersecurity risks.

Of course, sometimes existing electronic products simply stop working, which forces us to buy a replacement.

A multi-step process

In Australia, the process of recycling e-waste starts with consumers delivering their e-waste to a designated collection centre.

Some manufacturers offer trade-in programs where people can drop off their old phones and laptops at retail shops and get a small discount on a new product. Some councils also run services for periodic collection and offer drop-off centres for e-waste.

The collection is followed by sorting and inspection of the discarded items.

At this stage, the discarded electronic items are sorted based on the type of devices. Some devices can be refurbished and reused if they are still functional.

Those that cannot be refurbished are dismantled.

This involves separating the various components, such as circuit boards, batteries and wiring. Hazardous materials such as mercury and lead are removed, before recyclable and valuable materials are recovered. These include plastic and glass, as well as precious metals like gold and silver from the circuit boards.

After purifying and refining, the recycled materials can be used in new electronics or put to other uses.

According to the national waste report there are 535 facilities in Australia that accept e-waste. But only 20 facilities reprocess these for further recycling.

This means much of Australia’s e-waste is exported to China, India and other Asian countries to be recycled.

Significant challenges

There are significant challenges when it comes to recycling e-waste.

Some are associated with consumer behaviour. For example, unlike kerbside recycling services for paper, glass and cardboard, recycling e-waste generally involves consumers making a special trip to a designated drop-off location. Accessing these locations involves extra effort and can be an inconvenience which deters people from recycling their e-waste.

Also, compared to container deposit schemes, where people get paid to recycle their glass bottles and cans, there are generally no monetary incentives available for recycling e-waste.

Concerns about data security also prevent some people from recycling their e-waste. People are often reluctant to recycle their computer, phones and other electronic items as they are worried their data could be stolen during the recycling process, even after they have deleted the files.

The other set of challenges with recycling e-waste comes from the economic incentives for recycling. Recycling e-waste is complex and costly. The costs involved in recycling can often be higher than the price of raw materials. Hazardous wastes must also be disposed safely, which adds extra costs to the process.

All of this makes it less attractive for businesses to recycle e-waste.

The way forward

Australia’s new circular economy framework is expected to provide a way forward for businesses to address some of these challenges.

The framework seeks to double the rate at which Australia recovers, recycles and reuses materials by 2035, partly by providing direction and designing policies for businesses that encourage recycling.

It’s also important for local governments to make it easier for people to recycle their e-waste.

While it may not be cost effective for councils to have kerbside recycling for e- waste, they could place e-waste collection centres in local areas.

Councils can also explore offering consumers incentives for e-waste recycling. These incentives can be monetary. But even non-monetary incentives, such as letting people know how their recycled e-waste contributes to addressing the bigger problem, can be a motivation.

And finally, as consumers, it would help to remember that the best way to contribute to decreasing e-waste is to repair and reuse our existing products.

Sukhbir Sandhu has received funding from Australian Research Council, European Union, and Green Industries SA.

– ref. Humans generate 62 million tonnes of e-waste each year. Here’s what happens when it’s recycled – https://theconversation.com/humans-generate-62-million-tonnes-of-e-waste-each-year-heres-what-happens-when-its-recycled-249842

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Rowe, Emeritus Professor of Cultural Research, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

As the next federal election came into view before the summer break, concern increased that Labor wouldn’t be honouring its commitment to introduce new restrictions on online (especially sport) gambling advertising during the current parliamentary sitting.

Those fears were well-founded, despite pressure from many sides and broad bipartisan political support.

The Greens made a last-ditch attempt to cooperate with the government to pass some reforms in the February 2025 sitting, but were rebuffed.

Instead, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland blamed the delay on the complexity of advertising reform and the need to continue consultation.

This is despite a House of Representatives inquiry into the harmful impacts of online gambling, led by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy, concluding in June 2023.

In the meantime, much less well-researched but wider-ranging legislation banning children under 16 from using social media was introduced and passed in just eight days in November 2024.

There are both deep historical and immediate political reasons why this legislation has been bogged down.

A nation of sporting gamblers

Professional sport in Australia has an inglorious history of promoting unhealthy goods and services, including cigarettes, sugary drinks, fast food, alcohol and gambling.

Television and, later, online advertisements have been particularly effective vehicles for connecting sport gambling with potential consumers.

This has prompted widespread objections to the health and social consequences and intrusiveness of gambling advertising.

There is convincing evidence that Australia’s world-leading per capita expenditure on gambling and the integral role of sport gambling ads cause harm to a considerable number of people, families and communities.

Such harm includes negative effects on relationships, health, psychological wellbeing, finances, work and study.

The gamblification of sport

Although sport comes third among the main areas of gambling in Australia, it is by far the most prominent, especially in homes.

Read more:
Pokies? Lotto? Sports betting? Which forms of problem gambling affect Australians the most?

The so-called gamblification of sport, accelerated by digitisation, normalises the concept of betting odds among children and young people.

Sport and media’s enthusiasm for gambling money has provoked strong pushback over its negative social consequences, with mounting public pressure for greater controls on gambling advertising.

A recent poll found about 72% of those surveyed wanted to ban online gambling ads, while another of AFL fans reported 76% supported television and radio ad bans.

The response of and to the Murphy Report

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs was charged with investigating online gambling and its impacts.

It made 31 recommendations, with rare cross-party support, in its “you win some, you lose more” report (which was not only about sport).

Contrary to most public debate and media reporting, it did not formally recommend a blanket ban on all gambling advertising. Its terms of reference only covered online gambling.

But Murphy’s foreword – calling for a “phased, comprehensive ban on all gambling advertising on all media; broadcast and online, that leaves no room for circumvention” – caught the most attention.

The main recommendation was for a three-year, four-phase ban on all forms of online gambling advertising. Dedicated racing channels and programming were exempted and small community radio broadcasters given extra time to comply.

After further consultation lasting almost 18 months, it’s clear this calibrated proposal is not favoured by the government.

Journalists were backgrounded about a watered down law capping ads for gambling at two per hour per TV channel before 10pm, and banning them for an hour either side of a live sport event. A blanket ban would apply only to betting ads on social media and other digital platforms.

Yet even these more modest reforms did not proceed as anticipated.

The reason, it has been widely reported, was heavy lobbying by the sport, media and gambling industries.

High-stakes horse trading

The privileged access to government gained by these sectional interests has had a powerful impact on gambling legislation.

The Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports has continually resisted tightening regulations on sport sponsorship and gambling ads.

It claims their reduction or loss would damage the financial viability of its members and their support for grassroots sport.

However, Australia’s major sports leagues derive significant gambling revenue from direct sources (sponsorship, product fees) and indirectly from the value of media rights.

The AFL and NRL generated cumulative revenues of $1.06 billion and $701 million respectively in 2023.

So while sport leagues would have less capacity to monetise their media rights if gambling ads were reduced, it would neither threaten professional sport in general nor seriously jeopardise funding of junior participation.

Follow the money

An Australian Communications and Media Authority report discovered capital city free-to-air television featured 1,381 gambling spots per day between May 2022 and April 2023.

Gambling companies spent $162 million on free-to-air television advertising during this period, not including further investment on subscription platforms.

As free-to-air commercial TV is already losing advertising income to digital media platforms, restrictions on this lucrative advertiser category would not be as easily absorbed today as the tobacco advertising bans in the 1970s.

This is why sports and their media and betting partners are fighting so hard against the legislation.

And all this capital flowing to and through sport, gambling, and media has created the potential to inflict political harm on gambling reforming governments.

Negotiations behind closed doors can easily break out into public campaigns, akin to the infamous “axe the (carbon) tax” agitation, if powerful organisations are not satisfied.

Gambling and the young voter

Sport gambling ads in Australia have especially targeted young men in a jocular larrikin style. But young women are now also being induced to gamble in greater numbers.

Read more:
9 out of 10 Australian sports bettors are men. Here’s why that might change

Those who want curbs on sport gambling advertisements have been cast by some as “wowsers” and “puritans”.

State intervention in the sport-media-gambling nexus may provoke a backlash that working-class men are under attack for engaging in their favourite pastimes.

Like the latest reforms to sport TV anti-siphoning laws, new policies are the product of high-stakes horse trading between nervous governments and pressure groups with manifestly variable degrees of influence.

As in the gambling world, evidence-based policy can confront very uneven odds.

David Rowe has received funding from the Australian Research Council to support research relating to this article: Struggling for Possession: The Control and Use of Online Media Sport (with Brett Hutchins, DP0877777); ‘A Nation of “Good Sports”? Cultural Citizenship and Sport in Contemporary Australia’ (DP130104502), and ‘Australian Cultural Fields: National and Transnational Dynamics’ (with Tony Bennett et al, DP140101970).

Hunter Fujak 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. Will the government’s online gambling advertising legislation ever eventuate? Don’t bet on it – https://theconversation.com/will-the-governments-online-gambling-advertising-legislation-ever-eventuate-dont-bet-on-it-238084

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Wallace, Professor, School of Politics Economics & Society, Faculty of Business Government & Law, University of Canberra

Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie represents the lowest-income Australians, with median weekly earnings of $1,208 a week. In the Australian Capital Territory, where the nation’s highest median weekly earners live, including the brains trust of the Australian Public Service, it’s $1,688 a week – 40% higher.

As a federal politician, Lambie shuttles between these two starkly different earnings worlds and is not happy about the disparity.

Of course, Lambie herself is on a reasonable wicket. Parliamentarians’ base salaries are $233,660 a year, according to an Instagram post she made this month drawing attention to the issue.

At a time of considerable financial stress for Australians hit by the combination of inflation, high interest rates and housing shortages, Lambie struck a nerve with her post, which listed a range of public roles drawing big six figure-plus annual salaries.

In doing so, Lambie underlined the far higher salaries paid to senior public servants compared to the ministers to whom they’re responsible.

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretary Glyn Davis earns $1,011,410 a year, 66% more than the man he serves, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who earns $607,516.

Treasury Secretary Steven Kennedy’s salary is more than double that of Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who is paid $438,112. Another three departmental secretaries each earn $960,840.

Lambie’s Instagram post drew hundreds of comments including:

How does a public servant earn more than the prime minister? That’s wrong!!

Politicians get flak about their salaries from belligerent constituents, but also keenly feel the injustice of earning far less than senior public servants.

Higher pay for higher risk

The salaries of both politicians and public servants have long and specific histories. Without an income, only the rich could afford to be politicians, so publicly paid allowances and salaries have historically been an important equity and inclusion measure. They remain so today.

The original framers of the public service component of our Westminster system of government believed that to prevent conflicts of interest that drive corruption, the bureaucracy ought to be staffed by “permanent officers” with job security. In exchange for what, barring wrongdoing, was going to be a lifetime career, public service pay was historically adequate but not extravagant.

This nexus was broken when, in exchange for higher pay, the Keating government introduced five-year contracts for departmental secretaries in March 1994. Three departmental secretaries refused contracts and continued as “permanent officers”. The rest took the money and the increased employment risk that went with it.

Two years later, the Keating government lost office and incoming Prime Minister John Howard summarily fired nearly a third of departmental secretaries, fatally eroding the “frank and fearless” tradition of public service advice underpinned by security of employment.

Compromised advice

Contract employment for secretaries, who effectively can now be fired at will, not only created pressure for public servants to tell ministers what they wanted to hear, but also untethered their salaries from historical norms. Higher pay reflected that insecurity. The flow-on effect meant other salaries in the senior executive service also floated upwards.

Contracts for secretaries have also been central to the revolving door that’s developed between the top of the public service and large consulting firms, creating conflicts of interest unknown in the traditional Westminster public service.

The big four consulting firms are attractive alternative employers for highly paid and insecure departmental secretaries.

Little wonder, then, that a quasi-privatisation of public service advice through consultancy contracts to those firms occurred, at vast expense to taxpayers – something Finance Minister Katy Gallagher has made strong efforts to reverse.

Lambie’s push for answers

Lambie has introduced the Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There for the Public Service, Not Profit) Bill 2025 to cap senior APS pay at $430,000. It’s a bid to address remuneration which has raced far beyond ministerial salaries, and well beyond reasonable public expectations.

The Lambie bill has been referred to a Senate committee, which presents an opportunity to evolve debate on the deeper reasons for what has gone awry in the public service and to devise a response that gets to the root of the problem.

The precarity of contract employment for departmental secretaries, which is used to justify high salaries, is both unnecessary and harmful to the quality of public policy and administration in Australia.

The intrinsic interest and challenge of working for the nation and the betterment of its citizens has always paid well in terms of a “psychic wage” on top of senior public servants’ actual salaries. If the complaint is that an executive could make much more in the private sector, they’re probably not the right person to work in the public service anyway.

One reply to Lambie’s Insta post summed up the situation:

It’s the pollies that made this mess.

Politicians are the ones who are going to have to clean it up.

It is neither likely nor plausible that highly paid public service leaders will cut their own salaries in return for an end to the five year contract system for secretaries.

But that is what a return to good public service governance – and to frank and fearless advice in the national interest – now requires.

Chris Wallace has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. The prime minister earns $607,000 a year. Why does his top public servant earn more than $1 million? – https://theconversation.com/the-prime-minister-earns-607-000-a-year-why-does-his-top-public-servant-earn-more-than-1-million-250045

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Ayre, Post Doctoral Research Fellow, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, University of Sydney

More people are turning to generative artificial intelligence (AI) to help them in their daily and professional lives. ChatGPT is one of the most well-known and widely available generative AI tools. It gives tailored, plausible answers to any question for free.

There is so much potential for generative AI tools to help people learn about their health. But the answers are not always correct. Relying solely on ChatGPT for health advice can be risky and cause unnecessary concern.

Generative AI is still a relatively new technology, and is constantly changing. Our new study provides the first Australian data about who is using ChatGPT to answer health questions, for what purposes.

The results can help tell people how to use this new technology for their health, and the new skills needed to use it safely – in other words, to build “AI health literacy”.

Who uses ChatGPT for health? What do they ask?

In June 2024 we asked a nationally representative sample of more than 2,000 Australians if they had used ChatGPT to answer health questions.

One in ten (9.9%) had asked ChatGPT a health question in the first half of 2024.

On average they reported that they “somewhat” trusted ChatGPT (3.1 out of 5).

We also found the proportion of people using ChatGPT for health was higher for people who had low health literacy, were born in a non-English speaking country, or spoke another language at home.

This suggests ChatGPT may be supporting people who find it hard to engage with traditional forms of health information in Australia.

The most common questions that people asked ChatGPT related to:

• learning about a health condition (48%)
• finding out what symptoms mean (37%)
• asking about actions (36%)
• or understanding medical terms (35%).

More than half (61%) had asked at least one question that would usually require clinical advice. We classified these questions as “riskier”. Asking ChatGPT what your symptoms mean can give you a rough idea, but cannot substitute clinical advice.

People who were born in a non-English speaking country or who spoke another language at home were more likely to ask these types of questions.

Why does this matter?

The number of people using generative AI for health information is likely to grow. In our study, 39% of people who had not yet used ChatGPT for health would consider doing so in the next six months.

The overall number of people using generative AI tools for health information is even higher if we consider other tools such as Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Meta AI.

Notably, in our study we saw that people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities may be more likely to use ChatGPT for health information.

If they were asking ChatGPT to translate health information, this adds another layer of complexity. Generative AI tools are generally less accurate in other languages.

We need investment in services (whether human or machine) to ensure speaking another language is not a barrier to high quality health information.

What does ‘AI health literacy’ look like?

Generative AI is here to stay, presenting both opportunities and risks to people who use it for health information.

On the one hand, this technology appeals to people who already face significant barriers accessing health care and health information. One of its key benefits is its ability to instantly provide health information that is easy to understand.

A recent review of studies showed generative AI tools are increasingly capable of answering general health questions using plain language, although they were less accurate for complex health topics.

This has clear benefits as most health information is written at a level that is too complex for the general population, including during the pandemic.

On the other hand, people are turning to general-purpose AI tools for health advice. This is riskier for questions that require clinical judgment and a broader understanding of the patient.

There have already been case studies showing the dangers of using general purpose AI tools to decide whether to go to hospital or not.

Where else can you go for this information?

We need to help people think carefully about the kinds of questions they’re asking AI tools, and connect them with appropriate services that can answer these riskier questions.

Organisations such as HealthDirect provide a national free helpline where you can speak with a registered nurse about whether to go to hospital or see a doctor. HealthDirect also provides an online SymptomChecker tool to help you figure out your next steps.

While many Australian health agencies are developing AI policies, most are focused on how health services and staff engage with this technology.

We urgently need to equip our community with AI health literacy skills. This need will grow as more people use AI tools for health, and it will also change as the AI tools evolve.

Julie Ayre receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP2017278). The Health Literacy Editor is a research tool owned by the University of Sydney. It is sublicensed to Health Literacy Solutions PTY Ltd to enable wider public use. Julie Ayre (study author) is a co-director of Health Literacy Solutions PTY Ltd. She takes no personal income from Health Literacy Solutions PTY Ltd or the Health Literacy Editor.

Kirsten McCaffery receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP2016719). The Health Literacy Editor is a research tool owned by the University of Sydney. It is sub-licensed to Health Literacy Solutions PTY Ltd to enable wider public use. Kirsten McCaffery is a co-director of Health Literacy Solutions PTY Ltd. She takes no personal income from Health Literacy Solutions PTY Ltd or the Health Literacy Editor.

Erin Cvejic 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. More people are asking generative AI questions about their health. But the wrong answer can be risky – https://theconversation.com/more-people-are-asking-generative-ai-questions-about-their-health-but-the-wrong-answer-can-be-risky-249383

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hales, Director, Centre for Sustainable Enterprise, Griffith University

The goal of science is to uncover truths and create new knowledge. But this is not always welcome. Increasingly, scientific findings are being attacked or downplayed. And scientists themselves face intimidation or harassment.

In our global study of more than 2,000 scientists across six areas of science, two-fifths (41%) of respondents had, as a result of their work, been harassed or intimidated at least once over a five-year period.

Intimidation efforts included online abuse, physical threats, and threats to budgets or employment. Harassment, while personal, could be meted out by superiors, colleagues or outsiders. Some scientists felt their leaders had thrown them under the bus to protect the institution’s reputation.

Who’s doing the intimidation? Strikingly, a majority of cases of intimidation and harassment actually came from inside the institution for most fields. That is, it was perpetrated by senior colleagues or managers. But for climate scientists, most intimidation efforts came from outside.

Intimidation of scientists doesn’t happen in a vacuum. In recent years, there has been a rise in populist leaders who pour scorn on “elites” and evidence. Scientific issues are increasingly politicised. Disinformation is rampant. This atmosphere adds to the pressure faced by scientists, especially those working in politically sensitive areas such as climate science or COVID.

What did we find?

We used an online database of scientists to find and contact experts publishing in six fields: climate science, medical health, humanities and social science, food and plant science, astronomy, and other STEM areas.

More than 2,000 responded to our survey on whether they had experienced various types of intimidation or harassment. We asked respondents for more detail on the perpetrators, what triggered the incident, and what effect it had on them.

Many respondents had a clear view as to what the intimidation or harassment was meant to do. The motivations of perpetrators varied greatly. But the most common reasons were to damage their reputation, to stop them from publishing certain types of research, or to “put me in my place”.

Specific fields of science were more prone to harassment and intimidation – in particular climate science, and humanities and social science.

Among those scientists who had been intimidated, climate scientists reported online abuse three times more often than astronomers. Climate science is politically charged, because climate change is clearly linked to pollution from some of the world’s largest industries – oil, gas and coal. Astronomy is not. Half of the climate scientist respondents experiencing intimidation saw the bad behaviour as a way to discourage them from undertaking specific research and speaking about it.

Researchers from humanities and social sciences faced similar levels of online abuse to climate scientists.

When it came to personal harassment, there was a clear gender dimension. Among those who reported experiencing harassment, female scientists were more than four times more likely to report “unwelcome or inappropriate behaviour of a sexual nature” than their male counterparts. Women were affected almost twice as much as men by non-sexual forms of personal harassment.

Our findings follow earlier research finding similar rates of intimidation. For instance, a 2021 survey of 321 scientists working on COVID-19 found 15% had received death threats and 22% received threats of sexual violence.

Intimidation and harassment are damaging

The consequences of intimidation are profound and far-reaching. Many scientists told us the experience had caused lasting damage, whether to wellbeing, career prospects or research activities.

More than 40% of those affected said their career prospects had worsened following incidents of harassment. Just over a third (34%) reported a decline in their desire to work in science. Scientists who experienced intimidation often cut back their collaboration with colleagues (35%), leaving them more isolated.

Many of our respondents described flow-on effects such as decreased access to funding (35% of respondents) and less public communication from their institution about their work (23%).

Scientists targeted with multiple types of harassment reported very damaging effects, from difficulty finding their next job to poor mental health.

Intimidation slows progress

Intimidation and harassment have a chilling effect on science. This, in turn, could hinder progress on crucial issues such as climate change, public health and technological advancements.

The disproportionate impact on women and researchers in politically sensitive fields threatens to undermine diversity and inclusivity in science.

Without targeted interventions, women in science may continue to suffer disproportionate levels of harassment and intimidation. This will have long-term implications for gender diversity in scientific leadership and the direction of research in various fields.

In the United States, the Trump administration’s withdrawals from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization are likely to further embolden anti-science movements. Many American scientific institutions are engaged in anticipatory obedience of the Trump administration’s demands that diversity and anti-discrimination programs be abolished, or climate change stop being mentioned. Many even go beyond what is explicitly sought.

What can be done?

Science and academia is often seen as a bastion of free inquiry and open discussion. One of our most surprising findings was how common intimidation was within scientific institutions.

The key to beating intimidation is organisational support and clear strategies, not obedience. These include:

• genuine commitment to institutional policies protecting scientists from both internal and external intimidation

• formal, well-resourced support systems for researchers facing harassment or pressure (not the HR office)

• programs to increase public understanding of the scientific process to build trust and resilience to misinformation

• boosting international collaboration between scientists and policymakers to ensure resilience against country-specific efforts to undermine science

• educating the public on the importance of scientific independence and of fostering respectful dialogue around contentious topics.

As populist movements gain traction in many countries, scientists working on controversial issues will face heightened scrutiny – and potentially more intimidation.

Climate science is likely to remain a particularly contested field. As the damage wrought by climate change becomes more and more apparent, it will get even more contentious.

Over the last few centuries, science has produced breakthroughs in many areas. But the integrity of science is not guaranteed. Harassment and intimidation from both inside and outside institutions has a very real effect on scientists.

The future of evidence-based decision-making and ability to tackle global challenges depends on fostering an environment where scientists can work free from fear and undue pressure.

Robert Hale receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

David Peetz undertook research over many years with occasional financial support from governments from both sides of politics, employers and unions. He has been and is involved in several Australian Research Council-funded projects, including this one.

Ian Lowe was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 2004 to 2014.

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

– ref. Two in five scientists report harassment and intimidation. Often, the perpetrators are inside the institution – https://theconversation.com/two-in-five-scientists-report-harassment-and-intimidation-often-the-perpetrators-are-inside-the-institution-248013

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

This week, updated figures once again showed an increasing number of Australian families are choosing to send their children to private schools.

Just over 63% of Australian students are enrolled in government schools. Almost 20% are in Catholic schools and almost 17% go to independent schools, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics.

How much is it costing parents?

While headlines often focus on the most expensive schools, there is a huge range of private schools operating in Australia.

In our new analysis, which is not peer-reviewed, we looked at private school fees in New South Wales and Victoria (the two most populous states).

Read more:
More Australian families are choosing private schools – we need to understand why

Fees for Year 12

We looked only at independent schools. The non-government school sector is made up of Catholic and independent schools, but Catholic private schools typically charge lower fees and this can skew the data on the sector.

The tuition fees we refer to are based on what is publicly available through each school’s website.

We collected all available data for Year 12 tuition fees in every independent school in NSW and Victoria in 2021 and 2024. We chose to focus on Year 12, as this is typically the most expensive year at school.

• In NSW, we found fee information for 369 schools (77% of independent schools).

• In Victoria we found fee information for 138 schools (92% of independent schools).

Read more:
Are public schools really ‘free’? Families can pay hundreds of dollars in voluntary fees

What is the average tuition fee?

In 2024, the average tuition fee for a Year 12 student in NSW was A$15,674 and in Victoria it was $20,923.

This is in keeping with other analyses showing Victoria is the most expensive state for school fees in Australia.

These figures suggest while many schools are far from the headlines of “$50,000 fees”, many families are still paying substantial amounts for a private education – particularly if they have more than one child.

However, there were significant variations in tuition fees between schools. In NSW, 12% of schools in our sample charged under $5,000 per year per student. In Victoria, 9% charged less than $5,000.

One alternative school in NSW charged just $100 per student per year. This is less than parents typically pay out of their own pocket at the average public school.

This shows us there some cheaper options available, depending on where families live although they are certainly not the majority.

At the other end of the sample, The Scots College in NSW and Geelong Grammar School in Victoria charged the highest tuition fees in their respective states for 2024. Geelong Grammar charged $49,720 for Year 12; Scots charged $46,920.

There are other costs

While we only looked at tuition fees, families might also have to pay levies for infrastructure or technology.

There are also extra charges for activities such as camps, excursions and incursions, as well as fees for uniforms, school buses, and special subjects such as music and sport.

For the majority of independent schools, parents are asked to pay to enrol or go on the waiting list. The average application fee in Victoria was $156 and in NSW was $197. These fees widely differed between schools, ranging from zero to $650.

How much are fees growing?

Fees keep climbing each year, and media reports tell us some school fees have already increased for 2025.

Our analysis found in Victoria, tuition fees in independent schools increased by an average of 15% from 2021 to 2024 – roughly 3.75% each year. In NSW, fees increased by 13% from 2021 to 2024, or about 3.25% per year.

In media coverage, individual schools have blamed fee increases on inflation, “operational costs”, rising staff costs, and a drop in federal funding.

Will fees keep rising?

In some OECD countries, if private schools receive government funding, there are conditions placed on what they can charge for tuition.

This is not the case in Australia, where the system is unregulated and uncapped.

Unless this policy approach changes, we can expect private schools to keep increasing fees, as long as there are families willing and able to pay them.

Emma Rowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Diana Langmead 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 you afford a private school? Average fees for Year 12 are at least $15,000 – https://theconversation.com/can-you-afford-a-private-school-average-fees-for-year-12-are-at-least-15-000-248769

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martien Lubberink, Associate Professor of Accounting and Capital, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

It would be hard to think of an industry less obviously “woke” than banking, but that’s how coalition partner NZ First has characterised certain practices within the finance sector.

The party’s tortuously titled Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide) Amendment Bill – dubbed the “woke banking” bill – takes aim at efforts to build sustainability concepts into investment practices.

Known as the “environmental, social and governance (ESG) framework”, such policies are designed to guide how a bank manages risks and opportunities beyond basic profit and loss.

NZ First’s bill seeks to ensure no New Zealand business can be denied banking services unless the decision is grounded in law. Its proponents argue it will prevent ESG standards from perpetuating “woke ideology” in the banking sector, driven by what they describe as “unelected, globalist, climate radicals”.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has supported the bill’s aims, recently calling it “utterly unacceptable” that petrol stations and mines were being denied banking services due to banks’ commitment to climate change goals.

Coalition partner ACT similarly called for the end of “banking wokery”. And last week the Finance and Expenditure Committee announced an extension of its inquiry into banking competition to include, among other issues, the “debanking of legitimate sectors”.

Risk management isn’t ‘woke’

Much of this is largely politically performative, however. A broader international trend has for, some time now, seen financial institutions increasingly aligning their lending practices with ESG criteria.

In Europe, for example, data from the European Banking Authority show banks have halved their exposures to mining firms since 2020, reflecting that global shift towards sustainability and risk management.

This is about more than “woke” agendas and is unlikely to reverse, given current global efforts to decarbonise. Encouraging or forcing banks to invest in carbon-emitting industries introduces financial risk. If those assets lose value, it constitutes irresponsible lending.

While the current US administration may be embracing fossil fuel industries, consumer and investor demand for sustainable policies is still strong. When banks such as the BNZ prepare for an orderly exit from declining industries, they are simply engaging in risk management.

Banks also manage regulatory risk. While the current government may enact the bill and force banks to invest in carbon-emitting industries, a future government could reverse that policy. This undermines long-term investment strategies.

Regulatory uncertainty

There is also a danger New Zealand is perceived internationally as not being serious about business and investment. In particular, the prime minister’s pressure on bank lending policies cuts across his stated commitment to the Paris Agreement on climate change.

The resulting regulatory uncertainty is counterproductive: it potentially deters international investors at a time when the government aims to attract foreign investment.

Ultimately, if bank lending policies lead to poor outcomes, it is ordinary New Zealanders who will likely bear the costs through higher interest rates or even bank failures.

In its eagerness to boost lending, the government is also encroaching on the Reserve Bank’s territory by directing it to prioritise competition, including reviewing risk weightings and capital thresholds (designed to build buffers against failure) for new entrants to the market.

But history shows that before the 2007-2009 global financial crisis, similar bank-friendly initiatives – often labelled “principles-based” – led to bad debt accumulation and increased economic vulnerability.

Institutional failure

The shift towards what we might call populist banking policies is not confined to New Zealand. Globally, there is a declining political interest in financial stability and prudential regulation.

For example, agreement on the “Basel III” reforms – developed in response to the global financial crisis and aimed at strengthening the regulation, supervision and risk management of banks – will likely be delayed by the Trump administration.

This will have ripple effects in Europe, Britain and the rest of the world, signalling a softening of global capital requirements. As Erik Thedéen, chair of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, described this:

Shaving off a few basis points of capital will not unlock a wave of new lending, but it will weaken your resilience. More generally, being well capitalised is a competitive advantage for banks and their shareholders. It ensures they can continue to grow and invest in profitable projects across the financial cycle.

Politicians need to be very careful when interfering with bank supervision policies in general. They risk undermining the independence of crucial institutions, with real consequences.

Last year’s Nobel Prize for economics went to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson for their “studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity”. Their warning is that institutional failure can lead to the failure of nations.

A resilient banking system

While New Zealand isn’t in such imminent danger, political leaders need to be aware that populist appeals to certain voter segments can lead to policies that undermine the banking system and economic growth, and disproportionately affect the most vulnerable.

As Stelios Haji-Ioannou, founder of low-cost airline EasyJet, once remarked: “if you think safety is expensive, try an accident”.

New Zealand needs to focus on policies that promote long-term financial stability, enhance productivity and sustainable economic growth. Globally, there needs to be a recommitment to prudential regulation to ensure the lessons of the global financial crisis are not forgotten.

Only by doing so can we build a resilient banking system that serves the interests of all, not just a privileged few.

Martien Lubberink 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. Collateral damage: how the war on ‘woke banking’ could backfire on New Zealand – https://theconversation.com/collateral-damage-how-the-war-on-woke-banking-could-backfire-on-new-zealand-249930

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jason M. Gibson, DECRA Senior Research Fellow, Cultural Heritage and Museum Studies, Deakin University

A ground painting is known in Anmatyerr as Ahelh Anety-irrem, meaning “broken” or perhaps even “transformed ground”. The name refers to the process of clearing an even surface on the red earth, building a sculpture and then deconstructing it.

Anmatyerr people live in the desert community of Laramba, 200 kilometres northwest of Alice Springs. Now, the work of Anmatyerr artists has been shown in Switzerland for the first time.

In December, four men from Laramba travelled to the Canton of Valais, just east of Geneva.

Elder Michael Tommy, Morris Wako, Cliffy Tommy and Martin Mpetyan/Kemarr Hagan (one of the authors of this piece) were invited to create three ground paintings for the international exhibition Rien de Trop Beau pour les Dieux (Nothing Too Beautiful for The Gods).

Working alongside artists from Cameroon, Tibet, Cuba and Aotearoa New Zealand, the Anmatyerr group represented a uniquely Australian culture.

Creating the paintings

Along with body and artefact designs, ground paintings were an important cultural source for the emergence of contemporary desert art in the early 1970s.

During that decade, Anmatyerr, Warlpiri, Luritja and Pintupi men began experimenting with representing ceremonial designs and stories using acrylic paint.

Drawing largely on designs and stories embedded in central Australian religious activities the men developed the style of “dot” painting now known across the world.

Two of the ground paintings shown in Switzerland were principally made from a native daisy (Chrysocephalum apiculatum), or anteth mpay-mpay in the Anmatyerr language.

The plant was harvested from Anmatyerr lands, chopped finely and coloured with red or white ochres before being shipped to Switzerland.

A bunch of cockatoo feathers along with an alkwert (beanwood shield) and an atnartenty (ceremonial pole) made by Anmatyerr artist Wayne Scrutton also made the journey.

Michael Tommy, a ceremonial expert amongst the Anmatyerr people, oversaw the making of the ceremonial designs.

Each of the men possessed personal connections to different designs. Martin created the rrpwamper (common brushtail possum) ground sculpture belonging to his mother’s father.

Morris painted the atwerneng (flying ant) and rrwerleng (honey grevillea) Dreamings of his father.

Michael and Cliffy constructed their father and grandfather’s yerramp (honey-ant) ground painting.

The works were created in the gallery over three days with artists from other parts of the globe regularly coming by to chat and share ideas.

As the men worked, they sang the songs for each of the designs. These voices reverberated across the room and brought life to works that were steeped in old traditions but also very much part of the present.

On opening night, the men painted their bodies with the correct designs and explained how their art stemmed from Anengekerr (Dreaming), Country and family inheritance. The exchange was translated into French for the local audience.

Recording culture

In 2023 the Laramba men began recording their ceremonial traditions, recognising these practices were vulnerable in a rapidly changing world.

One of the writers of this piece, Jason Gibson, has worked closely with the community over the last 15 years on the repatriation of relevant recordings of ceremonies from the Strehlow and other collections. The Strehlow collection is made up of recordings of Aboriginal ceremony, ritual and song from central Australia collected by the anthropologist TGH Strehlow between 1932 and 1972. It is now held at the Strehlow Research Centre in Alice Springs.

Museum collections like this were made by anthropologists over the last 130 years and hold important information about ceremonial practices, family histories and stories for Country. Having access to this material has enabled the community to think deeply about how art and museum collections might be used to their advantage.

The men have now decided to build a collection of their own, serving their cultural future.

A part of this strategy has been to reach out to galleries and museums in search of collaborations.

Through giving and showing, they are striving to establish better relationships and wider recognition.

Aboriginal art in Europe

Established in 2018, by collector Bérengère Primat, Fondation Opale is the sole contemporary art centre dedicated to the promotion of Australian Aboriginal art in Europe.

The building’s architecture and décor showcase Australian Aboriginal themes. An Aboriginal flag flies from the rooftop and sculptures of boomerangs and shields adorn the grounds. This desert culture stands against a contrasting backdrop of alpine snow and ice.

Though unusual, the setting created a familiar and comforting place from which to work.

The men were hand-picked because of their expertise in ceremony. Michael Tommy had made acrylic paintings alongside Clifford Possum and Tim Leura, founders of desert acrylic painting, but none of the men had invited or sought fame as painters. Their focus has been on the retention of song and ceremony.

The knowledge encrypted in the works created by these men in Switzerland is known to only a small group of people in Laramba and nearby communities. The ground paintings are usually only made as a part of local ceremonial events.

Only on a few other occasions have men from Anmatyerr and Warlpiri men created ground paintings for international audiences, notably at the Asia Society in New York in 1988, and the Magiciens de la Terre (Magicians of the Earth) exhibition in Paris in 1989.

Magicians of the Earth, curated by Jean-Hubert Martin, was controversial for presenting non-Western artistic practice on an equal footing with the artistic traditions of Western Europe and North America. The show significantly influenced the way contemporary art is understood and presented on a global scale, and remains a touchstone for discussions about cultural representation and inclusion in the art world.

Nothing Too Beautiful for the Gods was also curated by Martin, and shines a light on the relationship between culturally diverse forms of spirituality and artistic practices. It was the perfect context for the men to demonstrate how their art and religious practices are intertwined. It also showed how traditions rooted in place, can also be part of a contemporary, global conversation.

The three works will now stay on permanent exhibition at Fondation Opale. Culture practiced and shared is culture sustained.

Jason M. Gibson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Martin Mpetyan Hagan 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. The desert among the snow: how Anmatyerr ceremony men came to create ground paintings in Switzerland – https://theconversation.com/the-desert-among-the-snow-how-anmatyerr-ceremony-men-came-to-create-ground-paintings-in-switzerland-246985

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brian Oliver, Professor, School of Life Sciences, University of Technology Sydney

Pope Francis has been in hospital for more than a week with what some media reports are now calling “double pneumonia”.

The Vatican released a statement on Tuesday evening saying

laboratory tests, chest X-rays, and the clinical condition of the Holy Father continue to present a complex picture.

The 88-year-old Catholic leader has a long history of respiratory illness.

So, what makes this bout of pneumonia – a severe lung infection – so “complex”? And how will it be treated?

What is double pneumonia?

Pneumonia is a serious infection that fills the lungs with liquid or pus and can make it difficult to breathe. People may also have chest pain, cough up green mucus and have a fever.

“Double pneumonia” is not an official medical term. It may be being used to describe two different aspects of Pope Francis’s condition.

1. A bilateral infection

Pope Francis has pneumonia in both lungs. This is known as “bilateral pneumonia”.

An infection in both lungs doesn’t necessarily mean it’s more severe, but location is important. It can make a difference which parts of the lung are affected.

When just one part of the lung or one lung is affected, the person can continue to breathe using the other lung while their body fights the infection.

However when both lungs are compromised, the person will be receiving very little oxygen.

2. A polymicrobial infection

The Vatican has also said the infection affecting Pope Francis’s lungs is “polymicrobial”.

This means the infection is being caused by more than one kind of microorganism (or “pathogen”).

So, the cause could be two (or more) different kinds of bacteria, or any combination of bacteria, virus and fungus. It’s vital to know what’s causing the infection to effectively treat it.

How is it diagnosed?

Usually, when someone presents with suspected pneumonia the hospital will sample their lungs with a sputum test or swab.

They will often also undergo an X-ray, usually to confirm which parts of the lung are involved.

Healthy lungs look “empty” on an X-ray, because they are filled with air. But pneumonia fills the lungs with fluid.

This means it’s usually very easy to see where pneumonia is affecting them, because the infection shows up as solid white mass on the scan.

How is it treated?

The sputum or swab helps detect what is causing the infection and determine treatment. For example, a specific antibiotic will be used to target a certain bacterium.

Usually this works well. But if the infection is polymicrobial, the normal treatment might not be effective.

For example, the antibiotics may work on the bacteria. But if there’s also a virus – which can’t be treated with antibiotics – it may become the dominant pathogen driving the infection.

As a result, the patient may initially respond well to medication and then begin deteriorating again.

If the infection is caused by multiple bacteria, the patient might be given a broad-spectrum antibiotic rather than a single targeted drug.

A viral infection is harder to treat, as the anti-viral drugs that are available aren’t very effective or targeted.

In severe cases, a patient will also need to be in intensive care on a breathing machine because they can’t breathe alone. This helps make sure they receive enough oxygen while their body fights the infection.

Who is most susceptible?

It’s possible to recover, even from severe infections. However having pneumonia can damage the lungs, and this can make a repeat infection more likely.

Most people will never have a severe infection from these same pathogens. They may only experience a minor cold or flu, because their immune system can adequately fight the infection.

However, certain groups are much more vulnerable to developing a serious case of pneumonia.

Risk factors include:

• age: babies under two, whose immune systems are still developing, and adults over 65, who tend to have weakened immune systems

• lung damage: previous infections can cause scarring

• lung disease: for example, if you have emphysema or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

• being a smoker

• immunosuppression: if your immune system is weakened, for example by medication you take after a transplant or during cancer treatment.

Pope Francis has a number of these risk factors. The pontiff is 88 years old and has a history of respiratory illness.

He also had pleurisy (a condition that inflames the lungs) as a young adult. As a result, he had part of one lung removed, making him susceptible to lung infections.

On Tuesday, the Vatican said Pope Francis remains “in good spirits” while he receives medical care and is grateful for the support he has received.

Brian Oliver receives funding from the NHMRC, and the ARC. He is affiliated with the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the European Respiratory Society. He has given presentations on topics other than pneumonia at symposia organised by the pharmaceutical industry.

Min Feng 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 ‘double pneumonia’, the condition that’s put Pope Francis in hospital? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-double-pneumonia-the-condition-thats-put-pope-francis-in-hospital-250256

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

Housing supply in Australia will be a key battleground in the election campaign. With home ownership more and more out of reach for young and not so young Australians, red tape and low productivity are strangling the builder industry just when it needs to be stepping up.

The productivity Commission, the government’s independent think tank, has a new report report pointing to ways governments need to address the issues. In this podcast we talk to commission chair Danielle Wood about the housing challenge, as well as Australia’s parlous productivity performance generally and her drive to get some fresh ideas on how to improve it.

On one of the report’s main recommendation, cutting red tape for construction approvals, Wood says,

I like to think of regulation as a bit like a hedge. […] There’s almost an unwavering tendency for it to grow over time if you don’t clip it back. And I think in housing that’s particularly true. You have multiple levels of government involved, particularly local governments and state governments. Lots of different policy objectives in play. So obviously, quality and safety being pivotal, local amenity, heritage, traffic, environmental, accessibility.

Lots and lots of decisions are taken, often without considering the trade off. And every time we add new regulations or more complex regulations, that imposes a cost. And ultimately that is a drag on housing, productivity and supply.

So what should be done?

We’ve certainly said we think there should be a good look at the national construction code, which is one source of regulatory burden where we think there’s scope to improve. I would love to see state governments – and I think they are turning their mind to this – to look at this question of just the sheer amount of regulation, the timeframes for approvals and look to ways to streamline the burden and also help develop and builders coordinate their way through that process more smoothly.

On why productivity in construction in particular has fallen so far, Wood explains,

You do not see many sectors go backwards in productivity  over that sort of time horizon. One reason is that our homes are bigger and better quality. So I think that is worth noting. If we adjust for that, productivity has declined, but only by 12% rather than 50%.

We haven’t seen the same sort of innovation in homebuilding that we’ve seen in other parts of the economy. We still essentially build most houses the same way we did 100 years ago so we haven’t had that technological change driver of productivity. It’s an industry that’s characterised by lack of scale.

And then there are workforce challenges as well. And, you know, we all hear a lot about the challenge of attracting and retaining skilled trades workers. You know, that can make it hard, particularly building.

The Productivity Commission asked for submissions from the public on how to improve Australia’s productivity more generally. Wood is happy with how the initiaive is going,

It’s been worth the effort. We’ve actually ended up with more than 500 submissions in the end, And they’re from a mix from individuals, from businesses, from organisations. But for me, the beauty is being able to hear from people that we wouldn’t normally hear from in our reviews and the point is that all of us interact with aspects of government policy every day in our lives and I think we absolutely heard that through the submissions.

There were some fun ones there – high quality Japanese public toilets, more freely available free coffee. But more generally, I mean, we heard from small business owners about impacts of red tape and regulation [and] lots of interest in education policy. Unsurprisingly, again, it touches a lot of our lives, but looking for things like more work experience in schools, trying to build more industry-relevant skills into higher education.

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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Danielle Wood on how to trim back housing regulations – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-danielle-wood-on-how-to-trim-back-housing-regulations-250260

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ranjana Gupta, Senior Lecturer, Accounting Department, Auckland University of Technology

The profit made on every breakfast bowl of weet-bix is tax exempt, giving Sanitarium Health Food Company, owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, an advantage over other breakfast food companies. But this could be about to change.

Under current rules, New Zealand’s charities are allowed to run businesses as long as the profits are not for personal gain. This means the government gives up millions in tax revenue from charities across the government.

In December, Finance Minister Nicola Willis proposed revising the tax rules for charitable organisations. The changes are set to be announced with this year’s Budget. According to Willis, there was about NZ$2 billion of “profit” in the charitable sector that was not subject to tax.

My new research – to be published later this year – looks at the integrity and fairness of the taxation framework that gives exemptions to charitable organisations competing directly with the for-profit sector.

Striking the right balance between supporting legitimate charitable activities and preventing the abuse of tax concessions is crucial for ensuring a level playing field in the tax system.

My study shows the tax exemption system in New Zealand, as it stands now, is not really fair and equitable. And it is past time for this to change.

For the public benefit

Under New Zealand’s charity law, a charitable organisation must operate for the public benefit and relieve the government of its burden to provide welfare services and assist disadvantaged people.

A paper prepared by the Tax Working Group, an advisory group that looked at New Zealand’s tax system between 2017 and 2019, estimated 30% of registered charities were likely to have some sort of trading activities, such as second-hand stores.

To be eligible for tax exemptions, any gains from businesses must be reinvested in the organisation’s charitable activities.

The traditional justification for granting charitable organisations tax concessions is that they are dedicated to the greater good of society. The concessions are also meant to offset the disadvantages charities face in accessing capital.

But by treating the producers of identical goods and services differently, there is a risk of compromising horizontal equity principles – basically the idea that taxpayers in similar positions should pay similar amounts of tax.

There are concerns for the tax system’s integrity when charitable organisations shift their focus from providing a public good to providing private or unrelated goods (commercial activities).

In these cases, it is clear that tax breaks should be limited.

When governments offer tax breaks, they forego tax revenue. Governments end up having to raise money from other sources to meet their total tax collection targets, such as increasing tax rates on non-exempt firms, items and individuals.

Taxing unrelated activities

Overseas tax systems take a different view of exemptions for charities, offering examples for New Zealand to follow.

In the United Kingdom, for example, charities cannot undertake commercial trading activities unrelated to their charitable purposes while claiming exemption from income tax. This ensures fair competition between commercial activities.

In the United States, “unrelated business income” is subject to tax, restricting concessions to ensure the tax regime matches conventional tax policy or social welfare policy.

In Australia, commercial trading unrelated to the charity’s core purpose is not allowed.

Ensuring transparency

To ensure greater transparency over who gets an exemption, the financial statements of all charities in New Zealand should also be filed on the Charities Register. These statements should be publicly available.

Charities also need to become more responsible and equitable in their operations. There needs to be stricter regulation, and compliance measures should be implemented. These would prevent tax exemption misuse that benefits a specific group or individuals.

The time for reviewing charitable purposes is long overdue in New Zealand, particularly given the UK and Australia have set out their concepts of charitable purposes in recent years.

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

– ref. With billions in ‘profit’ exempt from tax, changes to NZ’s charity rules are long overdue – https://theconversation.com/with-billions-in-profit-exempt-from-tax-changes-to-nzs-charity-rules-are-long-overdue-249575

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Francesca Perugia, Senior Lecturer, School of Design and the Built Environment, Curtin University

Australia’s housing crisis has created a push for fast-tracked construction. Federal, state and territory governments have set a target of 1.2 million new homes over five years.

Increasing housing supply is essential. However, the homes must be thoughtfully located and designed, to avoid or withstand natural disasters such as bushfires, floods and cyclones.

Recent severe weather, including floods in Queensland and severe storms in north-east Victoria, underscore the growing vulnerability of Australian homes. As climate change worsens, the risk becomes ever-greater.

Our new research examined how disaster risk informs housing location and design in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. We spoke to planners, developers, insurers and housing providers, and found crucial problems that leave communities exposed.

Getting to grips with disaster data

Australia’s towns and cities are increasingly affected by natural disasters. The consequences extend beyond physical destruction to social, psychological and health effects. Disasters also harm the economy.

Despite this, government housing policies and strategies often fail to adequately focus on natural disasters.

Accurate, up-to-date information is crucial when seeking to protect new homes from natural disasters. Informed decisions typically require three types of data:

• foundational: relating to vegetation, landscape features, weather, climate change and building characteristics such as height and materials

• hazards: the risks of different disaster types such as historical flood data, maps of bushfire-prone areas and the recurrence of cyclones

• vulnerability: the potential and actual impacts of natural disasters such as building damage, fatalities and injuries, displacement, psychological and health impacts and insurance losses.

Our research, for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, examined how data could be better used and shared to plan and deliver new housing and protect Australians from disasters.

What we did

We started by identifying what data was available in Australia for bushfire, flood and cyclone risk.
Then we examined who owned and managed the data and how it was, or wasn’t, shared.

The next step was to explore how decision-makers use the data to assess disaster risks for new housing. This involves interviews, workshops and questionnaires with:

• government planning agencies (both state and local government)

• housing providers (public and not-for-profit/community housing)

• housing and land developers (private and public)

• banks and insurers.

What we found

Overall, we found data on disaster risk was fragmented and inconsistent across multiple agencies, and not regularly updated.

Decision-makers in state and local planning agencies often cannot access accurate information about disaster risk. This means they lack the power to restrict housing in areas prone to bushfires, floods or other extreme events.

Flood hazard data is particularly problematic. One planner from Queensland described it as “patchy, of variable quality and currency and not always open source” – the latter meaning it was hard to access.

Many households only learn about their disaster risk when discovering their homes are uninsurable or premiums are prohibitively high. Others become aware of the problem when premiums rise with an existing insurer.

A community housing provider told us:

I think the way people are finding out about risk now is by their insurance policies going up. That’s the market reality. When they get an increase in their insurance policy next year, that will wake them up that they are actually in a high-risk area.

Data held by emergency service agencies and insurers is mostly inaccessible to planners, developers and households due to privacy and commercial sensitivities.

However, this information is crucial. Government agencies should establish protocols to enable data-sharing while protecting privacy and commercial interests.

Lack of transparency for homebuyers

A recent report suggested only 29% of Australian home buyers know the disaster risks associated with the homes they live in.

Disclosure statements are required by the vendor (seller) when marketing their house or land for sale. These vary between states and territories and, in most cases, do not compel the owner to reveal all known risks.

For example, in Victoria, a vendor is required to disclose whether the land is in a designated bushfire-prone area, but not whether it is exposed to flooding.

What’s more, a vendor motivated to sell a house is probably not the best source to provide accurate, impartial information about its exposure to disaster. This is better left to an independent entity such as a local council.

Thorough investigations into a home’s disaster risk is usually at the discretion of the buyer.

Making this information readily available to prospective homebuyers prior to purchase would allow more informed consumer decisions. It would also pressure governments and housing suppliers to address disaster risks.

Where to next?

Australia urgently needs a national framework to ensure data on housing and disaster risk is comprehensive, current and embedded in housing development decisions.

The federal government’s Digital Transformation Agency could establish and implement this system, with input from state and local governments.

Technology known as “spatial digital twins” could also vastly improve how disaster risk is assessed and communicated. These tools enable users to pull together and arrange large amounts of data, to visualise it in the form of models.

For example, a spatial digital twin could combine real time flood sensor data with historical flooding patterns to predict and visualise flood risks before they occur. Federal and state governments are already investing in such technology.

Australia’s push to increase housing supply must be matched with a commitment from governments to ensure the homes are safe, resilient and sustainable in the face of our changing climate.

Addressing the housing crisis isn’t just about numbers – it’s about making sure homes are built in the right places, with the right protections, for the long-term safety of communities.

Francesca Perugia
receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI)

Courtney Babb receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) and is a member of the Greens (WA).

Steven Rowley receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the Australian Research Council. He is a member of the Housing Industry Forecasting Group in Western Australia

– ref. Yes, Australia needs new homes – but they must be built to withstand disasters in a warmer world – https://theconversation.com/yes-australia-needs-new-homes-but-they-must-be-built-to-withstand-disasters-in-a-warmer-world-249702

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ash Watson, Scientia Fellow and Senior Lecturer, UNSW Sydney

When we’re uncomfortable we say the “vibe is off”. When we’re having a good time we’re “vibing”. To assess the mood we do a “vibe check”. And when the atmosphere in the room changes we call it a “vibe shift”.

In a broad sense, a “vibe” is something akin to a mood, atmosphere or energy.

But this is an imperfect definition. Often, we’ll use this term to describe something we feel powerfully, but find hard to articulate.

As journalist and cultural critic Kyle Chayka described in 2021, a vibe is “a placeholder for an unplaceable feeling or impression, an atmosphere that you couldn’t or didn’t want to put into words”.

Being able to understand the subtleties of social interactions – that is, to “feel the vibes” – is extremely valuable, not just for our social interactions, but also for researchers who study people.

What’s behind the rise of vibes? And how can sociologists like myself unpack “vibe culture” to make sense of the world?

A history of vibes

The nuance and complexity of vibes makes them an interesting cultural trend. Vibes can be very specific, but can also totally resist specificity.

Australians (and fans of Australiana) will remember the iconic line from the beloved 1997 film The Castle: “It’s just the vibe of the thing… I rest my case.”

While it may seem like a recent cultural development, vibe isn’t the first example of cryptic language being used to express an ambiguous thing or situation. There are similar concepts with long histories, such as “quintessence” in Ancient Greek philosophy and “auras” in mysticism.

More recently, vibes rose in popularity through music including 1960s rock, epitomised by the Beach Boys (“pickin’ up good vibrations”) and Black American rap vernacular from the 1990s, such as in the song Vibes and Stuff by A Tribe Called Quest (“we got, we got, we got the vibes”).

While we don’t know when the term was first used as it is today, it seems to have taken hold in the 1970s.

I trawled the online archive of The New Yorker and found an early mention of vibes in a 1971 report about communes in New York City.

One interviewee spoke about the “vibration of togetherness” that drew them to the commune. Ending the day on the subway, the author Hendrik Hertzberg (now a senior editor at the magazine) “just sat there and soaked up the good vibes”.

New uses and meanings have emerged in the years since.

Vibes today

As vibe is used in more ways, its meaning becomes expanded and diffused. A person or situation can have good vibes, bad vibes, weird vibes, laid-back vibes, or any other adjective you can imagine.

Language is a central part of qualitative research. While new phrases and slang can be casual and superficial, they can also represent broader, more complex concepts. Vibe is a great example of this: a simple term that refers to something potent yet ephemeral, affecting yet ambiguous.

By paying attention to the words people use to describe their experiences, sociologists can identify patterns of social interactions and shifts in social attitudes.

Perhaps vibes work like a heuristic – a mental shortcut – but for feeling rather than thinking.

People use heuristics to make everyday decisions or draw conclusions based on their experiences. Heuristics are, in essence, our common sense. And “vibes” might be best described as our common feeling, as they speak to a subtle aspect of how we collectively relate and interact.

Sociologists have long studied complex common feelings. Ambivalence, for instance, has been a focus in research on digital privacy. Studying when and why people feel ambivalent about digital technology can help us understand their seemingly contradictory behaviour, such as when they say they are concerned about privacy, but do very little to protect their information.

Ambivalence reveals how people make decisions via small, everyday compromises – moments and feelings that may be overlooked in quantitative research. A qualitative approach can help us to align policies with people’s real-world behaviours.

Researchers react

Then again, it’s difficult to study something people find hard to articulate in the first place. Asking participants to rank the “vibes” of something in a survey doesn’t quite work.

So researchers are finding new ways to feel the vibe: to see what participants see, to feel what they feel and get a deeper understanding of their lived experiences.

For instance, such study could provide insight into how senior clinicians make important decisions amid uncertainty. We already know making decisions in complex situations involves more than logic and rationality.

In one Australian study published last year, researchers assessed how vibes have become part of online advertising algorithms. The researchers analysed the social media feeds of more than 200 young people, using the concept of vibes to show how advertising models attune to individuals and social groups.

Such approaches can complement, or even update, tried-and-tested research methods, expanding on what we know about human relationships and experiences.

Ash Watson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Vibes are something we feel but can’t quite explain. Now researchers want to study them – https://theconversation.com/vibes-are-something-we-feel-but-cant-quite-explain-now-researchers-want-to-study-them-247907

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elise Stephenson, Deputy Director, Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, Australian National University

Newly published research has found clear evidence that openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer+ (LGBTIQ+) Australian politicians were disproportionately targeted with personal abuse on social media at the last federal election. Given global trends, it’s unlikely to be any different this year.

Simply logging off is not an option for candidates, who need to communicate with voters. As a result, some politicians will continue to face risky online visibility.

Since Elon Musk acquired Twitter/X, hate speech has surged, particularly for public figures such as parliamentarians.

So what do these trends mean for queer candidates ahead of this year’s election? And why does it matter for the next generation of politically engaged young people?

Queer politicians targeted

We analysed more than 100,000 tweets across the Twitter profiles of eight openly queer politicians and candidates (Penny Wong, Julian Hill, Nita Green, Tim Wilson, Janet Rice, Rachael Jacobs, Claire Garton, Stephen Bates) during the 2022 federal election campaign. We compared them with eight other politicians (Zoe Daniel, Graham Perrett, Lidia Thorpe, Anthony Chisholm, Barbara Pocock, Simon Birmingham, Deborah O’Neill, David Shoebridge) in the same period.

We suspected that political hopefuls who publicly identified as LGBTIQ+ may have experienced greater levels of abuse and harassment. But what we found surprised us.

The level of online intimidation was roughly the same for queer and non-queer politicians. However, the type of abuse differed significantly.

Queer politicians endured highly personal harassment that specifically targeted their gender or physical appearance. They suffered nasty queer-specific slurs, transphobic messages and ableist language. Essentially, nothing that was related to their policies or politics.

Meanwhile, straight, cisgender politicians received harassment that was typically political in nature. More of it focused on their party or platform. It wasn’t as personal (with the exception of Thorpe, who received high levels of racist abuse). While overtly hostile, for straight politicians in general much of the harassment received might be considered an unavoidable part of the democratic political process in the social media age.

Our research provides a useful retrospective of some of the vitriol that proliferated during the last election.

One such event began with YouTube commentator Jordan Shanks breaking a salacious story of repeated sexual misconduct by staffers in Canberra, purportedly in MPs offices and in the parliamentary multi-faith prayer room.

Our data tracked the way queer male politicians were wrongly affiliated and tagged in the scandal. They were unfairly accused and ridiculed. The unfounded attacks were non-partisan, involving politicians from across the major parties. This indicated a single point of commonality – their sexuality.

Liberal MP Tim Wilson, who had no involvement in the scandal, received over 2000 tweets explicitly mentioning the incident. Many were overtly homophobic, using terms such as “toy boy”, “rentboy”, “parasite” and “prayer room pervert”.

How it puts off politically engaged young people

The data indicates that queer politicians face a double bind. The personal hate they experience negatively impacts them as individuals and also distracts from genuine political debate. Trolling, hate speech, and a prohibitive online environment stymies open and constructive political dialogue.

Furthermore, identity based harassment discourages queer people from pursuing political careers in the first place. Or staying in politics once they’ve experienced the hate. It erodes their sense of safety when engaging in public discourse and undermines the foundations upon which democracy is built.

In a follow-up study of 98 politically engaged, young gender and sexuality diverse people, we found that online violence and a lack of workplace safety were some of the biggest barriers for them in considering a career in politics.

The upcoming election

We expect the personal harassment of queer politicians will continue to escalate across multiple platforms, including X, Facebook and Instagram.

For instance, we have seen a sharp rise in anti-LGBTIQ+ hate and extremism across the United States. Online spaces are likely to become even less safe for queer politicians in 2025, than they were in 2022.

Big tech is making it easier for abuse and harassment to flourish in the online world.

Musk has fired 80% of engineers responsible for content regulation on X. He has also liked transphobic tweets and deemed the words “cis and “cisgender ” to be slurs, that were subsequently banned on X.

Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg has also removed protections that prevented hate speech on Facebook.

More users are deserting X due to the malicious content and lack of safeguards. But with a closely integrated social media environment, online violence can follow politicians across platforms, both social and legacy. There is no escaping the bile.

Demanding better of online platforms

Social media regulation is difficult. Tech giants have already threatened to withdraw their services from Australia over laws that would force them to pay for news content.

Online platforms may claim to only be the “messenger”, but the reality is that design features like anonymity and business decisions like removing content moderation will cause even more harm.

Until a critical mass of countries demand better protections, some individuals, including queer politicians, will always be at a disadvantage in this asymmetric online war.

Elise Stephenson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Elise is part of research projects funded by the eSafety Commissioner on combating online violence. The research quoted in this article received funding from the Gender Institute at the ANU.

Gosia Mikolajczak collaborates with Women for Election on a project funded by the Australian Government Office for Women, aiming to increase the number and diversity of women running for public office. She has previously worked on an Australian Research Council Linkage project that examined gender inequalities in local government in Victoria.

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

– ref. Australian LGBTIQ+ politicians were hit with vile online abuse at the last federal election. The coming campaign could be even worse – https://theconversation.com/australian-lgbtiq-politicians-were-hit-with-vile-online-abuse-at-the-last-federal-election-the-coming-campaign-could-be-even-worse-250039

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yanyan Hong, PhD Candidate in Communication and Media Studies, University of Adelaide

On the surface, Ne Zha 2: The Sea’s Fury (2025), the sequel to the 2019 Chinese blockbuster Nezha: Birth of the Demon Child, is a high-octane, action-packed and visually stunning animated spectacle, full of hilarious moments and thrilling fight scenes.

But beneath all that, it’s something much deeper: a bold re-imagining of Chinese traditional mythology, cultural history and philosophies.

Unlike Hollywood’s classic hero’s journey, Ne Zha 2 is rooted in Chinese thought, weaving together ideas from Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, Mohism, Legalism and more.

Through the story of a baby-faced warrior god who battles demons, it channels centuries of Chinese tradition into something refreshing, relevant and undeniably global.

The film’s success speaks for itself. Directed by Yang Yu (aka Jiao Zi), Ne Zha 2 has shattered multiple global box office records, pulling in more than US$1 billion in China in just one week.

It has even entered the top 10 highest-grossing films of all time, and is the second highest-grossing animated film behind Inside Out 2 (2024).

But what makes Ne Zha 2 so compelling beyond its visual spectacle? At its heart, it’s an inspiring story about identity, free will, self-determination and rebellion – ideas that resonate far beyond China.

A child hero forged in myth and philosophy

Ne Zha is a rebellious deity in traditional Chinese folklore – a boy born with immense superpower, who defies both divine and social expectations.

Most people who know of Ne Zha will trace his legend back to Fengshen Yanyi, or Investiture of the Gods, a Ming Dynasty novel that blends mythology with historical elements.

Ne Zha’s true origins, however, trace back to India.

“Ne Zha” is a shortened transliteration of the Sanskrit Nalakuvara (or Nalakūbara), an Indian mythological figure who appears in Buddhist and Hindu mythology.

As Buddhism spread to China during the Tang Dynasty, Ne Zha evolved from an intimidating guardian deity into the rebellious, fire-wheeled warrior we know today.

In Ne Zha 2, this “fighting spirit” against authority and hierarchy is taken even further, turning the story into a deeper philosophical exploration of morality, fate, self-worth and power.

Good and evil – a Daoist perspective

One of the most thought-provoking aspects of Ne Zha 2 is how it challenges the idea of good and evil.

In Daoist philosophy, evil and good, often known as Yin and Yang, are not absolute, but are rather shifting, interconnected forces.

Through its two protagonists: the “Demon Pill” (Ne Zha) and his noble dragon prince buddy, “Spirit Pearl” (Ao Bing), the film beautifully reflects this Daoist idea of balance and self-discovery.

Their merging further blurs the line between hero and villain and brings to life a core concept from the 2,400-year-old text Dao De Jing (Tao Te Ching), written around 400 BC by Chinese philosopher Laozi (also called Lao Tzu).

Laozi emphasises that righteousness and villainy aren’t always what they seem. “When the world knows beauty as beauty, there arises ugliness,” he says.

Those we assume to be noble may turn out to be dark inside, while those deemed evil might be fighting for what is right.

Ne Zha’s character in the film embodies this Daoist philosophy. Echoing the Xisheng Jing, The Scripture of Western Ascension, he declares, “My fate is up to me, not the Heaven.”

He is the demon child who is willing to die fighting for his own destiny, proving that even the smallest, most underestimated individual can change the world.

Beyond family bonds: rebirth of Confucianism

In one scene, Ne Zha is struck by the “heart-piercing curse”, a brutal spell that covers his body in ten thousand thorns, causing unbearable pain and keeping him under control by targeting his heart. Ne Zha’s human mother, Lady Yin, clings to him as his thorns pierce her skin – yet she refuses to let go.

It’s a moment of heartbreak, parental love and inner awakening. As his mother takes her final breath, in Ne Zha’s grief, his body shatters into a million pieces. And then, he is reborn.

This is the film’s emotional climax, in which the so-called demon child awakens to “Rén” (benevolence), a core Confucian virtue.

Confucianism teaches that true morality isn’t imposed by rules but arises naturally from within. Ne Zha doesn’t just seek revenge, he awakes to fight for those who have been oppressed, embracing his identity with unwavering resolve.

But perhaps the most profound transformation comes from the dragon prince Ao Bing. As the last hope of his people, burdened by centuries of expectation, he finally makes a choice, not for legacy, not for his ancestors, but for himself.

In this moment, his once-imposing father Dragon King releases his grip: “Your path is yours to forge.”

The weight of tradition gives way to something new, reflecting a changing China where younger generations are defining their own paths.

Wisdom of Legalism and Mohism

Beyond Daoist and Confucian ideals, Ne Zha 2 also weaves in Legalist reform and Mohist resistance. These philosophies challenge rigid hierarchies (or in Ne Zha’s case, “divine order”) and advocate for collective justice.

Across Ne Zha’s three major trials and the climactic celestial-demon war, a brutal truth emerges: those deemed unworthy – whether groundhogs, mystical beings, or ordinary humans – are sacrificed to uphold the elite’s rule.

Take the small groundhogs. Dressed in patched clothes, surviving on pumpkin porridge. They’ve never harmed anyone. Yet, they are mercilessly crushed in the name of celestial balance.

Then there’s Shiji Niangniang, or Lady Rock, a recluse who harms no one. She indulges only in her own beauty and speaks to her enchanted mirror. Yet the heavens brand her a demon, sealing her fate.

A similar cruelty befalls the Dragon Clan and the people of Chentangguan, all caught in a war where they are mere pawns on a celestial chessboard.

Even the last battle is not just Ne Zha’s fight, but a battlefield showing the Chinese spirit of collectivism. Dragons, shrimp soldiers, crab generals, octopus warriors, humans and millions of goblins stand side by side to rewrite destiny.

The celestial-demon war itself plays out like a lesson in Sun Tzu’s Art of War, which states that “All warfare is based on deception.” War is about strategy, resilience and the unstoppable will to rise.

Ne Zha carries the weight of Eastern cultural essence: Daoist balance, Confucian ethics, Mohist resistance, Legalist reform and the strategic wisdom of The Art of War. It is a truly Chinese story, igniting next year’s Oscar buzz and sparking a global awakening to Eastern culture.

Just as Ne Zha is reborn in flames, so too does Chinese animation rise, not by breaking from its past, but by forging a bold future.

Yanyan Hong 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. Ne Zha 2: the ancient philosophies behind China’s record-breaking new animated film – https://theconversation.com/ne-zha-2-the-ancient-philosophies-behind-chinas-record-breaking-new-animated-film-249850