Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Edward Yiu, Associate Professor, School of Business, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

New Zealand’s unaffordable housing market has left many low and middle-income families reliant on the accommodation supplement to cover rent and mortgage payments.

But our new research has found the scheme, which costs the government almost NZ$5 billion a year, might not be an effective tool in addressing the country’s housing affordability crisis.

Introduced in 1993, the accommodation supplement is a weekly, means-tested payment designed to subsidise part of a household’s rent or mortgage. The supplement is calculated independently of actual rent or mortgage payments.

But our study looking at data from Auckland between 2019 and 2023 found accommodation supplement rental subsidies were not delivering meaningful improvements in affordability for renters. Subsidies used to support mortgage payments, however, appeared to be more effective in offering relief to low-income households wanting stable and affordable housing.

Our results raise questions about whether the current policy of subsidising private rentals is working to address housing affordability in New Zealand.

Renters left behind

Our study compared the proportion of household disposable income spent on rent between households receiving the supplement versus those in the same income group who did not receive it.

The results revealed a striking gap.

In 2023 renters in the middle-income bracket who received the accommodation supplement were spending, on average, 35.6% of their income (including the supplement) on rent. Similar households without the subsidy spent 25.85% of their income on rent. This suggests the support is not significantly narrowing the affordability gap between subsidised and unsubsidised renters.

This study also picked up potential signs of landlords inflating the rents for tenants receiving subsidies. This is known as “subsidy capturing”. On average, middle-income tenants receiving the accommodation supplement paid NZ$539.40 per week in rent in 2023. Non-recipients paid $502.90. That’s a 7.3% difference.

Further research is needed to determine whether this discrepancy is due to rent inflation or differences in housing quality. But the finding aligns with international studies showing that subsidies can unintentionally drive up market rents.

If landlords are capturing part of the subsidy by increasing rents, then the benefit meant for vulnerable tenants is being diluted.

Greater promise with mortgage support

Our data suggests mortgage support seems to level the playing field more effectively than rental assistance. The mortgage-to-income ratio for subsidised households stood at 25.55% and 29.95% in 2022 and 2023, respectively (income includes the supplement). This closely matches the 26.6% and 27.5% recorded for non-subsidised households in the same income group.

One reason for the difference in the effectiveness of the supplement is that homeowners are typically required to contribute more upfront – a deposit – giving them a greater financial stake in their housing. This commitment may encourage better financial decisions and housing choices. It may also offer long-term benefits such as asset building and housing stability.

Rental subsidies are essential for immediate relief, especially in emergencies or periods of transition. But our research calls into question their effectiveness in enhancing affordability. More targeted support for low-income homeowners could offer a more sustainable path forward.

Intentions must match results

The accommodation is undoubtedly grounded in good intentions. But considering how much of the national budget is being spent on housing-related welfare, it is essential the programmes deliver the best possible results for taxpayers.

Measuring effectiveness is not about questioning the intent but about ensuring public resources truly achieve meaningful objectives.

Simply increasing funding for subsidies is unlikely to solve the problem. As New Zealand confronts an ongoing housing affordability crisis, this study adds to growing evidence that policy effectiveness – not just how much is spent – is what truly matters.

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. The billions spent on NZ’s accommodation supplement is failing to make rent affordable – so what will? – https://theconversation.com/the-billions-spent-on-nzs-accommodation-supplement-is-failing-to-make-rent-affordable-so-what-will-254779

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

This election has been lacklustre, without the touch of excitement of some past campaigns. Through the decades, campaigning has changed dramatically, adopting new techniques and technologies. This time, we’ve seen politicians try to jump onto viral podcasts.

To discuss old and new campaigning, we’re joined by professor of history at the Australian National University, Frank Bongiorno.

Many decades ago, campaigns were marked by lots of public meetings, and with them came hecklers. Bongiorno says politicians

needed to be able to command an audience and to deal with interjectors in a big public meeting. Radio was really coming into its own.

Very famously – not in a political campaign and not as prime minister – but Menzies made a number of broadcasts that are still remembered. [That was] back in the earlier part of the 1940s, when he was out of government. The most famous of which is the “Forgotten People” broadcast in 1942.

Over time, campaigns have focused more on the leaders, in the style of the United States.

[It’s] another aspect perhaps of the Americanisation and presidentialisation of our political system, that focus on party leaders in that kind of way. The 1984 debate was between Bob Hawke as prime minister and Andrew Peacock. I think many people thought that Peacock actually got the better of Hawke on that occasion and that was really, in some ways, the assessment of the whole campaign.

…That does speak to the American influence in particular. Very famously of course there was the 1960 presidential debate between Nixon and Kennedy, that is such an important part of the collective memory of Kennedy’s success in that election in 1960.

Do debates still have any impact on campaigns? Bongiorno says “they have become something that I think a lot of people shun.”

They do seem rather neutral affairs, in which the pundits’ ideas about who won don’t seem to probably matter very much to most voters.

On the move from traditional media sources to an online campaign, Bongiorno says,

A lot of the campaign now is fought online. And I guess that trend began really as long ago as the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the parties would maintain campaign websites. It seems so long ago and so primitive, compared to where we are now.

And social media took off from about the middle of the first decade of this century. Facebook and YouTube came into their own in 2007. Twitter, now called X, in 2010… The use of memes really took off about 2019. And I think TikTok, which is often particularly used by younger people, from about 2022.

He says scare campaigns have become harder to report on or rebut, due to more targeted online campaigns and advertising.

Everything depends on your algorithm. The election campaign that I’m seeing when I go into my feed for X or for Facebook will be quite different to my next door neighbour’s, for instance, who could have a totally different sense of what’s happening in the campaign, what are the issues that matter, where the sort of balance of public opinion is.

On this year’s record start to pre-poll voting, Bongiorno says it makes timing more important than ever.

It means that whatever the parties are saying now, whatever candidates are saying and doing in the media over the next little while, is going to have no impact on anyone who’s already voted. So it can only be those who are still to vote.

It probably makes leaving the release of policy – and perhaps even costings as well – to the last minute a riskier venture, because if you do have goodies on offer, they’re going to miss anyone who has already voted.

It does mean that the parties need to be pretty careful in how they’re timing the release of particular aspects of their policy offerings.

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: historian Frank Bongiorno on dramatic shifts in how elections are fought and won – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-historian-frank-bongiorno-on-dramatic-shifts-in-how-elections-are-fought-and-won-255113

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

A re-elected Albanese government will take the unprecedented step of buying or obtaining options over key critical minerals to protect Australia’s national interest and boost its economic resilience.

The move follows US President Donald Trump’s ordering a review into American reliance on imported processed critical minerals and Australia’s discussions with the United States about a possible agreement on these minerals as part of negotiations to get a better deal on US tariffs.

Australia has major deposits of critical minerals and rare earths. But almost all the processing of critical minerals is done by China, which uses this as leverage in disputes with other countries. As part of its tariff dispute with the US, China this month suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets.

Critical minerals are vital in the production of many items, including defence equipment, batteries, electronics, fibre optic cables, electric vehicles, magnets and wind turbines.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese flagged recently that Australia would establish a critical minerals reserve and the government has now released details of its plan.

The government investment in critical minerals would come through two new mechanisms:

• national offtake agreements

• selective stockpiling

The government would acquire, through voluntary contracts, agreed volumes of critical minerals from commercial projects, or establish an option to purchase them at a given price.

It would also establish a government stockpile of key minerals produced under offtake agreements.

“The primary consideration for entering into offtake agreements will be securing priority critical minerals for strategic reasons,” the government said in a statement.

Minerals held by the reserve would be made available to domestic industry and key international partners.

This would cover a deal with the US, if that can be reached.

“The Reserve will be focused on a subset of critical minerals that are most important for Australia’s national security and the security of our key partners, including rare earths,” the statement said.

As its holdings matured, the reserve would generate cash-flow from sales of offtake on global markets and to key partners, the statement said.

“The Strategic Reserve will also accumulate stockpiles of priority minerals when warranted by market conditions and strategic considerations, but it is anticipated that these will be modest and time-limited in most cases.”

The government would make an initial investment of $1.2 billion in the reserve, including through a $1 billion increase in the existing Critical Minerals Facility. This would take the government’s investment in the facility to $5 billion.

The facility, established in 2021, provides financing to selected projects that are aligned with the government’s critical minerals strategy.

The government plans to consult with states and companies on the scope and design on the Strategic Reserve, which it would aim to have operating in the second half of next year.

ALbanese said: “In a time of global uncertainty, Australia will be stronger and safer by developing our critical national assets to create economic opportunity and resilience.

“The Strategic Reserve will mean the government has the power to purchase, own and sell critical minerals found here in Australia.

“It will mean we can deal with trade and market disruptions from a position of strength. Because Australia will be able to call on an internationally-significant quantity of resources in global demand.”

Resources Minister Madeleine King said: “Critical minerals and rare earths and essential not only to reducing emissions but also for our security and the security of our key partners.

“While we will continue to supply the world with critical minerals, it’s also important that Australia has access to the critical minerals and rare earths we need for a Future Made in Australia.”

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

– ref. Albanese government announces $1.2 billion plan to purchase critical minerals – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-announces-1-2-billion-plan-to-purchase-critical-minerals-254994

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

A re-elected Albanese government will take the unprecedented step of buying or obtaining options over key critical minerals to protect Australia’s national interest and boost its economic resilience.

The move follows US President Donald Trump’s ordering a review into American reliance on imported processed critical minerals and Australia’s discussions with the United States about a possible agreement on these minerals as part of negotiations to get a better deal on US tariffs.

Australia has major deposits of critical minerals and rare earths. But almost all the processing of critical minerals is done by China, which uses this as leverage in disputes with other countries. As part of its tariff dispute with the US, China this month suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets.

Critical minerals are vital in the production of many items, including defence equipment, batteries, electronics, fibre optic cables, electric vehicles, magnets and wind turbines.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese flagged recently that Australia would establish a critical minerals reserve and the government has now released details of its plan.

The government investment in critical minerals would come through two new mechanisms:

• national offtake agreements

• selective stockpiling

The government would acquire, through voluntary contracts, agreed volumes of critical minerals from commercial projects, or establish an option to purchase them at a given price.

It would also establish a government stockpile of key minerals produced under offtake agreements.

“The primary consideration for entering into offtake agreements will be securing priority critical minerals for strategic reasons,” the government said in a statement.

Minerals held by the reserve would be made available to domestic industry and key international partners.

This would cover a deal with the US, if that can be reached.

“The Reserve will be focused on a subset of critical minerals that are most important for Australia’s national security and the security of our key partners, including rare earths,” the statement said.

As its holdings matured, the reserve would generate cash-flow from sales of offtake on global markets and to key partners, the statement said.

“The Strategic Reserve will also accumulate stockpiles of priority minerals when warranted by market conditions and strategic considerations, but it is anticipated that these will be modest and time-limited in most cases.”

The government would make an initial investment of $1.2 billion in the reserve, including through a $1 billion increase in the existing Critical Minerals Facility. This would take the government’s investment in the facility to $5 billion.

The facility, established in 2021, provides financing to selected projects that are aligned with the government’s critical minerals strategy.

The government plans to consult with states and companies on the scope and design on the Strategic Reserve, which it would aim to have operating in the second half of next year.

ALbanese said: “In a time of global uncertainty, Australia will be stronger and safer by developing our critical national assets to create economic opportunity and resilience.

“The Strategic Reserve will mean the government has the power to purchase, own and sell critical minerals found here in Australia.

“It will mean we can deal with trade and market disruptions from a position of strength. Because Australia will be able to call on an internationally-significant quantity of resources in global demand.”

Resources Minister Madeleine King said: “Critical minerals and rare earths and essential not only to reducing emissions but also for our security and the security of our key partners.

“While we will continue to supply the world with critical minerals, it’s also important that Australia has access to the critical minerals and rare earths we need for a Future Made in Australia.”

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

– ref. Albanese government announces $1.2 billion in plan to purchase critical minerals – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-announces-1-2-billion-in-plan-to-purchase-critical-minerals-254994

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Appiah Takyi, Senior Lecturer, Department of Planning, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)

Urban flooding is a major problem in the global south. In west and central Africa, more than 4 million people were affected by flooding in 2024. In Ghana, cities suffer damage from flooding every year.

Ghana’s president, John Dramani Mahama, has established a task force to find ways of improving flood resilience in the country. This is partly driven by an increase in flooding incidents in cities such as Accra and Kumasi in the last decade.

We are urban planning and sustainability scholars. In a recent paper we analysed whether flooding in Accra, Ghana’s capital, was caused by climate change or poor land use planning.

We conclude from our analysis that flooding is caused by poor and uncoordinated land use planning rather than climate change. We recommend that the physical planning department and other regulatory agencies are equipped to ensure the effective enforcement the relevant land use regulations.

Mixed push factors

The Accra metropolitan area is one of the 29 administrative units of Ghana’s Greater Accra region. It is the most populous region in Ghana, with over five million residents, according to the 2021 Housing and Population Census.

We interviewed 100 households living in areas such as Kaneshie, Adabraka and Kwame Nkrumah Circle. These areas experience a high incidence of floods. Representatives of agencies such as the Physical Planning Department of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, the National Disaster Management Organisation and the Environmental Protection Agency were interviewed too, about:

• the nature and areas most prone to flooding in the study area

• the frequency of flooding

• land use planning and regulations and their influence on flooding.

About 40% of the people we interviewed attributed flooding to both weak enforcement of land use regulation and changes in rainfall patterns. Most of the households (52%) said floods in Accra were the result of weak enforcement of land use regulations, while 8% blamed changes in land use regulations.

We also analysed recorded data on flood incidence and rainfall. We found no correlation between increased rainfall and flooding. For example in 2017 there was a decrease in rainfall, but an increase in flooding.

This finding points to the fact that rainfall isn’t the only factor contributing to flooding in the city.

The agencies and city residents reported that between 2008 and 2018, they could see that more people were encroaching on the city’s wetlands by building homes and commercial infrastructure. This has changed the natural flow of water bodies. The Greater Accra Metropolitan and its environs has major wetlands such as Densu Delta, Sakumo Lagoon and Songor Lagoon.

Interview respondents noted that the siting of unauthorised buildings and the encroachment on buffer zones of water bodies in the city could have been averted. They blamed political interference in the enforcement of land use regulation. The government makes the situation worse in two ways, they said:

• planning standards and regulations are neglected in the development process. The processes involved in acquiring development permits are cumbersome and expensive, so people go ahead and develop without permits.

• regulatory institutions and authorities are ineffective. This is clear from the fact that planning happens chaotically. No attention is given to the ecological infrastructure that’s needed.

The way forward

We conclude that land use malpractices remain the dominant causes of flooding in Accra. They include:

• poor disposal of solid waste, which eventually blocks drains and results in water overflow during heavy rains

• building on wetlands as a result of non-compliance or non-enforcement of land use regulations.

There is an urgent need for Ghana’s cities to adopt best practices in waste management. These include recycling of plastic waste and composting for urban agriculture. An environmental excise tax was introduced in 2011 to fund plastic waste recycling and support waste management agencies.

The increasing encroachment on wetlands should be addressed through the strict enforcement of buffer regulations. Planning authorities and the judiciary can collaborate on this. The city must also encourage green infrastructure, like rain gardens, green roofs, permeable pavement, street trees and rain harvesting systems.
Research has shown these to be environmentally sustainable and cost-effective approaches to managing storm water.

Another suggested approach is the introduction of the polluter pays principle in city management. This is a system where city residents who are involved in the pollution of the environment are made to pay for the cost of mitigating the impact. Residents who dispose of waste indiscriminately and encroach on wetlands would be made to pay for the cost of the environmental degradation. Cities such as Barcelona and Helsinki have applied this principle in the management of their industrial discharge and contaminated waste.

Finally, there should be incentives for city residents to promote environmental sustainability. For example, a deposit refund system has been introduced in several states in the US and Australia. In this system, consumers are made to pay a deposit after purchasing items that can be recycled, such as plastic bottles, and the deposit is reimbursed to the consumer after the return of the empty bottles to a retail store.

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. Flooding incidents in Ghana’s capital are on the rise. Researchers chase the cause – https://theconversation.com/flooding-incidents-in-ghanas-capital-are-on-the-rise-researchers-chase-the-cause-254000

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Layton, Visiting Fellow, Strategic Studies, Griffith University

Just as voting has begun in this year’s federal election, the Coalition has released its long-awaited defence policy platform. The main focus, as expected, is a boost in defence spending to 3% of Australia’s GDP within the next decade.

If elected, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says a Coalition government will spend A$21 billion over the next five years to bring defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. It would aim to reach 3% five years after that.

This sounds impressive, but as shadow Defence Minister Andrew Hastie notes, this isn’t a huge increase, given it’s over many years.

In dry fiscal planning terms, Labor’s defence spending plan would amount to 2.23% of GDP in budget year 2028–29, while the Coalition’s plan would be expected to reach around 2.4% by that time.

While the Coalition’s costings are yet to come, its plan is arguably affordable – if need be through deficit financing.

What’s in the Coalition plan?

The Coalition’s extra money would go to numerous capabilities:

• purchasing 28 extra F-35 joint strike fighter jets from the United States

• accelerating the infrastructure and shipyard building capacity in Western Australia (some in Hastie’s electorate) to support the AUKUS submarine plan

• improving Australian Defence Force (ADF) recruitment and retention

• and boosting “sustainment” (that is, maintenance of military equipment, weaponry and systems and personnel training).

Hastie is particularly enthusiastic about improving the Australian defence industrial base, which he says involves ramping up purchases of defence equipment from small and medium-size enterprises.

There is some logic to this. In the past few years, some spending on new acquisitions has been shifted to sustainment. This was necessary, as the long-term defence plan when Labor came to power in 2022 did not accurately estimate how much money would be needed for the new equipment then entering service.

This is not unusual. There is always optimism within the Department of Defence that new equipment will be cheaper to operate than it actually turns out to be.

Given significant money has already been moved to sustainment under Labor defence budgets over the past few years, it’s plausible we don’t actually need as much money for this as the Coalition asserts.

This might be fortunate as the F-35 purchase is likely to be considerably more than the $3 billion the Coalition touted last month, given inflation and issues with the program in the US.

Problems with the plan

The biggest problem with Dutton’s plan is the same one faced by both the Morrison and Albanese governments. Strong rhetoric is consistently at odds with slow progress on defence force modernisation. The Coalition policy continues this bipartisan tradition.

Hastie repeated several times at his news conference with Dutton in Perth that the country faces the “most dangerous strategic circumstances since the second world war”.

Yet, this sense of urgency is not reflected in the extra $21 billion in spending the Coalition is proposing. The F-35 fighter jets, the major centrepiece of the plan, are unlikely to be in service until the first half of the 2030s.

Similarly, the naval shipbuilding (which is necessary and already in train) also won’t begin to deliver greater capacity until well into the next decade.

The only high-priority item outlined by the Coalition appears to be accelerating spending on the infrastructure needed to base US and UK nuclear attack submarines in Western Australia from 2027.

Hastie said on Radio National Breakfast that a drive through the area where this infrastructure is being built would reveal few signs of any progress, particularly when it comes to housing.

This comment highlights a policy incoherence problem for both parties. Accelerating the construction of defence infrastructure will drag tradies away from building homes for other Australians – and contribute to construction cost increases.

The Coalition’s planned cuts in skilled worker migration will further exacerbate this problem.

This throws up another issue. The Coalition has criticised Labor for cutting or delaying defence equipment projects costing some $80 billion while in government, yet it has offered no plans to return these specific projects to the defence budget.

As Hastie observed, these cuts and delays were, in part, to land-force capabilities, such as the infantry fighting vehicle program. A shift to a more maritime focus and away from equipment better suited to wars in the Middle East is reasonable, given the stress both parties have placed on China’s naval buildup.

Little to feel inspired about

Interestingly, Hastie said on Radio National Breakfast that AUKUS is “a structural imposition” the current defence budget can’t meet.

This suggests that when the AUKUS deal was agreed to under former Prime Minster Scott Morrison, there was inadequate funding for the program and it is now consuming other defence acquisition plans.

Given this, the Coalition’s plans to grow defence spending to 3% of GDP in ten years may be prudent – and necessary – mainly to meet the looming AUKUS funding shortfalls. This again may be problem for both parties, given their strident support for AUKUS at seemingly any cost.

Hastie is keen to increase Australian self-reliance, in part, through building up the Australian defence industry.

However, the Coalition plan doesn’t offer many specifics on how Australian industry will benefit. Instead of buying yet more American-built F-35s, for instance, the Coalition could have given thought to buying the innovative Ghost Bat uncrewed air vehicles made in Queensland.

This shortcoming highlights the biggest disappointment with the Coalition plan. It is “steady as she goes” approach in a world of increasing volatility.

There really needs to be some fresh thinking on defence, particularly given the growing doubts about the Trump administration’s stance on its security alliances. Australia may need to be more self-reliant as Hastie claims, but this policy platform – as well as Labor’s – won’t achieve this possibility.

The reason the Coalition is emphasising the 3% of GDP figure is that there are no new ideas. A great opportunity for an imaginative recasting of Australian defence has been missed.

This piece is part of a series on the future of defence in Australia. Read the other stories here.

Peter Layton 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. Australia needs bold ideas on defence. The Coalition’s increased spending plan falls disappointingly short – https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-bold-ideas-on-defence-the-coalitions-increased-spending-plan-falls-disappointingly-short-255106

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Logan, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar of Civil Systems Engineering, University of Canterbury

As New Zealanders clean up after ex-Cyclone Tam which left thousands without power and communities once again facing flooding, it’s tempting to seek immediate solutions.

However, after the cleanup and initial recovery, careful planning is essential.

Research shows that following disasters, communities often demand visible action that appears decisive. Yet, these reactions can create more problems than they solve.

When high-impact weather events drive long-term policy decisions, we risk implementing changes that seem protective but actually increase the risk of future disasters or misallocate limited resources.

What New Zealand needs isn’t knee-jerk actions but thoughtful planning that prepares communities before the next storms strike. Risk assessments paired with adaptive planning offer a path forward to build resilience step by step.

Planning ahead with multiple options

The good news is that many councils in New Zealand have begun this process and communities across the country are due to receive climate change risk assessments. These aren’t just technical documents showing hazard areas – they are tools that put power in the hands of communities.

When communities have access to good information about which neighbourhoods, roads and infrastructure face potential risks, they can prioritise investments in protection, modify building practices where needed and, in some cases, plan for different futures. This knowledge creates options rather than fear.

A risk assessment is merely the first step. Adaptation plans that translate knowledge into action are the next, but the Climate Change Commission recently confirmed there is a gap, concluding that:

New Zealand is not adapting to climate change fast enough.

For many New Zealanders already experiencing “rain anxiety” with each approaching storm, simply naming the danger without offering a path forward isn’t enough. This is where adaptive planning becomes essential.

Adaptive planning isn’t about abandoning coastal towns tomorrow or spending billions on sea walls today. It is about having a plan A, B and C ready if or when nature forces our hand. Rather than demanding immediate, potentially costly actions, adaptive planning provides a roadmap with multiple pathways that adjust as climate conditions evolve. This is how we best manage complex risk.

Think of it as setting up trip wires: when water reaches certain levels or storms hit certain frequencies, we already know our next move. This approach acknowledges the deep uncertainty of climate change while still providing communities with clarity about what happens next.

Importantly, it builds in community consultation at each decision point, ensuring solutions reflect local values and priorities.

Success stories

Several New Zealand communities are already demonstrating how this approach works. Christchurch recently approved an adaptation strategy for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour with clear pathways based on trigger points rather than fixed timelines.

In South Dunedin, where half of the city’s buildings currently face flood risks which are expected to worsen in coming decades, the city council has paired its risk assessment with seven potential adaptation futures, ranging from status quo to large-scale retreat. Rather than imposing solutions, they’re consulting residents about what they want for their neighbourhoods.

Similarly forward-thinking, Buller District Council has developed a master plan that includes potentially relocating parts of Westport in the future. It’s a bold strategy that acknowledges reality rather than clinging to false security.

Status quo feels safer than adaptation

These approaches aren’t without controversy. At recent public meetings in Buller, some residents voiced understandable concerns about property values and community disruption. These reactions reflect the very real emotional and financial stakes for people whose homes are affected.

Yet the alternative – continuing with the status quo – means flood victims are offered only the option to invest their insurance money wherever they like. This assumes insurance remains available, which is a misguided assumption as insurance retreat from climate-vulnerable properties accelerates.

However, while local councils are on the front lines of adaptation planning, they’re being asked to make transformational decisions without adequate central government support. A recent Parliamentary select committee report failed to clarify who should pay for adaptation measures, despite acknowledging significant risks.

Parliament continues to avoid the difficult questions, kicking the can further down the road while communities such as South Dunedin and Westport face immediate threats.

Local councils need more than vague guidelines. They need clear direction on funding responsibilities, legislative powers and technical support. Without this support, even the most detailed risk assessments become exercises in documenting vulnerability rather than building resilience.

Instead of demanding short-term fixes, residents should expect their councils to engage with these complex challenges. The best climate preparation isn’t about predicting exactly what will happen in 2100 or avoiding disaster. It is about building more resilient, cohesive communities that are prepared for whatever our changing climate brings.

Tom Logan is a Rutherford Discovery Fellow and the chief technical officer of Urban Intelligence. He receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and EU Horizons on risk assessment. He is affiliated with the International Society for Risk Analysis.

– ref. Rather than short-term fixes, communities need flexible plans to prepare for a range of likely climate impacts – https://theconversation.com/rather-than-short-term-fixes-communities-need-flexible-plans-to-prepare-for-a-range-of-likely-climate-impacts-254698

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

Recent royal commissions and inquiries into Crown and Star casino groups attracted much media attention. Most of this was focused on money laundering and other illegalities.

The Victorian royal commission found widespread evidence that Crown also took advantage of vulnerable people.

The regulatory framework that in large part allows this to occur is known as “responsible gambling”.

Read more:
Whatever happens to Star, the age of unfettered gambling revenue for casinos may have ended

What is ‘responsible gambling’?

Gambling operators usually adhere to a system of purported harm minimisation known as responsible gambling.

In practice, this requires gambling operators to adopt and supposedly implement a “responsible gambling code of practice”.

This is supposed to protect people from experiencing gambling harm. Crown and Star, like other gambling venues, are required to adopt such codes.

Royal Commissioner Ray Finkelstein, overseeing the Victorian Crown inquiry, was scathing in his assessment of Crown’s implementation:

Crown Melbourne had for years held itself out as having a world’s best approach to problem gambling. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Unfortunately, Finkelstein’ comments about Crown could readily be made about most other gambling operators.

How it all began

The responsible gambling framework was developed by gambling operators as a way of deflecting attention from the serious harm of gambling.

The document that arguably consolidated this was prepared in 2004 by a group of gambling researchers gathered, naturally, in Reno, Nevada (close to Las Vegas, the spiritual home of gambling excesses).

This document argued the choice to gamble should be left to people and no external organisation should interfere with this.

Now, responsible gambling is cemented in law, regulation, and practice. It is the overwhelming frame for gambling operators, governments and regulators to conceal gambling’s downside.

Stacking the odds

Responsible gambling depicts gambling harm as an issue for a small minority of people: so-called problem gamblers.

So from this perspective, any issues with gambling are issues with people.

But little if any attention is devoted to the environment in which gambling is available. Often, even less is devoted to examining the nature of gambling products.

When it comes to wagering marketing, the Australian gambling ecosystem has argued very effectively to forestall prohibition or further regulation in recent years.

The far-reaching power of this conglomeration of self-interested actors is hard to overestimate.

Read more:
Will the government’s online gambling advertising legislation ever eventuate? Don’t bet on it

At venue level, responsible gambling interventions required include signage, referral to counselling and mottos such as “gamble responsibly”.

With few exceptions, little of this is evidence based. Almost none of it is effective.

Codes of conduct, for example, argue it is possible to intervene at a venue when a gambler shows signs of distress, or has a gambling disorder. While this is theoretically possible, the problem is to do so would rob venue operators of their most lucrative customers.

The available evidence indicates such interventions are extremely rare, or nonexistent.

Another major element is self-exclusion: an opportunity for people (or in some states their relatives) to ban themselves from gambling at particular venues.

This is, again, fine in theory. But it has generally been poorly enforced at “bricks and mortar” venues.

There are two fundamental issues with this approach:

• those who self-exclude are very much in the minority of those with gambling problems
• self-exclusion is generally undertaken only by those who are at rock-bottom. It is not a preventive approach.

The other major intervention in the responsible gambling coda is treatment.

Gambling treatment services are available and free via Gamblers Help but fewer than 10% of those who might benefit from treatment actually seek it.

Unfortunately, attrition rates for counselling are high, so both the lack of help-seeking and the attrition rates when help is sought are at least partially attributable to another side effect of the responsible gambling mantra: shame and stigma, which are commonly reported by those struggling with gambling disorders.

The blame game

Responsible gambling effectively blames people for getting into trouble.

It argues problem gamblers are far outnumbered by “responsible gamblers”, and deflects attention away from the highly addictive nature of many gambling products.

It largely absolves operators of responsibility, while maintaining their revenues and stigmatising those who bear the consequences.

As it does all this, it also provides a smokescreen of concern, a suggestion that gambling operators and governments care about gambling harm.

Ideas for the future

The best way to curb gambling harm is to view it as a public health problem.

Public health is generally focused on prevention (think vaccines and clean water). At this stage, the most likely effective preventive intervention is what is known as pre-commitment, which uses technology to allow people to determine the amount of money they want to gamble.

High-intensity gambling products rely on people becoming highly immersed in the product. Gamblers call this “the zone” – which limits or negates a person’s ability to make rational decisions.

But pre-commitment systems allow this choice to be made outside of “the zone”.

Unsurprisingly, few gambling operators support such a solution, even though these systems are now commonplace in many European countries.

Pre-commitment and cashless systems are now required for casinos in NSW and Victoria, and shortly in Queensland, as recommended by the Crown and Star inquiries.

These are welcome steps but much more is needed.

A long overdue change

Responsible gambling has allowed gambling operators to self-regulate and blame people for harmful gambling practices.

It has made gambling businesses – casinos, wagering companies, pokie pubs and clubs – extraordinary profitable. But this has come at considerable cost to hundreds of thousands of Australians, and their families and friends.

Ditching the responsible gambling mantra is long overdue. Along with effective interventions to prevent harm, doing so will dramatically reduce the damage that gambling does.

Charles Livingstone has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the (former) Victorian Gambling Research Panel, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Institute, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Finnish Alcohol Research Foundation, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, the Turkish Red Crescent Society, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He was a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government’s Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Lancet Public Health Commission into gambling, and of the World Health Organisation expert group on gambling and gambling harm. He made a submission to and appeared before the HoR Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm.

– ref. The ‘responsible gambling’ mantra does nothing to prevent harm. It probably makes things worse – https://theconversation.com/the-responsible-gambling-mantra-does-nothing-to-prevent-harm-it-probably-makes-things-worse-251487

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Intifar Chowdhury, Lecturer in Government, Flinders University

The centre of gravity of Australian politics has shifted. Millennials and Gen Z voters, now comprising 47% of the electorate, have taken over as the dominant voting bloc.

But this generational shift isn’t just about numerical dominance. It’s also about political unpredictability.

While the youth have progressive leanings, they aren’t neatly aligned with Labor. The Greens are gaining ground and there are signs of a subset of younger men drifting right.

This makes them both a decisive and volatile force. So how might they vote?

The climbing Greens vote

According to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), youth enrolment (18–24-year-olds) at the end of March 2025 stood at 90.4%. This surpasses the national youth enrolment rate target of 87%.

Further analysis of enrolment data shows electorates with the highest proportion of voters under 30 saw unprecedented support for the Greens in 2022, with the party topping the vote share in four of the youngest seats.

Elsewhere, electorates with a high youth vote became battlegrounds, with Labor facing its fiercest competition not from the Liberals, but from the Greens.

Take Canberra, for example. A historically safe Labor seat was a comfortable Labor retain, but Greens’ primary vote reached nearly 25%, pushing the Liberals out of the two party-preferred calculations entirely.

This year, the main contest for the youth vote will likely be between Labor and the Greens.

Capturing young hearts and minds

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese knows how important these voters are. In a bid to retain the youth vote, he is already sweetening the deal for them, dangling higher education reforms like election cookies.

If re-elected, Labor promises a 20% cut to student loan debt by June 1. The government also plans a higher income threshold before repayments begin, and an expansion of fee-free TAFE places to 100,000 per year from 2027.

These proposals have received strong support from young people – even among Coalition voters.

Read more:
Every generation thinks they had it the toughest, but for Gen Z, they’re probably right

This underscores the significance of youth issues in shaping their political behaviour. Young Australians are issue-based voters, with housing affordability, employment, and climate change topping their concerns, according to the 2024 Australian Youth Barometer.

They’re acutely aware of intergenerational inequality. They’re paying more tax than their parents did, while facing skyrocketing housing, education, and living costs. Financial anxiety runs deep, with 62% believing they’ll be worse off than their parents.

Yet, they see lack of sincere government action to address their struggles.

Not doing enough

Take housing affordability – a red-hot issue in the past three years. A bitter parliamentary standoff last year saw Labor and the Greens locked in negotiations over housing policy.

The Greens criticised the government’s Build to Rent and Help to Buy schemes, calling for tougher reforms. They wanted rent caps, the winding back negative gearing and phasing out $176 billion in tax breaks for property investors.

Such parliamentary gridlocks are unsavoury to voters, but the rent cap debate could have given the Greens an edge among young people, most of whom are renters.

Youth trust in the Albanese government has slipped since 2022, according to the first wave of the ANU 2025 Election Monitoring Survey. Perceptions of politicking over important issues like housing could be part of the reason why.

Divided by gender

Another fault line in the youth vote is the gender divide.

There are signs of a right-wing shift among young men, much like in Donald Trump’s America. According to The Australian Financial Review/Freshwater Strategy poll in November 2024, 37% of men aged 18–34 back opposition leader Dutton, compared to just 27% of women.

Pollsters point to young, non-university educated voters in the outer suburbs and regions as potential disruptors. They’re volatile, disillusioned and more likely to vote against a system they feel has failed them.

This trend is harder to spot in aggregate data, likely due to compulsory voting, but studies suggest a subset of men with economic grievances – particularly blue-collar workers – are drawn to anti-government rhetoric and the discourse of white male victimhood.

Many express nostalgia for traditional masculinity and feel alienated by progressive social shifts. Such a perception leads to a “backlash” against these changes.

This resentment plays out well online. Trump, for example, has mobilised young men by mastering direct communication through digital media and podcasts, and Dutton seems to be taking notes.

So a lot hinges on the online battleground. It’s about reaching all types of young voters with relatable, political messaging.

The days of one-size-fits-all political advertising are over. Younger voters consume media differently, making political messaging more about influencers than traditional advertising.

Major parties need to step up their game in digital-first platforms, moving beyond mere presence on social media to crafting compelling, digital-first content.

Grassroots and community-driven campaigning, both online and on the ground, can bridge the disconnect. The Greens’ success in Brisbane proved this, with young, personable candidates engaging directly.

Meanwhile, the establishment parties are lacking young, relatable leaders who can tell stories that resonate.

Intifar Chowdhury 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. This election, Gen Z and Millennials hold most of the voting power. How might they wield it? – https://theconversation.com/this-election-gen-z-and-millennials-hold-most-of-the-voting-power-how-might-they-wield-it-252803

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Dunley, Senior Lecturer in History and Maritime Strategy, UNSW Sydney

National security issues have been a constant feature of this federal election campaign.

Both major parties have spruiked their national security credentials by promising additional defence spending. The Coalition has pledged to spend 3% of Australia’s GDP on defence within a decade, while Labor is accelerating its own spending increase of $50 billion over the next decade.

Even the Greens have got in on the act, pledging to “decouple” Australia from the US military.

Against this backdrop, of course, is the omnipresent figure of US President Donald Trump, with questions about the reliability of the US as an ally and the impact his policy decisions will have on Australian security. The possible deployment of Russian aircraft to Indonesia and the Chinese warships sailing around Australia have made these issues even more salient.

But what do Australians actually know about defence issues, and what are they comfortable spending on it?

According to our major new survey of 1,500 Australian adults, only a third of respondents thought the defence budget should be increased.

The survey was conducted from late February to early March as part of our work at the War Studies Research Group to measure public attitudes towards the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

Australians know little about the ADF’s role

More than two-thirds of our respondents said they had a positive opinion of the ADF, and only 8% held a negative opinion. There were significant differences by political affiliation, with 76% of those expecting to vote for the Liberal Party having positive views compared to 72% of Labor supporters. By contrast, only 53% of Greens supporters felt the same way.

However, when asked how much they actually knew about the ADF and its activities, only a quarter of respondents felt well-informed.

One reason for this is that only 22% of respondents served in the ADF themselves, or had an immediate family member who had. Similarly, only 35% of respondents knew a veteran.

But even public knowledge on issues that have received considerable media attention was limited.

Remarkably, only 56% of respondents were aware of the allegations that Australian Special Forces soldiers committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Less than half had heard of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

Support for increasing defence spending is mixed

Successive governments have emphasised the rapidly deteriorating strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific region. This has led to much debate over whether Australia should increase its defence spending – and by how much.

In this election, both sides have committed more resources to upgrade and expand Australia’s military capabilities.

However, despite efforts to turn defence spending into a major issue at this election (especially on the right of politics), it is far from clear this has cut through with the wider population.

Our survey reveals public support for a larger ADF is split. Just over half of respondents thought the ADF was appropriately sized, while 41% considered it too small and 7% thought it too large.

Notably, when asked whether they thought more money should be spent on defence, the support for growth shrinks further.

Liberal supporters were the most likely to favour increasing the defence budget. But only 44% of them did, suggesting a majority felt that current spending on the ADF was either appropriate or too large.

Only 28% of Labor voters supported an increase in the defence budget. And among Greens voters, those supporting cuts to the defence budget outnumbered those in favour of expansion.

Read more:
Should Australia increase its defence spending? We asked 5 experts

Most still support the US, despite Trump

Ever since the US presidential election in November, many Australians have also questioned the US alliance and the AUKUS agreement, specifically. Recent actions by Trump – most notably his public statements on the Ukraine war – have only reinforced these doubts.

Given the tone of the public debate, we expected to see lower levels of support in our survey for the US alliance as the bedrock of Australian security.

However, respondents strongly favoured (75%) the ADF continuing to prioritise working closely with allies and partners, especially the US. Only 2% opposed it. Notably, there was very little variation based on political allegiance.

However, the idea of deploying the ADF to support our allies and partners overseas, including in the event of a conflict, saw greater division among respondents.

Two-thirds favoured deploying troops to support our allies overall. Liberal voters largely supported this proposition (75%), while 64% of Labor supporters backed it. Only about half of Greens voters felt the same way.

Respondents were also asked whether Australia should focus primarily on the defence of our territory rather than supporting our allies and partners in maintaining wider regional security. Just under half (46%) of respondents agreed with this idea, while 38% expressed neutral opinions and only 17% opposed it.

Overall, the results of this survey suggest that while the Australian public generally holds the ADF in high regard, they don’t know very much about it, nor do they consider additional funding for defence and security to be a real priority.

Successive governments, intelligence agencies and military analysts have long warned of the growing threats to Australia’s national security. Our survey suggests, however, that this messaging is either not cutting through – or that other concerns, such as housing or cost-of-living pressures, are taking priority.

Either way, it does not look like this issue will be decisive in the coming election.

This piece is part of a series on the future of defence in Australia. Read the other stories here.

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. Only a third of Australians support increasing defence spending: new research – https://theconversation.com/only-a-third-of-australians-support-increasing-defence-spending-new-research-253943

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

In Canada, the governing centre-left Liberals had trailed the Conservatives by more than 20 points in January, but now lead by five points and are likely to win a majority of seats at next Monday’s election. Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump’s ratings in US national polls have dropped to a -5 net approval.

The Canadian election will be held next Monday, with the large majority of polls closing at 11:30am AEST Tuesday. The 343 MPs are elected by first past the post, with 172 seats needed for a majority.

The Liberals had looked doomed to a massive loss for a long time. In early January, the CBC Poll Tracker had given the Conservatives 44% of the vote, the Liberals 20%, the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) 19%, the separatist left-wing Quebec Bloc (BQ) 9%, the Greens 4% and the far-right People’s 2%. With these vote shares, the Conservatives would have won a landslide with well over 200 seats.

At the September 2021 election, the Liberals won 160 of the then 338 seats on 32.6% of votes, the Conservatives 119 seats on 33.7%, the BQ 32 seats on 7.6%, the NDP 25 seats on 17.8%, the Greens two seats on 2.3% and the People’s zero seats on 4.9%. he Liberals were short of the 170 seats needed for a majority.

The Liberal vote was more efficiently distributed than the Conservative vote owing to the Conservatives winning safe rural seats by huge margins. The BQ benefited from vote concentration, with all its national vote coming in Quebec, where it won 32.1%.

On January 6, Justin Trudeau, who had been Liberal leader and PM since winning the October 2015 election, announced he would resign these positions once a new Liberal leader was elected. Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, was overwhelmingly elected Liberal leader on March 9 and replaced Trudeau as PM on March 14.

With the Liberals short of a parliamentary majority, parliament was prorogued for the Liberal leadership election and was due to resume on March 24. Carney is not yet an MP (he will contest Nepean at the election). Possibly owing to these factors, Carney called the election on March 23.

In Tuesday’s update to the CBC Poll Tracker, the Liberals had 43.1% of the vote, the Conservatives 38.4%, the NDP 8.3%, the BQ 5.8% (25.4% in Quebec), the Greens 2.2% and the People’s 1.4%. The Liberals have surged from 24 points behind in early January to their current 4.7-point lead.

Seat point estimates were 191 Liberals (over the 172 needed for a majority), 123 Conservatives, 23 BQ, five NDP and one Green. The tracker gives the Liberals an 80% chance to win a majority of seats and a 15% chance to win the most seats but not a majority.

The Liberal lead over the Conservatives peaked on April 8, when they led by 7.1 points. There has been slight movement back to the Conservatives since, with the French and English leaders’ debates last Wednesday and Thursday possibly assisting the Conservatives.

But the Liberals still lead by nearly five points in the polls five days before the election. With the Liberals’ vote more efficiently distributed, they are the clear favourites to win an election they looked certain to lose by a landslide margin in January.

Carney’s replacement of Trudeau has benefited the Liberals, but I believe the most important reason for the Liberals’ poll surge is Trump. Trump’s tariffs against Canada and his talk of making Canada the 51st US state have greatly alienated Canadians and made it more difficult for the more pro-Trump Conservatives.

In an early April YouGov Canadian poll, by 64–25, respondents said the US was unfriendly or an enemy rather than friendly or an ally (50–33 in February). By 84–11, they did not want Canada to become part of the US. If Canadians had been able to vote in the 2024 US presidential election, Kamala Harris would have defeated Donald Trump by 57–18 in this poll.

Trump’s US ratings have fallen well below net zero

In Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls, Trump currently has a net approval of -5.4, with 50.8% disapproving and 45.4% approving. At the start of his term, Trump’s net approval was +12, but went negative in mid-March. His ratings fell to their current level soon after Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2.

Silver has presidential approval poll data for previous presidents since Harry Truman (president from 1945–53). Trump’s current net approval is worse than for any other president at this point in their tenure except for Trump’s first term (2017–2021).

Silver also has a net favourability aggregate for Elon Musk that currently gives Musk a net favourable rating of -13.6 (53.0% unfavourable, 39.3% favourable). Musk’s ratings began to drop from about net zero before Trump’s second term commenced on January 20.

G. Elliott Morris used to manage the US poll aggregate site FiveThirtyEight before it was axed. He wrote last Friday that Trump’s net approval on the economy (at -5.8) is worse than at any point in his first term. During his first term, Trump’s net approval on the economy was mostly positive, helping to support his overall ratings.

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

– ref. After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election – https://theconversation.com/after-stunning-comeback-centre-left-liberals-likely-to-win-majority-of-seats-at-canadian-election-254926

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Narelle Miragliotta, Associate Professor in Politics, Murdoch University

Election talk is inevitably focused on Labor and the Coalition because they are the parties that customarily form government.

But a minor party like the Greens is consequential, regardless of whether the election delivers a minority government. Certainly, the level of anti-Greens campaigning by third party groups, like Better Australia, suggests as much.

The Greens’ have declared that their electoral aim is to “Keep Dutton out and get Labor to act”. They know this would be best achieved in a minority government, where the crossbench would be powerful players.

But can the Greens build on their historic 2022 election result, which delivered four lower house seats and the balance of power in the Senate?

State of play

An aggregation of the main polls estimates the Greens’ nationwide primary vote has ticked up since 2022, now ranging from 12.4% to 14.1%.

They are expected to retain all six Senate seats up for election. When combined with their five other Senate seats, the party will be critical in the next parliament to the fate of legislation in the red chamber.

In the contest for the House, the Greens are defending a record four seats: Melbourne, Brisbane, Griffith and Ryan. Melbourne is held by party leader Adam Bandt, on a comfortable 8.5% margin. It is as safe as it gets for the Greens.

The balance of the party’s seats are all Brisbane-based, starting with Ryan, which is held by just 2.6% if the two-party preferred vote. Despite the slender margin, Ryan has better prospects than the neighbouring seat of Brisbane, which it holds by 3.6%. This is based on the party’s 2022 swing of almost 10%, which placed them second in Ryan on primary votes.

In contrast, the Greens finished in third position on primary votes in Brisbane on the back of a respectable, but much more modest swing of just under 5%. The electoral dynamics are also complicated because the seat is a genuine three-cornered contest.

On the other hand, Griffith is now classed as a safe seat for the Greens. The party attained the highest number of primary votes (34.6%) on the back of a 10.94% swing three years ago. The Greens should be able to defend Griffith.

Target seats

The Greens have declared five additional electorates as “priority target seats” – two in Victoria and one in each of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia.

Wills is the first of two Melbourne-based seats earmarked by the Greens. The party is betting on a redistribution in the Labor held seat, which independent analyst The Poll Bludger estimates will reduce the ALP’s primary vote by 2.6% and increase the Greens’ vote by 5%. The Greens are also fielding a high profile candidate, former state MP Samantha Ratnam.

In the case of Macnamara, the Greens finished in second position behind Labor in 2022. At the point of the Greens’ exclusion in the count they were on 32.84%, just marginally behind Labor on 33.48%

While the Greens’ prospects might be helped by a weakened Victorian Labor brand, victory could still prove elusive. In the case of Macnamara, the electorate takes in parts of the state seat of Prahran, which the party lost in a byelection in February. The by-election was precipitated by the resignation of the state Greens MP owing to allegations of inappropriate conduct with an intern.

Moreover, Liberal how-to-vote cards in both Wills and Macnamara are preferencing Labor over the Greens, which may be enough to push Labor over the line in both seats.

Chances elsewhere

The NSW seat of Richmond is a marginal Labor electorate that was once held by the Nationals. The Greens are calculating the seat is winnable based on their strong primary vote in 2022 and candidate continuity.

Richmond boasts one of the highest levels of rental stress in the nation, making it a perfect setting for Greens campaigning on housing affordability issues. Polling shows the Greens vote is up by 3% in NSW. If it’s accurate, and translates to Richmond, then the seat is potentially winnable.

Sturt in South Australia is the Liberal Party’s second most marginal seat (0.5%). However, the likelihood of a Greens victory is slim. At the 2022 election the Greens attracted only 16.39% of the primary vote, well behind both Labor and the Liberals.

The party’s final target seat is Perth, held by Labor on a very safe 14.4%, two party preferred. The seat’s demography explains why it’s a Greens priority. Perth is a relatively affluent inner metropolitan seat, with a high percentage of people who finished school, and a constituency that skews young.

But Perth is unlikely to turn to the Greens. In 2022 they finished in third position on primary votes (22.16%), well behind Labor (39.25%). The party’s Perth campaign may have also been damaged by plans, since abandoned, to hold a fundraising event on ANZAC Day.

Numbers game

Based only on the seats examined, the Greens will likely retain at least Melbourne and Griffith in the lower house, along with the 6 senate seats it is defending.

A more optimistic reading of the polling would also include Ryan, Brisbane and Wills. A best case scenario would also add Richmond and Macnamara to that list.

And then, of course, there are the unexpected victories that many of us simply don’t see coming. This is because party support and voter swings are never uniform at the seat level. There will be electorates that under-perform for all parties. And that includes the Greens.

Narelle Miragliotta 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 Greens are hoping for another ‘greenslide’ election. What do the polls say? – https://theconversation.com/the-greens-are-hoping-for-another-greenslide-election-what-do-the-polls-say-254600

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Campbell Rider, PhD Candidate in Philosophy – Philosophy of Biology, University of Sydney

Whether or not we’re alone in the universe is one of the biggest questions in science.

A recent study, led by astrophysicist Nikku Madhusudhan at the University of Cambridge, suggests the answer might be no. Based on observations from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, the study points to alien life on K2-18b, a distant exoplanet 124 light years from Earth.

The researchers found strong evidence of a chemical called dimethyl sulfide (DMS) in the planet’s atmosphere. On Earth, DMS is produced only by living organisms, so it appears to be a compelling sign of life, or “biosignature”.

While the new findings have made headlines, a look at the history of astrobiology shows similar discoveries have been inconclusive in the past. The issue is partly theoretical: scientists and philosophers still have no agreed-upon definition of exactly what life is.

A closer look

Unlike the older Hubble telescope, which orbited Earth, NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope is placed in orbit around the Sun. This gives it a better view of objects in deep space.

When distant exoplanets pass in front of their host star, astronomers can deduce what chemicals are in their atmospheres from the tell-tale wavelengths they leave in the detected light. Since the precision of these readings can vary, scientists estimate a margin of error for their results, to rule out random chance. The recent study of K2-18b found only a 0.3% probability that the readings were a fluke, leaving researchers confident in their detection of DMS.

On Earth, DMS is only produced by life, mostly aquatic phytoplankton. This makes it a persuasive biosignature.

The findings line up with what scientists already conjecture about K2-18b. Considered a “Hycean” world (a portmanteau of “hydrogen” and “ocean”), K2-18b is thought to feature a hydrogen-rich atmosphere and a surface covered with liquid water. These conditions are favourable to life.

So does this mean K2-18b’s oceans are crawling with extraterrestrial microbes?

Some experts are less certain. Speaking to the New York Times, planetary scientist Christopher Glein expressed doubt that the study represents a “smoking gun”. And past experiences teach us that in astrobiology, inconclusive findings are the norm.

Life as we don’t know it

Astrobiology has its origins in efforts to explain how life began on our own planet.

In the early 1950s, the Miller-Urey experiment showed that an electrical current could produce organic compounds from a best-guess reconstruction of the chemistry in Earth’s earliest oceans – sometimes called the “primordial soup”.

Although it gave no real indication of how life in fact first evolved, the experiment left astrobiology with a framework for investigating the chemistry of alien worlds.

In 1975, the first Mars landers – Viking 1 and 2 – conducted experiments with collected samples of Martian soil. In one experiment, nutrients added to soil samples appeared to produce carbon dioxide, suggesting microbes were digesting the nutrients.

Initial excitement quickly dissipated, as other tests failed to pick up organic compounds in the soil. And later studies identified plausible non-biological explanations for the carbon dioxide. One explanation points to a mineral abundant on Mars called perchlorate. Interactions between perchlorate and cosmic rays may have led to chemical reactions similar to those observed by the Viking tests.

Concerns the landers’ instruments had been contaminated on Earth also introduced uncertainty.

In 1996, a NASA team announced a Martian meteorite discovered in Antarctica bore signs of past alien life. Specimen ALH84001 showed evidence of organic hydrocarbons, as well as magnetite crystals arranged in a distinctive pattern only produced biologically on Earth.

More suggestive were the small, round structures in the rock resembling fossilised bacteria. Again, closer analysis led to disappointment. Non-biological explanations were found for the magnetite grains and hydrocarbons, while the fossil bacteria were deemed too small to plausibly support life.

The most recent comparable discovery – claims of phosphine gas on Venus in 2020 – is also still controversial. Phosphine is considered a biosignature, since on Earth it’s produced by bacterial life in low-oxygen environments, particularly in the digestive tracts of animals. Some astronomers claim the detected phosphine signal is too weak, or attributable to inorganically produced sulfur compounds.

Each time biosignatures are found, biologists confront the ambiguous distinction between life and non-life, and the difficulty of extrapolating characteristics of life on Earth to alien environments.

Carol Cleland, a leading philosopher of science, has called this the problem of finding “life as we don’t know it”.

Moving beyond chemistry

We still know very little about how life first emerged on Earth. This makes it hard to know what to expect from the primitive lifeforms that might exist on Mars or K2-18b.

It’s uncertain whether such lifeforms would resemble Earth life at all. Alien life might manifest in surprising and unrecognisable ways: while life on Earth is carbon-based, cellular, and reliant on self-replicating molecules such as DNA, an alien lifeform might fulfil the same functions with totally unfamiliar materials and structures.

Our knowledge of the environmental conditions on K2-18b is also limited, so it’s hard to imagine the adaptations a Hycean organism might need to survive there.

Chemical biosignatures derived from life on Earth, it seems, might be a misleading guide.

Philosophers of biology argue that a general definition of life will need to go beyond chemistry. According to one view, life is defined by its organisation, not the list of chemicals making it up: living things embody a kind of self-organisation able to autonomously produce its own parts, sustain a metabolism, and maintain a boundary or membrane separating inside from outside.

Some philosophers of science claim such a definition is too imprecise. In my own research, I’ve argued that this kind of generality is a strength: it helps keep our theories flexible, and applicable to new contexts.

K2-18b may be a promising candidate for identifying extraterrestrial life. But excitement about biosignatures such as DMS disguises deeper, theoretical problems that also need to be resolved.

Novel lifeforms in distant, unfamiliar environments might not be detectable in the ways we expect. Philosophers and scientists will have to work together on non-reductive descriptions of living processes, so that when we do stumble across alien life, we don’t miss it.

Campbell Rider is the recipient of an Australian government RTP scholarship for his doctoral studies.

– ref. Scientists claim to have found evidence of alien life. But ‘biosignatures’ might hide more than they reveal – https://theconversation.com/scientists-claim-to-have-found-evidence-of-alien-life-but-biosignatures-might-hide-more-than-they-reveal-254801

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelly Kirkland, Research Fellow in Psychology, The University of Queensland

Australia just sweltered through one of its hottest summers on record, and heat has pushed well into autumn. Once-in-a-generation floods are now striking with alarming regularity. As disasters escalate, insurers are warning some properties may soon be uninsurable. Yet, despite these escalating disasters — and a federal election looming — conversation around climate change remains deeply polarising.

But are people’s minds really made up? Or are they still open to change?

In research out today, we asked more than 5,000 Australians a simple question: what would change your mind about climate change? Their answers reveal both a warning and an opportunity.

On climate, Australians fall into six groups

Almost two thirds (64%) of Australians are concerned about the impact of climate change, according to a recent survey.

But drill deeper, and we quickly find Australians hold quite different views on climate. In fact, research in 2022 showed Australians can be sorted into six distinct groups based on how concerned and engaged they are with the issue.

At one end was the Alarmed group – highly concerned people who are convinced of the science, and already taking action (25% of Australians). At the other end was the Dismissive group (7%) – strongly sceptical people who often view climate change as exaggerated or even a hoax. In between were the Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged and Doubtful – groups who varied in belief, awareness and willingness to engage.

In our nationally representative survey, we asked every participant what might change their opinion about climate change? We then looked at how the answers differed between the six groups.

For those already convinced climate change is real and human-caused, we wanted to know what might make them doubt it. For sceptical participants, we wanted to know what might persuade them otherwise. In short, we weren’t testing who was “right” or “wrong” – we were mapping how flexible their opinions were.

Our views aren’t set in stone

People at both extremes – Alarmed and Dismissive – were the most likely to say “nothing” would change their minds. Nearly half the Dismissive respondents flat-out rejected the premise. But these two groups together make up just one in three Australians.

What about everyone in the middle ground? The rest – the Concerned (28%), Cautious (23%), Disengaged (3%) and Doubtful (14%) – showed much more openness. They matter most, because they’re the majority — and they’re still listening.

What information would change minds?

What would it take for people to be convinced? We identified four major themes: evidence and information, trusted sources, action being undertaken, and nothing.

The most common response was a desire for better evidence and information. But not just any facts would do. Participants said they wanted clear, plain-English explanations rather than jargon. They wanted statistics they could trust, and science that didn’t feel politicised or agenda-driven. Some said they’d be more convinced if they saw the impacts with their own eyes.

Crucially, many in the Doubtful and Cautious groups didn’t outright reject climate change – they just didn’t feel confident enough to judge the evidence.

The trust gap

Many respondents didn’t know who to believe on climate change. Scientists and independent experts were the most commonly mentioned trusted sources – but trust in these sources wasn’t universal.

Some Australians, especially in the more sceptical segments, expressed deep distrust toward the media, governments and the scientific community. Others said they’d be more receptive if information came from unbiased or apolitical sources. For some respondents, family, friends and everyday people were seen as more credible than institutions.

In an age of widespread misinformation, this matters. If we want to build support for climate action, we need the right messengers as much as the right message.

What about action?

Many respondents said their views could shift if they saw real, meaningful action – especially from governments and big business. Some wanted proof that Australia is taking climate change seriously. Others said action would offer hope or reduce their anxiety.

Even some sceptical respondents said coordinated, global action might persuade them – though they were often cynical about Australia’s impact compared to larger emitters. Others called for a more respectful, depoliticised conversation around climate.

In other words, for many Australians, it’s not just what evidence and information is presented about climate change. It’s also how it’s said, who says it, and why it’s being said.

Of course, the responses we gathered reflect what people say would change their minds. That’s not necessarily what would actually change their minds.

Why does this matter?

As climate change intensifies, so does misinformation — especially online, where artificial intelligence and social media accelerate its spread.

Misinformation has a corrosive effect. Spreading doubt, lies and uncertainty can erode public support for climate action.

If we don’t understand what Australians actually need to hear about climate change – and who they need to hear it from – we risk losing ground to confusion and doubt.

After years of growth from 2012 to 2019, Australian backing for climate action is fluctuating and even dropping, according to Lowy Institute polling.

Climate change may not be the headline issue in this federal election campaign. But it’s on the ballot nonetheless, embedded in debates over how to power Australia, jobs and the cost of living. If we want public support for meaningful climate action, we can’t just shout louder. We have to speak smarter.

Kelly Kirkland receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Samantha Stanley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Abby Robinson, Amy S G Lee, and Zoe Leviston 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. What would change your mind about climate change? We asked 5,000 Australians – here’s what they told us – https://theconversation.com/what-would-change-your-mind-about-climate-change-we-asked-5-000-australians-heres-what-they-told-us-254329

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colin Hawes, Associate professor of law, University of Technology Sydney

Far from causing trade frictions, an Australian buyout of the Port of Darwin lease may provide a lifeline for its struggling Chinese parent company Landbridge Group.

Both Labor and the Coalition have proposed such a buyout based on national security grounds.

But neither party has placed a dollar amount on a potential buyout, preferring to seek out private investors first. Any enforced acquisition would need to provide fair market value compensation to Landbridge.

The previous Northern Territory government leased the port to Landbridge for 99 years in 2015. The A$506 million contract was supported by the then Turnbull government.

Finding a buyer

This could put Australian taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. Private investors might baulk at taking on a port lease that has consistently lost money for many years.

It is not clear why the national security situation has changed. The latest government inquiry found there were no security risks requiring Landbridge to divest their lease.

The more pressing risk threatening the port is a financial one.

Troubled times

If Landbridge Group, which holds the lease through its Australian subsidiary, declares insolvency, it will no longer be able to sustain the port’s operations. And the terminal could not support itself.

Several hundred employees would lose their jobs, and serious disruptions to trade and cruise ship tourism would follow.

The Australian media reported last November that the Port of Darwin racked up losses of $34 million in the 2023–24 financial year. Yet this figure is overshadowed by the financial liabilities Landbridge has in China.

Where the problems started

The problems started with Landbridge Group’s ambitious expansion between 2014 and 2017.

In that time it shelled out almost $5 billion on international and Chinese assets. Purchases included Australian gas producer WestSide Corporation Ltd, ($180 million in 2014); the Port of Darwin lease ($506 million in 2015); and another port in Panama ($1.2 billion in 2016). Landbridge reportedly planned to plough a further $1.5 billion into that port.

In China, the Landbridge Group also signed a partnership deal with Beijing Gas Co in 2019 to construct a huge liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal at its main port site in Rizhao City, Shandong Province. The planned co-investment was worth $1.4 billion.

Rushing to invest

This was a heady time for Chinese private firms to invest overseas. Their often charismatic founders took advantage of the central government’s devolution of approval powers to the provinces and dressed up their pet investment projects as Belt and Road initiatives.

Much of this breakneck expansion was funded by high-interest bonds issued on the Chinese commercial interbank debt markets or so-called shadow banking.

Most private Chinese firms did not have easy access to the generous bank loans available to state-owned enterprises.

Landbridge, a private firm controlled by Shandong entrepreneur Ye Cheng and his sister Ye Fang, was no exception. They borrowed heavily to fund their acquisitions.

Mounting debt

Unfortunately, Landbridge’s income from its Chinese and international operations has not kept pace with its debt obligations. As early as 2017, the group was already struggling to pay debts.

By 2021, Landbridge had been sued by at least 14 major financial or trade creditors. Outstanding judgment debts were issued by the Shanghai People’s Court amounting to about $600 million.

Since then, all of the group’s main assets have been frozen in lieu of payment. Unpaid debts and interest amounting to more than $1 billion have been passed on to state asset management companies to collect or sell off at knockdown prices, an indication the group is effectively insolvent.

Time to restructure

In early 2025, a restructuring committee was formed by the local government in Rizhao City, where Landbridge is headquartered. Its job is to find a way to keep the company’s Rizhao Port operating and avoid losing thousands of local jobs.

As recently as 2021, Ye Cheng was still ranked among the top 300 richest entrepreneurs in China, with an estimated net worth of more than $3 billion.

He is currently on the hook for his company’s debts after mortgaging all his business assets and giving personal guarantees to major creditors. He has also been fined by China’s corporate regulator for failing to lodge any annual financial reports for Landbridge Group since 2021.

Landbridge’s plans to develop its Panama port were cut short and its lease there was terminated in 2021 due to financial shortfalls.

Ye’s next move?

Ye Cheng may be unwilling to sell off his remaining overseas assets as this would be an admission of defeat. Yet an enforced buyout of the Darwin Port lease arranged by Australia may provide his businesses with a temporary financial lifeline in China.

It would also absolve Landbridge of its previously announced commitments to invest about $35 million in expanding Darwin Port’s infrastructure.

Far from causing trade frictions between Australia and China, such an enforced buyout – or more accurately, a bail-out – should be privately welcomed by both Landbridge and the Chinese government.

Colin Hawes is a research associate at the Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney.

– ref. Port of Darwin’s struggling Chinese leaseholder may welcome an Australian buy-out – https://theconversation.com/port-of-darwins-struggling-chinese-leaseholder-may-welcome-an-australian-buy-out-254716

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Barker, Head, Public Engagement, Chau Chak Wing Museum, University of Sydney

The 1972 concert film Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii, back in cinemas this week, remains one of the most unique concert documentaries ever recorded by a rock band.

The movie captured the band on the brink of international stardom, released seven months before their breakout album Dark Side of the Moon, which would go on to sell 50 million copies and spend 778 weeks on the Billboard charts.

The film was the first time a rock concert took place in the ruins of an archaeological site. This intermingling of art and archaeology would change the way many thought of Pompeii.

The amphitheatre of Pompeii

The amphitheatre of Pompeii has quite a history as a venue for spectacles.

Constructed around 70 BCE, it was one of the first permanent constructed amphitheatres in Italy, designed to hold up to 20,000 spectators.

From graffiti and advertisements, we know it was used in antiquity for gladiatorial fights and displays and hunts of wild beasts and athletic contests.

Famously we are told by Roman historian Tactius in 59 CE a deadly brawl occurred between Pompeiians and residents of the nearby town of Nuceria during games, resulting in a ten-year ban on gladiatorial contests at the venue. The amphitheatre was destroyed by the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE.

There is a long tradition of authors, artists, filmmakers and designers taking inspiration from the site and its destruction. A 13-year-old Mozart’s visit to the Temple of Isis at the site inspired The Magic Flute in 1791.

In the rock music era, Pompeii has inspired numerous artists, especially around themes of death and longing. Cities in Dust (1985) by Siouxsie and the Banshees was perhaps the most famous until Bastille’s 2013 hit Pompeii. In The Decemberists’ Cocoon (2002), the destruction of Pompeii acts as a metaphor for the guilt and loss in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

Since 2016, the amphitheatre has hosted concerts – with audiences this time. Appropriately, one of the first was a performance by Pink Floyd’s guitarist David Gilmour. His show over two nights in July 2016 took place 45 years after first playing at the site.

But how did Pink Floyd come to play at Pompeii in 1972?

Rethinking rock concert movies

It was the peak era of rock concert documentaries. Woodstock (1970) and The Rolling Stone’s Gimme Shelter (1970), and other documentaries of the era, placed the cameras in the audience, giving the cinema-goer the same perspective as the concert audience.

As a concept, it was getting stale.

Filmmaker Adrian Maben had been interested in combining art with Pink Floyd’s music. He initially pitched a film of the band’s music over montages of paintings by artists such as Rene Magritte. The band rejected the idea.

Maben returned to them after a holiday in Naples, realising the ambience of Pompeii suited the band’s music. A performance without an audience provided the antithesis of the era’s concert films.

The performance would become iconic, particularly the scenes of Roger Waters banging a large gong on the upper wall of the amphitheatre, and the cameras panning past the band’s black road case to reveal the band in the ancient arena.

It was as far away from Woodstock as possible.

The performance was filmed over six days in October 1971 in the ancient amphitheatre, with the band playing three songs in the ancient venue: Echoes, A Saucerful of Secrets, and One of These Days.

Ancient history professor Ugo Carputi of the University of Naples, a Pink Floyd fan, had persuaded authorities to allow the band to film and to close the site for the duration of filming. Besides the film crew, the band’s road crew – and a few children who snuck in to watch – the venue was closed to the public.

In addition to the performance, the four band members were filmed walking over the volcanic mud around Boscoreale, and their performances in the film both were interspersed with images of antiquities from Pompeii.

The movie itself was fleshed out with studio performances in a Paris TV studio and rehearsals at Abbey Road Studios.

Marrying art and music

Famously the Pink Floyd film blends images of antiquities from the Naples Archaeological Museum with the band’s performances.

Roman frescoes and mosaics are highlighted during particular songs. Profiles of bronze statues meld with the faces of band members, linking past and present.

Later scenes have the band backdropped by images of frescoes from the famed Villa of the Mysteries and of the plaster casts of eruption victims.

The band’s musical themes of death and mystery link with ancient imagery, and it would have been the first time many audience members had seen these masterpieces of Roman art.

Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii marked a brave experiment in rock concert movies.

Watching it more than 50 years later, it is a timepiece of early 70s rock and a remarkable document of a band on the brink of fame.

Because of their progressive rock sound, sonic experimentation and philosophical lyrics, it was often said by Pink Floyd’s fans that they were “the first band in space”. They even eventually had a cassette of their music played in space.

But many are not aware of their earlier roots in the dust of ancient Pompeii. The re-release of the film gives an opportunity to enjoy the site’s unlikely role in music history.

Pink Floyd at Pompeii – MCMLXXII is in cinemas from Thursday.

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

– ref. When rock music met ancient archeology: the enduring power of Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii – https://theconversation.com/when-rock-music-met-ancient-archeology-the-enduring-power-of-pink-floyd-live-at-pompeii-252744

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Russell, Principal Research Fellow, CQUniversity Australia

Gambling prevalence studies provide a snapshot of gambling behaviour, problems and harm in our communities. They are typically conducted about every five years.

In some Australian states and territories, four or five have been conducted over the past 20 or so years. These have provided a snapshot into how gambling has changed – and how it has not.

So, how has gambling in Australia changed in the past two decades or so, and where may we be heading?

The intensification of gambling

In 1997-98, the Productivity Commission found about 82% of Australians had gambled in the previous 12 months.

Almost all further prevalence studies show the proportion of adults gambling has declined substantially over time.

The 2024 NSW prevalence survey, for example, found 54% reported gambling in the previous 12 months, down from 69% in 2006.

While fewer people are gambling, the proportion of people experiencing problems has not changed much, nor has gambling turnover.

In some states, gambling turnover has increased, even when you take inflation into account.

So while a smaller proportion of people are gambling, those who do gamble are doing so more frequently, and spend more money – a phenomenon we have described as the “intensification” of the industry.

As figures from the Grattan Institute show, the vast majority of gambling spend comes from a very small proportion of people who gamble.

What’s the problem?

Typically, the focus in gambling studies has been on “problem gamblers”, a term we now avoid because it can be stigmatising.

This refers to those experiencing severe problems due to their gambling, which is typically about 1% of the adult population, and around 2% of people who gamble.

This doesn’t sound like much, until you remember 1% of adults in Australia is more than 200,000 people. That’s a lot of people struggling with severe problems.

Based on recent prevalence surveys in Australia, these gamblers spend about 60 times as much as people who do not experience problems.

However, that’s just the most severe cases.

How gambling harms people

When most people think of gambling harm, they think about financial harm. But gambling can cause problems with relationships, work and study, emotional and psychological harm, and even cause health issues.

Some degree of gambling harm is experienced by around 10-15% of people who gamble.

Some groups are overrepresented: young men typically experience very high levels of harm compared to others. Other overrepresented groups are:

• those who have not completed tertiary education
• people who speak a language other than English
• people who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

Harm isn’t just experienced by people who gamble, though – it impacts the people around them.

While young men are more likely to experience harm from their own gambling, women, particularly young women, are most likely to experience harm from someone else’s gambling.

When we take all of these sources of harm into account, we get a much better picture of gambling harm in our community: around 15-20% of all adults (not all gamblers) experience harm.

That’s very different to the figure of 1% we’ve focused on in the past.

We’re still missing some accounting, though: we don’t know how much harm is experienced by people under 18, for example, because prevalence studies typically only include adults.

Where does the harm come from?

The most problematic form in Australia is pokies, responsible for about 51-57% of problems.

Casinos are responsible for another 10-14%, although fewer people have been gambling in casino games in recent years.

Read more:
Whatever happens to Star, the age of unfettered gambling revenue for casinos may have ended

Sports betting and race betting together account for about another 19-20% of harm.

Between them, pokies, casino games and sports and race betting account for about 90% of harm to Australian gamblers.

Availability is an issue

This widespread availability of pokies is the biggest single driver behind gambling harm in Australia.

In other countries, pokies are limited to venues that are specifically used for gambling, like casinos or betting shops.

We have pokies in a huge number of our pubs and clubs, except in Western Australia.

A couple of years ago, we used national prevalence data to compare gambling problems in WA to the rest of the country.

A higher percentage of adults in WA gamble, but mostly on the lotteries which are typically not associated with much harm.

Gambling on pokies is far less prevalent in WA because they’re only available in one casino. Gambling problems and harm are about one-third lower in WA, and our analysis shows this can be attributed to the limited access to pokies.

This also tells us something important. If pokies are not available, people will typically not substitute them with other harmful forms. It points to the role of the availability of dangerous gambling products in gambling harm, rather than personal characteristics.

Online gambling has also become a lot more available. Most of us now have a mobile phone almost surgically implanted onto our hand, making online gambling more accessible than ever. Not surprisingly, online gambling continues to increase.

An obvious solution to try

Governments have taken increasingly proactive measures to help address gambling harm, such as the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Gambling, strategies for minimising harm such as NSW’s investment into gambling harm minimisation, Victoria’s proposed reforms on pokies including mandatory precommitment limits, Queensland’s Gambling Harm Minimisation Plan and the ACT’s Strategy for Gambling Harm Prevention.

Voluntary limits have been trialled to help people keep their gambling under control, but have had virtually no uptake.

For example, the recent NSW Digital Gaming Wallet trial was conducted in 14 venues. Only 32 people were active users, and 14 of these were deemed genuine users. Another study found only 0.01% of all money put through machines in Victoria used the voluntary YourPlay scheme.

The problem with voluntary limits is, no one volunteers.

Mandatory limits though are almost certainly necessary, just like we have mandatory limits for how fast you can drive, or how much you can drink before the bartender puts you in a taxi.

There will almost certainly be push back against this, just like the introduction of mandatory seatbelts in the 1970s, or the introduction of random breath testing.

Now, we accept them as important public health measures.

History tells us the same will happen with mandatory gambling limits, even if we’re a bit uncomfortable about it at first.

Alex Russell received funding from the Star Entertainment Group from 2014-2016 to conduct research examining gambling behaviour and problems amongst casino staff, and to provide recommendations to minimise risks associated with occupational exposure to gambling. He no longer accepts industry funding, or works on industry-funded projects.

Matthew Browne receives funding from New Zealand and Australian State and Federal Government Authorities. Most recently, the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General, New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

Matthew Rockloff has receives funding from New Zealand and Australian State and Federal Government Authorities. Most recently, the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General, the NSW Office of Responsible Gambling, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the Government of South Australia, Gambling Research Australia, and the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission.

– ref. Gambling in Australia: how bad is the problem, who gets harmed most and where may we be heading? – https://theconversation.com/gambling-in-australia-how-bad-is-the-problem-who-gets-harmed-most-and-where-may-we-be-heading-252389

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Following some very public protests, including Victoria Cross recipient
Willie Apiata handing back his medal, the government’s announcement of an expanded official definition of the term “veteran” brings some good news for former military personnel ahead of this year’s ANZAC Day.

The change will add roughly 100,000 service people and remove an anomaly that favoured those who served overseas, unless they served in New Zealand before 1974 when the Accident Compensation Corporation was founded. The new definition will not automatically change existing entitlements, but the government has expressed commitment to improving veterans’ support.

The government will also establish a new national day of tribute for veterans. This falls somewhat short of a recommendation from the 2018 independent review of the Veterans’ Support Act which stated the government should accept it has a “moral duty of care to veterans”. But if adopted, this would create a missing ethical compass all democracies should have to acknowledge responsibilities to those who risked everything in service of their country.

The same report also recommended better financial support for veterans, but so far the government has been reluctant to review the adequacy of veterans’ pensions.

None of this is particularly surprising, given New Zealand’s history of sending people to fight and then rejecting their claims for recognition and compensation when the war is over.

Some of this may also come to light in the Waitangi Tribunal’s current Military Veterans Kaupapa Inquiry, with potentially strong evidence of discrimination against Māori service personnel in particular.

Sacrifice and compensation

When New Zealand gave out its first military pensions in 1866, only the victors of the New Zealand Wars received them. For Māori allies, equity was missing. Pro-government Māori troops were eligible, but at a lower rate than Pākehā veterans.

It was only in 1903 that specialist facilities such as the Ranfurly war veterans’ home in Auckland were created.

The initial treatments for those who suffered “shell shock”, especially in the first world war, were atrocious. Their placement in mental institutions only ended following public outcry.

Some veterans of the New Zealand Wars were compensated by being granted confiscated Māori land. It wasn’t until 1915 that a new system was formalised.

This provided farm settlement schemes and vocational training for first world war veterans. The balloted farmland was largely exclusionary as Māori veterans were assumed to have tribal land already available to them.

The rehabilitation of disabled service personnel dates back to the 1930s, before being formally legislated in 1941. But the focus faded over the following decades, with the specific status of veterans blurring as they were lumped in with more generic welfare goals.

It took until 1964 for the government to pay war pensions to those who served in Jayforce, the 12,000-strong New Zealand troops stationed in Japan as part of the postwar occupation from 1946 to 1948.

From atomic tests to Agent Orange

A decade later, more than 500 New Zealand navy personnel took part in Operation Grapple, the British hydrogen bomb tests near Kiribati in 1957–58. Despite evidence of a variety of health problems – including cancer, premature death and deformities in children – it was not until 1990 that the government extended coverage of benefits to veterans who had contracted some specific listed conditions.

It took another eight years before the government broadened the evidence requirements and accepted service in Operation Grapple as an eligibility starting point for additional emergency pensions.

Last year, the United States declared a National Atomic Veterans’ Day and made potentially significant compensation available. But neither New Zealand nor Britain even apologised for putting those personnel in harm’s way so recklessly.

During the war in Vietnam, some of the 3,400 New Zealanders who served between 1963 and 1975 were exposed to “Agent Orange”, the notorious defoliant used by the US military.

Some of them and their children experienced related health problems and higher death rates. The government did not accept there was a problem until 2006 and apologised in 2008.

Assistance and compensation was based on evidence of specific listed conditions. And although the list has expanded over time, the legal and medical burden of proving a link between exposure and an illness falls on the veteran.

This is the opposite of what should happen. If there is uncertainty about the medical condition of a veteran, such as a non-listed condition, it should be for the Crown to prove an illness or injury is not related to military service. This burden should not fall on the victim.

Lest we forget

Today, support for veterans remains limited. There is still a reluctance to systematically understand, study and respond to the long-term consequences of military service.

For many, service develops skills such as resilience, confidence and flexibility which are sought after in civilian life. For some, their experiences lead to lingering trauma and even self-harm or suicide.

While Britain and Australia can track the incidence of veteran self-harm, New Zealand lacks robust data. Beyond some early research, the prevalence of suicide in the veteran population is unknown.

Despite recommendations from the 2018 report that this data gap should be plugged, it means that when three self-inflicted deaths of veterans occurred within three weeks earlier this year, this couldn’t be viewed within any overall pattern. This makes appropriate support and interventions harder to design.

This all points to the same problem. While we intone “lest we forget” on April 25, a day later most of us are looking the other way.

Alexander Gillespie 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. Lest we forget? Aside from Anzac Day, NZ has been slow to remember its military veterans – https://theconversation.com/lest-we-forget-aside-from-anzac-day-nz-has-been-slow-to-remember-its-military-veterans-254684

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

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton will promise a Coalition government would boost Australia’s spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP within five years and 3% within a decade.

Launching the Coalition’s long-awaited defence policy on Wednesday in Western Australia, Dutton will commit to investing more than $21 billion to take spending to 2.5%.

Australia’s current defence spending is about 2% of GDP, and due to rise to 2.3% by 2033-34. The Trump administration has flagged it wants allies to raise their spending to 3%.

Trump’s under-secretary of defence for policy, Elbridge Colby, has said:

The main concern the United States should press with Australia […] is higher defence spending. Australia is currently well below the 3% level advocated for by NATO Secretary General Rutte, and Canberra faces a far more powerful challenge in China.

The opposition statement, from Dutton and shadow Defence Minister Andrew Hastie, does not go into detail about how the bigger allocation would be spent, or how it would be paid for.

Defence Minister Richard Marles gave notice of Labor’s line of attack if there is no detail provided. He said on Tuesday:

It won’t cut it to have vague numbers, to have aspirations, to have signposts in the future. There needs to be a great deal of specificity in respect of what that defence policy looks like.

In its statement, the opposition accuses Labor of overseeing “more than $80 billion in cuts and delays to defence in just three years, degrading morale and capability, and putting Australia at risk”.

It says the commitment to 2.5% is “significantly higher than under Labor and demonstrates the Coalition’s commitment to keeping Australia safe in uncertain times”.

Under Labor, defence spending has stayed static at 2% of GDP for three years – and Labor has walked away from its own target of increasing defence spending to 2.4% of GDP by 2033-34, dropping it instead to ‘over 2.3%’.

In its most recent budget, Labor delivered no new funding for defence.

In stark contrast, a Dutton Coalition government will increase defence spending to 3% of GDP within a decade, while Labor’s spend plateaus at around 2.3%.

The opposition says Australia is facing the most complex and serious strategic circumstances since the second world war.

The rise of authoritarian powers, and conflict in Europe and the Middle East are a reminder that Australia cannot take peace for granted.

“Under the Coalition, there will be clarity around the risks we face and a strategy to deter them,” the opposition says.

“We believe that investing in Defence is an investment in peace – which is maintained through a strong army, navy, air force and enhanced cyber security.”

This week’s statement follows an earlier Coalition commitment to reinstate the fourth squadron of F-35A Joint Strike Fighters.

Dutton said: “The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister regularly tell Australians that we live in the most precarious period since the end of the second world war. Yet, over the last three years, Labor has done nothing about it, other than rip money out of Defence, weakening strength and morale.”

Hastie said: “A Dutton Coalition government will back Australian workers and businesses in defence industry to develop the sovereign capabilities our country needs. They are a critical enabler to the Australian men and women in uniform”.

Hastie has been little seen on the campaign trail.

Marles said over the last three years the government had engaged “in the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending that Australia has seen”.

“We’ll continue to look at what the appropriate levels of defence spending are.

“Increases in defence spending will happen under this government […] because that is, in fact, what we’ve done over the last three years”.

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. Dutton promises Coalition would increase defence spending to 3% of GDP ‘within a decade’ – https://theconversation.com/dutton-promises-coalition-would-increase-defence-spending-to-3-of-gdp-within-a-decade-254993

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Black, Visitor, School of History, Australian National University

Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton have met for the third leaders’ debate of this election campaign, this time on the Nine network. And while the debate traversed much of the same ground as the first two, the quick-fire set up of the debate allowed for some more animated exchanges less than two weeks from election day.

Three expert authors give their analysis of how the two leaders performed.

Joshua Black, Australian National University

Tonight’s leaders’ debate was a marked improvement on the appalling spectacle Nine hosted three years ago. Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton had clearly taken advantage of the reduced campaign activity in recent days to prepare themselves for this contest.

The problem? There was nothing new worth saying. Viewers were treated instead to the greatest hits of an election campaign that has so far not been especially great. Dutton once again paid homage to Howard and Costello’s liberalism (read: “I’m not Trump”), while Albanese repeated his hardly seamless mantra: “no-one held back and no-one left behind” (read: “I’m not Dutton”).

For all of the lofty soundbites, the debate hinged on pedantry. The semantic argument from the first debate about the 2014 budget and health and education spending came up again. (Were there cuts, or did these “line items” simply not grow as fast as promised?)

Both leaders repeated banal explanations about why they were best placed to deal with the Trump White House. There was plenty of tired campaign rhetoric about looming recessions and “talking Australia down”. Even an exchange from last week between Albanese and the ABC’s moderator David Speers seemed to be repeated tonight: why isn’t the government’s energy relief for households means-tested?

At times, this debate was self-indulgent on the part of Nine Entertainment. Ally Langdon (who opened the debate by welcoming “a bit of theatre”) routinely cast her own judgement, condemning Albanese and Dutton for merely “patching cracks” and not proving their “fiscal responsibility” sufficiently.

Interestingly, media policy was one of the few things on which the two leaders could agree. Nine’s political editor Charles Croucher asked the leaders to state their attitude toward the News Media Bargaining Code, which prompts global tech giants to pay Australian news providers for access to their content. Both leaders tripped over themselves to assure the panel they were on a “unity ticket” to protect local media companies (including Nine Entertainment) from being “cannibalised” by multinational tech giants. (Of course, a fair playing field for local media providers is clearly in the national interest.)

This was Dutton’s best debate showing so far. That’s hardly a win. The prime minister managed to reel off a list of his government’s more popular policies, subtly compare his compassionate approach to leadership with Dutton’s darker obsession with order and the threat of disorder, and remind people of the opposition leader’s history of unpopular statements and policies. A modest win for Albanese, if not grounds for inspiration.

Andrea Carson, La Trobe University

Coinciding with the first day of early voting, the third leaders’ debate was more like a game of speed chess – with 60 seconds for leaders’ answers, and 30 seconds for rebuttals. The result was too often a word salad.

While voters may be feeling debate fatigue — and little wonder with a fourth showdown looming on Channel 7 on Sunday — this one could have mattered. With about half of Australians casting their votes early, these televised match-ups represent a potential last chance to shape opinions before May 3.

Instead, questions often focused on personal qualities: trust and lies, and less on policy – poorly serving viewers as answers became a tit-for-tat affair. The countdown of the clock only re-enforced leaders’ rehearsed answers to well-worn topics of cost of living, energy prices, Medicare bulk billing rates, immigration, housing crisis and tax cuts, barely exposing key policy differences for undecided voters. Even their matching blue suits and pale ties made them look less like opponents and more like political twins.

Dutton seemed more assured than Albanese from the start.

Typically, campaign messages get more negative as we move closer to polling day. Studies have shown fear campaigns can “work”, but they can also turn off voters, particularly women. So, unsurprisingly, Dutton’s emphasis was on law and order framed in the language of fear, promising to “keep people safe in their home and communities […] in very uncertain times”. He also promised to cut migration, couched as bringing down housing prices.

The former policeman seeking to be prime minister kept with the law and order theme to sway voters offering a $A750 million package to stamp out illegal drugs and tobacco.

In a similar vein, the Labor leader Anthony Albanese used every chance he had to pivot questions back to Labor’s policy home ground advantage: health, education (free TAFE and reduced HECS debt) and low-cost childcare.

Asked by journalist Deborah Knight if he was “too soft” as a leader, Albanese strove to offer voters hope over fear, replying: “kindness isn’t weakness […] we raise our children to be compassionate”, arguing he can still hold firm when dealing with autocratic leaders to protect Australia’s national interest.

As Dutton listed his top legislative priorities if elected, promising a 25% fuel levy tax, Albanese scored a zinger, pointing out that that policy expires in a year, chortling “you better do it quickly before it disappears”. Overall, it was a flat event, lacking atmosphere and detailed information.

Zareh Ghazarian, Monash University

The “Great Debate”, as it was called by the broadcaster, started on a solemn tone as both leaders mourned the passing of Pope Francis. The format of the debate was geared towards a quick-fire approach. Time limits of one minute per response to questions ensured the debate covered a lot of ground. Policies from cost of living to international affairs were discussed.

The leaders played their roles effectively. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton demonstrated a laser-like focus on critiquing the government, while highlighting the Coalition’s policies. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese defended the track record of his government while also taking opportunities to criticise the previous Morrison government. Both leaders stayed true to advancing the core messages of their campaign.

Cost of living was central to the debate and provided ample opportunity for Dutton and Albanese to put forward their views on the measures they believe would address the issues. Energy policy, and the divide between nuclear and renewable energy sources, also emerged. There was also a moment of unity as both leaders took pride that Australia had implemented a social media ban for under-16s.

After the only break of the night, the host gave both leaders the opportunity to spell out the values that underpinned their policy approach. Dutton focused on restating policy goals, such as a reduction in fuel excise. Albanese returned to “no one left behind, but no one held back” as his key message, a concept he had also mentioned in his victory speech in 2022.

On the whole, and considering the stakes, the debate was a model of civility. Both leaders presented as being in command of the details regarding their policies. Gaffes about figures, costings, and promises were virtually non-existent. Whether it added anything new about the leaders or their policy platforms, however, is debatable.

Joshua Black is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Australia Institute.

Andrea Carson and Zareh Ghazarian 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. Leaders trade barbs and well-worn lines in unspectacular third election debate – https://theconversation.com/leaders-trade-barbs-and-well-worn-lines-in-unspectacular-third-election-debate-254941

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

In the leaders’ third head-to-head encounter, on Nine on Tuesday, Peter Dutton’s bluntness when pressed on cuts has given more ammunition to Labor’s scare campaign about what a Coalition government might do.

“When John Howard came into power, there was $96 billion of debt from Labor at that point. John Howard didn’t outline the budget from opposition and it is not something you can do from opposition,” Dutton said.

That allowed Anthony Albanese to, once again, rewind the tape to Tony Abbott’s 2014 budget, declaring it had “ripped money out of” education and hospitals. “There will be cuts afterwards – he’s just confirmed that – but they won’t tell you what they are.”

Dutton’s reference to the 1996 budget reinforced the point that he is keeping his options very open on cuts, which will need to go well beyond the squeeze on the public service to which the Coalition is committed. It’s becoming increasingly clear full details won’t be provided before May 3.

Despite best efforts to get them to answer questions as asked, both leaders again blatantly dodged when they could not, or chose not to, give a direct response.

Dutton was asked what he would say to voters who think he is Trump-lite. The opposition leader talked down the clock – about Howard being his inspiration, about mudslinging – but didn’t actually attempt to rebut the point.

Albanese predictably had much to say about Dutton’s nuclear policy. But when he was pressed on whether, if Labor lost, it should accept the people’s verdict and reconsider its position on the nuclear moratorium, the PM rambled about nuclear as a “friendless policy” rather than giving a straight reply.

The debate’s frisson came when the leaders were asked to nominate each other’s biggest lies. The toing and froing included disputation over whether those 2014 cuts were actually “cuts” or just smaller increases than earlier budgeted for. “Prime Minister, you couldn’t lie straight in bed”, Dutton lashed out, with Albanese retorting that his “personal abuse” was “a sign of desperation”.

Who won this encounter, once again differed in the eyes of various beholders.

Pope’s death causes brief hiatus, that disadvantages Dutton

On the day that pre-polling started, both leaders cut back on their campaigning, in the wake of the death of Pope Francis.

The pontiff’s passing has further curtailed this penultimate week of the campaign, a week already shortened at one end by Easter and at the other by Anzac Day.

The hiatus disadvantages the opposition, which has been losing support in the polls, and desperately needs as much opportunity as possible to sell its message.

It also shows the risk of leaving policy releases late. The Coalition would have hoped for some clear air for Wednesdays release of its defence policy, an area where it believes it has an advantage. But news from the Vatican will overshadow local stories for a couple of days or longer.

The pope’s death has drawn attention to something noted by the Catholic Weekly earlier this month, when it said this election “may be the first in Australian history in which both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition identify as Catholics” – although, it pointed out, that didn’t extend to attending church regularly.

In Australia’s more sectarian days, Labor’s membership was heavily Catholic, with the Liberals the party of Protestants. That broke down over recent decades.

Anthony Albanese reflected on his Catholic roots at Easter and then when paying tribute to the Pope.

On Easter Sunday, when he attended mass at St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney, he spoke about his time at the school next door. “It’s an important part of my life. When in year six the Christian Brothers heard that I was going to have to leave the school because we weren’t able to afford school fees … in an act of generosity, [they] said ‘just pay what you can’.”

Albanese told The Australian’s Troy Bramston he regarded himself as “a flawed Catholic but it’s a part of my values,”

“I go to church occasionally just by myself. That sense of who I am, it is certainly how I was raised, and those values of kindness and compassion being something that is a strength.”

Peter Dutton’s story is more complicated. His father’s family was Catholic; his mother’s Protestant. Dutton told Bramston this gave rise to “tension”. He went to an Anglican school but identifies with the Catholic church. “He argues Christian teachings align with Liberal party values,” Bramston wrote.

In Melbourne on Tuesday, Albanese joined those attending an early morning mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral. In Sydney Dutton went to St Mary’s. Then they both shifted back into campaign mode, for Tuesday night’s debate.

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

– ref. Election Diary: Dutton in third debate gives Labor ammunition for its scare about cuts – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-dutton-in-third-debate-gives-labor-ammunition-for-its-scare-about-cuts-254990

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fernanda Peñaloza, Senior Lecturer in Latin American Studies, University of Sydney

Pope Francis’ journey from the streets of Flores, a neighbourhood in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to the Vatican, is a remarkable tale.

Born in 1936, Jorge Bergoglio was raised in a middle-class family of Italian Catholic immigrants.

Bergoglio defied his mother’s wish for him to become a medical doctor and chose instead to pursue priesthood, a calling he felt during confession. The young man joined the Jesuits in the 1950s, attracted to the order’s vow of poverty and its ethos of serving others and living simply.

He became a priest in 1969, Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 1998, and took on the papacy in 2013. As Pope Francis, his dedication to social justice was deeply rooted in the Latin American context.

The region’s history of inequality, poverty and political upheaval greatly influenced his perspective.

The young Argentinian priest

Bergoglio, a devoted supporter of the San Lorenzo soccer team, was also a confident tango dancer, mate drinker, and an unconditional admirer of his compatriot, Jorge Luis Borges, one of the most influential writers of the 20th century.

In 1965, the two men collaborated on the publication of short stories written by Bergoglio’s literature students. The students had been inspired by a seminar led by Borges, organised by the young priest.

Borges thought highly of Bergoglio, finding him charming and intelligent. For Borges, Bergoglio was a Jesuit through and through, noting the clerics of that order had been historically transgressive as well as possessors of a good sense of humour.

While Borges never saw him transformed into Pope Francis, his observations somehow fit with the respect Bergoglio earned as a global leader.

Theology of the people

As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he lived modestly, often taking public transport and dedicating himself to the poor and disenfranchised. He personally attended the needs of underprivileged neighbourhoods known as villas miseria (literally “misery towns”) in Argentine Spanish.

He was a vocal opponent to economic inequality. During the 2001 Argentine economic crisis he advocated for the rights and dignity of impoverished citizens.

Pope Francis hails from a region deeply influenced by the progressive movements of Catholic priests and nuns, who were significantly inspired by liberation theology during the 1960s in Latin America.

Liberation theology developed in Latin America during the latter part of the 20th century, as a reaction to significant political and theological transformations in the area. It believed in political liberation for the oppressed, inspired by the Cuban Revolution and Second Vatican Council by Pope John XXIII, both in 1959.

While Francis did not fully subscribe to the tenets of liberation theology, much of his dedication to social justice aligns with its ideals. Pope Francis’ social awareness was deeply shaped by the “theology of the people”.

Distinct to Argentina, and emerging in the 1960s, the theology of the people shared liberation theology’s focus on social justice, but is devoid of Marxist ideology, and emphasises the dignity and agency of the marginalised and the impoverished.

During Argentina’s dictatorial regime from 1976–83, Bergoglio led the Jesuits. But he did not adopt the highly dangerous stance of full opposition typical among liberation theologians elsewhere in Argentina and other parts of Latin America.

Commenting on Latin American affairs

In his early years as the Pope, he resonated with progressive Catholics across Latin America, because of his grounding in Argentinian theology and his focus on social justice. But in recent years, his popularity in some Latin American countries declined.

In Argentina, this dip in enthusiasm is partly attributed to his decision not to visit, despite travelling to neighbouring nations.

More profoundly, the decline likely stems from his fixed stance against contentious issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion. To the disappointment of many Argentines and other Latin American citizens, he refused to compromise.

Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis received all Argentine presidents – even those who were previously critical of him, such as Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

He maintained a strong connection to his Buenos Aires roots and remained engaged with Argentina’s social and political landscape, often commenting on situations that provoke strong reactions from politicians.

He was a critic of policies instituted by the current President of Argentina, Javier Milei, particularly Milei’s libertarian model of economy and the government’s brutal response to public dissent and opposition. In September 2024, the Pope famously said:

the government put its foot down: instead of paying for social justice, it paid for pepper spray.

An alternative model of leadership

By reflecting on how Pope Francis’ theology is rooted in the Argentina he grew up in, we can better understand his actions as Pope.

He made significant contributions in the Latin American region. He played a mediating role between the United States and Cuba, supported the peace process in Colombia, and highlighted the environmental devastation caused by mining companies in the Amazon.

He publicly apologised to Indigenous peoples of Latin America for the Church’s historical complicity with colonialism, and acknowledged his inaction allowed the Chilean clergy to overlook sexual abuse cases.

He appointed clergymen from non-European countries, enhancing representation from Asia, Africa and Latin America and increased the participation of women within the Church’s leadership structures.

His landmark encyclical, Laudato Si’, underscored the moral imperative to address climate change, inspiring accolades from global leaders. His critique of Israel and the conflict in Gaza underscored his consistent opposition to war and advocacy for peace.

Despite existing tensions and contradictions within his papacy – particularly regarding the Church’s stance on LGBTQIA+ issues and women’s rights – Pope Francis’s approach to global issues remained steadfast and aligned with his core values, and the Buenos Aires he came of age in.

Francis’s leadership is a product of his upbringing and a catalyst for regional and global dialogue on social justice.

The profound influence of the Latin American region on him is well captured by long time friend, Uruguayan lawyer and activist, Guzman Carriquiry who described the Pope as:

Priest, and profoundly priest; Jesuit and profoundly Jesuit; Latin American, and profoundly Latin American.

Fernanda Peñaloza 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. To truly understand Pope Francis’ theology – and impact – you need to look to his life in Buenos Aires – https://theconversation.com/to-truly-understand-pope-francis-theology-and-impact-you-need-to-look-to-his-life-in-buenos-aires-255003

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Professor (Practice), Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University

For most of this federal election campaign, politicians have said very little about violence against women and children.

Now in the fourth week of the five-week campaign, Labor has released its “commitment to women” announcement. The Coalition has also flagged it will have something to say on the topic before polling day.

Much of Labor’s announcement is about what the party has already done to address women’s safety, including funding already committed under the National Plan To End Violence Against Women and Children. The announcement concedes “there is much more to do” and highlights extra spending on financial abuse and perpetrator interventions specifically.

But the fact domestic, family and sexual violence hasn’t been more central to the election campaign is surprising. Less than 12 months ago, following rising community outrage after the killing of a number of women, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared violence against women and children a national crisis.

Over the past week, the killing of several women in different circumstances, allegedly by men’s violence, has been a reminder of the persistence of this national crisis.

In an election that’s largely focused on cost of living, this epidemic of violence should also be front and centre.
The scale and impact of this violence is profound – cutting across culture, age, geography and class. It causes immediate and long-term harm and costs the country an estimated $26 billion annually.

Why haven’t we heard much?

An obvious explanation might be that violence against women has already been addressed by successive governments – that enough has been done. Others may argue that it’s been overshadowed by more politically “pressing” issues.

Some may even suggest it’s because of a broader political shift away from gender equality commitments, influenced by anti-DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) sentiment that has gained traction internationally.

Perhaps a more generous explanation is that the lack of political attention stems from fear of getting the response wrong. The domestic and family violence sector can be fraught with complexity, with different ideas about what should be prioritised.

The national prevention agenda has faced critique in recent months. Scrutiny of whether we are on the right path should always be welcomed, but division is unhelpful.

Complexity should never be an excuse for inaction. Instead, this moment requires political courage and clarity. A declaration of a national crisis is merely rhetoric if it’s not followed by meaningful actions and measurable commitments.

Beyond election cycles

It’s crucial the next federal government delivers a response to domestic violence that’s commensurate with the scale of the problem. This requires a significant increase in investment across the entire ecosystem to boost service availability and accessibility.

This means moving beyond one-off or short-term funding to ensure sustainability across the system, including for crisis response and early intervention initiatives. Consistency of services is needed to disrupt the cycle of intergenerational harm, to understand what works in engaging people who use violence, and to promote long-term recovery.

Read more:
What works to prevent violence against women? Here’s what the evidence says

There should also be improved collaboration between levels of government. For too long, the siloed approach has impeded progress. The National Partnership Agreement provides a solid foundation for this.

Evidence shows strengthening coordination across agencies and jurisdictions will help identify more women and families at risk of violence. Information-sharing arrangements will also help keep them safer across state and territory boundaries. System failures and blindspots can cost lives.

What else would help?

If elected, Labor has committed to focusing on ending financial abuse and expanding interventions for people who use violence. This means increased funding for perpetrator interventions, including electronic monitoring of high-risk offenders and earlier interventions for young people who use violence.

These intiatives are welcome, but the list of actions needed extends well beyond these commitments.

Fully funding frontline services is a crucial start. This must include services for children and young people experiencing and escaping violence in their own right, and services across rural and remote communities. There’s limited support available in these areas.

Ensuring access to culturally appropriate and trauma-informed services for communities disproportionately affected by violence is also key.

First Nations leaders, practitioners, academics and victim-survivor advocates should be resourced to deliver the dedicated First Nations National Plan and to fully implement the First Nations National Action Plan. This is especially important for First Nations communities, including in the Northern Territory, where calls for increased funding have long been made.

The support service workforce, which has a high turnover and burn-out rate, must be better supported, including through ongoing professional development and capability training.

In recent weeks, others have called for a national strategy for people who use violence.

Measuring progress is key

Regardless of specific policy commitments, we should be transparently monitoring and evaluating progress on addressing violence. This is the backbone of any effective policy response – without data, we are blind to what works, what doesn’t, and where to focus efforts.

The first national plan was criticised for failing to do this comprehensively. We are at risk of repeating the same mistake.

While this responsibility sits within the functions of the inaugural Commissioner for Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, it has yet to eventuate beyond the information included in the commission’s yearly reports to parliament.

Regardless of who forms government – whether majority or minority – it’s imperative domestic, family and sexual violence remains front and centre in national policymaking. This is not an issue that can wait for the “right time” or for conditions to be more favourable. Women’s and children’s lives depend on it.

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

Kate has received funding for research on violence against women and children from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources. Currently, Kate receives funding from Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), the South Australian government, Safe Steps, Australian Childhood Foundation, and 54 Reasons. This piece is written by Kate Fitz-Gibbon in her role at Monash University and Sequre Consulting, and is wholly independent of Kate Fitz-Gibbon’s role as chair of Respect Victoria and membership on the Victorian Children’s Council.

Hayley has received funding for research on violence against women and children and criminal justice-related issues from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources. Currently, Hayley receives funding from ANROWS, and the ACT Justice Reform Branch.

– ref. Australia had a national reckoning over domestic violence, but where’s the focus this election? – https://theconversation.com/australia-had-a-national-reckoning-over-domestic-violence-but-wheres-the-focus-this-election-253718