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

We have a refreshed and revitalised Australian government, enriched with great political capital.

During the last term of parliament before the election, opportunities to address Australia’s raging gambling habit were neglected.

Could this government now have enough authority and courage to take on the gambling ecosystem?

A massive issue

Australians are the world’s biggest gambling losers.

Many attribute this to some inherent Australian trait. But what it really comes down to is the proliferation of gambling operators and their products.

They’re everywhere, along with their marketing and promotion.

Half of the gambling problems in Australia are associated with poker machines, ubiquitous in all states and territories other than Western Australia (WA).

Consequently, and unsurprisingly, WA has the lowest rate of gambling harms. The state has 2,500 pokies at a single Perth casino and none in clubs or pubs.

New South Wales boasts nearly 90,000 pokies, the highest pokie “density” in Australia, and its clubs and pubs make $8.1 billion a year.

Overall, pokie losses in Australia total $15.8 billion per year.

Wagering (betting on sport, racing and even elections), is now mainly online, and reaps another $8.4 billion in Australia. This is the fastest growing gambling sector, with growth, adjusted for inflation, of more than 45% between 2018-19 and 2022-23.

Pokies grew by a more modest 7.6% during the same period. Only casinos went backwards.

Overall, gambling costs Australians more than $32 billion annually.

This has been fuelled by relentless promotion and marketing and the expansion of the gambling ecosystem: the network of commercial actors who reap a major dividend from gambling losses.

It includes the bookies, pub and club chains as well as sporting leagues, financial services providers, software and game developers, charitable organisations, broadcasters, and state and territory governments.

Of course, gambling comes at a cost: it is strongly linked to broken relationships, loss of assets, employment and educational opportunities, and crime rates.

Intimate partner violence and neglect of children, along with poor mental and physical health, are also connected to gambling accessibility. As, unfortunately, is suicide.

However, there are ways to reduce gambling harm.

Six ways to tackle the problem

1. First up, we need a national gambling regulator. This was an important recommendation in the 2023 report of the all-party parliamentary committee chaired by the late Peta Murphy.

Currently, gambling is regulated by each state and territory. Some have reasonably robust systems in place. Others, somewhat less so. None are best practice.

A national system is long overdue, as many gambling businesses operate across multiple Australian jurisdictions.

In the absence of national regulation, the Northern Territory has become the de facto national regulator for online wagering. It offers a low-tax and arguably low intervention regulatory system.

Yet the vast majority of losses from punters come in other jurisdictions.

National regulation would also assist in standardising tax rates and maintaining reasonable uniform standards of regulation and enforcement.

2. Poker machines are Australia’s biggest gambling problem, but a national precommitment scheme would provide a tool for people to manage their gambling.

This proposal has been frequently mooted in Australia since the Productivity Commission recommended it in 2010.

It has worked well in Europe: forms of it now operate in 27 European countries.

Both Victoria and Tasmania have proposed it, as did the Perrottet government in the lead into the last NSW election.

Unfortunately, the power of the pokie lobby, supercharged by the addiction surplus it reaps from punters, has slowed or stopped its implementation.

But it’s eminently feasible and is highly likely to significantly reduce the harm of pokies.

The technical challenges are far from insurmountable, despite what industry interests argue.

Read more:
Pokies line the coffers of governments and venues – but there are ways to tame this gambling gorilla

3. Limiting accessibility to pokies is an important way to reduce harm.

Nothing good happens in a pokie room after midnight, yet they are often open until 4am, with reopening time only a little later.

Closing down venues after midnight and not opening until 10am would help a lot of people.

4. We can’t talk about political access without considering some key tools of the gambling ecosystem.

Pokie operators have enormous ability to influence politicians. Donations are a typical method to ensure access, backed up by the “revolving door” of post-politics jobs.

Politicians also enjoy a stream of freebies from the gambling ecosystem, which allow these businesses to bend the ear of a guest for hours at a time, at lunch, over drinks, or during an event.

To address this, we need better rules around acceptance of hospitality and gifts. Some states have moved towards such arrangements but there has been little action on the national front.

5. Another major recommendation from the Murphy committee was the banning of online gambling ads.

The majority of Australians want it to happen, and gambling ads are banned for almost all other forms of gambling.

The special treatment for this rapidly growing, highly harmful gambling product makes no sense.

6. Finally, we need to properly resource research into gambling harm and its prevention.

Much gambling research (and its conferences) are funded by the gambling ecosystem, either directly or via representative organisations.

This raises massive conflicts and has lead to a poor evidence base for policy making.

The time is now

Anything that stops people getting into trouble with gambling will be opposed by the gambling ecosystem because their best customers are those with the biggest losses.

But nobody is saying we should do away with gambling.

The evidence-based ideas above would help people with existing problems, and stop many more from ending up in trouble.

Gambling is a problem we can solve.

It does need political effort – but the Albanese government has the political capital to solve this problem.

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.

Angela Rintoul holds a postdoctoral fellowship funded by Suicide Prevention Australia. In the past she has received funding from the Victoria Responsible Gambling Foundation, which was supported by allocations from the Community Support Fund, a government administered trust fund constituted from direct taxes on EGMs in hotels. She has also received funding from the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust and ANROWS. She is a member of the WHO meeting on gambling and received travel funding from the Turkish Green Crescent Society and consultancy funding from WHO. She has been paid to review grants by the British Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling, which administered via Gambling Research Exchange Ontario, funded by regulatory settlements from gambling companies who have breached the law.

– ref. This 6-point plan can ease Australia’s gambling problems – if our government has the guts – https://theconversation.com/this-6-point-plan-can-ease-australias-gambling-problems-if-our-government-has-the-guts-256442

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cylie Williams, Professor, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University

What do you get when a group of podiatrists (and shoe lovers) team up with a Barbie doll collector? A huge opportunity to explore how Barbie reflects changes in the types of shoes women wear.

It all started with the blockbuster Barbie movie in 2023. In particular, we discussed a scene when Barbie was distressed to find she didn’t have to walk on tip-toes. She could walk on flat feet.

Soon, we had designed a research project to study the feet of Barbie dolls on the market from her launch in 1959 to June 2024. That’s 2,750 Barbies in all.

In our study published today, we found a general shift away from Barbie’s iconic feet – on tip-toes, ready to slip on high-heeled shoes – to flat feet for flat shoes.

We found, like many women today, Barbie “chooses” her footwear depending on what she has to do – flats for skateboarding or working as an astronaut but heels when dressing up for a night out.

We also question whether high heels that Barbie and some women choose to wear are really as bad for your health as we’ve been led to believe.

The movie that sparked the #barbiefootchallenge

Barbie’s feet – in particular her tip-toe posture – triggered TikTok’s #barbiefoottrend and #barbiefootchallenge. When the movie was released, fans made videos to re-create how Barbie stepped out of her high-heeled shoes, yet stayed on tip-toes. Margot Robbie, the Australian actor who played Barbie in the movie, was even interviewed about it.

Despite the obvious interest in Barbie’s iconic foot stance, there had been no specific research on her feet or choice of footwear.

So our research team decided to look at how Barbie’s feet had changed over the years to reflect the kinds of shoes she’s worn, and how that ties in with her different jobs and growing diversity.

What we did

One of our research team has an extensive Barbie doll collection. This guided our search through online catalogues to examine the foot positions of 2,750 Barbie dolls.

Our custom-made audit tool allowed us to classify Barbie’s foot posture as tip-toe (known as equinus) or flat.

We also looked at when the dolls were made, whether they were diverse or inclusive (for instance, represented people with disabilities), and whether Barbie was employed.

What we found

We were surprised that Barbie’s high-heel wearing foot posture was no longer the norm. Barbie does, however, still wear high heels when dressed for fun.

We found, just like Barbie in the movie, she’s made a transition from high heels (equinus foot posture) to flat shoes (flat foot posture), especially when employed.

We suggest this mirrors broader societal changes. This includes how women choose footwear according to how much they have to move in the day, and away from only wearing high heels in some workplaces.

Barbie ditched her high-heel wearing foot posture as she climbed the career ladder. In the 1960s, all Barbies tip-toed around, but by the 2020s, only 40% did.

Meanwhile, her resume expanded, going from not being represented as having a job to 33% representing real-world jobs.

She was an astronaut in 1965, before the Moon landing, and a surgeon when the vast majority of doctors in the United States were men.

US laws changed in the late 80s, supporting women to own businesses without a man’s permission. And Barbie mirrored this.

She started trading stilettos for flats and strutting into male-dominated fields. Barbie didn’t just break the mould, she kicked it off with low-heeled shoes.

Barbie also evolved to better reflect the population. We found a moderate link between her having flat feet and representing diversity or disability.

For example, she chooses a stable flat shoe when using a prosthetic limb. But it was also great to see her break footwear stereotypes by wearing high heels when using a wheelchair.

Are high heels so bad?

Some celebrities, the media and public health advice warn against wearing high heels. But we know women (and Barbie) choose to wear them from time to time. In fact it’s discussions about women’s shoe choices that also gave us the idea for this fun research.

For instance, health professionals often link high-heeled shoes with developing bunions, knee osteoarthritis, back pain or being injured.

However bunions, and knee and back pain are just as common in people who don’t wear high heels.

Studies exploring the risk of high heels are also often performed with people who don’t usually wear high heels, or during competitive sports.

We couldn’t find any investigations exploring the long-term effect of wearing high heels.

Research does show that high-heeled shoes make you walk slower and make it harder to balance.

But high heels have different features, such as heel height or shape. So different types of high heels probably present a different risk. That risk also probably differs from person to person, including how often they walk in heels.

Lessons for all shoe lovers

But back to Barbie and lessons we learned. We know Barbie is a social construct that reflects some aspects of the real world. She chooses heels when fashion is the goal and flat shoes when needing speed and stability.

Rather than demonise high heels, messages about footwear need to evolve to acknowledge choice, and trust women can balance their own priorities and needs.

As Barbie’s journey shows, women already make thoughtful shoe choices based on comfort, function and identity.

Cylie Williams receives funding from the Medical Research Future Foundation. In the past five years, she has previously received research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Department of Health and Aged Care (Australia), Bobux International Limited, Department of Health (Victoria) and Sports and Exercise Podiatry Australia.

Helen Banwell is a practitioner member of the Podiatry Board of Australia.

– ref. Whatever happened to Barbie’s feet? Podiatrists studied 2,750 dolls to find out – https://theconversation.com/whatever-happened-to-barbies-feet-podiatrists-studied-2-750-dolls-to-find-out-256211

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Viet Nguyen, Principal Research Fellow, Macroeconomics Research Program, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne

Growing economic pessimism appears to have pushed many voters away from Australia’s two major parties, Labor and the Coalition. Support for minor parties and independents has doubled since the Global Financial Crisis in 2008.

In the latest federal election, minor parties and independents are on track to gain a record share of the vote, at 33.4%. Although Labor won just 34.6% and the Coalition 32% of first preferences, Labor secured a majority after preference flows, reflecting a broader shift away from the major parties.

Commentary in both Australian media and in the United States framed the result as a reaction against US President Donald Trump’s return to politics. That echoed analysis of Canada’s surprise centre-left Liberal party win a week earlier.

But a more straightforward explanation lies in Australian voters’ dissatisfaction with economic conditions.

In a new study, we used three decades of data from the leading monthly consumer sentiment survey, the Consumer Attitudes, Sentiments and Expectations in Australia (CASiE) Survey, to study how shifts in economic expectations align with changes in voting behaviour.

Support for minor parties and independents has been rising

In the 2007 federal election, minor parties and independents won just 15% of first‑preference votes and two seats in the House of Representatives. By 2022 their primary vote had doubled to 31.7%, delivering a record 16 seats.

In the latest federal election, their first‑preference share rose further to 33.4% (as of May 14). But because of preference flows, they secured fewer lower house seats than in 2022. The underlying shift away from the major parties therefore continues, even though it is not reflected in seat numbers.

This realignment has unfolded alongside a sustained slide in political trust. Surveys such as the Australian Election Study show satisfaction with democracy is at its lowest level on record.

The decline is often linked to perceptions of poor economic management, leadership instability, and unresponsive government. Voters repeatedly cite housing affordability, cost‑of‑living pressures and difficulty accessing health care as unmet concerns.

Minor party support differs across demographic groups

The shift away from the political mainstream is broadly distributed across demographic groups, indicating widespread economic disaffection rather than isolated grievances.

Younger Australians, facing acute economic challenges, have increasingly supported the Greens. Older voters have turned to One Nation and Teals amid broader dissatisfaction with economic management.

Support for minor parties and independents has climbed among both men and women, though the pattern differs. Women lean more toward the Greens; men more toward other minors and independents.

Economic pessimism matters at the ballot box

Rising economic pessimism, along with other social and cultural factors, has been a driving force behind the collapse in support for the political mainstream.

Since 2010, the average share of Australians saying their finances have improved over the past 12 months fell from 27% to 20%. The share reporting deterioration increased from 34% to 37%. That means a net shift of 10 percentage points toward pessimism.

Looking ahead, more Australians expect their household finances and the national economy to worsen over the next year than to improve.

The charts below show support for minor parties has climbed across the board since the mid‑2010s. It is consistently highest among voters who expect their household finances and the national economy to get worse.

Voters who feel worse off have consistently been more inclined to back minor parties or independents. The gap between pessimists and optimists has widened under both Coalition and Labor administrations.

The divergence is most pronounced for expectations about national economic conditions. This suggests political disaffection is increasingly linked to pessimism about Australia’s economic outlook.

Growing economic pessimism is consistent with a broader picture of weaker economic growth, lower living standards, a fall in productivity and slower wage growth over the past decade.

For example, economic growth (gross domestic product or GDP after inflation) slowed from an average of 3.5% between 1995 and 2009 to 2.4% between 2010 and 2024. Growth in GDP per person, a more direct measure of living standards, slowed even more, from an average of 2.1% to just 0.9%.

Since both actual and perceived economic conditions influence voting choices, collapsing support for mainstream political parties is perhaps no surprise.

Implications for the future

Because of the complex flow of voting preferences, a smaller vote share going to major parties does not always translate into fewer seats in parliament. However, vote shares and seat counts tend to be highly correlated over time.

Sustained declines in primary vote shares going to the major parties will eventually translate into reduced legislative power.

The trends in Australia’s voting patterns are consistent with voters’ growing dissatisfaction with the performance of successive governments.

While the rise of non-mainstream parties may signal political renewal, it also carries risks. In the absence of credible responses to persistent social and economic challenges, political resentment is likely to deepen.

Decades of policy responses have failed to address the scale or structural nature of the country’s economic problems. This has contributed to mounting pressures.

Without meaningful reform, Australia risks following the trajectory seen in parts of Europe and the US, where the weakening of mainstream parties has created space for more radical and anti-democratic political movements.

Ferdi Botha receives funding from ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course.

Kyle Peyton and Viet Nguyen 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. Economic pessimism is behind the drift of voters to minor parties and independents – https://theconversation.com/economic-pessimism-is-behind-the-drift-of-voters-to-minor-parties-and-independents-256322

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

Anzac Day has come and gone again. But – lest we forget – war and its consequences are not confined to single days in the calendar. Nor do we only remember those who fought at Gallipoli more than a century ago.

This gradual expansion of the scope and meaning of April 25 is now about to grow further, with the Anzac Day Amendment Bill currently before parliament. Its goal is to make the commemoration “broader and more inclusive than it currently is”.

Remembrance will soon include “other conflicts and persons who have served New Zealand in time of war or in warlike conflicts in the past and in the future that are not currently covered”.

New Zealand personnel who served in United Nations missions, and who fought or died in training, will be recognised, as will civilians who served in war or warlike conflicts. Without doubt, it is an excellent initiative.

The question is, does it go far enough? The obvious omission, if the new law is intended to be “broader” and include past wars, is the conflict that helped shape (and still shapes) the country we are today: the New Zealand Wars.

Of course, including this pivotal period from 1843 to 1872 plays into the politics of today, given the land confiscations and other injustices the New Zealand Wars also represent. The question is whether their inclusion can avoid becoming a culture war in the process.

How Anzac Day has grown

The case for explicitly including the New Zealand Wars is strong. It is thought about 500 British and colonial troops, 250 of their Māori allies (sometimes known as kūpapa), and 2,000 Māori fighting against the Crown died in these conflicts.

It was also during these wars that Australian and New Zealand military cooperation (the earliest form of Anzacs, in a sense) actually began. Around 2,500 Australian men enlisted for irregular New Zealand militia units, many encouraged by the offer of land grants in return for serving.

Furthermore, Anzac Day has gradually grown over time to include wars and military conflicts beyond the tragedy in Turkey, first observed in 1916 when the government gazetted a half-day holiday (later made into a full public holiday in 1921) .

The government again changed the law governing Anzac Day in 1949 to include World War II and the 11,500 New Zealand citizens who died in it. Significantly, it also added the South African/Boer War (which killed 59 New Zealanders), setting a precedent for bringing pre-first world war events into the frame.

In 1966, Anzac Day’s scope grew again to recognise those “who at any time have given their lives for New Zealand and the British Empire or Commonwealth of Nations”. This allowed commemorations to cover the Cold War period, during which New Zealanders were killed in the Malayan Emergency (15), Korea (38) and Vietnam (37).

Remembering without prejudice

The counterargument to including the New Zealand Wars in an expanded Anzac Day might be that we already have a dedicated day of observance: Te Pūtake o te Riri on October 28, the date the Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand (precursor to the Treaty of Waitangi) was signed in 1835.

First observed in 2018, the commemorations take place in different locations each year. And perhaps one day, young New Zealanders will talk about the events at Rangiriri, Gate Pā, Matawhero and Ngātapa in the same way they now talk about Gallipoli, Passchendaele, Crete and Monte Cassino.

But the problem is that a two-tier system seems to have been created. Te Pūtake o te Riri was not made an official holiday and has struggled for wider recognition. While there is some public funding available, it is not on the scale of Anzac Day.

Te Pūtake o te Riri can and will continue to evolve, and it’s focus on the causes and injustices of these conflicts should not be diminished.

But an expanded and more inclusive Anzac Day, which recognises those who fought and died, would add another layer of meaning to a date long enshrined in the national calendar, similar to the way National Memorial Day in the United States encompasses their Civil War.

We are now at a point in history when the injustices of the early colonial government have at least been acknowledged through the Treaty settlement process. It would make sense for the New Zealand Wars to be folded into the Anzac Day Amendment Bill.

The words “lest we forget” should also apply to those who fell in the nation’s third most costly military conflict. That way we can remember all of the fallen, without prejudice.

Public submissions on the Anzac Day Amendment Bill close on Thursday May 22.

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. A law change will expand who we remember on Anzac Day – the New Zealand Wars should be included too – https://theconversation.com/a-law-change-will-expand-who-we-remember-on-anzac-day-the-new-zealand-wars-should-be-included-too-256682

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roy M. Farman, Adjunct Associate Lecturer, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney

Australian tree frogs today make up over one third of all known frog species on the continent. Among this group, iconic species such as the green tree frog (Litoria caerulea) and the green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea), are both beloved for their vivid colours and distinctive calls.

In the Early Eocene epoch, 55 million years ago, Australia’s tree frogs were hopping across the Australian continent from one billabong to the next through a forested corridor that also extended back across Antarctica to South America. These were the last remnants of ancient supercontinent Gondwana.

In new research published today in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, we identify Australia’s earliest known species of tree frog – one that once hopped and croaked around an ancient lake near the town of Murgon in south-eastern Queensland.

This research demonstrates tree frogs were present in Australia 30 million years earlier than previously thought, living alongside Australia’s earliest known snakes, songbirds and marsupials.

A common ancestor

Tree frogs (Pelodryadidae) have expanded discs on their fingers and toes enabling them to climb trees. Despite their name, however, they are known to occupy a wide range of habitats, from fast-flowing streams to ephemeral ponds.

Australia’s previously earliest tree frogs were recovered from Late Oligocene (about 26 million years old) and Early Miocene (23 million years old) fossil deposits. Late Oligocene frog fossils were found at Kangaroo Well in the Northern Territory and Lake Palankarinna in South Australia. They were also recently found in many deposits from the Riversleigh World Heritage Area in Queensland.

It has long been known that South American tree frogs and Australian tree frogs shared a common Gondwanan ancestor. What is unknown is when this common ancestor lived.

Based on some molecular data, it has been estimated that the two groups separated from this common ancestor as recent as 32.9 million years ago.

A diverse fossil deposit

Our new study was based on frog fossils from a deposit near the town of Murgon, located on the traditional lands of the Waka Waka people of south-eastern Queensland. These fossils accumulated some 55 million years ago. This was between the time when a colossal meteorite took out the non-flying dinosaurs and the time when Australia broke free from the rest of Gondwana to become an isolated continent.

As well as ancient frog fossils, the Early Eocene freshwater clay deposit also contains fossils of ancient bats, marsupials, snakes, non-marine birds and potentially the world’s oldest songbirds.

We used CT scans of frogs preserved in ethanol from Australian museum collections to compare the three-dimensional shape of the fossil bones with those of living species. This method is called three-dimensional geometric morphometrics. It has only been used on fossil frogs once before.

Using these new methods, we can unravel the relationships of these fossils to all other groups of frogs – both living and extinct.

Pushing back the evolutionary tree

From its diagnostic ilium (one of three paired pelvic bones), we identified a new species of Litoria from the family Pelodryadidae. We named this species Litoria tylerantiqua in honour of the late Michael Tyler, a renowned Australian herpetologist globally celebrated for his research on frogs and toads.

Litoria tylerantiqua joins the only other Murgon frog discovered so far, the ground-dwelling Platyplectrum casca, as the oldest frogs known from Australia. Both species have living relatives in Australia and New Guinea. This demonstrates the remarkable resilience over time of some of Australia’s most fragile creatures.

Our new research provides crucial new understanding that helps to calibrate molecular clock studies. This is a method scientists use to estimate when different species split from a common ancestor based on the calculated rate of genetic change over time.

Our research indicates the separation of Australian tree frogs and South American tree frogs is at minimum 55 million years ago. This pushes back the estimated molecular separation time for these groups by 22 million years.

New insights to help endangered species

Unravelling the deep-time changes in the diversity and evolution of the ancestors of today’s living animals can provide important new insights into the way these groups have responded in the past to previous challenges. These challenges include former natural cycles of climate change.

The more we know about the fossil record, the more likely we will better anticipate future responses to similar challenges, including human-induced climate change.

This is especially important for critically endangered species such as the Southern Corroboree Frog and Baw Baw Frog. Now restricted to alpine habitats in New South Wales and Victoria, they are at serious risk of extinction due to global warming.

Roy M. Farman received funding from the Research Training Program through the University of New South Wales.

Mike Archer has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Geographic Society, the National Geographic Society, the Riversleigh Society Inc and private funding from Phil Creaser (the CREATE Fund in UNSW), K. and M. Pettit, D. and A. Jeanes and other benefactors.

– ref. Newly discovered frog species from 55 million years ago challenges evolutionary tree – https://theconversation.com/newly-discovered-frog-species-from-55-million-years-ago-challenges-evolutionary-tree-256573

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Long, Strategic Professor in Palaeontology, Flinders University

The emergence of four-legged animals known as tetrapods was a key step in the evolution of many species today – including humans.

Our new discovery, published today in Nature, details ancient fossil footprints found in Australia that upend the early evolution timeline of all tetrapods. It also suggests major parts of the story could have played out in the southern supercontinent of Gondwana.

This fossil trackway whispers that we have been looking for the origin of modern tetrapods in the wrong time, and perhaps the wrong place.

The first feet on land

Tetrapods originated a long time ago in the Devonian period, when strange lobe-finned fishes began to haul themselves out of the water, probably around 390 million years ago.

This ancestral stock later split into two main evolutionary lines. One led to modern amphibians, such as frogs and salamanders. The other led to amniotes, whose eggs contain amniotic membranes protecting the developing foetus.

Today, amniotes include all reptiles, birds and mammals. They are by far the most successful tetrapod group, numbering more than 27,000 species of reptiles, birds and mammals.

They have occupied every environment on land, have conquered the air, and many returned to the water in spectacularly successful fashion. But the fossil record shows the earliest members of this amniote group were small and looked rather like lizards. How did they emerge?

The oldest known tetrapods have always been thought to be primitive fish-like forms like Acanthostega, barely capable of moving on land.

Most scientists agree amphibians and amniotes separated at the start of the Carboniferous period, about 355 million years ago. Later in the period, the amniote lineage split further into the ancestors of mammals and reptiles-plus-birds.

Now, this tidy picture falls apart.

A curious trackway

Key to our discovery is a 35 centimetre wide sandstone slab from Taungurung country, near Mansfield in eastern Victoria.

The slab is covered with the footprints of clawed feet that can only belong to early amniotes, most probably reptiles. It pushes back the origin of the amniotes by at least 35 million years.

Despite huge variations in size and shape, all amniotes have certain features in common. For one, if we have limbs with fingers and toes, these are almost always tipped with claws – or nails, in the case of humans.

In other tetrapod groups, real claws don’t occur. Even claw-like, hardened toe tips seen in some amphibians are extremely rare.

Claws usually leave obvious marks in footprints, providing a clue to whether a fossil footprint was made by an amniote.

The oldest clawed tracks

The previous oldest fossil record of reptiles is based on footprints and bones from North America and Europe around 318 million years ago.

The oldest record of reptile-like tracks in Europe is from Silesia in Poland, a new discovery also revealed in our paper. They are around 328 million years old.

However, the Australian slab is much older than that, dated to between 359 and 350 million years old. It comes from the earliest part of the Carboniferous rock outcropping along the Broken River (Berrepit in the Taungurung language of the local First Nations people).

This area has long been known for yielding many kinds of spectacular fossil fishes that lived in lakes and large rivers. Now, for the first time, we catch a glimpse of life on the riverbank.

Two trackways of fossil footprints cross the slab’s upper surface, one of them overstepping an isolated footprint facing the opposite direction. The surface is covered with dimples made by raindrops, recording a brief shower just before the footprints were made. This proves the creatures were moving about on dry land.

All the footprints show claw marks, some in the form of long scratches where the foot has been dragged along.

The shape of the feet matches that of known early reptile tracks, so we are confident the footprints belong to an amniote. Our short animation below gives a reconstruction of the ancient environment around Mansfield 355 million years ago, and shows how the tracks were made.

Rewriting the timeline

This find has a massive impact on the origin timeline of all tetrapods.

If amniotes had already evolved by the earliest Carboniferous, as our fossil shows, the last common ancestor of amniotes and amphibians has to lie much further back in time, in the Devonian period.

We can estimate the timing of the split by comparing the relative lengths of different branches in DNA-based family trees of living tetrapods. It suggests the split took place in the late Devonian, maybe as far back as 380 million years ago.

This implies the late Devonian world was populated not just by primitive fish-like tetrapods, and intermediate “fishapods” like the famous Tiktaalik, but also by advanced forms including close relatives of the living lineages. So why haven’t we found their bones?

The location of our slab provides a clue.

Big evolutionary questions

All other records of Carboniferous amniotes have come from the northern hemisphere ancient landmass called Euramerica that incorporated present-day North America and Europe. Euramerica also produced the great majority of Devonian tetrapod fossils.

The new Australian fossils come from Gondwana, a gigantic southern continent that also contained Africa, South America, Antarctica and India.

In all of this vast landmass, which stretched from the southern tropics down across the South Pole, our little slab is currently the only tetrapod fossil from the earliest part of the Carboniferous.

The Devonian record is scarcely much better. The Gondwana fossil record of early tetrapods is shockingly incomplete, with enormous gaps that could conceal – well, just about anything.

This find now raises a big evolutionary question. Did the first modern tetrapods, our own distant ancestors, emerge in the temperate Devonian landscapes of southern Gondwana, long before they spread to the sun-baked semi-deserts and steaming swamps of equatorial Euramerica?

It’s quite possible. Only more fieldwork, bringing to light new discoveries of Devonian and Carboniferous fossils from the old Gondwana continents, might one day answer that question.

We acknowledge the Taungurung people of Mansfield area where this scientific work has taken place.

John Long receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Grzegorz Niedzwiedzki receives funding from the Swedish Research Council and the European Research Council.

Per Ahlberg receives funding from the European Research Council and the Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation.

– ref. Two lizard-like creatures crossed tracks 355 million years ago. Today, their footprints yield a major discovery – https://theconversation.com/two-lizard-like-creatures-crossed-tracks-355-million-years-ago-today-their-footprints-yield-a-major-discovery-254301

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

Australia’s productivity performance has stagnated for years, and Treasurer Jim Chalmers has declared addressing this is a second term priority.

“Productivity” is now an added part of the remit of Assistant Minister Andrew Leigh, along with his responsibility for competition, charities and Treasury matters.

It’s an area to which Leigh brings some expertise. He is a former professor of economics at the Australian National University and has a PhD in Public Policy from Harvard Kennedy School.

He joins us to discuss productivity and more.

On the concept of productivity, Leigh outlines some common misconceptions.

A lot of people think of productivity as being working longer or working harder, rather than working smarter.

Really, productivity should be how much you can produce per hour, not how much you can produce per year, because I don’t think any of us feel productive if we’re forced to work at night and the weekend when we don’t want to. Improving the way in which we use technology can be important to that.

On why it has taken government so long to boost productivity, Leigh says:

The measures tend to be lagging. And it’s about changing the structure of businesses, and sometimes that takes a while to take effect. So, for example in the computer revolution, you don’t immediately see that showing up in the productivity statistics. Same story for electrification a couple of generations earlier.

These so-called general purpose technologies take a while before work is revamped around them. So too we can have problems that take a while to embed themselves, and then it can take a while to get out.

On emerging artificial intelligence technology, Leigh, while aware of the concerns, says there’s great potential:

I think we’re all concerned about the implications for privacy. I think there are reasons to be concerned about the potential anti-competitive aspects if the AI engines consolidate over coming years. But it’s also very clear that this is a technology with great potential to take away drudge parts of our jobs and allow people to focus on the most stimulating types.

There are invariably job impacts of any technology that comes along, and artificial intelligence is no different from that. We don’t tend to be very good as economists at forecasting precisely where the jobs of the future will come and where they’ll go, but we do know that it’ll have an impact, and this is potentially as big a general purpose technology as any of the others that we’ve seen in the past.

As a member of parliament from the Australian Capital Territory, Leigh remains keen that both territories get more representation in the Senate.

I think the ACT [and] the Northern Territory send representatives of strong calibre to the federal parliament. And having more representation for the territories would be a great thing.

To have more ACT senators, I think, would be a terrific thing. We saw in the last election a pretty ferocious attack from the conservatives on Canberra, and so having more voices in the federal parliament standing up for the ACT would be great.

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: Andrew Leigh on more productive work in the age of AI – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-andrew-leigh-on-more-productive-work-in-the-age-of-ai-256685

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amanda Meyer, Senior Lecturer, Anatomy and Pathology, James Cook University

Videos of men removing their eyelashes, by trimming or shaving, have been circulating on social media in recent weeks. This trend is based on the idea short eyelashes look more masculine.

Hair can tell us a lot about our social and cultural values. As the Canadian sociologist Anthony Synnott says, it can represent embedded ideas about biological sex, such as “opposite sexes have opposite hair” and “head hair and body hair are opposite”.

But do sex differences have any basis in biology? And what about the health risks of tampering with your lashes?

If the idea of a buzzing razor coming near your eyes makes you nervous, there’s good reason.

Does sex determine eyelash length?

Most warm-blooded animals have eyelashes. Human eyelashes begin to develop in the womb at around seven weeks and by six months they are fully formed.

Typically, we have 100 to 150 lashes on the upper eyelid that grow in two or three rows. There are half as many eyelashes on the lower lid.

Eyelash length is usually around one-third of the eye’s width. Lower lashes are shorter (6–8 millimetres) compared to the upper lashes (8–12mm).

The density, length, thickness and curl of eyelashes are determined by your genetics. But there is no evidence these anatomical differences are linked to sex.

This means the idea men “naturally” have short eyelashes – and women’s are longer, darker and thicker – is based in culture, not biology.

Regardless of your sex or gender, eyelashes serve several important functions.

What are eyelashes for?

Protection

Eyelashes provide a barrier against dust, debris, bugs, bacteria and chemicals (such as hairspray and deodorants), stopping them from entering the eyes.

Tears form a fluid film that covers the eye to keep it lubricated. Eyelashes also prevent air drying out this film.

From an aerodynamic point of view, medium-length lashes (8mm) are ideal for stopping the eye’s surface from drying out. Very short lashes can expose the surface to air, while very long lashes can channel more air flow towards it.

Eyelashes also shield our eyes from glare, reducing how much light enters the eye by up to 24%.

Sensation

Eyelashes are highly sensitive, so touching the eyelashes triggers a blink reflex that makes the eye shut. This protects it from unwanted materials.

Blinking also activates the release of tears and distributes them across the eyes’ surface.

Social interaction

Eyelashes help us communicate. Blinking slowly can signal attentiveness or flirtation – and eyelashes make this more appealing.

Wearing mascara or fake eyelashes emphasises the eyelashes and can make the eyes look larger and more expressive.

So, what if you don’t have eyelashes?

People can lose their eyelashes for various reasons.

For example, chemotherapy for cancer often results in hair loss – including eyelashes – as does alopecia, an autoimmune condition which causes the body to attack its own hair follicles.

Some people also pull out their eyelashes when they are anxious or stressed.

If you can’t stop this behaviour, and your eyelash loss is noticeable and affects day-to-day life, you may have a condition called trichotillomania.

The compulsion to cut or shave hair (rather than pull it out) is known as trichotemnomania.

If you’re worried, you should speak to your doctor to get support.

Read more:
‘I wanted to stop … but I also wanted to pull’. 1 in 50 people have trichotillomania – a new memoir unpacks compulsive hair-pulling

No matter how hair is lost, without eyelashes you will likely feel greater discomfort. More foreign particles can enter the eye – exposing you to greater risk of infection – and you will blink more to try to wash them away.

More air on the eyes’ surface can also make them feel dry and irritated.

Is removing eyelashes risky?

Putting sharp blades near your eyes means if you are bumped, slip, or even blink, you risk injury to the eyelid or cornea (the clear, dome-shaped covering at the front of your eyeball).

Anything that goes near your eye should be very clean. If blades aren’t sterile, bacteria can lead to blepharitis (eyelid inflammation) or conjunctivitis (“pink eye”).

Will shaved eyelashes grow back?

Yes. If eyelashes are trimmed or shaved, the hair bulb and follicle (the sac surrounding the hair) remains in the skin of the eyelid, allowing the hair to keep growing.

Eyelashes grow at an average rate of 0.12mm per day, or 3.6mm a month. It could take up to three or four months for your eyelashes to grow back to their typical length.

Shaving does not affect the length, thickness and darkness of your regrown eyelashes – these will grow back the same as before (unless there has been irreversible damage to the follicle itself).

Sex, gender, and eyelashes

Perceptions of sex and gender differences in eyelashes persist, thanks in part to social norms and media portrayals.

For example, a 2023 study from the United States surveyed 319 people (142 men and 177 women) of diverse ethnic backgrounds about eyelash length in women. Men and women of all backgrounds said images of female faces with no or short eyelashes were the least attractive, regardless of ethnicity.

Cartoon characters illustrate how deeply ingrained and socially constructed these gender differences are. Compare Minnie Mouse’s long, thick lashes with Mickey Mouse, who has none.

This is not a thing of the past, as the masculine- and feminine-presenting characters of a popular current children’s cartoon Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir still demonstrate.

In reality, all bodies and features, including eyelashes, are naturally diverse.

Body autonomy means recognising that personal choices about appearance are valid and should be respected without judgement. But when altering your body, it’s important to also know the health risks.

Amanda Meyer is affiliated with the Australian and New Zealand Association of Clinical Anatomists, the American Association for Anatomy, and the Global Neuroanatomy Network.

Monika Zimanyi is affiliated with the Australian and New Zealand Association of Clinical Anatomists and the Global Neuroanatomy Network.

– ref. Men are shaving off their eyelashes on TikTok. Here’s why that might be a bad idea – https://theconversation.com/men-are-shaving-off-their-eyelashes-on-tiktok-heres-why-that-might-be-a-bad-idea-256222

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Hodgson, Professor, Curtin Law School and Curtin Business School, Curtin University

If you have a job in Australia, you’ve probably noticed each of your payslips has a section telling you how much superannuation will be paid alongside your wages.

But while your wages are deposited in your bank account however frequently you receive a payslip – whether that’s weekly, fortnightly or monthly – it’s a different story for your super.

Under current superannuation laws, employers are only required to pay super into an employee’s nominated fund at least four times a year – 28 days after the end of each quarter – although many do pay more regularly.

But that’s set to change. From July 1 2026, new “payday super” rules will require employers to pay super into the employee’s fund within seven days of wages.

This reform was announced in the 2023–24 federal budget, allowing employers, superannuation funds and software providers three years to set up compliant systems. But it hasn’t yet been legislated.

Now, some industry groups are calling for a further delay of up to two years. So, who are these reforms designed to benefit? And does business really need more time to get ready?

Missing or incorrect super

Missing or incorrect super payments present a huge problem for Australia’s retirement system.

The Super Members Council claims one in four Australians are missing out on the correct amount of superannuation contributions.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) estimates A$5.2 billion of guaranteed superannuation went unpaid in 2021–22.

This can be due to payroll errors, misclassification under an award or, in extreme cases, non-payment of superannuation as a form of wage theft. All these things can be harder to spot when super is paid less frequently.

Rules only requiring super to be paid quarterly may have been appropriate 30 years ago, in the early days of the superannuation guarantee. Business systems were often not computerised, and wages were often paid in cash.

Times have changed

Payroll systems are now much more sophisticated.

From 2018, the federal government rolled out the single-touch payroll program that requires employers to report wages in real time, including details of superannuation guarantee withheld from an employee’s wages.

The government is already benefiting from the increased automation of data submitted through this system.

Single-touch payroll data helps improve official labour statistics and provides up-to-date income information for employees through the MyGov portal.

Sending real-time data to Centrelink addresses one of the major flaws underpinning the Robodebt scandal, which used an averaging system to estimate fortnightly earnings.

Benefits for employees

In simple terms, the coming changes are basically a change in timing. Payments will be transferred to an employee’s super fund in the same way their wages are transferred directly to their bank account.

Once bedded down, the changes will provide benefits across the board to employees, employers and the government.

Currently, if an employee believes the correct amount of superannuation is not being paid to their fund, they are expected to follow this up directly with the ATO.

Unfortunately, many employees presume the withheld amount shown on the payslip has already been paid into their super account.

Unless a member is actively monitoring their super balance, they may be unaware that the amount shown on their payslip is not being paid into their fund on a timely basis.

Benefits for business

Employers should also benefit from these changes, many of whom already do transfer superannuation when wages are paid.

Currently, superannuation guarantee payments are run on a separate payment cycle to payroll, coinciding with payment of tax liabilities. If payments are on the same cycle as payroll, it should make budgeting easier, and ensure the separate super payment run is not overlooked.

This assumes, of course, that the business is not relying on unpaid superannuation contributions to manage their cash flows elsewhere in the business. If that is the case, payday super changes will help protect the employee if the employer runs into financial difficulties.

The change will also allow the tax office to match deductions and payments in real time to detect fraud – and check that super is actually being paid. This can reduce audit costs and – in the long run – reduce reliance on the aged pension as super account balances improve.

Why wait any longer?

So, with all of these expected benefits, why has the financial services sector this month asked for implementation to be delayed further – by up to two years? The building blocks of the system – electronic payments to transfer funds and the government’s single-touch payroll gateway – are already in place.

One challenge is legislative. Although announced in May 2023, the draft legislation was only released for consultation in March 2025.

The Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 needs extensive amendments to rewrite references to the calculation and payment of the superannuation guarantee charge.

The draft legislation also makes some changes to definitions that may impact on how systems must be set up for payday super. Although not intended to change entitlements, they need to be made accurate in the software.

Still, payday super has the potential to strengthen Australia’s superannuation system, protecting employee contributions and smoothing the payment system for employers. Concerns around its implementation are largely due to the time it has taken for the draft legislation to emerge.

Following the election, the federal government has the numbers to pass this legislation as a matter of priority.

Helen Hodgson has received funding from the ARC, AHURI and CPA Australia. Helen is the Chair of the Social Policy Committee and a Director of the National Foundation for Australian Women (NFAW). Helen was a Member of the WA Legislative Council from 1997 to 2001, elected as an Australian Democrat. She is not a current member of any political party. She is a Registered Tax Agent and a member of the SMSF Association, CPA Australia and The Tax Institute. Helen has superannuation with Unisuper and jointly owns positively geared rental properties.

– ref. Soon, your boss will have to pay your wages and super at the same time. Here’s how everyone could benefit – https://theconversation.com/soon-your-boss-will-have-to-pay-your-wages-and-super-at-the-same-time-heres-how-everyone-could-benefit-256564

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kerrie-Anne Hammermeister, PhD Candidate in the School of Humanities and Communication, University of Southern Queensland

Speaking to the media after being named leader of the Liberal Party, Sussan Ley was asked if this appointment was an example of the “glass cliff effect”.

Ley said “I don’t accept that”. She went on:

I do say it sends a signal to the women of Australia that the Liberal Party has elected its first woman leader but my agenda is much more than that.

Most of us are familiar with the concept of the “glass ceiling”, a metaphor used to describe the invisible barriers which prevent women from succeeding in senior leadership – and Ley could be seen as breaking the glass ceiling of the Liberal party.

But the “glass cliff” applies to women who are elevated to positions of leadership in a time of crisis, meaning they are perceived as having a high probability of failure and will take the fall for their organisation.

The glass cliff evokes imagery of a woman being at the top of a mountain cliff. Being on the cliff is a dangerous position: there is a high chance of falling – or being pushed off.

Times of misfortune

Against the historical backdrop of male-dominated leadership, the metaphor was coined to reflect women’s experience of leadership selection in times of organisational misfortune and crisis.

The “glass cliff” has sometimes been invoked in misogynist ways to downplay the strengths of women in leadership, saying they have been put in a position of leadership with the express belief they will fail. But it does describe a commonly seen phenomenon which is important to observe and understand.

There are many prominent examples of women who have been associated with the phrase.

British Prime Minister Liz Truss was elevated to the role at a time of significant uncertainty, and was in the position for just 45 days.

US Presidential candidate Kamala Harris was given minimal time to campaign and establish herself as a genuine opponent to Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Former Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz, who was appointed when the tech company was failing and share prices were down before being unceremoniously dumped via a phone call.

‘Think female’

Some academics believe that these women aren’t placed in the position of the glass cliff to be the fall guy, but instead these appointments relate to women’s perceived ability to handle organisational crises. They propose an alternative phrase: “think crisis – think female”.

This phrase suggests women leaders perform better than men in a crisis, partly due to the assumption that women will garner more support than men in such times.

It is based on stereotypes of women’s perceived ability to build and repair relationships and reputations.

Both phrases link women leaders and crises. But the glass cliff explains how women are elevated into positions of leadership in turbulent times and are blamed when organisations fail.

Professional risk

The phenomenon of the glass cliff is a professional risk for women in leadership.

Organisations may prey on the career ambitions of outgroup women, knowing that they are more likely to accept any leadership position, even a precarious one, in order to advance their career.

The privilege of the ingroup men, on the other hand, means they are protected from taking on a leadership position with risk and volatility.

Women leaders taking on these roles in turbulent times are also exposed to greater scrutiny from internal and external stakeholders, including individual performance criticism.

If a woman leader then fails, her performance is seen to reinforce gender stereotypes about women’s leadership competency.

Further complicating this context are gendered stereotypes that assume women leaders have exceptional people skills, meaning senior women in high-risk leadership roles receive less support and fewer resources than their male counterparts.

The glass cliff presents a double bind for women leaders. If women leaders behave in stereotypically feminine ways they are seen as weak or indecisive. By contrast, if they behave counter to this they are labelled as harsh and aggressive.

Either way, the glass cliff awaits.

The glass cliff phenomenon draws our attention to the way in which women are set up to fail in high-risk risk leadership roles. But the metaphor also reveals the ongoing gender discrimination and stereotype bias women experience in taking on professional leadership roles.

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

– ref. What is the ‘glass cliff’ phenomenon – and why do women often find themselves on the precipice? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-glass-cliff-phenomenon-and-why-do-women-often-find-themselves-on-the-precipice-256072

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emaediong I. Akpanekpo, PhD Candidate, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

Populist rhetoric targeting young offenders often leads to kneejerk punitive responses, such as stricter bail laws and lowering the age of criminal responsibility. This, in turn, has led to more young people being held in detention.

In Australia, the number of young people held in detention facilities increased by 8% (from 784 to 845) between the June quarter of 2023 and the June quarter of 2024.

But what if some of these young people were treated and helped, rather than incarcerated? A series of recently published studies examining mental health in the youth justice population suggests treatment would be more beneficial than punitive measures – some of which may even promote persistent offending.

Increased incarceration

New South Wales saw a 31% increase in young people in detention between 2023 and 2024.

Increases in youth detention numbers have also been reported in Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania and South Australia over the same period.

About 60% of young people in detention are First Nations youth.

Custody as a catalyst

Young people in the justice system have significantly higher rates of mental ill-health and adverse childhood experiences than their peers in the general population.

However, less clear is how involvement in the justice system, particularly custody, affects the severity and trajectory of these mental health issues over time.

Our team examined how exposure to the justice system affected mental health among young people in NSW. We analysed administrative health and justice data over two years post-supervision.

These data came from more than 1,500 justice-involved youth who participated in the Young People in Custody Health Survey in 2003, 2009 and 2015 and Young People on Community Orders Health Survey between 2003 and 2006.

We found young people who had spent time in custody faced markedly higher rates of subsequent psychiatric hospitalisation compared with those supervised in the community.

The risk of psychiatric hospitalisations was higher for those with multiple custody episodes. This demonstrates the significant negative impact of incarceration on the mental health of young people long after they are released.

We also examined how the impact of custody on psychiatric hospitalisations differed by age.

We found psychiatric hospitalisation rates were similar among youth aged 14–17 years who had been supervised in the community, compared with those aged 18 and older.

However, youth aged 14–17 who were placed in custody were hospitalised at significantly higher rates than their older peers aged 18 and above.

This suggests incarceration is particularly harmful for younger offenders.

How does this affect crime?

When we examined the long-term consequences of youth detention on subsequent offending, we found conviction during adolescence, especially before the age of 14, significantly increased the likelihood of later entering the adult prison system.

Those who were incarcerated during adolescence faced a fivefold increase in the risk of being incarcerated as an adult, compared with young people who’d never been in custody.

This suggests it may be beneficial to delay the involvement of young people in the justice system to help prevent repeat offending in the future.

Breaking the cycle

So what can be done to help?

In NSW, laws allow young people with mental health conditions to be diverted from judicial processes into treatment. Such laws for young people also exist in other states, although specific models vary.

While research shows those diverted into treatment have a lower risk of reoffending, less than half of eligible youth receive this option.

How do we help those who miss out? Our studies examined whether going to mental health services voluntarily (without a court order) could help reduce recidivism.

Among boys who had been in custody, we found they were 40% less likely to reoffend if they received mental health treatment after release than those who did not receive such treatment.

A similar, but larger, benefit was observed among boys supervised in the community. There, mental health treatment was associated with a 57% reduction in reoffending risk.

Evidence-based reform

Evidence shows punitive measures do not deter youth crime, but instead are likely to perpetuate cycles of offending into adulthood.

Policymakers should reimagine youth justice to protect young people and create real pathways to rehabilitation.

Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to delay the onset of formal contact with the justice system aligns with developmental science and prevents early criminalisation of young people.

Read more:
Locking up young people might make you feel safer but it doesn’t work, now or in the long term

Enhancing routine mental health screening in the justice system and expanding access to diversion programs is warranted.

Our findings on the benefits of routine mental health treatment highlight the potential for more integrated approaches. When combined with wraparound services for health and education, they could be even more effective.

As detaining a young person costs around $1 million annually, mental health treatment-based approaches make sound financial sense too.

Tony Butler receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Emaediong I. Akpanekpo 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. Young detainees often have poor mental health. The earlier they’re incarcerated, the worse it gets – https://theconversation.com/young-detainees-often-have-poor-mental-health-the-earlier-theyre-incarcerated-the-worse-it-gets-252376

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University

Australia has just had its second landslide election in a row.

In 2022, there was a landslide against the Liberals, but not to Labor, which fell over the line (as a majority government) by three seats and with just over 32% of the primary vote. But the Coalition – actually Liberal – loss of seats, at 19, was the kind of result usually associated with the term “landslide”.

In 2025, we have a genuine landside to Labor. At the time of writing, the ABC has declared a Labor gain of 15 seats (78 to 93), but with the strong likelihood of one more, and an outside chance of another.

Labor’s share of the two-party preferred vote sits at 54.8%. To add a bit of historical perspective: Labor’s two-party preferred vote is lower than the Coalition’s in the so-called Vietnam election of 1966 (56.9%) and the Dismissal election of 1975 (55.7%), but better than John Howard’s in 1996 (53.6%) and Tony Abbott’s in 2013 (53.5%). The Coalition managed 94 seats in a slightly smaller House of Representatives of 148 (compared to 150 at the 2025 election) in 1996. Labor might also land on 94 this time, once the counting is done.

For Labor, it is a victory on a scale only rivalled – and indeed slightly overshadowed statistically – by John Curtin’s wartime election in 1943, when Labor gained 49 seats in a House of 74. That was two-thirds of the available seats and perhaps 58% of the two-party preferred vote. (The full distribution of preferences only came in later elections). In 2025, Labor is likely to land on just under 63% of the House.

Big majorities carry their own headaches, as Labor’s factional wrestling of recent days reminds us. But a big loss is a much worse ordeal for the loser.

First, there is the problem of finding a leader. He, or she, will be selected from depleted ranks. They will often inherit a demoralised party that will lack belief in its ability to return to office in a single term – allowing that there has been no one-termer in Australian federal politics since the Scullin government (1929-32).

Sussan Ley, the new Liberal leader, will realise – or should realise – that as a leader elected following such a defeat, her chances of ever making it to the prime ministership are slim.

Since the second world war, a new leader chosen after a loss of office has never become prime minister. Peter Dutton, who became opposition leader in 2022, joined Billy Snedden (after 1972), Kim Beazley (1996), Brendan Nelson (2007) and Bill Shorten (2013) as those who never went on to lead the country.

But any leader who slips into the role – either re-elected or for the first time – after a big loss is a long shot to make it. The best example we have from the postwar era is Gough Whitlam, elected leader in February 1967 after one of the biggest landslides in Australian political history, won by Harold Holt at the 1966 election. It is therefore worth revisiting what he did to get there.

Whitlam biographers such as Graham Freudenberg and Jenny Hocking have offered us a detailed picture of Whitlam’s systematic work on reforming the party and policy as part of his pitch to the people. The Liberals could do worse than think in those terms as they contemplate their rebuild. They have vast work to do on all of those fronts.

As a party, Labor was a basketcase in 1967. In Victoria, it was dominated by a group of left-wing unionists and members who seemed more concerned with maintaining ideological purity than winning elections. Whitlam taunted them at the state conference in 1967 that “certainly, the impotent are pure”.

But between 1967 and 1972, Whitlam and his allies – some of them on the left outside Victoria – modernised the party’s structures and rules, and moderated left-wing domination of the Victorian branch. Alongside these reforms came a comprehensive policy overhaul – the formulation of what Whitlam reverentially called “The Program” – drawing on a vast network of experts across the country and the most compelling models from other countries.

This was paired with a redesign of the party’s image that helped it win back a vast number of voters at the 1969 election, culminating in the remarkable, election winning “It’s Time” campaign in 1972.

It was a six-year effort, and it was far from easy. But it is perhaps the best modern example we have of what a shattered party needs to do to win back office.

Labor faced similar challenges after 1975 and, although the process was messier, Bob Hawke’s eventual election in March 1983 owed much to a process of reform of Labor party, policy and image led by Bill Hayden between 1977 and 1983. This time, it was the Queensland branch of the party – Hayden’s own – that needed an overhaul, which it received through federal intervention of the kind applied to Victoria a decade before.

Labor also worked out a Prices and Incomes Accord with the union movement, designed to avoid many of the economic and political problems experienced by Whitlam in government, such as runaway inflation. Hayden, like Whitlam before him, crafted an electable opposition. Hawke, however, reaped the benefit after he replaced Hayden on the eve of the 1983 campaign.

There are lessons here for the Liberals. First, they can no longer avoid party reform. Their post-election reviews of recent times often read like Gothic tales: indeed, I could recommend the Western Australian one after the 2021 state election only to those with stomachs capable of standing up to slasher movies.

Second, the 2025 election revealed a Coalition policy wasteland. Some, such as the idea of a nuclear power plants across the country, were daft. Others, like cuts to the fuel excise for a year – coinciding with a decline in petrol prices – were dross. Others again simply made it appear the Coalition was making it up as it went along. It would be hard to conceive of anything further removed from the best examples we have of policy rebuilding by shattered parties.

Finally, there are the people. Who, exactly, are the Liberals trying to win over? From May 2022, Dutton seemed to have his eye on Labor voters in the outer suburbs, but he did very little that was likely to win them over. He did even less to win over groups who have turned decisively away from the Liberals in recent years, such as women and the young.

Whatever efforts they made to win over the so-called multicultural communities, such as Chinese-Australian voters, were undone by clumsy messaging from the ministerial ranks about “spies”. In the end, it often seemed that Dutton – and possibly also most of the survivors of 2022 – didn’t have their hearts in appealing to the kinds of voters who had turned to the teals, Labor and Greens in 2022. They preferred to commune with their own.

The impotent are still pure: the Liberals emerge from the 2025 campaign unsullied by a dalliance with strangers. They now have their reward. Whether a party organisation with branches dominated by the ideologue, the conservative, the elderly and the eccentric can act as an instrument for forging a new electoral alliance of the kind that set up the party in the 1940s for decades of success must be considered doubtful. There is no Robert Menzies on the horizon. And there is no Liberal movement speaking a language of progress rather than reaction.

This is the greatest crisis faced by Australia’s centre right since 1943 – and we can be certain that, unlike Ben Chifley, Anthony Albanese won’t do his opponents the favour of trying to nationalise the banks.

Frank Bongiorno 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. Political parties can recover after a devastating election loss. But the Liberals will need to think differently – https://theconversation.com/political-parties-can-recover-after-a-devastating-election-loss-but-the-liberals-will-need-to-think-differently-232695

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hangga Fathana, Assistant Professor of International Relations, Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII) Yogyakarta

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has wasted little time taking his first overseas trip since Labor won a historic victory in Australia’s federal election. He’ll head to Indonesia today to meet the country’s new president, Prabowo Subianto.

With both nations entering new political chapters, the visit carries symbolic weight. But it will also have practical importance.

Despite the two nations’ proximity and strengths, the relationship has often been held back by outdated perceptions and strategic hesitation. This is a timely opportunity to reset the relationship.

Prabowo’s emerging foreign policy

Prabowo succeeded outgoing President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo in October after a decade of his infrastructure-driven and globally engaged leadership.

Prabowo, a former army general and defence minister, had projected a populist and nationalist image during his 2024 election campaign. He frequently emphasised Indonesia’s food self-sufficiency, military strength and national sovereignty.

Since taking office, however, he has moderated his tone. While seen by some in the West as assertive, he has signalled a willingness to strengthen bilateral defence ties with Australia. He also has an interest in modernising Indonesia’s military and engaging more transparently with partners.

Still, questions remain about how he will shape Indonesia’s foreign policy. This includes whether he will maintain Jokowi’s emphasis on multilateralism and economic diplomacy. Both are key to the tone and outcomes of Albanese’s visit.

Prabowo’s leadership style is nuanced. Despite his polarising image, Indonesia’s foreign policy is still shaped by pragmatism and non-alignment. As such, Prabowo will likely focus on balancing relations with China, the United States and Russia, while protecting Indonesia’s sovereignty.

Indonesia’s decision to join BRICS, the economic group that includes both China and Russia, for example, should be seen as a diplomatic hedge, not a new geopolitical alignment.

Other recent decisions, such as providing aid to Fiji, suggest an increasingly outward-facing regional posture.

Albanese should offer Prabowo credible alternatives to Russian and Chinese engagement through trade, technology and education exchanges, rather than reacting to Jakarta’s moves with suspicion.

Opportunities for cooperation

In his election campaign, Albanese reaffirmed his government’s commitment to working closely with Southeast Asia. He also promised a foreign policy grounded in diplomacy, climate cooperation and economic diversification.

This provides a strong incentive for both leaders to deepen ties. For Australia, deepening ties with Indonesia supports its Indo-Pacific strategy. The goal: promoting a stable and inclusive regional order, particularly amid concerns over growing strategic competition between the US and China.

For Indonesia, Australia offers investment, education partnerships, and critical expertise in clean energy and innovation.

A free-trade agreement signed in 2019 provides a platform for deeper integration and less competition in certain industries.

For example, there are huge opportunities to collaborate in clean energy, particularly after the neighbours signed a climate partnership last year. The agreement will secure supplies of lithium for Indonesia’s EV battery production, while Australia will gain more export markets for its critical minerals.

People-to-people ties are also vital, while education remains a longstanding pillar of the bilateral relationship.

Both countries face skills shortages in key sectors. Indonesia needs skilled workers in health care, clean technology and digital literacy. Australia has shortages in critical infrastructure, aged care and engineering.

There are good opportunities here for student exchanges, joint employment training programs and other vocational collaborations.

New Australian university campuses in Indonesia are a positive step, but they remain commercially focused and concentrated in elite, urban areas. With over 4,000 universities across the archipelago, these partnerships could go much further.

Where tensions might arise

The relationship is not without friction. Australia’s involvement in the AUKUS agreement, and its close alignment with the United States and United Kingdom, has raised concerns for Indonesia, which has long championed non-alignment.

Jakarta has voiced unease over the perceived risks of nuclear submarine proliferation in the region.

Albanese’s visit is a key opportunity to clarify that AUKUS involves nuclear-powered — not nuclear-armed — submarines. He should also reinforce Australia’s commitment to transparency over the deal. This is essential to avoiding misunderstandings and building trust.

A more recent flashpoint is speculation around a possible Russian military presence in Indonesia — a claim the Indonesian government has firmly denied.

Indonesia’s response exemplifies its longstanding commitment to strategic autonomy. However, the whole ordeal reveals the complexity of Jakarta’s foreign relations, which often involve balancing ties with competing powers.

For Australia, acknowledging Indonesia’s independent foreign policy — rather than interpreting it through a great-power rivalry lens — is critical to sustaining mutual trust.

A chance to re-anchor the relationship

This moment offers both governments the chance to move beyond symbolic gestures toward a deeper, more inclusive and people-centred partnership.

Amid global fragmentation, trust is not just desirable — it’s essential. And while differences remain, they are not insurmountable when guided by mutual respect, strategic patience and a commitment to genuine cooperation.

For Australia, the challenge is to move past strategic anxiety and invest in a resilient, multidimensional relationship with Indonesia. This visit could be the first step in doing just that.

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

– ref. In Indonesia, Albanese has a chance to reset a relationship held back by anxiety and misperceptions – https://theconversation.com/in-indonesia-albanese-has-a-chance-to-reset-a-relationship-held-back-by-anxiety-and-misperceptions-256321

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Steer, Chair, Australian Centre for Space Governance, Australian National University

You have probably used space at least 20 times today. Satellites let you buy a coffee with your phone, book a rideshare, navigate your way to meet someone, and check the weather.

Satellites are also essential for monitoring floods, cyclones and bushfires, and supporting the people they affect. Farmers depend on satellite data, too, as does everyone trying to understand and tackle climate change, not to mention our military.

Yet Australia’s access to space services depends almost entirely on satellites owned and run by foreign governments and companies. In an increasingly uncertain world, having our own sovereign space technology is becoming even more important for security.

But what exactly do we need to secure? And how can space help us do it? My colleagues and I at the Australian Centre for Space Governance have thought through these questions and presented them in a policy paper series – and we have some recommendations for the government.

Space services are essential

Since 2022, the Australian government has considered space technology to be “critical infrastructure”. In other words, if the space-based services we use were destroyed or disrupted, it “would have a debilitating impact on Australia’s defence and national security, a destabilising effect on the population, and cause significant damage to the economy”.

However, Australia is entirely dependent on foreign partners for space-based services such as communications and Earth observation.

Another crucial kind of satellite-powered service is “position, navigation and timing” – things like GPS, which is owned and operated by the US government. Even a temporary loss of these services could pose significant risks to Australia’s telecommunications and energy systems, as well as disaster response.

According to Australia’s 2024 National Defence Strategy, space capabilities are “equally as important as the maritime, land and air domains”. But we are in many respects simply users of space infrastructure that belongs to partner countries for our military needs. There are opportunities to increase our role in these partnerships if we place more emphasis on how Australia can be a contributor.

An uncertain world

Almost all the satellite data that supports our agriculture, banking, transport, climate monitoring, bushfire and flood response – and connects rural, remote and regional Australians – comes from the US, Europe and Japan. This dependency poses significant risks.

If any of those countries have to prioritise their own national needs in a natural disaster – such as the Sea of Japan earthquake in January last year – we might lose access. Even temporary loss of service can be disruptive, such as the temporary outage in 2023 of a UK satellite that impacted farmers in Australia and New Zealand.

The same might happen if any of those countries stopped providing data for political or national security reasons.

These risks are only increasing as our dependency on satellite services grows, and our relationship with the United States may become less certain.

What do we want from space?

Many of Australia’s international partners are also questioning their dependence on the US, and prioritising their domestic needs. Many have national space policies, or at least a clear idea of what sovereign space capabilities they want to invest in. This is what Australia needs, too.

Greater cooperation on new space technologies could help our shared interests with our neighbours. Obvious areas include regional security, climate response, supporting agriculture, and internet connectivity needs.

One obstacle, as we discovered when we ran a national public opinion survey last year, is that Australia doesn’t have a clear vision of what it wants from space.

In government, too, there is little shared understanding of how satellites and related infrastructure feed in to our national priorities and needs.

At present, thinking about space is usually the domain of specialists in government. But a better option would be “mainstreaming” space – making it part of the everyday, business-as-usual thinking of policymakers across government.

Sovereign satellites

Our country already excels at what’s called the “ground segment” for space – things like satellite dishes and data management. One example is the satellite dish operated by Geoscience Australia in Alice Springs, on land leased from the Indigenous-owned business, the Centre for Appropriate Technology. But we don’t have any sovereign satellites.

In 2023, the government scrapped a billion-dollar project including four Earth-observation satellites, citing budget constraints. In 2024, a planned military-grade satellite communications system worth $7 billion was also cancelled due to lack of cash.

But in 2025, it’s a new term of government. New minister for industry and science Tim Ayres may revisit these decisions. It certainly aligns with his support for a “Future Made in Australia”.

This time around, the space industry and researchers will need to do a better job at communicating why satellites matter so much to our national well-being and security.

Cassandra Steer has received funding in the past from the Department of Defence, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Geoscience Australia and Home Affairs. She is Chair and founder of the Australian Centre for Space Governance.

– ref. From GPS to weather forecasts: the hidden ways Australia relies on foreign satellites – https://theconversation.com/from-gps-to-weather-forecasts-the-hidden-ways-australia-relies-on-foreign-satellites-256440

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Hughes, Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, University of Sydney

Inhalers have been key to asthma management since the 1950s. The most common, salbutamol, comes in a familiar blue-coloured inhaler (or “puffer”).

This kind of “rescue inhaler” brings quick relief from asthma symptoms. You may know these inhalers by their brand names such as Ventolin, Asmol or Zempreon.

But there is growing evidence that using this kind of inhaler without treating the underlying condition may not only be ineffective – it could actually increase the risk of an asthma attack.

Next month, the National Asthma Council is releasing updated guidelines that reflect this shift. Here’s what’s changing and what you need to know.

What is a bronchodilator?

Bronchodilators such as salbutamol act by relaxing smooth muscle in the airways. While they don’t address inflammation, which is the key cause of asthma, bronchodilators are effective at quickly opening up constricted airways.

This means for people experiencing typical asthma symptoms – such as tightness of the chest and shortness of breath – a puff of salbutamol brings relief within ten minutes. The effect can last up to six hours.

Salbutamol is used by people with asthma and other respiratory conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (which includes chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema). As part of a management plan made with a doctor, salbutamol is used to relieve shortness of breath when it occurs.

In Australia, more than 60% of salbutamol is purchased over the counter (without a prescription) in pharmacies. Many of these purchases may be for people with infrequent asthma symptoms, meaning less than twice a month.

However, we now know there are safer and more effective ways for people with infrequent asthma to manage it in the long term.

So, what’s wrong with using salbutamol?

Treating symptoms is only one part of asthma management. Salbutamol doesn’t address the root cause – why the airways of people who get asthma become constricted in the first place.

It’s a bit like taking pain relief for a swollen elbow without treating the tendonitis causing the pain.

In asthma, chronic inflammation is usually a result of genes and environment interacting.

Some people have airways that overreact to triggers in the environment. These triggers include pollens, moulds and dust mites, or air that is cold or humid.

Over the long term, chronic inflammation can lead to changes in the airways. The airway walls become thicker and produce more mucus, allowing less space for air to flow through them.

Using short-acting treatments such as salbutamol without addressing chronic inflammation in the airways poses risks.

Salbutamol can become less effective with regular use. This means people with shortness of breath don’t gain the relief they expect and need, and paradoxically, their airways may become more “twitchy” (sensitive to environmental triggers) and inflamed. One response to this is people use more salbutamol and the problem is compounded.

Strong data links increased use of short-term inhalers such as salbutamol to higher risk of asthma flare-ups, hospital admissions and even death.

Purchasing three or more salbutamol inhalers per year is considered overuse.

According to asthma guidelines in Australia and globally, needing salbutamol for symptom relief on more than two days a week is an indicator of poorly controlled asthma, requiring review and possibly anti-inflammatory treatment.

What do the new guidelines recommend?

In 2019, the Global Initiative for Asthma, an independent not-for-profit organisation, radically changed its recommendations for salbutamol use. This is based on its committee of asthma experts reviewing the evidence.

Australian asthma guidelines from the National Asthma Council are set to follow suit.

The council’s 2025 Australian Asthma Handbook now states that salbutamol alone is inadequate treatment for asthma in adults or adolescents.

Previously, the guidelines recommended people with infrequent symptoms to use salbutamol when needed and “alone” – that is, without an anti-inflammatory preventer.

The new recommendations specifically warn against anyone with asthma using a short-acting bronchodilator such as salbutamol by itself, due to the increased health risks mentioned above.

People with asthma who use salbutamol, for example, should also use an anti-inflammatory treatment that provides preventive cover, such as an inhaled corticosteroid.

The 2025 Australian Asthma Handbook now recommends anti-inflammatory relievers from day one when it comes to asthma treatment in adults and adolescents.

These inhalers contain, in a single dose (one puff), both a bronchodilator (to relieve symptoms) and a low-dose anti-inflammatory corticosteroid (to treat underlying inflammation).

They are recommended instead of salbutamol-only inhalers for symptom relief, even for those whose symptoms are infrequent.

When used in place of salbutamol-only inhalers, anti-inflammatory relievers have demonstrated improvements in quality of life for people with asthma, as well as lower risks of hospitalisations and death.

In the case of children with asthma, global guidelines emphasise the use of anti-inflammatory inhalers and discourage over-reliance on bronchodilators.

Will I need to change my inhaler?

Currently, combination anti-inflammatory relievers are only available with a prescription from a doctor. These prescriptions with repeats can allow people with asthma up to 12 months of treatment.

In Australia you can still buy salbutamol in a pharmacy without a prescription, after consultation with a pharmacist.

However, if you have asthma and you’re concerned about the new guidance, you should speak to your pharmacist or doctor for advice.

Stephen Hughes receives research grant funding from the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care Medical Research Future Fund, The Australian Research Council and Asthma Australia. He is a past Board Member of the National Asthma Council of Australia and current member of its Finance and Risk Management Committee.

Bandana Saini has received funding from 1) Australian Government Department of Health Initiatives (via MRFFs or Community Pharmacy Agreement based investigator initiated grants, 2) National Health and Medical Research Council or from 3) organisations such as Asthma Australia.

– ref. Using a blue inhaler alone is not enough to manage your asthma – https://theconversation.com/using-a-blue-inhaler-alone-is-not-enough-to-manage-your-asthma-250133

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gemma Piercy, Lecturer, Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Waikato

Last week’s move by the government to amend pay equity laws, using parliamentary urgency to rush the reforms through, caught opposition parties and New Zealanders off guard.

Protests against the Equal Pay Amendment Bill have continued into this week, driven to some extent by disappointment that an apparent political consensus on the issue has broken down.

In 2017, the National-led government passed a forerunner to the current legislation for the health sector only, the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act. Later, in opposition, National also supported the Labour government’s Equal Pay Act in 2018, as well as the Equal Pay Amendment Act in 2020.

That legislation was designed to extend a pay equity process to all occupations and create a clearer pathway for making pay equity claims. With both major parties seemingly aligned, some 33 pay equity claims were under way.

Those claims – all halted now – involve the education, health and social services sectors. As such, the government would have to meet the costs of successful claims.

This explains why one rationale for the law change has been that the claims were potentially too expensive. The other rationale (preferred by Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden) is that the existing policy wasn’t sufficiently rigorous in determining the validity of some claims.

In reality, both the cost and the policy framework allowing equity claims to proceed are interrelated: the more permissive the framework, the higher the potential cost to the government and employers.

But while equal pay for equal work is the goal, it’s important to understand that equal pay and pay equity are not the same thing.

Equal pay is about making sure men and women are paid at the same rate in a specific occupation.

Pay equity, on the other hand, involves a more complex process. It aims to establish pay relativities between famale-dominated industries and other sectors using specific criteria. And herein lies the core of the argument.

Comparing different work sectors

According to van Velden, the framework for comparing different kinds of work was too loose, or simply not realistic:

You have librarians who’ve been comparing themselves to transport engineers. We have admin and clerical staff […] comparing themselves to mechanical engineers. We don’t believe we have that setting right.

On the surface, this may seem logical. And previous policy advice provided to the government suggests the recent law change will move New Zealand’s framework into line with other countries.

But using a proxy method of comparison between types of work in different industries or sectors remains central to any pay equity claim.

That’s because pay equity seeks to make visible and fix the deep, structural inequalities that have historically seen women’s work undervalued compared to men’s work. It’s about ensuring jobs that are different but of equal value are paid similarly, as a way to achieve gender equality.

Women’s employment is still concentrated in lower-paying industries and occupations, so comparisons have to be made with other sectors.

The factors used to measure that relativity are known as “comparators”. Rather than using tools developed and tested under the previous legislation, the new system will introduce “a hierarchy of comparators”, with a preference for comparators to be chosen within the same industry or occupation making the pay equity claim.

Comparators are selected to help compare the nature of different kinds of work in male-dominated and female-dominated industries. This is based on an assessment of skills, experience and qualifications, level of responsibilities, types of working conditions and degree of effort.

The assessment is completed through in-depth interviews with workers in comparison occupations. It uses resources such as Employment New Zealand’s skills recognition tool to evaluate the validity of those comparators.

Different kinds of cost

The subjective nature of valuing different kinds of work is part of the problem, of course. But New Zealand research shows only part of the gender pay gap can be attributed to objectively measurable pay differences within specific industries. Pay equity is about addressing both the objective and subjective elements contributing to that gap.

We’ll need to carefully monitor the new system to see whether its narrower comparator requirements affect its capacity to close the gender pay gap.

Treasury’s concerns also need to be considered. The former budget allocation of NZ$17 billion over four years suggests the costs of settling pay equity claims may be considerable.

On the other hand, they may be bearable. Last year in the United Kingdom, for example, Birmingham City Council was effectively bankrupt and feared pay equity claims might be a final straw. In the end, the costs were not as high as initially anticipated.

Finally, focusing exclusively on reducing fiscal cost risks other costs rising instead. Women who are paid less than they should be will struggle to put food on the table, pay back student loans, get onto the property ladder, contribute to Kiwisaver and afford their retirement.

Without pay equity, in other words, there is less economic activity in general.

Gemma Piercy received funding from the Pay Equity Unit (2004-2009), part of the former Department of Labour, now Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Bill Cochrane and Suzette Dyer 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 pay equity puzzle: can we compare effort, skill and risk between different industries? – https://theconversation.com/the-pay-equity-puzzle-can-we-compare-effort-skill-and-risk-between-different-industries-256464

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Kenny, Professor, Australian Studies Institute, Australian National University

As if by visual metaphor, Sussan Ley’s task seemed both obvious and impossible in her first press conference as the new Liberal leader.

Three years ago this month, Ley had done something uncannily similar to what Ted O’Brien was doing now. Then, it had been her standing next to Peter Dutton as his dutiful deputy. The freshly installed pair talked a big game about the contest ahead, assured of the urgency of their mission and the potency of their message.

Ley had enthusiastically supported Dutton’s leadership. But now in 2025, it was Ley fronting the press, this time as the new leader following the catastrophic rejection of that Dutton-Ley project, the Liberal Party’s worst ever defeat.

It was the inexperienced O’Brien at her side, newly elected as her bright-eyed second in command.

Policy rethink?

Sharpening the metaphor, it had been O’Brien who had acted as chief design architect and salesperson for one of the Coalition’s most expensive yet unloved policies in the May 2025 election – nuclear power stations, government built and operated.

Back in 2022, Dutton’s task had seemed difficult, but success was far from unimaginable as he faced a new Labor government elected with a record-low primary vote and a tiny two-seat majority.

Ley’s degree of difficulty three years hence is some orders of magnitude greater, not least because of O’Brien’s nuclear energy policy – which will be high on the list of policies to be reviewed, and presumably ditched, if a Liberal recovery is to occur.

Stripping away unhelpful policy that is nonetheless beloved in sections of the party’s conservative and right wing base, is a threshold challenge for Ley – one of a panoply of traps and trying circumstances she confronts.

Ley’s challenges

First, there’s the simple maths given the Coalition now trails the Labor Party by a staggering 50-plus seats.

Few observers think the Coalition can seriously compete for government at the 2028 election. Thus, Ley needs to keep hope alive among Liberal mps and senators, even when the prize of power seems two terms away.

Then there’s her task of leading the Liberal Party back to the political centre-ground or as she puts it, meeting Australian voters “where they are”. This seems like politics 101. Yet she faces many internal sceptics.

Leadership tightrope

At 29 votes to 25, Ley’s victory against a more right-wing candidate, Angus Taylor was narrow and reportedly relied on the votes of senators whose terms end on June 30.

In other words, even her current majority could evaporate.

It is worth remembering that by December 2009, just two years after the Howard government ended, the Liberal Party was already on to its third opposition leader.

Doing it her way

So what effect will she have on the Liberal Party? In her first press conference she gave several clues.

In contradistinction to Dutton, who avoided Parliament House press conferences and searching interviews, Ley gave a crisp three word answer when asked if she would front up to these rituals of public accountability – “yes, I will”.

She promised to make tax reform and economic policy the “core business” of the party she leads.

There was also a marked, if measured, departure from the bombastic declarative culture war politics of Dutton on matters like standing in front of the Aboriginal flag and welcome to country ceremonies at public events. On both, she expressed a more pragmatic acceptance:

If it’s meaningful, if it matters, if it resonates, then it’s in the right place and as environment minister and health minister I listened carefully and participated in Welcome to Country ceremonies. If it’s done in a way that is ticking a box on a Teams meeting then I don’t think it is relevant.

On other matters, she noted pointedly that RG Menzies had founded the party as the “Liberal” party not the conservative party, while acknowledging a breadth of alternative opinions among her parliamentary colleagues:

Our Liberal Party reflects a range of views from all walks of life that are welcome in our party room and that is one of our great strengths.

Ley the history-maker

That Ley is the first ever woman to lead the federal Liberal Party will pose potential challenges.

To pretend that gender stereotyping will play no role in any undermining by internal critics and media would be to ignore history.

Asked about the exodus of female voters from the Coalition at the election, Ley said, “We did let women down, there is no doubt about that,” as she expressed the need for “genuine, serious” engagement:

I want to say right here and now we need more women in our party. We need more women in the organisation, and we need more women in this party room.

However, she pointedly stopped short of backing affirmative action quotas in the Liberal Party even as she called for more women in the parliament.

Gaza about-face

Perhaps the most telling “real-time” demonstration of the uneasy balance she hopes to achieve as leader of a party that has shifted markedly to the right, was when she as was asked about the Israel-Gaza question.

As a former member of a cross party group called Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, Ley had implored parliament in 2008 to “think not of the Palestinian leadership, think of the people”.

She had described Gaza as “besieged, contained, and on the brink of starvation” while warning that a “crushing economic embargo feeds fury and resentment” both in Gaza and the West Bank:

Israel has many friends in this country and in this parliament. The Palestinians, by comparison, have few. Theirs is not a popular cause […] but it is one I support.

Asked about her view now, Ley felt the need to circle back to stress her principle concern over the rising tide of antisemitism in Australia. She now says the “hideous events” of October 7 has changed her thinking on the matter.

Gaza has given Sussan Ley an early lesson on the difficulties leaders face when it comes to straddling highly contentious issues.

Mark Kenny 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. Sussan Ley makes history, but faces unprecedented levels of difficulty – https://theconversation.com/sussan-ley-makes-history-but-faces-unprecedented-levels-of-difficulty-256336

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Burnett, Honorary Associate Professor, ANU College of Law, Australian National University

Australia’s new environment minister, Murray Watt, is reported to be a fixer. That’s good, because there’s a lot to fix.

Being environment minister is a hard gig. It often requires difficult choices between environmental and economic priorities. In cabinet, the minister is often up against a phalanx of ministers with economic portfolios and overriding political imperatives such as jobs and growth. I saw this repeatedly over the 16 years when I held senior leadership roles in environment departments at territory and federal levels.

In Labor’s first term, this tension played out again. Former environment minister Tanya Plibersek came to the role with big ideas. To that end, she tried to make Australia’s national environment laws fit for purpose and introduce a federal environmental protection agency (EPA).

A cumbersome approach to consultation didn’t help, but ultimately it was development concerns led by big mining companies and West Australian Premier Roger Cook that saw the reform can kicked down the road. Perversely, the only legal reform we saw was an amendment to protect not a threatened species, but the salmon farms threatening it.

Now it’s Watt’s turn. He has a reputation for getting things done and may drive a bargain to get some version of the EPA through. But that’s only one piece of the reform jigsaw and he’ll have to return to the mammoth task of reforming Australia’s national environment laws. He will have to push back against efforts by the Greens in the Senate to broaden the agenda to include climate and forests, and weather opposing pressures from industry and environment groups.

Stalled reforms

Watt’s largest challenge will be to revive the stalled Nature Positive Plan. This was the government’s response to the 2020 Samuel Review, which found Australia’s natural environment and iconic places were declining and under increasing threat, while national environmental laws were no longer fit for purpose.

Samuel’s solution was groundbreaking: create new, legally enforceable national environmental standards to deliver better environmental protection. Last term, Labor committed to introducing the standards, reforming laws and introducing an EPA. Unfortunately, Plibersek ran out of time and most of the reforms were put on the backburner.

Plibersek pitched an independent EPA as a tough cop on the beat, but it wasn’t independent enough for many environmentalists.

Industry didn’t like it either. WA miners used their influence to attack the EPA for being unaccountable. Their lobbying worked and the EPA was pushed back. As one mining figure told the Australian Financial Review: “The heat [industry pressure] was no one’s first preference; it was just required because there was no other way to influence the actual policymaking.”

Miners and other big businesses are likely worried the proposed independent EPA would reduce their influence. At present, the environment minister has near-complete discretion over approvals. Much of this discretion — and the political influence associated with it — would disappear with an independent EPA making decisions based on national environmental standards.

More challenges are looming. Here are two:

Gas extraction on the North West Shelf

Watt will soon have to decide on Woodside’s application to expand gas extraction off Australia’s northwest coast. If approved, the North West Shelf Extension Project would be Australia’s largest resource project. Environmentalists hate it, describing it as a climate bomb. The WA government approved it last year.

If Watt follows the pattern of his predecessors, we can expect to see the development approved subject to numerous conditions, pitched as strict environmental safeguards. Despite such safeguards applying to operations in Australia, the real damage done by the project will be global, not local, as the gas will be burned overseas.

Murray-Darling Basin Plan

The delayed ten-year review of the Murray-Darling basin plan is due in 2026. It will reopen old wounds. The basic problem is there’s not enough water for both the environment and irrigators.

When the draft plan was first released in 2010, angry irrigators burned a copy of it. The government backpedalled furiously, eventually approving a plan with a lot less water returned to the environment. Experts say the plan hasn’t actually helped the environment.

Watt is a former agriculture minister and will have insight into both sides. But he’ll need the wisdom of Solomon to come up with a successful approach.

It’s hard to fix systems

Making environmental headway is downright hard. The underlying problem is that politics is about trade-offs, but nature doesn’t negotiate. Nature is a system of systems, and if we take too much from it those systems begin to break down – usually irreversibly.

In previous decades, governments often dealt with environmental problems by creating national parks and World Heritage areas. If only things were still that simple.

Peter Burnett is affiliated with the Biodiversity Council, an independent expert group founded to provide evidence-based solutions to Australia’s biodiversity crisis.

– ref. It’s a hard job being environment minister. Here’s an insider’s view of the key challenges facing Murray Watt – https://theconversation.com/its-a-hard-job-being-environment-minister-heres-an-insiders-view-of-the-key-challenges-facing-murray-watt-256465

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

Defying expectations, the United States and China have announced an important agreement to de-escalate bilateral trade tensions after talks in Geneva, Switzerland.

The good, the bad and the ugly

The good news is their recent tariff increases will be slashed. The US has cut tariffs on Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, while China has reduced levies on US imports from 125% to 10%. This greatly eases major bilateral trade tensions, and explains why financial markets rallied.

The bad news is twofold. First, the remaining tariffs are still high by modern standards. The US average trade-weighted tariff rate was 2.2% on January 1 2025, while it is now estimated to be up to 17.8%. This makes it the highest tariff wall since the 1930s.

Overall, it is very likely a new baseline has been set. Bilateral tariff-free trade belongs to a bygone era.

Second, these tariff reductions will be in place for 90 days, while negotiations continue. Talks will likely include a long list of difficult-to-resolve issues. China’s currency management policy and industrial subsidies system dominated by state-owned enterprises will be on the table. So will the many non-tariff barriers Beijing can turn on and off like a tap.

China is offering to purchase unspecified quantities of US goods – in a repeat of a US-China “Phase 1 deal” from Trump’s first presidency that was not implemented. On his first day in office in January, amid a blizzard of executive orders, Trump ordered a review of that deal’s implementation. The review found China didn’t follow through on the agriculture, finance and intellectual property protection commitments it had made.

Unless the US has now decided to capitulate to Beijing’s retaliatory actions, it is difficult to see the US being duped again.

Failure to agree on these points would reveal the ugly truth that both countries continue to impose bilateral export controls on goods deemed sensitive, such as semiconductors (from the US to China) and processed critical minerals (from China to the US).

Moreover, in its so-called “reciprocal” negotiations with other countries, the US is pressing trading partners to cut certain sensitive China-sourced goods from their exports destined for US markets. China is deeply unhappy about these US demands and has threatened to retaliate against trading partners that adopt them.

A temporary truce

Overall, the announcement is best viewed as a truce that does not shift the underlying structural reality that the US and China are locked into a long-term cycle of escalating strategic competition.

Read more:
Why Trump fails to understand China’s trade war tactics, and what his negotiators should be reading

That cycle will have its ups (the latest announcement) and downs (the tariff wars that preceded it). For now, both sides have agreed to announce victory and focus on other matters.

For the US, this means ensuring there will be consumer goods on the shelves in time for Halloween and Christmas, albeit at inflated prices. For China, it means restoring some export market access to take pressure off its increasingly ailing economy.

As neither side can vanquish the other, the likely long-term result is a frozen conflict. This will be punctuated by attempts to achieve “escalation dominance”, as that will determine who emerges with better terms. Observers’ opinions on where the balance currently lies are divided.

Along the way, and to use a quote widely attributed to Winston Churchill, to “jaw-jaw is better than to war-war”. Fasten your seat belts, there is more turbulence to come.

Where does this leave the rest of us?

Significantly, the US has not (so far) changed its basic goals for all its bilateral trade deals.

Its overarching aim is to cut the goods trade deficit by reducing goods imports and eliminating non-tariff barriers it says are “unfairly” prohibiting US exports. The US also wants to remove barriers to digital trade and investments by tech giants and “derisk” certain imports that it deems sensitive for national security reasons.

The agreement between the US and UK last week clearly reflects these goals in operation. While the UK received some concessions, the remaining tariffs are higher, at 10% overall, than on April 2 and subject to US-imposed import quotas. Furthermore, the UK must open its market for certain goods while removing China-originating content from steel and pharmaceutical products destined for the US.

For Washington’s Pacific defence treaty allies, including Australia, nothing has changed. Potentially difficult negotiations with the Trump administration lie ahead, particularly if the US decides to use our security dependencies as leverage to wring concessions in trade. Japan has already disavowed linking security and trade, and their progress should be closely watched.

The US has previously paused high tariffs on manufacturing nations in South-East Asia, particularly those used by other nations as export platforms to avoid China tariffs. Vietnam, Cambodia and others will face sustained uncertainty and increasingly difficult balancing acts. The economic stakes are higher for them.

They, like the Japanese, are long-practised in the subtle arts of balancing the two giants. Still, juggling ties with both Washington and Beijing will become the act of an increasingly high-wire trapeze artist.

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 US and China have reached a temporary truce in the trade wars, but more turbulence lies ahead – https://theconversation.com/the-us-and-china-have-reached-a-temporary-truce-in-the-trade-wars-but-more-turbulence-lies-ahead-256448

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ulrik Egede, Professor of Physics, Monash University

Medieval alchemists dreamed of transmuting lead into gold. Today, we know that lead and gold are different elements, and no amount of chemistry can turn one into the other.

But our modern knowledge tells us the basic difference between an atom of lead and an atom of gold: the lead atom contains exactly three more protons. So can we create a gold atom by simply pulling three protons out of a lead atom?

As it turns out, we can. But it’s not easy.

While smashing lead atoms into each other at extremely high speeds in an effort to mimic the state of the universe just after the Big Bang, physicists working on the ALICE experiment at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland incidentally produced small amounts of gold. Extremely small amounts, in fact: a total of some 29 trillionths of a gram.

How to steal a proton

Protons are found in the nucleus of an atom. How can they be pulled out?

Well, protons have an electric charge, which means an electric field can pull or push them around. Placing an atomic nucleus in an electric field could do it.

However, nuclei are held together by a very strong force with a very short range, imaginatively known as the strong nuclear force. This means an extremely powerful electric field is required to pull out protons – about a million times stronger than the electric fields that create lightning bolts in the atmosphere.

The way the scientists created this field was to fire beams of lead nuclei at each other at incredibly high speeds – almost the speed of light.

The magic of a near-miss

When the lead nuclei have a head-on collision, the strong nuclear force comes into play and they end up getting completely destroyed. But more commonly the nuclei have a near miss, and only affect each other via the electromagnetic force.

The strength of an electric field drops off very quickly as you move away from an object with an electric charge (such as a proton). But at very short distances, even a tiny charge can create a very strong field.

So when one lead nucleus just grazes past another, the electric field between them is huge. The rapidly changing field between the nuclei makes them vibrate and occasionally spit out some protons. If one of them spits out exactly three protons, the lead nucleus has turned into gold.

Counting protons

So if you have turned a lead atom into gold, how do you know? In the ALICE experiment, they use special detectors called zero-degree calorimeters to count the protons stripped out of the lead nuclei.

They can’t observe the gold nuclei themselves, so they only know about them indirectly.

The ALICE scientists calculate that, while they are colliding beams of lead nuclei, they produce about 89,000 gold nuclei per second. They also observed the production of other elements: thallium, which is what you get when you take one proton from lead, as well as mercury (two protons).

An alchemical nuisance

Once a lead nucleus has transformed by losing protons, it is no longer on the perfect orbit that keeps it circulating inside the vacuum beam pipe of the Large Hadron Collider. In a matter of microseconds it will collide with the walls.

This effect makes the beam less intense over time. So for scientists, the production of gold at the collider is in fact more of a nuisance than a blessing.

However, understanding this accidental alchemy is essential for making sense of experiments – and for designing the even bigger experiments of the future.

Ulrik Egede 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. Physicists at the Large Hadron Collider turned lead into gold – by accident – https://theconversation.com/physicists-at-the-large-hadron-collider-turned-lead-into-gold-by-accident-256478

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justine Bell-James, Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland

Sussan Ley has been elected Liberal leader after defeating rival Angus Taylor in a party room vote on Tuesday. Now the leadership question is settled, the hard work of rebuilding the party can begin.

In the wake of its election loss, the Coalition has foreshadowed a sweeping policy review. Where the Coalition lands on the contentious nuclear energy policy will be keenly watched.

The majority Labor government is likely to easily push legislation through the lower house. However, the Senate numbers mean Labor needs backing from either the Greens or the Coalition to pass bills into law.

So where does Ley stand on nuclear energy and other pressure points across the environment and energy portfolios? Ley’s stance on four key issues, including during her time as environment minister in the Morrison government, provides important insights.

1. Nuclear power and gas

The resounding Coalition election defeat suggest the prospects for nuclear power in Australia are now poor. But the Coalition’s nuclear policy may yet resurface, given the Nationals still support it.

During the election campaign, Ley backed the Liberals’ call for nuclear power in Australia, arguing nuclear can provide a zero-emissions option that’s needed in the shift to renewables.

In a 2023 speech, Ley suggested nuclear power had a big future in Australia, saying:

The fact is the latest technology reactors in nuclear-powered submarines in operation today don’t need to be refuelled for 30 years. And the money being invested into research and development is only going to make these new nuclear technologies even better.

Ley has also argued Australia needs to keep gas in the system for longer, rather than “trying to do everything with renewables”.

2. The energy transition

A second-term Labor government will further progress its existing energy policies, including measures to reach its target of 82% renewable energy in the the National Electricity Market by 2030.

Ley has accepted the need for a renewable energy transition, but says it should be led by nuclear power and gas.

She has suggested enormous wind turbines and large-scale solar farms are dominating the landscape in rural areas. She also claims renewable energy projects generate insurance risks because battery storage increases fire risks.

Ley has consistently voted against increasing investment in renewable energy, and is likely to seek to ensure policy addresses rising energy prices and reliability.

3. Nature law reform

The Albanese government intends to complete reform of Australia’s federal environment laws, known collectively as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (or EPBC Act). Labor’s proposed reforms stalled in the Senate last term.

The independent review that preceded the reform, led by Graeme Samuel, was initiated by the Morrison government under Ley, who served as environment minister from 2019 to 2022.

An interim report from the Samuel review was released in July 2020. Ley seized on recommendations that suited her government’s agenda – notably, streamlining the environmental approvals process to speed up decisions on proposed developments. She vowed to start working on them even before the review was finalised, and before public comment on the draft was received.

Ley put bills to parliament in August 2020 and February 2021 seeking to amend the laws. The first sought to hand powers for environmental approvals to the states. The proposal was criticised for lacking environmental safeguards.

This prompted Ley to introduce a second bill which sought to ensure state agreements were monitored and audited. It also provided for new “national environmental standards” to guide approval decisions.

But both bills lapsed before the 2022 election after failing to secure Senate support.

National environmental standards were a key recommendation from the Samuel review, and also a centrepiece of Labor’s proposed reforms. However, Labor’s proposed standards were more robust and focused on outcomes.

The bills Labor introduced to parliament in 2024 also sought establish Australia’s first national environment protection agency to carry out compliance and enforcement. This body would have had more power than Ley’s proposed commissioner.

So while Labor’s proposed reform package was bolder, both Ley and her then Labor counterpart Tanya Plibersek’s proposals were comprised of similar ingredients. Given Ley has shown support for some elements of Labor’s reform package before, namely devolving powers to states and implementing standards, there may be some grounds for negotiation.

4. Coal and climate change

As environment minister, Ley welcomed the Coalition’s approval of the huge Adani coalmine in central Queensland. She also gave the green light to other coal projects. Plibersek took a similar approach to coal projects in her time as minister.

In 2021, the Federal Court found Ley, as environment minister, owed a duty of care to future generations to avoid causing climate harm through her decisions. Ley successfully appealed the ruling.

Separately, Ley has also claimed climate change is not part of the environment portfolio.

When the Coalition reflects on the resounding defeat at the election, Ley’s hard stance on climate may soften.

Finding common ground

Ley brings a deeper understanding of nature law reform to the position of Liberal leader than her predecessor Peter Dutton. This raises the prospects for overhauling the EPBC Act this term.

However, Ley’s priority is likely to be streamlining the environmental approval process rather than increasing protections afforded to threatened species and ecosystems.

On the topic of gas playing a significant ongoing role in Australia’s energy mix, Ley will find many like minds in the Labor government.

When it comes to the energy transition, much rests on the party room decision on whether to persist with a nuclear power policy. Nevertheless, with or without nuclear, Ley’s previous statements suggest she will continue to argue against wind and solar generation energy on cost and reliability grounds.

Justine Bell-James receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Queensland Government, and the National Environmental Science Program. She is a Director of the National Environmental Law Association and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

Samantha Hepburn 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. From nuclear to nature laws, here’s where new Liberal leader Sussan Ley stands on 4 energy and environment flashpoints – https://theconversation.com/from-nuclear-to-nature-laws-heres-where-new-liberal-leader-sussan-ley-stands-on-4-energy-and-environment-flashpoints-256106

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mahsa Khanpoor Siahdarka, PhD Candidate in Built Environment, RMIT University

The architecture of northern Iran exhibits an extroverted quality. Buildings are designed to let in the sounds of rain, birds and rustling trees, as well as scents of nature.

Architecture in this region is characterised by open structures, deep eaves, elevated wooden houses and interconnected communal spaces that resemble traditional Japanese and Far Eastern designs.

The built environment in the south is introverted. Central Iran, particularly cities like Yazd and Isfahan, is characterised by a harsh arid climate, where architecture has evolved to minimise exposure to extreme heat and sunlight.

Buildings are oriented inward, centred around enclosed courtyards and largely closed off from the street. This prioritises privacy and thermal regulation.

Throughout the country, the intricate relationship between climate and culture has shaped architectural forms in ways that make it difficult to delineate where one influence ends and the other begins.

The houses don’t only reflect their environment – they also reflect the role of women in these communities.

The extroverted north

The north of Iran, between the the Alborz Mountain range and the Caspian Sea, enjoys a humid subtropical micro-climate with dense forests and abundant greenery.

The mountains have historically served as both a climatic and cultural barrier, moderating external influences, including Arab conquests. This allowed the region to maintain unique social and architectural characteristics for centuries.

In the north, nature has always been seen more as a friend than a threat.

The architecture opens itself up with wide verandas, open corridors and spaces that blur the line between inside and out.

With humid climates and communal living traditions, there are strong architectural similarities between northern Iran and East Asia. Both regions incorporate elevated wooden structures, deep eaves and open layouts to enhance airflow and prevent moisture-related decay.

The integration of nature into built spaces, seen in Iranian veranda-like ayvans and Japanese engawa, reflects a philosophical alignment that prioritises harmony between architecture and the environment.

These similarities suggest a convergent evolution. Distinct cultures independently arrived at comparable architectural solutions in response to similar climates and societies.

The emphasis on community-based living and social interaction also reflects the role of women in agricultural, economic and social activities in northern Iran.

The openness of homes, markets and farms contributed to women being active participants in public life.

In more conservative or arid regions, architectural boundaries enforce stricter gender divisions. But here, the architecture facilitated organic interactions across gender and age groups.

Northern Iran’s humid climate, abundant rainfall and fertile land allowed for greater agricultural and pastoral productivity. With easier access to food, water and materials, the domestic burden was reduced. This enabled women to participate more actively in public and economic life, including market trade, rice farming and animal husbandry.

The introverted south

The harsh desert conditions in southern and central Iran were more like an opposing force or army. The climate was something to defend against, unlike the friendlier climate of the north.

In response, the architecture became sheltered and self-contained. Architecture in southern and central Iran relies almost entirely on earth-based materials such as mud brick (khesht), adobe and fired brick.

Building materials are drawn directly from the surrounding soil. The architecture is deeply rooted – both literally and culturally – in its environment.

Domed roofs are not only structurally efficient but also thermally responsive. At any given time, one side of the dome is shaded by its own curve, creating a cooler surface that encourages air movement and passive cooling.

Houses are centred around courtyards that create microclimates within enclosed spaces (Bagh-e-Khaneh). High walls, minimal external windows and windcatchers (badgirs) regulate airflow while limiting solar radiation.

The inward-facing design of these buildings historically reinforced social norms that confined women to private domestic spheres, limiting their visibility in urban life.

The harsh desert climate, combined with cultural norms around modest clothing, often confined women to the interior spaces of the home. Architectural features which were essential for passive cooling and privacy shaped a lifestyle centred around the domestic sphere.

The demanding nature of desert life meant basic tasks like securing water, preserving food and producing textiles required significant domestic labour.

In many desert cities like Yazd or Kashan, domestic architecture was designed to protect not just from heat, but also from public view. This meant women’s daily lives were largely contained within high-walled courtyards, internal corridors, and roofscapes. Here, women could move freely but invisibly.

Architecture built gender segregation into the physical fabric of the city, shaping women’s roles, routines and social interactions for generations.

Climate and culture

The way climate and culture shape Iranian architecture is complex.

In both northern and central Iran, buildings adapt to the environment. The humid north features open, outward-facing structures. The arid central regions rely on enclosed courtyards to manage extreme heat.

However, climate alone does not fully explain these differences.

Architect Amos Rapoport argues that, while climate sets limits, culture, social structures and history play a bigger role in shaping architecture.

In Iran, architecture does not just reflect the climate. It also shapes social spaces and gender roles.

Buildings are more than just shelters. They influence how people live, interact, and define their communities. Understanding this relationship can help us see architecture as an evolving part of society, shaped by both nature and human choices.

Mahsa Khanpoor Siahdarka 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 ‘extroverted’ north and ‘introverted’ south: how climate and culture influence Iranian architecture – https://theconversation.com/the-extroverted-north-and-introverted-south-how-climate-and-culture-influence-iranian-architecture-251357

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

The federal Liberal party has elected its first female leader, with Sussan Ley narrowly defeating Angus Taylor, 29-25.

Ley, 63, who was deputy leader to Peter Dutton during the last term, had the support of the moderates in the party.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who defected last week from the Nationals to join a ticket with Taylor, pulled out of the deputy race after Taylor’s defeat. Taylor was supported by the conservatives in the party.

While Price has strong appeal in Liberal branches, the bold move backfired.

The new deputy is Queenslander Ted O’Brien, 51, key architect of the opposition’s controversial nuclear policy, which many considered a serious drag on the Coalition’s election vote. O’Brien defeated Phil Thompson, a fellow Queenslander, 38-16.

The closeness of the leadership vote is a recipe for instability dogging Ley’s leadership. Two of her supporters, Linda Reynolds and Hollie hughes, are leaving the Senate on June 30.

In the Coalition government, Ley variously held the portfolios of health, sport, aged care and environment.

An immediate challenge for Ley will be reshuffling the frontbench, especially what roles Taylor and Price will have.

Ley has held the southern NSW regional seat of Farrer since 2001.

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. Liberals elect first woman leader, with Ley defeating Taylor 29-25 – https://theconversation.com/liberals-elect-first-woman-leader-with-ley-defeating-taylor-29-25-256459

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ilan Noy, Chair in the Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The number of climate change-related extreme weather events) is on the rise, making it harder for many people to buy affordable home insurance.

The industry has already signalled it is pulling out of some places in Aotearoa New Zealand, leaving the government and homeowners to question what happens next. This is not something that should be ignored, or met with ad-hoc, unplanned responses.

Since insurance is required for residential mortgages, the retreat of insurance companies will have significant consequences for property prices and local economies.

With the retreat of insurance companies a future certainty in some communities, the government must decide how to respond. In our new research), we developed the “trilemma” framework, outlining the policy trade-offs governments face in adapting to climate change.

Deciding between trade-offs

We found effective adaptation policy needs to achieve three goals:

• incentivise risk reduction
• be fiscally affordable
• increase equity and wellbeing and reduce hardship.

But any policy can satisfy only two of these three goals. The government has to make trade-offs.

When it comes to responding to the retreat of private insurance, the options include:

• doing nothing and letting “the market” adjust (with sharp price declines for affected properties)
• replacing private insurance with a publicly-funded alternative
• offering government-funded defences (for example, stopbanks) or buyouts to properties that can no longer be insured.

Each one of these options involves giving up on at least one of the three policy goals.

A world without private insurance

Let us consider “Macondo”, a hypothetical community in a flood-prone area where insurance has “retreated”.

Do nothing

The “do nothing” option is when the government does not take a policy position on flood or storm insurance. This option has little to no cost for the government and, as long as people don’t expect buyouts, would incentivise risk reduction. But it leaves homeowners completely exposed to the increasing risk.

In “Macondo”, some homeowners will have reduced the risk for their own properties (raising their houses, for example). Others won’t be able to do so and remain completely at the mercy of the elements.

Those whose houses have been deemed uninsurable would have their mortgages automatically put into default. Some may have to sell their home at a much lower price and may remain indebted even after the sale.

Local councils might offer to invest in defences for the community by building stopbanks, but that is less likely for poorer and smaller local councils.

When an extreme weather event does happen, causing significant losses, the uninsured who own their homes may be unable to repair or rebuild and will be left destitute.

Public replacement insurance

In 1945, New Zealand’s government introduced public insurance for some natural hazards with the Earthquake and War Damage Commission. This later became the Earthquake Commission (EQC), and more recently, the Natural Hazards Commission (NHC). The commission was established as private insurers withdrew earthquake cover in the 1940s and landslip cover in the 1980s.

The government could choose to extend NHC policies to fully cover weather events such as floods and storms (NHC now provides only partial cover for damage to land from these hazards). Or it could establish a different public insurance scheme to cover these hazards.

When designed well, this option makes fiscal sense. For example, after 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquakes EQC cover for residential properties didn’t carry extra costs for the government.

Public replacement insurance could also make recovery fairer for everyone. But providing a blanket safety net through a public insurance scheme would discourage risk reduction. With the greater sense of financial safety may come a higher appetite to build on more risky sites, and spend less to defend existing homes. This would result in even more exposure and more damage.

Publicly-funded defences and buyouts

Successive governments across a range of disasters have opted for the ad-hoc approach. This inevitably turns out to be a combination of publicly-funded defences with generously provisioned buyouts.

This combination of defences and buyouts may be the most politically appealing in the short term, but it is also the least affordable and the least efficient option. This option leads to reduced risk (especially if buyouts are used) and can lessen hardship and even inequities.

This policy was used in Westport after its damaging floods in 2021 and 2022. Similarly, the Auckland Anniversary Flood and Cyclone Gabrielle triggered large investments in buyouts and in new flood defences that will end up costing billions.

Unfortunately for the affected residents in both cases, the process was not done preemptively following a carefully designed process. Instead, the response to each event was designed on the fly, was lengthy, and full of frustrating uncertainties, missteps, and missed opportunities.

Proactive response needed

Currently, every successive government in New Zealand chooses to do nothing and then switches to a defence and buyout choice when disaster strikes. This is the worst of all the trilemma policy options.

A more proactive policy, even if well-conceived, cannot achieve all three of the goals we listed. But at least the choice between these trade-offs would be clear and transparent. It would also avoid all the inefficiencies created by the reactive policy choices our elected governments make now.

We are grateful for the contribution of science writer Jo-Anne Hazel to this analysis.

Ilan Noy has received research funding from the New Zealand Natural Hazards Commission (formerly the EQC).

Belinda Storey has received research funding from the New Zealand Natural Hazards Commission (formerly the EQC).

– ref. As insurance gets harder to buy, NZ has 3 choices for disaster recovery – and we keep choosing the worst one – https://theconversation.com/as-insurance-gets-harder-to-buy-nz-has-3-choices-for-disaster-recovery-and-we-keep-choosing-the-worst-one-255713

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olivier Oren, Associate lecturer, hospitality management, Griffith University

For cafe and restaurant workers, getting a free drink or meal at the end of a long shift might feel like a well-deserved reward. But could such perks – common across the industry – be masking deeper issues?

Informal workplace perks have long been a big part of Australian hospitality’s culture. It’s common for restaurants and cafes to provide a free on-shift meal or heavily discounted menu items for their employees. In some bars and pubs, an end-of-shift alcoholic drink is a well-appreciated tradition.

Less well understood is the question of how these widespread perks are interacting with workers’ legal rights.

To investigate, we surveyed 383 Australian hospitality workers. Participants worked across cafes, bars, and hotels (both in large franchises and small businesses) across Australia, with roles such as chefs, bartenders, guest experience attendants, waiting staff, managers and baristas.

We asked them about their employment contracts, their access to legal entitlements like breaks and overtime, and any extra perks they received. We also invited them to share, in their own words, what would make work fairer. The results paint a troubling picture.

Precarious work

More than one in three survey respondents (34%) said they had no written terms of employment, despite this being a legal requirement in Australia.

As one participant explained:

I have only received a written contract and legally required breaks from one employer in my entire career.

Nearly half reported missing out on their rest breaks, an entitlement designed to protect health and safety.

About 12% were being paid less than the minimum wage, and close to half said they did not receive overtime or penalty payments when required. Non-compliance with legal entitlements was widespread across the sector, although more pronounced in smaller venues.

‘Perks’ of the job

At the same time, informal perks remain deeply woven into hospitality work cultures.

Nearly one in two respondents (44.1%) said they received some kind of benefit in addition to their basic pay. The most common types were free or discounted meals (57%) and access to alcoholic drinks (28%).

Some workers described other benefits such as laundry services, transportation, or even Christmas gifts. These freebies were rarely formalised and often dependent on the goodwill of managers.

Such perks can blur the line between appreciation and obligation, which are offered as moral licenses to sidestep legal entitlements. We argue this widespread culture of perks is a distraction from unfair work practices, especially for younger workers who make up most of the hospitality and service workforce.

For inexperienced staff, these “gifts” may indeed feel like part of the job, making it harder to identify when legal rights are being overlooked.

What workers really want

When asked what would make their jobs fairer, respondents overwhelmingly called for written contracts, enforceable pay rates and protection from abuse – not more freebies.

As one chef put it:

Free steak dinners don’t pay my rent or stop my boss docking pay for smoke breaks.

Our data also show that workers with formal agreements were significantly more likely to receive their legal entitlements, including proper rest breaks and overtime pay, compared to those without.

Why does this matter? Because protecting rights is not just about fairness. It is about safeguarding the sustainability of an industry we all rely on.

Research shows when businesses rely on unpaid labour or ignore basic entitlements, they undercut fair competition, contribute to worker burnout and drive talent out of the sector.

This affects service quality, workforce stability and ultimately the experiences of everyone who dines out, travels or enjoys Australia’s tourism offerings.

How we could fix it

Fixing the problem starts with clear, written employment contracts, especially in smaller venues where informal practices are most common. For workers and their families, this means refusing to accept a cold beer in place of job security.

For business owners, many of whom are not acting in bad faith, it means getting support to implement fair practices through accessible tools, templates and clear guidance, such as the Fair Work Ombudsman’s Pay and Conditions Tool and employment contract templates tailored to the industry.

For policymakers, it means strengthening oversight while improving education, ensuring that compliance is not just a box to tick, but a culture shift that makes fair, secure work the industry standard.

Let perks remain perks – and not distractions from rights.

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. Free food and beer are common perks for hospitality workers – but are they masking unfairness? – https://theconversation.com/free-food-and-beer-are-common-perks-for-hospitality-workers-but-are-they-masking-unfairness-256330