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

It takes a bit for Labor not to preference the Greens but on Friday it was announced that in the Melbourne seat of Macnamara, where Jewish MP Josh Burns is embattled, the ALP will run an open ticket.

Macnamara, which includes the suburbs of Balaclava, Albert Park and South Melbourne, has the second largest Jewish constituency – 10% of voters – of any electorate. Only Wentworth in Sydney has more.

Burns has held the seat since 2019. At the last election he had a primary vote of 31.77%, with the Greens second on 29.65%, just ahead of the Liberals on 29%. After preferences were distributed, this turned into a substantial two-party win for him over the Liberals.

The political dynamics have changed since then. There is anger in the Jewish community about the Albanese government’s attitude to Israel and criticism that it hasn’t done enough to combat antisemitism. The expectation is that Burns’ primary vote will go down and the Liberal vote will go up.

ABC election analyst Antony Green says the seat “will be a battle for the order of exclusion” – it will all depend on who comes in third on primary votes.

If the Liberals or the Greens come third, Burns will be elected. If Burns is third on primaries, he is eliminated and the Greens are favorite, even with an open ticket. But the leakage of preferences from an open ticket would give an opportunity to the Liberals, Green says.

Green points out that given how close the three parties were on primaries last election, a very small shift in votes could change the order of the top three.

Burns has benefitted from the Friday draw for order on the ballot paper. He is in the top spot, giving him the so-called “donkey vote”, with the Greens third, ahead of the Liberals.

Burns warned an election forum this week, sponsored by the Australian Jewish News and various Jewish groups, “If we do not win enough number one votes, then the Greens will obviously come into second place. That is the biggest concern that I’ve got.”

He dismissed the prospects of the Liberals being able to win the seat. “The only people who can win this seat from me are the Greens.”

He told the audience, “If the Greens form into the top two, then think about the people who make up this electorate – the young progressive people from Elwood, from St Kilda, from Windsor, from South Melbourne, from South Bank.

“We are a proud and large Jewish community, but we’re only 10% of the electorate of Macnamara.

“The preferences, regardless of what the Labor Party says, are not going to the Liberal Party from those young people.”

Burns faced some heckling from a small number of people in the audience – they were told to be quiet by other audience members.

The forum was attended by Liberal candidate Benson Saulo, who recounted his Indigenous heritage, and strongly condemned the scenes at the pro-Palestinian rally outside the Sydney Opera House in the wake of the October 7 2023 Hamas attacks in Israel.

The Greens candidate was not invited onto the panel but was in the audience.

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

– ref. Election Diary: Labor breaks practice of preferencing Greens to protect Jewish MP Josh Burns – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-labor-breaks-practice-of-preferencing-greens-to-protect-jewish-mp-josh-burns-254202

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia

Endometriosis affects around 10% of women of reproductive age. It’s a chronic inflammatory condition that occurs when tissue similar to the lining of the uterus (the endometrium) grows outside the uterus.

Endometriosis can cause chronic pain, bloating, bowel and bladder dysfunction, pain during sex and infertility. These symptoms can lead to reduced quality of life and mental health challenges.

Although endometriosis pain can be treated with medication or surgery, these options are not suitable for everyone, and a significant number of women experience recurrent symptoms even after surgery.

Many women with endometriosis look to complementary therapies to manage their symptoms, which can include dietary changes and taking supplements.

A recent study sought to understand different dietary strategies women with endometriosis use and how these affect their pain levels. The researchers found cutting down on things like dairy, gluten, caffeine and alcohol could improve endometriosis pain.

Let’s take a closer look.

What the researchers did and found

The study, which was led by researchers from the University of Edinburgh, involved an online survey. It asked women with endometriosis questions about any dietary changes they made and any supplements they used, and whether they found these useful for managing pain.

A total of 2,388 women with a confirmed diagnosis of endometriosis completed the survey. Some 84% of respondents had made at least one dietary change, 67% of whom reported these changes improved their pain. Meanwhile, 59% had used supplements, 43% of whom considered these changes improved their pain.

The following are some of the most popular dietary changes women had tried, and how they thought these changes affected their pain:

• drinking less alcohol (improved pain in 53% of women)

• eating less gluten (45%)

• consuming less dairy (45%)

• consuming less caffeine (43%)

• eating less processed sugar, which can be found in foods and drinks such as lollies, cakes, biscuits and soft drinks (41%)

• eating less processed foods, which include deli meats, savoury snacks such as chips and sausage rolls, and chocolate (38%)

• following a low FODMAP diet, which involves avoiding short-chain carbohydrates (certain types of sugars) to reduce gas, bloating, pain and discomfort (32%)

• adopting a Mediterranean diet, which is a diet high in plant foods (including fruit and green leafy vegetables), extra virgin olive oil, breads, fish, fermented dairy, and cereals and low in red meat, and processed meats and foods (29%).

For supplements:

• turmeric or curcumin, the active ingredient in turmeric (improved pain in 48% of women)

• magnesium (32%)

• peppermint (26%)

• ginger (22%).

Some limitations

There are some weaknesses in this study to consider when interpreting the results. First, it’s an observational study, which means we cannot say these dietary changes and supplements cause decreased pain, just that there appears to be an link.

To be more confident about the effects of dietary changes or supplements, we would need to do randomised studies with control groups.

Also, the participants self-reported dietary changes they had made in the past and past pain levels. This relies on memory, which can be unreliable.

All that said, this sort of research does provide us with clues about what may work, especially when we combine it with our knowledge of the actions these foods and supplements have in the body.

So how would they work?

Given the inflammatory component in endometriosis, the findings of this study are not entirely surprising. Many of the dietary changes and supplements this study looked at have anti-inflammtory properties.

For example, reducing alcohol consumption, reducing processed foods, adopting a Mediterranean diet and using turmeric or curcumin may reduce inflammation.

Some of the findings of this study seem to align with other evidence, while others don’t.

For example, a recent review showed the Mediterranean diet can lead to reductions in pain, however the relevant studies did not have control groups. This same review showed a low FODMAP diet reduced pain and improved quality of life in people with endometriosis.

Meanwhile, a 2024 paper concluded there’s a lack of evidence to support a gluten-free diet for endometriosis symptoms. The authors argued avoiding gluten to manage the condition should be discouraged.

Peppermint has been reported to reduce period pain and nausea. But I couldn’t find any specific evidence for endometriosis.

So what should you do?

If you have endometriosis, this study and existing evidence suggests following a Mediterranean diet or a low FODMAP diet may reduce pain. This current study also indicates reducing your intake of alcohol, sugar and processed foods may help.

Importantly, these changes won’t do any harm to your overall health. In fact, the Australian dietary guidelines recommend drinking alcohol and consuming processed foods in moderation, given links to a range of chronic diseases. So these changes may have other benefits too.

However, some of the dietary changes reported in this study may be problematic.

For example, eliminating dairy will significantly reduce your calcium intake which is important for building healthy bones and reducing the risk of osteoporosis in later life. However, there are other ways of ensuring an adequate intake of the nutrients found in dairy products.

Reducing caffeine won’t lead to any health or nutritional concerns, but may affect quality of life for people who enjoy drinking coffee or tea.

Women with endometriosis can try supplements such as turmeric or curcumin and ginger, but it’s best to try them one at a time, so you can identify which one works for you.

If you’re looking to change your diet to try to manage endometriosis symptoms, it may be best to see a registered or accredited practising dietitian to ensure you’re following a nutritionally balanced diet.

Evangeline Mantzioris is affiliated with Alliance for Research in Nutrition, Exercise and Activity (ARENA) at the University of South Australia. Evangeline Mantzioris has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and has been appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council Dietary Guideline Expert Committee.

– ref. Could changing your diet improve endometriosis pain? A recent study suggests it’s possible – https://theconversation.com/could-changing-your-diet-improve-endometriosis-pain-a-recent-study-suggests-its-possible-253945

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sophia Staite, Lecturer in Humanities, University of Tasmania

Social media is ablaze with reports of kids going wild at screenings of A Minecraft Movie.

Some cinemas are cracking down. There are reports of cinemas calling in police to deal with rowdy theatregoers and making special announcements before the film, warning of consequences for “anti-social behaviour” including “clapping and shouting”.

But these kids are engaging in a kind of communal experience. Rather than being antisocial behaviour – couldn’t we label it as prosocial?

The global fandom of Minecraft

Minecraft was first released in 2011 and has sold over 350 million copies, making it the best-selling video game of all time.

Minecraft is an unstructured game that provides mineable resources and leaves players to create whatever they want with them. Creations can be as basic as stacking blocks of wood to make a wall, or as complex as a working computer.

It has become the nexus of a vast online community of people with an interest in the game.

Players connect to one-another digitally and share certain social norms and knowledge, including a memeified vernacular. Minecraft-playing Youtubers have also become popular, and are the source of many memes.

The community is dominated by children and young adults and the incomprehensibility of their vernacular for other generations is possibly part of its appeal.

Within child and youth fan communities the usual hierarchies of communication are reversed. Instead of kids having to learn to speak according to adults’ rules, in this community the kids maintain a knowledge system that excludes a lot of adults.

Enter A Minecraft Movie

A Minecraft Movie opened last weekend to enormous box office success, bringing in US$313.2 million globally. The film follows four humans who stumble through a portal into the Overworld (Minecraft). Their only way home involves teaming up with fellow human Steve (Jack Black) to save the Overworld from the creativity-hating Piglins.

Almost immediately, social media conversations sprang up about the behaviour of audiences. One bemused parent described the atmosphere of the cinema as “like [when] The Beatles came to America”.

Many of the videos shared of audiences during screenings show joyful scenes of communal pleasure, similar to other responses to highly anticipated films such as Avengers: Endgame.

But while the response to Avengers: Endgame was celebrated, the behaviour of children and teens at A Minecraft Movie has been framed by news outlets in negative terms.

Journalist Keith Stuart suggests the different responses are a result of parents feeling excluded by A Minecraft Movie’s frequent references to memes.

Negative news reports link audience behaviour to existing moral panics about social media challenges and are particularly focused on popcorn being thrown.

The use of the same two or three videos of popcorn throwing to illustrate multiple news articles highlights how relatively few reports of popcorn throwing there currently are.

Instead, most of the debate on social media has been about the etiquette of noisiness during screenings, including cheering and clapping.

Finding community

A Minecraft Movie speaks the memeified vernacular of its online community.

The film incorporates references to longstanding memes, popular Minecraft YouTubers (and some cameos) and, of course, to the game itself.

The film is speaking directly to Minecraft fans, and audiences are responding by displaying their mastery of this vernacular and strengthening their sense of belonging.

By clapping and cheering when they recognise a meme, or saying lines of dialogue in sync with the actors, kids are identifying themselves as members of a community.

When a whole cinema full of young people does this simultaneously, they are identifying themselves to and with one another.

This is prosocial, strategic communication – not the antisocial pandemonium and chaos some reports would have us believe. Instead, fans are reporting the cheering and clapping happens at specific moments: they are enjoying both the film, and reacting to it.

During the brief (but meaningful for knowledgeable audience members) tribute to beloved YouTuber Technoblade, who died of cancer in 2022, there have been reports of whole theatres falling silent as a mark of respect.

An online community of kids and teens has suddenly become hyper visible to adults because it has intersected with the traditional media space of the cinema.

Online games such as Minecraft are a crucial part of kids’ social lives and play.

Perhaps adults can seize this moment as an opportunity to learn more about something that clearly matters deeply to a lot of kids.

Sophia Staite 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. Kids cheering ‘chicken jockey!’ at A Minecraft Movie isn’t antisocial – it creates a chance for us to connect – https://theconversation.com/kids-cheering-chicken-jockey-at-a-minecraft-movie-isnt-antisocial-it-creates-a-chance-for-us-to-connect-254287

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hunter Fujak, Senior Lecturer in Sport Management, Deakin University

Few issues in Australian sport generate as much media noise or emotional fan reactions as player movement, especially in our major winter codes the National Rugby League (NRL) and Australian Football League (AFL).

Contract negotiations, trade whispers and club defections dominate headlines, talkback radio, social media and fan forums — often eclipsing the on-field action itself.

In the past month, the sport news cycle has been dominated by player movement controversies involving the NRL’s Dylan Brown and Daly Cherry-Evans and the AFL’s Oscar Allen.

The scrutiny these athletes face is one feature of a workplace defined by expectations rarely found in other industries.

In a world where professional athletes are simultaneously financial investments and human beings, can fans, athletes and leagues strike a truly fair balance when it comes to player movement?

A unique legal status

Professional sport is exempted from several commercial laws that otherwise apply to typical industries. This is due to its peculiar economics.

Crucially, leagues such as the AFL and NRL are permitted to operate as cartels, whereby clubs act collectively in ways that petrol stations or supermarkets legally cannot.

One outcome of sport cartels has been the implementation of various restrictive practices on the recruitment, transfer and remuneration of professional athletes.

Drafts, trade windows and salary caps are all anti-competitive mechanisms with two general aims: fostering “competitive balance” between teams and suppressing player wages to maintain leaguewide financial viability.

These mechanisms remain in place mostly due to co-operation between leagues and their player associations (the AFLPA and RLPA), as their underlying legal standing is in fact ambiguous.

Whether the AFL’s draft would survive a court challenge is debatable.

Australia’s varied player movement rules

National Rugby League

The NRL operates a salary cap model with free agency. This affords athletes strong freedom of movement, including the potential to switch clubs mid-season. Some consider this to be a negative, given constant media conjecture over player movements. However, it keeps the NRL perpetually in the headlines.

In the absence of a draft, individual NRL clubs are responsible for their own junior development and talent identification. The Penrith Panthers’ historic premiership four-peat was underpinned by successfully leveraging their immense junior catchment to develop NRL superstars.

A benefit of this model is it maximises the opportunity for local juniors to play for their local team. This pathway from local junior to hometown hero authentically contributes to embedding NRL clubs within local communities.

Australian Football League

The AFL operates both a draft and salary cap, and players have considerably less autonomy.

Player movement occurs almost exclusively in the post-season. Despite this, clubs sweet talk rival players in the shadows outside this window, hoping to make signings official in the off-season.

This practice came into view this week by the controversy surrounding West Coast captain Allen’s meeting with a rival coach.

The AFL draft takes place after the trade period and is the primary way for athletes to enter the competition.

The draft order is inverted, linked to clubs’ on-field performance (the team that finishes last receives the first pick).

Clubs are largely removed from the process of developing junior athletes, which is centralised through the AFL’s national talent pathway.

The athlete perspective

While professional athletes are often portrayed as privileged, there are few other professions that impose such severe restraints on the rights of workers.

The Allen controversy is a reminder the AFL operates a system where the clubs are masters and players well-remunerated servants.

For the crime of meeting another coach in considering his future, albeit clumsily, Allen was described as “selfish”, “a sell-out,”, “utterly disgusting” and compelled into a press conference apology.

Criticisms of athletes as selfish scarcely acknowledge that, unlike doctors or lawyers, they have uniquely short timespans to exploit their sporting careers.

In many sports, as is the case in rugby league, athletes are disproportionately from lower socio-economic settings, where the money is life changing.

The fan perspective

Professional sport thrives because fans are emotionally attached to their teams. Fans rarely switch the team they support, so they often expect the same from players.

Fan attitudes on player loyalty are therefore largely driven by emotion rather than rationality. Few fans employed in contract work would reject meeting a potential future employer because of a sole dedication to their current employer, as was the case for Allen.

Even fewer fans would reject the ten-year, $13 million contract accepted by Dylan Brown to depart the Parramatta Eels, yet many booed him for doing so, as Melbourne fans did in 2012 after the departure of former No.1 AFL draft pick Tom Scully to Greater Western Sydney.

In 2007, Parramatta Eels fans even threw coins at departed player Jamie Lyon. Thankfully for Brown, Australia has since become a mainly cashless society.

Is there a fair balance?

Player movement in Australian footy codes is a system of regulations that attempts to balance the competing demands of various stakeholders.

In recent times, the NRL has explored the introduction of trade windows, and drafts, seemingly in response criticism over player movement and competitive imbalance.

Such proposals have received strong
pushback from the RLPA.

Responding to the Allen fallout, AFLPA boss Paul Marsh conceded the AFL ecosystem remains immature to player movement:

There shouldn’t be outrage about this stuff but there is. As much as I think we should be mature enough to deal with this, it is the industry we are in.

The challenge for these codes therefore isn’t just regulating player movement but confronting the double standard placed upon athletes that expects loyalty in a system designed to control.

Hunter Fujak has served as an external advisor to several Australian player associations on a pro-bono basis, including the Rugby League Players Association.

Joshua McLeod 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. Traded like assets, expected to be loyal: the unique double standard of being an Australian footy player – https://theconversation.com/traded-like-assets-expected-to-be-loyal-the-unique-double-standard-of-being-an-australian-footy-player-253618

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isabelle Ng, PhD candidate, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University

Swim along the edge of a coral reef and you’ll often see schools of sleek, torpedo-shaped fishes gliding through the currents, feeding on tiny plankton from the water column.

For decades, scientists assumed these plankton-feeding fishes – or planktivores – shared specialised traits: forked tails and streamlined body forms for speed, large eyes for spotting small prey, and small extendable jaws for suction-feeding.

But our new study, published in Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, shows there is more nuance to this story. We found plankton-feeding fishes don’t follow a single uniform design. To our surprise, they display the widest range of body forms of any feeding group among reef fishes.

Evolving similar traits

A core idea in evolutionary theory since Charles Darwin is that species facing the same problem often evolve similar traits. This is a process known as convergent evolution. It explains the pattern we see among dolphins, sharks, and tunas – distantly related lineages unified in their streamlined body shape used for fast swimming.

We set out to test whether the same phenomenon was true for plankton-feeding reef fishes. Planktivores are an ideal group to study in this case.

For one, plankton-feeding is the most common feeding group among reef fishes – giving us many distantly related species to compare. For another, they all share the same challenge of having to spot and suck out small prey from the water column.

So we asked: do plankton-feeding fishes have a distinct body shape? And do patterns of convergence hold true across a diversity of plankton-feeding reef fishes?

The broadest range of body shapes

To answer these questions, we collected shape data from nearly 300 species of reef fishes from 12 globally distributed families – including surgeonfishes, wrasses, snappers, and damselfishes. We measured 15 feeding, swimming, and vision-related traits such as jaw length, tail shape, and pupil size.

By combining these measurements with evolutionary trees, we tested whether plankton-feeding fishes were distinct in shape to their counterparts.

But what we found surprised us. Plankton-feeding fishes aren’t converging on a specific body shape. It is quite the opposite – they display the broadest range of body shapes among reef fishes. Some species – such as the schooling fusiliers – truly fit the typical “plankton-feeding” model. They exhibit traits such as a forked tail, torpedo-shaped body, large eyes, and small, extendable jaws.

But most others break the mould entirely. For example, tiny gobies – just three centimetres long – cling onto whip corals and adopt a sit-and-wait approach for plankton to pass by.

Other deep-bodied damselfishes depart a small distance from their coral hosts to feed on plankton. But how can we explain this diversity of planktivore body shapes?

An innate ability

The answer lies in the vast diversity of their behaviours and environments.

Their body shape isn’t dictated by plankton-feeding alone – it’s shaped by where, when and how they feed. Some planktivores feed during the day, others at night. Some inhabit deep reefs, others are mere metres below the surface of the water. Some are restricted to rubble slopes while others prefer the reef edge. Some even target specific sizes and types of the plankton itself.

This diversity in activity patterns, habitat use, and prey preferences places different demands on their body forms – explaining why we see such a range of shapes and sizes among plankton-feeding fishes.

Even species we don’t typically think of as planktivores will feed on plankton when the chance arises. Just last year, while on Lizard Island, we watched yellowmask surgeonfishes – normally feeding on algae and detritus – swimming high above the reef, targeting plankton.

Perhaps this flexibility shouldn’t surprise us. After all, all reef fishes begin their lives as plankton feeders, floating in the open ocean before settling on the reef. The ability for fishes to feed on plankton is likely innate.

Challenging a longstanding assumption

Our findings challenge the longstanding assumption that planktivorous reef fishes are distinct in form and are converging towards an optimum body type.

Instead, plankton-feeding is a highly accessible and flexible feeding strategy on coral reefs – available to fishes of many shapes, sizes, evolutionary histories, and even different feeding groups.

This has important implications for how we think about reef fish ecology and evolution. It shows that broad feeding categories like “planktivore” can mask the diversity of other behavioural and ecological traits.

Rather than converging on a single solution, reef fishes highlight something different: that there is more than one way to be a planktivore.

Isabelle Ng receives funding from the James Cook University Postgraduate Research Scholarship.

Alexandre Siqueira receives funding from Edith Cowan University as a Vice-Chancellor’s Research Fellow.

– ref. We study ‘planktivores’ – and found an amazing diversity of shapes among plankton-feeding fishes – https://theconversation.com/we-study-planktivores-and-found-an-amazing-diversity-of-shapes-among-plankton-feeding-fishes-254296

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Kemp, Professor, School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Languages are windows into the worlds of the people who speak them – reflecting what they value and experience daily.

So perhaps it’s no surprise different languages highlight different areas of vocabulary. Scholars have noted that Mongolian has many horse-related words, that Maori has many words for ferns, and Japanese has many words related to taste.

Some links are unsurprising, such as German having many words related to beer, or Fijian having many words for fish. The linguist Paul Zinsli wrote an entire book on Swiss-German words related to mountains.

In our recently-published study we took a broad approach towards understanding the links between different languages and concepts.

Using computational methods, we identified areas of vocabulary that are characteristic of specific languages, to provide insight into linguistic and cultural variation.

Our work adds to a growing understanding of language, culture, and the way they both relate.

Our method

We tested 163 links between languages and concepts, drawn from the literature.

We compiled a digital dataset of 1574 bilingual dictionaries that translate between English and 616 different languages. Since many of these dictionaries were still under copyright, we only had access to counts of how often a particular word appeared in each dictionary.

One example of a concept we looked at was “horse”, for which the top-scoring languages included French, German, Kazakh and Mongolian. This means dictionaries in these languages had a relatively high number of

1. words for horses. For instance, Mongolian аргамаг means “a good racing or riding horse”
2. words related to horses. For instance, Mongolian чөдөрлөх means “to hobble a horse”.

However, it is also possible the counts were influenced by “horse” appearing in example sentences for unrelated terms.

Not a hoax after all?

Our findings support most links previously highlighted by researchers, including that Hindi has many words related to love and Japanese has many words related to obligation and duty.

We were especially interested in testing the idea that Inuit languages have many words for snow. This notorious claim has long been distorted and exaggerated. It has even been dismissed as the “great Eskimo vocabulary hoax”, with some experts saying it simply isn’t true.

But our results suggest the Inuit snow vocabulary is indeed exceptional. Out of 616 languages, the language with the top score for “snow” was Eastern Canadian Inuktitut. The other two Inuit languages in our data set (Western Canadian Inuktitut and North Alaskan Inupiatun) also achieved high scores for “snow”.

The Eastern Canadian Inuktitut dictionary in our dataset includes terms such as kikalukpok, which means “noisy walking on hard snow”, and apingaut, which means “first snow fall”.

The top 20 languages for “snow” included several other languages of Alaska, such as Ahtena, Dena’ina and Central Alaskan Yupik, as well as Japanese and Scots.

Scots includes terms such as doon-lay, meaning “a heavy fall of snow”, feughter meaning “a sudden, slight fall of snow”, and fuddum, meaning “snow drifting at intervals”.

You can explore our findings using the tool below, which allows you to identify the top languages for any given concept, and the top concepts for a particular language.

Language and environment

Although the languages with top scores for “snow” are all spoken in snowy regions, the top-ranked languages for “rain” were not always from the rainiest parts of the world.

For instance, South Africa has a medium level of rainfall, but languages from this region, such as Nyanja, East Taa and Shona, have many rain-related words. This is probably because, unlike snow, rain is important for human survival – which means people still talk about it in its absence.

For speakers of East Taa, rain is both relatively rare and desirable. This is reflected in terms such as lábe ||núu-bâ, an “honorific form of address to thunder to bring rain” and |qába, which refers to the “ritual sprinkling of water or urine to bring rain”.

Our tool can also be used to explore various concepts related to perception (“smell”), emotion (“love”) and cultural beliefs (“ghost”).

The top-scoring languages for “smell” include a cluster of Oceanic languages such as Marshallese, which has terms such as jatbo meaning “smell of damp clothing”, meļļā meaning “smell of blood”, and aelel meaning “smell of fish, lingering on hands, body, or utensils”.

Prior to our research, the smell terms of the Pacific Islands had received little attention.

Some caveats

Although our analysis reveals many interesting links between languages and concepts, the results aren’t always reliable – and should be checked against original dictionaries where possible.

For example, the top concepts for Plautdietsch (Mennonite Low German) include von (“of”), den (“the”) and und (“and”) – all of which are unrevealing. We excluded similar words from other languages using Wiktionary, but our method did not filter out these common words for Plautdietsch.

Also, the word counts reflect both dictionary definitions and other elements, such as example sentences. While our analysis excluded words that are especially likely to appear in example sentences (such as “woman” and “father”), such words could have still influenced our results to some extent.

Most importantly, our results run the risk of perpetuating potentially harmful stereotypes if taken at face value. So we urge caution and respect while using the tool. The concepts it lists for any given language provide, at best, a crude reflection of the cultures associated with that language.

Charles Kemp was supported by a Future Fellowship (FT190100200) awarded by the Australian Research Council.

Temuulen Khishigsuren was supported by a Future Fellowship (FT190100200) awarded by the Australian Research Council.

Ekaterina Vylomova and Terry Regier 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. Do Inuit languages really have many words for snow? The most interesting finds from our study of 616 languages – https://theconversation.com/do-inuit-languages-really-have-many-words-for-snow-the-most-interesting-finds-from-our-study-of-616-languages-252522

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

A national YouGov poll, conducted April 4–10 from a sample of 1,505, gave Labor a 52.5–47.5 lead, a 1.5-point gain for Labor since the March 28 to April 3 YouGov poll. This is Labor’s best result in YouGov for 18 months, and slightly better for Labor than the 2022 election result (52.1–47.9 to Labor).

Primary votes were 33.5% Coalition (down 1.5), 32% Labor (up two), 13% Greens (steady), 8.5% One Nation (up 1.5), 1% Trumpet of Patriots (down one), 9% independents (down one) and 3% others (steady). By 2022 election preference flows, Labor would lead by over 53.5–46.5.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval improved four points to -2, with 47% dissatisfied and 45% satisfied. In the last two weeks, Albanese has gained seven points on net approval. Peter Dutton’s net approval was steady at -15. Albanese led Dutton as better PM by 48–37 (45–38 previously).

The only other national poll since last Sunday’s article was a Morgan poll that also had Labor extending its lead. The poll graph below shows Labor has kept improving in the polls since early March. With three weeks to go until the May 3 election, Labor is the likely winner.

The YouGov poll was taken during the period after Donald Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2, leading to a week of chaos on the stock markets. While US markets had their biggest one-day gain since 2008 on Wednesday after Trump suspended some of his tariffs for 90 days, they slumped again Thursday owing to the very high tariffs on China.

I believe the more Trump is in the news for doing things that potentially damage the US and world economies, the more Labor will be assisted in the polls by not being the more pro-Trump major party.

Candidate nominations for the federal election will be declared today after they closed Thursday. If candidates now embarrass their party, they can’t be replaced but only disendorsed; their names will still appear on the ballot paper.

Morgan poll: Labor increases solid lead

A national Morgan poll, conducted March 31 to April 4 from a sample of 1,481, gave Labor a 53.5–46.5 lead by headline respondent preferences, a 0.5-point gain for Labor since the March 24–30 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 33% Coalition (down two), 32.5% Labor (up 0.5), 13.5% Greens (up 0.5), 6% One Nation (up 0.5), 1.5% Trumpet of Patriots (new for this pollster), 9% independents (down 1.5) and 4.5% others. By 2022 election flows, Labor led by 54.5–45.5, a one-point gain for Labor.

By 52–33, voters said the country was going in the wrong direction (51.5–32 previously). Morgan’s consumer confidence index increased 1.5 points to 86.8; this poll was taken before the stock market falls.

Politicians’ net favourable ratings and seat polls

I previously covered a national Redbridge poll for the News Corp tabloids that gave Labor a 52–48 lead. This poll asked about net favourable ratings for various politicians. Jacqui Lambie was at net -1 favourable, Albanese at -4, Dutton at -15, Greens leader Adam Bandt at -17, Pauline Hanson at -23 and Clive Palmer at -49.

The Poll Bludger reported on Thursday a seat poll of McMahon by right-wing pollster Compass had Labor incumbent Chris Bowen on just 19% of the primary vote (48.0% in 2022). Bowen trailed the Liberals on 20% and right-wing independent Matt Camenzuli on 41%. The Poll Bludger was very sceptical of this poll.

A uComms seat poll of Teal-held Wentworth for Climate 200 had teal Allegra Spender leading the Liberals by 58–42 (55.9–44.1 at the 2022 election adjusted for a redistribution). Neither of the polls above gave fieldwork dates, with both having a sample over 1,000. Seat polls are unreliable.

Canadian and South Korean elections

The Canadian election is on April 28, and it’s increasingly likely the governing centre-left Liberals will win a seat majority after they were 24 points behind the Conservatives in early January. There hasn’t been much movement from the Trump tariff chaos in the last week, but Trump’s US ratings are down.

On April 4, South Korea’s Constitutional Court upheld the right-wing president’s impeachment by parliament in December after he declared martial law. A new presidential election was required and will be held on June 3. The centre-left Democrats are very likely to win, and they already have a big parliamentary majority. I covered these elections for The Poll Bludger on Thursday.

Victorian state Redbridge poll: Coalition narrowly ahead

A Victorian state Redbridge poll, reported in The Herald Sun, was conducted March 24 to April 2 from a sample of 2,013. It gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, unchanged since November. Primary votes were 41% Coalition (down two), 29% Labor (down one), 13% Greens (down one) and 17% for all Others (up four). This poll is not as bad for Labor as other recent Victorian polls.

Liberal leader Brad Battin was at +2 net favourable while Labor Premier Jacinta Allan was at a dismal -35. By 52–27, voters did not think the Labor government had the right priorities. By 46–29, voters supported the Suburban Rail Loop. Over 50% thought the government’s changes to machete and bail laws too lenient.

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

– ref. Labor gains 5-point lead in a YouGov poll, taken during Trump tariff chaos – https://theconversation.com/labor-gains-5-point-lead-in-a-yougov-poll-taken-during-trump-tariff-chaos-253738

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brett Mitchell, Professor of Nursing and Health Services Research, University of Newcastle

Hospital-acquired infections are infections patients didn’t have when they were admitted to hospital. The most common include wound infections after surgery, urinary tract infections and pneumonia.

These can have a big impact for patients, often increasing their time in hospital, requiring additional treatment and causing discomfort. Unfortunately, some people who sustain an infection in hospital don’t recover. In Australia, there are an estimated 7,500 deaths associated with hospital-acquired infections annually.

It’s important to prevent such infections not only for the benefit of patients, but also because of their cost to the health system and to reduce antibiotic use.

Even though patients don’t usually come into contact with each other directly in hospitals, there are many ways bacteria can be transmitted between patients.

Our own and other research suggests medical equipment (such as blood pressure machines, dressing trolleys and drip stands) could be a common source of infection.

In recent research, we’ve shown that by regularly disinfecting shared medical equipment, we can help reduce infections picked up in hospitals – and save the health system money.

We introduced a new cleaning package

We conducted an experiment in a New South Wales hospital where we introduced a package of extra cleaning measures onto several wards.

The package consisted of designated cleaners specifically trained to clean and disinfect sensitive medical equipment. Normally, the cleaning of shared equipment is the responsibility of clinical staff.

These cleaners spent three hours a day disinfecting shared medical equipment on the ward. We also provided regular training and feedback to the cleaners.

The start date for the cleaning package on each ward was randomly selected. This is known as a “stepped wedge” trial (more on this later).

We monitored the thoroughness of cleaning before and after introducing the cleaning package by applying a florescent gel marker to shared equipment. The gel cannot be seen without a special light, but is easily removed if the surface is cleaned well.

We also monitored infections in patients on the wards before and after introducing the cleaning package. Over the course of the experiment, more than 5,000 patients passed through the wards we were studying.

Finally, we looked at the economic costs and benefits: how much the cleaning package costs, versus the health-care costs that may be saved thanks to any avoided infections.

What we found

Before the intervention, we found the thoroughness of cleaning shared equipment, assessed by the removal of the gel marker, was low. Once we introduced the cleaning package, cleaning thoroughness improved from 24% to 66%.

After the cleaning package was introduced, hospital-acquired infections dropped by about one-third, from 14.9% to 9.8% of patients. We saw a reduction in a range of different types of infections including bloodstream infections, urinary tract infections and surgical wound infections.

To put this another way, for every 1,000 patients admitted to wards with the cleaning package, we estimated there were 30 fewer infections compared to wards before the cleaning package was introduced. This not only benefits patients, but also hospitals and the community, by freeing up resources that can be used to treat other patients.

Treating infections in hospital is expensive. We estimate the cost of treating infections before the cleaning intervention was around A$2.1 million for a group of 1,000 patients, arising from 130 infections. These costs come from extra time in hospital and treatment costs associated with infections.

We estimated the 30 fewer infections per 1,000 patients reduced costs to $1.5 million, even when factoring in the cost of cleaners and cleaning products. Put differently, our intervention could save a hospital $642,000 for every 1,000 patients.

Some limitations of our research

Our experiment was limited to several wards at one Australian hospital. It’s possible the cleaning was particularly poor at this hospital, and the same intervention at other hospitals may not result in the same benefit.

For various reasons, even with trained designated cleaners we didn’t find every piece of equipment was cleaned all the time. This reflects common real-world issues in a busy ward. For example, some equipment was being used and not available for cleaning and cleaners were sometimes absent due to illness.

We don’t know whether even more cleaning might have resulted in an even greater reduction in infections, but there is often a law of diminishing returns when assessing infection control interventions.

A limitation of looking at infection rates before and after the introduction of an intervention is that other things may change at the same time, such as staffing levels, so not all the difference in infections may be due to the intervention.

But the stepped wedge model, where the cleaning package was introduced at different times on different wards, increases our confidence the reduction in infections was the result of the cleaning package.

Improving hospital cleaning is a no brainer

Shared medical equipment harbours pathogens, which can survive for long periods in health-care settings.

Like our study, other research has similarly suggested a clean hospital is a safe hospital. Importantly, cleaning needs to include thorough disinfection to reduce the risk of infection (not just removing visible dirt and stains).

Our work is also consistent with other research that shows improving cleaning in hospitals is cost-effective.

Cleaning services and products have often been subject to cuts when hospitals have needed to save money.

But prioritising effective cleaning of medical equipment appears to be a no brainer for health system administrators. We need to invest in better cleaning practices for both the health of patients and the financial bottom line.

Brett Mitchell receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund. Brett is Editor-in-Chief of Infection, Disease and Health for which he is paid an honorarium by the Australasian College for Infection Prevention and Control. Brett has appointments at Avondale University, Monash University and the Hunter Medical Research Institute. GAMA Healthcare Australia provided cleaning wipes used in a study referenced in this article.

Allen Cheng receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Government. He is a member of the Infection Prevention and Control Advisory Committee advising the Australian Commission for Safety and Quality in Healthcare.

– ref. Better cleaning of hospital equipment could cut patient infections by one-third – and save money – https://theconversation.com/better-cleaning-of-hospital-equipment-could-cut-patient-infections-by-one-third-and-save-money-251917

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christina Hanna, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Planning, University of Waikato

Once floodwaters subside, talk of planned retreat inevitably rises.

Within Aotearoa New Zealand, several communities from north to south – including Kumeū, Kawatiri Westport and parts of Ōtepoti Dunedin – are considering future relocations while others are completing property buyouts and categorisations.

Planned retreats may reduce exposure to harm, but the social and cultural burdens of dislocation from land and home are complex. Planning, funding and physically relocating or removing homes, taonga or assets – and even entire towns – is challenging.

Internationally, research has focused on why, when and how planned retreats occur, as well as who pays. But we explore what happens to the places we retreat from.

Our latest research examines 161 international case studies of planned retreat. We analysed what happens beyond retreat, revealing how land use has changed following withdrawal of human activities.

We found a wide range of land use following retreat. In some cases, comprehensive planning for future uses of land was part of the retreat process. But in others we found a failure to consider these changing places.

Planned retreats have happened in response to various climate and hazard risks, including sea-level rise and coastal erosion, tsunami, cyclones, earthquakes, floods and landslides.

The case studies we investigated range from gradual transitions to sudden changes, such as from residential or business activities to conservation or vacant lands. In some cases, “sea change” is evident, where once dry land becomes foreshore and seabed.

Through our research, we identified global “retreat legacies”. These themes demonstrate how communities across the world have sought similar outcomes, highlighting primary land-use patterns following retreat.

Nature legacies

The case studies show significant conversions of private to public land, with new nature and open-space reserves. Sites have been rehabilitated and floodplains and coastal ecosystems restored and reconnected.

Open spaces are used for various purposes, including as nature, community, stormwater or passive recreational reserves. Some of these new zones may restrict structures or certain activities, depending on the risk.

For example, due to debris flow hazard in Matatā in the Bay of Plenty, only transitory recreation or specific low-risk activities are allowed in the post-retreat environment because of the high risk to human life.

Planning and investment in new open-space zones range from basic rehabilitation (grassed sites) to established parks and reserves, such as the Grand Forks riverfront greenway which borders rivers in the twin US cities of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota. This area now hosts various recreational courses and connected trails as well as major flood protection measures.

Nature-based adaptations are a key function in this retreat legacy. For example, Project Twin Streams, a large-scale environmental restoration project in Waitakere, West Auckland, has transformed former residential sites into drainage reserves to make room for rivers in the floodplain.

Importantly, not all retreats require significant land-use change. Continued farming, heritage preservation and cultural activities show that planned retreats are not always full and final withdrawals from a place.

Instead, they represent an adapted relationship. While sensitive activities are relocated, other practices may remain, such as residents’ continued access to the old village of Vunidogoloa in Fiji for fishing and farming.

Social and economic legacies

Urban development in a small number of retreated sites has involved comprehensive spatial reorganisation, with planning for new urban esplanades, improved infrastructure and cultural amenities.

One example is the comprehensive infrastructure masterplan for the Caño Martín Peña district in San Juan, Puerto Rico, which involves communities living along a tidal channel. The plan applied a community-first approach to retreat. It integrated infrastructure, housing, open space, flood mitigation and ecological planning.

Alternatively, the decision to remove stopbanks and return the landscape to a “waterscape” can become a tourism feature, such as in the marshlands of the Biesbosch National Park in the Netherlands. A museum is dedicated to the transformed environment.

Where there was no post-retreat planning or site rehabilitation, ghost towns such as Missouri’s Pattonsburg leave eerie reminders of the costs of living in danger zones.

Vacant and abandoned sites also raise environmental justice and ecological concerns about which retreat spaces are invested in and rehabilitated to avoid urban blight and environmental risks. Retreat sites may include landfills or contaminated land, requiring major site rehabilitation.

The 12 case studies from Aotearoa New Zealand demonstrate a range of new land uses. These include new open-space reserves, the restoration of floodplains and coastal environments, risk mitigation and re-development, and protection measures such as stopbanks.

Moving beyond retreat

Our research highlights how planned retreats can create a transition in landscapes, with potential for a new sense of place, meaning and strategic adaptation.

We found planned retreats have impacts beyond the retreat site, which reinforces the value of spatial planning.

The definition and practices of “planned or managed retreat” must include early planning to account of the values and uses the land once had. Any reconfigurations of land and seascapes must imagine a future well beyond people’s retreat.

Christina Hanna received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa and from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Endeavour Fund.

Iain White received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa, from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Endeavour Fund and from the Natural Hazards Commission Toka Tū Ake. He is New Zealand’s national contact point for climate, energy and mobility for the European Union’s Horizon Europe research program.

Raven Cretney received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ngā Ākina o Te Ao Tūroa.

Pip Wallace 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. As more communities have to consider relocation, we explore what happens to the land after people leave – https://theconversation.com/as-more-communities-have-to-consider-relocation-we-explore-what-happens-to-the-land-after-people-leave-253653

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Arian Wallach, Future Fellow in Ecology, Queensland University of Technology

In 1938, zoologist Ellis Le Geyt Troughton mourned that Australia’s “gentle and specialized creatures” were “unable to cope with changed conditions and introduced enemies”.

The role of these “enemies” – namely, foxes and feral cats – in driving dozens of Australia’s animals towards extinction has solidified into a scientific consensus. This is a simple and plausible story: wily new predators arrive, decimating unwary native mammals.

In response, conservationists and governments have declared war on foxes and cats with large-scale trapping, shooting and poisoning campaigns.

But did foxes and cats definitely cause the extinction of animals such as the desert bandicoot, lesser bilby and the central hare-wallaby? Our new research shows the evidence base is nowhere near as strong as you might assume.

What did we do?

We catalogued mammal species experts believe have either declined or gone extinct due to predation by foxes (57 species) and cats (80 species) and searched for primary sources linking foxes and cats to their decline. To assess the evidence, we then asked three simple questions.

1. Did extinctions follow the arrival of new predators?

A common claim is that extinctions followed fox and cat arrival and spread.

But is it definitely true? To find out, we compiled the last recorded sightings of extinct mammals and compared them to maps estimating the arrival of foxes and cats in the area. We included local extinctions (extinct in an area) and full extinctions, where the species is no more.

We found extinction records for 164 local populations of 52 species. Nearly a third (31%) of these records did not confirm the timeline that extinctions followed predator arrival. We found that 44% of the extinctions blamed on foxes and 20% on cats could have happened before predator arrival.

Records can be inaccurate. But our findings mean we can’t authoritatively state that foxes and cats were at the scene of these crimes. For instance, banded hare-wallabies now live only on two islands in Western Australia. They were last recorded on the mainland 4–30 years before foxes are known to have arrived.

Then there are examples of coexistence. The eastern barred bandicoot lived alongside cats on the mainland for more than 150 years before becoming extinct on the mainland, and the two species continue to live together in Tasmania.

2. Is there evidence linking foxes and cats to extinctions?

Our study found experts attribute predation pressure from foxes and cats as a reason why 57% of Australia’s threatened mammals are at risk of extinction.

For this claim to be based on evidence, we would expect to find ecological studies finding these links in most cases.

We found 331 studies and categorised each according to whether they contained predator and prey population data and if they found a link between introduced predators and a decline in the prey species.

For 76% of threatened species attributed to foxes and 80% for cats, we found no studies supporting this with population data.

Experts aren’t claiming foxes and cats are the main threat in all these cases. But when we analysed the data only for the species experts consider at high risk from foxes and cats, we found similar results.

For example, foxes and cats are ranked a “high” threat to mountain pygmy possums. We found anecdotes that foxes and cats sometimes eat these possums, but no studies showing they cause population decline.

Similarly, foxes are widely linked to the decline of black-footed rock-wallabies. But this claim came from poison-baiting studies which did not report data showing what happened to the fox population. This is important, because killing foxes does not necessarily reduce fox populations.

In 50% of studies reporting population data, there was no negative association with these predators. This further weakens the claim that foxes and cats directly drive extinctions.

For example, cats are considered a “high” threat to long-nosed potoroos. But population studies on these potoroos don’t support this. In fact, these small, seemingly vulnerable animals are able to live alongside feral cats.

By contrast, we did find one species – the brush-tailed rabbit rat – which had compelling evidence across all studies linking cats to its decline.

3. Do more introduced predators mean fewer threatened mammals?

If introduced predators cause extinctions, we would expect to find that higher predator numbers is associated with lower prey numbers (and vice versa). While correlations such as these don’t prove causation, they can give an indication.

We conducted a meta-analysis and found a negative correlation with foxes. The more foxes, the fewer threatened mammals.

This is the strongest evidence we found for introduced predators putting pressure on these species. But there are limitations – these findings would be typical for native predators and prey as well.

We found no evidence for a correlation with cats.

More lines of evidence

These aren’t the only lines of evidence. Making the strongest case for fox and cat pressure are studies finding extinct species often fall within a critical weight range – 35 grams to 5.5 kilos – which are good-sized prey for foxes and cats.

While this finding has been debated, it remains strong evidence.

But these studies don’t explain why Australian animals would be uniquely vulnerable. For millennia, Australia’s mammals have lived alongside predators such as dingoes, Tasmanian devils, quolls and wedge-tailed eagles.

Conservationists have long believed Australia’s endemic mammals are naive or poorly adapted to survive alongside ambush hunters such as foxes and cats. But there’s no current evidence for this.

Our research has shown Australian rodents respond to foxes in the same way as do North American and Middle Eastern rodents, who evolved alongside foxes.

One line of argument goes further to suggest that foxes, cats and dingoes have “rewired” Australian ecosystems following the loss of the thylacine, Tasmanian devil (once common on the mainland) and the long-extinct marsupial lion.

What should we conclude?

We didn’t set out to prove or disprove the idea that foxes and cats drive extinctions. Instead, our study lays out the available primary evidence of historic records and studies to allow readers to draw their own conclusions.

Sweeping claims have been made about Australia’s introduced predators. But when we analyse the evidence base, we find it ambiguous, weak and – in most cases – lacking.

Foxes and cats have been largely convicted by expert opinion which, while useful, can be prone to bias and groupthink.

So what did cause Australia’s mammal extinctions? The honest answer is we don’t know. It could be foxes and cats – but it could also be something else.

Arian Wallach receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Erick Lundgren receives funding from the Centre for Open Science & Synthesis in Ecology and Evolution at the University of Alberta

– ref. Extinctions of Australian mammals have long been blamed on foxes and cats – but where’s the evidence? – https://theconversation.com/extinctions-of-australian-mammals-have-long-been-blamed-on-foxes-and-cats-but-wheres-the-evidence-253542

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Peetz, Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow at the Centre for Future Work, and Professor Emeritus, Griffith Business School, Griffith University

Can the government actually make a difference to the wages Australians earn?

A lot of attention always falls on the government’s submission to the Fair Work Commission’s annual wage review, which this year called for a real boost to award wages, above the rate of inflation.

The commission’s decision has a big impact on wages received by at least a quarter of employees, many among the lowest paid. While the government’s submission must make some difference to the outcome, it’s hard to quantify how much of a difference that is.

My new research for the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work focuses on another, possibly bigger impact the government can have on wages – certainly one that affects a wider range of workers. This is its effect on the bargaining power of all workers and employers.

We had a long period of poor wages growth, against a backdrop of low power for workers, driven both by markets and policy. More recently, though, the tide has started to turn.

Read more:
Labor wants to give the minimum wage a real boost. The benefits would likely outweigh any downsides

The economy and worker power

In recent decades, trends in the economy and labour market almost all worked to reduce worker power. My research examined 16 economic or related factors that were considered to either influence or indicate power in the labour market.

Almost all have reduced workers’ power over the medium to long term. One had ambiguous effects. Only one had the opposite effect and helped boost worker power for a while.

Among the many factors reinforcing or reflecting less bargaining power for workers were:

• long-term declines in union membership, collective bargaining coverage and industrial action
• the expansion of the “gig economy”
• the growth of casual employment, particularly between the 1980s and 2000s
• a reduction in job switching among employees
• growing use of outsourcing and contracting out, to do work formerly undertaken within large organisations

A decline in the gender pay gap suggested a gradual increase in female workers’ power, relative to equivalent male workers at least.

The only factor that could increase overall worker power was the decline in unemployment from 2010 to 2023 (setting aside the pandemic blip).

Policies limiting workers’ power

With the Coalition in government from 2014 to 2022, a lot of policy acted to reinforce the loss of worker power that had happened due to economic and labour market trends.

Of the seven major federal policy changes considered in this period, five acted to reduce workers’ power (including the establishment of new bodies regulating unions and the abolition of a transport safety regulator).

Only two increased it (including some tighter regulation of franchises).

A change of course

After Labor came to power in 2022, a series of (mostly legislative) changes were introduced. Out of 23 federal policies implemented by the government, 22 increased workers’ power.

These included policies to:

• abolish new bodies regulating unions
• limit the use of fixed-term contracts
• expand workers’ rights to request flexibility
• make it harder for firms to classify workers as contractors
• create protections for “employee-like” workers
• expand the scope for multi-employer bargaining.

Only one reduced worker power – clarifying certain exemptions for small business – and its impact was neither large nor controversial.

What’s been the outcome for wages?

So, what’s happened to Australian wages under these different policy environments?

Some policies, such as protections for “employee-like” workers, could not yet have a measurable impact. The most recent policy, banning non-compete clauses for middle and lower-income workers, was only announced in March.

Still, three major measures of wages growth, that performed poorly from 2014 to 2022, showed some upturn from the end of 2022.

Overall, wages growth mostly averaged a little over 2% per year through most of the period from 2014, falling then recovering in the pandemic.

It’s been 3%, 4%, or more since the end of 2022, against a backdrop of higher inflation.

Wage increases under new enterprise agreements gradually declined from around 3.5% a year in 2014 to about 2.5% in 2022. However, they have grown since then and peaked at 4.8% at the end of last year.

The data suggest wage gains associated with increased worker power are experienced by both union members and non-members – but that union members benefit the most.

Inflation not the cause

There’s an argument that Australia’s recent growth in wages is simply a response to a temporary surge in inflation.

But we can look at how big a share wages make up of Australia’s total national income. From 2014 to 2022, we see the wages share of national income falling, then rising sharply until today. If inflation was the only cause of the upturn, labour’s share would not have grown like this.

This increase occurred while inflation was falling — from over 7% at the end of 2022, to below 3% at the end of 2024. So, wages growth clearly hasn’t caused a rise in inflation.

The verdict: do governments really make a difference?

My research suggests the answer is yes, governments can influence wages. The direction of influence depends very much on who is in government, most importantly in the federal parliament.

One of the biggest ways governments have affected wages over the past decade has been by taking power away from workers — and then by giving some of it back.

Returning some of that power to workers has correlated with the fastest growth in wages for a decade, and a growing share of national income going to wages, despite falling inflation.

As a university employee, David Peetz undertook research over many years with occasional financial support from governments from both sides of politics, employers and unions. He has been and is involved in several Australian Research Council-funded and approved projects, which included contributions from those bodies, and undertaken several private commissioned projects, including one in which he gave expert evidence commissioned by both sides in a State Wage Case.

– ref. Yes, government influences wages – but not just in the way you might think – https://theconversation.com/yes-government-influences-wages-but-not-just-in-the-way-you-might-think-254282

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Egliston, Senior Lecturer in Digital Cultures, Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow, University of Sydney

Last week, Nintendo announced the June 5 release of its long anticipated Switch 2. But the biggest talking point wasn’t the console’s launch titles or features. At US$449 in the United States, and A$699 in Australia, many were struck by the steep cost.

However, this price doesn’t seem quite as high once you compare it to the broader history of hardware pricing. And it may still go up.

History of Nintendo pricing

The original NES (Nintendo Entertainment System) console cost US$179 when it was released in 1985. That’s US$525, or A$590, adjusted for 2025 inflation.

But other consoles have been even pricier. The PlayStation 3 launched in North America in 2006 at around US$499 (US$782 today). When it launched in Australia the next year, it retailed at A$999 (upwards of A$1500 today).

Nintendo’s main competitors are Sony (Xbox) and Microsoft (PlayStation). Both are subsidised by their broader media and technology businesses, which means they can afford to make higher-cost consoles, and even take losses on console sales.

Compared to Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft depend more heavily on licensing third-party content and offering subscription services, such as Xbox Game Pass, to drive recurring revenue.

Nintendo’s business model, by contrast, revolves around selling both its consoles and original “first-party” titles.

Nintendo also takes a different approach to console development, by prioritising lower-spec, lower-cost hardware aimed at a broader and often more casual audience. The company has typically made profits on both its hardware and software (particularly its first-party games).

Our research suggests many players appreciate this strategy. Rather than competing directly with Sony and Microsoft on technical performance, they felt Nintendo focused on delivering fun and accessible experiences through affordable technology.

Still, the current economic conditions make the Switch 2’s price hard to swallow. With the rising cost of living and stagnant wages, even historically “normal” prices can feel out of reach.

The tariff question

Why is Nintendo increasing the price of Switch 2 – especially given the enormous commercial success of the original 2017 Switch at its lower price point of US$299 and A$469?

The Switch 2 release was announced on the same day the Trump administration unveiled plans for sweeping new tariffs, including a proposed minimum 10% tariff on all imports (and higher on Vietnam, China and Cambodia, where Nintendo manufactures its consoles).

Doug Bowser, president at Nintendo of America, has claimed tariffs “weren’t factored into the pricing” of the Switch 2.

But it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which Nintendo simply absorbs those costs. The company has historically maintained positive margins on hardware. It is also famously conservative when it comes to its pricing strategy.

Not just tariffs — and not just Nintendo

The Switch 2’s price tag is a window into broader shifts in the business of games. Games are more popular than ever. And apart from a small dip in 2022, they’re making more money than ever.

But they’re also more expensive to make. Reports claim Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War had a combined development and marketing budget of around US$700 million.

Low interest rates, particularly during the pandemic, meant rising production costs could be offset by cheap money from big publishing, technology, and entertainment conglomerates investing in videogame companies.

Venture capital firms and tech giants alike piled in. The result was huge growth for the industry, as well as some blockbuster mergers.

But the era of near-zero interest rates is no more – and the flow of money that once covered soaring development costs is slowing down.

Gaming companies have responded with mass layoffs, further exacerbated by exuberance (largely from management) for artificial intelligence to increase efficiency. Beyond this, they are turning to more aggressive monetisation strategies.

Games such as Fortnite and Call of Duty don’t just make money from sales. They keep players inside their ecosystems, spending money over time.

Research has shown developers are increasingly designing games for ongoing user monestisation,
whether through micro-transactions, battle passes, extra downloadable content, subscriptions or in-game advertising.

Read more:
‘Literally just child gambling’: what kids say about Roblox, lootboxes and money in online games

What happens next?

Between tariffs, inflation and rising game development costs, the US$450 Switch 2 (and its US$80/A$110 games) may just be the beginning. In the short term, we’re likely to see higher prices for both consoles and games.

The effects of US tariffs on Switch 2 pricing in Australia remain unclear. However, the Australian dollar’s recent roller coaster ride, partly driven by uncertainty over US tariffs, could mean further price hikes to offset increased import costs.

We saw Sony adjust prices for the PS5 mid-generation in response to production costs. There’s no reason to assume the Switch 2 price will remain static.

In the longer term, we’re entering a market where the line between “freemium” and “premium” continues to blur. Premium games now often come with built-in expectations of ongoing monetisation, moving away from one-off sales.

Platform holders such as Nintendo remained notable exceptions, favouring upfront pricing and self-contained experiences. Although they, too, may gradually shift away from this.

Ben Egliston is a recipient of funding from the Australian Research Council (DE240101275, DP250100343). He has previously received funding from Meta and TikTok.

Taylor Hardwick is employed under funding by the Australian Research Council (FF220100076; DE240101275). She is a board member of both Freeplay, a Melbourne-based independent games festival, and the Digital Games Research Association of Australia.

Tianyi Zhangshao 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. Sorry gamers, Nintendo’s hefty Switch 2 price tag signals the new normal – and it might still go up – https://theconversation.com/sorry-gamers-nintendos-hefty-switch-2-price-tag-signals-the-new-normal-and-it-might-still-go-up-254063

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dan Woodman, TR Ashworth Professor in Sociology, The University of Melbourne

Securing the welfare of future generations seems like solid grounds for judging policies and politicians, especially during an election campaign. Political legacies are on the line because the stakes are so high.

There is a real possibility that today’s young people could become the first Australian generation to suffer lower living standards on some key measures than their parents. Unaffordable housing is the main flashpoint. But other challenges weigh heavily, including student debt, insecure work and climate change.

No political leader would want to preside over a society that leaves younger generations worse off than those that preceded them. Yet that possibility should be on voters’ minds as they prepare to pass judgement at the ballot box on May 3.

Young voters wield power

In recent elections, young people have been largely overlooked. Yet, for the first time I can remember, all the major political parties have explicitly recognised that many young people are doing it tough.

Political strategists would be mindful demographics are clearly shifting. This will be the first election where Gen Z and Millennials will outnumber Baby Boomers (and Gen X) at the ballot box.

The good and the bad

But intergenerational equality can be hard to pin down, as people disagree on what counts and how to count it. On many measures of living standards, young Australians are demonstrably better off than their parents.

Many of the nice things in life, such as international travel and electronic gadgets, are much cheaper. The future may be uncertain, but unless we decide to live more sustainably as a society, today’s young people are still on track to consume more over the course of their lifetime than previous generations.

However, the things that really matter, including housing and education, cost more than ever before. And that means crucial life transitions to secure and happy adult lives are taking longer and feel less certain.

Our policy settings might be making this worse. Many experts argue the tax system is stacked against the young because it favours people who have already built up wealth and assets.

Education is becoming more expensive, while converting educational credentials into employment outcomes is harder than it was. And getting together the deposit for a house is onerous, as costs increase faster than people can save.

Policy pitch

In this election, a swag of policy offerings to young voters has already been made.

Labor is promising to cut student HECS debts and make housing more affordable. The Coalition will allow young home buyers to dip into their superannuation to purchase their first property, while the Greens want to cap rent increases.

So, who is likely to win the young vote? In recent decades younger Australian voters have shifted towards the left. Unlike in some similar countries, this has also included young men, although at a slower pace than women.

However, young voters are a diverse lot. United States President Donald Trump’s success at harvesting a greater share of the American youth vote, in part through tapping into cost-of-living concerns, suggests younger voters should not be taken for granted in Australia.

What’s missing from the debate

The elephant in the room in any conversation about inequality between the generations is the growing role intergenerational financial supports play in shaping young people’s lives. These transfers help reproduce, and even sharpen, economic inequalities between young people.

As part of the Life Patterns Project, I have spent the past 20 years with colleagues tracking young people as they transition from secondary school to early adulthood.

One of our recent findings is that parents are increasingly supporting their young adult children through crucial life events. This includes helping with bills, rent, and often a deposit for a house.

And this has consequences for inequality over time. The ability to fall back on family resources is playing an even greater role in determining how easily a young person will navigate school and university, land a decent job and buy into the housing market.

This is in turn increases the pressure on parents to continue supporting their children well into their adult years. The financial squeeze is being felt particularly sharply by those who can’t really afford to help, at least without changing their own plans for the future, including their retirement.

No appetite for real reform

So these intergenerational challenges are not just affecting young people. They also have an impact on parents, some of whom are risking their own financial security to help their adult children. They also risk making Australia a less equal society.

Recently, Anglicare advocated an inheritance tax to reduce the role intergenerational transfers play in shaping unequal outcomes for future generations.

But the major political parties are in no hurry to embrace such a measure. Nor any other significant reforms to the tax treatment of housing to try and improve affordability.

Nevertheless, at this election, younger generations are on the agenda in a new way. Politicians will ignore them at their peril.

This is the fifth article in our special series, Australia’s Policy Challenges. You care read the other articles here

Dan Woodman receives funding from the Australian Research Council

– ref. A fair go for young Australians in this election? Voters are weighing up intergenerational inequity – https://theconversation.com/a-fair-go-for-young-australians-in-this-election-voters-are-weighing-up-intergenerational-inequity-250782

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy, Grattan Institute

The Coalition has been forced to reassert its commitment to the Paris climate agreement after its energy spokesman Ted O’Brien appeared to waver on the pledge on Thursday.

O’Brien faced off against Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen at a debate in Canberra, weeks out from a federal election in which energy policy is emerging as a hot-button issue.

Under the landmark Paris deal, Australia has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by the end of the decade, compared to 2005 levels. O’Brien on Thursday said the Coalition would review the target if it wins office. He deflected a question on whether a Dutton government would remain a signatory to the Paris Agreement, saying the Coalition would “always act in the national interest”.

Within hours of the debate, the Coalition was forced to clarify O’Brien’s comments and reaffirm its commitment to Paris. But the Coalition appears intent on winding back the 2030 target if it is elected next month – a move that would weaken our bipartisan commitment to net zero by 2050 and be against the interests of the global climate.

Resetting the 2030 target

The Coalition has long disputed Labor’s claims that the 43% target would be met.

In June last year, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton claimed the Albanese government has “no hope of achieving the targets and there’s no sense signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving”.

In January this year, Dutton said a Coalition government would remain party to Paris, despite United States President Donald Trump’s move to withdraw his nation from the deal.

On Thursday, O’Brien confirmed a Coalition government would review the 43% target. In doing so, it would consider three factors: Australia’s emissions trajectory, the state of the economy and the Coalition’s suite of policies – including nuclear power and more gas.

O’Brien went on to say:

Labor, the Coalition, nobody in this country will be able to achieve the emission target set by Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese. The difference between Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese is that Peter Dutton has been honest and upfront about that.

O’Brien would not rule out withdrawing Australia from the Paris deal, but later released a statement saying the Coalition remained committed to the agreement.

Will Australia meet the 43% target?

During the debate, Bowen claimed Australia is “on track” to meet its emissions-reduction goal. He pointed to analysis by his department released late last year showing emissions are projected to be 42.6% below 2005 levels in 2030.

Australia will have to work hard to meet the target, with our emissions reductions having stalled since 2021. The government’s projection assumes it achieves its target of 82% renewable electricity generation by 2030 – possible but very challenging from about 45% today.

It also depends on two policies to reduce emissions outside electricity, neither of which have yet demonstrated their progress.

The first is the safeguard mechanism, which aims to reduce emissions from heavy industry. It began in mid-2023 but its results are not yet clear. Second is the new vehicle efficiency standard, introduced from January this year.

What if Dutton does walk back Australia’s Paris commitment?

Even if a Dutton government remained in the Paris Agreement, walking back on the 43% emissions target is problematic, for a number of reasons.

Most obviously is that the threat of dangerous climate change is real, and growing. The Paris deal aims to keep average global temperatures “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and ideally, limit warming to no more than 1.5°C.

But according to official data, Earth’s monthly global average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for 11 months last year. So meeting the Paris commitment is already looking shaky.

While the Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty, there has been much debate as to the real meaning of “legally binding”. Some argue that national commitments to reduce emissions are not legally binding, and can be revised in either direction. While a downward revision is liable to draw criticism, it could be a legally available option under the Paris Agreement. Transgressors don’t get kicked out of the club.

But any downward revision on the targets is a bad look on the global stage. University of Melbourne climate law expert Jacqueline Peel has argued that any moves by a future Coalition government to water down Australia’s 2030 target, or to submit a 2035 target weaker than our current pledges, would:

go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Paris Agreement, and – in some circumstances – could constitute a breach of those obligations.

Where to now?

The Albanese government chose not to announce a 2035 target before the election. The Opposition says it won’t set a 2035 target until it’s in government.

That means voters will be left in the dark on this important issue as they head to the ballot box.

At the moment, the Coalition appears to be relying on its controversial nuclear power plan to meet the bipartisan goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. But analysts have warned the plan will lead to much more emissions between now and then.

Meanwhile, there is far more work to be done outside the energy sector – in agriculture, transport, industry and more – to meet Australia’s climate commitments.

Australia’s cost of living crisis has garnered much attention during the election campaign so far. There has been very little talk about how Australia’s entire economy will get to net-zero.

That’s a terrible reflection on the state of our politics. Ultimately, unmitigated climate change will be bad for the planet and very bad for Australia.

Tony Wood may own shares in companies in relevant industries through his superannuation fund.

– ref. The Coalition prepares to soften Australia’s 2030 climate target, while reaffirming its commitment to the Paris Agreement – https://theconversation.com/the-coalition-prepares-to-soften-australias-2030-climate-target-while-reaffirming-its-commitment-to-the-paris-agreement-249945

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Laurenceson, Director and Professor, Australia-China Relations Institute (UTS:ACRI), University of Technology Sydney

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have both committed to stripping a Chinese company, Landbridge, of the lease to operate Darwin Port. Landbridge paid A$506 million for the 99-year lease from the Northern Territory government in October 2015.

In Australia’s political system, democratically elected representatives like Albanese and Dutton have the power to make such decisions. Still, Australians would hope and expect these decisions were driven by the best available advice, not domestic political sparring ahead of a federal election.

This is particularly so when such a move would likely elevate fears among foreign investors around sovereign risk.

Defence Minister Richard Marles has refused to say if security agencies are recommending Australia retake control of the port, nor has the Coalition provided a reason for its new stance.

Media reports often cite “defence experts” who claim Chinese ownership of the lease involves unacceptable risks.

However, it has been the long-standing and consistent advice of Australia’s most senior national security officials that this is not the case.

Earlier concerns batted away

Landbridge did not need Canberra’s approval when it secured the port lease in 2015. Nonetheless, the company notified the Foreign Investment Review Board of its interest in submitting a competitive bid for the lease four months before the deal was sealed.

The Department of Defence and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) “examined it thoroughly”. The then-secretary of the Department of Defence, Dennis Richardson, said:

We are at one in agreeing that this was not an investment that should be opposed on defence or security grounds.

Richardson told Senate Estimates in 2015 he was “not aware of any concerns” among the senior leadership in the Australian Defence Forces (ADF), either.

The chief of the ADF, Mark Binskin, said in the same hearing:

If [ship] movements are the issue, I can sit at the fish and chip shop on the wharf […] and watch ships come and go, regardless of who owns it.

Some analysts raised concerns after the sale, but these were borderline ridiculed by officials with access to the most highly classified national security information.

Analysts at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, for example, warned that a Chinese company holding the lease “could facilitate intelligence collection” of ADF operations and US Marine deployments.

Richardson said it was “amateur hour” to suggest Chinese spies could use the port for this purpose. He added: “It’s as though people have never heard of overhead imagery” from spy satellites.

Analysts also suggested China could acquire valuable knowledge of the types of signals an Australian or US warship would “emit through a variety of sensors and systems”. Richardson dismissed this as “absurd”.

Even more ludicrous were claims the port deal would provide the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLA-N) with “facilitated access to Australia”.

Richardson labelled this as “alarmist nonsense”. Any visits by foreign naval vessels cannot be approved by a commercial port operator, he said. They must be signed off on by the Department of Defence.

Analysts also contended that Landbridge’s chairman, Ye Cheng, was a “senior Communist Party official” and the company was a “commercial front intimately tied to state-owned operations, the party and the PLA”.

This was debunked by a Chinese law and corporate governance expert.

Tellingly, when Landbridge found itself in financial difficulty in 2017, it was forced to borrow in high-interest rate debt markets. This is common for privately owned Chinese firms, but not those with close state and party connections. They would be able to access subsidised loans from state-owned banks.

Successive reviews have reaffirmed the decision

When Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was asked in 2018 whether she had any lingering security fears about the Darwin Port lease, she replied the Department of Defence “had no concerns […] and that is still the case”.

As the China-Australia relationship deteriorated in the ensuing years, the Morrison government reviewed the deal in 2021. It found there were still no national security grounds sufficient to overturn the lease.

Yet another review by the Albanese government just 18 months ago also deemed it “not necessary to vary or cancel the lease”. It concluded:

there is a robust regulatory system in place to manage risks to critical infrastructure, including the Port of Darwin.

In announcing his pledge to reacquire the Darwin Port last weekend, Dutton alluded to “advice of the intelligence agencies”, pointing to a deterioration in Australia’s strategic circumstances.

However, the Coalition had apparently not yet received an intelligence briefing on any security risks specifically connected to the Port of Darwin when Dutton made this pledge. Opposition leaders only made a request for the national security advice underpinning Albanese’s promise to reacquire the port in a letter to the government on Monday.

The reality is that if Albanese and Dutton now suddenly and genuinely believed that Darwin might need to serve as a staging post for military conflict with China, forcing the sale of a few commercial wharves currently operated by a Chinese company would be a woefully inadequate response.

They would instead be committing to a massive infrastructure upgrade, most likely in the form of an entirely new port facility. Planning for such a facility was already being mooted in 2019.

The fact that they aren’t says a lot.

James Laurenceson 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. ‘Alarmist nonsense’: Labor and Coalition dismissed security risks over the Port of Darwin for years. What’s changed? – https://theconversation.com/alarmist-nonsense-labor-and-coalition-dismissed-security-risks-over-the-port-of-darwin-for-years-whats-changed-253941

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Giesecke, Professor, Centre of Policy Studies and the Impact Project, Victoria University

The Trump administration has announced a 90-day pause on its plan to impose so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly all US imports. But the pause does not extend to China, where import duties will rise to around 125%.

The move signals a partial retreat from what had been shaping up as a broad and aggressive trade war. For most countries, the US will now apply a 10% baseline tariff for the next three months. But the White House made clear that its tariffs on Chinese imports will remain in place.

So why did President Trump back away from the broader tariff push? The answer is simple: the economic cost to the US was too high.

Our economic model shows the fallout, even after the ‘pause’

Using a global economic model, we have been estimating the macroeconomic consequences of the Trump administration’s tariff plans as they have developed.

The following table shows two versions of the economic effects of the tariff plan:

• “pre-pause” – as the plan stood immediately before Wednesday’s 90-day pause, under a scenario in which all countries retaliate except Australia, Japan and South Korea (which said they would not retaliate)
• “post-pause” after reciprocal tariffs were withdrawn.

As is clear, the US would have faced steep and immediate losses in employment, investment, growth, and most importantly, real consumption, the best measure of household living standards.

Heavy costs of the tariff war

Under the pre-pause scenario, the US would have seen real consumption fall by 2.4% in 2025 alone. Real gross domestic product (GDP) would have declined by 2.6%, while employment falls by 2.7% and real investment (after inflation) plunges 6.6%.

These are not trivial adjustments. They represent significant contractions that would be felt in everyday life, from job losses to price increases to reduced household purchasing power. Since the current US unemployment rate is 4.2%, these results suggest that for every three currently unemployed Americans, two more would join their ranks.

Our modelling shows the damage would not just be short-term. Across the 2025–2040 projection period, US real consumption losses would have averaged 1.2%, with persistent investment weakness and a long-term decline in real GDP.

It is likely that internal economic advice reflected this kind of outlook. The decision to pause most of the tariff increases may well be an acknowledgement that the policy was economically unsustainable and would result in a permanent reduction in US global economic power. Financial markets were also rattled.

The scaled-back plan: still aggressive on China

The new arrangement announced on April 9 scales the higher tariff regime back to a flat 10% for about 70 countries, but keeps the full weight of tariffs on Chinese goods at around 125%. Rates on Canadian and Mexican imports remain at 25%.

In response, China has announced an 84% tariff on US goods.

The table’s “post-pause” column summarises the results of the scaled-back plan if the pause becomes permanent. For consistency, we assume all countries except Australia, Japan and Korea retaliate with tariffs equal to those imposed by the US.

As is clear from the “post-pause” results, lower US tariffs, together with lower retaliatory tariffs, equal less damage for the US economy.

Tariffs applied uniformly are less distortionary, and significant retaliation from just one major partner (China) is easier to absorb than a broad global response.

However, the costs will still be high. The US is projected to experience a 1.9% drop in real consumption in 2025, driven by lower employment and reduced efficiency in production. Real investment is projected to fall by 4.8%, and employment by 2.1%.

Perhaps we should not be surprised that the costs are still so high. In 2022, China, Canada and Mexico accounted for almost 45% of all US goods imports, and many countries were already facing 10% reciprocal tariffs in the “pre-pause” scenario. Trump’s tariff pause has not changed duty rates for these countries.

What does this mean for Australia?

Much of the domestic commentary in Australia has focused on the risk of collateral damage from a US-China trade war. Given Australia’s economic ties to both countries, it is a reasonable concern.

But our modelling suggests that Australia may actually benefit modestly. Under both scenarios, Australia’s real consumption rises slightly, driven by stronger investment, improved terms of trade (a measure of our export prices relative to import prices), and redirection of trade flows.

One mechanism is what economists call trade diversion: if Chinese or European exporters find the US market less attractive, they may redirect goods to Australia and other open markets.

At the same time, reduced global demand for capital, especially in the US and China, means lower interest rates globally. That stimulates investment elsewhere, including in Australia. In our model, Australian real investment rises under both scenarios, leading to small but sustained gains in GDP and household consumption.

These results suggest that, at least under current policy settings, Australia is unlikely to suffer significant direct effects from the tariff increases.

However, rising investor uncertainty is a risk for both the global and Australian economies, and this is not factored into our modelling. In the space of a single week, the Trump administration has whipsawed global investor confidence through three major tariff announcements.

A temporary reprieve

Tariffs appear to be central to the administration’s economic program. So Trump’s decision to pause his broader tariff agenda may not signal a shift in philosophy: just a tactical retreat.

The updated strategy, high tariffs on China and lower ones elsewhere, might reflect an attempt to refocus on where the administration sees its main strategic concern, while avoiding unnecessary blowback from allies and neutral partners.

Whether this narrower approach proves durable remains to be seen. The sharpest economic pain has been deferred. Whether it returns depends on how the next 90 days play out.

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. This chart explains why Trump backflipped on tariffs. The economic damage would have been huge – https://theconversation.com/this-chart-explains-why-trump-backflipped-on-tariffs-the-economic-damage-would-have-been-huge-253632

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hal Swerissen, Emeritus Professor of Public Health, La Trobe University

There has been little new in pre-election promises for Australia’s aged-care workers, providers or the 1.3 million people who use aged care.

In March, Labor announced A$2.6 billion for another pay rise for aged-care nurses in addition to previous pay increases.

There’s been nothing substantial on aged care from Labor or the Opposition since.

Major changes are scheduled for the sector later this year, four years after the damning Royal Commission report into aged care. Yet no additional funding has been announced.

Estimates suggest funding is short around $5 billion to address losses by residential care providers or the shortfall in Home Care Packages.

What can we expect this year?

A new Aged Care Act will come into force on July 1 with a much greater emphasis on the rights of older people to get the care that suits their needs. This will mean:

• a new system to regulate aged care

• a new independent complaints commissioner

• a new Support at Home program for older people who want to live at home, and in the community

• changes to fees for residential aged care.

But a number of problems remain and it is not clear the reforms being introduced this year will fix them.

Access is still an issue

Access to aged care continues to be a problem, particularly in rural and remote areas. The system is difficult to navigate for often vulnerable and confused consumers and their families.

The government relies heavily on the My Aged Care website to inform older people and their families about aged care options. But this provides only basic information and it is difficult to get individualised support.

There is also a “digital divide” for a significant group who are unfamiliar with, and lack confidence in, using online services.

So we need a much greater emphasis on providing local “one stop shops” for personalised support and advice, particularly when people first enter the aged-care system. These services could be provided through Centrelink or new regional aged-care offices.

About one-third of older people say they need help to live at home. But to get assistance you need an aged-care assessment and that process too needs improving.

Waiting times for assessment have blown out, with reported delays of up to five months.

Older people prefer to stay at home

There are some concerns the number of new aged-care beds is not increasing fast enough. For instance, there are shortages of residential aged care in particular areas such as Canberra.

But admission times to residential aged care generally have not increased and occupancy rates are declining. This suggests older people would prefer home to residential care.

Yet increased demand for home-care packages is not being met.

For those who need more intensive services at home, waiting times remain stubbornly and unacceptably long because there aren’t enough home care packages.

Despite years of complaints, there are still more than 80,000 people on the waiting list for care at home.

The new Support at Home program will introduce an eight-level system of support. The highest level of home-care funding will increase to $78,000 to bridge the gap between funding for home and residential care. But many more intensive care packages for home care will be needed to reduce waiting times.

The Support at Home program also introduces significantly higher out-of-pocket costs for older people. Such costs for everyday services – such as meals, cleaning and gardening – currently funded through the Commonwealth Home Support Program will increase significantly.

Most controversially, there will also be greater out-of-pocket costs for “independence” services including personal care, social support, respite care and therapy.

Staff shortages still a concern

For aged-care providers, chronic workforce shortages are still the biggest problem. Recent increases in wages for aged-care workers, including nurses, are a step in the right direction. But wages are still low.

It remains hard to attract staff, staff turnover is high and staff are under-trained, risking the quality of care. Shortages are particularly acute in rural areas.

The aged-care industry is calling for streamlined migration, better training and incentives for regional workers to make up the shortfall. But so far no new election announcements have been made.

No real reform

Despite changes we’ll see from July, the organisation and financing of aged care remains fundamentally unchanged.

Overall, Australia’s aged-care system is still heavily privatised and fragmented. In 2022-23 there were 923 home-care providers, 764 residential-care providers and 1,334 home-support providers, nearly all in the private and not-for-profit sectors.

The Commonwealth continues to manage the sector through a cumbersome combination of highly centralised regulation and prescriptive funding contracts.

It has not put into place an effective, regional management structure to plan, organise and govern the sector to drive quality, innovation, equity, responsiveness and efficiency.

Nor has the Commonwealth been willing to adequately finance the system either through a levy, a social insurance scheme or via increased taxation. Instead, it’s upping the reliance on user fees to meet the cost of providing services.

Hal Swerissen is Deputy Chair of the Bendigo Kangan Institute for TAFE.

– ref. Big changes are planned for aged care in 2025. But you’d never know from the major parties – https://theconversation.com/big-changes-are-planned-for-aged-care-in-2025-but-youd-never-know-from-the-major-parties-253727

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bill Bateman, Associate Professor, Behavioural Ecology, Curtin University

There are an estimated 1 billion domesticated dogs in the world. Most are owned animals – pets, companions or working animals who share their lives with humans. They are the most common large predator in the world. Pet cats trail far behind, at about 220 million.

We are all too aware of the negative effects of cats, both owned and feral, on wildlife. Feral dogs too are frequently seen as threats to biodiversity, although dingoes can have a positive role. By contrast, our pet dogs often seem to get a free pass.

This is, unfortunately, based more on feelings than data. Our beloved pet dogs have a far greater, more insidious and more concerning effect on wildlife and the environment than we would like to be the case.

In our new research, we lay out the damage pet dogs do and what can be done about it.

Dogs are predators. They catch many types of wildlife and can injure or kill them. Their scent and droppings scare smaller animals. Then there’s the huge environmental cost of feeding these carnivores and the sheer quantity of their poo.

We love our pet dogs, but they come with a very real cost. We have to recognise this and take steps to protect wildlife by leashing or restraining our animals.

The predator in your home

Dogs are domesticated wolves, bred to be smaller, more docile and extremely responsive to humans. But they are still predators.

Pet dogs are responsible for more reported attacks on wildlife than are cats, according to data from wildlife care centres, and catch larger animals.

Pet dogs off the leash are the main reason colonies of little penguins are nearing collapse in Tasmania.

In New Zealand, a single escaped pet dog is estimated to have killed up to 500 brown kiwis out of a total population of 900 over a five-week period.

Once off the leash, dogs love to chase animals and birds. This may seem harmless.
But being chased can exhaust tired migratory birds, forcing them to use more energy. Dogs can kill fledglings of beach-nesting birds, including endangered birds such as the hooded plover.

The mere presence of these predators terrifies many animals and birds. Even when they’re on the leash, local wildlife are on high alert. This has measurable negative effects on bird abundance and diversity across woodland sites in eastern Australia.

In the United States, deer are more alert and run sooner and farther if they see a human with a leashed dog than a human alone.

Several mammal species in the United States perceived dogs with a human as a bigger threat than coyotes.

Dogs don’t even have to be present to be bad for wildlife. They scent-mark trees and posts with their urine and leave their faeces in many places. These act as warnings to many other species. Researchers in the US found animals such as deer, foxes and even bobcats avoided areas dogs had been regularly walked compared to dog exclusion zones, due to the traces they left.

Keeping dogs healthy and fed has a cost

The medications we use to rid our pet dogs of fleas or ticks can last weeks on fur, and wash off when they plunge into a creek or river. But some of these medications have ingredients highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates, meaning a quick dip can be devastating.

Researchers have found when birds such as blue tits and great tits collect brushed-out dog fur to line their nests, it can lead to fewer eggs hatching and more dead hatchlings.

Then there’s the poo. In the US, there are about 90 million pet dogs, while the UK has 12 million and Australia has 6 million.

The average dog deposits 200 grams of faeces and 400 millilitres of urine a day. This translates to a tonne of faeces and 2,000 litres of urine over a 13 year lifespan. Scaled up, that’s a mountain of waste.

This waste stream can add to nitrogen pollution in waterways, alter soil chemistry and even spread diseases to humans and other wildlife. More than 80% of the pathogens infecting domesticated animals also infect wildlife.

Dogs largely eat meat, meaning millions of cows and chickens are raised just to feed our pets. Feeding the world’s dogs leads to about the same emissions as the Philippines and a land use “pawprint” twice the size of the UK.

No one likes thinking about this

People love their dogs. They’re always happy to see us. Their companionship makes us healthier, body and mind. Many farms couldn’t run without working dogs. We don’t want to acknowledge they can also cause harm.

Dogs, of course, are not bad. They’re animals, with natural instincts as well as the domesticated instinct to please us. But their sheer numbers mean they do real damage.

Many of us have a large dog-shaped blind spot. Little Brutus wouldn’t have done something like that, we think. But Brutus can and does.

Choosing to own a dog comes with responsibilities. Being a good dog owner means caring not just for the animal we love, but the rest of the natural world.

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. Good boy or bad dog? Our 1 billion pet dogs do real environmental damage – https://theconversation.com/good-boy-or-bad-dog-our-1billion-pet-dogs-do-real-environmental-damage-252726

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Mudgway, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Canterbury

Women MPs are increasingly targets of misogynistic, racist and sexual online abuse, but New Zealand’s legal framework to protect them is simply not fit for purpose.

Recently released research found online threats of physical and sexual violence have caused those MPs to feel fearful, anxious and distressed. Some included in the study said the harassment led to them self-censoring, using social media less often, and considering leaving politics early.

But the current legal framework is not well equipped to address the nature or volume of the online harassment aimed at MPs.

Serious online threats made by identifiable individuals can be criminal offences under the Crimes Act 1961. Similarly, the new stalking law, expected to pass later this year, will create some protection for women MPs from online harassers – as long as the stalker can be identified.

Under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015), victims of online harassment can ask the court for protection from the person harassing them, which can include orders to stop all contact. But once again, police need to be able to identify the perpetrator.

And that is the sticking point. Online abuse is usually committed anonymously and often by perpetrators using a VPN service that encrypts internet traffic and protects your online identity.

Also, the Harmful Digital Communications Act was not drafted to deal with volumetric harassment – a coordinated effort designed to overwhelm and intimidate a target through a deluge online interactions.

These campaigns typically involve a large number of participants who collectively flood someone with abusive, threatening or harmful messages. Reporting and attempting to take action on every single message or comment is simply not practical.

The way forward

Despite the challenges, there are some steps the government can take to improve the law to better protect MPs.

Firstly, any new law needs to be fit for purpose. The technological landscape is very different now to when the Harmful Digital Communications Act was introduced in 2015.

New Zealand should consider following the European Union’s example and criminalise inciting, aiding and participating in mob-style or mass online harassment campaigns. In the EU, the penalty for this can include imprisonment.

Much of the online abuse originates on social media platforms. But unlike the United Kingdom and Australia, New Zealand does not currently regulate social media.

In the UK, for example, the Online Safety Act 2023 makes social media companies legally responsible for user safety. Companies must minimise risk of harm (including online violence) when designing, implementing and using any technology on their platforms. Failing these legal duties will incur significant financial penalties.

The UK’s framework shifts the burden of online safety off the shoulders of individual victims and places it on social media companies which are better positioned to remove harmful content and users swiftly. The rules also alter how new technology is implemented to better protect user safety.

Dust off past proposals

Under the previous Labour government, the Ministry of Internal Affairs proposed a new, independent regulatory body to promote online safety, with industry standards and codes of practice. The current coalition government scrapped the proposal last year, leaving New Zealand without a clear plan to address online harm.

Political leaders should urgently reconsider the Internal Affairs proposal for social media regulation. But they should also go further.

My research evaluating responses to online abuse in New Zealand, Australia and the UK has highlighted the importance of addressing underlying social and cultural causes of online gender-based violence.

To effectively prevent online violence against women MPs, a new regulatory framework should require social media platforms to actively challenge and modify harmful gender stereotypes embedded in their services.

This includes conducting comprehensive risk assessments during the design, development, deployment and use of their platforms.

While the recent revelations about online abuse directed at women MPs makes for grim reading, it’s clear there are steps the government can take to ensure all MPs feel safe to participate in the political process.

Cassandra Mudgway is a member of the NZ Labour Party.

– ref. A damning study of online abuse of female MPs shows urgent legal reform is needed – https://theconversation.com/a-damning-study-of-online-abuse-of-female-mps-shows-urgent-legal-reform-is-needed-254184

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane McAdam, Scientia Professor and ARC Laureate Fellow, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Sydney

The details of a new visa enabling Tuvaluan citizens to permanently migrate to Australia were released this week.

The visa was created as part of a bilateral treaty Australia and Tuvalu signed in late 2023, which aims to protect the two countries’ shared interests in security, prosperity and stability, especially given the “existential threat posed by climate change”.

The Australia–Tuvalu Falepili Union, as it is known, is the world’s first bilateral agreement to create a special visa like this in the context of climate change.

Here’s what we know so far about why this special visa exists and how it will work.

Why is this migration avenue important?

The impacts of climate change are already contributing to displacement and migration around the world.

As a low-lying atoll nation, Tuvalu is particularly exposed to rising sea levels, storm surges and coastal erosion.

As Pacific leaders declared in a world-first regional framework on climate mobility in 2023, rights-based migration can “help people to move safely and on their own terms in the context of climate change.”

And enhanced migration opportunities have clearly made a huge difference to development challenges in the Pacific, allowing people to access education and work and send money back home.

As international development expert Professor Stephen Howes put it,

Countries with greater migration opportunities in the Pacific generally do better.

While Australia has a history of labour mobility schemes for Pacific peoples, this won’t provide opportunities for everyone.

Despite perennial calls for migration or relocation opportunities in the face of climate change, this is the first Australian visa to respond.

How does the new visa work?

The visa will enable up to 280 people from Tuvalu to move to Australia each year.

On arrival in Australia, visa holders will receive, among other things, immediate access to:

• education (at the same subsidisation as Australian citizens)
• Medicare
• the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)
• family tax benefit
• childcare subsidy
• youth allowance.

They will also have “freedom for unlimited travel” to and from Australia.

This is rare. Normally, unlimited travel is capped at five years.

According to some experts, these arrangements now mean Tuvalu has the “second closest migration relationship with Australia after New Zealand”.

Reading the fine print

The technical name of the visa is Subclass 192 (Pacific Engagement).

The details of the visa, released this week, reveal some curiosities.

First, it has been incorporated into the existing Pacific Engagement Visa category (subclass 192) rather than designed as a standalone visa.

Presumably, this was a pragmatic decision to expedite its creation and overcome the significant costs of establishing a wholly new visa category.

But unlike the Pacific Engagement Visa – a different, earlier visa, which is contingent on applicants having a job offer in Australia – this new visa is not employment-dependent.

Secondly, the new visa does not specifically mention Tuvalu.

This would make it simpler to extend it to other Pacific countries in the future.

Who can apply, and how?

To apply, eligible people must first register their interest for the visa online. Then, they must be selected through a random computer ballot to apply.

The primary applicant must:

• be at least 18 years of age
• hold a Tuvaluan passport, and
• have been born in Tuvalu – or had a parent or a grandparent born there.

People with New Zealand citizenship cannot apply. Nor can anyone whose Tuvaluan citizenship was obtained through investment in the country.

This indicates the underlying humanitarian nature of the visa; people with comparable opportunities in New Zealand or elsewhere are ineligible to apply for it.

Applicants must also satisfy certain health and character requirements.

Strikingly, the visa is open to those “with disabilities, special needs and chronic health conditions”. This is often a bar to acquiring an Australian visa.

And the new visa isn’t contingent on people showing they face risks from the adverse impacts of climate change and disasters, even though climate change formed the backdrop to the scheme’s creation.

Settlement support is crucial

With the first visa holders expected to arrive later this year, questions remain about how well supported they will be.

The Explanatory Memorandum to the treaty says:

Australia would provide support for applicants to find work and to the growing Tuvaluan diaspora in Australia to maintain connection to culture and improve settlement outcomes.

That’s promising, but it’s not yet clear how this will be done.

A heavy burden often falls on diaspora communities to assist newcomers.

For this scheme to work, there must be government investment over the immediate and longer-term to give people the best prospects of thriving.

Drawing on experiences from refugee settlement, and from comparative experiences in New Zealand with respect to Pacific communities, will be instructive.

Extensive and ongoing community consultation is also needed with Tuvalu and with the Tuvalu diaspora in Australia. This includes involving these communities in reviewing the scheme over time.

Jane McAdam receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the expert sub-committee of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration.

– ref. Fresh details emerge on Australia’s new climate migration visa for Tuvalu residents. An expert explains – https://theconversation.com/fresh-details-emerge-on-australias-new-climate-migration-visa-for-tuvalu-residents-an-expert-explains-254195

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Rindert Algra-Maschio, PhD Candidate, Social and Political Sciences, Monash University

Election promises are a mainstay of contemporary politics. Governments cite kept commitments as proof they can be trusted, while oppositions pounce on any failure to deliver.

But beyond the politics, campaign pledges are also central to representative democracy. They telegraph what to expect from a party in government and create a moral obligation for it to follow through.

Democratic governments across the globe fulfil, on average, roughly two-thirds of their promises, but most voters believe it is far fewer. Since voters will punish governments for breaking promises, it’s vital they have accurate information on their government’s record.

We set out to provide Australians with that information through RMIT’s Election Promise Tracker. We assessed 66 major promises made by Labor before the last election.

By presenting evidence through an interactive timeline that follows all the twists and turns since 2022, the tracker allows voters to form their own judgements during the 2025 campaign.

Tracking election promises

Our team compiled a long list of promises during the last election campaign by scouring public statements made by both major parties.

For this, we kept to the definition of an “election promise” used by the Comparative Pledges Project, a research network that employs a common approach to studying promises.

After the election, we narrowed Labor’s list to 66 promises — based on newsworthiness, coverage of policy areas and, later, feedback from the audience of ABC News.

The tracker was originally launched as a project of RMIT ABC Fact Check, and it applies a methodology of fact-check journalism that prioritises impartiality and transparency.

We laid out, from the start, the criteria by which we would eventually assess each promise, to ensure only those that could be assessed by the end of the electoral term were included.

Three years on, we determined whether those criteria had been met, marking promises as “delivered”, “thwarted” or “broken”. In a few cases, some remain “in progress” or “stalled”.

Mostly good news for the government

Overall, the government delivered at least 46 of the promises (roughly 70%) we tracked. Many of these are in areas typically seen as Labor strengths.

These include key promises in health and aged care, such as funding pay rises for aged care workers, requiring aged care homes to keep a registered nurse on site 24/7, and mandating minimum “care minutes” for their residents.

On education, employment and social services, the government boosted childcare subsidies and increased workplace protections for gig workers. It also delivered funding for 450,000 fee-free TAFE places and for the states to hire 500 support workers for women in crisis.

Integrity was a key theme of the 2022 election, and the government has since followed through on establishing an anti-corruption commission, delivering a royal commission into Robodebt and implementing all the recommendations of the Respect@Work report that fell within its remit.

And on the all-important cost of living, Labor cut the maximum price for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) scripts, boosted payments for disabled veterans, increased the low-and-middle income tax offset by $420 and – following a Senate standoff with the Greens and Coalition — established a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund.

And some bad news

But it was not all smooth sailing for the government. It failed to deliver on at least 14 pledges (roughly 20%), including a promise to increase real wages above pre-election levels. It’s pledged to address real wages through a submission to the Fair Work Commission this time around.

Arguably, it was unlucky on defence spending. Despite injecting $10 billion over its first three years, Labor is poised to miss its target of spending “at least” 2% of gross domestic product on defence, due to an uptick in GDP.

In other cases, the government never really got close. After promising to deliver 450 gigalitres of environmental water under the Murray Darling Basin Plan, it only managed 27.5GL.

And some deadlines were simply missed, with the government belatedly establishing 50 urgent care clinics and introducing a new Pacific Engagement Visa.

Among the most controversial issues was Labor’s restructuring of the stage three tax cuts, having previously pledged to implement the cuts exactly as the Coalition had formulated them. But polling showed voters may forgive the “breaking” of a pledge if they agree with the outcome.

The government also retreated from its promise to establish a Makarrata Commission following the defeated Voice referendum, providing an example of how changed political circumstances can come to haunt promises made years earlier.

Not always an easy answer

Despite the best intentions, some promises don’t fit neatly into the “delivered” or “broken” binary.

For example, Labor promised Australia would make a joint bid with Pacific Island countries to host a United Nations climate conference. But the government can’t formally submit a bid unless Turkey bows out of the race, meaning this pledge has been “thwarted”.

And it remains to be seen whether households will receive a much-touted $275 cut to their annual electricity bill (on 2021 levels) by mid-2025. The necessary data won’t arrive until after the election, and Labor’s energy rebates have complicated the picture.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese may not have delivered on “every single thing” he promised, but of the promises we tracked, far more were kept than broken.

This suggests the Albanese government has performed on a fairly level footing with other comparative countries, as well as with the Gillard Labor government.

But voters will have different views on which promises are most important, so as ever, it’s the details that matter.

Lisa Waller receives funding from The Australian Research Council

David Campbell and Frank Rindert Algra-Maschio 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. Labor made plenty of promises at the last election. Did they deliver? – https://theconversation.com/labor-made-plenty-of-promises-at-the-last-election-did-they-deliver-251481

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Head of Energy, Institute for Climate Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University

The federal election should be an earnest contest over the fundamentals of Australia’s climate and energy policies.

Strong global action on climate change is clearly in Australia’s long-term national interest. But it has fallen prey to US President Donald Trump’s disruption of the world order, which has drained global attention from other crucial issues, including climate change.

The Trump administration’s anti-climate actions might energise some to counteract it, but its overall affect will be chilling.

Election reality

A comprehensive platform to strengthen and broaden Australian climate policy towards net zero is needed more than ever.

But the political reality playing out in the election campaign is very different, with the overriding focus on the cost of living, and the usual emphasis on electoral tactics rather than long-term strategies.

Even a policy like Labor’s subsidised home batteries is being framed as a hip-pocket measure, rather than as a small contribution to energy infrastructure.

Likewise, the Coalition’s pledge to halve fuel excise is aimed squarely at easing price pressures at the pump. In fact, the policy would slightly delay progress towards low emissions transport.

The vexed question of how to ensure sufficient gas supplies for south eastern Australia is also cloaked in energy affordability. We are already seeing industry push back against the Coalition’s policy to require gas companies to withhold a share of production for the domestic market.

Off target

Regardless of who wins the election, Australia’s 43% emissions reduction target by 2030 will be difficult to achieve unless there is a change of pace.

The government’s projections assume sharp
cuts during 2027–30. But national emissions have flatlined at around 28% below 2005 levels for four years.

Under the Paris Agreement, a 2035 target commitment is required this year. The Climate Change Authority will give its advice to the new government after the election. It has previously floated a reduction range of 65–75%

This would be compatible with the global goal of keeping warming below 2°C. Yet it might look highly ambitious under current political and international circumstances.

Renewables reloaded

The shift from coal to clean energy sources in the power sector is well underway. In 2024, renewables accounted for 39% of the national energy market, three times the share a decade ago.

But progress has slowed at the same time as older coal plants have become unreliable and costly to run.

It is clear that the future of an affordable, secure power supply in Australia is mostly wind and solar, supported by energy storage and some gas.

But progress needs to be much faster. Many renewable projects, transmission lines and also Snowy 2 energy storage, are behind schedule. This is due to supply chain constraints, regulatory clogging and community opposition.

Blueprint for action

Deep emission reductions can still be achieved over the next ten years, but only if we pull out all the stops. That would mean:

• going much faster on electricity transition
• strengthening incentives and regulation to cut industrial and resource sector emissions
• getting serious about a transition to clean transport
• meaningful action towards low-emissions agriculture including changes to land use.

A re-elected Labor government would likely do more on renewable power, while also strengthening action on industrial and resource emissions through the Safeguard Mechanism.

But more will be needed to prepare for the 2030s. If the Teals hold the balance of power in a hung parliament, they would push Labor to be more ambitious.

By contrast, a Dutton government might dial back the existing ambition and adopt a lower 2035 target than labor.

Nuclear means more coal

The initial focus of the Coalition’s energy policy going into the campaign has been to build nuclear power stations.

Nuclear power would be far more expensive than the alternatives, costing hundreds of billions of dollars for only a small share of future power supply. It would need enormous subsidies, probably through government ownership.

Deployment would inevitably be a very long time off. The near term affect would be to delay the transition to more renewable energy.

The Coalition’s modelling assumes ageing coal-fired power plants would keep running beyond their announced closure dates. That would mean burning more coal and keeping Australia’s national carbon emissions higher for longer.

The future of resource exports is green

Australia’s intrinsic interest in limiting climate change remains urgent. Our opportunity as a green commodity producer and exporter remains solid.

Green industry policy has been on the rise under the Albanese government, through support for green hydrogen and green iron. But we will not be able to subsidise our way to greatness in clean export industries.

What is needed is international green commodity markets for Australian supplies of green ammonia, iron and other products. This is best achieved through carbon pricing in commodity importing countries, coupled with border carbon adjustments which give exporters of cleanly produced products an edge in those markets.

A strong Australian 2035 emissions target would help send a signal to investors and overseas markets that we are serious about the transition.

A COP in Australia

Australia has a strong chance of hosting the 2026 UN climate conference. Labor wants it, but the Coalition doesn’t.

COP31 would be a big chance for Australia to demonstrate positive leadership. It would also create pressure to do more for developing countries, given the conference would be hosted jointly with Pacific island states.

Disappointment is likely, as rich countries will probably fail to meet expectations. In any case, Australia will be pushed by our Pacific neighbours to do more on climate change.

We could do with the encouragement.

This is the fourth article in our special series, Australia’s Policy Challenges. You can read the other articles here

Frank Jotzo leads various research projects on climate policy. He is a commissioner with the NSW Net Zero Commission, chairs the Queensland Clean Economy Expert Panel and led the federal government’s Carbon Leakage Review.

– ref. Australia urgently needs to get serious about long-term climate policy – but there’s no sign of that in the election campaign – https://theconversation.com/australia-urgently-needs-to-get-serious-about-long-term-climate-policy-but-theres-no-sign-of-that-in-the-election-campaign-250637

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Cole, Occupational Hygienist, PhD Candidate, University of Sydney

Around 10% of underground tunnel workers in Queensland could develop silicosis, our new study has found.

Silicosis is a serious, incurable lung disease caused by inhaling small particles of silica dust. You might have heard about it in people who work with engineered stone. But silica is more widespread.

Silica is found in rocks and concrete, so workers in industries such as construction, mining and tunnelling are at high risk if proper safety measures aren’t in place.

When silica dust is breathed in, it gets trapped in the lungs, causing inflammation and scarring. Over time, this scarring makes it harder to breathe and can be fatal.

As symptoms of silicosis can take decades to appear, workers may not realise they’re sick until long after they’ve started working, or even after they stop.

But silicosis is preventable.

How does silicosis affect tunnel workers?

Thousands of people are involved in tunnelling projects in Australia.

Tunnelling involves breaking up large amounts of silica-containing rock with heavy machinery.

Tunnel workers rely on advanced ventilation systems to provide fresh air underground, water systems to keep the rocks wet and suppress dust, and they wear respirators on their face to keep the air they breathe clean. But some people have raised concerns these measures do not always work properly.

There are also national legal limits in place for silica dust exposure, currently 0.05 milligrams per cubic metre over an eight-hour work day.

However, a media investigation last November revealed one-third of air monitoring tests from a Sydney tunnel project were above legal limits.

While air monitoring tests are required by law, the results of routine air monitoring tests are often not made public.

An expert taskforce has recently been set up in New South Wales to address the silica-related health risks for tunnel workers, promising to make high silica results above legal limits publicly available.

But while attention has been focused on tunnel workers in Sydney, the problem of lung disease in underground workers is more widespread.

Our Queensland study

The results of air monitoring tests are important because they show whether legal silica dust limits are being adhered to.

Another valuable use of this data is it can help us predict future disease risk. Instead of waiting to see how many workers develop silica-related diseases such as silicosis and lung cancer, this data can be used to estimate cases in advance.

In 2017, a Queensland parliamentary inquiry raised concerns about the health of Brisbane’s tunnel workers, particularly regarding the harmful effects of exposure to silica dust.

We worked through the parliamentary inquiry documents to uncover the results of hundreds of individual air monitoring tests conducted on three major Queensland tunnel projects between 2007 and 2013.

We analysed this data to estimate how many workers were exposed to silica dust and at what levels. We then modelled how many cases of silicosis and lung cancer would occur over the workers’ lifetimes.

We estimated that in a group of around 2,000 workers involved in these Queensland tunnel projects, 200 to 300 would develop silicosis over their lifetime as a result of silica dust exposure (roughly one in every ten workers).

We also estimated between 20 to 30 workers would develop lung cancer due to their exposure.

We had limited information on workplace conditions in the specific projects, so we made a number of assumptions based on publicly available information and our own experience. These included assumptions around the use and protective nature of masks. The fact we had to make some assumptions could be a limitation of our study. Due to the lack of data transparency we don’t know if these figures apply more broadly to tunnel workers throughout Australia.

Our projected rate of silicosis, 10%, is the same as the rate of silicosis recorded by a government inquiry in 1924 which investigated silicosis among workers who built Sydney’s sewers.

So it doesn’t seem things are any better in terms of silicosis risk in underground work than a century ago.

We need to do more to protect tunnel workers

Continued secrecy around silica dust data reduces our ability to understand the scale of the problem and respond effectively. Nonetheless, the small amount of data that has been made available supports the need for urgent action.

With Australia’s ongoing infrastructure expansion, policymakers must act now. This should include enforcing stricter legal limits for silica dust exposure. There is concern among health experts that current limits don’t sufficiently protect workers’ health.

Policymakers should also ensure protective measures such as advanced ventilation and dust suppression systems are in place for all tunnel projects, set up national tunnel worker health surveillance, and make exposure data available to workers and the public.

There are several examples where things are done better. Internationally, Norway and Switzerland have strong systems to protect tunnel workers’ health such as air and health monitoring being conducted by an independent government agency. In Switzerland, this agency also insures the project. Noncompliance results in higher insurance premiums or, in some cases, the withdrawal of insurance, effectively stopping the project.

Nationally, Australia’s mining industry is more heavily regulated than tunnelling, with stricter enforcement of compliance.

Without immediate intervention, thousands of tunnel workers will continue to face serious health risks and Australia will face a growing wave of preventable occupational diseases.

Kate Cole receives higher degree by research funding from The University of Sydney; is a member of the Asbestos and Silica Safety Eradication Council; the NSW Dust Diseases Board; the Chair of the External Affairs Committee for the Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists; and acts as an expert witness for law firms concerning silica-related diseases in tunnel workers.

Renee Carey has previously received funding from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. She is a member of the Occupational Lung Disease Network Steering Committee formed by Lung Foundation Australia.

Tim Driscoll has acted as an expert witness, and written government reports, in relation to silica exposure but not specifically connected to tunnelling. He chairs the Occupational and Environmental Cancer Committee of Cancer Council Australia and chairs the Occupational Lung Disease Network Steering Committee of Lung Foundation Australia.

– ref. 1 in 10 tunnel workers could develop silicosis, our new research shows – https://theconversation.com/1-in-10-tunnel-workers-could-develop-silicosis-our-new-research-shows-252186

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Murphy, Visiting Fellow, Economics (modelling), Australian National University

With just over three weeks to go until the federal election, both major parties are trying to position themselves as Australia’s better economic managers.

Labor was able to hand down two consecutive budget surpluses in its current term. But the most recent federal budget shows a return to deficit this financial year.

After the deficit peaks – at 1.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) next financial year – it will then take a decade to balance the budget. My own economic forecasts also imply the budget can return to balance in this time frame.

However, this slow budget repair work is done silently by “bracket creep”, not by policy actions of the government.

Under a progressive tax system, as incomes rise with inflation, the additional income is taxed more heavily.

For example, a worker on average, annual wages of A$79,000 pays 20.3% of that in tax. But they pay tax of 32% (including the medicare levy) on any wage increases, even if those wage increases are only just enough to keep pace with inflation.

The higher tax rate on additional wages pushes up average tax rates – known as bracket creep. This piece explains it well.

Bracket creep has the political advantage of being a silent way of gradually increasing average tax rates. Both major parties are heavily relying on it. But is it good economic policy?

The ‘silent’ tax hike

Though Australia’s personal income tax system is progressive, it’s possible to work out the average tax rate faced by Australians collectively. This is total personal income tax paid as a percentage of total taxable income.

In the first two decades of this century, personal income tax accounted for an average of 22.9% of taxable incomes. There was no clear trend.

Since then, the trend has been up, because announced tax cuts haven’t been enough to offset silent bracket creep.

The average tax rate this financial year, 2024-25, is estimated to be 24.3%.

In the latest budget, the government reduced the lowest marginal tax rate – from 16% to 15% in 2026-27, then to 14% in 2027-28 and beyond.

This almost stabilises the average tax rate for two years. However, it then resumes its upward trend under the silent influence of bracket creep, reaching 28.1% in 2035-36.

This will be an all-time high average tax rate. Living standards will be squeezed and incentives to work and save will diminish.

Some countries limit bracket creep by indexing personal income tax brackets to price inflation. This stops price inflation alone pushing workers into higher tax brackets.

To illustrate how indexing could work, if inflation was 2%, all of the tax thresholds would move up by 2%. For example, the tax free threshold of $18,200 would increase to $18,564.

A worker whose pay had increased by 2% would similarly pay only 2% extra tax, keeping their average tax rate unchanged.

However, most of the time wages rise faster than prices because of productivity growth.

Why bracket creep is unfair

The unfairness of bracket creep can be illustrated with examples.

Under the budget, the average rate of tax (for everyone) rises over the next 11 years by 3.8% points of income.

The average wage earner with an annual income of $79,000 fares a little better. Their average tax rate goes from 20.3% in 2024-25 to 23.6% in 2035-36, an increase of 3.3% points of income, as noted in the recent budget.

However, a low wage earner, with an annual income of $45,000 fares worse. Their average tax rate jumps from 10.8% to 17.3%, an increase of 6.5% points of income.

Do we think it is fair that someone with an annual income of only $45,000 today should have to pay about 17% of their income in income tax in 11 years time?

While this is an extreme example, it illustrates the fact that bracket creep is regressive and has serious unintended consequences.

Less of a “Robin Hood” effect

All of this has implications for the fairness of our tax system overall.

To measure how much a country’s personal income tax system reduces inequality in income distribution, economists use something called the “Reynolds-Smolensky redistribution index”. Let’s call it the “R” index.

A higher R index for a country means a stronger “Robin Hood” element in its tax system – that the system is doing more to redistribute income.

The International Monetary Fund reports that in 2018, the R index for Australia was 6.8%, compared to the average for OECD countries of under 5%. In 2024-25, the Australian R index is already a little lower at 6.5%.

The R index can also be used to measure how benefits reduce inequality, but here, we’re only using it for personal income tax.

Without any budget measures, the regressive nature of bracket creep would have caused the R index to fall further to a value of 6.3% in 2035-36.

However, this budget’s “top-up tax cut” to the lowest marginal tax rate limited this fall to 6.4%, because it was a progressive tax change.

Time for indexation

Politicians from both major parties should stop relying so much on their silent partner, bracket creep, to slowly repair budget deficits.

Instead of misleading announcements of tax cuts in only some budgets, my modelling shows how we could benefit from automatically indexing the tax brackets to prices in every budget.

This will mean that the average rate of personal income tax will rise more modestly over the next 11 years, from 24.3% to 25.5%, instead of to 28.1%. Indexation also limits the fall in the R index to a value of 6.4%.

The resulting revenue shortfall could be filled in ways that are more transparent, efficient and fairer than bracket creep.

Possible ways include better priorities and higher efficiency in government spending, more reliance on indirect taxes such as the GST and expanding the tax base itself through reforms to boost productivity.

Chris Murphy 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. Here’s how a ‘silent’ tax hike is balancing the budget – with the heaviest burden on the lowest paid – https://theconversation.com/heres-how-a-silent-tax-hike-is-balancing-the-budget-with-the-heaviest-burden-on-the-lowest-paid-253442

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob Richardson, Senior Lecturer in Culinary Arts & Gastronomy, Auckland University of Technology

Pop quiz: name the world’s most famous trio? If you’re a foodie, then your answer might have been breakfast, lunch and dinner. It’s an almost universally accepted trinity – particularly in the Western world.

But how did it come about?

The first meals

Early humans were nomadic. Forming small communities, they would travel with the seasons, following local food sources.

While we can only guess what daily mealtimes rhythms looked like, evidence dating back 30,000 years from the South Moravia region, Czech Republic, shows people visited specific settlements time and again. They gathered around hearths, cooking and sharing food: the first signs of human “commensality”, the practice of eating together.

One of the best-preserved hunter-gatherer sites we’ve found is Ohalo II – located on the shores of the modern-day Sea of Galilee (also called Lake Tiberias or Lake Kinneret) in Israel, and dating back some 23,000 years.

In addition to several small dwellings with hearths, it provides evidence of diverse food sources, including more than 140 types of seeds and nuts, and various birds, fish and mammals.

The development of agricultural knowledge some 12,000 years ago gave rise to permanent settlements. The earliest were in the Levant region (across modern-day Iraq, southwestern Iran and eastern Turkey), in an area called the “Fertile Crescent”.

Permanent agriculture led to the production of a surplus of food. The ability to stay in one place with food on-hand meant the time it took to cook no longer mattered as much.

It quickly became common to eat one light meal early in the day, followed by a larger hearth-prepared meal later on. The specific timings would have varied between groups.

Eating together as a rule

The communal nature of foraging and hunting, and later farming, meant humans almost always ate their meals in the company of others. In the ancient city-state of Sparta, in the 4th century BCE, these practices were codified as common main meals called syssitia (meaning “eating together”).

These meals were consumed at the end of the day in communal dining halls. Food was served by young boys to tables of 15 or so men who lived together and fought in the same military division. The men gradually shared generational knowledge with the young boys, who themselves would join the tables by age 20.

In the 5th century BCE, Greek historian Herodotus wrote about how syssitia evolved from a Spartan military practice to having deep political meaning in society. Similarly, Plato wrote common meals were an integral component of civil society, and that missing a meal without good reason was a civic offence.

By dining in full view of the rest of society, citizens were compelled to maintain self-discipline. Mealtime was also an opportunity for social linkage, and important discussions ranging from business deals to politics.

The eating habits of Spartan women are missing in the texts, although it is implied they ate at home.

Bunches of lunches

Counter to the tough Spartan way of life, the Romans enjoyed their main meal, cena, earlier in the day, followed by a lighter meal just before bed.

The northern European tribes tended towards two larger meals per day, as more sustenance is required in colder climes. To the Vikings, these meals were known as dagmal and nattmal, or day meal and night meal. Nattmal was the cooked evening meal, while dagmal usually consisted of leftover nattmal with the addition of bread and beer or mead.

In Australia, evidence suggests Aboriginal peoples tended toward a daily single meal, which aligns with the predominant method of cookery: slow-cooking with hot coals or rocks in an earth oven. This underground oven, used by Aboriginal and also Torres Strait Islander communities, was referred to as a kup murri or kap mauri by some groups.

This is similar to other Indigenous preparations throughout the Pacific, such as the New Zealand Māori hāngī, Hawaiian imu, Fijian lovo, and even the Mayan píib.

The once-daily meal would have been supplemented with snacks throughout the day.

Three’s the magic number

The timing of meals was heavily influenced by class structure, local climate and people’s daily activities. Practicality also played a part. Without reliable lighting, meals had to be prepared and eaten before dark. In settled parts of Northern Europe, this could be as early as 3pm.

So how did we go from one or two main meals, to three? The answer may lie with the British Royal Navy.

Since its inception in the 16th century, the navy served three regular meals to align with the shipboard routine. This included a simple breakfast of ship’s biscuits, lunch as the main meal, and dinner as more of a light supper.

Some sources suggest the term “square meal” may have come from the square wooden trays meals were served in.

The Industrial Revolution, which started around 1760, arguably also played a role in formalising the concept of three specific mealtimes across the Western world.

The cadence of breakfast, lunch and dinner matched the routine of the longer, standardised workdays. Workers ate breakfast and dinner at home, before and after work, while lunch was eaten with coworkers at a set time.

With minimal breaks, and no time for snacking, three substantial meals became necessary.

The fall of the holy trinity

Today, many factors impact the time and frequency of our meals, from long work commutes to juggling hobbies and social obligations.

The COVID pandemic also impacted how and what we eat, leading us to eat larger amounts of higher calorie foods. The rapid growth of delivery services also means a meal is no more than a few minutes away from most people.

All of this has resulted in mealtimes becoming less rigid, with social meals such as brunch, elevenses and afternoon teas expanding how we connect over food. And mealtimes will continue to evolve as our schedules become ever more complicated.

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. Our ancestors didn’t eat 3 meals a day. So why do we? – https://theconversation.com/our-ancestors-didnt-eat-3-meals-a-day-so-why-do-we-250773