Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kim Goodwin, Lecturer in Arts Management and Human Resources, The University of Melbourne

The film and television sector in Australia employs over 26,000 workers and generated more than A$4.5 billion in income in 2021–22. TV dramas generate a large part of this revenue.

Australian screen workers, including screenwriters, have traditionally been classified by productions as freelancers or contractors. In many cases, this means they have not been paid entitlements most other workers in Australia have access to.

A December ruling by the Australian Taxation Office defined many Australian screenwriters as employees, and therefore they should be paid superannuation. Now, the Australian Writers Guild and Screen Producers Australia are each “seeking legal advice” on what this ruling could mean for scriptwriters and Australia’s screen sector.

Mandated superannuation

The superannuation guarantee mandates employers make superannuation contributions for eligible employees in line with the minimum contribution rate (now 12%).

Historically, scriptwriters, like other arts workers, have been mainly engaged as freelancers, not employees. This means they are not always paid superannuation and other legal entitlements that come from being an employee.

But a December 2024 tax office ruling specifically defined many screen workers as employees.

This ruling advises that someone who sells an existing script (such as someone who wrote a film at their own initiative, and then sold the script to a producer) is not an employee, but “selling property”. These writers are not eligible for super payments.

But the ruling found people who are regularly working scriptwriters (such as those working in a writers’ room for a TV series) may be legally considered employees, and are eligible for payments and protections offered to employees.

Screen Producers Australia sees things differently. Information provided to their members argues scriptwriters are paid for the intellectual property rights associated with their product – meaning they are selling property.

Opposing this, the Australian Writers Guild argue scriptwriters on long-running TV programs or in writers’ rooms are performing services and are employees of the production companies.

If the screen production companies do not fall in line with the tax office ruling, the Australian Writers Guild have not ruled out undertaking legal action through a class action suit, or a strike.

As the guild is not a union, they cannot undertake protected industrial action. But the guild could encourage a “wildcat strike”: a spontaneous work stoppage without union leadership. They recognise, however, this would have the impact on member livelihoods.

What does this mean for scriptwriters?

The ruling from the tax office outlines how it would apply the legislation, but it has not yet been tested legally. If the ruling is tested legally – by, say, legal action from scriptwriters seeking superannuation payments – and scriptwriters are found to be employees, it could greatly affect their work and pay.

Not only could this lead to mandated superannuation contributions, but access to other entitlements such as parental leave, holiday pay and redundancy provisions.

Australian artists earn on average 26% below the workforce norm, with incomes decreasing in real terms.

Working conditions for Australians in the screen industries are difficult. Those working in the sector suffer from high levels of burnout and face systemic barriers when not white, male and able-bodied.

Scriptwriters in Australia often struggle to achieve sustainable careers. Scriptwriting fees often don’t fully cover the research and writing involved in script development, and the rise of streaming services has seen residuals – money made from licence fees of past work – all but disappear.

Secure work in writers’ rooms for television series is also diminishing as these shrink in both team size and duration, limiting opportunities for emerging writers.

Freelance scriptwriters may lack basic worker rights like minimum wage, job security, union bargaining and workers’ compensation insurance.

For those lucky enough to secure work, superannuation and other entitlements can be negotiated into individual contracts. Until now, this has relied on individuals having the power and ability to engage in contract negotiation.

Creative Workplaces – the division of Creative Australia formed in 2023 to address issues of pay, safety and welfare across the arts – recently launched a website. It offers industrial resources for arts organisations and workers to understand their rights and obligations.

This is an important tool for all in the creative industries to ensure they receive the minimums under the law. But it is not a regulatory body. The onus is on organisations and workers to put into practice the relevant contracts and employment relationships.

As the writers guild argues, it should not be up to individual workers to negotiate for basic worker entitlements. The recent tax office ruling, they say, means entitlements should include superannuation for many scriptwriters.

A sustainable screen career

As with other workplace issues impacting artists in recent years, scriptwriters deserve basic legal protections. They also deserve the safety and security that comes from being recognised as employees.

TV drama provides a valuable training ground for Australian creatives. Fostering talent includes the creation of liveable working conditions.

Initiatives such as Creative Workplaces can provide information, but leaders within creative organisations, production companies and other decision makers must act.

Producers may choose now to pay super, in line with the tax office ruling, or they may wait for legal precedent to be set. And while they must adhere to legal minimums, production companies must also consider whether those working with them can earn a sustainable living on these minimums, or if they should offer better employment terms.

If we want a future for screen stories in Australia, support for those working in the sector to build an enduring career is essential.

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. Are screenwriters paid for a product or a service? The definition matters for their workplace rights – https://theconversation.com/are-screenwriters-paid-for-a-product-or-a-service-the-definition-matters-for-their-workplace-rights-261463

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leon Benade, Professor in the School of Education of Edith Cowan University (ECU), Perth, WA, Edith Cowan University

The end of open-plan classrooms in New Zealand, recently announced by Education Minister Erica Stanford, marks yet another swing of the pendulum in school design.

Depending on who you ask, these classrooms were an opportunity to foster collaboration and flexibility or an exercise in organised chaos.

So-called “modern learning environments” – characterised by flexible layouts, fewer walls and sometimes multiple classes and teachers in one space – were vigorously pushed by the National government in 2011.

The stated goal was to promote flexibility in the way students were taught, encourage collaboration and to accommodate new technology in classrooms.

But a 2024 ministerial inquiry into school property found complex procurement, design and authorisation processes associated with bespoke designs caused delays, budget overruns and unrealised expectations in many school communities.

Among the solutions offered by the inquiry was the development of simple but functional schools based on cookie-cutter designs constructed off-site. This recommendation was welcomed by the current National-led government.

Design influenced by ideology

The modern, bespoke designs of the past two decades represented a response to technological developments, such as the introduction of digital devices, that changed how students learned.

This resulted in the steady replacement of traditional school designs from the industrial age with spaces designed for flexibility.

Those industrial age schools were themselves products of changes in the second half of the 20th century. Since the first school opened in 1843, school architecture in New Zealand had evolved significantly. Early schools featured cramped six-metre by four-metre classrooms which could accommodate more than 30 students.

By the 1920s, the “Taranaki” and “Canterbury” models included a more generous minimum classroom size of eight metres by seven metres. There was a greater emphasis on light and ventilation. Their larger spaces also recognised changes in teaching styles that encouraged more active and participatory learning.

By the 1950s, classroom size had grown to ten metres by seven metres. The “Nelson” and “S68” blocks of the 1950s and 1960s provided small self-contained blocks of classrooms that reduced student movement and corridor noise.

Changes to New Zealand school buildings also reflected global trends. Open-plan schools emerged in North America after 1960. At the same time, there were signs English schools would replace their traditional Victorian-style buildings with classrooms considered more child-centred.

The goal was to achieve flexible, connected designs to support evolving education philosophies. England’s 1966 Plowden Report on primary education significantly aided this evolution towards progressive styles of teaching and learning, leading to the creation of schools that featured flexibility, connectivity and external-internal flow.

These schools were the forerunners of “innovative learning environments” and were considered cutting-edge at the time.

In 2004, the ambitious Building Schools for the Future programme was launched in the United Kingdom. It was designed to replace outdated school facilities considered unfit for preparing students for the 21st century.

But in 2011, the James Review of Education Capital highlighted a number of issues with the way schools were being built, putting an end to the infrastructure programme.

That report, like the 2024 New Zealand report, suggested replacing government investment in bespoke school infrastructure with a focus on standardised designs.

A swing back

In New Zealand, “modern learning environments” became part of education policy with the Ministry of Education’s School Property Strategy 2011-2021, published in 2011. But the pendulum started to swing back after Labour came to power in 2017.

Departing from the 2011 strategy, the language of “modern learning environments”, “innovative learning environments” and “flexible learning spaces” largely disappeared. It was replaced in policy documents with “quality learning environments”.

This shift emphasised physical characteristics such as heating, lighting and acoustics, rather than innovative approaches to teaching and learning.

Since coming to power, the current National-led coalition has focused on embedding a standardised approach to foundational skills in reading, writing, maths and science.

While not directly scapegoating open-plan designs for educational underachievement, Erica Stanford said the reforms would ensure learning spaces were “designed to improve student outcomes”.

But as New Zealand moves back to standardised designs, it is worth considering why modern learning environments were introduced in the first place – the flexibility for new technology and space for collaboration – and what students may lose by a swing back towards the separate classrooms of the past.

Leon Benade is affiliated with Learning Environments Australasia, Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA) and The Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE).

Chris Bradbeer is affiliated with Learning Environments New Zealand/Aotearoa (LENZ), and Learning Environments Australasia (LEA).

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

– ref. The end of open-plan classrooms: how school design reflects changing ideas in education – https://theconversation.com/the-end-of-open-plan-classrooms-how-school-design-reflects-changing-ideas-in-education-261359

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Dodd, Professor of Journalism, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

If Rupert Murdoch becomes a white knight standing up to a rampantly bullying US president, the world has moved into the upside-down.

This is, after all, the media mogul whose US television network, Fox News, actively supported Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election result and paid out a US$787 million (about A$1.2 billion) lawsuit for doing so.

It is also the network that supplied several members of Trump’s inner circle, including former Fox host, now controversial Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth.

But that is where we are after Trump filed a writ on July 18 after Murdoch’s financial newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, published an article about a hand-drawn card Trump is alleged to have sent to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. The newspaper reported:

A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.

The Journal said it has seen the letter but did not republish it. The letter allegedly concluded:

Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.

The card was apparently Trump’s contribution to a birthday album compiled for Epstein by the latter’s partner Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence after being found guilty of sex trafficking in 2021.

Trump was furious. He told his Truth Social audience he had warned Murdoch the letter was fake. He wrote, “Mr Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but obviously did not have the power to do so,” referring to Murdoch handing leadership of News Corporation to his eldest son Lachlan in 2023.

Read more:
How Rupert Murdoch helped create a monster – the era of Trumpism – and then lost control of it

Trump is being pincered. On one side, The Wall Street Journal is a respected newspaper that speaks to literate, wealthy Americans who remain deeply sceptical about Trump’s radical initiative on tariffs, which it described in an editorial as “the dumbest trade war in history”.

On the other side is the conspiracy theory-thirsty MAGA base who have been told for years that there was a massive conspiracy around Epstein’s apparent suicide in 2019 that included the so-called deep state, Democrat elites and, no doubt, the Clintons.

Trump, who loves pro wrestling as well as adopting its garish theatrics, might characterise his lawsuit against Murdoch as a smackdown to rival Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant in the 1980s.

To adopt wrestling argot, though, it is a rare battle between two heels.

A friendship of powerful convenience

Murdoch and Trump’s relationship is longstanding but convoluted. The key to understanding it is that both men are ruthlessly transactional.

Exposure in Murdoch’s New York Post in the 1980s and ‘90s was crucial to building Trump’s reputation.

Not that Murdoch particularly likes Trump. Yes, Murdoch attended his second inauguration, albeit in a back row behind the newly favoured big tech media moguls. He was also seen sitting in the Oval Office a few days later looking quite at home.

But this was pure power-display politics, not the behaviour of a friend.

Remember Murdoch’s derision on hearing Trump was considering standing for office before the 2016 election, and his promotion of Ron De Santis in the primaries before Trump’s second term. Murdoch’s political hero has always been Ronald Reagan. Trump has laid waste to the Republican Party of Reagan.

Murdoch knows what the rest of sane America knows: Trump is downright weird, if not dangerous. This, of course, only makes Murdoch’s complicity in Trump’s rise to power, and Fox News’ continued boosterism of Trump, all the more appalling.

But, in keeping with Murdoch’s relationship to power throughout his career, what he helps make, he also helps destroy. Perhaps now it’s Trump’s turn to be unmade. As a former Murdoch lieutenant told The Financial Times over the weekend:

he’s testing out: Is Trump losing his base? And where do I need to be to stay in the heart of the base?

And here is Murdoch’s great advantage, and his looming threat.

A double-edged sword

The advantage comes with the scope of Murdoch’s media empire, which operates like a federation of different mastheads, each with their own market and aspirations. While Fox News panders to the MAGA base, and The New York Post juices its New York audience, The Wall Street Journal speaks, and listens, to business. Each audience has different needs, meaning they’re often presented with the same news in very different ways, or sometimes different news entirely.

Like a federation, though, News Corp uses its various operations to drive the type of change that affects all its markets.

It might work like this. The Wall Street Journal breaks a story that’s so shocking it begins to chip away at MAGA’s unquestioning loyalty of Trump. This process is, of course, willingly aided by the rest of the media. The resulting groundswell eventually allows Fox News and the Post to tentatively follow their audiences into questioning, and then perhaps criticising, Trump.

The threat is that before that groundswell builds, Murdoch is seriously vulnerable to criticism from a still dominant Trump, who can turn conspiracy-prone audiences away from Fox News with just a social media post. Trump has already been busy doing just that, saying he is looking forward to getting Murdoch onto the witness stand for his lawsuit.

If the Fox audience decides it’s the proprietor who’s behind this denigration of Trump, they may decide to boycott their own favoured media channel, even though Fox’s programming hasn’t yet started questioning Trump.

The Murdochs’ fear of audience backlash was a major factor in Fox’s promulgation of the Big Lie after Trump’s defeat in 2020. The fear their audience might defect to Newsmax or some other right-wing media outfit is just as real today.

History littered with fakery

We also need to consider that Trump might be right. What if the letter is a fake?

Murdoch has form when it comes to high-profile exposés that turn out to be fiction. Who can forget the Hitler Diaries in 1983, which we now know Murdoch knew were fake before he published.

Think also of the Pauline Hanson photos, allegedly of her posing in lingerie, all of which were quickly proved to be fake after they were published by Murdoch’s Australian tabloids in 2009.

There was also The Sun’s despicable and wilfully wrong campaign against Elton John in 1987 and the same paper’s continued denigration of the people of Liverpool following the Hillsborough stadium disaster in 1989.

But while Murdoch’s News Corp has a history of confection and fakery, the Wall Street Journal has a reputation for straight reportage, albeit through a conservative lens. Since Murdoch bought it in 2007, it has been engaged in its own internal battle for editorial standards.

Media rolling over

What Trump won’t get from Murdoch is the same acquiescence he’s enjoyed from America’s ABC and CBS networks, which have both handed over tens of millions of dollars in defamation settlements following dubious claims by Trump about the nature of their coverage.

Read more:
ABC’s and CBS’s settlements with Trump are a dangerous step toward the commander in chief becoming the editor-in-chief

In December 2024, ABC’s owner Disney settled and agreed to pay US$15 million (A$23 million) to Trump’s presidential library. The president sued after a presenter said Trump was found guilty of raping E. Jean Carroll.

Trump had actually been found guilty by a jury in a civil trial of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll and was ordered to pay her US$5 million (A$7.6 million).

CBS’ parent company, Paramount, did similarly after being sued by the president, agreeing in early July to settle and pay US$16 million (A$24.5 million) to Trump’s library. This was despite earlier saying the case was “completely without merit”.

Beware the legal microscope

From Trump’s viewpoint, two prominent media companies have been cowed. But his campaign against critical media doesn’t stop there.

Last week, congress passed a bill cancelling federal funding for the country’s two public-service media outlets, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).

Also last week, CBS announced the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s stridently critical comedy show, although CBS claims this is just a cost-cutting exercise and not about appeasing a bully in the White House.

Presuming the reported birthday letter is real, Murdoch will not bend so easily. And that’s when it will be important to pay attention, because at some point Trump’s lawyers will advise him about the dangers of depositions and discovery: the legal processes that force parties to a dispute to reveal what they have and what they know.

If the Epstein files do implicate Trump, the legal fight won’t last long and the media campaign against him will only intensify.

Right now we have the spectre of Murdoch joining that other disaffected mogul, Elon Musk, in a moral crusade against Trump, the man they both helped make. The implications are head-spinning.

As global bullies, the three of them probably deserve each other. But we, the public, surely deserve better than any of them.

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. Could Rupert Murdoch bring down Donald Trump? A court case threatens more than just their relationship – https://theconversation.com/could-rupert-murdoch-bring-down-donald-trump-a-court-case-threatens-more-than-just-their-relationship-261532

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University

Champions of the almost entirely party-line vote in the U.S. Senate to erase US$1.1 billion in already approved funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting called their action a refusal to subsidize liberal media.

“Public broadcasting has long been overtaken by partisan activists,” said U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, insisting there is no need for government to fund what he regards as biased media. “If you want to watch the left-wing propaganda, turn on MSNBC,” Cruz said.

Accusing the media of liberal bias has been a consistent conservative complaint since the civil rights era, when white Southerners insisted news outlets were slanting their stories against segregation. During his presidential campaign in 1964, U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona complained that the media was against him, an accusation that has been repeated by every Republican presidential candidate since.

But those charges of bias rarely survive empirical scrutiny.

As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on journalism that is independent of both market pressure and partisan talking points.

That independence in the United States – enshrined in the press freedom clause of the First Amendment – gives journalists the ability to hold government accountable, expose abuses of power and thereby support democracy.

Trusting independence

Ad Fontes Media, a self-described “public benefit company” whose mission is to rate media for credibility and bias, have placed the reporting of “PBS NewsHour” under 10 points left of the ideological center. They label it as both “reliable” and based in “analysis/fact.” “Fox and Friends,” by contrast, the popular morning show on Fox News, is nearly 20 points to the right. The scale starts at zero and runs 42 points to the left to measure progressive bias and 42 points to the right to measure conservative bias. Ratings are provided by three-person panels comprising left-, right- and center-leaning reviewers.

A 2020 peer-reviewed study in Science Advances that tracked more than 6,000 political reporters likewise found “no evidence of liberal media bias” in the stories they chose to cover, even though most journalists are more left-leaning than the rest of the population.

A similar 2016 study published in Public Opinion Quarterly said that media are more similar than dissimilar and, excepting political scandals, “major
news organizations present topics in a largely nonpartisan manner,
casting neither Democrats nor Republicans in a particularly favorable
or unfavorable light.”

Surveys show public media’s audiences do not see it as biased. A national poll of likely voters released July 14, 2025, found that 53% of respondents trust public media to report news “fully, accurately and fairly,” while only 35% extend that trust to “the media in general.” A majority also opposed eliminating federal support.

Contrast these numbers with attitudes about public broadcasters such as MTVA in Hungary or the TVP in Poland, where the state controls most content. Protests in Budapest October 2024 drew thousands demanding an end to “propaganda.” Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism reports that TVP is the least trusted news outlet in the country.

While critics sometimes conflate American public broadcasting with state-run outlets, the structures are very different.

Safeguards for editorial freedom

In state-run media systems, a government agency hires editors, dictates coverage and provides full funding from the treasury. Public officials determine – or make up – what is newsworthy. Individual media operations survive only so long as the party in power is happy.

Public broadcasting in the U.S. works in almost exactly the opposite way: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private nonprofit with a statutory “firewall” that forbids political interference.

More than 70% of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s federal appropriation for 2025 of US$1.1 billion flows through to roughly 1,500 independently governed local stations, most of which are NPR or PBS affiliates but some of which are unaffiliated community broadcasters. CPB headquarters retains only about 5% of that federal funding.

Stations survive by combining this modest federal grant money with listener donations, underwriting and foundation support. That creates a diversified revenue mix that further safeguards their editorial freedom.

And while stations share content, each also has latitude when it comes to programming and news coverage, especially at the local level.

As a public-private partnership, individual communities mostly own the public broadcasting system and its affiliate stations. Congress allocates funds, while community nonprofits, university boards, state authorities or other local license holders actually own and run the stations. Individual monthly donors are often called “members” and sometimes have voting rights in station-governance matters. Membership contributions make up the largest share of revenue for most stations, providing another safeguard for editorial independence.

Broadly shared civic commons

And then there are public media’s critical benefits to democracy itself.

A 2021 report from the European Broadcasting Union links public broadcasting with higher voter turnout, better factual knowledge and lower susceptibility to extremist rhetoric.

Experts warn that even small cuts will exacerbate an already pernicious problem with political disinformation in the U.S., as citizens lose access to free information that fosters media literacy and encourages trust across demographics.

In many ways, public media remains the last broadly shared civic commons. It is both commercial-free and independently edited.

Another study, by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School in 2022, affirmed that “countries with independent and well-funded public broadcasting systems also consistently have stronger democracies.”

The study highlighted how public media works to bridge divides and foster understanding across polarized groups. Unlike commercial media, where the profit motive often creates incentives to emphasize conflict and sensationalism, public media generally seeks to provide balanced perspectives that encourage dialogue and mutual respect. Reports are often longer and more in-depth than those by other news outlets.

Such attention to nuance provides a critical counterweight to the fragmented, often hyperpartisan news bubbles that pervade cable news and social media. And this skillful, more balanced treatment helps to ameliorate political polarization and misinformation.

In all, public media’s unique structure and mission make democracy healthier in the U.S. and across the world. Public media prioritizes education and civic enlightenment. It gives citizens important tools for navigating complex issues to make informed decisions – whether those decisions are about whom to vote for or about public policy itself. Maintaining and strengthening public broadcasting preserves media diversity and advances important principles of self-government.

Congress’ cuts to public broadcasting will diminish the range and volume of the free press and the independent reporting it provides. Ronald Reagan once described a free press as vital for the United States to succeed in its “noble experiment in self-government.” From that perspective, more independent reporting – not less – will prove the best remedy for any worry about partisan spin.

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. PBS and NPR are generally unbiased, independent of government propaganda and provide key benefits to US democracy – https://theconversation.com/pbs-and-npr-are-generally-unbiased-independent-of-government-propaganda-and-provide-key-benefits-to-us-democracy-261512

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hanri Mostert, SARChI Chair for Mineral Law in Africa, University of Cape Town

A US-brokered peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda binds the two African nations to a worrying arrangement: one where a country signs away its mineral resources to a superpower in return for opaque assurances of security.

The peace deal, signed in June 2025, aims to end three decades of conflict between the DRC and Rwanda.

A key part of the agreement binds both nations to developing a regional economic integration framework. This arrangement would expand cooperation between the two states, the US government and American investors on “transparent, formalized end-to-end mineral chains”.

Despite its immense mineral wealth, the DRC is among the five poorest countries in the world. It has been seeking US investment in its mineral sector.

The US has in turn touted a potential multi-billion-dollar investment programme to anchor its mineral supply chains in the traumatised and poor territory.

The peace that the June 2025 deal promises, therefore, hinges on chaining mineral supply to the US in exchange for Washington’s powerful – but vaguely formulated – military oversight.

The peace agreement further establishes a joint oversight committee – with representatives from the African Union, Qatar and the US – to receive complaints and resolve disputes between the DRC and Rwanda.

But beyond the joint oversight committee, the peace deal creates no specific security obligations for the US.

The relationship between the DRC and Rwanda has been marred by war and tension since the bloody First (1996-1997) and Second (1998-2003) Congo wars. At the heart of much of this conflict is the DRC’s mineral wealth. It has fuelled competition, exploitation and armed violence.

This latest peace deal introduces a resources-for-security arrangement. Such deals aren’t new in Africa. They first emerged in the early 2000s as resources-for-infrastructure transactions. Here, a foreign state would agree to build economic and social infrastructure (roads, ports, airports, hospitals) in an African state. In exchange, it would get a major stake in a government-owned mining company. Or gain preferential access to the host country’s minerals.

We have studied mineral law and governance in Africa for more than 20 years. The question that emerges now is whether a US-brokered resources-for-security agreement will help the DRC benefit from its resources.

Based on our research on mining, development and sustainability, we believe this is unlikely.

This is because resources-for-security is the latest version of a resource-bartering approach that China and Russia pioneered in countries such as Angola, the Central African Republic and the DRC.

Resource bartering in Africa has eroded the sovereignty and bargaining power of mineral-rich nations such as the DRC and Angola.

Further, resources-for-security deals are less transparent and more complicated than prior resource bartering agreements.

DRC’s security gaps

The DRC is endowed with major deposits of critical minerals like cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese and tantalum. These are the building blocks for 21st century technologies: artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, wind energy and military security hardware. Rwanda has less mineral wealth than its neighbour, but is the world’s third-largest producer of tantalum, used in electronics, aerospace and medical devices.

For almost 30 years, minerals have fuelled conflict and severe violence, especially in eastern DRC. Tungsten, tantalum and gold (referred to as 3TG) finance and drive conflict as government forces and an estimated 130 armed groups vie for control over lucrative mining sites. Several reports and studies have implicated the DRC’s neighbours – Rwanda and Uganda – in supporting the illegal extraction of 3TG in this region.

The DRC government has failed to extend security over its vast (2.3 million square kilometres) and diverse territory (109 million people, representing 250 ethnic groups). Limited resources, logistical challenges and corruption have weakened its armed forces.

This context makes the United States’ military backing enormously attractive. But our research shows there are traps.

What states risk losing

Resources-for-infrastructure and resources-for-security deals generally offer African nations short-term stability, financing or global goodwill. However, the costs are often long-term because of an erosion of sovereign control.

Here’s how this happens:

• certain clauses in such contracts can freeze future regulatory reforms, limiting legislative autonomy

• other clauses may lock in low prices for years, leaving resource-selling states unable to benefit when commodity prices surge

• arbitration clauses often shift disputes to international forums, bypassing local courts

• infrastructure loans are often secured via resource revenues used as loan security. This effectively ringfences exports and undermines sovereign fiscal control.

Examples of loss or near-loss of sovereignty from these sorts of deals abound in Africa.

For instance, Angola’s US$2 billion oil-backed loan from China Eximbank in 2004. This was repayable in monthly deliveries of oil, with revenues directed to Chinese-controlled accounts. The loan’s design deprived Angolan authorities of decision-making power over that income stream even before the oil was extracted.

These deals also fragment accountability. They often span multiple ministries (such as defence, mining and trade), avoiding robust oversight or accountability. Fragmentation makes resource sectors vulnerable to elite capture. Powerful insiders can manipulate agreements for private gain.

In the DRC, this has created a violent kleptocracy, where resource wealth is systematically diverted away from popular benefit.

Finally, there is the risk of re-entrenching extractive trauma. Communities displaced for mining and environmental degradation in many countries across Africa illustrate the long-standing harm to livelihoods, health and social cohesion.

These are not new problems. But where extraction is tied to security or infrastructure, such damage risks becoming permanent features, not temporary costs.

What needs to change

Critical minerals are “critical” because they’re hard to mine or substitute. Additionally, their supply chains are strategically vulnerable and politically exposed. Whoever controls these minerals controls the future. Africa must make sure it doesn’t trade that future away.

In a world being reshaped by global interests in critical minerals, African states must not underestimate the strategic value of their mineral resources. They hold considerable leverage.

But leverage only works if it is wielded strategically. This means:

• investing in institutional strength and legal capacity to negotiate better deals

• demanding local value creation and addition

• requiring transparency and parliamentary oversight for minerals-related agreements

• refusing deals that bypass human rights, environmental or sovereignty standards.

Africa has the resources. It must hold on to the power they wield.

Hanri Mostert receives funding from the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa. She is a member of the Expropriation Expert Group and a steering committee member of the International Bar Association’s (IBA) Academic Advisory Group (AAG) in the Sector for Energy, Environmental, Resources and Infrastructure Law (SEERIL).

Tracy-Lynn Field receives funding from the Claude Leon Foundation. She is a non-executive director of the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa.

– ref. Africa’s minerals are being bartered for security: why it’s a bad idea – https://theconversation.com/africas-minerals-are-being-bartered-for-security-why-its-a-bad-idea-260594

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Havovi Chichger, Professor, Biomedical Science, Anglia Ruskin University

Found in everything from protein bars to energy drinks, erythritol has long been considered a safe alternative to sugar. But new research suggests this widely used sweetener may be quietly undermining one of the body’s most crucial protective barriers – with potentially serious consequences for heart health and stroke risk.

A recent study from the University of Colorado suggests erythritol may damage cells in the blood-brain barrier, the brain’s security system that keeps out harmful substances while letting in nutrients. The findings add troubling new detail to previous observational studies that have linked erythritol consumption to increased rates of heart attack and stroke.

In the new study, researchers exposed blood-brain barrier cells to levels of erythritol typically found after drinking a soft drink sweetened with the compound. They saw a chain reaction of cell damage that could make the brain more vulnerable to blood clots – a leading cause of stroke.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Erythritol triggered what scientists call oxidative stress, flooding cells with harmful, highly reactive molecules known as free radicals, while simultaneously reducing the body’s natural antioxidant defences. This double assault damaged the cells’ ability to function properly, and in some cases killed them outright.

But perhaps more concerning was erythritol’s effect on the blood vessels’ ability to regulate blood flow. Healthy blood vessels act like traffic controllers, widening when organs need more blood – during exercise, for instance – and tightening when less is required. They achieve this delicate balance through two key molecules: nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, and endothelin-1, which constricts them.

The study found that erythritol disrupted this critical system, reducing nitric oxide production while ramping up endothelin-1. The result would be blood vessels that remain dangerously constricted, potentially starving the brain of oxygen and nutrients. This imbalance is a known warning sign of ischaemic stroke – the type caused by blood clots blocking vessels in the brain.

Even more alarming, erythritol appeared to sabotage the body’s natural defence against blood clots. Normally, when clots form in blood vessels, cells release a “clot buster” called tissue plasminogen activator that dissolves the blockage before it can cause a stroke. But the sweetener blocked this protective mechanism, potentially leaving clots free to wreak havoc.

The laboratory findings align with troubling evidence from human studies. Several large-scale observational studies have found that people who regularly consume erythritol face significantly higher risks of cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks and strokes. One major study tracking thousands of participants found that those with the highest blood levels of erythritol were roughly twice as likely to experience a major cardiac event.

However, the research does have limitations. The experiments were conducted on isolated cells in laboratory dishes rather than complete blood vessels, which means the cells may not behave exactly as they would in the human body. Scientists acknowledge that more sophisticated testing – using advanced “blood vessel on a chip” systems that better mimic real physiology – will be needed to confirm these effects.

The findings are particularly significant because erythritol occupies a unique position in the sweetener landscape. Unlike artificial sweeteners such as aspartame or sucralose, erythritol is technically a sugar alcohol – a naturally occurring compound that the body produces in small amounts. This classification helped it avoid inclusion in recent World Health Organization guidelines that discouraged the use of artificial sweeteners for weight control.

Erythritol has also gained popularity among food manufacturers because it behaves more like sugar than other alternatives. While sucralose is 320 times sweeter than sugar, erythritol provides only about 80% of sugar’s sweetness, making it easier to use in recipes without creating an overpowering taste. It’s now found in thousands of products, especially in many “sugar-free” and “keto-friendly” foods.

Trade-off

Regulatory agencies, including the European Food Standards Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration, have approved erythritol as safe for consumption. But the new research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that even “natural” sugar alternatives may carry unexpected health risks.

For consumers, the findings raise difficult questions about the trade-offs involved in sugar substitution. Sweeteners like erythritol can be valuable tools for weight management and diabetes prevention, helping people reduce calories and control blood sugar spikes. But if regular consumption potentially weakens the brain’s protective barriers and increases cardiovascular risk, the benefits may come at a significant cost.

The research underscores a broader challenge in nutritional science: understanding the long-term effects of relatively new food additives that have become ubiquitous in the modern diet. While erythritol may help people avoid the immediate harms of excess sugar consumption, its effect on the blood-brain barrier suggests that frequent use could be quietly compromising brain protection over time.

As scientists continue to investigate these concerning links, consumers may want to reconsider their relationship with this seemingly innocent sweetener – and perhaps question whether any sugar substitute additive is truly without risk.

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

– ref. A popular sweetener could be damaging your brain’s defences, says recent study – https://theconversation.com/a-popular-sweetener-could-be-damaging-your-brains-defences-says-recent-study-261500

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Theresa Larkin, Associate Professor of Medical Sciences, University of Wollongong

Semen, sperm, spunk, cum, ejaculate, pre-cum, seminal fluid. These are just some of the many words we use to describe what comes out of an erect penis.

Some of these terms can be used interchangeably, but they’re not all the same. Do you know the difference?

What is sperm?

Sperm are male reproductive (sex) cells. The word “sperm” can refer to spermatozoon (singular) or spermatozoa (plural).

Sperm are tiny cells with an oval-shaped body and a long tail. They measure just 1/20th of a millimetre in length and can only be seen with a microscope.

Sperm are produced in the two testes (testicles). The testes are glands located inside the scrotum (the skin sac underneath where the penis is attached to the body).

The testes begin producing sperm at puberty. Sperm production then continues throughout adult life, beginning to decline around age 40. The testes make about 200 million sperm every day.

To develop, sperm need a temperature range of 34–35°C, which is lower than core body temperature (usually between 36 and 37°C). This is why the testes are located in the cooler scrotum and not in the abdomen or pelvis.

Each sperm carries chromosomes, which are made up of DNA and genes. When a sperm cell fertilises a female reproductive cell (an ovum or egg), the genetic information of the sperm and ovum combines to form an embryo.

What is semen?

Ejaculated sperm has to reach the uterine (fallopian) tubes to fertilise an egg. This is a long journey, so sperm are carried in a fluid that nourishes and protects it (seminal fluid).

Semen is the mix of sperm and seminal fluid together. It is Latin for “seed” from serere, “to sow”. Semen only exists outside the body, because sperm and seminal fluid only combine at the point of ejaculation.

Seminal fluid is made in the sex glands. These are the seminal vesicles and prostate, which sit just behind and below the bladder, respectively.

The seminal vesicles produce a thick, gel-like substance. It clumps the sperm together immediately after ejaculation and provides the sperm with energy (fructose) to survive their journey.

This fluid is alkaline – the opposite to acidic – which protects sperm in the more acidic vagina.

The prostate secretes a thinner, milky fluid with acids that liquefy the semen. This helps the sperm to separate from the initial clump so they can travel through the cervix and uterus to the uterine tubes.

The prostate also provides zinc, which is essential for sperm survival.

Ejaculating secretes these fluids and sperm into the urethra, the narrow tube that runs through the penis and also transports urine. At this point, they combine as semen.

Semen is about 10% sperm and 90% fluid from the seminal vesicles and prostate.

What happens after ejaculation

Ejaculating usually produces between 1.5 and 5 millilitres of semen, and each mL contains anywhere between 15 and 200 million sperm.

If semen is ejaculated into a vagina, sperm have to travel around 15 centimetres to reach the uterine tubes, which is the most common site for fertilisation.

The fastest and healthiest sperm travel this distance – about 3,000 times their body length – in only 30 minutes.

For a human of average height, this equates to swimming about 5 kilometres in half an hour. That means sperm can swim twice as fast as the current world record for a 5km open water swim.

Does ‘pre-cum’ have sperm in it?

An aroused and erect penis can secrete up to 4mL of pre-ejaculate (pre-cum), which is completely different to semen.

Pre-ejaculate is produced by different sex glands – the small bulbourethral glands that sit just under the prostate. It is a mucus fluid that lubricates and flushes out the urethra in the penis.

Theoretically, pre-ejaculate doesn’t contain sperm. However, one small study found the pre-ejaculate of about 40% of men they studied contained sperm, though in very low numbers.

The risk of getting pregnant from pre-ejaculate is very low – but not zero.

What can semen say about your overall health?

Semen is usually creamy-white or pale grey. It often has a faint ammonia or bleach smell, because of its alkaline pH.

However its colour, consistency and smell can vary between people and even on different days for the same person.

If semen has a foul odour, it may indicate an infection and should be checked by a doctor.

Contraception and fertility

A vasectomy is a form of male contraceptive. This involves cutting the two vas deferens – the tubes that carry sperm from the testes to the urethra. After a vasectomy, ejaculating will produce slightly less semen and it won’t contain sperm.

Clinical trials have also started for a new potential male contraceptive pill that blocks sperm production in the testes.

Oxidative stress – an imbalance of too many damaging chemicals and not enough antioxidants – has a negative impact on sperm health and strongly contributes to male infertility.

The World Health Organization has published a range of values for semen volume and sperm number, concentration, movement and structure among fertile males. However, low sperm count does not always mean lower fertility.

To keep sperm healthy, it’s recommended to eat a healthy diet rich in antioxidants, exercise regularly, maintain a healthy weight, and not smoke, use recreational drugs or drink a lot of alcohol.

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

– ref. What’s the difference between sperm and semen? And can pre-ejaculate get you pregnant? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-sperm-and-semen-and-can-pre-ejaculate-get-you-pregnant-253212

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Dickinson, Professor, Public Service Research, UNSW Sydney

The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is undergoing another round of major reforms.

One key change relates to the funding periods in which participants are allowed to spend their budgets.

While these aim to improve the scheme’s sustainability, they risk making an already complex system even harder to navigate.

A common question participants ask is: what happens if they overspend or underspend on their NDIS budgets?

There isn’t a simple answer. But let’s unpack the components of budgets and set out some practical tips for NDIS participants.

What is driving this round of NDIS reforms?

Concerns about the growing NDIS budget prompted the government to limit annual growth to a target of 8% a year by mid-2026.

One cost pressure the government has identified is intra-plan inflation. This happens when NDIS participants spend their budget before the end of their plan, meaning they need to ask for extra funding within their plan timeframe.

In the 12 months to February 2024, the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) – the body responsible for the NDIS – estimated intra-plan inflation costs more than A$3.3 billion. Around 15% of participants spend their budget before the end of their plan.

Several changes are now in place to address this.

What causes plans to be overspent (or underspent)?

Overspending occurs when a participant runs out of funding before the end of their plan period.

This can happen when a participant receives a plan that is insufficient to meet their needs, which is more common with first plans.

It can also occur when a participant has a change in circumstances which means their support needs change, so they increase their spending before their plan can be reviewed.

In both circumstances, participants must request additional funding so they can keep receiving supports.

Participants might also find they underspend their budget.

This can occur because of confusion over what is funded and how funds can be spent.

But it can also be because of a lack of appropriate services near where the participant lives.

Research shows Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people with psychosocial disability (from mental health issues such as schizophrenia or post-traumatic stress disorder) and people living in rural and remote areas are more likely to underspend.

What an NDIS plan includes

Each NDIS plan includes a total budget amount, which is the amount of funding allocated for all supports expected to last for the full duration of their plan.

But this doesn’t mean participants can use this budget in whatever way they want.

Participant spending needs to meet a set of criteria and can only be spent in the way the NDIA describes.

NDIS supports are provided in plans using four support categories:

• core supports – help with everyday activities such as personal care, household tasks and support to join in community activities

• capacity-building supports – help to build or maintain skills and independence such as behaviour support, employment-related support and therapies

• capital supports – high-cost assistive technologies, home modifications and specialist disability accommodation

• recurring supports – regularly paid directly to a participant’s account and typically include costs for transport.

In each category, supports are labelled either flexible or stated. Flexible supports allow for some discretion in how funds are used.

“Assistance with daily life” can cover a range of tasks including household cleaning or meal preparation. These core support funds tend to be the most flexible.

Stated supports, on the other hand, must be used exactly as the plan describes.

Not all plans have funds in every category.

Importantly, funds can’t be shifted from one category to another. You can’t, for example, use core funding for capacity building supports.

New funding periods introduced

In May, changes were introduced for new plans, meaning funds are released over set time periods.

While the total value of the plan remains the same, there are now limits on when funds can be accessed and how long they need to last.

Funding can be allocated over different periods:

• quarterly – released in three-month blocks so spending is spread over the full length of the plan

• monthly – for high-cost ongoing supports such as supported independent living

• up-front – funding for one-off supports such as assistive technology can be released in full at the start of a plan.

Participants may have different funding periods for different parts of their plan, although most funds will likely be released quarterly.

If funds aren’t used in an allocated period they roll over into the next time block in the same plan.

However, any funds left unused at the end of the full plan duration are returned to the NDIS funding pool.

What’s the government trying to do?

The change means participants can’t draw on future allocations if funds for a current period run out. Nor can funds be shifted between categories.

If a plan is exhausted, participants may be left without support or face out-of-pocket costs, particularly if plans are self-managed.

Service-providers may stop delivering support if they’re notified that a participant’s budget has run out.

In some cases, the NDIS may consider persistent overspending as a sign the participant cannot effectively manage their plan. This could result in the NDIA taking over management of their plan.

If a participant consistently finds their funds run out early, or if they need more funds because their circumstances change and they need more support, they can request a review of their plan to seek more funding.

However, requesting a plan review can sometimes affect other areas of a participant’s plan. So some people may be reluctant to ask for a review and instead try to manage with less supports than they need.

A number of disability rights organisations have spoken out against these changes, stating they have the potential to impact NDIS participants’ autonomy, safety and wellbeing.

Tips for NDIS participants to manage their plans

Ensure you understand your plan and how the funds are split between support categories and funding periods. It might be helpful to discuss this with a family member, friend or support coordinator.

Remember, not everyone gets everything they ask for in their plan, so make sure you’re clear on the funding you received.

If your plan seems insufficient for your needs, consider asking for a review.

A good way to ensure your spending stays on track is to set budget goals for a plan. There are several different apps and software programs that can help with this.

Finally, a range of websites offer advice and resources to help NDIS participants understand their budgets and spending. You can sometimes claim for these resources within your NDIS funding.

Helen Dickinson receives funding from Australian Research Council., National Health and Medical Research Council. Medical Research Future Fund and Australian governments.

Glenda Bishop receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund.

– ref. What happens if I go over or under on my NDIS plan? And what do shorter funding periods mean for me? – https://theconversation.com/what-happens-if-i-go-over-or-under-on-my-ndis-plan-and-what-do-shorter-funding-periods-mean-for-me-259386

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ruben Perez-Hidalgo, Lecturer in Spanish Studies, University of Sydney

The story of Carmen, in the 19th century opera by French composer George Bizet, is, at its simplest, the story of a developing tension between Carmen, a stereotypically racialised woman attempting to break free from society’s impositions and her already-written fate.

Anne-Louise Sark’s adaptation takes that conflict much further.

Carmen (Danielle de Niese at the performance I attended) is a gypsy who works in a cigarette factory. She catches the eye of Don José (Abraham Bretón), who obsessively falls in love with her.

Don José’s love for Carmen devolves into what today would be succinctly called “toxic”. In a post-#metoo era, where we are all attuned to anti-racism teachings, Sarks gives us a contrast between the antiquated words sung in French, and the conscious effort to make those words exist in our contemporary world.

This Carmen is defined by many degrees of contrast. This rocking feeling of contradiction keeps on growing until the climax in the very last act.

A toxic love

The opening act begins in a square of Seville. Marg Horwell’s design sees the stage strewn with fluorescent confetti spread all over the floor (as if the Sydney Mardi Gras parade had just ended), a chain link fence colourfully crowded with love locks and flashy ribbons, behind which peeks a monumental but austere cross typical of most squares in that part of Spain.

There, a teenage couple – sporting polyester track suits – alongside a pair of young lovers similarly attired, and a string of children discordantly dressed stay in the background while one of the khaki-wearing guards begins to sing an aria to the protagonist, “La Carmencita”, also known as Carmen.

The sensation of the contrast between this contemporary setting and Bizet’s original opera is deepened at the beginning of the second act at Lillas Pastia’s Tavern.

The stage is crowded by a neon-filled atmosphere composed of camp portrayals of the Virgin Our Lady of Guadalupe and pop art images of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

The charm of the background is enhanced by the stellar performances of not only the two main protagonists, Carmen and Don José, but by an array of supporting characters that truly elevate this second bout of the action.

A string of smugglers are at the tavern of Lillas Pastias, plotting how to bring about their criminal deeds with the help of Carmen, her close friends (incredibly played by Helen Sherman and Jane Ede), and critically Don José, who has just joined them.

Blinded by this “toxic” love, Don José cannot help but to increase the dramatic tension when he realises Carmen is losing interest in him in favour of the famous bullfighter from Granada, Escamillo (Andrii Kymach).

The tension is fortified by the visual conflict between the irreverent religious décor and the ongoing action, consisting of an unruly mob drinking and dancing until the early hours of the morning.

By the end of this second act, there is another turn of the screw in the depiction of Don José’s progressive possessiveness of Carmen, who in parallel begins to assert ever more explicitly the signs of her indomitability.

Exploding tension

The plot picks up pace in the third act, set in the smugglers’ hideout.

There, an Othello-like Don José spirals down, green with jealousy, in the face of an increasingly distant Carmen. The more Don José wants her, the more Carmen is filled with desires of freedom from her possessive lover.

This tense dynamic explodes in the fourth act.

Set in a little cottage right outside a bullring in Seville, it is at this point obvious Carmen and the matador Escamillo are lovers – anticipating Don José’s fatal deed.

Although the audience must have expected Carmen’s death at the hands of the spirited Don José, witnessing the act of her killing on stage comes as more than just an awaited unpleasant surprise.

It works to anchor the conflict at the core of Sark’s adaptation.

For a flash moment, we are pushed to peek beyond the fiction. Don José strangles with his bare hands the actress playing Carmen, her arm hopelessly punching her aggressor, her legs writhing in despair. Such an instant from our sad reality shocks through the stage, breaking the fourth wall.

The theatricalisation of Carmen’s killing is also the realisation that male violence against women is anything but a fiction – least of all one left in the distant past.

Paradoxically, the quick lowering of the curtain and the much-deserved long applause that follows serves to cut short the impact of the “real” death of Carmen shown on stage.

Perhaps, for the next version, a new director will find a newer way to make Carmen’s reality last beyond the many pleasures of watching this multi-layered drama unfold.

Carmen is at the Sydney Opera House for Opera Australia until September 19, then playing in Melbourne.

Ruben Perez-Hidalgo 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. Opera Australia gives us a rocking Carmen for the post-#metoo era – https://theconversation.com/opera-australia-gives-us-a-rocking-carmen-for-the-post-metoo-era-261103

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roy Ebel, PhD Candidate in Evolutionary Biology, Museums Victoria Research Institute

Monitor lizards, also known in Australia as goannas, are some of the most iconic reptiles on the continent. Their lineage not only survived the mass extinction that ended the reign of non-avian dinosaurs, but also gave rise to the largest living lizards on Earth.

Today, these formidable creatures pace through forests and scrublands, flicking their tongues as they go.

A new study published in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society looks beneath their skin. For the first time, it reveals hidden bone structures that may hold the key to the evolutionary success of goannas in Australia.

An essential organ

The skin is an organ essential for survival. In some animals, it includes a layer of bone plates embedded among the skin tissue. Think of the armour-like plates in crocodiles or armadillos: these are osteoderms.

Their size ranges from microscopic to massive, with the back plates of the stegosaurus as the most impressive example.

We have only just started to understand these enigmatic structures. Osteoderms can be found in animal lineages that diverged up to 380 million years ago. This means these bone plates would have evolved independently, just like active flight did in birds, pterosaurs and bats.

But what is their purpose? While the advantage of flight is undisputed, the case is not as clear for osteoderms.

The most obvious potential would be for defence – protecting the animal from injuries. However, osteoderms may serve a far broader purpose.

In crocodiles, for example, they help with heat regulation, play a part in movement, and even supply calcium during egg-laying. It is the interplay of these poorly understood functions that has long made it difficult to pinpoint how and why osteoderms evolved.

A cutting-edge technique

To help resolve this enigma, we had to go back to the beginning.

Surprisingly, to date science has not even agreed on which species have osteoderms. Therefore, we assembled an international team of specialists to carry out the first large-scale study of osteoderms in lizards and snakes.

We studied specimens from scientific collections at institutions such as the Florida Museum of Natural History, the Natural History Museum in Berlin, and Museums Victoria.

However, we soon learnt that this came with challenges. Firstly, the presence of osteoderms can vary dramatically between individuals of the same species. Secondly, there is no guarantee that osteoderms are sufficiently preserved in all specimens.

Most importantly, they are buried deep within skin tissue and invisible to the naked eye. Traditionally, finding them meant destroying the specimen.

Instead, we turned to micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), an imaging technique similar to a medical CT scan, but with much higher resolution. This allowed us to study even the tiniest anatomical structures while keeping our specimens intact.

Using computer-generated 3D models, we then digitally explored the bodies of lizards and snakes from all parts of the world. Incorporating data from prior literature, we processed almost 2,000 such samples in our search for osteoderms.

To illustrate our results, we devised a technique called radiodensity heatmapping, which visually highlights the locations of bone structures in the body.

For the first time, we now have a comprehensive catalogue showing where to find osteoderms in a large and diverse group; this will inform future studies.

Not just anatomical curiosity

What we found was unexpected. It was thought only a small number of lizard families had osteoderms. However, we encountered them nearly twice as often as anticipated.

In fact, our results show nearly half of all lizards have osteoderms in one form or another.

Our most astonishing finding concerned goannas. Scientists have been studying monitor lizards for more than 200 years. They were long thought to lack osteoderms, except in rare cases such as the Komodo dragon.

So we were all the more surprised when we discovered previously undocumented osteoderms in 29 Australo-Papuan species, increasing their overall known prevalence five times.

This isn’t just an anatomical curiosity. Now that we know Australian goannas have osteoderms, it opens up an exciting new avenue for further studies. This is because goannas have an interesting biogeographic history: when they first arrived in Australia about 20 million years ago, they had to adapt to a new, harsh environment.

If osteoderms in goannas showed up around this time – possibly owing to new challenges from their environment – we’d gain crucial insights into the function and evolution of these enigmatic bone structures.

Not only may we just have found the key to an untold chapter in the goanna story, our findings may also improve our understanding of the forces of evolution that shaped Australia’s unique reptiles as we know them today.

Roy Ebel receives funding from the Australian Government’s Research Training Program.

– ref. New study peers beneath the skin of iconic lizards to find ‘chainmail’ bone plates – and lots of them – https://theconversation.com/new-study-peers-beneath-the-skin-of-iconic-lizards-to-find-chainmail-bone-plates-and-lots-of-them-260700

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Kelsey, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process – this time for foreign investment in New Zealand. But it has had almost no public scrutiny.

If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close on July 23.

A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement, the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 “to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely”.

There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments – especially in forestry.

A three-step test

Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator – the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ – 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand’s “national interest”.

If they don’t perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved.

Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, will require a “national interest” assessment under stage two.

These would be assessed against a “ministerial letter” that sets out the government’s general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals.

Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act’s new “purpose” to increase economic opportunity through “timely consent” of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether.

If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is “contrary to the national interest”, the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors.

Inadequate regulatory process

Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury’s 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions.

Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should “manage a wide range of risks” and “that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets”.

Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses.

The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported “notable limitations” on the bill’s quality assurance process.

A fuller review was “infeasible” because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way.

The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited.

Time constraints meant “users and key stakeholders have not been consulted”, according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations. There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement.

No ‘benefit to NZ’ test

While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting.

Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land.

Repeal of the “special forestry test” – which in practice has seen most applications approved, albeit with conditions – means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked.

There would no longer be a need to consider investors’ track records or apply a “benefit to New Zealand” test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash.

The official documents don’t explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First’s support.

It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters, however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore.

Locked in forever?

Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand’s free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand’s investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations.

A “ratchet clause” would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back.

However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question. As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk.

But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications.

Jane Kelsey has received funding from the Marsden Fund for research related to New Zealand’s foreign investment regime and international agreements.

– ref. Why has a bill to relax foreign investment rules had so little scrutiny? – https://theconversation.com/why-has-a-bill-to-relax-foreign-investment-rules-had-so-little-scrutiny-261370

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jill Sheppard, Senior Lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

Despite many pre-election predictions, the 48th Australian parliament looks quite similar to the 47th. The Labor Party has greater representation than before: 94 Members of the House of Representatives (up from 77) and 29 Senators (up from 26).

The Coalition’s numbers were famously smashed at the election, and will be represented by 43 Members and 27 Senators.

Despite the landslide electoral victory, Labor’s parliamentary position is not materially improved. It retains a majority in the House of Representatives, but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese faces the problem of finding jobs to keep such a large backbench occupied. Restless politicians reliably create havoc for their leaders (just ask Keir Starmer).

In the Senate, Labor has more possible paths to a majority, but none is particularly pretty. Pre-election, the government required 12 additional senators to support its legislation. Often this support came from the Coalition, with the crossbench bypassed entirely, as in the case of political donation reforms.

Other reforms, including workplace relations, were passed by a combination of Greens and independent senators.

Labor can achieve a majority (38 votes) in the new Senate by negotiating with either the Greens or the Coalition. If neither is forthcoming, Labor can then turn to a disparate group of crossbenchers: four One Nation Senators, plus Fatima Payman, Jacqui Lambie, Ralph Babet and David Pocock.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: New parliament presents traps for Albanese and Ley

Clearing the decks

How the new Senate configuration affects Labor’s legislative agenda depends on what exactly that agenda looks like.

Labor went into the 47th parliament emphasising the Voice referendum, COVID and rising inflation.

At the end of that term, ten bills were listed for debate but were “timed out” by the constitutional requirement to hold an election.

The most controversial of these is the proposal to add a new 15% tax on superannuation balances of more than $3 million. The Greens, under previous leader Adam Bandt, promised to support the bill in 2023 pending the government extending superannuation to paid parental leave (which was legislated in 2024 and came into effect on July 1 2025).

Read more:
Actually, Gen Z stand to be the biggest winners from the new $3 million super tax

The Greens continue to support the tax proposal in principle, but want the threshold lowered to $2 million.

One Nation is strongly opposed. The Coalition has expressed willingness to negotiate on the condition that unrealised gains are exempt from valuations.

The government has also proposed cutting the number of overseas students at Australian universities, ostensibly due to concerns over exploitation of the student visa program. The Greens have called the proposal “disastrous for tertiary education”.

Pocock and the Coalition have both called for key changes to the bill. Their primary concerns are about a ministerial power to decide appropriate student numbers without parliamentary approval.

Despite opposing the bill for different reasons, the Greens and Coalition were willing to team up against the government – perhaps foreshadowing strategy in the new parliament.

What’s on the horizon?

Labor announced just 15 specific policy proposals before the election. Only two costed promises are registered with the Parliamentary Budget Office. This gives Labor a free hand to determine its policy agenda in the 48th parliament.

Right out of the gate, the government promised to cut HECS debt by 20%. Given the Greens would wipe all current HECS debt, they seem likely to wave this through the Senate.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has since declared that while “the first term was primarily inflation without forgetting productivity, the second term will be primarily productivity without forgetting inflation”.

In search of new thinking, the government has announced an economic reform roundtable comprising government, business and experts, and covering economic resilience, skills, new technologies, healthcare reform and clean energy.

Productivity is notoriously difficult to measure and improve. Whether policies arising from the roundtable will pass the parliament remains to be seen.

However, the government’s invitation to Shadow Treasurer Ted O’Brien was accompanied with commentary that Chalmers does not believe O’Brien or his leader Sussan Ley are “by their nature constructive, collaborative types”.

Other election policies should be legislated with ease. The Coalition has already supported purchasing the Port of Darwin, promised instant asset write-offs for small business, and pledged to match Labor’s Medicare spending dollar for dollar.

The Coalition is also likely to support new fast-track training for 6,000 tradies.

The Greens will likely support pro-worker reforms. These include legislated weekend penalty rates and new mental health spending.

In general, the government’s stated agenda is incremental and should be achievable in this parliament. If the Greens won’t play ball, the Coalition will be waiting in line.

This will probably lead to quixotic policymaking as Labor bounces between two ideologically opposed partners.

Elsewhere, as in the case of the government’s post-election approval of new licences for gas extraction, policy can happen without parliamentary approval at all.

In such cases, meaningful opposition will come from the cross- and backbenches, full of politicians eager to make a name for themselves.

Jill Sheppard receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She worked as an adviser to Coalition parliamentarians between 2003 and 2007.

Patrick Leslie receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Federal election feel like ages ago? Parliament is now back. Here’s your political refresher – https://theconversation.com/federal-election-feel-like-ages-ago-parliament-is-now-back-heres-your-political-refresher-261360

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jill Sheppard, Senior Lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

Despite many pre-election predictions, the 48th Australian parliament looks quite similar to the 47th. The Labor Party has greater representation than before: 94 Members of the House of Representatives (up from 77) and 29 Senators (up from 26).

The Coalition’s numbers were famously smashed at the election, and will be represented by 43 Members and 27 Senators.

Despite the landslide electoral victory, Labor’s parliamentary position is not materially improved. It retains a majority in the House of Representatives, but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese faces the problem of finding jobs to keep such a large backbench occupied. Restless politicians reliably create havoc for their leaders (just ask Keir Starmer).

In the Senate, Labor has more possible paths to a majority, but none is particularly pretty. Pre-election, the government required 12 additional senators to support its legislation. Often this support came from the Coalition, with the crossbench bypassed entirely, as in the case of political donation reforms.

Other reforms, including workplace relations, were passed by a combination of Greens and independent senators.

Labor can achieve a majority (38 votes) in the new Senate by negotiating with either the Greens or the Coalition. If neither is forthcoming, Labor can then turn to a disparate group of crossbenchers: four One Nation Senators, plus Fatima Payman, Jacqui Lambie, Ralph Babet and David Pocock.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: New parliament presents traps for Albanese and Ley

Clearing the decks

How the new Senate configuration affects Labor’s legislative agenda depends on what exactly that agenda looks like.

Labor went into the 47th parliament emphasising the Voice referendum, COVID and rising inflation.

At the end of that term, ten bills were listed for debate but were “timed out” by the constitutional requirement to hold an election.

The most controversial of these is the proposal to add a new 15% tax on superannuation balances of more than $3 million. The Greens, under previous leader Adam Bandt, promised to support the bill in 2023 pending the government extending superannuation to paid parental leave (which was legislated in 2024 and came into effect on July 1 2025).

Read more:
Actually, Gen Z stand to be the biggest winners from the new $3 million super tax

The Greens continue to support the tax proposal in principle, but want the threshold lowered to $2 million.

One Nation is strongly opposed. The Coalition has expressed willingness to negotiate on the condition that unrealised gains are exempt from valuations.

The government has also proposed cutting the number of overseas students at Australian universities, ostensibly due to concerns over exploitation of the student visa program. The Greens have called the proposal “disastrous for tertiary education”.

Pocock and the Coalition have both called for key changes to the bill. Their primary concerns are about a ministerial power to decide appropriate student numbers without parliamentary approval.

Despite opposing the bill for different reasons, the Greens and Coalition were willing to team up against the government – perhaps foreshadowing strategy in the new parliament.

What’s on the horizon?

Labor announced just 15 specific policy proposals before the election. Only two costed promises are registered with the Parliamentary Budget Office. This gives Labor a free hand to determine its policy agenda in the 48th parliament.

Right out of the gate, the government promised to cut HECS debt by 20%. Given the Greens would wipe all current HECS debt, they seem likely to wave this through the Senate.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has since declared that while “the first term was primarily inflation without forgetting productivity, the second term will be primarily productivity without forgetting inflation”.

In search of new thinking, the government has announced an economic reform roundtable comprising government, business and experts, and covering economic resilience, skills, new technologies, healthcare reform and clean energy.

Productivity is notoriously difficult to measure and improve. Whether policies arising from the roundtable will pass the parliament remains to be seen.

However, the government’s invitation to Shadow Treasurer Ted O’Brien was accompanied with commentary that Chalmers does not believe O’Brien or his leader Sussan Ley are “by their nature constructive, collaborative types”.

Other election policies should be legislated with ease. The Coalition has already supported purchasing the Port of Darwin, promised instant asset write-offs for small business, and pledged to match Labor’s Medicare spending dollar for dollar.

The Coalition is also likely to support new fast-track training for 6,000 tradies.

The Greens will likely support pro-worker reforms. These include legislated weekend penalty rates and new mental health spending.

In general, the government’s stated agenda is incremental and should be achievable in this parliament. If the Greens won’t play ball, the Coalition will be waiting in line.

This will probably lead to quixotic policymaking as Labor bounces between two ideologically opposed partners.

Elsewhere, as in the case of the government’s post-election approval of new licences for gas extraction, policy can happen without parliamentary approval at all.

In such cases, meaningful opposition will come from the cross- and backbenches, full of politicians eager to make a name for themselves.

Jill Sheppard receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She worked as an adviser to Coalition parliamentarians between 2003 and 2007.

Patrick Leslie receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Federal election feel like ages ago? Parliament is now back. Here’s your political refresher – https://theconversation.com/federal-election-feel-like-ages-ago-parliament-is-now-back-heres-your-political-refresher-261360

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caitlin Jones, Postdoctoral Research Associate in Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney

Spinal cord stimulators are electrical devices that are surgically implanted in the body to treat long-term pain. They have a battery pack and leads that deliver electrical impulses directly to the spinal cord. The devices are thought to work by providing electrical impulses that interfere with how the brain senses pain.

Spinal cord stimulators are mainly used to treat chronic back pain, especially when other less invasive treatments have not worked. They also aim to reduce people’s reliance on risky pain medicines. These include opioids, which research shows are ineffective and harmful for low-back pain.

But research, including our own, shows spinal cord stimulators work no better than a placebo. And they can also carry risks.

Do they work?

In a 2023 Cochrane review, researchers reviewed data from 13 randomised controlled trials on low-back pain and found no benefits in the short and medium term. These international reviews draw together the most robust evidence to provide a detailed summary of what we know on a particular topic.

Only one of the trials in the review tested efficacy in the longer term (six months). That trial found no benefits of spinal cord stimulation.

An earlier Cochrane review looked at the evidence of spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain in general, including for neck pain. Reviewers looked at 15 randomised controlled trials and couldn’t be certain about its benefits, largely due to the quality and reliability of the available trials.

Are there side effects?

Aside from disappointing results for pain relief, there are risks and side effects to consider.

We co-authored an analysis of 520 adverse events reported to Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). We found 79% of reported events were rated as severe, with 13% life-threatening. The same research found 80% of events required surgery to correct.

Our recent analysis in the Medical Journal of Australia looked at data from private health insurers. These cover 90% of spinal cord stimulation implants in Australia. Five major insurers, which covered 76% of privately insured people, contributed de-identified data.

We found about one-quarter of people who had a spinal cord stimulator implanted needed corrective surgery afterwards. These surgeries occurred within a median of about 17 months. This indicates these surgeries are not routine or expected interventions, such as to replace batteries, which are meant to last five to ten years.

Our previous research shows the sorts of reasons for corrective surgery. These include to replace a malfunctioning device, or the person was in more pain, had an infection, or a puncture of the delicate tissues covering the spinal cord.

However, even our latest findings are likely to underestimate the risk of these devices.

Sometimes the lead delivering the electrical current moves away from the spinal cord to elsewhere in the body. This requires surgery to reposition the lead, but does not necessarily require new hardware, such as a brand new lead. So this type of corrective surgery is not counted in the data from the private health insurance companies.

How much does it cost?

We found spinal cord stimulators cost about A$55,000 per patient, including the device, its insertion, and managing any associated additional surgeries.

For people who only had a “trial” – where the leads are implanted temporarily but the battery pack remains outside the body – this cost was about $14,000 per patient.

These figures do not include any out-of-pocket costs.

What do regulators say about the devices?

In 2022 the TGA began a review of spinal cord stimulators on the market because of safety and performance concerns.

As a result, several devices were removed from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods – that is, they were banned from use in Australia, but existing stock could still be used.

The rest of the devices had conditions imposed, such as the manufacturers being required to collect and report safety data to the TGA at regular time points.

Should I do my own online research?

Yes, but be careful. Unfortunately not all online information about spinal cord stimulators is correct.

Look for sites independent of those who manufacture or implant these devices.

Government agencies, health departments and universities that have no financial interests in this area may be a better option.

The Cochrane Library is also a reliable and independent source for trustworthy health information.

What shall I ask my doctor?

The Australian health department provides useful advice for consumers about medical implants.

It says medical implants “are considered higher-risk therapeutic goods, and the decision to get one should not be taken lightly”. It recommends asking your health professional these questions:

• do I really need this medical implant?

• what are the risks/benefits?

• is the medical implant approved?

• where can I get more information?

• what happens if I experience an adverse event?

What else could I do for my back pain?

There are other treatment options that are effective and have fewer risks than spinal cord stimulation.

For example, education about how to manage your pain yourself, exercise, cognitive behavioural therapy (a type of psychological therapy), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicines (such as ibuprofen) all have solid evidence to back them. All offer benefits that are not outweighed by their potential risks.

Australian research has shown other types of therapy – such as sensorimotor retraining and cognitive functional therapy – are also effective. You can discuss these and other options with your health professional.

Spinal cord stimulation is a good example of a treatment that got ahead of the evidence. Although the devices have been around since the 1960s, we’ve only had reliable trials to test whether they work in recent years.

Everyone wants to find ways to help people with chronic pain, but we must ensure medical care is grounded in reliable science.

Christopher Maher holds a research fellowship funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

– ref. Is spinal cord stimulation safe? Does it work? Here’s what you need to know if you have back pain – https://theconversation.com/is-spinal-cord-stimulation-safe-does-it-work-heres-what-you-need-to-know-if-you-have-back-pain-261364

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caitlin Jones, Postdoctoral Research Associate in Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney

Spinal cord stimulators are electrical devices that are surgically implanted in the body to treat long-term pain. They have a battery pack and leads that deliver electrical impulses directly to the spinal cord. The devices are thought to work by providing electrical impulses that interfere with how the brain senses pain.

Spinal cord stimulators are mainly used to treat chronic back pain, especially when other less invasive treatments have not worked. They also aim to reduce people’s reliance on risky pain medicines. These include opioids, which research shows are ineffective and harmful for low-back pain.

But research, including our own, shows spinal cord stimulators work no better than a placebo. And they can also carry risks.

Do they work?

In a 2023 Cochrane review, researchers reviewed data from 13 randomised controlled trials on low-back pain and found no benefits in the short and medium term. These international reviews draw together the most robust evidence to provide a detailed summary of what we know on a particular topic.

Only one of the trials in the review tested efficacy in the longer term (six months). That trial found no benefits of spinal cord stimulation.

An earlier Cochrane review looked at the evidence of spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain in general, including for neck pain. Reviewers looked at 15 randomised controlled trials and couldn’t be certain about its benefits, largely due to the quality and reliability of the available trials.

Are there side effects?

Aside from disappointing results for pain relief, there are risks and side effects to consider.

We co-authored an analysis of 520 adverse events reported to Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). We found 79% of reported events were rated as severe, with 13% life-threatening. The same research found 80% of events required surgery to correct.

Our recent analysis in the Medical Journal of Australia looked at data from private health insurers. These cover 90% of spinal cord stimulation implants in Australia. Five major insurers, which covered 76% of privately insured people, contributed de-identified data.

We found about one-quarter of people who had a spinal cord stimulator implanted needed corrective surgery afterwards. These surgeries occurred within a median of about 17 months. This indicates these surgeries are not routine or expected interventions, such as to replace batteries, which are meant to last five to ten years.

Our previous research shows the sorts of reasons for corrective surgery. These include to replace a malfunctioning device, or the person was in more pain, had an infection, or a puncture of the delicate tissues covering the spinal cord.

However, even our latest findings are likely to underestimate the risk of these devices.

Sometimes the lead delivering the electrical current moves away from the spinal cord to elsewhere in the body. This requires surgery to reposition the lead, but does not necessarily require new hardware, such as a brand new lead. So this type of corrective surgery is not counted in the data from the private health insurance companies.

How much does it cost?

We found spinal cord stimulators cost about A$55,000 per patient, including the device, its insertion, and managing any associated additional surgeries.

For people who only had a “trial” – where the leads are implanted temporarily but the battery pack remains outside the body – this cost was about $14,000 per patient.

These figures do not include any out-of-pocket costs.

What do regulators say about the devices?

In 2022 the TGA began a review of spinal cord stimulators on the market because of safety and performance concerns.

As a result, several devices were removed from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods – that is, they were banned from use in Australia, but existing stock could still be used.

The rest of the devices had conditions imposed, such as the manufacturers being required to collect and report safety data to the TGA at regular time points.

Should I do my own online research?

Yes, but be careful. Unfortunately not all online information about spinal cord stimulators is correct.

Look for sites independent of those who manufacture or implant these devices.

Government agencies, health departments and universities that have no financial interests in this area may be a better option.

The Cochrane Library is also a reliable and independent source for trustworthy health information.

What shall I ask my doctor?

The Australian health department provides useful advice for consumers about medical implants.

It says medical implants “are considered higher-risk therapeutic goods, and the decision to get one should not be taken lightly”. It recommends asking your health professional these questions:

• do I really need this medical implant?

• what are the risks/benefits?

• is the medical implant approved?

• where can I get more information?

• what happens if I experience an adverse event?

What else could I do for my back pain?

There are other treatment options that are effective and have fewer risks than spinal cord stimulation.

For example, education about how to manage your pain yourself, exercise, cognitive behavioural therapy (a type of psychological therapy), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicines (such as ibuprofen) all have solid evidence to back them. All offer benefits that are not outweighed by their potential risks.

Australian research has shown other types of therapy – such as sensorimotor retraining and cognitive functional therapy – are also effective. You can discuss these and other options with your health professional.

Spinal cord stimulation is a good example of a treatment that got ahead of the evidence. Although the devices have been around since the 1960s, we’ve only had reliable trials to test whether they work in recent years.

Everyone wants to find ways to help people with chronic pain, but we must ensure medical care is grounded in reliable science.

Christopher Maher holds a research fellowship funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

– ref. Is spinal cord stimulation safe? Does it work? Here’s what you need to know if you have back pain – https://theconversation.com/is-spinal-cord-stimulation-safe-does-it-work-heres-what-you-need-to-know-if-you-have-back-pain-261364

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tanya Latty, Associate Professor in Entomology, University of Sydney

Think back to a time you helped someone move a heavy object, such as a couch. While at first the task may have appeared simple, it actually required a suite of advanced behaviours.

The job needed verbal commands for social coordination (“pivot!”) and anticipation of near-future events (moving other furniture out of the way). It also required a clear, shared vision of the final goal (which room to take the couch to).

It’s a small but satisfying example of human cooperation. But before we all get too pleased with ourselves, consider that ants – creatures with tiny brains and no capacity for speech – routinely pull off feats that rival, and sometimes exceed, our own.

Understanding ant intelligence

Earth is literally crawling with ants. Scientists estimate there are at least 20 quadrillion ants on Earth. That’s 20 followed by 15 zeros – more ants than stars in our galaxy!

These incredible insects are amongst the most successful organisms on the planet. Part of the success comes from an ability to form complex societies, ranging from a few individuals to millions. And those societies, or colonies, are remarkably co-operative.

Take, for example, ants’ abilities to move large food items. To do it, they mobilise teams of dozens – or even hundreds – of fellow workers. Together, they efficiently work together to transport the load back to the nest.

Longhorn crazy ants (Paratrechina longicornis) are even known to clear debris from a path before a heavy object arrives – seemingly anticipating its trajectory and preparing the way.

One experiment pit longhorn crazy ants against humans, all tasked with moving T-shaped objects (scaled to body size) through tight spaces. In some trials, the human teams were not permitted to speak or use gestures.

And the result? Ants performed better in larger groups compared to smaller ones, showing the clear benefits of collective action. In contrast, human performance did not improve with group size. And when communication was restricted, human performance declined as group size increased.

All this highlights how ants rely on collective intelligence, without the need for central control or sophisticated cognition.

Expert farmers

Humanity’s invention of agriculture 12,000 years ago is understandably hailed as one of our greatest achievements.

But leaf cutter ants beat us to it. These ants (from the species Atta and Acromyrmex) evolved to undertake large-scale agriculture about 55 million years ago.

These ants cut and transport fresh leaves not to eat directly, but to feed a fungus that serves as their main food source.

This evolutionary partnership allows the ants to feed colonies with populations in the millions.

Remarkably, leaf cutter ants have also evolved a form of biological pest control to protect their crops from bacteria. Some worker ants patrol the gardens, detecting infected sections of the fungus. Then they apply antibiotics produced by bacteria that live on their bodies.

What’s more, many ant species farm aphids and other sap-sucking insects.

As these farmed insects feed on plant sap, they excrete a sugary liquid the ants eagerly collect. In return, ants serve as bodyguards, defending their tiny livestock from predators such as ladybirds and lacewings.

In some species, queen ants gently carry sap-sucking insects in their jaws as they fly off to start new colonies. Fossilised ants preserved in amber suggest this behaviour evolved up to 20 million years ago, long before humans domesticated animals.

Ant medicine

Medical care may seem like a distinctly human innovation. But several ant species have evolved sophisticated ways to treat injuries.

When a Florida carpenter ant (Camponotus floridanus) is injured during a battle between colonies, its nest-mates will amputate a damaged limb to prevent infection from spreading. Ants receiving this battlefield care are more likely to survive than ants left untreated.

Some ants can also detect infection and treat infected wounds by cleaning them and applying antimicrobial secretions from specialised glands.

Master builders

Some ant species are known to literally put their bodies on the line for the colony.

Army ants (Eciton burchellii) join their bodies together to form structures. These include bridges across gaps on the forest floor, and “scaffolds” across steep terrain to prevent other ants from slipping.

Even the nest is made of hundreds of thousands of ants joined together, complete with tunnels and chambers housing the larvae and the queen. The entire structure is packed up and rebuilt each day, after the colony emigrates a few hundred metres into the forest.

Weaver ants (Oecophylla smaragdina), meanwhile, self-assemble into rope ladders to span vertical gaps.

They also form a line of workers that pull leaves together in treetops to form nests. Once the leaves are winched into place, other ants arrive with ant larvae in their jaws. Each larva produces a tiny blob of silk which the ants use to glue the leaves together.

Fire ants (Solenopsis invicta), a major pest species, owes its invasive success partly to a unique method of dispersal.

When their underground nests are flooded by rain, the ants join together into a huge raft which floats on a layer of buoyant larvae. These rafts can ride floodwaters in safety for hundreds of kilometres, until the ants reach dry land.

Lessons for humanity?

Humans rightly take pride in our greatest achievements – agriculture, medicine, engineering and building civilisations. But remarkably, ants mastered these innovations millions of years before we did.

Ants may be tiny – but by working together they can build complex societies and solve many problems. They might even teach humans a thing or two.

Tanya Latty co-founded and volunteers for conservation organisation Invertebrates Australia, is former president of the Australasian Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour and is on the education committee for the Australian Entomological Society. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Saving our Species, and Agrifutures Australia

Chris R. Reid receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Macquarie University. He is secretary of the Australasian Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour and is on the education committee for the Australasian Entomological Society.

– ref. Hold up, humans. Ants figured out medicine, farming and engineering long before we did – https://theconversation.com/hold-up-humans-ants-figured-out-medicine-farming-and-engineering-long-before-we-did-258922

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tanya Latty, Associate Professor in Entomology, University of Sydney

Think back to a time you helped someone move a heavy object, such as a couch. While at first the task may have appeared simple, it actually required a suite of advanced behaviours.

The job needed verbal commands for social coordination (“pivot!”) and anticipation of near-future events (moving other furniture out of the way). It also required a clear, shared vision of the final goal (which room to take the couch to).

It’s a small but satisfying example of human cooperation. But before we all get too pleased with ourselves, consider that ants – creatures with tiny brains and no capacity for speech – routinely pull off feats that rival, and sometimes exceed, our own.

Understanding ant intelligence

Earth is literally crawling with ants. Scientists estimate there are at least 20 quadrillion ants on Earth. That’s 20 followed by 15 zeros – more ants than stars in our galaxy!

These incredible insects are amongst the most successful organisms on the planet. Part of the success comes from an ability to form complex societies, ranging from a few individuals to millions. And those societies, or colonies, are remarkably co-operative.

Take, for example, ants’ abilities to move large food items. To do it, they mobilise teams of dozens – or even hundreds – of fellow workers. Together, they efficiently work together to transport the load back to the nest.

Longhorn crazy ants (Paratrechina longicornis) are even known to clear debris from a path before a heavy object arrives – seemingly anticipating its trajectory and preparing the way.

One experiment pit longhorn crazy ants against humans, all tasked with moving T-shaped objects (scaled to body size) through tight spaces. In some trials, the human teams were not permitted to speak or use gestures.

And the result? Ants performed better in larger groups compared to smaller ones, showing the clear benefits of collective action. In contrast, human performance did not improve with group size. And when communication was restricted, human performance declined as group size increased.

All this highlights how ants rely on collective intelligence, without the need for central control or sophisticated cognition.

Expert farmers

Humanity’s invention of agriculture 12,000 years ago is understandably hailed as one of our greatest achievements.

But leaf cutter ants beat us to it. These ants (from the species Atta and Acromyrmex) evolved to undertake large-scale agriculture about 55 million years ago.

These ants cut and transport fresh leaves not to eat directly, but to feed a fungus that serves as their main food source.

This evolutionary partnership allows the ants to feed colonies with populations in the millions.

Remarkably, leaf cutter ants have also evolved a form of biological pest control to protect their crops from bacteria. Some worker ants patrol the gardens, detecting infected sections of the fungus. Then they apply antibiotics produced by bacteria that live on their bodies.

What’s more, many ant species farm aphids and other sap-sucking insects.

As these farmed insects feed on plant sap, they excrete a sugary liquid the ants eagerly collect. In return, ants serve as bodyguards, defending their tiny livestock from predators such as ladybirds and lacewings.

In some species, queen ants gently carry sap-sucking insects in their jaws as they fly off to start new colonies. Fossilised ants preserved in amber suggest this behaviour evolved up to 20 million years ago, long before humans domesticated animals.

Ant medicine

Medical care may seem like a distinctly human innovation. But several ant species have evolved sophisticated ways to treat injuries.

When a Florida carpenter ant (Camponotus floridanus) is injured during a battle between colonies, its nest-mates will amputate a damaged limb to prevent infection from spreading. Ants receiving this battlefield care are more likely to survive than ants left untreated.

Some ants can also detect infection and treat infected wounds by cleaning them and applying antimicrobial secretions from specialised glands.

Master builders

Some ant species are known to literally put their bodies on the line for the colony.

Army ants (Eciton burchellii) join their bodies together to form structures. These include bridges across gaps on the forest floor, and “scaffolds” across steep terrain to prevent other ants from slipping.

Even the nest is made of hundreds of thousands of ants joined together, complete with tunnels and chambers housing the larvae and the queen. The entire structure is packed up and rebuilt each day, after the colony emigrates a few hundred metres into the forest.

Weaver ants (Oecophylla smaragdina), meanwhile, self-assemble into rope ladders to span vertical gaps.

They also form a line of workers that pull leaves together in treetops to form nests. Once the leaves are winched into place, other ants arrive with ant larvae in their jaws. Each larva produces a tiny blob of silk which the ants use to glue the leaves together.

Fire ants (Solenopsis invicta), a major pest species, owes its invasive success partly to a unique method of dispersal.

When their underground nests are flooded by rain, the ants join together into a huge raft which floats on a layer of buoyant larvae. These rafts can ride floodwaters in safety for hundreds of kilometres, until the ants reach dry land.

Lessons for humanity?

Humans rightly take pride in our greatest achievements – agriculture, medicine, engineering and building civilisations. But remarkably, ants mastered these innovations millions of years before we did.

Ants may be tiny – but by working together they can build complex societies and solve many problems. They might even teach humans a thing or two.

Tanya Latty co-founded and volunteers for conservation organisation Invertebrates Australia, is former president of the Australasian Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour and is on the education committee for the Australian Entomological Society. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Saving our Species, and Agrifutures Australia

Chris R. Reid receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Macquarie University. He is secretary of the Australasian Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour and is on the education committee for the Australasian Entomological Society.

– ref. Hold up, humans. Ants figured out medicine, farming and engineering long before we did – https://theconversation.com/hold-up-humans-ants-figured-out-medicine-farming-and-engineering-long-before-we-did-258922

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katy Meeuwissen, Lecturer in Early Childhood and Primary Education, University of Canberra

Play is one of the most important parts of early childhood education in Australia.

We know children learn about the world through play and it helps them build creativity and independence.

There is also broad agreement among early childhood educators and policymakers about the importance of play from birth to five years.

But once children start school, there is less certainty. Despite growing research about the importance of play in primary school, play is not often used for learning in these years.

Our new study with Australian primary teachers highlights significant confusion about the role of play in their schools.

Play can benefit older kids

There is nothing to suggest the importance of play suddenly stops when children reach school age.

Research shows play can support learning well into the primary years, helping students develop critical thinking, problem-solving and social skills.

Recent studies even show play has learning benefits well beyond childhood. Young adults (aged 19–25) who engage in regular play have shown improved emotional intelligence and resilience.

What do we mean by play?

When we are talking about play in primary school, it is more than just playground time during recess and lunch.

Play is what children do naturally, whereas play-based learning is when teachers use that natural playfulness as a teaching tool. Teachers will deliberately incorporate various types of play with specific learning goals and varying levels of adult guidance.

For example, children might explore mathematical concepts such as geometry and spatial reasoning through LEGO construction. Teachers would guide discovery of patterns, measurements and problem-solving, and then step back to allow students to be creative.

There is also evidence play can support literacy, numeracy and other academic goals, because it supports attention, memory and planning skills that underpin academic learning.

Research shows it can also help maintain students’ enjoyment of and engagement in their studies.

So when used effectively, it could be used across the school curriculum.

Our research

To better understand what teachers think about play and why they hold these views, we surveyed 238 teachers across Australia primary schools. Teachers ranged from those teaching the first year of primary school through to Year 6.

Most of the teachers were from public schools. We used an online questionnaire and recruited participants through email and social media.

Teachers’ different views on play

The results revealed some inconsistencies in teachers’ views.

Teachers strongly agreed play benefits children’s development. More than three-quarters (77%) strongly agreed students develop social skills through play, with similar numbers supporting play’s role in emotional, physical and language development.

One teacher described play as “magic” and “where real learning happens”.

However, only 52% strongly agreed students develop academic skills during play, revealing uncertainty about play’s educational value. As another teacher told us:

Play is something that children do and it’s fun for them, however, [it] should be out of school. School is for learning.

Some teachers still viewed play as separate from learning, with 61% agreeing that “play is a necessary break from learning” – suggesting they see play and learning as distinct entities rather than integrated.

Adding to this confusion, teachers often used the terms “play” and “play-based learning” interchangeably, despite these being different concepts.

How should play-based learning be structured?

Even when teachers valued play in principle, they struggled to provide time for it in their classrooms. Teachers reported feeling caught between covering mandated content and providing meaningful play experiences. As one teacher told us:

Play is fantastic for children but a challenge when there is so much limited time to cover such a huge curriculum.

Teachers were also divided about their role in children’s play. Should they structure it? Leave kids alone? Supervise but not interfere?

Our analysis revealed several distinct approaches, from hands-off supervision to active involvement. This reveals confusion about best practice (the research suggests different approaches can work, depending on the context).

What can we do instead?

Our research suggest there is missed opportunity when it comes to structuring play as part of learning in primary schools.

To address this, we need several changes. Teacher education programs should include training in practical ways to use play as a teaching tool. For example, how to teach science concepts through games and experiments that feel like play to children.

Professional development should also help existing teachers understand how to structure meaningful play that supports the curriculum.

At a policy level, we also need better alignment between the early education and primary years, to ensure play does not disappear at the school gate.

Katy Meeuwissen 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. Does play belong in primary school? New research suggests teachers are not sure – https://theconversation.com/does-play-belong-in-primary-school-new-research-suggests-teachers-are-not-sure-259800

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katy Meeuwissen, Lecturer in Early Childhood and Primary Education, University of Canberra

Play is one of the most important parts of early childhood education in Australia.

We know children learn about the world through play and it helps them build creativity and independence.

There is also broad agreement among early childhood educators and policymakers about the importance of play from birth to five years.

But once children start school, there is less certainty. Despite growing research about the importance of play in primary school, play is not often used for learning in these years.

Our new study with Australian primary teachers highlights significant confusion about the role of play in their schools.

Play can benefit older kids

There is nothing to suggest the importance of play suddenly stops when children reach school age.

Research shows play can support learning well into the primary years, helping students develop critical thinking, problem-solving and social skills.

Recent studies even show play has learning benefits well beyond childhood. Young adults (aged 19–25) who engage in regular play have shown improved emotional intelligence and resilience.

What do we mean by play?

When we are talking about play in primary school, it is more than just playground time during recess and lunch.

Play is what children do naturally, whereas play-based learning is when teachers use that natural playfulness as a teaching tool. Teachers will deliberately incorporate various types of play with specific learning goals and varying levels of adult guidance.

For example, children might explore mathematical concepts such as geometry and spatial reasoning through LEGO construction. Teachers would guide discovery of patterns, measurements and problem-solving, and then step back to allow students to be creative.

There is also evidence play can support literacy, numeracy and other academic goals, because it supports attention, memory and planning skills that underpin academic learning.

Research shows it can also help maintain students’ enjoyment of and engagement in their studies.

So when used effectively, it could be used across the school curriculum.

Our research

To better understand what teachers think about play and why they hold these views, we surveyed 238 teachers across Australia primary schools. Teachers ranged from those teaching the first year of primary school through to Year 6.

Most of the teachers were from public schools. We used an online questionnaire and recruited participants through email and social media.

Teachers’ different views on play

The results revealed some inconsistencies in teachers’ views.

Teachers strongly agreed play benefits children’s development. More than three-quarters (77%) strongly agreed students develop social skills through play, with similar numbers supporting play’s role in emotional, physical and language development.

One teacher described play as “magic” and “where real learning happens”.

However, only 52% strongly agreed students develop academic skills during play, revealing uncertainty about play’s educational value. As another teacher told us:

Play is something that children do and it’s fun for them, however, [it] should be out of school. School is for learning.

Some teachers still viewed play as separate from learning, with 61% agreeing that “play is a necessary break from learning” – suggesting they see play and learning as distinct entities rather than integrated.

Adding to this confusion, teachers often used the terms “play” and “play-based learning” interchangeably, despite these being different concepts.

How should play-based learning be structured?

Even when teachers valued play in principle, they struggled to provide time for it in their classrooms. Teachers reported feeling caught between covering mandated content and providing meaningful play experiences. As one teacher told us:

Play is fantastic for children but a challenge when there is so much limited time to cover such a huge curriculum.

Teachers were also divided about their role in children’s play. Should they structure it? Leave kids alone? Supervise but not interfere?

Our analysis revealed several distinct approaches, from hands-off supervision to active involvement. This reveals confusion about best practice (the research suggests different approaches can work, depending on the context).

What can we do instead?

Our research suggest there is missed opportunity when it comes to structuring play as part of learning in primary schools.

To address this, we need several changes. Teacher education programs should include training in practical ways to use play as a teaching tool. For example, how to teach science concepts through games and experiments that feel like play to children.

Professional development should also help existing teachers understand how to structure meaningful play that supports the curriculum.

At a policy level, we also need better alignment between the early education and primary years, to ensure play does not disappear at the school gate.

Katy Meeuwissen 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. Does play belong in primary school? New research suggests teachers are not sure – https://theconversation.com/does-play-belong-in-primary-school-new-research-suggests-teachers-are-not-sure-259800