Cottonbro Studio/Pexels, CC BY Generative AI (GenAI) is a type of artificial intelligence that creates new content – like text, images, or ideas – by learning patterns from existing data. GenAI, particularly through large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek, is rapidly becoming part of everyday urban design research and practice.

The models can summarise literature in seconds, generate policy scenarios, and help draft complex narratives. For urban designers and researchers working under pressure, this feels like a breakthrough. But beneath this efficiency lies a deeper question: are we enhancing urban design knowledge, or quietly reshaping it in ways we do not fully understand?

Urban design is an academic and professional field concerned with shaping the physical form and experience of cities. It looks at the relationships between buildings, spaces, people and activities within broader urban systems. Read more: AI could make cities autonomous, but that doesn’t mean we should let it happen The field has evolved differently across regions, reflecting diverse historical, political and spatial contexts.

For example, in Europe, urban design has often been shaped by post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation of the destroyed urban forms, while in the United States it has been influenced by urban renewal policies and large-scale redevelopment.

Urban design is not a fixed set of principles, but a context-dependent theory and practice that responds to specific local challenges and conditions. GenAI is now widely used in urban design to help with analysis and decision-making.

For instance, researchers use machine learning to study pedestrian movement and traffic patterns from video data, which helps planners create safer and more efficient streets. Some studies use GenAI to create and test different urban design options, such as changing land use, building density, or access to green spaces, so designers can quickly compare choices.

In environmental planning, GenAI models can simulate urban heat or air quality, helping with climate-sensitive decisions. These examples show that GenAI provides ways to test ideas and handle complex challenges, rather than replacing designers. Our work as urban designers and researchers has always depended on interpretation, context and ethical judgment.

Cities are not just datasets; they are lived environments shaped by history, culture and power. When LLMs enter this space, they influence how problems are framed and how solutions are imagined. Their use therefore should not be just technical, but should be managed critically.

Each theory developed for a particular city or place evolved to address the needs of specific groups of people within a distinct context and for a particular purpose. LLMs need to be developed faster to have this sensitivity about people and place history.

Our recent research was motivated by the rapid and often uncritical integration of LLMs into planning research and practice. The work asks a central question: how do these tools reshape the way urban knowledge is produced, interpreted and validated in a discipline that depends heavily on context, judgment and field-based understanding?

Read more: Debate: How to stop our cities from being turned into AI jungles Our key finding is that LLMs can be very helpful; they can speed up writing, support analysis and help explore ideas.

However, they also carry important risks, especially when their outputs are treated as fully correct or used without considering context. We propose some cornerstones for responsible use. These are not strict rules, but practical guides to keep human judgment central, ensure ideas stay grounded in context, and maintain responsibility in planning research and practice.

10 cornerstones Research sovereignty should remain with the human. The direction of inquiry must always come from the researcher. If planners begin by asking the model what to study or how to frame a problem, they risk producing inconsistency and generic outputs.

Engagement with GenAI is critical, not passive. LLMs generate plausible text based on patterns, not verified truth. This means every output should be tested and refined. Accepting it at face value risks embedding hidden biases and weak assumptions.

Knowledge should be grounded in context. Cities are deeply specific. A recommendation that works in one place may fail in another due to social, political, or cultural differences. LLMs tend to produce generalised solutions without understanding local realities.

Planners must anchor these suggestions in field knowledge and community insight. Everyone should be careful. They should not trust GenAI too quickly. In planning debates such as zoning or rent control, LLMs can sound very confident, even when they are wrong.

Sometimes they may even give references that do not exist. This can spread incorrect information and weaken trust in research. While any of the LLMs can assist in identifying and organising sources, they cannot replace the critical judgment required to assess accuracy, context and fit.

The responsibility for validating references remains with the researcher. Planners must recognise that LLMs do not “remember” in the way humans do. They lack continuity across conversations and can lose track of earlier assumptions. AI forgets things.

Maintaining coherence in long-term research, therefore, depends on the researcher, not the tool. A subtler issue is rigidity. LLMs often repeat dominant ideas or default solutions, even when the context differs. For example, when asked how to improve a congested street, an LLM may suggest widening roads or adding car lanes, even where such interventions could harm walkability and heritage value.

Breaking out of these patterns requires active intervention. We can understand GenAI as a partner in thinking, but not an equal one. The planner must decide what matters, whose voices are included, and what ethical priorities guide the work.

Effective use of GenAI requires strategic manoeuvring. This means combining AI-generated insights with collected data, community engagement and professional judgment. The value of LLMs lies not in replacing urban design processes, but in enriching them, if used carefully.

Academic integrity is non-negotiable. Urban design research is not just about producing text; it is about engaging intellectually with people, places and consequences. Why this matters GenAI in urban design is like fire – powerful, but dangerous without human control.

Used well, GenAI can help urban designers think more broadly and act more effectively. Used poorly, it risks reducing urban design to automated generalisation, detached from the lived experience of cities. Read more: AI-powered assistive technologies are changing how we experience and imagine public space The future of urban design is not about choosing between humans and machines, but about designing thoughtful collaboration between them.

The challenge is not whether machines can think, but how we think with them.

Abeer Elshater, Professor of Urban Morphology, Ain Shams University

Hisham Abusaada, Professor of Architecture and Urban Design, Housing and Building National Research Center

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/ai-can-design-cities-but-can-it-understand-what-matters-to-people-10-ways-to-keep-humans-in-control/

Brett Phibbs/NZ Herald via Getty Images In 1916, in the middle of the Great War, 2nd Lieutenant Leonard (Len) James Shaw of the 2nd Auckland Battalion sent a pressed Flanders poppy in folded paper to his niece Jessie Osborne in Waikato.

Shaw had picked the poppy at night from his trench on the Western Front. His sporadic correspondence with Jessie was a small but vital connection to his family and home.

“I thought you might like some little thing,” he wrote in an accompanying letter, “pieces of shells are too big to send, and I think flowers much nicer.” Shaw was following a centuries-long practice of using material objects to make sense of calamitous violence.

Today, the poppy reminds us of the role those objects play in how we remember war. Len Shaw’s pressed poppy and letter to his niece Jessie.

Auckland Museum, CC BY-NC In my 2023 book Why Memory Matters, I explored different “languages of memory” – written stories of the past, but also the sites, images and practices we use to make sense of change.

I would add to this the objects that texture and configure our lives, and which we imbue with values and meanings over time. Academics call this “material history”. Since the 19th century, soldiers have collected objects to make sense of their experience.

In the New Zealand Wars, we know British soldiers looted battlefields and wāhi tapu (sacred sites) as part of the regimental prize system. When Anzacs such as Shaw travelled to Egypt and London during the first world war, they sought out souvenirs as military tourists that would act as repositories of challenging memories.

In Shaw’s case, personal tokens became family memories and then cultural artefacts. In 2002, the descendants of Jessie Pearson (née Osborne) donated Shaw’s poppy to the Auckland War Memorial Museum Tāmaki Paenga Hira.

I’m interested in how objects travel through families and museums and change the meaning of war over time. A brief material history of the poppy suggests it’s one of the most potent examples of this process.

How the poppy spread After 1918, the popularity of John McCrae’s famous poem In Flanders Fields saw the cultural spread and sale of poppies in Britain and France to bolster morale and raise funds to support the orphans and widows of soldiers.

This reflected the industrial scale of the war: poppies, like medals, were mass-produced by associations such as the British Legion factory, which produced an early type made from cloth. Poignantly, the factory employed ex-servicemen who had been severely disabled during the war.

A cloth poppy made by the British Legion factory.

Auckland Museum, CC BY-NC The rise of the poppy as a postwar emblem also showed how materials were repurposed to remember the fallen, through commemorative practices that emerged in the 1920s, such as Poppy Day.

As early as 1923, New Zealanders were trying to import poppy seeds from Flanders to grow and sell as mementos. There was a quirk here: in Britain, the poppy was (and still is) associated with the remembrance of the Armistice on November 11, which New Zealanders also observed.

But the delay in shipping silk and cloth poppies from Europe meant the New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association (the RSA), repurposed them for April 25. Poppy Day has taken place in the lead up to Anzac Day every year since 1922 (other than 2020 because of COVID).

This connection created another quirk: New Zealanders now associate the original Flanders poppy with Gallipoli, transplanted both literally and figuratively. Part of Poppy Day’s appeal lay in its imperial and international resonance, as the allied nations turned to protecting some semblance of global peace in institutions such as the League of Nations.

Crucially, as Anzac Day morphed into a solidly male veterans’ ritual, selling poppies was also something civilians, especially women’s groups, could lead. In photographic archives we see groups of women carefully pinning flowers to the chests of veterans.

Historians estimate that by the end of the second world war, one in every two New Zealanders wore the red flower of remembrance. Images of poppies projected onto parliament buildings in Wellington, 2006. Getty Images A fiercely protected symbol I’ve written previously about the increasing public ownership of Anzac Day after 1965 as the original Anzacs passed away, a change symbolised by the 1978 plastic poppy.

It’s significant the WW100 commission, established to mark the 2015 centenary of the first world war in New Zealand, made the poppy its symbol. In 2026, the RSA’s decision to produce a biodegradable, paper version is a return to old practices.

Despite its imperial origins, the poppy is still seen as a national symbol today, one that is fiercely protected. The Auckland War Memorial Museum introduced a Rainbow-friendly poppy alongside the traditional red flower in 2021, which provoked the ire of some conservative groups.

You can now leave a “virtual poppy” at the museum’s online cenotaph, which records those New Zealanders who have served and died in wartime. Len Shaw is remembered among them. A month after sending the poppy home, he was killed at the Battle of Broodseinde in the third Ypres campaign, a devastating action that wiped out the officers of the 6th (Hauraki) Company.

Shaw was identified by his binoculars and pocketbook, and buried shortly after in a small village outside Cambrai. The poppy that recorded his war experience became a memento of his death for a grief-wracked Auckland family far from the ruins of the frontline.

Understanding this history allows us to glimpse the deeper significance of pinning a small poppy to our chests in 2026, and how we are wearing memories of war that echo down from the 20th century into our cultural life today.

Rowan Light 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/anzac-day-2026-how-the-poppy-has-endured-as-our-symbol-of-war-and-remembrance/

Rescuers placing wet towels on ‘Timmy’, the whale stranded near Wismar, Germany.

Morris MacMatzen/Getty Images A humpback whale repeatedly restranding in shallow waters in the Baltic Sea for more than three weeks has become the focus of a complex debate about reconciling compassion for animals with ethical, evidence-based decision making.

Affectionately known as Timmy, the whale restranded several times and has been growing weaker, failing to recover despite multiple rescue attempts. Its struggle attracted global attention and triggered debates between experts and the public regarding intervention versus allowing a natural end.

Marine biologists and veterinarians observing the whale made a clear and evidence-based assessment earlier this month: further intervention was unlikely to succeed and would risk prolonging the animal’s suffering. Yet public pressure – driven by empathy amplified by social media and sharpened into outrage – led German state authorities to permit renewed rescue efforts this week, framed as a “last ditch” effort.

At first glance, it seems an act of compassion. But beneath the surface lies a more difficult truth. As our research shows, when scientific advice is sidelined in favour of public sentiment, outcomes for the very animals we aim to protect can worsen.

The emotional pull of “doing something” Large, charismatic animals like whales evoke powerful emotional responses. They are intelligent, expressive and visibly vulnerable when stranded. For many people, choosing not to intervene feels morally unacceptable, with inaction often perceived as neglect.

Wildlife medicine, however, does not operate on instinct or optics. It relies on probabilities, welfare assessments and the recognition that intervention is not always beneficial.

In Timmy’s case, experts from the German Oceanographic Museum and the Institute for Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Research, as well as international organisations, reached a consistent conclusion that the whale was unlikely to survive.

After repeated failed rescues, the environment minister for Germany’s state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania determined that continued intervention would likely worsen the whale’s condition. By then, Timmy was showing clear signs of trauma and exhaustion.

The decision was not made in isolation. In early April, the International Whaling Commission’s stranding expert panel publicly supported the German authorities. It outlined that further rescue attempts would likely increase suffering without improving survival chances.

Euthanasia, frequently suggested as an alternative, was deemed impractical, however. The whale’s partial buoyancy, combined with logistical, safety and personnel challenges meant this was not a viable option. New Zealand’s experience In 2021, New Zealand experienced a similar situation with Toa, a stranded orca calf.

The response was extraordinary, mobilising national and international expertise. Veterinarians, marine mammal scientists and stranding specialists contributed to an unprecedented rescue effort. The scientific consensus, however, was sobering. Given Toa’s young age (unweaned), prolonged separation from his pod, and the challenges of reintegration, his chances of survival were extremely low.

Over time, his welfare declined during extended human care. Many experts ultimately supported euthanasia as the most humane option. That path was not taken. Driven by public hope and attention, efforts continued. Toa died after weeks in care.

In retrospect, the case raised a difficult but necessary question: when expert consensus and public sentiment diverge, which should guide decisions? When perception overrides expertise This tension is not anecdotal; it is well documented. Research shows that human perceptions and emotional investment can significantly shape responses to cetacean strandings, sometimes directly conflicting with recommendations based on the animal’s wefare.

In high-profile cases, decision making can shift from expert-led processes to outcomes shaped by public pressure. The patterns observed in Germany – repeated strandings, declining condition and cumulative stress – are strong predictors of poor outcomes, regardless of continued intervention.

The disconnect is clear. Experts assess welfare through measurable physiological, behavioural and environmental markers to infer the mental state of an animal. The public often evaluates it through effort, visibility and intent. The result is a compelling but flawed assumption: that doing more means doing better.

A common principle in veterinary ethics is that the ability to intervene does not justify doing so. Every rescue attempt carries risks: handling stress, injury, prolonged suffering and the diversion of limited resources. While financial cost is often highlighted, the more critical issue is animal welfare.

In repeated stranding cases, the ethical balance becomes increasingly stark. When recovery is highly unlikely, continued intervention can shift from care to harm. In repeated stranding cases, the ethical calculus becomes sharper. Yet this is precisely the moment when public pressure tends to intensify.

A more difficult kind of care Compassion is not the problem; it is fundamental to conservation. But compassion without evidence can mislead. What’s at stake is trust in scientific expertise, veterinary judgement and the difficult reality that the most humane decision is not always the most emotionally satisfying one.

If every high-profile stranding becomes a referendum driven by public pressure, we risk creating a system where decisions are shaped less by animal welfare and more by public visibility. The instinct to rally around a stranded whale reflects the best of human empathy.

But real care in wildlife conservation is not always about action. Sometimes, it requires restraint. In Toa’s case, official documents later revealed most experts had recommended euthanasia to prevent prolonged suffering. Timmy’s situation raises a similar question.

Not whether people care enough, but whether we are willing to accept that caring also means listening to science, to experience and to the difficult truths they bring.

Karen Stockin is the ethics chair for the Society for Marine Mammalogy and a member of the IWC strandings expert panel.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/whale-strandings-draw-emotional-responses-but-repeated-rescues-can-cause-more-harm/

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has survived a caucus leadership vote and stays on as National Party leader. But the questions about his leadership style that brought the issue to a head are unlikely to simply melt away.

Flatlining or declining support, culminating in this week’s 1News-Verian poll showing the party seven points behind the Labour opposition, can partly be attributed to hard economic times and global uncertainty. But it is Luxon’s consistently low preferred-prime-minister rating that underscores the connection between a government’s popularity and its leader’s day-to-day performance.

Lifting his party’s polling, which is the key way to dispel leadership doubts, will involve him finding ways to appeal to those voters currently deserting National for other parties. It’s no simple task, but there are clues to what he might do in the extensive research around political and business leadership that identify what marks out effective performers from the rest.

Being ‘one of us’ A substantial body of evidence built over the past four decades helps shine a light on what people look for in leaders they will admire and support. Above all, they must believe a leader is “one of us” and what they do is “for us”.

This is fundamental to convincing people a leader genuinely shares their values and interests, and therefore deserves their backing. This has proved difficult for Luxon because of choices he has made. For example, he has repeatedly based his claim to leadership on his background as a corporate chief executive, and on taking a chief executive’s approach to the role of prime minister.

This may cement the connection with party loyalists, given National’s traditional claim to be the party that best represents business interests. But identifying oneself as a member of a small, highly paid elite undermines his chances of being seen as “one of us” by the broader population.

This is compounded by Luxon’s preference for business language and jargon, which can reinforce doubts about whose interests he has at heart. Ways of thinking Like all people, leaders rely on what researchers variously term “mental models”, “cognitive processes”, “implicit theories” or “sensemaking”.

Basically, how leaders think shapes how they act. But an individual’s perception of reality is never a complete or neutral picture. Rather, perceptions are filtered through experience, bias, sense of self, what others think and so forth.

What leaders say and do can offer meaningful clues to their underlying mental models. Luxon’s heavy use of corporate jargon has long been noted as a problematic aspect of his communication style. But this is a clue to an underlying perception that the roles of chief executive and prime minister can be conflated.

Of course, there are some skills relevant to both. But a chief executive is in charge of running a company, accountable to a board and shareholders; a prime minister is ultimately accountable to the public and is expected to lead a country.

The assumption that success in one domain will automatically transfer to the other is flawed. Change is never easy Effective leaders tend to be very aware of their own biases. They will seek input from others who see things differently to challenge and broaden their own thinking.

Yet according to one recent political analysis, “One of Luxon’s weaknesses in the top job has been his inability to take feedback from colleagues, staff or officials […] Another Achilles’ heel is Luxon’s complete lack of self-doubt.” Luxon has even sought to reframe his leadership and communication style as a virtue, saying it reflects the fact he is “not a career politician”.

But this avoids the real issue. A lot of the research about why leaders fail focuses on business examples, but many of the issues identified also appear in studies of political leaders. A clear theme is that leaders who cannot learn to change their behaviour, to respond more effectively to changing circumstances, tend to be less effective.

Overall, the research points to some of the underlying reasons Luxon is struggling to secure greater public support. But changing his approach would not be easy or guaranteed to work. Intensive coaching and a willingness to change could make a difference.

But altering one’s mental model is another matter entirely. And therein lies a paradox. Can a political leader make themselves, or be made, more authentic, relatable and “one of us”? Or in the process, do they simply risk being seen as inauthentic for not being themselves?

Suze Wilson has received funding from the Royal Society Marsden Fund for research about online misogyny.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/05/21/luxon-lives-on-as-leader-public-perception-is-a-tougher-challenge/

One way the Albanese government has recently tapped into social media audiences for its budgets is by inviting “influencers” to Canberra for the event. This broadens the audience and often garners favourable publicity.

This year, the prime minister gave a promo at the start of Toilet Paper Australia’s budget podcast, Talking Sh!t, “Hi I’m Anthony Albanese – make sure you’re following Toilet Paper Australia”.

But social media, of course, is a horse for hire. Post this budget the government was rattled by memes used to effect by critics. Albanese was digitally inserted into small businesses objecting to the capital gains tax hike, with lines such as “He’s having a great time with his new 47% equity,” and “We’re very pleased to welcome Albo to the @_checkonchain team as our new 47% co-owner of the business we’ve built!”

Albanese sought to play it cool. “I have seen some of the memes which are there and the memes are very flattering, I must say, some of them. So, thank you to those who’ve made me look rather good.”

Before the budget, Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers knew they’d be hit by criticism for its broken promises. But they underestimated the extent and ferocity of the backlash, which has gone not only to broken promises but deep into the weeds of individual measures, notably relating to CGT and trusts.

The government pitched this budget as one about intergenerational equity, and housing. But younger people have been critical on the grounds that some, not having the money for a home deposit, use shares and the like to build wealth. Chalmers says it is only a small proportion, but that doesn’t stop them having a loud voice.

Savvy campaigning has thrust into the public eye young entrepreneurs, many of them women, to amplify the objections to the CGT changes.

On Thursday, ten female founders of businesses issued a statement deploying the gender argument in their call for a rethink.

“It is already harder for women to access capital, secure loans, raise investment, and attract senior talent. Many female founders begin with fewer resources, smaller networks, and more family responsibilities than their male counterparts. The proposed CGT changes would make an already difficult path even harder,” they said.

The statement was targeting a vulnerable spot in a government that prides itself that it delivers for women.

Much of the present debate is the old story of budgets. The “losers” – or those who fear they might become losers – can cause a government a lot of grief.

Comparisons have been made of this budget’s unpopularity with that of the Keating government’s budget in 1993, and the Abbott government’s 2014 one. These were condemned by critics not just for their measures, but for their breaches of trust because they broke promises.

In political terms, however, we should be careful of pushing the parallels too far. This budget will undermine people’s trust in Albanese but he has considerable political capital as a buffer.

And the government’s circumstances are different. In 1993, though Keating had only been prime minister since 1991, Labor had been in power for a decade. Its time was running out. In 2014, while Tony Abbott led a new government with a large majority, he was being stalked by Malcolm Turnbull.

As it fended off criticisms of the budget, the Albanese government was less than pleased with the contribution of New South Wales Premier Chris Minns, who highlighted how much working people are paying in income tax, with the top marginal rate at 47%.

“You work Monday, Tuesday, half of Wednesday for yourself and then Wednesday, Thursday and Friday for the government – that’s a tough burden for a lot of families to hit,” Minns said. “Whether it’s now or in the future, we do need to make sure we’re taking urgent action when it comes to personal income taxes, because at the moment a lot of working families are getting stung.”

Chalmers responded by saying, in essence, that Minns didn’t understand how the tax system worked. To say the federal government regards Minns as a pain in the neck is probably an understatement.

Given the government’s troubles, Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has had a much better post-budget time than he might have expected, including a reasonable reception for his plan to index income tax to inflation, which he announced in his budget reply.

His humiliation in Farrer has been somewhat submerged. But on the other hand One Nation’s win there is reverberating, and further energising the “disruptor” party.

As the Farrer byelection is being formally finalised ahead of its new House of Representatives member David Farley taking his seat, One Nation appears to be hyperactive, preparing its future moves, or playing the tease, or both.

One Nation has its tail up with post budget polls showing rises in its support.

According to analyst Kevin Bonham, aggregating federal polls, Labor leads the Coalition 52.3%–47.7%; it has an estimated 52.9%–47.1% lead against One Nation. Those are remarkable figures. One Nation, a party with two House of Representatives seats, can be seen as the alternative opposition.

Pauline Hanson wants to set up a second office, in Yeppoon (near Rockhamption) where Nationals leader Matt Canavan lives. Yeppoon is in the electorate of Capricornia, held by the Nationals’ Michelle Landry. If Landry retires at the next election, Canavan may stand for the seat.

Meanwhile Hanson has left the option open of standing for a Queensland lower house seat (Blair or Wright have been speculated), Barnaby Joyce doesn’t rule out recontesting his seat of New England rather than running for a NSW Senate seat, as he originally planned.

One Nation is working on setting up a branch structure. One party adherent says this would see One Nation “move from a dictatorship to a democratic party like the Liberals and the Nationals”.

On Thursday, Hanson released her policy on gas. It would scrap the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, replacing it with a 10% “wellhead” royalty on all offshore gas and oil production, and have the government taking equity in new exploration and drilling projects.

Strong arguments may be mounted against the content of the policy. But politically, it could hit the spot with some voters. Remember the pre-budget push for more tax on gas exports. Both government and opposition are dismissing the Hanson policy, which she can use to argue they’re not listening to the people.

One Nation is currently a very large political balloon. State elections in Victoria (November) and NSW (March) could prick that balloon. If they don’t, the Coalition will be terrified, and Labor will start to worry.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: As Labor struggles with budget backwash, One Nation surfs a wave – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-as-labor-struggles-with-budget-backwash-one-nation-surfs-a-wave-282996

In a video posted by Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on Wednesday night, detained activists from dozens of countries are shown kneeling on the ground with their foreheads on the floor and hands zip-tied behind their backs.

Some of the activists, who had been intercepted by Israeli forces on a flotilla in the Mediterranean Sea, are then pushed and dragged by Israeli personnel. Ben-Gvir is seen waving an Israeli flag and taunting them.

The video on his X account had a simple message in English: “Welcome to Israel”.

The video sparked widespread international condemnation. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong called it “shocking and unacceptable”, while the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said the treatment of the detainees was “degrading and wrong”.

Even Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel and a stalwart supporter of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, called Ben-Gvir’s actions “despicable”, saying he had “betrayed the dignity of his nation”.

Netanyahu himself also publicly rebuked Ben-Gvir. He said Israel had the right to stop the flotilla, but the minister’s behaviour had damaged Israel’s image and did not reflect the country’s values.

Even though international lawyers like myself have expressed concern about this on multiple occasions, it bears repeating: international law matters in conflict zones.

So, what obligations does Israel have to treat those detained by its forces, and did the country violate the law?

Why were the activists detained?

Israeli forces began intercepting the Gaza-bound Global Sumud flotilla on Monday in international waters off the coast of Cyprus. Dozens of boats were stopped as they attempted to challenge Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza.

The flotilla reportedly carried more than 400 activists from over 40 countries. Those on board included humanitarian volunteers, medical personnel, peace activists and civil society figures. Organisers said the vessels were carrying humanitarian relief supplies, including food, medicine and other aid intended for Palestinian civilians affected by the war and blockade of Gaza.

Israel disputed the flotilla’s aid-delivery purpose and described it as “a PR stunt at the service of Hamas”.

After those on board were arrested, they were reportedly subjected to violence, with some suffering suspected broken ribs and other injuries.

In a post on X, the Israeli Foreign Ministry claimed Israel was acting in full accordance with international law.

What does the law say?

Under international humanitarian law, those involved in the transport and distribution of relief supplies must be respected and protected during armed conflict. They are to be treated as civilians so long as they do not directly take part in hostilities.

Bringing aid to the civilians of Gaza does not amount to “direct participation in hostilities”. In fact, the International Court of Justice has ordered Israel to allow aid into Gaza given their obligations under the Genocide Convention.

International humanitarian law also says civilians may not be detained arbitrarily in conflict zones. If civilians are detained, however, they have certain rights under international law. They must:

Internment of civilians is only permitted when “absolutely necessary” for security reasons. It must end once those reasons no longer exist.

In addition, civilians detained during armed conflict must be treated humanely at all times.

They are to be protected from:

The phrase “public curiosity” has historically been understood to prohibit humiliating displays of detainees for propaganda, intimidation or public spectacle.

Intentional attacks against humanitarian personnel can amount to war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Why does this matter?

The public humiliation and degrading treatment of the activists shown in the footage must be scrutinised and investigated. And Israeli officials must comply with their obligations under the law.

These protections exist precisely to preserve a minimum standard of humanity during conflict, and to ensure civilians and humanitarian actors are not stripped of their dignity for political theatre, intimidation or punishment.

When such conduct is normalised or left unchallenged, it risks undermining the broader international legal framework designed to protect all civilians caught up in armed conflict.

– ref. Taunting and degrading civilians in armed conflict is a clear violation of international law – https://theconversation.com/taunting-and-degrading-civilians-in-armed-conflict-is-a-clear-violation-of-international-law-283472

After a week of speculation, the US Department of Justice has officially indicted Raúl Castro, the 94-year-old ex-president of Cuba.

The charges relate to a 1996 incident in which the Cuban military allegedly shot down two unarmed civilian planes operated by Brothers to the Rescue.

The news comes amid mounting US pressure on the ailing Cuban Republic to change its system of government after 67 years of revolutionary rule.

So why did the United States act now, and what will happen next?

Who is Raúl Castro?

Raúl Castro is the younger brother of Cuban revolutionary leader, Fidel Castro. He joined Fidel’s movement to overthrow the authoritarian US ally, Fulgencio Batista, starting in 1952. He participated in the assault on the Moncada Barracks on July 26 1953, becoming a founding member of the M-26-7 guerrilla movement, the leading organisation in the Cuban revolution.

In 1958, he rose to the rank of comandante of the Second Eastern Front. He came to Washington’s attention in June when he kidnapped a group of 50 US Marines to prevent the continued aerial bombardment of his troops and local villagers.

This was a pivotal moment when Raúl become more than Fidel’s brother – he was now a key leader of the revolution.

By late 1958, Raúl Castro’s army had liberated much of eastern Cuba from the Batista regime and began marching on Havana to conclude the revolution.

From January 1959, Castro became the defence minister at a time when fighting was ongoing. For decades, he was the face of Cuba’s military and the island’s defence.

When, in April 1961, a group of 1,400 Cuban exiles, supported by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), attacked Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, Castro’s military secured a famous victory against the exiles, and the US.

He would also rise through the civilian and party ranks in Cuba. From 1976, he served as vice president and then succeeded his ageing brother as president from 2008, a position he would hold until 2019.

Raúl Castro remained atop the Communist Party until 2021 and is still viewed as influential in Cuba’s politics. Castro is a soldier, a politician and, above all, a revolutionary who toppled a pivotal US ally and resisted US pressure for decades.

However, Cuba is an authoritarian state that does not tolerate dissent. In 2003, Fidel Castro’s government, of which Raúl Castro was apart, detained dozens of pro-democracy advocates in an event dubbed the “black spring”. One of those detained, José Daniel Ferrer, founder of the Patriotic Union of Cuba, called on the US stand with the opposition forces in 2025.

What is he accused of doing?

Cuba has been subject to a blockade by the US since 1960. It was also subject to an embargo by the members of the Organisation of American States (OAS), which includes almost all the countries in the Western Hemisphere, between 1964 and 2009.

The economic survival of Cuba has always been dependent on the support of a large nation willing to supply it with fuel.

During the Cold War, that was the Soviet Union, whose 1991 collapse was devastating for Cuba and its government. The “Special Period” following 1991 saw fuel shortages, declining food production, social unrest and large-scale emigration from Cuba.

Cuban exiles boarded unstable flotillas in their tens of thousands, hoping to join other exiles in Florida. The Clinton administration in the US eventually allowed for mass migration and the US Coast Guard was regularly helping to save stranded Cubans. Despite this, dozens of people drowned at sea.

A group of Cuban exiles, led by self-declared “Bay of Pigs veteran”, José Basulto, flew reconnaissance flights and reported the location of stranded Cubans to the Coast Guard.

But the flights had other motives. On several occasions, the planes flew into Cuban airspace, ignored warnings and dropped propaganda designed to trigger anti-government activity.

Records made public by William LeoGrande and Peter Kornbluh, authors of a book on the topic, reveal the US knew of these operations and feared Cuba would eventually shoot down the planes, creating an international incident.

On February 24 1996, the Cuban military indeed shot down two planes, killing all four people on board.

Now, 30 years later, the US Department of Justice alleges that Castro, the then-defence minister, and six others are criminally responsible for the murders of the four men, three of whom were US citizens.

The US attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason A Reding Quiñones, said “this passage of time does not erase murder”.

Why is the US acting now?

Cuba is again suffering under a US blockade, this time initiated following the removal of its fuel guarantor, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January.

New Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez was pressured into ending oil shipments to the island, as were Mexico and other regional partners under the threat of crippling tariffs.

Cuba declared last Thursday it had no fuel or diesel remaining at all. Meanwhile, the humanitarian conditions worsen. Amnesty International reported in 2025 that most Cubans were struggling to find sufficient food and medicine.

In a historic visit in recent days, CIA Director John Ratcliffe spoke with members of the Cuban government in a sign of potential regime change.

President Donald Trump has also highlighted his motives on Cuba this week, saying “to a lot of people it’s going to be one of the most important things, they’ve been looking for this moment for 65 years”.

Cuban-Americans have indeed been pushing for the removal of the Castros since the 1960s.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, himself a Cuban-American, commemorated Cuba’s 1902 Independence Day by delivering the following message to the Cuban people, in Spanish:

and I want to tell you that we, in the US, are offering to help you not only to alleviate the current crisis but also to build a better future.

The message condemned the Cuban government, and Raúl Castro, as corrupt. He called for regime change, referring to the current Cuban president, Miguel Díaz-Canel.

The indictment of Castro is about more than justice for one man. It’s about Cuban-American politics in Florida, and it’s about the looming potential of regime change in Cuba, America’s primary regional foe for the past 67 years.

– ref. Why has the US indicted former Cuban president Raúl Castro? – https://theconversation.com/why-has-the-us-indicted-former-cuban-president-raul-castro-283467

Diphtheria was once one of Australia’s most feared childhood infections, killing thousands of children before vaccines were available. Then for decades, it became so rare most doctors never saw a case.

That has now changed. Diphtheria has reappeared in parts of Australia, with cases reported in the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland.

In 2026, there have been just over 230 cases, largely in the Northern Territory, which makes this Australia’s biggest outbreak since national records began.

Today, the federal government announced a A$7.2 million package to respond to the outbreak.

But diphtheria is just the latest infectious disease to make a comeback in Australia.

Read more: Australia is battling its worst diphtheria outbreak in decades. But vaccines could curb it

How things change

Once, diphtheria, measles, scarlet fever and whooping cough were feared diseases. But in two generations, improved living conditions, better sanitation and vaccination means these and other infectious diseases are no longer part of everyday life for most Australians.

But as we’re seeing, those gains can be fragile.

Public health experts use three different terms for reducing levels of disease. Control means bringing cases down to a low level through ongoing measures; elimination means stopping ongoing local transmission in a defined geographic area, such as a country or region; and eradication means removing a disease from the planet entirely.

As an example of elimination, the World Health Organization declared Australia measles-free in 2014. Eradication of a disease is much harder, and has been achieved for human disease only once – with smallpox in 1980.

But these achievements are not permanent. Infectious diseases can re-emerge when vaccination falls, surveillance weakens, living conditions deteriorate, or public health systems lose capacity.

Diphtheria

Several factors appear to be driving the current outbreak. One is declining childhood vaccination. National coverage of fully vaccinated children at 24 months fell below 90% in 2024 for the first time since 2016. The diphtheria vaccine is part of the routine childhood schedule, and falling coverage reduces population protection.

Immunity from childhood vaccination fades with age, which is why Australia recommends diphtheria boosters at ages 50 and 65 if you haven’t had a booster in more than ten years.

Another factor is housing and sanitation. Diphtheria spreads through respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes, and through direct contact with skin sores. Both routes are more efficient in overcrowded housing, where conditions such as scabies are also common and provide entry points through broken skin.

In remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, 54% of houses were considered overcrowded, according to the latest available data.

Whooping cough

Whooping cough, or pertussis, was never eliminated in Australia, but vaccination kept it at relatively low levels for many years.

Then cases surged. Australia recorded more than 57,000 cases in 2024, the highest yearly total since national records began in 1991. This was followed by just over 25,000 cases in 2025.

Several factors probably contributed. COVID restrictions disrupted the normal epidemic cycle, reducing the low-level exposure that usually boosts immunity in vaccinated people. At the same time, immunity from both vaccination and prior infection naturally wanes over time.

When COVID restrictions lifted, the bacteria spread through a population with weaker-than-usual immunity. Infants too young to be fully vaccinated were especially vulnerable.

In Queensland, the number of babies under six months admitted to hospital with whooping cough more than doubled in 2024 compared to the previous year and at least one infant died.

Measles

Australia has seen several measles outbreaks in recent months, most linked to overseas travel. Between January and May 2026, about 100 cases were recorded nationally.

Most cases were among unvaccinated people or those with uncertain vaccination status, as is typically seen in measles outbreaks in Australia. Most of these were seeded by returning travellers from countries with active outbreaks, although Victoria has also recorded local transmission.

Measles remains one of the world’s most infectious diseases. Because measles spreads so easily, even relatively small declines in vaccination can allow outbreaks to take hold again.

About 95% of people in a population need to be immune to prevent sustained spread. But Australia’s second-dose coverage for the combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccine has slipped to 92.5% nationally since the pandemic.

Read more: Travelling overseas? You could be at risk of measles. Here’s how to ensure you’re protected

Syphilis

Not all resurgent diseases can be prevented by vaccines. Syphilis was once thought to be largely controlled in Australia after the widespread availability of penicillin and public health screening programs.

But over the past 15 years or so, infectious syphilis cases have risen sharply across urban, regional and remote Australia. The national notification rate has more than tripled over a decade.

The most alarming consequence has been the return of congenital syphilis, where infection passes from mother to baby during pregnancy. Between 2016 and 2024, Australia recorded 99 congenital syphilis cases and 33 infant deaths. More than half were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander babies.

Unlike measles, whooping cough or diphtheria, there is no vaccine against syphilis. Control depends on testing, rapid treatment, antenatal screening and access to culturally safe health care. Congenital syphilis can be prevented through early detection and treatment of syphilis in pregnant women and their partners.

However, delayed diagnosis, reduced access to sexual health services and broader social disadvantage have all contributed to the rise in syphilis cases.

Read more: Babies infected with syphilis are part of a growing tragedy – one that could be easily prevented

What have we learnt?

The same pattern appears repeatedly in public health. Disease control is not a one-off achievement. It depends on maintaining the systems that keep transmission low.

Vaccination remains one of the most effective public health measures ever developed. But vaccines work best alongside strong surveillance systems, rapid public health responses, accessible to primary care (such as GPs or via Aboriginal-led health clinics), safe housing and sanitation.

When those protections weaken, diseases that once seemed distant can return surprisingly quickly.

– ref. Why diphtheria, whooping cough and measles have come back in Australia – https://theconversation.com/why-diphtheria-whooping-cough-and-measles-have-come-back-in-australia-283364

Health authorities are urging people to get vaccinated, as a potentially deadly infection spreads across four Australian states.

Diphtheria is a serious infection caused by the toxin-producing bacteria, Corynebacterium diphtheriae. It spreads through contact with an infected person’s bodily fluids – such as droplets produced from coughing or sneezing – or skin sores.

Since January, Australia has recorded more than 220 diphtheria cases, in the worst outbreak the country’s seen in decades. As of Thursday, there were 139 cases in the Northern Territory, 82 in Western Australia, seven in South Australia and three in Queensland.

The federal government has announced a A$7.2 billion emergency support package, which aims to boost vaccination rates and strengthen the health workforce in states affected by the current diphtheria outbreak.

So is it still spreading? And should you be concerned?

Remind me, what is diphtheria?

There are two main types of this rare but serious bacterial infection.

Respiratory diphtheria affects the throat and airways, and can be life-threatening if the toxin produced by the bacteria damages the airways, nerves or heart. Even with treatment, up to 10% of people with respiratory diphtheria die.

Cutaneous diphtheria affects the skin, mainly causing skin ulcers on the legs or arms. This form of diphtheria is usually less severe, but contact with wounds is still a common way the infection spreads between people.

It is possible to contract respiratory diphtheria by being exposed to someone with cutaneous diphtheria, and vice versa. For instance, bacteria in one person’s skin sore may cause respiratory diphtheria in another person, if transferred through close contact.

Read more: Before vaccines, diphtheria used to kill hundreds each year. Now it’s back in Australia

Who’s affected by this latest outbreak?

According to the Australian Centre for Disease Control’s latest report, roughly 94% of cases identified since January 2026 have been Aboriginal and/or Torrest Strait Islander people.

The majority have been cases of cutaneous diphtheria, but around 30% have been cases of respiratory diphtheria.

Authorities are still investigating what factors may be contributing to this outbreak. However, this likely includes waning immunity, lower routine immunisation rates and a higher prevalence of skin infections in affected communities. Other factors such as overcrowding and limited access to health care may also play a role.

The need for vaccines

Vaccination is the best way to prevent severe diphtheria infections, and the further spread of the disease.

Before vaccines were widely introduced in the 1950s, about one in ten people with respiratory diphtheria died from their symptoms. And the risk was higher among young children and the elderly.

In the decades since, very few Australians have died from diphtheria, with authorities recording four diphtheria-related deaths between 1999 and 2025.

That’s largely thanks to the diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine, also known as DTP. This combined vaccine protects against the diphtheria toxin.

In Australia, children routinely receive this vaccine at two months, four months, six months and 18 months of age. They also get it when they are four years old, and again in early adolescence.

Read more: Whooping cough cases are at their highest level in 35 years – so why the surge?

But it’s also vital adults receive boosters of the DTP vaccine. This is because immunity declines over time even though the vaccine itself is very effective.

Research suggests more than 99% of babies who get the relevant vaccinations develop enough antibodies to fight against the diphtheria toxin. But by middle age, only half of adults maintain these antibody levels if they don’t have a booster dose of DTP.

However, national immunisation data shows vaccine rates have significantly declined, particularly since the COVID pandemic. And just last year, Australia’s childhood immunisation rate dropped to a five-year low.

How often you need a vaccination depends on your age and occupation. But the current health advice is adults should get a DTP booster every ten years, from your early 20s. If you’re unsure when you received your last dose, speak to your GP, community health clinic or Aboriginal Medical Service.

Who needs a vaccine? And how about boosters?

During a diphtheria outbreak, it’s crucial to ensure all children, adolescents and adults aged 50 and above are up to date with routine immunisations.

Importantly, the new advice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and health-care workers in affected communities, is to get a booster vaccine every five years.

Pregnant women should also receive a booster dose 20 to 32 weeks into their pregnancy. This is mainly to reduce their infant’s risk of having whooping cough, but will also protect against diphtheria until they receive their first vaccination.

Read more: Health Check: which vaccinations should I get as an adult?

And additional doses are available to people who have a mild case of diphtheria or are in close contact – living in the same household, for example – with people who already have the infection.

In the current outbreak, an estimated 90% of cases have occurred in people that have already been vaccinated. The vaccine has ensured most of these people only develop mild forms of diphtheria.

But tragically, one person with the disease has since died.

So, should I be worried?

Local, state and territory public health departments are working hard to curb this historic outbreak. This week, both NT Health and WA Health released an outbreak immunisation schedule for people living and working in affected communities.

But if you are in an outbreak area and have a sore throat or any skin sores, visit your local clinic. This will help authorities detect any potential diphtheria cases early. And if you have other symptoms such as fever, breathing or swallowing difficulties or a greyish membrane in your throat, visit an emergency department immediately.

Read more: Does the flu vaccine give you the flu? 5 questions about the vaccine answered

– ref. Australia is battling its worst diphtheria outbreak in decades. But vaccines could curb it – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-battling-its-worst-diphtheria-outbreak-in-decades-but-vaccines-could-curb-it-283362

It’s been quite a week for Beijing, with back-to-back visits by the leaders of the United States and Russia. Chinese President Xi Jinping has had his hands full with hosting duties, gun salutes, photo opportunities and high-level talks.

Each visit was important in its own way. US President Donald Trump’s state visit was his first to Beijing since 2017. It came at a moment of strained China-US relations, with the US at war in the Middle East and its foreign policy undergoing a massive transformation under Trump.

For Putin, it was his 25th official visit to China. The trip was intended to further consolidate the China–Russia strategic alignment amid global uncertainty. Putin was also keen to secure China’s continued economic lifeline and diplomatic cover as its war with Ukraine grinds on.

And while the timing of the back-to-back visits should not be over-interpreted – Moscow says there was “no connection” between the two – they do reveal a deeper structural shift in global politics.

Beijing’s rising confidence

First, the United States is clearly no longer the most important country in China’s strategic worldview – and Beijing is increasingly willing to show it.

This was visible in Xi’s posturing and negotiating style with Trump. From his rather distant handshake to his dominant body language throughout their meeting, Xi sent a message: Washington has a limited ability to influence Beijing anymore.

The modest outcomes of their summit reinforced this dynamic. Trump left China without a formal deal, a press conference or a joint communiqué. Nor was there a breakthrough on either Iran or Taiwan.

Putin, meanwhile, met his “good and old friend” Xi and took home some 20 agreements ranging from trade to technology.

The most striking, if not unsettling, moment was Xi’s invocation of the “Thucydides Trap” during his meeting with Trump. This is the idea that a rising power inevitably threatens an established one, risking war.

Xi asked a pointed question:

Can China and the United States transcend the so-called ‘Thucydides Trap’ and forge a new paradigm for major-power relations?

Xi has used this concept before, but his directness this time sent a warning: the US risks creating a major crisis if it continues to rely on a containment strategy to counter China’s rise.

In short, Beijing used the Trump visit to signal confidence, autonomy and the fact that Washington is not the only capital that matters to China.

Russia has new usefulness to Beijing

Second, the China–Russia alignment has become less equal, but it has gained greater strategic depth. And Beijing is now using it to put pressure on the US leadership.

During a private garden stroll through the highly secretive Zhongnanhai leadership compound last week, Trump asked whether Xi often brings other world leaders there. Xi replied that such visits are “extremely rare,” but added that “Putin has been here”.

The innocent reading of this exchange is that Xi was simply noting the depth of his personal rapport with Putin. But in the current geopolitical context, it also served as a subtle reminder to Trump that China’s “no limits” partnership with Russia is not rhetorical. Beijing was signalling Moscow remains a privileged strategic partner – and that China has options.

The deeper message is this: if Washington seeks to isolate China, Beijing can lean even more heavily on its relationship with Moscow.

China does not need to help Russia “win” in Ukraine to make this point. What matters is that Beijing has the ability – if it chooses – to bolster Russia’s war effort through economic, diplomatic and long-term technological and energy cooperation. Beijing’s influence now extends well beyond the Indo-Pacific and reaches into Europe in ways Washington cannot ignore.

Xi didn’t give Putin everything he sought during his meeting, though.

With the turmoil in the Middle East cutting off China’s access to Middle Eastern oil and gas, Moscow sensed an opportunity to push ahead on a new pipeline, called the Power of Siberia-2, to bring Russian gas to China.

While Putin and Xi came to a “general understanding on the parameters” of the project, however, no final deal was signed.

China is now in the driver’s seat

Third, China now sees itself as the central node of great-power politics.

For many decades, the United States sat at the apex of the “great triangle”, balancing between China and the Soviet Union and then Russia.

Today, the geometry has flipped. Both Trump and Putin felt compelled to come to Beijing – for stabilisation, reassurance and strategic signalling – even as they confront each other elsewhere.

China is not playing triangular diplomacy in the classic sense. It is not trying to pit Washington and Moscow against each other. Instead, it is positioning itself as the system’s centre: the place where major-power diplomacy must pass, even if the outcomes are uncertain.

China is not at the apex of this arrangement because it is the strongest militarily or economically, but because it has the confidence to engage the US and Russia on its own terms.

In this new geometry, great-power politics does not revolve around Washington. Increasingly, it runs through Beijing.

– ref. Playing host to Putin and Trump, China sends a message – it’s now in the driver’s seat – https://theconversation.com/playing-host-to-putin-and-trump-china-sends-a-message-its-now-in-the-drivers-seat-283375

Saving for a first home is already hard enough. So when a federal budget change appears to make some popular savings strategies less attractive, it is no surprise people are worried.

Since last week’s budget, concern has centred on young Australians who are using shares or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to save for a home deposit. About one in ten people under 35 own shares, according to Treasurer Jim Chalmers.

The worry is that changes to the capital gains tax (CGT) will reduce after-tax returns and slow their progress. The government plans to replace the 50% CGT discount with an inflation-based discount and introduce a minimum 30% tax on gains.

It is true that tax settings affect after-tax returns, and after-tax returns affect how quickly a deposit grows.

But the current debate overlooks a little-known savings option set up a decade ago for this exact purpose: the First Home Super Saver scheme (FHSS).

The name is clunky, but the idea is simple. The scheme was designed specifically to help first-home buyers save through their superannuation.

How the super scheme works

The First Home Super Saver scheme lets eligible buyers make voluntary contributions to super and later apply to withdraw eligible contributions, plus associated earnings, to buy or build a first home.

The “voluntary” part matters. This is not a way to withdraw compulsory employer Super Guarantee contributions. It only applies to extra contributions made before tax, such as salary sacrifice, or after tax as personal contributions.

There are limits. You can count up to A$15,000 of voluntary contributions each financial year, up to $50,000 in total. Couples, friends or siblings who are each eligible can each use their own First Home Super Saver scheme savings toward the same property.

Where the tax advantage comes from

The main attraction of saving with this scheme is the tax benefit.

If you salary sacrifice into super, those concessional contributions are generally taxed at 15%. For many workers, that is lower than their marginal income tax rate.

Take a worker whose marginal tax rate, including Medicare levy, is 32%.

If they take an extra $10,000 as salary, they pay 32% tax and are left with about $6,800 to save outside super for a first home.

If they salary sacrifice the same $10,000 into super, the contributions tax of 15% is deducted, leaving them with $8,500.

When they later withdraw that amount under the First Home Super Saver scheme, the tax due is broadly their 32% marginal rate, minus the 30% offset — or about 2%. That leaves about $8,330, before investment earnings, fees or other adjustments, towards their home deposit.

So, in this simplified example, using this scheme leaves the saver about $1,530 better off than taking the money as salary and saving it outside super.

The result is not magic. It is the effect of using super’s concessional tax treatment for a purpose the scheme specifically allows.

It is useful, but you need to know the rules

The First Home Super Saver scheme can help, but it should not be oversold.

The federal government’s 2026 State of the Housing System report found the time needed to save a 20% home deposit rose from nine years in 2015 to 11.2 years in 2025.

A $50,000 cap can make a meaningful difference, especially if two eligible buyers combine their savings using the super scheme. But it will not close the deposit gap for everyone.

There are eligibility and timing rules, too. You generally need to be at least 18 to request a release, have never owned property in Australia before (unless a hardship exception applies), and intend to live in the home.

You must also request a determination from the scheme before any property is transferred to you, which tells you the maximum amount you can release under the scheme.

The main practical trade-off is flexibility. Money in a savings or investment account can be redirected if plans change. Money contributed to super is harder to access, unless the scheme rules are met.

If your plans change, you need to understand the rules before putting extra money in.

First home buyers should check all the options

None of this means shares or ETFs are a bad way to save. They may suit people who want more flexibility, are not yet sure whether they will buy a home, expect to save beyond the annual caps in the First Home Super Saver scheme, or do not meet the scheme’s eligibility rules.

But the debate should be broader than “shares versus savings account”. For eligible first-home buyers, the better question is whether part of the deposit strategy should run through super.

The current capital gains tax debate is an opportunity to revisit a scheme few people are aware of or understand. It will not solve Australia’s housing affordability problem.

But in a market where saving a deposit takes longer than ever, a tax-advantaged accelerator like the First Home Super Saver scheme deserves more attention.

Read more: A budget with a bundle of reforms in a time of ‘extreme uncertainty’

Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not intended as financial advice.

– ref. This little-known scheme can help first home buyers save thousands more for a deposit, with less tax – https://theconversation.com/this-little-known-scheme-can-help-first-home-buyers-save-thousands-more-for-a-deposit-with-less-tax-283278

Angry, twisted, macabre: new Australian film director Zoe Pepper has made a film perfectly crafted to meet the heated debates about Australia’s housing affordability crisis.

Birthright darkly satirises the intergenerational conflict between boomer parents and ageing millennial children – two population groups that have vastly different experiences when it comes to employment, home ownership and raising a family.

The film raises unsettling questions about the kinds of entitlements younger generations should ask from elder ones, and the suburban mayhem that ensues when such requests are denied.

Blame games

From columnist Bernard Salt’s infamous critique of millennial smashed avocado brunches, to the worldwide “OK boomer” meme, there is no shortage of moralistic media coverage trying to pit the generations against one another.

There is also the “SKI” movement, which stands for “spending your kid’s inheritance”. This is grounded in the belief that retired parents should spend their life savings, rather than putting it away for their offspring. One news article on this topic quotes a retired mother who sees the child’s expectations as a moral failing:

There are generations coming through that just don’t expect to work. They expect to inherit or be given or bought a family home by their parents.

What do parents really owe their kids?

As the title suggests, the oscillation between the entitlement of inheritance versus the desperate need for family support is the main dynamic that fuels the drama of Birthright.

The film begins with Cory (Travis Jeffery) and Jasmine (Maria Angelico) evicted from their flat, struggling to jam their possessions into their small car. Both in their late thirties, Jasmine is heavily pregnant and Cory is unemployed. Things are looking bleak.

With no other option, the couple travel to Cory’s parents’ home, masking a long stay under the pretence of a short visit. Parents Richard (Michael Hurst) and Lyn (Linda Cropper) are immediately distrustful and put out by the young couple’s intentions.

Cory’s relationship with his parents is notably strained – he hadn’t even invited them to his wedding – so they’re not happy about an extended stay. When he explains “the rental market’s fucked”, Richard retorts “well, you should own your own house by now!”

At first, they ask to stay for a night. Lyn says the “guest room is in a state”, so they are forced to bunk in Cory’s old room. The discrepancy between the luxurious home and the cramped conditions of the room is played as comical.

It all goes badly very quickly. Cory’s sense of having a “birthright” is apparent as soon as he arrives, when he finds the spare key to enter the home. Meanwhile, Jasmine helps herself to Lyn’s discarded designer clothing she finds stuffed in the rubbish bins. Lyn is so well off she can’t understand that her clothes would be highly valued in the second-hand market.

Richard and Lyn’s begrudging boomer attitude, and their inability to consider the needs of their younger family is presented as monstrous, breaking long-lived family hospitality rules.

TV’s deeply troubled families

In Australian television, we often see intergenerational conflict demonstrated for comic effect. Comedy series Kath and Kim (2002–07) was premised on ungrateful daughter Kim moving back into the family home after her breakup, and ruining Kath’s peace with her new boyfriend Kel.

Similarly, the Moody family, in A Moody Christmas (2012) and The Moodys (2014), is a celebration of family dysfunction. The suburban family home becomes the site for heated sibling rivalry.

In contrast, Birthright is a much nastier depiction of family drama.

All the characters are unlikable. While parents Richard and Lyn are psychotically ignorant about the children’s stark financial situation, Cory and Jasmine are also overly entitled, mean-spirited and deeply resentful when they’re at the home.

Cory’s expectation to receive a family inheritance as the solution for his financial problems seems tone-deaf – nothing more than a replication of the bourgeois life of his parents. He essentially doesn’t mind perpetuating a flawed system. And this leads to things getting sinister.

Haunted by hopes and memories

Ultimately, I like to think about this film as a darkly humorous ghost story. It’s a ghost story about the great Australian post-second world war dream of owning a large suburban home with a sprawling garden.

In ghost stories, the “haunted house” is frequently used as symbol of intergenerational unrest, and undermines the family home’s identity as a place of safety and refuge.

This is certainly the case in Birthright. Cory and Jasmine are haunted by the promise of a comfortable home for their unborn child, which feels unattainable.

The family home is an imposing symbol of their misery, and it seems that it will doom them all.

Birthright is in cinemas from today.

– ref. New film Birthright is a biting, relatable satire on Australia’s housing affordability crisis – https://theconversation.com/new-film-birthright-is-a-biting-relatable-satire-on-australias-housing-affordability-crisis-282257

CSIRO has told staff it will cut 92 positions in its environment unit – just days after the Australian government boosted funding to the national science agency by A$387 million.

Our scientific colleagues have told us roughly a third of CSIRO’s climate modellers will lose their jobs – between four and six roles out of about 15 scientists. These cuts come on the back of decades of slow but steady reductions in funding in the same area. This threatens Australia’s ability to do its own climate modelling at a time when the United States has drastically cut its climate science program.

The cuts pose a direct threat to Australia’s climate model, known as ACCESS (Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator). It’s the only global climate model developed in the southern hemisphere.

If ACCESS funding is reduced, Australia will have less ability to model how climate change will affect us. That means less ability to forecast how threats such as sea-level rise will play out and plan how we adapt.

What’s at stake?

Our scientific colleagues have been told these plans include cutting roughly a third of the approximately 15 scientists who look after ACCESS – a foundational climate program that few people know about.

A climate model is a computer simulation of Earth’s climate system. It might sound abstract, but its findings are extremely important to all of us.

Global climate models such as ACCESS began as scientific tools to study Earth’s changing climate. But they have become much more than that. These sophisticated models have become vital for policymakers who have to take critical decisions at global, national and local levels.

The landmark 2015 Paris Agreement – in which the world agreed to hold global warming as close to 1.5°C as possible – was built in large part on predictions made by climate models, one of which bears the “Made in Australia” trademark – the ACCESS model.

CSIRO has developed and run this climate model for several decades, even as budgets shrank. Ten years ago, major funding cuts significantly reduced Australia’s global climate capabilities until they were globally marginal. These capabilities had taken many decades to build and grow.

Now the loss of these scientists means we face the threat of losing the capability of having an Australian global climate model altogether, alongside our credibility in international climate modelling efforts.

What’s climate modelling for?

While we experience yet another cut to climate modelling, climate models elsewhere, especially in the European Union, are being upgraded to answer ever more complex and detailed questions. Questions that we need to answer here too. They include:

• how do we ensure our climate adaptation strategies are sound and will not further fuel the cost-of-living crisis?
• how will the changing weather affect our ability to reach net zero in Australia, the Indo-Pacific region and globally?
• how might sea-level rise be locally distributed and interact with changing local weather conditions to amplify flooding?

Without a well-supported ACCESS, we are at grave risk of not being able to answer these questions in Australia.

This threat to our sovereign capability seems short-sighted. Australia has long collaborated with overseas scientists and agencies and used their data. But this is becoming less certain.

In the US, cuts to climate research threaten climate modelling efforts there. Geopolitical tensions and future election outcomes in other nations could mean decreased willingness to share scientific data, including information about future climates.

An Australian climate model?

ACCESS is the only global climate model developed in the southern hemisphere.

Our soils, landscapes and vegetation are unique. So too is the weather and climate that shape them.

Crucially, these factors are very different to those in the northern hemisphere. Models built in Europe, such as at the UK Meteorological Office, naturally focus on processes that affect European climates. The same is true for other regions and nations.

So who, if not us, is going to build and sustain a global model with Australia squarely in mind?

International collaboration at risk

Beyond our own shores, Australia has been an active member of the international community collaborating to provide projections of our future climate since the 1990s.

In the past, we were recognised as a scientific powerhouse. This reputation enhanced our credibility at negotiating tables all over the world, none more so than at the annual United Nations climate talks, the next edition of which will be co-chaired by Australia.

Losing the ability to properly contribute our global model to future UN-led climate assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will undoubtedly diminish our standing as a nation well beyond the climate science community.

But make no mistake, it will affect that community, too. We speak to the next generation of climate scientists every day when working with students and research fellows. Worryingly, more and more of them ask whether there is a future for them here. The answer used to be obvious. It no longer is. The threat of brain drain will become a reality.

All this makes today an important day for Australia. Are we going to follow those nations that are decreasing the funding for climate science? Or will we join those investing in developing the scientific capabilities that allows their citizens and governments to plan with confidence?

We still have a choice.

The CSIRO response

In a statement, a spokesperson for CSIRO said it will retain its climate science capability and continue to provide the data, models and scenarios needed to support decision-making in Australia and internationally.

They said CSIRO is making “essential strategic research shifts” to focus its efforts on where it can deliver the greatest national impact. “To achieve this sharpened focus, we are exiting research where we lack scale to achieve significant impact, or areas where others in the sector are better placed to deliver.”

The changes affect some roles that were previously connected to the ACCESS program, the spokesperson said.

“As the ACCESS modelling system matured from a development program into an operational national capability, CSIRO worked with partners to transition responsibility for its ongoing stewardship into sustained national research infrastructure through the establishment of ACCESS‑NRI which now supports and maintains ACCESS as open research infrastructure,” they said.

– ref. CSIRO is cutting climate science jobs. This is what’s at stake for Australia – https://theconversation.com/csiro-is-cutting-climate-science-jobs-this-is-whats-at-stake-for-australia-283370

As temperatures drop across Australia, many households are pulling electric blankets and heated throws out of storage. For many, they’re among the cheapest and most energy efficient ways to stay warm during winter.

But some of us are understandably worried about fire risk. So how do you know your electric blanket is actually safe to use?

Is it compliant?

Modern electric blankets are generally considered safe when they comply with Australian electrical standards, as long as you follow the instructions.

But damaged, ageing or poorly manufactured blankets really can create serious fire and burn risks. According to Australian fire authorities, we should treat electric blankets like any other electrical appliance and inspect them regularly for damage.

The good news is there are several simple checks you can use to determine whether an electric blanket is safe.

The first thing to check – ideally before you buy – is whether the blanket complies with Australian safety requirements. Electric blankets sold in Australia must comply with the Australian and New Zealand Standard 60335.2.17, which applies to flexible heating appliances such as electric blankets and heated throws.

How do you know it’s compliant? The tag won’t necessarily list the standard. Look for the regulatory compliance mark – it looks like a checkmark in a triangle. This symbol indicates the supplier has declared the product complies with applicable Australian safety requirements.

The mark is especially important when buying products online – some imported electrical goods may not comply with Australian safety standards. A blanket may appear normal on the outside while containing poor-quality internal wiring or unsafe electrical components.

Is it old?

Another important factor is the age of the blanket. Many Australians continue using electric blankets for far longer than recommended. Most manufacturers and safety organisations generally recommend replacing electric blankets after about five to ten years, depending on their condition and frequency of use.

Older blankets may lack many of the safety protections now common in newer models, including overheat protection systems and automatic shut-off technology. These safety features are worth considering when purchasing a new blanket.

Is it stored properly?

One of the most common mistakes people make is folding blankets tightly during summer storage. This can damage the internal heating elements and weaken insulation around the wires.

Electric blankets should ideally be stored flat or loosely rolled rather than tightly folded. Don’t put anything heavy on top when storing them, either.

That’s because over time, the internal heating wires can weaken at the points where they were folded and under pressure. In some cases, damage may not even be visible from the outside.

There are several warning signs that may indicate internal wire damage, which means the electric blanket is unsafe and should no longer be used. You should immediately unplug and replace a blanket if you notice:

• hot spots or uneven heating
• scorch marks or burn smells
• frayed fabric or exposed wires
• stiff or lumpy sections inside the blanket
• flickering heat
• a controller that feels unusually hot, loose, or damaged.

Use general caution

Certain groups of people may need extra caution when using electric blankets. Older adults, people with diabetes and individuals with reduced heat sensitivity or nerve-related medical conditions may not notice overheating or burns quickly enough.

Pets can also create hidden hazards. Cats and dogs may scratch, chew, or puncture the fabric, potentially damaging the internal wiring without you noticing. Even small wire breaks can increase overheating or fire risks.

Importantly, an electric blanket should never actually feel really hot – this can lead to heat stroke and be dangerous. Modern blankets are designed to provide gentle and consistent warmth rather than intense heat. A blanket that becomes excessively hot in one area may actually be showing signs of an internal fault.

All that said, when properly certified, correctly used and regularly inspected, electric blankets and throws are generally considered safe household appliances.

A quick checklist

Don’t assume your blanket is fine simply because it still heats up, especially if it’s old. A safe electric blanket should:

• display the regulatory compliance mark
• include manufacturer details and instructions
• heat evenly across the surface
• have no visible damage or exposed wiring
• include safety features such as an automatic shut-off or timer.

Make sure to check the blanket carefully before starting to use it in winter, inspect it regularly during use, store it correctly, and replace it when signs of wear begin to appear.

As long as you do the above, you should be able to use a heated blanket or throw without fear, and stay cosy during the colder months.

– ref. How do I know if my electric blanket or heated throw is safe? – https://theconversation.com/how-do-i-know-if-my-electric-blanket-or-heated-throw-is-safe-282858

Foreign Minister Penny Wong ordered the Israeli ambassador, Hillel Newman, to be called into the department over a video posted by far right Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, in which he insults and taunts detained members of the flotilla carrying aid for Palestinians.

Wong said on social media: “The images we have seen overnight are shocking and unacceptable”.

The video shows the activists keeling with their heads on the ground.

A gloating Ben-Gvir says: “Welcome to Israel, we are the landlords.”

“They came with much pride, as big heroes. Look, see how they look now, look. Look at how they look now. Not heroes and not anything, terror supporters. I tell Prime Minister Netanyahu: Give them to me for much more time. Give them to us for the terrorists’ prisons. This is how it should look.”

Among those detained are 11 Australians.

Wong said: “We condemn Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir – who Australia has sanctioned – and the degrading actions of Israeli authorities towards those detained.

“Australia’s Ambassador to Israel made representations overnight to Israel, calling for the release of those detained and for Israel to ensure no ill treatment of any detainees and act in line with international obligations.”

Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned the video. He said: “Israel has every right to prevent provocative flotillas of Hamas terrorist supporters from entering our territorial waters and reaching Gaza.

“However, the way that Minister Ben-Gvir dealt with the flotilla activists is not in line with Israel’s values and norms.

“I have instructed the relevant authorities to deport the provocateurs as soon as possible.”

– ref. Foreign Minister Wong orders ambassador called in over Israeli minister’s ‘shocking’ video – https://theconversation.com/foreign-minister-wong-orders-ambassador-called-in-over-israeli-ministers-shocking-video-282995