Humans are creatures of rhythms. As far as we know, humans have always sung and always danced. We can recognise a song by its rhythm alone, regardless of whether it is played fast or slow.

We seem to have an almost effortless capacity to pick up on rhythmic patterns, and we have presumed this ability to require the very large and powerful human brain.

But our new research, published today in the journal Science, shows humans are not alone in mastering rhythm. Even the bumblebee, which has a brain the size of a sesame seed, has an ability to quickly learn abstract rhythms.

A world full of rhythms

Rhythms are everywhere in nature.

We hear them in the songs of birds and frogs and the ultrasonic hunting chirps of bats. And we see them in the flashing displays of fireflies, the rhythmic shakes of a peacock’s tail, the waggle dances of honey bees and the courtship dances of fruit flies.

But, up to now, we have assumed these were innate rhythmic patterns: the animals are not learning a rhythm; they are simply rolling out an evolved behavioural program.

Apart from humans, only a few species of birds and mammals have been shown to be able to learn and recognise the structure of a rhythm regardless of whether it is played fast or slow.

This reinforced the perception that only smart animals with big brains can learn a rhythm. But big-brained animals are the exception in the animal kingdom. Most animals have evolved tiny brains (by our standards) and they can still solve all the problems they need to solve to survive and thrive.

But can they recognise rhythm?

Following the bumblebeat

To explore this, our team from Southern Medical University and Macquarie University worked with bumblebees – big beautiful bees that are easy to keep and train, and are hugely motivated to collect sips of nectar to take back their nest.

Working with individually labelled bumblebees, we trained them to forage from artificial flowers with embedded LED lights we could control. One flashing light pattern offered a sugary treat, while flowers with another flashing pattern did not.

The only way bees could distinguish the patterns was by their rhythmic structure. In this way we could train the bees to prefer one rhythmic pattern of flashes over another – for example, dot-dash-dot-dash (repeating) versus dot-dot-dash-dash (repeating).

Once the bees had been trained for an afternoon, we tested them on flashing flowers that offered no sugar. We found bees preferred to visit the flower flashing the rhythm that had been rewarded with sugar in training. This shows they could learn to recognise a rhythm linked to reward.

Without any extra training of the bees, we could show they could recognise their trained rhythm regardless of whether it was played faster or slower. This shows bees had learned a rhythm regardless of tempo – the first evidence that bees had learned a flexible rhythm.

Recognising the rhythm

To test the bees further, we asked whether they could recognise a rhythm regardless of how it was presented.

Bees are deaf at the frequencies we can hear, but are very sensitive to vibration. We trained bumblebees in a maze with a vibrating floor at the junction in the maze.

We could make the floor pulse with rhythm. Using this technique, we trained bees that one rhythm (say, dot-dot-dash-dash) meant the sugar reward was located in the left arm of the maze, whereas another rhythm (say, dot-dash-dot-dash) meant the sugar reward was in the right arm.

We knew bees could learn the maze because their success in finding the sugar first time improved with training. Once the bees were trained and performed well in the maze, we changed the maze so now there was a flashing LED light at the junction and no vibrating floor.

The bees trained with vibration were able to use the rhythmic pulses of light to work out which arm of the maze to pick to find the sugar. This showed bees could recognise a rhythm regardless of how it was played out. In other words, the bees had a sense of abstract rhythm.

As far as we know, this ability has only previously been shown in humans.

Changing the rhythm of our understanding

That the bumblebees did so well in these tests of rhythm learning changes how we think about what is needed to perceive and learn rhythm.

In humans and mammals, rhythm learning is very complicated, involving multiple regions of our large and complex brains.

But perhaps there are simpler ways a tiny brain can achieve the same thing.

Brains themselves are full of rhythms as neurons pulse with impulses. Many neural circuits use rhythmic properties of synchronous and asynchronous nerve impulses to organise their function. Perhaps there is something in the rhythmic properties of brains themselves that attunes them to detect rhythms in nature.

If we can capture that insight, and give miniature sensors a capacity to detect rhythmic temporal structure, there could be all sorts of applications: from lightweight solutions to speech and music recognition to diagnosis of heart irregularities, or pre-epileptic brain waves.

– ref. Bumblebees can perceive rhythm, despite their brains being the size of a sesame seed – https://theconversation.com/bumblebees-can-perceive-rhythm-despite-their-brains-being-the-size-of-a-sesame-seed-279659

Using one lens, you could view the present contest between the Albanese government and the Taylor-Canavan opposition as pragmatism versus populism.

A week ago the opposition, which perennially berates the government for economic irresponsibility, urged a cut in the fuel excise. True, the Coalition proposed offsets, but it was a policy seen as counterproductive by many economists.

The opposition knew it would be popular, however – a judgement shared by the government, which days later announced a cut.

On a totally different front, Special Minister of State Don Farrell had over the summer been in discussions with the Liberals and Nationals about his proposal to expand the size of the parliament. The Liberals were sceptical, although some privately supported it; the Nationals under David Littleproud were in favour.

Then Matt Canavan became Nationals leader and the right-wing lobby group Advance started campaigning against the idea (which has much to commend it once you get beyond the knee-jerk reaction).

This week, Canavan and Angus Taylor launched an attack on the plan. They were playing to sheer populism – people hate politicians. Within hours Albanese, judging the proposal would only bring him political grief, publicly killed it in parliament suggesting, in effect, he’d be a mug to pursue it. He said on Thursday the debate would not have been “healthy for our democracy”, and would end without change.

In the process, Albanese threw one of his most senior ministers under the bus, just like he did with Treasurer Jim Chalmers earlier this term when he pulled the rug from under part of Chalmers’ superannuation tax legislation.

The prime minister is fortunate these ministers are not like Paul Keating who, when dudded by Hawke on policy, didn’t take it lying down. Chalmers might sulk a bit, but stays calm publicly. Farrell, a factional hard man, just sucks it up.

Albanese is bringing his cautious, pragmatic approach to dealing with what is likely to be the worst crisis he will have to face in his prime ministership.

As the fuel crisis started to unfold, the prime minister mostly left the running to Energy Minister Chris Bowen. But a week ago, with the situation deteriorating, the PM changed tack, becoming engaged in a major way. By Monday, National Cabinet was meeting and the federal government announced its excise cut, together with and followed by other emergency measures.

Albanese’s strategy is multifold. Get ahead of the crisis where possible. Be seen to be responding. Try to maintain community calm, while at the same time warning about the risk of things worsening. And bring the public along.

Albanese became preoccupied with communicating, prompting his Wednesday night address to the nation. It was designed to grab public attention – paradoxically, with the PM so visible on a daily basis, “cut through” actually becomes harder.

Predictably, sections of the media panned the address. But that is to overthink it. It aimed to reassure, with the message that people should have a normal Easter, while realistically foreshadowing difficult months ahead. The suggestions of what people should do to save fuel (just take what you need, use public transport where you can) came with the message this would help those (like farmers, tradies and nurses) who have to drive.

Albanese is fighting off fears among some people that we’re headed to a COVID-like situation of extreme restrictions on daily life. He’s been anxious to avoid (so far) the “r” word, rationing, which is seen as having overtones of the COVID lockdowns.

In fact the comparisons with COVID are mostly irrational. COVID was totally different. This crisis might be full of danger for the economy and uncertainty for individuals, but COVID was about life and death. We’ve been through fuel crises before; there was no precedent in living memory for COVID.

Also, what Australia did during the pandemic, at least in the early stages and despite mistakes and excesses, was regarded as positive compared to many countries, in terms of lives saved. But in memory and in light of the lingering effects on young people, the response has come to be seen by many as wrong-headed.

The PM’s Thursday speech at the National Press Club was another effort to get messages out from an elevated platform. One notable feature was his declaration that the fuel crisis would not derail the government’s intentions to pursue reform in the May 12 budget.

Chalmers has been talking about plans to use the budget to advance tax reform and other changes. However many questioned whether new circumstances would lead Albanese to kill this drive.

But the prime minister said on Thursday this would be “our government’s most important budget to date and it will be our most ambitious. It has to be.”

“Economic reform that drives growth, boosts productivity, helps tackle inflation and lifts living standards is always necessary. And in times of uncertainty such as this, it is urgent,” he said.

They may be comforting words for Chalmers; they also set a marker for judging the budget. It’s more than a month away and a lot of its key decisions are yet to be taken – Chalmers has said it will be finalised later than usual.

One area that should be addressed in the budget, or separately but urgently, is a plan to put Australia’s fuel situation on a stronger long term footing. Australia has only a month’s supply in reserve, much less than many countries. Our refineries are down to two. Albanese was vague when asked about the longer term plans for fuel security, saying the government would consider measures “in a practical way” but pointing to the huge cost of going to a 90 day reserve (our international obligation).

The Iran war has shown how easily our position can be compromised. How our supply chains would be placed in a conflict in the Pacific doesn’t bear thinking about. A comprehensive, detailed, credible fuel plan should be at the centre of any “reform” agenda.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: A future plan on fuel should be central to Albanese government’s reform agenda – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-a-future-plan-on-fuel-should-be-central-to-albanese-governments-reform-agenda-278789

As conflict in the Middle East sends diesel and petrol prices skyrocketing, more and more Australians and New Zealanders are showing interest in electric vehicles.

But is this translating to sales? March data shows the answer is yes – EV registrations have shot up sharply in Australia and New Zealand.

Manufacturer order books are filling up, EV subscription services are full and wait times have blown out to months for popular models.

Much of the focus to date has been on new cars. But most people don’t buy new. When Australians buy cars, they tend to buy them secondhand. The ratio of used to new cars is almost two to one. EVs are cheaper to run, but have – until very recently – been more expensive to buy, which acts as a barrier.

Demand for secondhand EVs is surging through auctions and car yards, as cost-conscious households seek out ways to immediately cut costs and reduce exposure to global oil shocks. The Australian government is now expected to introduce fuel rationing after Easter.

Fuel price pain is driving the change

The Iran conflict has triggered the second global oil crisis in the past five years. The first was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which drove major disruption to oil markets. If the Iran war drags on, this crisis could be far larger. The International Energy Agency expects this crisis to be much bigger than the 2022 crisis and the oil shocks of the 1970s.

The Australian government has responded by temporarily halving fuel excise tax, just as it did in 2022. This will give immediate relief, but will do nothing if supply tightens as expected this month.

The oil crisis comes as many people struggle in earnest with the cost of living. Fuel is a major expense, especially in car-dependent regional towns and outer suburbs. Many early EV adopters live in outer suburbs of major cities, where cars are the main mode of transport.

Since the start of the war, petrol prices have increased by about 80 cents per litre and diesel by more than a dollar a litre. For those who need a weekly fill of 50 to 60 litres, this would equate to an extra $40 to $50 for petrol or an extra $50 to $60 for diesel.

Fuel prices are expected to make food and many other products and services more expensive. It’s small wonder more people are looking for cheaper alternatives – especially for households where other forms of transport aren’t viable.

Secondhand EVs in demand

By world standards, Australia has been slow to take up battery electric vehicles. Sales hit 8% of new car sales late last year (14% including plug-in hybrid vehicles).

One reason for this is that EVs have long been more expensive than their combustion engine equivalents. The upfront price difference has dropped rapidly, but is still a deterrent.

That’s why used EVs are now in such demand as a way for households under financial strain to get access. EVs were already much cheaper to run than combustion engine cars, even before the oil crisis. The difference is now even starker, especially for those who can charge at home.

It has taken time for a secondhand market in EVs to develop. The cars for sale now are often coming from expired novated lease agreements, or from government and corporate fleets once they are replaced as part of regular fleet renewal cycles.

Lower income households need support to shift

To date, Australia has offered little targeted support to encourage lower income households to switch to electric vehicles. This means the current trends are both significant and fragile.

Overseas, governments in parts of Europe and the United States have more actively encouraged uptake.

France has pioneered social leasing since 2024 to address affordability barriers for EVs targeting low and middle income households. It works by offering eligible households a new EV from A$170 per month with no upfront deposit, made possible through government subsidies of up to A$12,000 to reduce the total cost. At the end of the lease period, the car can be purchased outright or returned to the dealer.

In the US, Washington State’s EV Instant Rebate Program included social leasing provisions which helped 4,000 lower income households get an EV. Of these, almost 90% said they would not have been able to purchase the EV without the rebate.

These approaches could work to encourage uptake among households who would benefit most from going electric in both Australia and New Zealand. For many households and small businesses, private vehicles are a lifeline and the only option available. But for many, secondhand or more affordable EVs are still unaffordable.

This week, Australia’s clean energy bank announced a $100m program of discounted car loans to reduce the cost of finance for new and used EVs. These types of initiatives are a good start, but more will be needed to expand access to new and used EVs.

New measures could include targeted financial incentives to improve affordability and broaden access (including encouraging carmakers to bring more affordable and smaller EVs to market), a commitment from all levels of government to continue to expand EVs within their fleets, and consistent national policy to avoid boom and bust cycles in what’s still an emerging market. Over time, these measures would boost the supply of secondhand EVs.

While temporary cuts to fuel duty will reduce fuel bills in the short term, they won’t be enough. Coordinated action, tailored incentives and consistent policy will be needed to support households and businesses in going electric while making sure no-one is left behind.

– ref. Fuel prices are driving more Australians to EVs – and secondhand cars are in high demand – https://theconversation.com/fuel-prices-are-driving-more-australians-to-evs-and-secondhand-cars-are-in-high-demand-279835

Last week, the International Olympic Committee announced it will determine whether athletes are eligible for women’s events by mandating a once-in-a-lifetime screening for the male-determining gene, SRY.

But this new rule raises many questions – about why “female” is being defined this way, whether there is evidence trans women have an advantage, and whether a “level playing field” in sport is even possible.

Testing for sex

In humans and other mammals, the SRY gene determines sex in the early embryo. This gene kickstarts the development of testes and their production of androgens – male hormones (testosterone and its derivatives), which drive male development.

The SRY gene lies on the Y chromosome. Males have an X and a Y chromosome, whereas females have two X chromosomes.

Over the decades, sex tests changed from anatomical inspection to using microscopes to detect the second X in women or the Y chromosome in men. But testing was slow, and misdiagnosed athletes with sex chromosome variation.

So a test was developed to detect the SRY gene directly. This is the test the International Olympic Committee will use.

But it’s not as simple to determine “male” or “female” as you might think. The SRY gene activates a network of dozens of genes that promote testis development or block ovary formation. Variation in any of these genes can produce girls with SRY or boys with no SRY.

Indeed, the scientist who co-discovered the SRY gene has warned that this test misdiagnoses athletes with variant sex genes and chromosomes.

For example, some women have an inactive form of the SRY gene that does not induce testis development. Other women have a typical SRY gene, and testes that produce androgens, but have an inactive form of the molecule that activates androgens, so their bodies can’t use male hormones. The SRY test would misdiagnose these women as biological males and ban them.

Likewise, there are men with two X chromosomes who lack SRY but have other variant genes that override it. According to the SRY test they would be allowed to compete in Olympic women’s events.

The International Olympic Committee test must take account of these variants.

What is the evidence for male advantage in sport?

Over decades, physiological studies have shown men have, on average, larger hearts, more efficient lung function and greater muscle mass than women.

As for any trait, there are wide distributions that overlap – for example, there are tall women and short men. However, on average, there can be no doubt men are bigger and stronger than women.

Recent evidence implies that these differences are just the tip of the iceberg. Nearly all our 20,000-odd genes are not on the Y chromosome and are shared by both sexes. But research in 2017 shows that nearly one-third of our 20,000 genes act differently in men and women. Not just in reproductive tissues, but in heart, lungs, brain – everywhere. The same sex differences are seen in monkeys and are apparent before birth.

In three kinds of muscle cells, 2,100 genes work differently in men and women. So sex differences are much more profound than we had appreciated.

Traditionally, these differences have been attributed to the powerful effects of androgens on development at every stage – in the embryo, through childhood and particularly at puberty.

But experiments with mice with genetically manipulated sex chromosomes have showed many fundamental aspects of physiology – such as fat and energy metabolism – are associated not with SRY or hormones, but with the number of X chromosomes.

And the ongoing health advantages provided by the Y chromosome can be seen by the negative effects when men lose it in some cells as they age.

So there are major sex differences in function in every tissue, and it’s not all due to hormones.

But what’s the evidence for transgender advantage in sport?

This is much less clear.

Transitioning from male to female requires hormone replacement. This means suppressing androgens and taking oestrogen, which is much more active in females.

This dramatically changes the body. A trans woman taking oestrogen will develop breasts and more body fat, and lose muscle mass. Her testes will also atrophy.

Trans girls may also take puberty blockers before going through male puberty. These medications stop the body producing the surge of androgens that leads to irreversible physical changes.

So the question of whether trans women athletes have a physical advantage over cis women comes down to understanding what irreversible sex differences took place before and during puberty to organ growth and function, as well as any ongoing non-hormonal differences that might affect function in relevant tissues.

Here the evidence is contradictory, and varies according to when and how someone transitioned. Some studies show significant differences in performance indicators and others don’t. There is some agreement that trans women have, on average, longer limbs, a stronger hand grip and greater muscle mass. But after two years, their cardiac and respiratory function resembles that of cis women.

We have no data on gene activity in trans women athletes, so there are questions we can’t answer. Do the 2,100 genes in their muscle cells revert to a female pattern of activity? Do other genes on the Y chromosome protect their heart and kidney function? Does the lack of a second X improve their fat and energy metabolism?

Where is this level playing field?

So where does this leave the International Olympics Committee ban on transgender athletes? Do we need more data? Do we need to modify our thinking?

I would expect more data would just confirm that trans women who went through male puberty do, on average, have some advantages in organ size and function that are not reversible by hormone therapy or are hormone-independent. Even if transition was before puberty, non-hormone effects apparent in the early embryo probably manifest as more subtle differences in performance.

These differences may be slight. But cis women may contend they are significant in elite sports, where competitors can win medals by running or swimming 0.01 seconds faster than everyone else.

Like many attempts to regulate human behaviour, this ban founders on human variability.

Further complicating things, there is already great physical variation among cisgender athletes in the very attributes that make them excel at sport. For instance, variation in androgen levels has already provoked calls to ban hyper-androgenised women and to mandate allowable hormone levels.

This gets a bit ridiculous – do we ban exceptionally tall women from playing basketball?

Participation in sport is important for health and social connections. Sometimes it’s a lifesaver for trans women.

So discussing alternatives – such as open competitions that run alongside the Olympics, or categories based on something other than sex – remains crucial.

But maybe we need to admit that the playing field in sport can never be truly level. Elite athletes are probably off the charts in many physical and physiological attributes. Is this fair on the rest of us?

– ref. Do trans women have an advantage in sport? The genetics of sex are complex – https://theconversation.com/do-trans-women-have-an-advantage-in-sport-the-genetics-of-sex-are-complex-279647

More than 1,000 days after the release of the Murphy report, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has finally announced decisive action on tackling gambling advertising in Australia.

In mid-2023, the late Labor MP Peta Murphy presented a report that recommended a ban on gambling advertising due to the harms caused by those ads on TV, at sports venues and online.

Despite widespread cross-party support for the recommendations, Albanese failed to commit to any action – until this week.

So, what are the changes, do they go far enough and will they work?

What did the Murphy report recommend?

Murphy made 31 recommendations in her 2023 report, You win some, you lose more.

Its terms of reference covered online gambling, with Murphy calling for a

phased, comprehensive ban on all gambling advertising on all media, broadcast and online, that leaves no room for circumvention.

The report was broadly supported by all sides of politics, but many were left frustrated by Albanese’s delay in pushing tangible reforms.

What are the new reforms?

After almost three years, Albanese told the National Press Club in Canberra on Thursday he was implementing several restrictions to “minimise children’s exposure to gambling harm”. These are

• restricting gambling advertising on broadcast television to no more than three ads each hour between 6am-8:30pm, with a complete ban during live sport broadcasts within those hours

• banning gambling ads on the radio during school drop-off and pick up times (8am-to 9am and 3pm-4pm)

• banning gambling ads through online platforms, unless people have a logged-in account, are over 18 and have the option to opt out of gambling advertising

• banning the use of celebrities and sports players in gambling ads, along with odds-style ads targeting sports fans

• banning gambling ads in sports venues and on players’ and officials’ uniforms.

Albanese said:

We’re getting the balance right here, letting adults have a punt if they want to but also making sure Australian children don’t see betting ads everywhere they look. What we don’t want is kids growing up thinking that footy and gambling are the same thing.

The government will also look to crack down on online “pocket pokies”, offshore gambling providers and also strengthen BetStop – the national self-exclusion register.

He said his government would aim to enforce these changes from January 1, 2027.

So, will they work?

Australians gamble the highest amount per capita globally: more than $30 billion annually.

But research shows the majority of Australians wanted action on gambling ads: about 75% supported a total ban, while about 80% supported a ban on social media, online, in stadiums and on players’ uniforms.

The proposed measures fall well short of the comprehensive reforms recommended by Murphy.

Sure, this is a step in the right direction. But it’s a pretty small and underwhelming one – the government is offering a diluted package of gambling reforms.

Young people in Australia are growing up in environments saturated with betting promotions, normalised through sport, media and digital platforms. Our research shows young people see gambling advertising “everywhere” and think it can be highly influential in shaping attitudes and encouraging gambling.

The proposed reforms do little to address this exposure in a meaningful way.

Limiting ads to three per hour during the day on television does little to reduce children’s exposure to gambling ads. It just regulates the pace of the exposure. A child watching afternoon or early evening programming will still be exposed to a steady stream of gambling messages.

Likewise, banning ads during live sport sounds significant but only applies within certain hours, leaving ample opportunity for exposure before and after games, and across other programming and media channels.

Perhaps most concerning is what these reforms do not include.

There is no comprehensive ban on gambling advertising, despite this being a central recommendation of the Murphy report. Without such a ban, the industry retains significant freedom to continue promoting its products – simply shifting strategies across platforms, time slots and formats to maintain reach.

And while the reforms focus on banning celebrities and athletes in gambling advertising, they miss how marketing is already evolving.

Young people consistently tell us that influencer content embedded into their social media feeds can be even more powerful than traditional celebrity endorsements. They say influencer promotions feel more relatable, more authentic, and are often harder to recognise than advertising.

They are exactly the kinds of strategies the industry will continue to lean into.

The problem with partial regulation

The most fundamental problem with partial regulation is that industries adapt. Online gambling is a high-tech industry that has demonstrated on multiple occasions that when one channel is restricted, marketing spending flows into another.

Without a comprehensive approach, including a national regulator to set the rules, these reforms risk creating an illusion of action.

Research is already showing us how quickly these strategies shift. As traditional sports betting audiences become more regulated, our recent research shows how the industry is increasingly targeting women through lifestyle branding, influencer marketing, and the integration of gambling into social and digital spaces.

The inconsistencies in the policy also raise an important question: if gambling promotions are deemed harmful enough to be removed from stadiums and player uniforms, why are they still acceptable across other forms of media that children consume daily?

What we are seeing is not a bold public health response but a cautious, politically palatable compromise. It allows the government to claim it is acting, while avoiding more substantive reforms that would likely face resistance from the gambling industry, sporting codes, and broadcasters.

Peta Murphy was serious about protecting young Australians from gambling industry harm. The government’s proposed reforms fail the Murphy test.

– ref. ‘Small and underwhelming’: Albanese’s gambling reforms won’t do much to reduce harm – https://theconversation.com/small-and-underwhelming-albaneses-gambling-reforms-wont-do-much-to-reduce-harm-279847

The global economy is undergoing major transformation as artificial intelligence (AI) filters into almost every industry – reshaping business models and investment decisions.

For those who sit on a company’s board, setting overall strategy and holding management to account, the shift is raising the bar on what’s required. Board members need to understand the new technology they’re investing in. They must also be equipped to oversee complex technological risks.

Given this, you’d expect to see large companies stacking their boards with directors who have science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) expertise. But that isn’t the case.

Our new research shows that at the largest 500 listed companies in Australia, many boards lack members with sufficient technological expertise. More than half had no directors with STEM expertise on their board.

Here’s why that’s a problem – and why all of us have a stake in fixing it.

What we found

We examined the backgrounds and expertise of directors from the largest 500 firms listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) and compared board composition in 2007 to 2022.

We were interested in whether the number of directors with STEM expertise had increased to match the significant technological advancements that had taken place over that time.

We were surprised by the results.

We found the backgrounds and expertise of directors from Australia’s largest firms changed very little over 15 years. Directors with STEM expertise remained underrepresented on boards, increasing from 8% to just 13% over the period.

By comparison, directors with backgrounds in the traditional fields of accounting, banking and law occupied 42% of board seats (up from 40% in 2007). Directors with “C-suite” experience – roles such as chief executive officer, chief financial officer and so on – made up 35% of all board positions in 2022.

Even in industries with a scientific focus, such as technology and health care, we found accountants and bankers still outnumbered directors with STEM expertise.

Our study only goes up to 2022, when AI was relatively new on the scene. But newer data suggest the picture hasn’t changed much.

The 2025 Watermark Search International Board Diversity Index (which covers the largest 300 companies on the ASX) paints a similar picture. Directors with expertise in accounting, financial, legal or general management backgrounds still dominated boards (75%).

Why is this a problem?

Research shows corporate strategy and investment decisions are shaped by the backgrounds and characteristics of the top management team – including board members.

Our research makes a clear case for getting more STEM expertise into the boardroom. We found companies with greater STEM representation on their boards invested more in innovation and investors valued them more highly.

This aligns with other research, which shows “innovativeness” is linked to better company performance, growth and survival.

STEM expertise becomes even more valuable in low-tech industries or companies where the chief executive doesn’t have a STEM background. Here, a director can step in to provide technical expertise and fill critical gaps in innovation strategy and capabilities.

Australia is falling behind

On innovation more broadly, Australia is falling behind many of its peers. A recent independent report the federal government commissioned found Australia’s research and innovation system was “broken” and needed significant reform.

But Australia still wants to be an innovation leader. This week, the federal government and global AI giant Anthropic signed a memorandum of understanding, backing plans to expand Australia’s AI infrastructure and attract big tech to Australia. Anthropic has previously announced it will open an office in Sydney this year.

At the same time, data centre operators are attracting high-profile investors and billions in investment.

There is clearly a strong appetite to invest in innovation and Australian firms that are willing to embrace it. The question is whether boards are adequately equipped to make the most of this momentum.

Managing risks

A lack of STEM expertise doesn’t just limit firms’ innovation, it also increases their exposure to cyber risks. With a cyber attack reported in Australia every six minutes this has become one of the biggest threats to business growth and profits.

Major breaches have repeatedly made headlines in recent years, placing added pressure on boards to have robust cybersecurity measures in place.

Regulators, including the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, have reinforced this message, cautioning boards that cybersecurity is their responsibility.

In the new global economy shaped by the opportunities of AI and the threat of cyberattacks, technology is no longer a back-office function. It’s at the forefront of company policy and strategy.

To keep pace with this shift, companies should look to bring more technical expertise to the boardroom. All their customers, employees and suppliers – and Australians as a whole – have a stake in whether the boards get this right.

– ref. In the age of AI, why do Australian company boards have so few technology experts? – https://theconversation.com/in-the-age-of-ai-why-do-australian-company-boards-have-so-few-technology-experts-279752

Invasions of ancient Persia were always daunting tasks. They often led to disaster.

In the 6th and 5th centuries BCE, the Persian empire came to dominate a vast and varied geography with Iran at its heart.

Comprising modern Iran, Iraq, Turkey, the Persian Gulf and parts of other neighbouring countries, the Persian Empire was established and ruled by the Achaemenids. This powerful dynasty lasted all the way to about 330 BCE when Alexander the Great defeated its last ruler, Darius III.

But in the early days of this Achaemenid Persian expansion (546 BCE), the legendary King Croesus (from Lydia, in western Turkey) decided to challenge it.

Reputedly the richest man in the world, Croesus consulted the famed Oracle of Apollo at Delphi (in Greece). The oracle, according to ancient writer Herodotus, told Croesus:

that if he should send an army against the Persians he would destroy a great empire.

Croesus’ subsequent invasion and defeat by the Persian king, Cyrus, saw the destruction of his own empire. The oracle accurately foretold the outcome but not as Croesus had hoped.

Croesus wasn’t the last ruler to invade Persia and realise he’d bitten off more than he could chew.

From the 6th century BCE to the 4th century CE, Greeks and Romans invaded Persia multiple times. The risks were high, the logistics complicated.

In fact – as US President Donald Trump is now discovering – wars like these, in this part of the world, are a lot easier to start than they are to end.

Complex and high-risk

The vast resources and manpower of the Achaemenid empire, together with its varied geography, made any invasion of Persia complex and high-risk.

When Alexander the Great (also known as Alexander III of Macedon) invaded in 334 BCE, he led stunning military successes against the Persians over the next few years.

But by the time of his premature death in Babylon in 323 BCE, organisation of the vast territory he had conquered was a hodge-podge of short-term arrangements.

Over time, the memory of Alexander in the Iranian territories he conquered was one of contempt. The Persian territory he conquered couldn’t be held by his successors.

Around 70 years after Alexander’s death, a new dynasty emerged in Iran.

Known as the Arsacid Parthians, they would dominate much of the former Achaemenid territory for centuries.

The Arsacid Parthians became the key rivals of the Romans as they (the Romans) expanded further east from the 1st century BCE onwards.

The first invasion of the Parthian empire by the Romans ended in total disaster – for the Romans.

The Roman general Crassus invaded Parthian imperial territory in southern Turkey in 53 BCE. The Parthian army annihilated Crassus’ forces near the city of Carrhae. Around 20,000 Roman soldiers died (including Crassus and his son) and 10,000 were captured.

This disaster would live in the Roman memory for centuries.

‘A source of constant wars and great expense’

Even when Roman invasions of the Parthian empire in the 2nd century CE were successful, there was often a sting in the tail. The emperor Trajan invaded all the way to the Persian Gulf in 116/117 CE but couldn’t hold any of his gains.

Later in the 2nd century CE, Roman invasions of the Parthian empire did see territorial gains in Mesopotamia (southern Turkey).

But one contemporary Roman writer, Cassius Dio, thought these gains were more trouble than they were worth:

He [emperor Septimius Severus] used to declare that he had added a vast territory to the empire and had made it a bulwark of Syria. On the contrary, it is shown by the facts themselves that this conquest has been a source of constant wars and great expense to us.

From loss to ultimate humiliation

In the 3rd century CE, the Sasanian dynasty took control of Iran and Mesopotamia from the Parthians. The Sasanian Persians inflicted serious defeats on invading Roman armies in the centuries ahead.

The Roman emperor Gordian III died in battle against the Sasanians in 244 CE. He led a large-scale invasion of the Persian empire but died trying to attack the capital, Seleucia-Ctesiphon. His successor (Philip I) signed a humiliating peace treaty to ransom what was left of the army.

But the ultimate humiliations for Roman emperors were yet to come.

In 260 CE, the emperor Valerian was captured by the Persian king, Shapur I.

Legendary accounts claimed Valerian served as a footstool for Shapur when he mounted his horse.

Rock reliefs from the 3rd century depicting Valerian and Philip I in subjection to Shapur survive in Iran to this day.

Around a century later, the emperor Julian died while invading the Persian empire. Leading an army of 60,000 men, Julian suffered a heavy defeat and was killed north of the Persian capital, Seleucia-Ctesiphon.

The ensuing peace treaty saw Rome lose key territory and fortresses in northern Mesopotamia.

It would take more than a century for Rome to recover from this defeat.

Most ancient invasions of the Persian empire caused serious problems for those who prosecuted them.

The varied and sometimes harsh nature of the geography was an important factor. The national resolve and military preparedness were others.

While the current US-Israel war against Iran is different in many ways to ancient wars directed at Persia, the 3rd-century Sasanian rock reliefs are reminders of what can go wrong.

– ref. An ancient oracle warned invading Persia would backfire – from Croesus to Trump, rulers have failed to listen – https://theconversation.com/an-ancient-oracle-warned-invading-persia-would-backfire-from-croesus-to-trump-rulers-have-failed-to-listen-279750

You can’t visit the shops around Christmas time without hearing Feliz Navidad, Silent Night, or Mariah Carey’s All I Want for Christmas is You.

So why was Kate Ceberano’s song Bedroom Eyes blaring through the speakers as I did my Easter chocolate shopping this week?

Both Easter and Christmas come with religious beliefs, secular icons, public holidays and highway traffic jams – but where Christmas music thrives on a commercial level, the Easter soundtrack seems trapped behind the one rabbit-proof fence that actually worked.

Living in Santa’s shadow

For one thing, Easter’s associations in Christianity aren’t as marketable as those of Christmas.

The commercialisation of Christmas – which ramped up in department stores in the early 20th century – gradually encouraged tolerance of religious songs in public shopping centres.

We don’t mind celebrating the birth of a baby, regardless of our beliefs. It’s a joyful human experience. But the torture and death of a man on Good Friday is deeply disturbing – and the triumphant Easter Sunday resurrection stumps advertisers.

Easter fares no better with secular icons. A jolly bearded Santa offers a comforting grandfather figure who grants wishes. This is arguably more likely to lure consumers than a zoologically-confused rabbit with eggs. (Not to mention rabbits are a government-declared pest).

From a consumer perspective, Santa’s toy sack also trumps the Easter Bunny’s basket. The sack holds all manner of toys and useful items, while chocolate eggs offer a sugar-high followed by weight gain and acne.

Easter gifts weren’t always about chocolate, though. Historically, the presents were much more varied. As noted by American sociologist James Barnett in 1949, old Easter advertisements featured perfumes, liquor, Bibles and, most notably, new clothes.

Classics from great composers

Easter music may not make supermarket playlists, but it still exists.

Those seeking a high art musical experience can attend orchestral and choral performances held in concert halls across Australian cities. One favourite is Johann Sebastian Bach’s St John Passion. This 1724 composition tells Christ’s crucifixion story, and allows the listener space for spiritual and life reflections.

Another masterpiece is George Frideric Handel’s Messiah, written in 1742. Messiah tells the entire story of Christ, making it popular at both Christmas and Easter. The famous Hallelujah Chorus is goose-bump material in live performances. For many, it is a divine musical experience.

Church service hymns

Those wanting a community singing experience can attend one of the many Easter church services held throughout the long weekend.

Traditional Good Friday services present solemn songs, focusing on Christ’s suffering and death. You’ll hear treasures such as Isaac Watts’ famous hymn When I Survey the Wondrous Cross and the moving African American spiritual Were You There recorded by The Mills Brothers. Sung in a group, these slow-paced songs deliver beautiful harmonies and a sense of community.

You can find more uplifting tracks at a traditional Easter Sunday service. These often feature old favourites such as Crown Him with Many Crowns and Charles Wesley’s cheerful Christ the Lord is Risen Today.

Read more: Church hymns and social beers: how Australia is reviving the magic of singing together

Contemporary flops

Unfortunately, secular Easter music is weak fuel for inspiration.

The 1977 composition The Easter Bunny is Comin’ to Town by Maury Laws and Jules Bass is barely known, unlike its chart topping 1934 predecessor, Santa Claus is Coming to Town.

A more enduring secular Easter hit (although still not widely known) is American songwriter Irving Berlin’s 1933 song Easter Parade. The lyrics describe strolling down New York’s Fifth Avenue showing off your best clothes. A 1948 recording for a movie of the same name flipped the gender script, with Judy Garland admiring Fred Astaire’s prettiness in his Easter bonnet.

In 1950, Gene Autry (who was the first to record Frosty the Snowman) took a shot at the Easter music market with his re-recording of Here Comes Peter Cottontail – with some success. Vocal stars followed the trend with Nat King Cole singing Easter Sunday Morning, and Rosemary Clooney’s version of Eggbert The Easter Egg.

Another zany addition that came soon after was Ray Anthony’s The Bunny Hop. While this song began as a 1950s dance craze, it was absorbed into the Easter repertoire.

More contemporary secular Easter hits are hard to find. Composer Colin Buchanan tapped into a distinctly Australian flavour with his 2016 children’s song Aussie Easter Hat Parade. But you’d be hard pressed to hear it playing at the supermarket.

Easter does have a soundtrack. But much like a chocolate egg hunt, you have to dig around to find it.

Perhaps where it lacks the most is in contemporary hits. The writers of the 2011 children’s film Hop tried to find a path forward; they took the popular 1965 hit I Want Candy and repurposed it to be about chocolate.

But just how you would adapt Bedroom Eyes is beyond me.

– ref. Easter has a soundtrack just like Christmas, so why do we never hear it? – https://theconversation.com/easter-has-a-soundtrack-just-like-christmas-so-why-do-we-never-hear-it-278529

War in the Middle East has put a spotlight on the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow sea passage through which 20% of global oil supply is shipped. But far less attention has been paid to another essential product derived from oil and gas, on which the world also relies: fertiliser.

Roughly 20–30% of global fertiliser supply, such as urea, ammonia and phosphate, comes from the Middle East. The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has halted fertiliser exports from countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

For farmers in Australia, the disruption could not have come at a worse time. Most winter season grain crops are sown between April and June. While some farmers may have already secured their supply in preparation for the busy seeding season, others are still waiting for their fertiliser delivery.

How are fertilisers made?

Farmers apply fertilisers to provide their crops with essential nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Without adequate fertiliser, crops such as wheat, barley and canola will produce lower yields with lower protein content.

Urea is one of the world’s most important nitrogen fertilisers. Urea is produced through a carbon-intensive process known as Haber-Bosch. First, ammonia is synthesised from atmospheric nitrogen and hydrogen (usually derived from fossil gas). This ammonia is converted into urea, a white and odourless pellet, which is easier to transport, store and apply on farms.

With limited domestic production capacity, Australian farmers are almost completely reliant on imported urea. Australian agriculture imported 3.85 million tonnes of urea in 2024, most of it from the Middle East. With reduced global supply, the world price of urea has risen from A$675 per tonne in February, to more than $1,000 at the end of March, significantly increasing costs.

What does this mean for farmers?

Australia has limited domestic capacity to produce urea. Incitec Pivot Limited’s Gibson Island facility was Australia’s only manufacturer of urea until its closure in 2022.

A new facility planned by Strike Energy for Western Australia never broke ground, and the controversial Perdaman plant on the Burrup Peninsula won’t start producing urea until mid-2027. To make matters worse, Australia’s largest ammonia plant has been shut for two months after suffering a power outage.

Timing is everything in farming. Many Australian farmers are only weeks away from sowing. Even if fertiliser can be sourced from elsewhere in the world, it may not arrive in time.

Farmers may respond by planting fewer crops, leaving some land fallow, or turning to crops that require less fertiliser. If the Strait of Hormuz blockade persists well into 2026, we will face competing demand for fertiliser from farmers in the northern hemisphere. And Australia’s supply of “top-up” fertiliser (applied during the growing season to ensure crops reach their yield) will be affected. This could mean lower grain yields and reduced feed supply for livestock and poultry production.

Will our food cost more?

Food prices are influenced by more than fertiliser costs. Farmers are also grappling with increasing fuel costs. Soaring fuel prices affect all parts of the food supply chain, from processing and packaging, to transport, storage and retail. It is likely these collective impacts will increase food prices for customers.

Fertiliser and fuel costs constitute 25–30% of a cropping business’ total farm costs, so a sharp increase in both will significantly affect farm profitability.

Farmers only receive a small share of the price consumers pay for produce. At lower yields, farmers will face the squeeze of less production revenue and higher costs of production. While some producers may be able to weather the storm, others are facing a difficult year ahead.

– ref. Winter crops need to be sown – but Australia’s farmers are worried about fertilisers and fuel – https://theconversation.com/winter-crops-need-to-be-sown-but-australias-farmers-are-worried-about-fertilisers-and-fuel-279105

Picture this: you’re competing in a time-trial cycling race along a route that’s not known in advance. Instead of following a marked course, you receive instructions via notifications on your mobile phone.

Looking at your phone while cycling is extremely dangerous. But to stay on track, you must consult it nearly continuously.

If such a race took place on the streets of a busy, car-oriented city like Sydney, you would likely opt out. Yet food-delivery riders face precisely this situation every day: they receive order notifications while riding, and if they don’t check them, they lose the order and their hourly earnings suffer.

This is just one example of the dangerous incentive structure under which riders operate. These incentives are a central focus of our study just published in Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, based on in-depth interviews with ten food-delivery riders in Sydney.

Dying while delivering

Delivery rider safety is an urgent concern. In New South Wales, serious injuries involving food-delivery riders increased from just 2 in 2017 to 75 in 2020. In Victoria, data from the past five years has shown that one in 20 people who went to hospital with e-bike accident injuries said they were working at the time.

According to the Transport Workers Union, by 2024 at least 18 riders had tragically lost their lives while working in Australia.

Previous studies have mostly addressed individual factors that make some riders more prone to risky behaviour. In contrast, our study examines platform decisions and operations. This includes how orders are assigned, what information is transmitted and when, and how payment is structured.

What did our study find?

Our findings can be summarised in six platform-related issues that systematically generate time pressure and encourage risk-taking.

Several orders at once: the handling of multiple orders, often with opaque delivery sequences, creates conflicts with customers and forces riders to rush. As one rider explained:

When handling multiple orders, I’m often directed to deliver the second order first. This leaves the first customer waiting for a long time, causing a big delay and making me take risks because I’m getting messages.

No control over restaurant timing: unpredictable food preparation times reduce riders’ hourly earnings, incentivising them to “make up” lost time on the road.

Fierce competition: intense competition among riders requires immediate acceptance of orders, even while cycling. One rider said:

I have to compete with other riders for food orders. Because of this, I often engage in unsafe behaviours, such as checking my phone while riding my bike.

Gamified risks: incentive systems structured around tight time windows turn work into a target-driven “game”, where completing more deliveries unlocks bonuses. This encourages riders to push beyond safe limits in order to secure the reward.

Star ratings: customer review systems tie riders’ future access to jobs to punctuality and perceived service quality, amplifying anxiety about delays.

Ordering ahead: Pre-orders (scheduled deliveries) create stricter expectations on timing without reducing uncertainty in preparation. When delays occur upstream – especially at restaurants – the responsibility is effectively shifted onto riders. As one rider said:

Waiting time at restaurants reduces my hourly rate. To make up for it, I tend to rush more.

Taken together, these mechanisms actively structure the conditions under which risky cycling becomes an economically rational response for delivery riders.

It doesn’t have to be this way

Regulating these platforms has proven difficult worldwide. Our findings identify some obvious and less obvious measures to consider:

Prohibit sending new orders to riders on the road

Platforms know which riders are currently serving an order. Sending a new one prompts them to check their phone while cycling. On the other hand, preventing this would likely reduce order bundling – one of the main things that makes deliveries so efficient. But the apps could build a feature where, based on settings the rider selects beforehand, orders are assigned automatically.

Provide more transparent information to customers

If customers could see when a rider is handling multiple orders and how long preparation times are expected to be, they’d be less likely to criticise the riders or penalise them with low ratings.

Redesign incentive and rating systems

Incentive schemes and customer ratings should be redesigned so that riders are not penalised for delays beyond their control, such as restaurant preparation times. Similarly, bonuses should not reward completing a high number of deliveries within unrealistically short periods.

Introduce an effective maximum speed

Riders often run red lights or use footpaths to move faster and complete more deliveries. Platforms could calculate a reasonable return time to a “hotspot” with many restaurants in one place, and refrain from assigning new orders before that time. This would remove incentives for riders to rush.

Dangerous deliveries are cheaper

Implementing many of these measures is far from straightforward. For example, coming up with settings to automatically assign and accept orders would require negotiations between platforms and riders.

An effective maximum speed could be resisted by both riders and the platforms: by delivering fewer orders per hour, the total revenue would decrease. This would reduce both the platforms’ profit and the riders’ earnings.

This last aspect points to one of the crucial tensions in the meal-delivery industry: the lack of safety is actually profitable. The faster the riders go, the better the business performs and the cheaper the meals become.

However, improving safety means slowing deliveries down and thus reducing the income. Compensating for those earnings losses in a job that’s already precarious would likely require higher delivery prices.

In other words, the low price of a delivered meal partly depends on riders taking risks. Ultimately, we all have to ask ourselves: are we willing to pay the true cost of safe meal delivery?

Acknowledgements: this study was led by Minjun Song, School of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney.

– ref. Apps pressure delivery riders into courting danger – here’s what needs to change – https://theconversation.com/apps-pressure-delivery-riders-into-courting-danger-heres-what-needs-to-change-276369

Easter is here and chocolate is everywhere – crowding shop shelves, piling up on desks, and likely already sitting in your pantry.

But if you’ve been finding it harder to sleep recently, late-night Easter eggs could be part of the problem.

That’s because some chocolate ingredients, including caffeine and sugar, may be sneakily impacting your sleep.

But if you love chocolate, you don’t have to give it up completely. Instead, here are some science-backed tips for enjoying it without sacrificing your sleep.

The science of chocolate

Most of us will agree that chocolate is delicious. This is because it’s made of tasty ingredients such as cocoa, cocoa butter and sugar.

But it’s more than just a sweet treat. Chocolate contains hundreds of naturally occurring compounds including mild stimulants, which are substances that make the mind or body more active. These stimulants can impact how well you sleep.

Here are three ingredients worth knowing about.

Sugar

Sugar is one of the main ingredients in chocolate. When you eat high-sugar foods, such as chocolate eggs, your blood sugar levels tend to rise quickly. In response, your body releases insulin to bring those levels back down.

So if you eat chocolate in the evening, you’ll likely experience a blood sugar spike. This will temporarily boost your energy levels, but also means you’re less likely to feel naturally sleepy. When that spike wears off, your blood sugar levels will suddenly dip. All these fluctuations can disrupt sleep quality later, making it harder to stay asleep at night.

Caffeine

Chocolate also contains caffeine. Caffeine works by blocking a sleep-promoting chemical in your brain, called adenosine. When the adenosine signal is blocked, we feel more alert. While this is useful during the day, consuming caffeine in the evening can make it harder to fall asleep.

A single chocolate mini-egg contains a tiny amount of caffeine, typically just a few milligrams. If we compare this with a shot of espresso, which contains between 50 and 70 milligrams of caffeine, this doesn’t seem like a lot. But if you eat multiple chocolate eggs at once, say during Easter, this caffeine may start to affect your sleep. Even small amounts of caffeine can delay how quickly you fall asleep, and also impact how how well you sleep. And combining caffeine with sugar, in foods such as Easter eggs, can compound these effects.

Theobromine

Chocolate also contains theobromine, a stimulant commonly found in cocoa beans. Theobromine is similar to caffeine in that it blocks the adenosine signal. Theobromine can also increase your heart rate, meaning you’re more likely to feel restless. So while it isn’t as strong as caffeine, theobromine may impact your ability to fall and stay asleep.

The good news

Thankfully, you don’t have to give up chocolate to sleep well. But if you are tucking into some Easter eggs, here are three questions to ask yourself.

1. When am I eating?

Eating anything close to bedtime can make it harder to fall asleep, and may reduce the quality of your sleep. It might also increase your chance of having vivid dreams.

Late-night eating can also lead to digestive problems. Research suggests the human body has a harder time digesting food at night. If you eat food right before bed it can cause various symptoms, including acid reflux. Acid reflux is a common digestive condition where stomach acid flows back into your food pipe, causing an uncomfortable burning sensation. Eating chocolate in the evening may cause acid reflux because ingredients such as caffeine and theobromine relax the muscles that keep stomach acid in place.

Chocolate also has a high fat content, which can slow digestion and contribute to acid reflux. These digestive problems can make it harder to fall and stay asleep

So it’s best to avoid eating any food, including chocolate, at least three hours before you go to bed.

2. What am I eating?

Dark chocolate typically contains more cocoa than other kinds of chocolate. This means it also contains higher levels of caffeine and theobromine. So if you’re reaching for chocolate late at night, it may be best to avoid dark chocolate.

White chocolate is not made from cocoa solids, so generally contains no caffeine. However, it still has a high sugar and fat content. So you should also consider limiting how much white chocolate you eat before bed.

During the day, you can enjoy whatever kind of chocolate you prefer. But in the evening, it’s best to avoid eating any chocolate too close to bedtime.

3. How much am I eating?

Enjoying a small chocolate egg after dinner is unlikely to affect your sleep in any noticeable way. But eating a whole chocolate bunny, particularly right before bed, is another story. What’s key is managing your portions and giving your body time to digest before you head to bed.

The bottom line

For most people, eating chocolate won’t have a major impact on your sleep. But it helps to keep track of when, what, and how much chocolate you’re eating, particularly around bedtime. That way you can enjoy your Easter eggs without sacrificing any shut-eye.

– ref. How to enjoy Easter chocolate without wrecking your sleep – https://theconversation.com/how-to-enjoy-easter-chocolate-without-wrecking-your-sleep-278061

The war between the United States, Israel, and Iran is now into its second month. Despite spectacular early successes, the resilience of Iran’s government and military has meant the US and Israel have lost the strategic initiative. This means they are being more reactive than proactive in determining the outcome of the war.
One of the main reasons for this: the contradictory strategic objectives of the US and Israel. Since the war began, the Trump administration has struggled to justify its attack on Iran.

One of the reasons it is flailing is that the war runs contrary to the US’ long-held strategy in the Persian Gulf. The strategy is based on the 1980 Carter Doctrine, which was issued in response to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan.

In his 1980 State of the Union Address, then-President Jimmy Carter declared any attempt to gain control of the Persian Gulf was contrary to the US’ vital interests and would be repelled by any means, including the use of military force.

To this end, the US Fifth Fleet was stationed permanently in the Persian Gulf and economic sanctions were imposed on Iran and the USSR. Since 2001, there has been an exponential growth in US military bases in the Gulf, with approximately 50,000 US military personnel now stationed there.

Despite this military dominance, successive administrations accepted the tentative status quo with Iran. They understood that while it was still considered a threat, any military action to remove that threat would be counter-productive.

This is primarily because it risked the very thing the doctrine sought to prevent – control of the Persian Gulf – in this case through Iran’s denial of access through the Strait of Hormuz.

How Israel’s objectives differ

For Israel, the strategic calculations for war with Iran are vastly different. Iran is a key member of the Axis of Resistance. This is a loosely aligned coalition consisting of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas.

The main objectives of the axis are to resist US regional domination, destroy Israel and support Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation. The axis could not hope to challenge US dominance or destroy Israel. But Iran did provide support to Hezbollah and Hamas to resist Israel and its occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Despite the constant threat to Israeli security posed by the axis, the US had successfully restrained Israel from taking sustained military action against axis members. This maintained the Gulf’s status quo and kept the oil flowing.

But since October 2023, this restraint has been lifted. In retaliation for the Hamas-led attacks on Israel, the Netanyahu government implemented its “mowing the grass” strategy. This is where Israel seeks to manage a conflict with an enemy by trying to eliminate its immediate leadership and destroy or significantly degrade its economic, political and military capabilities to establish a level of deterrence.

Israel is using this strategy against Hamas and Hezbollah with devastating effect. Israeli troops are advancing into southern Lebanon, with the aim of occupying Lebanese territory to act a buffer zone between Lebanon and northern Israel. This would rob Hezbollah of most of its traditional stronghold in Lebanon.

However, this has led to the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians. It has also meant the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure.

Israel is now using the same strategy of destruction against Iran – assassinating key political and military leaders and destroying political and civilian infrastructure throughout the country.

Netanyahu as war leader in an election year

Not only is this war seriously degrading Iran’s military and political power, it also represents a huge boon for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an election year. Hamas’ 2023 attacks on Israel were an enormous embarrassment to the prime minister, who staked his reputation on being seen as the “protector of Israel”.

Now in the lead-up to the next election, due by October 27, Netanyahu can argue his government has crushed Hamas and Hezbollah, and humbled Iran. Netanyahu is desperate to win the election and will likely use the Iran war as a springboard to retaining the prime ministership.

This would place him in a stronger position to have President Isaac Herzog pardon him and cancel his years-long corruption trial. In short, Netanyahu has plenty of incentives to continue attacking both Iran and Hezbollah.

But the problem is there are costs to this apparent political windfall.

First, support for his government wavers, despite overwhelming backing for his war on Iran and Hezbollah. While recent polling indicates Netanyahu’s Likud Party riding high in the polls, it appears contingent on Netanyahu achieving his long-stated goals – the destruction of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the collapse of the current Iranian regime.

Polling in early 2025 also showed Likud’s support plummeting on news of an impending ceasefire with Hamas. This fickleness must surely worry Netanyahu, should the Trump administration negotiate a ceasefire that Iran says needs to include Hezbollah.

Second, support for Israel in the US has plummeted post-2023, with 65% of Democrats and 41% of independents now sympathising with Palestinians. While support for Israel remains strong among Republicans, the poll also noted it is at its lowest levels since 2004.

The same can be said of support for Israel in Europe, with polling taken in 2025 revealing it to be at historic lows.

This does not bode well for Israel because it desperately needs the US$3.8 billion (A$5.5 billion) it receives annually from the US alongside unfettered access to US military hardware and munitions. Without this aid, Israel could no longer act against external threats with impunity, and would face a severe economic recession. Given US President Donald Trump’s historic capriciousness, this support cannot be taken for granted.

Third, senior ministers in Netanyahu’s government, including Netanyahu himself, are under investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity concerning their conduct during Israel’s war on Gaza. While Netanyahu’s government continues to protest its innocence, any adverse findings would likely further decrease international support for Israel, leaving it more isolated than ever.

Finally, while Israel and the US have seriously weakened Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, simply surviving the onslaught is considered a victory by these actors, given the vast differences in military capability.

It has also led to the installation of a younger, emboldened, and more hardline leadership, especially in Iran, making the revitalisation of a more militant Axis of Resistance intent of exacting revenge more likely.

So instead of enhancing Israel’s security, Netanyahu may have paradoxically made Israel’s future security environment increasingly complicated and hazardous. Such an outcome would leave Israel more vulnerable to attack at a time when backing from traditional supporters is uncertain.

– ref. What is Benjamin Netanyahu’s end game in the Iran war? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-benjamin-netanyahus-end-game-in-the-iran-war-279101

When should offenders be sent to prison and when is it better to keep them in the community under close supervision?

New Zealand confronted that choice in 2007 when it introduced home detention, community detention and intensive supervision as alternatives to short prison terms.

At the time of the reform, New Zealand relied heavily on prison for criminal justice. The prison population stood at 189 per 100,000 people, compared to an OECD average of 136, and prisons were operating above capacity.

Two decades later, these non-custodial sentences are now a substantial part of the justice system.

In the 2024–25 financial year, the courts convicted and sentenced 50,800 people, but only about 15% received imprisonment. About one in five were sentenced to home detention, community detention or intensive supervision for offences ranging from careless or dangerous driving to theft and burglary.

We conducted two studies to examine what followed when sentencing shifted away from short prison terms towards community-based sanctions, focusing on work and reoffending, respectively.

We found offenders are more likely to retain work and earn more if they stay in the community, without raising the risk of new substantive reoffending.

The budget case for community-based sentences is straightforward. A day in prison costs NZ$552, compared with $116 for home detention. But sentencing policy should not be judged purely on fiscal arithmetic.

Keeping offenders in the community may help them hold on to work and family ties, but it also raises concerns about deterrence and public safety. Understanding the trade-offs between short prison terms and community-based sanctions matters in New Zealand because most offenders now remain in the community.

Keeping jobs, earning more

Our research regarding work found the 2007 reform improved offenders’ labour market outcomes.

Comparing first-time offenders sentenced in the year before and after the reform, and adjusting for broader changes over time, monthly earnings over three years were about $107 higher under the post-reform regime. This is about 6% more than they otherwise would have earned, or roughly $3,850 per offender in total.

Part of this gain is pragmatic. Offenders sentenced before the reform were more likely to spend time in prison immediately after sentencing, while those sentenced after the reform remained in the community and able to work. But the earnings effect goes further than this.

Even beyond the first 24 months, when any short prison sentence under the old regime would have ended, earnings remain higher. Across ten years after sentencing, this adds up to a cumulative gain of roughly $7,800 per offender.

The strongest earnings gains appear among offenders who already had a foothold in the labour market before sentencing. This suggests community-based sentences helped offenders hold on to better and more stable jobs, which would have otherwise been disrupted by a short prison term.

Any reoffending stems from breach of conditions

Our study focused on reoffending revealed a more nuanced picture. Recorded recidivism rises under the post-reform regime, by about 8.7% after one year, 9.5% after two years and 9.6% after five years.

However, this increase does not appear to reflect more substantive offending; the increase is driven by convictions for breaching sentence conditions.

In New Zealand, serious breaches are classified as offences against justice, and it is those that are driving the higher recorded recidivism. This suggests the reform increased breaches of sentence conditions, rather than new substantive offending.

New Zealand’s experience is not unique. Internationally, community-based sanctions and electronic monitoring are used both as a substitute for prison and a form of supervision following early release.

These sentences also replace different amounts of custody, ranging from short prison terms to the final months of longer sentences. The institutional settings differ, with some countries offering stronger reintegration support and more active labour market programmes than others.

Even across that variation, the evidence is broadly consistent. Studies from Europe, the UK, Argentina and Australia find no or lower reoffending, while Danish and recent Swedish research also points to better employment and earnings outcomes.

Our findings add to this by showing that the labour market gains seen in Denmark and Sweden can also arise in New Zealand’s leaner welfare-state setting, while the reoffending rates fit the broader international pattern that prison alternatives at least do not lead to clear increases in substantive reoffending.

Taken together, the evidence makes a favourable case for community-based sentencing instead of short periods of imprisonment. Such sentencing delivers fiscal savings alongside stronger labour market outcomes and higher future tax-paying capacity for offenders, without increasing substantive reoffending.

In the New Zealand context, important questions remain about effects on offenders’ families, victims and the public’s sense of safety. Evidence from Danish research nevertheless provides an encouraging lead, suggesting that community-based sentences also benefit offenders’ family members.

– ref. Offenders serving community sentences are more likely to keep jobs, earn more – new research – https://theconversation.com/offenders-serving-community-sentences-are-more-likely-to-keep-jobs-earn-more-new-research-279215

As the conflict in the Middle East disrupts fuel, shipping and food supplies, many are starting to ask if they will be still be able to get their medicines if the war drags on.

Australia’s medicine supply chain is built to handle short disruptions. So you shouldn’t have problems accessing most common medicines in the short to medium term.

But it isn’t designed for prolonged global instability.

What’s in place to protect our medicine supply?

Since July 2023, Australia has had specific stock-holding requirements for many medicines the government subsidises on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).

It means manufacturers must hold at least four or six month’ worth of stock of these medicines, depending on the particular medicine, on Australian soil.

This creates a buffer. If a shortage begins, it gives the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), our national medicines regulator, time to respond and reduce the impact.

These medicines aren’t stored in a single warehouse. They’re spread across wholesalers and pharmacies. This helps ensure access across the country, including in regional areas.

The list of medicines covered is reviewed regularly and another review is due this month. This means regulators can adjust which medicines are prioritised as global conditions change.

However, this protection does not apply to every medicine.

If a medicine is not listed on the PBS, the risk of shortages increases. This includes newer medicines and those only available on private prescription. These medicines often have smaller stock buffers and fewer suppliers so they are more vulnerable when supply chains are disrupted.

What about existing shortages?

Australia has been dealing with medicine shortages for several years. Common causes include manufacturing problems such as difficulty sourcing raw ingredients and sudden increases in demand for medicines.

There have been ongoing shortages of attention-deficit hyperactivity (ADHD) medicines lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate, for example, due to global demand and production limits overseas. Some antibiotics and hormone replacement therapies have also been affected by manufacturing disruptions. High demand for weight-loss medicines has also affected supply.

Where do our medicines come from?

Australia produces some medicines and vaccines locally, but we are not self-sufficient. Even when medicines are made here, the raw ingredients are often imported. Overall, more than 90% of medicines used in Australia come from overseas.

The main sources of medicines are the United States, Europe, India and China. India and China are especially important because they manufacture many of the raw ingredients used to make medicines. Even the US depends on these supply chains, which then affects countries such as Australia.

This is where the system becomes fragile

Medicine supply chains are less like a straight pipeline and more like a spider’s web. Their strength depends on every strand of the web being intact. One strand might be a factory in India. Another could be a shipping route through a conflict zone. Another is a wholesaler in Australia.

If one strand breaks, the system does not collapse immediately, but it weakens. When several strands are disrupted at once, the effects ripple across the network.

War can disrupt this web in multiple ways. Shipping routes may be blocked or delayed. Air transport can be restricted. Access to raw materials may be limited. Manufacturing can slow down. Even in Australia, fuel shortages could affect how medicines are transported between cities and pharmacies.

War is one risk. Natural disasters, pandemics and even panic buying can all place additional pressure on supply. When these pressures happen at the same time, shortages become more likely.

We rely on such a complex system because of costs and efficiencies. Manufacturing medicines in Australia is expensive. Producing them overseas is often cheaper. The system also relies on what’s known as “just-in-time” supply. Stock is replenished regularly rather than stored in larger quantities.

This keeps medicine prices lower, but also means there’s less room for error when disruptions occur.

For now, Australia is managing

In the short term, the current buffer is likely enough. But if disruptions continue for six months or longer, the risk of broader shortages increases, especially for medicines that are made by fewer manufacturers or with single or limited raw ingredients.

There are currently 397 medicines listed as being in shortage. This number fluctuates but is slightly down from what we’ve seen in the past few years. The TGA provides public information on current and anticipated shortages, along with guidance on how they are managed.

Read more: Why doesn’t Australia make more medicines? Wouldn’t that fix drug shortages?

There are also systems in place to respond when shortages occur. These systems have been shown to work.

The TGA can allow temporary importation of medicines approved in other countries, known as Section 19A approvals. In some cases, these medicines can also be subsidised under the PBS.

If the pharmacist can’t swap you to another brand of a product, the TGA can provide special permission for pharmacists to dispense a different formulation of the same medicine without needing to contact the doctor. This helps maintain access without needing a new prescription.

Increasing local manufacturing would improve resilience but it would take time and significant investment.

What should I do in the meantime?

Don’t panic or stockpile medicines. Keep your prescriptions up to date. Plan ahead so you don’t run out.

If you’re concerned, speak to your pharmacist and doctor. If your medicine is in short supply, there may be alternatives or ways to source your medicine from another location.

Australia’s medicine supply chain is designed to manage disruption and it has done so before. While global pressures are increasing, there are safeguards in place and multiple ways health professionals and policy makers can respond to help you if shortages occur.

– ref. As the Iran war disrupts supplies, will it affect access to medicines? – https://theconversation.com/as-the-iran-war-disrupts-supplies-will-it-affect-access-to-medicines-279655

Long weekends often bring family and friends together in a mix of generations.

Somewhere between the egg hunt and hot cross buns this weekend, there might be a moment where another adult steps in to “parent” your child in ways that don’t sit well with you. Maybe they are too sharp or too bossy. Or it’s just not how you do things.

These situations are often less about those involved “behaving badly” and more about emotions running high. This goes for kids and adults.

What can you do about it?

What’s going on?

It can be uncomfortable when a friend or relative uses a harsh tone, gives orders or disciplines your child in a way that feels too strong.

Often, this taps into something deeper. Many of us were raised with more punitive or directive parenting styles, and we can feel triggered seeing those approaches repeated with our own children.

At the same time, gatherings can lead to sensory overload. Noise, excitement, sugar and disrupted routines can push everyone closer to their limits. This is especially so for children, who are still developing emotional regulation.

What can you do?

If another adult steps in with your child in a way you don’t like, you can gently enter the interaction – rather than directly confront the other adult in the moment.

It can help to move physically closer, make eye contact, and gently touch your child with a warm smile. This allows you to take the lead without escalating tension. You might say to your child:

Hey, it’s getting loud – let’s step outside for a minute.

Later, if needed, you can have a quiet word with the relative. Try to keep it collaborative rather than critical. For example,

We’re trying to help Lily learn to calm down rather than just tell her to stop yelling. So I usually talk it through with her.

Framing it as your approach (rather than their mistake) reduces defensiveness.

When you’re with someone else’s child

Sometimes you might find yourself needing to respond to a child who isn’t yours. Perhaps they’re grabbing toys, yelling or about to knock over the dessert table. The key here is to focus on providing guidance through giving clear direction.

Instead of jumping straight to commands or corrections, aim for calm and descriptive responses without judgement. For example:

Oops! That was close. Let’s move away from the table.

Looks like you’re really excited, let’s keep the noise a bit lower inside.

I can’t let you throw that, it might hurt someone. Let’s find something else to do.

This aligns with the “emotion coaching” approach to parenting. This acknowledges a child’s feeling/s while setting a clear limit. If the child’s parent is nearby, it’s usually best to loop them in rather than take over.

Hey, just letting you know Poppy is climbing on the table.

This keeps boundaries clear and respects the parent’s role. When you do need to step in (for reasons of safety or respect), keep your tone calm and your language simple.

Avoid shaming the child or raising your voice as this can escalate the situation and undermine the child’s sense of safety, especially when they’re already overstimulated.

What to keep in mind

Get-togethers with friends and family are fun but rarely perfect. Children can experience some big emotions. They can feel left out, disappointed, overwhelmed or overexcited. Adults get triggered and parenting styles differ. During these times, try and hold onto a few core ideas.

• Behaviour is communication about children’s underlying emotions, needs and regulatory capacities. This is especially so during high-stimulation events. When children become wild or have meltdowns, it’s a sign they may be overstimulated, emotionally overwhelmed or hungry. So they need a break, a different activity, co-regulation (where the parent uses warmth and empathy to create calm) or food.

• Our own reactions are shaped by our past experiences and current capacity. Being aware of this can help us respond in a more measured way and step in to support our child.

• Calm, respectful guidance is more effective than harsh correction – whether it’s your child or someone else’s.

If things don’t go smoothly, check in with your child afterwards about their feelings. Or smooth things over with the relative. In the end, the goal isn’t perfect parenting over the long weekend – it’s staying connected, even in the messy moments.

– ref. I hate it when other adults ‘parent’ my kids. What can I do? – https://theconversation.com/i-hate-it-when-other-adults-parent-my-kids-what-can-i-do-279658