After weeks of bombardments in southern Lebanon that have killed more than 2,000 people and displaced more than one million residents, Israel has announced a ten-day ceasefire with Lebanon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, vowed to keep Israeli troops in southern Lebanon to create a ten-kilometre “security zone”, raising immediate questions about whether the ceasefire would actually stop Israeli attacks against Hezbollah.

After a previous ceasefire in late 2024 ended 13 months of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, Israeli troops continued to launch airstrikes and carry out targeted killings of Hezbollah fighters.

People like to bound events such as wars with tidy dates and years. It makes them easier to understand and entertains the fantasy that historic events are neat, with understandable beginnings, middles and eventual ends.

But in reality, the messiness and complexities of war rarely hold to these manmade boundaries.

Instead, even after a ceasefire or a peace agreement is in place, many dynamics of war continue. This is the paradox of such agreements: they might end one phase of a conflict, but they inevitably usher in another.

The good and bad of ceasefires

Take Israel’s war in Gaza as an example.

The war came to an end after Israel and Hamas signed the Gaza Peace Plan, a 20-point deal brokered by the Trump administration, in October 2025.

The terms are relatively broad, vague and aspirational. But the deal has had many benefits. The ceasefire decreased Israel’s bombardments of Gaza. The remaining Israeli hostages captured on October 7 2023 were swapped with Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. Somewhat more aid now enters the strip than during the war.

However, the agreement also created other negative dynamics and enabled many problems caused by the war to continue.

For example, after the deal was signed, the public and media attention shifted away from the violence continuing to be committed by Israel to other events. This has meant that in the wake of the peace deal, near-daily Israeli attacks have continued, but with much less scrutiny. Israeli-supported violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has also escalated.

Humanitarian aid entry into the Gaza Strip also remains vastly below the levels delineated by the peace agreement. And serious discussions about the future governance or development of Gaza – mandated under the peace plan in multiple points – remain uncertain amid the noise of other wars and global events.

We can see similar dynamics in Iran, barely a week after another vaguely worded ceasefire agreement was signed between the US and the Iranian regime.

It appears the regime has taken the opportunity provided by a two-week “peace” to crack down on internal dissent. And in what appears to be an attempt to enhance its negotiating position for future peace talks, the Trump administration has launched a naval blockade of Iranian ports.

The short-term truce between Lebanon and Israel might offer Lebanese civilians some level of reprieve. However, it may also provide Israel with a quiet week away from the media spotlight to reinforce its military occupation of southern Lebanon.

To create Israel’s security zone, Defence Minister Israel Katz said the military would demolish buildings in Lebanese towns near the border and prevent displaced Lebanese from returning to their homes. Netanyahu made clear Israeli troops would remain.

This can all be more easily accomplished with a ceasefire deal in place.

Short attention spans

Globally, dozens of countries are currently experiencing armed conflict. Many people scan the news regularly as a way of keeping informed and bearing witness to the dynamics of these wars, casualty figures and how they might potentially end.

This glorified horror plays into our current “headline culture”, which tends to encourage clickbait, sensationalised content and virality. It also means public attention on a particular conflict is not necessarily driven by the scale of suffering, but by media coverage. Because of digital media, we have now a proximate and persistent view of human suffering and death that does not always translate into ongoing attention and action.

Whether parties to a conflict will reach a ceasefire or peace agreement is certainly worthwhile and important news. However, once a deal is signed, media and public attention often shifts to other more “active” (and also worthy) conflicts. There is currently no shortage of wars to choose from.

Because we believe a conflict has “ended” with a deal, what comes after the ceasefire or peace agreement tends to remain obfuscated or under-reported.

The peace agreement paradox

Ceasefires and peace agreements are certainly not always a harbinger of peace or a neat full-stop to a war story.

Arguably, the parties to these deals are increasingly aware of the “peace” agreement paradox and are making their political and military calculations accordingly.

If we truly want to grapple with what war and peace directly entails for millions of people in an increasingly complex and volatile world, we need to broaden our understanding about what we mean by ceasefires and peace agreements – and keep up a level of scrutiny long after the deals are signed.

– ref. Israel and Lebanon have a ceasefire, but global attention shouldn’t move on. This isn’t a tidy end to the war – https://theconversation.com/israel-and-lebanon-have-a-ceasefire-but-global-attention-shouldnt-move-on-this-isnt-a-tidy-end-to-the-war-280816

The pill is the most common way Australian women avoid getting pregnant. Almost 30% of Australian women who use contraception take the pill.

Now, several state and territory governments are giving women greater access to the pill. Just this week, New South Wales announced it would allow eligible pharmacists to prescribe it to women aged 18 and above, without them needing to see a GP first.

But around the country, the rules governing how women can access the pill through pharmacies vary. And certain types of the pill still aren’t available under pharmacy prescribing schemes anywhere in Australia.

How does the pill work?

The combined oral contraceptive pill is a daily medication that women can take to avoid unwanted pregnancies, or plan when they want to conceive.

The pill contains two hormones, typically oestrogen and progestogen or derivatives of these hormones, which stop the ovaries from releasing an egg each month. These hormones also makes a woman’s cervical mucus thicker, which helps prevent sperm from entering the uterus.

The pill is the most common kind of contraceptive. However, other types are also available. These include progestogen-only pills, otherwise known as the “mini pill”, and intrauterine devices that are implanted in the uterus to prevent pregnancy.

In addition to preventing pregnancy, the pill can also help women manage other medical conditions. These include menstrual disorders, such as heavy bleeding or painful periods. Women who have severe acne or endometriosis may also have less pain when on the pill.

So, what’s changing?

Until recently, women could only access the pill by following three strict steps.

1. visit a GP for a script
2. go to a pharmacy to get a supply of this medication
3. return to the GP when this supply runs out, asking them for a new prescription.

However, federal and state governments are working to simplify this process.

In March, Victoria announced that from July this year, it’d allow women taking the pill for the first time to get it from pharmacies, without a GP prescription. This applies to women aged 18 and older.

Soon after, the federal government said it’d allow concession card holders to access subsidised contraceptives prescribed by qualified pharmacists, without the need to see a GP. This change will come into effect across Australia from January 2027, pending approval from all states and territories.

Most recently, NSW has announced trained pharmacists will be able to prescribe a range of oral contraceptives from June 1, 2026. However, this is only to women aged 18 and above who have a low risk of complications.

These announcements come as trained pharmacists take on a greater role in caring for people with acute and chronic health conditions. Researchers around Australia are currently investigating whether this is a safe and effective way to take pressure off GPs and the broader health-care system.

Training is key

Importantly, these new initiatives haven’t made the pill a fully “over the counter” medication.

Pharmacists who provide a resupply service in NSW, meaning a GP already prescribed the contraception in the past two years, must complete online training modules. Only then are they eligible to resupply up to 12 months of certain contraceptives. However, specific training requirements vary for each jurisdiction.

Under NSW’s new scheme, pharmacists must also have a postgraduate qualification in prescribing. That allows them to prescribe new contraceptives, or a different type of contraception, to a patient.

In certain jurisdictions, and with patient consent, pharmacists must notify the patient’s regular GP if they prescribe or resupply any contraception.

However, using contraceptives carries certain risks. People may be more likely to develop adverse symptoms, such as blood clots, because they have underlying conditions or other risk factors.

That’s why pharmacists must have thorough consultations with patients. This involves screening for risk factors, such as high blood pressure, before prescribing or resupplying contraceptives. And if their consultation raises any concerns, pharmacists must refer a patient to be reviewed by their GP.

For some people, longer-acting forms of contraception such as implants, or forms of contraception not available through pharmacists may be more suitable. It’s best to discuss these options with a GP. It’s also worth noting that seeing a pharmacist shouldn’t replace routine visits to the GP, which are key to monitoring your overall health.

In NSW, about 60 pharmacists have already completed a graduate certificate in prescribing from James Cook University. After also completing a state government reproductive health course, they’ll be eligible to start prescribing certain oral contraceptives from June 1, 2026.

Read more: Do we really need prescriptions for the contraceptive pill?

So, how can I get the pill?

You can find a participating pharmacy by visiting this website or contacting your local state or territory health department.

However, not every pharmacist can prescribe. So if you want to take the pill, it’s best to call your local pharmacy ahead of time. That way you can ask if their pharmacists are eligible to prescribe and/or resupply contraceptives, and discuss any anticipated costs. If they do, ask for a suitable time to go. But be prepared for a longer consultation, rather than a quick visit.

Importantly, seeing a pharmacist doesn’t guarantee you’ll get the pill. Depending on your jurisdiction, they may not be able to give you certain types of the pill or other contraceptives.

Instead, they may refer you to a GP to discuss other options. And if you’re using contraceptives primarily to manage another condition, such as acne, you’ll generally still need to see your GP.

Read more: How to choose the right contraceptive pill for you

– ref. Want to get the pill without seeing a GP? Here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/want-to-get-the-pill-without-seeing-a-gp-heres-what-you-need-to-know-280719

When the Strait of Hormuz first closed in March and oil hit US$120 a barrel, a very old question came back: is this finally the moment electric vehicles take off for good – or just another false start?

EVs have been here before. They surged after the 1973 oil embargo, collapsed when oil fell, and surged again. Each wave died when the external pressure eased.

We think this time is different. In a new discussion paper, we argue that the economic case for electric vehicles is now improving on its own terms. This is because of what has happened to batteries, not because of the oil price. The same evidence, though, shows the transition creates new problems as serious as the ones it solves.

Why this time is different

Battery costs have fallen 93% since 2010. That is the number that changes everything. A pack that cost more than US$1,000 per kilowatt-hour in 2010 cost US$108 by late 2025, driven down by a decade of learning, investment and policy support.

Research on the global battery industry finds that every time cumulative production doubles, costs fall by around 9%. More buyers, more production, lower costs, more buyers.

Unlike the 1970s, this loop does not need an oil crisis to keep spinning. Electric cars have crossed lifetime cost parity with petrol vehicles across much of Europe; in the used-car market they now have the lowest total cost of ownership. Newer models even match petrol cars in estimated lifespan – something early EVs could not claim.

Global sales surpassed 17 million in 2024, one of the fastest technology diffusion processes in the history of transport. Norway is near-fully electrified. And Ethiopia reached around 60% EV sales share in 2024, powered by cheap hydroelectricity – some way ahead of the US, for instance, which sits at around 8%.

An economic platform, not just a better engine

The deeper reason this wave will not fade is not technical – it is economic. An EV is a platform. Its value grows as the network around it grows, just as smartphones became indispensable not because of the hardware but because of everything connected to it.

Every charger built makes the next EV more attractive. Every software update raises the value of every car already on the road. Every recycled battery feeds back into the supply chain that makes the next one cheaper. It’s part of the reason some other technologies like hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have struggled to get off the ground in numbers – the tech exists, but all the other elements aren’t quite there.

One study of 8,000 drivers in Shanghai found that range anxiety – the fear of running out of charge – has a real economic cost due to unnecessarily avoided trips. But that cost is falling sharply, not because batteries improved, but because charging networks expanded.

Making real-time charger availability visible could add 6–8 percentage points to market share by 2030. And because EV charging is far more flexible than other household electricity demand, drivers can shift away from peak hours remarkably easily when the price is right – turning the car into a grid asset, able to store and release electricity when needed. These are economic network effects, not engineering features.

Swapping one dependency for another

Ending oil dependence does not end geopolitical exposure. It relocates it.

In late 2025, China introduced rules requiring government approval for exports containing more than 0.1% rare earths. The leverage that once came from control of oil flows now comes from control of processing capacity and component supply chains.

The minerals at stake – lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite and neodymium to name but a handful – carry their own geopolitical risks and, as we have written elsewhere, serious human costs in the communities that mine them. This creates a predictable cycle of social contestation that threatens to stall the transition unless the industry commits to responsible, sustainable innovation.

The metal cobalt traditionally helped EVs travel further on the same charge. And when prices spiked, so did research into making batteries with less or even no cobalt. Today, more than half of all EV batteries sold globally are cobalt free.

Four decades of patent data show the same pattern: higher mineral prices consistently redirect research and development toward mineral-saving technologies.

Recovering lithium and cobalt from used batteries is becoming economically viable too, shifting part of the supply chain away from geopolitically exposed extraction sites. In addition, Norway and other countries are looking to exploit new critical mineral resources to diversify supplies.

The transition is real – but not risk-free

The Hormuz crisis is a reminder of what concentrated energy dependence costs. The EV transition does not need it. The learning curve keeps falling, the platform keeps compounding, the economics keep improving. That is what makes this wave different.

What it does not do is eliminate geopolitical risk. Unlike oil, where leverage comes from energy flows, EV supply chains concentrate power at materials, processing capacity, and technological bottlenecks – supply chains that are highly concentrated and carry their own serious risks. Fuel dependence becomes mineral dependence. That dependence is highly concentrated.

Traditional carmaking regions are already absorbing concentrated job losses, and history shows such disruptions leave persistent scars even if the long-term aggregate effects are positive. Yet electric vehicle assembly is proving more labour-intensive in western countries than expected – requiring more workers on the shopfloor, not fewer, at least in the ramp-up phase. Contrast this with China, where massive automation has led to the creation of “dark factories” where there are so few humans, internal lighting isn’t required.

The same regions facing losses could benefit. But the gains and losses do not fall on the same people. That is where the work remains.

– ref. Electric vehicles pass tipping point, breaking the link with oil prices – https://theconversation.com/electric-vehicles-pass-tipping-point-breaking-the-link-with-oil-prices-280655

A DemosAU poll has Labor down three points on primary votes since February to just 26%, with Labor and One Nation now tied. The total vote for the Coalition and One Nation was steady at 49% while the total for Labor and the Greens was down two points to 39%.

Other recent federal polls have been much better for Labor than this DemosAU poll, and a Morgan poll that was taken last week gave Labor a big lead.

DemosAU could be an anti-Labor outlier, or it may be picking up a shift against Labor in the last week. We will need to wait for more polls to know what is happening.

This article also includes age and gender breakdowns from a large-sample Redbridge poll, coverage of international electoral events and further analysis of the March 21 South Australian election.

The Poll Bludger reported a national DemosAU poll for Capital Brief that was conducted April 8–14 from a sample of 1,439. Primary votes were 26% Labor (down three since the February DemosAU poll), 26% One Nation (down two), 23% Coalition (up two), 13% Greens (up one) and 12% for all Others (up two).

No two-party estimate was given, but The Poll Bludger said “a seat projection suggests Labor would likely be left scrambling for a minority government with the support of Greens and independents”. Applying 2025 election preference flows would give Labor below a 51–49 lead over the Coalition, their worst result from any poll this term.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval slumped six points to -20, with 46% giving him a negative rating and 26% a positive rating. Angus Taylor’s initial net approval was -3 (28% negative, 25% positive). Pauline Hanson’s net approval was steady at -5 (39% negative, 34% positive).

By 47–28, respondents did not think the United States was a reliable military ally for Australia. By 59–22, they thought the government should distance itself from President Trump rather than closely support him (45–36 in January 2025 at the beginning of Trump’s term).

Morgan poll

A national Morgan poll, conducted April 6–12 from a sample of 1,512, gave Labor 30% of the primary vote (down 0.5 since the early April Morgan poll), One Nation 24.5% (up three), the Coalition 22.5% (down 1.5), the Greens 12.5% (up 0.5) and all Others 10.5% (down 1.5).

No Labor vs One Nation two-party estimate was provided. Labor led the Coalition by an unchanged 56–44 using respondent preferences. They led by 54–46 on 2025 election preference flows, a 0.5-point gain for Labor.

Large-sample Redbridge poll

The Poll Bludger reported on a Redbridge and Accent Research poll for The Financial Review. This poll was conducted March 6–19 from a large sample of 5,563. It did not give a national headline figure, instead focusing on demographic breakdowns.

With young men (Gen Z), Labor had 39% of the primary vote, the Greens 24%, One Nation 19% and the Coalition 12%.

Among young women, the Greens had 38%, Labor 26%, the Coalition 14% and One Nation 11%.

With Millennial men, Labor had 36%, One Nation 26%, the Coalition 16% and the Greens 13%. With Millennial women, Labor had 28%, One Nation 27%, the Coalition 19% and the Greens 15%.

For Gen X men, One Nation had 35%, Labor 32%, the Coalition 18% and the Greens 6%. For Gen X women, One Nation 31%, Labor 29%, the Coalition 21% and the Greens 9%.

For Baby Boomer men, One Nation had 31%, the Coalition 30%, Labor 27% and the Greens 4%. For Baby Boomer women, Labor 33%, One Nation 32%, the Coalition 24% and the Greens 3%.

Combining the Labor and Greens votes against the One Nation and Coalition votes gives the left a 63–31 lead among Gen Z men and a 64–25 lead among Gen Z women. Millenial men gave the left a 49–42 lead, but Millenial women gave the right a 46–43 lead.

Gen X men gave the right a 53–38 lead and Gen X women gave the right a 52–38 lead. Baby Boomer men gave the right a 61–31 lead and Baby Boomer women gave the right a 56–36 lead.

Farrer byelection has 12 candidates

The Farrer federal byelection to replace Liberal sussan Ley will be held on May 9. There are 12 candidates for this byelection, with One Nation, independent Michelle Milthorpe and the Liberals the main prospects. Labor is not contesting.

Coverage of US, Canadian and Hungarian electoral events

On Friday AEST, US Democrats retained a federal seat in New Jersey, but the 11-point swing in margin from the 2024 presidential election results in that seat was much less than the 25-point swing in Georgia in the April 7 special election. I covered this for The Poll Bludger.

Since the 2025 Canadian federal election, the centre-left Liberals have gained five MPs in the House of Commons by defections. On Monday, they won three byelections in seats they already held, and now have 174 MPs, two above the 172 needed for a majority. In swing terms from the 2025 election, the Conservatives performed dismally in all three byelections.

At the Hungarian April 12 election, Viktor Orbán’s far-right Fidesz that has governed for the last 16 years was thumped by a conservative and pro-European party. I covered these events for The Poll Bludger.

More on the SA election

ABC election analyst Antony Green has posted about the final lower house results of the March 21 South Australian state election. I previously covered these results. Only 13 of the 47 seats were “classic” Labor vs Liberal contests, while 25 were Labor vs One Nation.

Labor had big swings in its favour in Liberal and Labor-held seats on narrow margins, but One Nation had big swings against the old Labor vs Liberal margin in safe Labor seats. Labor won Light against One Nation by just 51.6–48.4, down from a 70.1–29.9 margin against the Liberals in 2022.

Preference flows suggest 80–85% of Greens preferenced Labor above either the Liberals or One Nation. Of One Nation’s preferences, 65–70% favoured the Liberals above Labor, while 55–65% of Liberal preferences went to One Nation ahead of Labor.

The primary vote leader won 45 of the 47 seats, with independents winning Finniss (from fourth on primary votes) and Kavel (from second).

We won’t get an official statewide two-party preferred result, but analyst Kevin Bonham estimates Labor won by 57.9–42.1 against the Liberals and by 58.2–41.8 against One Nation. This would be a 3.3% swing to Labor against the Liberals since the 2022 SA election.

In an embarrassment for the electoral commission, 81 additional votes for Narungga were discovered on Thursday in a neighbouring electorate. Narungga was the closest seat at the election, with One Nation defeating the Liberals by just 58 votes.

The extra votes increased One Nation’s lead to 74 votes.

– ref. DemosAU gives Labor one of its worst poll results this term – https://theconversation.com/demosau-gives-labor-one-of-its-worst-poll-results-this-term-280270

In early April, one of Australia’s most decorated soldiers, Ben Roberts-Smith, was arrested and charged with five war crimes of murder.

These charges were brought under the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.

On Friday, a bail hearing was held in Sydney. Roberts-Smith appeared remotely from custody and his lawyers requested bail in person.

The judge granted Roberts-Smith bail based on “exceptional circumstances”.

The allegations and the arrest

The allegations against Roberts-Smith relate to five separate killings of people in various locations in Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan in 2009 and 2012, where he served with the Australian Special Forces (the Special Air Service regiment, also known as “the SAS”).

Read more: Ben Roberts-Smith is accused of 5 war crime murder charges. How did we get here?

These allegations were already known in the media and through the failed defamation case that Roberts-Smith brought against Nine Entertainment.

The wider context of the alleged offending came to light in 2020 following the release of the Brereton Report which found credible information that members of the SAS had committed war crimes during operations in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.

On April 7, Roberts-Smith was arrested at Sydney Airport by Australian Federal Police officers and taken into protective custody in Silverwater Prison.

What makes bail so important?

A day after his arrest, a remote bail hearing took place. Roberts-Smith’s lawyer did not request bail. It is unclear why. Bail was then requested at a hearing on April 17.

Bail is an important aspect of fair trial. Courts must consider the rights of the accused, such as the right not to be punished prior to being found guilty.

But courts must also mitigate any potential risks from the accused’s behaviour, which may include harm to the community or interfering with the course of justice. Also considered is whether a person is likely to appear at their subsequent court hearings or if there a risk of absconding or fleeing.

It is notable, however, the general trend in Australia is towards decreasing access to bail, as courts are increasingly risk averse.

This is particularly so with serious offences.

Are there any precedents in Australia?

It is difficult to compare the idea of bail for war crimes with bail decisions for “ordinary” crimes – even murder. This is because one of the considerations for bail is whether someone is likely to reoffend if they are out on bail.

In the case of war criminals, they are obviously no longer in a warzone – they are likely not going to reoffend while on bail.

Australia has almost no war crimes prosecutions in its history, with no conviction for the only previous prosecution which related to the second world war.

But we can look to the one other case of war crimes charges currently before the courts – Oliver Schulz, another SAS soldier.

In March 2023, Schulz was arrested and charged with the war crime of murder. This relates to an alleged killing carried out while Schulz was serving in Afghanistan.

Under the Commonwealth Crimes Act, bail is not permitted to be granted for a person accused under Commonwealth law of causing the death of a person. Only in “exceptional circumstances” will bail be justified.

After being arrested, Schulz was initially refused bail. However, eight days later, he was granted bail.

His lawyer argued there were “exceptional circumstances”, namely Schulz would be vulnerable in jail. He would likely encounter Islamic extremists, which would be a security risk for Schulz. The magistrate agreed and granted bail.

Schulz’s bail came with a long list of conditions:

• a bail security of A$200,000

• surrender of his passport

• prohibition on contacting any of his fellow SAS soldiers

• barred from contacting any prosecution witnesses

• a curfew

• reporting to police daily (this was later amended due to practicalities of the station’s opening hours).

What about Roberts-Smith?

Roberts-Smith’s situation is different from Schulz.

Firstly, he is charged with five war crime murders, not one. Studies have shown chances of bail decrease when there are more charges and when the offences are serious.

Secondly, Roberts-Smith has sufficient financial means to abscond, as well as wealthy financial backers. This would support his ability to pay a bail security, which increases the likelihood of bail being granted. However, it would also provide the means for international travel.

Thirdly, Roberts-Smith is known for travelling internationally, including during court proceedings.

This indicates he may be a high flight risk.

Fourthly, the court must consider the risk of Roberts-Smith interfering with the course of justice.

A judge previously found Roberts-Smith threatened witnesses in his defamation case.

What did lawyers argue at the bail hearing?

These factors were raised by lawyers for both sides in Friday’s bail hearing.

Roberts-Smith’s lawyers argued he also met the threshold of “exceptional circumstances” in that staying in prison would not be safe. They argued he was not a flight risk, had been cooperating with authorities, and had not attempted to contact witnesses involved in the case.

Barrister Slade Howell argued for bail because the case would likely take years due to the complexity of the case and that Roberts-Smith would not be able to prepare his defence if he was in custody.

Prosecutor Simon Buchen argued against bail because of the serious gravity and scope of the charges. He also charged Roberts-Smith was a flight risk, alleging the accused had planned to move overseas and he had withheld this information from authorities.

Buchen presented the most significant risk as the potential for interference with witnesses or evidence and subversion of the court process.

Buchen acknowledged strict bail conditions could mitigate the flight risk but not the risk of interference in the course of justice.

Judge Greg Grogin found the risks presented by the prosecution would be mitigated by bail conditions, with those being:

• report to a police station three times a week
• only use a single phone and computer, which must be made available to police if requested
• a $250,000 bail surety
• permission to travel to Sydney and Perth for legal or medical reasons
• prohibited from interfering with witnesses or evidence
• surrender of passport

The decision diverges from typical bail trends in Australia which emphasise the seriousness of the crime, flight risk and the risk of interference with justice.

Schulz will face trial in February 2027. Roberts-Smith’s trial date remains to be set – we will know more at a status hearing set for June 4, 2026.

– ref. ‘Exceptional circumstances’: why was Ben Roberts-Smith granted bail? – https://theconversation.com/exceptional-circumstances-why-was-ben-roberts-smith-granted-bail-280453

More than 60% of battery system installation work inspected under a federal government green energy program is substandard and 1.2% unsafe, according to a recent report by the Clean Energy Regulator.

The Cheaper Home Batteries Program has proved hugely popular. More than a quarter of a million small-scale battery systems have now been installed under it. This equates to 7.7 gigawatt hours of installed storage capacity.

Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, says this “means less pressure at peak times, more reliability, and a cleaner, more affordable energy system”.

But the installation compliance and safety problems highlighted by the regulator’s report risk not only battery storage growth and the credibility of the scheme, but also public safety.

Substandard and unsafe installations

The Cheaper Home Batteries Program provides a discount of about 30% of the cost of an installed battery. The program is designed to accelerate the move away from fossil fuels, with energy storage critical for reducing reliance on fossil fuel generation during evening peaks.

Recent amendments to the scheme design will address issues that have blown out the cost from original estimates of A$2.3 billion to A$7.2 billion.

Between July 2025 and April 2026, the Clean Energy Regulator carried out 1,278 compliance inspections on battery systems installed under the program.

Some 60.8% of inspected system installations were found to be “substandard” and 1.2% of installs were found to be “unsafe”. The problems weren’t about the batteries themselves, but the way they had been installed.

The sample size in the regulator’s report is small – 0.5% of the total number of systems installed.

With such a small sample size, it is hard to extrapolate the level of installation non-compliance across all systems in Australia. But if similar trends continue in inspections over a larger sample size, there could be approximately 3,000 battery installs that are unsafe and a further 152,000 that are non-compliant.

From incorrect labelling to exposed wiring

Most non-compliance issues related to incorrect labelling.

Issues include missing or incorrect warning labels, unlabelled backup circuits, and missing or incorrectly positioned energy storage (ES) labels. These issues are comparatively low risk relative to issues such as loose wiring, exposed wiring, and substandard electrical work that could lead to overloading, poor battery performance or fires.

Wiring requirements for batteries are not all equal. Some battery systems come pre-assembled with all wiring and electronic equipment integrated into the battery enclosure. This reduces the electrical work required to install.

Other systems are not as integrated. They require additional wiring by the electrician to connect, and can be more challenging to install without experience. These were the systems where installations were deemed unsafe by the regulator, with reported issues such as loose connections and substandard wiring practices that pose an imminent risk.

Exposed wiring is also a common issue that needs to be addressed as a priority. If wiring is not enclosed, it can be damaged and increase the risk of a severe electric shock if touched. The independent solar energy website, SolarQuotes, highlights the exposed wiring issue well, showcasing several installations with non-compliant wiring.

For batteries, no amount of exposed cable is compliant. Cables need to be protected from mechanical damage for the full cable run, using electrical conduit or metal ducting.

Alarmingly, reports from experts in the field indicate that only 10% of installers are following these wiring practices correctly.

A quick scroll of social media groups that rate battery installation jobs visually confirms the issues. Posts of substandard installations show exposed cables, batteries placed in full sun, delicately anchored to a wall with standard masonry wall plugs or supported with loose bits of timber and pavers.

In February the Clean Energy Regulator said it was ramping up inspections of solar battery installations as part of the Cheaper Home Batteries Program.

“I’m putting installers on notice that unsafe and non-compliant work will be identified, and we won’t hesitate to use our compliance powers,” CER Executive General Manager, Carl Binning, said.

Battery installations are complex

Well-intentioned schemes have previously been compromised by bad actors – referred to as “rebate chasers”.

The regulator sets rules limiting the number of battery installations that can be completed in one day. This is aimed at reducing the likelihood of this type of accreditation misuse.

Battery installations are complex, so there are likely to be a range of reasons why non-compliance is emerging.

Conversations colleagues and I have had with electricians operating in the industry highlight just how stretched they are trying to keep up with demand. The shortage of electricians nationally is a well-known issue exacerbating the pressure placed on current trades trying to deal with the volume of work available.

The sheer scale of demand pushes skilled trades to work to their limits. This is bound to result in things falling through the cracks in some cases.

In instances of fraud, negligence or repeat non-compliance, the Clean Energy Regulator has indicated the use of strong enforcement action. This includes stripping accreditation where necessary.

In the case where repeat non-compliance highlights gaps in knowledge across the industry, the regulator has signalled an intention to fill knowledge gaps with mandatory training.

Finding accredited installers

There is a well-defined accreditation pathway for battery installers that should be reviewed by accrediting body Solar Accreditation Australia, considering the issues identified.

In the meantime, consumers can arm themselves with the knowledge to avoid being caught out. They can reduce the risk of a non-compliant or unsafe install by engaging an accredited installer that has been pre-vetted.

Ask quoting installers for images of previous installations. A neat and tidy installation, without exposed cabling, can be a good marker for compliant installation practices.

And if you have the time and technical aptitude, familiarise yourself with the Clean Energy Regulator’s Solar Battery Inspections Checklist.

– ref. More than 60% of home battery installations inspected in Australia are ‘substandard’ – https://theconversation.com/more-than-60-of-home-battery-installations-inspected-in-australia-are-substandard-280449

After weeks of bombardments in southern Lebanon that have killed more than 2,000 people and displaced more than one million residents, Israel has announced a ten-day ceasefire with Lebanon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, vowed to keep Israeli troops in southern Lebanon to create a ten-kilometre “security zone”, raising immediate questions about whether the ceasefire would actually stop Israeli attacks against Hezbollah.

After a previous ceasefire in late 2024 ended 13 months of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, Israeli troops continued to launch airstrikes and carry out targeted killings of Hezbollah fighters.

People like to bound events such as wars with tidy dates and years. It makes them easier to understand and entertains the fantasy that historic events are neat, with understandable beginnings, middles and eventual ends.

But in reality, the messiness and complexities of war rarely hold to these manmade boundaries.

Instead, even after a ceasefire or a peace agreement is in place, many dynamics of war continue. This is the paradox of such agreements: they might end one phase of a conflict, but they inevitably usher in another.

The good and bad of ceasefires

Take Israel’s war in Gaza as an example.

The war came to an end after Israel and Hamas signed the Gaza Peace Plan, a 20-point deal brokered by the Trump administration, in October 2025.

The terms are relatively broad, vague and aspirational. But the deal has had many benefits. The ceasefire decreased Israel’s bombardments of Gaza. The remaining Israeli hostages captured on October 7 2023 were swapped with Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. Somewhat more aid now enters the strip than during the war.

However, the agreement also created other negative dynamics and enabled many problems caused by the war to continue.

For example, after the deal was signed, the public and media attention shifted away from the violence continuing to be committed by Israel to other events. This has meant that in the wake of the peace deal, near-daily Israeli attacks have continued, but with much less scrutiny. Israeli-supported violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has also escalated.

Humanitarian aid entry into the Gaza Strip also remains vastly below the levels delineated by the peace agreement. And serious discussions about the future governance or development of Gaza – mandated under the peace plan in multiple points – remain uncertain amid the noise of other wars and global events.

We can see similar dynamics in Iran, barely a week after another vaguely worded ceasefire agreement was signed between the US and the Iranian regime.

It appears the regime has taken the opportunity provided by a two-week “peace” to crack down on internal dissent. And in what appears to be an attempt to enhance its negotiating position for future peace talks, the Trump administration has launched a naval blockade of Iranian ports.

The short-term truce between Lebanon and Israel might offer Lebanese civilians some level of reprieve. However, it may also provide Israel with a quiet week away from the media spotlight to reinforce its military occupation of southern Lebanon.

To create Israel’s security zone, Defence Minister Israel Katz said the military would demolish buildings in Lebanese towns near the border and prevent displaced Lebanese from returning to their homes. Netanyahu made clear Israeli troops would remain.

This can all be more easily accomplished with a ceasefire deal in place.

Short attention spans

Globally, dozens of countries are currently experiencing armed conflict. Many people scan the news regularly as a way of keeping informed and bearing witness to the dynamics of these wars, casualty figures and how they might potentially end.

This glorified horror plays into our current “headline culture”, which tends to encourage clickbait, sensationalised content and virality. It also means public attention on a particular conflict is not necessarily driven by the scale of suffering, but by media coverage. Because of digital media, we have now a proximate and persistent view of human suffering and death that does not always translate into ongoing attention and action.

Whether parties to a conflict will reach a ceasefire or peace agreement is certainly worthwhile and important news. However, once a deal is signed, media and public attention often shifts to other more “active” (and also worthy) conflicts. There is currently no shortage of wars to choose from.

Because we believe a conflict has “ended” with a deal, what comes after the ceasefire or peace agreement tends to remain obfuscated or under-reported.

The peace agreement paradox

Ceasefires and peace agreements are certainly not always a harbinger of peace or a neat full-stop to a war story.

Arguably, the parties to these deals are increasingly aware of the “peace” agreement paradox and are making their political and military calculations accordingly.

If we truly want to grapple with what war and peace directly entails for millions of people in an increasingly complex and volatile world, we need to broaden our understanding about what we mean by ceasefires and peace agreements – and keep up a level of scrutiny long after the deals are signed.

– ref. Israel and Lebanon have signed a ceasefire. But this isn’t a tidy end to a war and attention moves on quickly – https://theconversation.com/israel-and-lebanon-have-signed-a-ceasefire-but-this-isnt-a-tidy-end-to-a-war-and-attention-moves-on-quickly-280816

Elon Musk’s space exploration company SpaceX has filed confidential papers ahead of a planned public company listing on the US NASDAQ stock exchange.

The initial public offering (IPO) for the company controlled by the world’s richest man is targeting a total valuation of US$2 trillion. Musk plans to list only a small fraction of the company to raise US$75 billion from public investors, which would still make it the largest IPO in history.

So, why is SpaceX planning to go public? And what does the IPO mean for investors who might want a tiny slice of the action?

The backstory

SpaceX says it aims to “make humanity multiplanetary”. You would expect no less from Musk, who founded SpaceX in 2002.

His company’s breakthrough was to re-use as much of the rocket and launcher vehicle as possible. This slashed launch costs to as little as 5% of the costs in the early 2000s, and turned commercial space flight from science fiction into reality. The company says it has now completed about 600 successful rocket landings.

Yet, for all its space ambitions, SpaceX still derives 50–80% of its revenue from Starlink, a communications business, which provides satellite internet to over 10 million users around the world.

In February 2026, SpaceX merged with xAI, the loss-making AI company behind the Grok chatbot, in what was the largest private merger transaction on record. The deal valued xAI at US$250 billion and SpaceX at US$1 trillion, creating a combined entity worth US$1.25 trillion.

The merger has helped to set the stage for the SpaceX IPO.

Musk suggested the IPO proceeds will be used for launching up to one million data centre satellites into space. The idea is that space-based data centres would be powered by abundant solar energy, and therefore bypass the constraints of electricity and water usage on Earth.

Bending the rules for the IPO

SpaceX may be the first of three mega-IPOs this year, ahead of potential listings of AI companies Anthropic and OpenAI.

If it goes ahead with plans to raise US$75 billion, that would represent just 3.75% of the company’s total value. It means the vast majority of SpaceX would remain in private hands, owned by Musk himself and a handful of early private investors. In stock market terms, this is called a low “free float”.

Normally, companies that only list such a small percentage of their total value would not qualify for inclusion in major stock market indices like the S&P 500 or the NASDAQ 100.

The NASDAQ normally requires at least a 10% free float of shares in a given company. But to allow a potential listing of SpaceX to be included in the index, the exchange has introduced a special adjustment to the weighting of shares and removed the 10% minimum.

NASDAQ also reduced the normal “seasoning period” before a newly listed company can join the index from three months to just 15 trading days. Again, this is to accommodate the SpaceX listing.

For investors in passive funds, including exchange-trade funds (ETFs), this matters a lot. Currently, more than US$600 billion of investors’ money is with passive funds that track the NASDAQ 100 index. As soon as SpaceX joins the index, these investors will automatically be buying in. The concern is that allowing giant companies such as SpaceX to enter the index too quickly could lead to big price swings, which would expose millions of investors to high volatility.

SpaceX wants investors to value it at US$2 trillion, but it only earned US$15 billion in revenue last year. At that rate, it would take 133 years of revenue just to match its current asking price.

Tesla, one of the most expensive stocks in the world, would take just 13 years — making SpaceX’s price tag ten times higher.

Other leading market indices, such as S&P 500 and FTSE Russell, are also bending their rules to fast-track the inclusion of very large, newly listed companies.

Many more investors have their money in funds that track S&P indices compared to Nasdaq 100 – more than US$16 trillion in passive funds track the S&P. If the S&P 500 follows NASDAQ’s lead and changes its own rules to accommodate SpaceX, the wave of automatic buying would be even larger.

What does this mean for investors?

Musk’s companies have long been the darlings of non-professional, retail investors, and SpaceX would be no exception. In fact, the company said it aims to sell up to 30% of its shares to non-institutional, individual investors.

With SpaceX’s sky-high valuation, investors need to stop and think before buying in. But when powerful companies can rewrite the rules in their own favour, thinking carefully becomes a luxury. Markets only work when everyone plays by the same rules, and right now, not everyone is.

– ref. Musk’s SpaceX is shaping up as the biggest IPO on record. It’s also bending the rules to do so – https://theconversation.com/musks-spacex-is-shaping-up-as-the-biggest-ipo-on-record-its-also-bending-the-rules-to-do-so-280271

Injectable peptides are generating a lot of buzz online.

One of these is retatrutide, a drug that’s being described as the next big thing in weight loss. Some say it may be even more powerful than Ozempic or Wegovy, two other popular weight loss drugs. Beyond health care, gym-goers are using it to try to get leaner, faster. This trend is sometimes dubbed “leanmaxxing”.

But there’s a catch. Retatrutide is still experimental. It hasn’t been approved for use anywhere in the world, yet it’s already circulating through illicit online markets.

So is retatrutide a safe way to lose weight? Or does it bring more risks than rewards?

What is retatrutide?

Retatrutide, often shortened to “reta”, is a peptide that researchers are still testing in clinical trials. Peptides are short chains of amino acids that help your body heal wounds and reduce inflammation.

Retatrutide acts on three hormone pathways that affect your appetite, metabolism and blood sugar levels. The first is glucagon-like peptide-1, otherwise known as GLP-1. This hormone reduces appetite and slows down the rate at which food travels through your stomach. The second is GIP or glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, which helps regulate blood sugar and fat storage. Glucagon, which also helps manage your blood sugar levels, is the third.

By acting on these three hormones, retatrutide is designed to reduce both how much you eat and how much energy your body burns.

The results from early trials are striking. They suggest retatrutide may lead to even greater weight loss than current regulated therapeutic treatments. This includes an increasingly popular type of weight loss drug called semaglutide, widely known under brand names including Ozempic and Wegovy. In one 2023 trial, participants receiving higher doses lost more than 20% of their body weight over 48 weeks. But this trial was conducted in a tightly controlled clinical setting with medical supervision, carefully selected patients and regulated dosing. That’s very different from buying a product online and using it without guidance.

Read more: Injectable peptides are the new anti-ageing trend. But what evidence do we have they’re safe for humans?

Why are gym-goers interested?

For some, having a weekly retatrutide injection that suppresses appetite and increases fat loss is an attractive idea.

Losing a large amount of weight quickly can make people look leaner and, in some cases, more “defined” or “shredded”. This is especially appealing in aesthetics-focused cultures.

However, rapid weight loss doesn’t just mean losing fat. It often also reduces a person’s muscle mass, especially if they don’t eat enough protein or do enough resistance training. But many gym-goers want to build muscle, rather than lose it.

There’s also a psychological side to consider. Appetite suppression can make it easier to eat well, but it may also take away the joy of eating good food, especially in social settings. Recent research suggests retatrutide may affect a person’s mood, motivation and relationships. However, scientists don’t yet understand how or why.

Read more: 3 signs your diet is causing too much muscle loss – and what to do about it

Are there any risks?

Current research suggests retatrutide can cause several side effects. This is supported by anecdotal reports from social media. The most common side effects are gastrointestinal. These may include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and constipation.

These symptoms can be mild for some people, but severe for others. There has already been at least one reported case of a person dying, after they used the drug and developed severe diarrhoea. However, this case is still being investigated.

There’s also a lack of regulation controlling where, when and how people can access retatrutide. Enhancement drugs, including peptides such as retatrutide, sold online or through unofficial channels may be contaminated with other harmful materials. They may also have incorrect doses of retatrutide or contain none at all.

Earlier this week, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration specifically warned about the dangers of importing and using unapproved peptide products, both for consumers and suppliers.

Read more: Ozempic isn’t approved for weight loss in Australia. So how are people accessing it?

Could it affect your mood or relationships?

Based on some recent media reports, it seems peptides such as retatrutide may affect more than just appetite.

These medications act on brain pathways involved in reward and motivation. This means they might affect your desire to consume food or alcohol. Other research indicates peptides such as retatrutide may affect a person’s sexual drive. Some people describe feeling “flat” or emotionally detached, while others report negative changes in their relationships.

The bottom line

Current research suggests retatrutide can lead to significant weight loss. However, that’s not the same as becoming “shredded”. That relies on other factors such as prioritising resistance training, eating a protein-rich diet and staying hydrated.

– ref. Will retatrutide help me lose weight or look ‘shredded’? – https://theconversation.com/will-retatrutide-help-me-lose-weight-or-look-shredded-280580

Among the cruel ironies of the Myanmar civil war, now in its sixth year, is that for an army that is struggling to conscript soldiers, the Myanmar junta has repeatedly bombed its own troops held as prisoners of war.

In this garrison state, it appears everything may be sacrificed to keep the military and its civilian front government – recently installed following widely discredited elections – in power.

There has been some impressive progress by the National Unity Government’s People’s Defence Force and allied ethnic armies against the military’s front organisation, the Union Solidarity and Development Party.

But after so many years, the Myanmar civil war is now at stalemate.

How did we get here?

The civil war began in February 2021 when the armed forces staged a coup against the elected civilian government headed by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

The civilian-led government had been elected in 2015, following more than five decades of military rule.

The army claimed (without evidence) there were irregularities in the 2020 elections and staged a coup months later.

For the army, allowing competitive elections in 2020 was intended as window dressing while it pursued business as usual.

It didn’t expect a genuine challenge to its deeply embedded role in the state. It had constitutionally reserved to itself the right to remove the civilian government at any time.

Since the coup, more than 90,000 people have been killed and more than three million displaced.

The army now only controls a little over a fifth of the country, but still holds most of the larger towns.

The civil war is, in many respects, a continuation of civil conflict dating back to the 1950s. Then, the government of the newly independent Burma was beset by an ethnic and communist insurgency. It soon lost control of almost all of its territory, except the Irrawaddy Valley.

In the face of political instability, the civilian government invited the army to rule the country for a year in 1960. Two years later, the army staged a coup. It stayed in power until 2015, before its recent return.

Two key factors hindering anti-junta forces

Over recent years, the successes of the anti-junta forces indicate they are in the ascendancy. Victory over the junta may just be a question of time.

However, two crucial factors may hinder their success.

The first is that when they take a strategic town or city, they’re often forced to relinquish it after being attacked by the junta’s Chinese- and Russian-supplied aircraft and drones.

Both sides use drones. However, the junta’s aircraft, as well as the sophistication of their drones, mean this is an unequal war.

Russia’s close support for the junta, and its military cooperation agreement signed in February, mean the Myanmar civil war also has an element of the Russia-Ukraine war about it.

With Russia openly supporting the junta, a small number of Ukrainian military advisers are now working with anti-junta groups.

The second and perhaps more crucial problem facing the anti-junta forces – some 16 major groups in all – has, until recently, been lack of unity and coordination.

In many cases, the ethnic resistance organisations have not coordinated with the anti-junta National Unity Government or its People’s Defence Forces.

There have also been instances of ethnic resistance organisations attacking each other, in some cases egged on by China.

For instance, the militarily successful Three Brotherhood Alliance was severely damaged when – at China’s request – the ethnic Kokang Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army attacked and disarmed its erstwhile allies, the ethnic Palaung Ta’ang National Liberation Army in northern Shan state.

However, a recently formed steering committee appears to be bringing together most of the anti-junta forces. A more coordinated push against the junta can be expected within months.

Part of the disunity among ethnic resistance organisations is linked to the fact many have long-established war economies, often based on illegal activities, which they are keen to continue or expand.

And the more territory an ethnic resistance organisation controls, the stronger its claim to representation in any future government.

This not only privileges the ethnic group each resistance organisation represents, but enhances the prospects of future business – and criminal – opportunities. These include drug manufacturing, timber and gem smuggling, and control over people smuggling and scam call centres.

One critical factor driving anti-junta forces is an agreement between the ethnic resistance organisations and the National Unity Government that a future Myanmar will be a highly decentralised federation.

This fundamental reordering of the state has led many anti-junta groups to characterise the civil war as a “revolution”.

Suspicion lingers, however, among some of the ethnic resistance organisations that the ethnic Burmese base may try to reassert centralised control.

The upper hand

Despite serious challenges, the anti-junta forces appear, on balance, to hold the upper hand.

As the junta loses ground, it will increasingly fall back on the central Irrawaddy Valley, between Mandalay and Yangon.

The question is whether the armed forces can rebuild from there.

The alternative is that more coordinated anti-junta forces lead to further battlefield successes, leading China to shift its considerable support from the junta to the National Unity Government and its allies.

In this, China will be pivotal.

– ref. The Myanmar civil war is at stalemate – but anti-junta forces may be gaining the upper hand – https://theconversation.com/the-myanmar-civil-war-is-at-stalemate-but-anti-junta-forces-may-be-gaining-the-upper-hand-277733

The ability to function effectively in intercultural settings has been termed “cultural intelligence” – and it is often celebrated as a kind of modern superpower.

But our latest research reveals a more complicated reality.

Previous research has largely highlighted the bright side of cultural intelligence, linking it to positive workplace outcomes such as improved performance.

But we found another side, and evidence of this in one of the most critical settings: healthcare.

We collected data from nurses working in New Zealand, a highly diverse country where nurses have to interact daily with patients, families and colleagues from a wide range of cultural backgrounds.

This diversity has grown even further after the COVID pandemic, with many internationally qualified nurses joining the workforce from around the world.

Cultural intelligence therefore seems essential. We expected it would help them perform better and feel more satisfied at work. But that is not what we found – which may have implications for the way cultural intelligence is taught.

What cultural intelligence means

Cultural intelligence consists of four dimensions.

Meta‑cognitive cultural intelligence refers to the mental processes we use to acquire and understand cultural knowledge. This is about being aware of our own thinking processes related to culture, questioning cultural assumptions and adapting our thinking patterns.

Cognitive cultural intelligence refers to knowledge of the norms, practices and conventions of different cultures. It involves knowing the similarities and differences between cultures.

Motivational cultural intelligence refers to the capability and willingness to learn about and function in culturally diverse situations.

Behavioural cultural intelligence refers to the capability to demonstrate appropriate verbal and non‑verbal actions when interacting with people from different cultural backgrounds.

When cultural knowledge backfires

Previous research has generally focused on cultural intelligence as a single construct and has shown positive associations with performance outcomes.

However, we found results are not consistent across the individual components of cultural intelligence.

Surprisingly, we found nurses with higher levels of cultural knowledge (cognitive cultural intelligence) actually performed worse and reported lower job satisfaction.

In other words, knowing more about cultural differences does not automatically translate to better care and may even get in the way.

We believe this suggests too much knowledge can backfire. Cultural knowledge may create cognitive overload, where nurses are overwhelmed by too much information.

It may also lead to cognitive entrenchment, where deep expertise fosters rigid thinking, making it harder to adapt to the unique needs of each patient.

This matters because healthcare workers often attend cultural knowledge training. In these training sessions, they are taught about cultural norms, values and differences in the belief that more knowledge will lead to better care. Our findings suggest this may not always be the case.

Why thinking about thinking matters

We also found evidence for the bright side of cultural intelligence.

Nurses who are more aware of and adapt their own thinking processes related to culture (meta‑cognitive cultural intelligence) performed better and reported higher job satisfaction.

We believe these nurses are better at understanding and interpreting cultural nuances, leading to fewer misunderstandings as they adjust their assumptions during patient interactions.

This likely contributes to improved job performance, as nurses can navigate cultural differences more effectively and provide culturally sensitive and appropriate care.

We also found motivational and behavioural cultural intelligence did not have a significant effect on job performance or job satisfaction.

This may be due to the specific nature of nursing work. Nurses often operate in environments with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, where core tasks are highly structured. This may reduce the need for high levels of intrinsic motivation or flexible behaviour to perform effectively.

Taken together, our findings challenge the idea that more cultural knowledge is always better. Deeper understanding of cultural norms, values and differences does not always lead to better care.

Instead, in high‑stakes intercultural work environments such as healthcare, cultural competence training needs to move beyond facts about other cultures.

Cultural competence is not merely about acquiring knowledge but about developing the reflective and adaptive capabilities necessary to navigate complex, culturally diverse environments.

In healthcare, that distinction matters more than we think.

– ref. Nurses with higher cultural competence don’t always perform better – new study – https://theconversation.com/nurses-with-higher-cultural-competence-dont-always-perform-better-new-study-279846

Alarm over the war of words between President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV has escalated with remarkable speed, from The New York Times to the Daily Beast and local television.

The pope has repeatedly called for peace in the Middle East since the start of the Iran war, insisting that “God does not bless any conflict” and warning against the “delusion of omnipotence.”

On April 12, in a lengthy social media post, Trump derided Leo as “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy,” telling him to “focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician.” His Truth Social account posted, then deleted, a Christ-like image of Trump appearing to heal a man.

At stake in this public feud is an old question: Can a religious leader challenge political power, especially a ruler of one of the most powerful countries in the world?

As a medieval historian and lead editor of “The Cambridge History of the Papacy,” I cannot help but see a familiar pattern.

For many people, Trump’s rant against the pope was shocking. But conflicts between popes and rulers are not an aberration; they’re a durable feature of Western history. Whenever political leaders cloak power in sacred language, or religious leaders publicly denounce political violence, they reenact debates that stretch back more than a millennium. These struggles are not symbolic: They concern who holds ultimate authority over people, souls – and in the end, history itself.

Two powers, intertwined

From its earliest centuries, Christianity was bound up with politics. Roman Emperor Constantine legalized the religion in 313. He later presided over the Council of Nicaea, an important theological assembly, blurring the line between political rule and spiritual authority.

In the fifth century, Pope Gelasius I articulated a rival vision: that the world was governed by two powers, priestly and royal. Ultimately, he argued, spiritual authority outweighed political power, because it promised eternal salvation. Gelasius’ theory did not resolve the tension between the two, but it established a lasting framework for Christian political thought.

The relationship between these two powers shifted decisively in the year 800, when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne, a Frankish king, emperor on Christmas Day. This act was not merely ceremonial. It implied that imperial authority in the West came from the church and that political legitimacy required papal sanction.

The coronation followed years of political instability in Rome and the papacy’s increasing reliance on the Franks for military protection. After Leo was elected pope in 795, opponents attacked him, and he found shelter at the court of Charlemagne. The king returned to Rome with Leo and asserted his legitimacy. In turn, Leo crowned Charlemagne. Doing so asserted his own role as a maker of emperors, while Charlemagne gained a sacred aura.

This moment reshaped medieval political theology. It encouraged rulers to see themselves as guardians of both political order and religious orthodoxy, while popes moved from spiritual counselors to active participants in secular governance. The result was a paradox: Kings invoked God to sanctify conquest, as Charlemagne did in his brutal wars against the Saxons. Meanwhile, churchmen claimed the authority to restrain violence, encouraged just wars and threatened violent behaviors with spiritual sanctions.

Battle over bishops

By the 11th century, however, the papacy increasingly sought to free itself from secular dominance. In particular, popes wanted to select the church’s bishops rather than allowing nobility or a king to do so.

That struggle exploded into the Investiture Controversy, one of the most consequential conflicts of the Middle Ages, and lay crucial groundwork for the Magna Carta, the first document to hold royalty subject to the law. Both events addressed the same fundamental question: Who has the right to grant authority, and what limits exist on political power?

At stake was not merely church administration but sovereignty itself. Bishops were major landholders and political figures; controlling their selection meant controlling wealth, loyalty and governance.

In the push to appoint bishops, popes were insisting that spiritual authority came from the church alone, challenging the idea that kings ruled by unchecked power. It was a decisive attempt to separate spiritual legitimacy from royal control and to place moral constraints on rulers who claimed divine authority.

The Investiture Controversy dragged on for several decades. Finally, in 1122, Pope Calixtus II and Emperor Henry V signed the Concordat of Worms. The agreement granted the pope the right to name bishops and to install their spiritual authority. The emperor, meanwhile, would “invest” them with their “temporalities”: that is, the worldly powers attached to their office, such as land, revenue, jurisdiction and coercion.

Reining in the king

A century later, the Magna Carta pursued a parallel objective.

Its immediate background lay in the conflict over the new archbishop of Canterbury, whom Pope Innocent III had appointed in 1207. King John opposed his choice, prompting Innocent to excommunicate the king and place England under interdict, meaning the English could not participate in church sacraments.

To appease tensions, John surrendered England to the pope in 1213, turning the kingdom into a papal fief. In return, he received Innocent’s approval for a war against France.

But the arrangement deeply angered English barons, who now found themselves subject not only to their king but also to papal authority. After England’s decisive defeat, John was forced to confront rebellious barons at home.

The result was the Magna Carta, the “Great Charter.” Forced on the king by armed resistance, the document asserted that the king himself was subject to law. It limited royal authority over taxation, justice and punishment, and it famously declared that no free person could be imprisoned or deprived of rights without lawful judgment.

John appealed to the pope, however, who annulled the charter shortly after its issue. Despite this setback, the Magna Carta survived: John’s son Henry III reissued it several times, with its definitive version implemented in 1225.

Taking the long view

Seen in this long perspective, the Trump–Leo confrontation appears less surprising. When a president invokes sacred language or imagery to justify violence, and a pope replies by denying divine sanction, they are reenacting a struggle as old as medieval Christendom: who may speak in God’s name, and who may set limits on power.

The medieval world did not resolve this tension, but it learned to live with it by fracturing authority: first between church and crown, later between rulers and law. What is unsettling today is how easily modern leaders still reach for religious language to evade restraint, and how fragile the institutions meant to check them can appear.

– ref. Trump’s clash with the pope reenacts a 1,000-year-old question: What happens when sacred and secular power collide? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-clash-with-the-pope-reenacts-a-1-000-year-old-question-what-happens-when-sacred-and-secular-power-collide-280548

For many of us, flu can mean a nasty few weeks of illness. But for the very young and old, and those with health complications, it can be extremely serious, leading to around 3,500 deaths in Australia each year.

You likely know vaccination is the best protection against the flu (influenza), and may have even read our recent article about the best time to get vaccinated.

So, what are your options? And are you eligible for a free flu shot?

Here are the answers to some common questions I’ve been getting: about which strains this year’s vaccine protects against, whether the brand matters, if there are egg-free options, and what to do if you’re scared of needles.

Will the vaccine protect against the ‘super K’ strain?

Each year, influenza strains accumulate small mutations that are different enough from each other that the immune system doesn’t recognise them well. This is why vaccine components need to change each year, to anticipate what will circulate the following season.

One strain of influenza, called subclade K – also known as “Super K” – was responsible for many influenza infections in late 2025, both in the southern hemisphere, and during the usual northern hemisphere winter season.

In 2026, the southern hemisphere vaccine contains two new components, with one closely related to subclade K. This should lead to better protection against subclade K infections.

Does the brand make a difference? And will I have a choice?

Vaccines can vary in the way they are manufactured – either in eggs (Vaxigrip, Fluzone, Influvac) or cells (Flucelvax). Studies suggest cell-based vaccines provide at least as much protection, and possibly slightly more, than egg-based vaccines.

But the most important point is that any influenza vaccine provides protection, and the difference between vaccine types is relatively small.

Certain formulations are designed to elicit a stronger immune response. These are designed for older people, whose immune systems tend to produce a weaker response. These “enhanced” vaccines include those with an adjuvant, a substance that stimulates the immune system to respond (Fluad), and those with higher doses of influenza vaccine strains (Fluzone High-Dose).

There is also a new nasal vaccine for children (Flumist).

If you want a specific type of vaccine, call ahead to your vaccine provider to discuss the options available.

Where can I get the flu vaccine?

The easiest way to find a vaccine provider is by searching on the government’s HealthDirect website under “Influenza (flu) vaccine” and your location.

In general, influenza vaccines are available at GP clinics, pharmacies, community health services and Aboriginal Health Services. Your school, university or workplace may also have a program.

There are special arrangements for aged care facilities and other group accommodation settings. Immunisation services are also available for staff and patients in public hospitals.

Who is it free for? Does it depend where you live?

Unfortunately this is somewhat complicated, as there are both national and state/territory programs.

Under the National Immunisation Program, influenza vaccines are free for high risk groups:

• anyone over 65 years of age
• all children aged between six months and four years (inclusive)
• people with certain chronic illnesses
• those who are pregnant
• all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (over six months of age).

Free state and territory programs may cover additional groups or different vaccines:

• Queensland and Western Australia provide influenza vaccines for anyone over the age of six months who is not covered by the national program
• some states provide the nasal vaccine (FluMist) for children as an alternative to the injectable vaccine: 2–4 years in New South Wales and South Australia; 2–5 years in Queensland; and 2–11 years in WA
• SA has a program for people experiencing homelessness.

Most health-care services and aged care services also provide free influenza vaccines for their workers. Some other employers choose to arrange similar workplace programs.

For those not covered by free state or national government programs, influenza vaccines are widely available at clinics and pharmacies. Costs range from around A$20 (for standard egg-based vaccines) up to $50–70 (for nasal vaccines in children).

Some private health insurance policies also include free flu shots, so check with your provider.

Is there an egg-free option? And why are eggs involved?

Since the 1940s, influenza vaccines have been manufactured using chicken eggs. Flu strains grow efficiently in them, and are then inactivated, purified and processed.

The amount of residual egg protein in vaccines after processing is now very small (less than one microgram). Even people with an egg allergy can generally receive egg-based vaccines safely. But if you have an allergy, discuss this with your vaccine provider.

For people who want an egg-free option, a cell-based vaccine, Flucelvax, is manufactured in animal cells (MDCK cells, derived from canine kidneys), before purification and processing.

Other vaccines use insect cells but are not yet available in Australia. There aren’t any products that don’t involve eggs or animal cells, although mRNA vaccines (similar to COVID-19 vaccines) are being developed.

What if I’m scared of needles?

In Australia, the nasal vaccine FluMist is only registered for use in children. But this may eventually change, as in some other countries it’s also available for adults under 50.

If you’re extremely scared of needles, there are evidence-based options to help make immunisation less distressing. These include psychological techniques (such as breathing exercises), distraction devices (that cool and vibrate the skin), or local anaesthetic or sedation,

So if you’re concerned, speak to your GP or pharmacist to make sure you don’t miss out on the opportunity to protect yourself against influenza.

– ref. Can I get a free flu shot? And will it cover ‘super K’? Your influenza vaccine questions answered – https://theconversation.com/can-i-get-a-free-flu-shot-and-will-it-cover-super-k-your-influenza-vaccine-questions-answered-279222

The latest official stocktake of the state of New Zealand’s freshwater carries many of the headline messages we have come to expect.

Pressures such as intensive land use and climate change are continuing to degrade our lakes, streams and rivers, with pathogen contamination making many monitored sites unsafe for swimming.

The country’s vulnerable freshwater habitats are struggling with stresses that range from nutrients and invasive species to warming water temperatures.

And once again, the Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ’s new report, Our Freshwater 2026: Tō Tātou Wai Māori, underscores just how central freshwater systems are to our wellbeing. They support our health, help produce our food and energy, and sustain ecosystems.

What sets this latest report apart from others before it, however, is its focus on a part of the water cycle that is largely out of sight – but nonetheless crucial.

A hidden system with a long memory

Groundwater is what fills the pores and fractures of sediments and rocks beneath our feet, sometimes just a few metres down, and in other places hundreds of metres below ground.

It is core source of water for agriculture and provides drinking water to nearly half the population. During dry periods, it maintains the flow of rivers by slowly releasing water stored in aquifers.

Groundwater can also act as both a sink and a pathway for contamination. Once nutrients and other pollutants enter groundwater systems, they can linger within them for years, and often decades, before reemerging.

Today, groundwater sampling is showing the legacy of generations of human influence on New Zealand’s landscapes.

The report indicates that levels of nitrate – a form of nitrogen typically stemming from fertiliser use and livestock waste – have been increasing at 39% of monitored groundwater sites around the country, while declining at just 26% of sites.

Around 43% of monitored sites had nitrate levels above natural reference ranges – the levels expected without human influence – further pointing to the impact of activities such as farming.

Particularly where groundwater is shallow or poorly protected, contamination from land use has been affecting drinking water supplies.

Between 2019 and 2024, for instance, 45% of monitored groundwater sites recorded levels of the harmful bacteria E. coli above safe drinking water limits at least once – and 12% exceeded thresholds for nitrate.

Lag-times and blind spots

As the report acknowledges, groundwater doesn’t move in simple or predictable ways.

We often hear freshwater scientists speak about “lag-times”. This is effectively the time taken from a contaminant leaving a farmer’s paddock and later appearing in a drinking water supply.

In reality, groundwater transport processes remain poorly understood. These can vary across the country – and even within individual catchments – depending on factors such as soil, geology, depth and proximity to rivers.

In some cases – particularly where water is able to move quickly through soils during heavy rainfall – contamination linked to human activity can show up in groundwater within days to a few years.

In Canterbury, for instance, shifts in nitrate concentrations have emerged in spring-fed streams and shallow wells within five years of land use intensifying nearby.

But in other parts of the system, contaminants can take much longer to turn up and flush out. Understanding these differences is important, because we risk misreading long-term trends and missing where – and when – problems are actually occurring.

At the same time, much of what is happening below the surface remains difficult for scientists to track. Standard monitoring approaches used today can miss short-lived spikes after storms, which can obscure how much contamination is present, or whether it is driven by rainfall or ongoing land use.

New low-cost nitrate-tracking tools are helping to untangle this picture, revealing just how much contamination levels in New Zealand’s groundwater can fluctuate over time.

In some cases, during wetter periods when groundwater systems naturally recharge, nitrate concentrations in monitoring wells have been observed to surge from minimal levels to those well above safe drinking water limits.

By capturing this variability through more targeted, high-resolution monitoring, we can more clearly see how contaminants move through groundwater systems. These tools also make standard spot samples collected by regional councils far more useful, helping distinguish short-term surges from longer-term pressures.

More broadly, there are other challenges to confront. Freshwater data is often fragmented across different organisations and important knowledge – including mātauranga Māori – remains often underused in resource management.

Ultimately, all these gaps limit our ability to build a clear, complete picture of what is happening within our waterways, both below and above the surface.

From resource to risk?

Just as importantly, the report notes that pollution from land use isn’t the only pressure now facing groundwater. In some places, particularly low-lying coastal areas, groundwater itself is becoming a hazard.

As sea levels rise, groundwater levels are likely to be pushed higher, both near the coast and further inland. This raises the risk of flooding, liquefaction and damage to infrastructure.

Rising sea levels and other climate change impacts can also bring saltwater into coastal aquifers, making groundwater less suitable to use, while affecting underground assets such as pipes.

Such vulnerabilities underscore the report’s central theme: that water availability and water quality pressures are shifting, driven by climate change, land use and coastal processes.

Meeting that challenge will require a clearer understanding of the whole system – closing critical knowledge gaps and making better use of the tools and data already available.

– ref. Out of sight, but not out of trouble: groundwater contamination in NZ reveals a legacy of human pressure – https://theconversation.com/out-of-sight-but-not-out-of-trouble-groundwater-contamination-in-nz-reveals-a-legacy-of-human-pressure-280347

We’d all like deeply considered policy and informed debate to be at the heart of politics, but unfortunately controversies and scandals tend to steal the show.

For most parties, scandals are disastrous: they lose seats, ministers and elections — but not One Nation.

It’s weathered defections and punch-ups (including a memorable smearing of blood on a Senate door), jail and chaos, and 30 years on it’s surging.

This is a party that doesn’t just survive the chaos, but cultivates it and capitalises on it.

Jordan McSwiney researches far-right parties and movements. In episode three of our new series The Making of One Nation, he says the more controversy, the better for One Nation.

Scandals tend to actually work in the party’s favour.

It’s incomparable. I can’t really think of another political party that has such a sort of history of dysfunction and such high profile blowups.

And he says cultivating scandal is a very intentional strategy.

These kinds of things are basically an attempt to capture media attention, stay in the headlines and shift the focus of the national conversation to One Nation’s preferred issues.

But he warns that the Senator who courts the chaos and controversy, could also be its downfall.

While Pauline Hanson is the selling point of One Nation, I think she also is its greatest risk and its Achilles heel in many ways.

Listen to the interview with Jordan McSwiney on The Making of One Nation podcast, available at Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This episode was written by Ashlynne McGhee and produced and edited by Isabella Podwinski. Sound design by Michelle Macklem.

– ref. Inside One Nation’s strategy of scandal, chaos and controversy – https://theconversation.com/inside-one-nations-strategy-of-scandal-chaos-and-controversy-280274