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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why were the activists detained?

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

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

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

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

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

What does the law say?

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

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

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

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

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

They are to be protected from:

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

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

Why does this matter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is Raúl Castro?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is he accused of doing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is the US acting now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How things change

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

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

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

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

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

Diphtheria

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

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

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

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

Whooping cough

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

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

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

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

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

Measles

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

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

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

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

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

Syphilis

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

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

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

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

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

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

What have we learnt?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remind me, what is diphtheria?

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

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

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

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

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

Who’s affected by this latest outbreak?

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

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

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

The need for vaccines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who needs a vaccine? And how about boosters?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, should I be worried?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beijing’s rising confidence

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

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

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

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

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

Xi asked a pointed question:

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

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

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

Russia has new usefulness to Beijing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China is now in the driver’s seat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How the super scheme works

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

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

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

Where the tax advantage comes from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is useful, but you need to know the rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First home buyers should check all the options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blame games

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

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

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

What do parents really owe their kids?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TV’s deeply troubled families

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

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

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

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

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

Haunted by hopes and memories

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

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

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

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

Birthright is in cinemas from today.

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

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

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

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

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

What’s at stake?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s climate modelling for?

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

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

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

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

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

An Australian climate model?

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

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

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

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

International collaboration at risk

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

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

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

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

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

We still have a choice.

The CSIRO response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it compliant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it old?

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

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

Is it stored properly?

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

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

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

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

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

Use general caution

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

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

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

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

A quick checklist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among those detained are 11 Australians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSIRO is today expected to announce up to 350 people will lose their jobs – just days after the Australian government boosted funding to the national science agency by A$387 million.

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

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

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

What’s at stake?

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

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

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

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

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

On its website, CSIRO emphasises the importance of ACCESS, stating:

At CSIRO, we use ACCESS to contribute to major international climate modelling and prediction projects.

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

What’s climate modelling for?

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

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

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

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

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

An Australian climate model?

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

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

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

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

International collaboration at risk

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

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

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

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

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

We still have a choice.

CSIRO’s media team has been contacted for comment.

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

The recent United States federal court finding that music industry giant Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster acted as a monopoly and overcharged ticket buyers has resonated globally.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, Live Nation and Ticketmaster have been highly successful in acquiring controlling interests in ticketing, festival and events businesses – raising questions about what the US verdict might mean for the local industry.

The case dates back to 2024, when the US Department of Justice (under President Joe Biden) brought a lawsuit against Live Nation for “unfairly wielding its power over concert promotion, artist management, venue operations and ticketing services to shut out competition”.

In the wake of reported lobbying, the department settled with Live Nation in the second week of the trial, a decision criticised as a “slap on the wrist” and a “sweetheart deal”. However, 33 states involved in the lawsuit elected to continue. At the end of the trial, the jury found Live Nation and Ticketmaster had:

• “unlawfully acquired monopoly power and caused anti-competitive effects in multiple markets” including ticketing services to major concert venues

• unlawfully tied artist promotion services to the artists hiring large venues

• and had harmed competition, resulting in an increase in ticket prices for audiences.

Market power

The origins of this go back to 2009, when Ticketmaster (established in 1976) and newcomer Live Nation were allowed to merge, forming Live Nation Entertainment.

The vertically integrated powerhouse became a dominant player in artist management, ticketing, festivals, tour promotion and venue ownership.

CEO Michael Rapino described the business model as relying on high volume, low margin concert activity that generates a “river of nickels” across the supply chain, including ticketing and sponsorship.

Since the merger there have been growing complaints about Live Nation’s model from artists, venue owners and audiences. Some performers, including The Cure and Olivia Dean, have openly criticised its ticketing practices. Venue competitors have said they were threatened with losing shows if they refused to use Ticketmaster. Even fans have sued for price gouging.

After the US verdict, Australian industry groups, promoters and the Green party called for an investigation by the Competition and Consumer Commission about the market power wielded by Live Nation and Ticketmaster.

Live Nation Australia has tried to distance itself from its parent company’s actions, arguing it does not own or ticket the majority of large music venues.

That is not the case in New Zealand, however, where Live Nation and Ticketmaster have acquired substantial interests across the live performance sector.

Live Nation’s 2026 annual report lists a chain of subsidiaries in New Zealand representing venues, festivals, promotion, artist management touring and ticketing, summarised in the chart below.

Ticketmaster, which also owns Australian company Moshtix, has agreements with councils across New Zealand (including Venues Wellington, Auckland Live, Venues Ōtautahi, Dunedin Venues and Rotorua Events and Venues) covering a majority of the country’s thousand-plus capacity venues.

Live Nation’s vertically integrated model and consolidation of market share mean potential competitors would need similar scale to be viable.

Transparent ticketing

The US case against Live Nation Entertainment was ultimately about the risks of monopoly, market failure and regulatory capture by a dominant player. Those risks need greater scrutiny in New Zealand, too, particularly in relation to ticketing.

Last year, Consumer NZ collected 10,000 signatures on a petition asking for greater transparency of ticket prices through changes to the Fair Trading Act. This would require retailers to disclose things such as service charges and booking and credit card fees upfront.

Australian regulations already require disclosure of these “outside charges”. But this hasn’t necessarily resulted in a better deal for consumers, partly because so-called “inside charges” – allowing ticket sellers, promoters, venues and other parties to include service fees in a ticket’s face value – are not disclosed.

This is a widespread practice, but reporting by the Guardian in March showed Ticketmaster in the US offset losses from the banning of “surpise” booking fees by raising inside charges in other parts of the supply chain.

Fix The Tix, a US fan and music industry advocacy group, is lobbying for legislation that would require full itemisation of ticket fees and charges, price and fee caps on resold tickets, with strong civil penalties for breaches.

Similar action in New Zealand could improve transparency in concert and event ticketing, but would need the Commerce Commission or a competitor to demonstrate Live Nation/Ticketmaster’s dominance had decreased competition in the market.

Alternatively, local councils could explore mandating at least two ticketing providers for the venues they own, control or operate. This would allow a potential competitor to Ticketmaster to enter the market at scale.

Introducing competition at this level would encourage ticketing companies to compete for business from promoters and artists, with potential flow-on benefits for consumers.

More competition can only be good for music lovers and the local industry. The challenge now is how to achieve it.

– ref. One company dominates NZ’s live music scene – how do we encourage competition? – https://theconversation.com/one-company-dominates-nzs-live-music-scene-how-do-we-encourage-competition-282839

Weight-loss injections, such as Wegovy and Mounjaro, have transformed how we treat obesity. Around 1.6 million adults in Great Britain have used weight-loss drugs in the past year, with the vast majority of patients buying these drugs privately.

The issue with these weight-loss drugs is that, despite their success in shedding weight while patients are taking them, studies report significant weight regain when people come off them. What’s more, the health benefits seen when taking these drugs, such as reductions in blood pressure, blood glucose and lipids, also disappear.

In the UK, a private prescription for Mounjaro costs about £300 a month. And therein lies the issue. The ongoing cost is unsustainable for most patients.

The reason these drugs are so expensive is mainly due to the way they are made. First, the active components of these drugs are peptides – small proteins that are rapidly degraded in the stomach and digestive tract, meaning they must be administered via an injection. Second, the injector pens are expensive to make and they must be stored in a fridge.

Orforglipron (brand name: Foundayo), a once-daily pill-based weight-loss drug that targets the same GLP-1 system as Wegovy, has recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treating obesity. Rather than the active compound being a peptide, it is instead a “small molecule”, meaning it can withstand the harsh environment of the digestive system and is much cheaper to make and store. (Most drugs, including aspirin, ibuprofen and statins, are small-molecule drugs.)

This makes orforglipron a promising new arrival on the weight-loss market, with the potential to democratise access to these important medications. In the US, the cost of a month’s supply of orforglipron is between US$149 and US$299 (£112-£224), compared with over US$1,000 for a monthly supply of Mounjaro.

Clinical trials have shown that orforglipron results in just over 15% body weight loss in adults with obesity, placing it on par with that seen with Wegovy, but significantly lower than the 21% weight loss seen with Mounjaro.

What is much more interesting, however, is the prospect that patients could use orforglipron to tackle the big problem of weight loss drugs: the rapid weight regain seen following their cessation.

Keeping the weight off

Researchers recently published findings from a trial investigating whether weight loss achieved through either Wegovy or Mounjaro could be sustained by switching to orforglipron.

The study recruited patients who had successfully lost at least 5% of their body weight over 72 weeks while on one of the two existing weight-loss jabs. Patients were taken off their original medication and given either orforglipron or a placebo drug for 52 weeks.

Among patients who originally took Mounjaro, those on placebo regained just over 50% of the lost weight at week 52. In contrast, those who took orforglipron regained just 26%, with over two-fifths of participants maintaining over 80% of their body weight reduction.

Similar results were seen in patients who had originally taken Wegovy, with those taking a placebo pill regaining 62% of their lost body weight, compared to 21% weight regain in those taking orforglipron.

Across both groups, people who took orforglipron also saw lasting improvements in key health markers, including blood sugar, blood pressure, insulin and cholesterol levels.

The trial was small – just over 100 people in each group – but it suggests a promising path: that weight loss achieved through these medications can be maintained in the long term, along with their wider health benefits, in a way that may also be more affordable.

Orforglipron is not yet licensed in the UK for weight loss. Assuming it is approved by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, it is anticipated to be available late 2026 to early 2027.

– ref. A pill helps you keep weight off after you come off weight-loss jabs – new study – https://theconversation.com/a-pill-helps-you-keep-weight-off-after-you-come-off-weight-loss-jabs-new-study-283034

The sight of a saltwater crocodile basking on a mudbank is one of the most iconic and intimidating images of northern Australia. Yet the crocodiles that inhabit the region today are just the survivors of a much richer and stranger lost world.

Until recently, Australasia was home not just to the familiar crocodiles found in tropical waterways, but also to a unique cast of crocs unlike any living species.

Our recent review of evidence from the past 129,000 years reveals a dramatic story of extinctions, human encounters, and survival against the odds.

Mekosuchines – the lost rulers of Australasia

Modern crocodiles are members of the genus Crocodyls, but an entirely different group of crocodylians known as mekosuchines once dominated the region.

For more than 50 million years, mekosuchines were the apex predators of Australasia. Some even survived to meet humans.

These remarkable animals came in an astonishing variety of shapes and sizes, inhabiting many different environments.

Some were giant semi-aquatic ambush predators, much like the saltwater crocodiles that still patrol northern rivers today. Others were much smaller “dwarf” species that inhabited islands such as New Caledonia. Most terrifyingly, some species possessed blade-like serrated teeth and probably hunted their prey on land.

A fragmentary puzzle

We pieced together a record of crocodylians over the past 129,000 years from scattered and highly fragmentary remains recovered from more than 20 archaeological and palaeontological sites.

Most are located in Australia, though some are found in New Guinea, and a handful more across the southwest Pacific. At archaeological sites on the Australian mainland, as well as in the Torres Strait and New Guinea, researchers have uncovered the broken bones and teeth of modern crocodile species, showing that these formidable reptiles have shared landscapes with people for thousands of years.

Ancient rock art, some dating back around 20,000 years, reveals that Indigenous Australians were closely observing and depicting these animals for millennia. The distribution of archaeological remains and rock art closely mirrors the modern ranges of crocodiles today. This points to a long and relatively stable coexistence between humans and these powerful predators.

Archaeological evidence shows that humans did occasionally eat crocodiles, and sometimes even crafted pendants from their teeth. Yet such discoveries are quite rare. When ancient archaeological sites do yield crocodile bones, there are usually only a handful of them.

The evidence suggests crocodiles were hunted only rarely. This is not surprising.

Adult saltwater crocodiles are enormous, immensely powerful, and highly lethal to humans. For ancient communities, engaging with these apex predators would have been a hazardous undertaking, and something mostly avoided.

But modern crocodiles weren’t alone in these ancient landscapes. Fossils show they shared them with the mekosuchines.

On mainland Australia, mekosuchines are currently only known from fossils. Most remains date from more than 40,000 years ago. We currently have no evidence of these extinct crocs from archaeological sites or in ancient rock art.

We don’t know if humans and mekosuchines ever directly interacted in Australia. Their disappearance occurred around the same time as the extinction of other Australian megafauna, potentially after a long period of coexistence with humans. The exact cause of their demise in Australia remains a mystery.

Island extinctions

However, the story is different on the islands of New Caledonia, Vanuatu and Fiji. There, some mekosuchine species managed to survive into much more recent times. And humans almost certainly encountered them directly.

The extinct crocs of New Caledonia and Vanuatu were small, reaching less than two metres in length as adults. They also likely lived more on land than today’s semi-aquatic crocodiles. Their small statures and terrestrial lives would have made them far more accessible for human hunters.

Tragically, the known record of these island mekosuchines ends within a few centuries of human settlement. In several cases, their remains were found in association with human artefacts and middens.

In one example from Vanuatu, a mekosuchine limb bone appears to bear the gnaw marks of a rat, an invasive species introduced to the island by humans. While definitive proof is elusive, it seems likely that direct or indirect human involvement may be the reason for the disappearance of these “dwarf” island crocodylians.

Lessons for the Anthropocene

We are now living through the Anthropocene, an age when humans are profoundly influencing the planet and extinctions are accelerating, as is particularly evident in Australia.

The prehistoric past is not just a record of vanished worlds, but a warning for the future. Understanding how apex predators like crocodiles responded to past climatic changes, environmental upheaval, and human impacts provides important clues for their conservation in the future.

To truly unravel these questions will take the combined work of palaeontologists, archaeologists, ecologists and conservationists. Just as crucial will be deep engagement with Indigenous knowledges and land managers, whose long histories of observing and living alongside these animals offer clues for protecting the world’s remaining crocodiles, and the threatened ecosystems they inhabit.

– ref. 129,000 years of crocodiles: what we know about Australasia’s ancient apex predators – https://theconversation.com/129-000-years-of-crocodiles-what-we-know-about-australasias-ancient-apex-predators-283253