Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Macie Alavi, Lecturer in Counselling Psychology, Griffith University

The federal government has just released an expert review to try and prevent bullying in schools. One of the greatest areas of concern is cyberbullying, which is alarmingly common among young people.

As federal Education Minister Jason Clare said over the weekend,

[…] now it’s just not happening in the playground, it’s not push and shove in the ground or stealing lunch money, it’s so much more insidious than that, and it happens day and night, and everybody can see it.

The eSafety Commission says cyberbullying has increased by more than 450% in the past five years. Of these incidents, 46% related to children 13 and younger. A 2025 eSafety survey also showed 53% of Australian children aged 10–17 had experienced cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying and cybertrolling often occur anonymously, allowing perpetrators to hide behind fake profiles and act with impunity. The impacts can be devastating for victims’ mental health and social lives.

One common way to try and stop this is simply to limit young people’s time online. But our peer-reviewed research suggests we need to factor in the role young people’s personalities play in cyberbullying and cybertrolling.

What is the difference between cyberbullying and cybertrolling?

Cyberbullying refers to ongoing, targeted acts of harm via digital platforms. It is often intended to intimidate or emotionally damage an individual.

Cybertrolling involves provocative or disruptive online behaviour aimed at provoking conflict. It can leave victims feeling powerless or humiliated.

The key difference is cyberbullying is typically ongoing and involves a power imbalance. Cybertrolling is more likely to be opportunistic, impersonal, and driven by provocation.

What role does personality play?

One way parents and schools try to reduce exposure to or involvement in harmful online behaviours by limiting screen time. This suggests young people cyberbully or troll mainly because they have the opportunity to do so.
Other reasons could be that people bully or troll because they are unhappy with their lives.

While these may be partly true, what if there are other factors at play?

In our research, we were interested to further understand the role of personality in cyberbullying and cybertrolling. We were particularly interested to understand the role of what’s known as the “dark tetrad”.
This is a well-established psychological framework for understanding antisocial behaviour.

It involves four interrelated personality traits:

• Machiavellianism (manipulative)

• narcissism (entitled and self-centred)

• psychopathy (impulsive and lacking empathy)

• sadism (enjoyment from causing others pain).

Our research

In 2021, we surveyed 189 Australians aged 16–19 who were active social media users. Participants were recruited online through social media posts and university research platforms, such as Facebook.

Using an online survey, participants completed questionnaires to examine whether they had dark tetrad traits and whether they had experienced cyberbullying and cybertrolling (either as perpetrators or targets). We also asked about their life satisfaction and how much time they typically spend online.

We wanted to examine whether personality traits could explain antisocial online behaviour beyond external factors such as screen time or wellbeing and life satisfaction.

In turn, we wanted to identify if someone was likely to bully or troll online.

Our findings

Using statistical analysis, we found narcissism, sadism and psychopathy traits were consistently linked with both cyberbullying and cybertrolling in our study group.

In other words, teens with higher levels of aggressive and thrill-seeking traits and/or pleasure-seeking from the suffering of others were more likely to bully or troll others online.

There was no relationship with Machiavellianism or having a manipulative personality. This suggests while manipulation may occur in offline contexts, it may not directly motivate online aggression.

These effects remained significant even when we accounted for how much time participants spent online and their life satisfaction.

This means those high in these dark traits were also still likely to cyberbully or troll even if they were happy with their lives overall. Meanwhile, spending more time on the internet did not make people more likely to bully or troll.

What does this mean?

Our findings challenge common assumptions that online harm is driven mainly by time spent online or unhappiness.

While digital literacy, adult supervision and wellbeing promotion are still important, these may not be enough to prevent online harm.

We also need to recognise the role personality plays.

What can we do?

Our findings also suggest we may be able to take more pre-emptive action against cyberbullying.

If schools can identify young people showing persistent callous or manipulative traits, early social-emotional support could reduce risk before harmful patterns take hold.

Just as we teach physical safety online, we should also teach psychological safety, helping young people understand empathy, recognise the impact of their actions, and build healthier relationships.

Young people at risk could be identified through school wellbeing or pastoral-care programs that monitor persistent traits like callousness. Schools could also make use of teacher or counsellor observations supported by validated personality checklists.

At the same time, we do not want to unhelpfully label some teens as “bad”. Instead, we emphasise the need for early intervention that addresses social and emotional development.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Our research shows how screening students for psychopathic and narcissistic traits could help prevent cyberbullying – https://theconversation.com/our-research-shows-how-screening-students-for-psychopathic-and-narcissistic-traits-could-help-prevent-cyberbullying-260582

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stefan Volk, Professor of Management, University of Sydney

You arrive at work, coffee in hand, ready to tackle the day. But your manager seems off, curt in meetings, impatient with questions, and unusually sharp in tone.

Before chalking it up to personality, consider this: they might just be sleep-deprived. Research in organisational behaviour and sleep science suggests that a leader’s sleep quality can significantly shape their behaviour at work – not just their mood, but their decision-making, communication style, and even ethical judgement. And the effects ripple far beyond the manager themselves.

In a multi-day field study tracking supervisors and their teams, researchers found that poor sleep on one night predicted more abusive supervisory behaviour the next day. This wasn’t a fixed trait; the same leaders behaved more positively after better sleep.

The study revealed a clear pattern: when leaders slept poorly, their capacity for self-control dropped. This affected the people around them, leading to more brittle interactions and disengaged teams.

The whole team is affected

This isn’t just about being cranky. Sleep deprivation impairs emotional regulation, reduces patience and increases impulsivity.

Tired managers are more likely to micromanage, react punitively and set an edgy tone, even when their team members are well-rested. These behaviours, in turn, reduce team engagement and discretionary effort. The result is a measurable dip in collective energy and productivity.

Despite the evidence, many organisations still glorify sleep deprivation. Executives who rise at 4am and start working before sunrise are often celebrated as paragons of discipline.

For some, early starts align with their natural circadian rhythms, which regulate our sleep/wake cycle. But for many others, this schedule creates circadian misalignment — a mismatch between biological clocks and social demands — which degrades alertness, mood and long-term health.

Management scholars argue that this culture begins early, in business schools and leadership development programs, where short sleep is normalised as a badge of honour.

But the consequences are serious. Chronic sleep deprivation undermines learning, performance and wellbeing, cultivating leaders who are less resilient, less clear-headed and less engaging at precisely the moments that call for steadiness and persuasion.

Leaders aren’t aware of the value of sleep

Surveys suggest nearly half of leaders report sleep problems, and more than 65% are dissatisfied with how much sleep they get.

Alarmingly, over 40% regularly sleep six hours or less, well below the recommended seven to eight hours for adults. And more than 80% of leaders say that not enough effort was spent to educate them about the importance of sleep.

The short-term effects of sleep deprivation are well known:

• daytime sleepiness
• reduced attention span
• and slower reaction times.

But the long-term consequences are even more concerning. Chronic sleep deprivation increases the risk of depression, addiction, obesity and metabolic disorders. It also impairs self-regulation, making individuals more prone to impulsive behaviours, from unhealthy eating to substance misuse.

For leaders, sleep isn’t just a health issue, it’s a performance issue. Studies show sleep-deprived leaders are less inspiring, less charismatic and, as mentioned earlier, more likely to be abusive towards their teams.

They struggle to manage their emotions, and often are not aware that their hostility stems from poor sleep. This can initiate a downward spiral: negative interactions lead to rumination and stress, which further disrupt sleep, perpetuating the cycle. Even a few nights of poor sleep can damage leader-follower relationships.

And the consequences extend to ethics. Sleep deprivation compromises moral awareness and increases the likelihood of unethical behaviour. One study found a 2.1-hour reduction in sleep led to a 10% decline in moral awareness.

Education can build a healthier workplace

Given the evidence, leadership development programs must take sleep seriously. Career sustainability for leaders means building mental and physical resilience to meet high job demands, and sleep is central to that.

Leaders also play a critical role in modelling healthy behaviours for their teams. By prioritising sleep, they can foster a culture of wellbeing and sustainable performance.

Unfortunately, sleep is still undervalued in many organisations. But that can change. By educating current and future leaders about the science of sleep, organisations can cultivate more effective, ethical and engaging leadership — and healthier workplaces overall.

So next time your manager seems unusually difficult, consider what kind of night they had. A short or restless sleep might be the invisible force shaping today’s workplace dynamics.

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

– ref. Is your manager grumpy in the mornings? Poor sleep can lead to abusive and unethical behaviour – https://theconversation.com/is-your-manager-grumpy-in-the-mornings-poor-sleep-can-lead-to-abusive-and-unethical-behaviour-266793

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Penelope Jackson, Adjunct Research Associate, School of Social Work and Arts, Charles Sturt University

The world’s largest art museum, the Louvre has approximately half a million objects in its collection, with about 30,000 on display, and sees on average 8 million visitors per year. That’s big on any scale, with a lot of people and objects to keep watch over. And Sundays are particularly busy.

In a cleverly conceived operation, four men wearing fluorescent vests pulled up at the Louvre in a flat-decked truck at 9.30 Sunday morning. Quickly setting to work, they raised an extendable ladder to the second storey. Climbing it, they cut through a window, entered the Galerie d’Apollon and, brandishing power tools, helped themselves to nine exquisite objects.

The objects taken were France’s royal jewels, formerly belonging to the Empress Eugénie, Napoleon III’s wife and arts patron.

This is where it gets tricky for the thieves: what can you do with these priceless objects? They can’t wear them – too big and glitzy to go unnoticed – and they can’t sell them legitimately, as images are all over the internet.

The best-case scenario, from the thieves’ perspective, is to break them down, melt the precious metals and sell the gems separately.

Empress Eugenie’s crown, which the perpetrators took and subsequently dropped as they fled the scene on motor scooters, contains eight gold eagles, 1,354 brilliant-cut diamonds, 1,136 rose-cut diamonds and 56 emeralds. In short, this amounts to a sizeable stash of individual gems to try and sell.

Timing is everything

For the Louvre, any heist is a major blow. It calls into question their security, both electronic and human. Five security staff were nearby who acted to protect visitors and the alarms did ring, but the entire heist was completed within seven minutes.

Timing is crucial with heists.

In 2019, an 18-karat gold toilet titled America (2016), from the artist Maurizio Cattelan, was stolen from Blenheim Palace, England. It was taken in five and a half minutes. It weighed 98 kilograms and was fully functioning. In other words, the two men who took it (and were later caught and served prison sentences for their crimes) worked quickly and efficiently. At the time of the theft, as gold bullion it was estimated to be valued at A$6 million.

Van Gogh’s painting The Parsonage Garden at Neunen in Spring (1884) was stolen from the Singer Laren Museum, in the Netherlands, during their 2020 COVID closure. It was recovered in late 2023 after an investigation by Dutch art detective Arthur Brand.

The 2017 theft of two Gottfried Lindauer paintings from Auckland’s International Art Centre took just a few minutes to complete. The thieves ram-raided the front window of the auction house where the paintings, valued at NZ$1 million, were displayed. The portraits were recovered five years later through an intermediary, with only minor damage.

Recovering the stolen

The National Gallery of Victoria’s Picasso painting Weeping Woman (1937) was famously taken by the Australian Cultural Terrorists in 1986 – but only noticed as missing two days later.

Recovered just over two weeks later, the painting was left for the gallery staff to collect in a locker at Spencer Street railway station. The motivation behind the theft was to highlight the lack of financial support given to Victorian artists, but the true identity of the thieves remains a mystery.

In 1986, 26 paintings of religious subjects were stolen from the gallery at the Benedictine Monastery at New Norcia, Western Australia.

The thieves were poor planners: they hadn’t factored in that three men and the stash of paintings couldn’t fit into a Ford Falcon. The paintings were cut from their frames, ostensibly butchered. One was completely destroyed. The thieves were caught and charged.

Where to next for the thief?

Recovery of objects from heists is low. It’s impossible to put a number on but some say art recoveries globally are possibly as low as 10%.

Paintings are more difficult to sell on – you can’t change their physical appearance to the point of not being recognised.

However, with objects such as the gold toilet or jewels, the precious materials and gems can be repurposed. Time will tell if the Napoleonic jewels will be recovered.

Never say never. The Mona Lisa (1503), undoubtedly the main attraction at the Louvre, was stolen in 1911 and recovered two years later. The thief, Vincenzo Peruggia, was an Italian handyman working at the Louvre and was caught trying to sell it.

This latest heist at the Louvre highlights the vulnerability of objects in public collections. The irony being they’re often gifted to such institutions for safekeeping.

Those who guard objects are usually paid a minimum wage and yet they are tasked with a huge responsibility. When budget cuts are made, it’s often security staff that are reduced – such as the Art Gallery of New South Wales’ announcement just last week.

The thieves on Sunday knew what they were after and why. We aren’t privy to their motivation. We know the stolen jewels are part of France’s history and are irreplaceable. Their theft denies visitors of experiencing them individually for their beauty and craftsmanship, as well as collectively within the context of France’s history.

But part of me can’t help thinking how the French were partial to helping themselves to artworks and precious objects belonging to others. So perhaps this could be a case of déjà vu.

Penelope Jackson’s Unseen: Art and Crime in Australia (Monash University Publishing) will be published in December 2025.

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

– ref. The Mona Lisa, a gold toilet and now the Louvre’s royal jewels: a fascinating history of art heists – https://theconversation.com/the-mona-lisa-a-gold-toilet-and-now-the-louvres-royal-jewels-a-fascinating-history-of-art-heists-267849

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Adjunct Professor of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia; Victoria University; Australian National University

In recent weeks, Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban have engaged in the most serious military clashes between the two neighbours in several years.

Qatar and Turkey mediated a ceasefire on Sunday, bringing an end to the hostilities that have killed dozens of people and wounded hundreds.

Both countries have agreed to respect one another’s territorial integrity. They will meet again in Istanbul later this week to discuss the next steps.

Yet, the situation remains tense, as the underlying causes of the conflict have yet to be resolved.

A haven for terrorism

At the heart of the conflict is Islamabad’s claim the Afghan Taliban have been harbouring and aiding the Pakistani Taliban (also known as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP) in order to change Pakistan along the lines of the Taliban’s extremist Islamic rule in Afghanistan.

The Taliban government has denied Islamabad’s accusations.

Since the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan in mid-2021, following the retreat of the United States and its allies, they have once again turned the country into a nest of various terrorist groups. This includes, most importantly, the TTP.

The Taliban have accommodated hundreds of TTP fighters (some with their families) in Afghanistan and boosted the TTP’s combat capabilities, so the group can now engage in deadlier cross-border operations in Pakistan.

According to the United Nations, the TTP has even accessed some of the US$7 billion (A$10.8 billion) worth of weapons left behind by the US and allied forces.

As the TTP has increased its operations in Pakistan, Islamabad has become more intolerant of the Afghan Taliban government.

It has also grown very concerned about Kabul’s ties with Pakistan’s regional rival, India. The Taliban’s acting foreign minister, Amir Khan Mutaqqi, recently visited New Delhi, where he was warmly welcomed by India’s government. Pakistan has traditionally viewed Afghanistan as being part of its backyard of influence.

Pakistan’s military and powerful military intelligence (the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI) have sought to counter the threat from Afghanistan by pursuing a strategy of deterrence and punishment.

This has included deporting tens and thousands of refugees back to Afghanistan, most of whom had fled the Taliban’s repressive, discriminatory and misogynist rule. Islamabad has also occasionally bombed targets in Afghanistan.

What led to the recent fighting

The situation escalated sharply this month after the TTP launched attacks on Pakistan security forces, including a suicide bombing on a police training school, killing 23 people.

Pakistan responded by striking what it claimed to be TTP sites in Kabul and Kandahar, where the Taliban’s elusive supreme leader Hibatullah Akhunzadeh reportedly lives.

In retaliation, Taliban forces attacked Pakistani posts along the disputed 2,600-kilometre Afghanistan-Pakistan border (also known as the Durand Line), resulting in considerable military and civilian casualties on both sides.

Pakistan also blocked Afghan transit routes, striking a serious blow to the already devastated Afghan economy. Although the Taliban rerouted their goods through Iranian ports, this is not as financially viable or a proper substitute for Pakistan’s transit routes.

The two sides agreed to a 48-hour ceasefire last week, but it was immediately broken when Pakistan launched more airstrikes that Kabul said killed several cricket players. Islamabad denies civilians were killed.

Pakistan’s dilemma

In the final analysis, Islamabad cannot blame anyone but itself for the challenges it faces from the Afghan Taliban. It nurtured and supported the Taliban as a terrorist group for some three decades.

As Pakistani Defence Minister Kawaja Asif recently acknowledged, Islamabad long pursued a double-edged foreign policy. It has publicly opposed terrorism, while using extremist groups, like the Afghan Taliban and their affiliates, to gain regional influence in its competition with India.

Thanks to this policy, the Afghan Taliban were able to seize power from the mid-1990s to the September 11 2001 al-Qaeda attacks on the US, and subsequently mount an effective resistance to the two-decade-long US-led intervention in Afghanistan. The Taliban were also able to regain power in 2021, to the detriment of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is important to note this conflict is not between Pakistan and the people of Afghanistan, who are languishing under the Taliban’s draconian rule. Rather, this is a conflict between Pakistan and the Taliban government – a patron-client relationship that has now backfired.

The Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan is medievalist and fragile. It needs to be ousted, but this is a matter for the people of Afghanistan, not Pakistan. Foreign intervention in Afghanistan has not worked in the past.

Selfless assistance from the international community is needed to empower the people of Afghanistan to chart their own future. A combination of internal resistance to the Afghan Taliban – and external pressure on the group – is the best way forward.

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

– ref. Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban avoid a deeper war for now, but how long can the peace hold? – https://theconversation.com/pakistan-and-the-afghan-taliban-avoid-a-deeper-war-for-now-but-how-long-can-the-peace-hold-267843

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denise Fisher, Visiting Fellow, ANU Centre for European Studies and Department of Pacific Affairs, Australian National University

The unprecedented political crisis in France is increasingly being felt thousands of kilometres away in the South Pacific.

On October 16, French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu survived two no-confidence motions – one by just 18 votes. He is expected to face further challenges in the coming months as he seeks to pass the 2026 budget.

The parliamentary votes follow weeks of upheaval. Former Prime Minister Francois Bayrou resigned in September after he lost a no confidence vote himself. His successor, Lecornu, took over three weeks to appoint a cabinet, then resigned after it fell apart within a matter of hours. Six days later, he was re-appointed.

Three failed referendums

All of this matters not just for France, but for the continuing process of self-determination in New Caledonia, Australia’s closest eastern neighbour.

Finding agreement on New Caledonia’s future has not been smooth following the expiration of 30 years of agreements on the territory’s status without a conclusive outcome in 2021.

Three independence referendums on New Caledonia’s independence were held from 2018 to 2021, all of which failed. The first two votes showed a large and growing Indigenous Kanak minority supporting independence, reaching 47%.

The third referendum was contentious. Kanak voters boycotted the vote after France’s overseas territories minister refused their request to postpone it due to the pandemic. That minister was none other than Lecornu, the current prime minister.

Independence leaders have not forgotten his role in this. They declined to meet with French President Emmanuel Macron early last year simply because Lecornu (then the defence minister) was in his delegation.

In September this year, the core pro-independence alliance, the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS), slammed Lecornu’s appointment as prime minister, accusing him of initiating “hostilities leading to the current chaos” in New Caledonia.

New Caledonia’s future in the balance

The political stalemate in the territory has only deepened since 2021. Pro-France loyalists demanded a relaxation of the voting eligibility provisions in local elections, which would weaken the Indigenous vote. Despite Kanak pro-independence opposition, Macron imposed the eligibility change unilaterally. This led to violent protests throughout 2024.

After repeated failed attempts at dialogue, a new overseas territories minister, Manuel Valls, a former prime minister with close ties in New Caledonia, managed to negotiate the Bougival Accord in July of this year.

The agreement would create a new “state” for New Caledonia within France, with newly devolved powers, especially in foreign affairs. The territory would also be put on a path to acquire full sovereignty over its affairs under strict conditions.

Local elections, currently due in November, would be postponed, and the accord would be put to a referendum in February 2026. Both of these moves would require French legislation to enact.

However, political turmoil in Paris has hindered these processes.

Not only has Valls now been replaced by a new minister unfamiliar with New Caledonia, but the legislative timetable to implement the accord has slipped.

Lecornu has flagged he will take immediate action to try to salvage the process. However, his government remains vulnerable to more instability.

In New Caledonia, the accord is also looking shaky. All the leaders of the FLNKS (the pro-independence coalition) who signed it in Paris in July have since withdrawn their signatures.

FLNKS leader Emmanuel Tjibaou insists local elections be held in November to provide a democratic basis for future negotiations and warned against forcing a postponement.

FLNKS President Christian Tein has called the accord a test of respect for the Kanak voice and “consolidating or fracturing civil peace”. He has previously noted “the embers are not yet extinguished” from last year’s violence.

Two moderate independence parties in New Caledonia support the accord. However, a growing list of other groups oppose it, including the main Kanak union, the Kanak Protestant church, and the Customary Senate representing Kanak chiefs.

Threat of renewed violence

The situation is loaded with insecurity and fear. Evidence of last year’s violence – burned-out businesses, schools and homes – are constant reminders of the tenuous situation. Even pro-France leaders are saying the accord cannot proceed without the FLNKS.

The fragility of Macron’s government means ongoing uncertainty in New Caledonia. And with Macron under constant pressure from Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party, there is little enthusiasm for granting more autonomy to New Caledonia, a chief strategic asset.

Pacific island leaders are concerned. In June, the regional Melanesian Spearhead Group summit reaffirmed support for the pro-independence movement, and commissioned leaders to write to Macron to urge dialogue on decolonisation.

Leaders in the Pacific Islands Forum typically refer to New Caledonia in their annual summit communiques. This year, their message to France was more pointed.

The leaders recalled two issues that made France deeply unpopular in the region in the 1980s and 1990s: its nuclear testing legacy in French Polynesia, and its treatment of New Caledonia.

On New Caledonia, they called for dialogue involving all stakeholders – a clear reference to the pro-independence group, FLNKS.

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

– ref. How France’s political dramas threaten more instability in violence-wracked New Caledonia – https://theconversation.com/how-frances-political-dramas-threaten-more-instability-in-violence-wracked-new-caledonia-267424

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Milne, Senior Lecturer in Education, Auckland University of Technology

The government has made some bold claims for its school reading policies – including that early results have been “transformational”. But we should be careful about rushing to judgement this early.

Following the release of a Ministry of Education report on phonics checks over the first three terms of this school year, Education Minister Erica Stanford said the results
showed “a significant boost in reading success” and that “in less than a year we are reversing the decades of decline in student achievement”.

The claims are based on results from an assessment of children’s ability to decode a series of real and made-up (pseudo) words that look and sound like words but aren’t (“blork”, for example). According to the report, the results “show significant increases in student achievement”.

To understand what the data is really telling us, however, we first need to take a step back and consider whether the ability to read individual words (or pseudo words) can be considered “reading” at all.

The ‘simple view of reading’

This question is particularly significant, as it is connected to the rationale for implementing structured approaches to literacy, based on what is known as the “simple view of reading”.

The “simple view” argues that reading is a combination of decoding and language comprehension. It argues that if children are taught to lift words off the page, and they have good oral language skills, they will be able to understand and read well with practice.

The simple view of reading has itself been accused of being too simple. And we know large amounts of the variation in reading ability are not explained by the model. Yet it is still supported by those who favour the kinds of structured literacy approaches now being mandated in New Zealand schools.

Also, it has been shown that the parts of the brain that are active when people are reading individual (often pseudo) words are different to those parts activated by meaningful reading (such as an interesting story).

So, when looking at the phonics check data it would be a mistake to equate increased achievement in that specific measurement with increased achievement in actual reading.

In fact, a study in the United Kingdom showed greatly increased achievement on a similar phonics test did not result in significant improvements in later reading ability.

This is not to question the importance of decoding ability as a necessary skill for reading. But it should not be equated with reading itself. While we can celebrate
an improvement in phonics results if there is one, we should be careful not to overreach when discussing its significance.

Inconclusive data

The minister highlighted the number of schools and thousands of children included in the data, and how representative of the population they are.

However, closer analysis of the report shows these are mostly not the same children; they are different children from different schools at each time point. This makes extrapolating evidence of progress difficult.

Within the thousands of children measured, there are only 516 for whom we have data at both the six-month and one-year points of their progress. We also don’t know their cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds.

We can look at the results of those children to consider change over time and whether progress is being made. But we are limited in how much we can say generally with such a small sample.

With those caveats, then, the data actually show that after six months of schooling there were 21.7% of children “exceeding expectations”. After one year this had fallen to 16.7%.

There were more children considered “proficient” in reading pseudo words after a year (22.7% compared with 18.6% after six months). But many of them had been exceeding expectations six months earlier.

The number of children meeting or exceeding expectations went from 40.3% after six months to 39.4% after one year. While this looks like a slight drop, we can’t really say that because of the small sample. We can say there was no real change.

After one year there are fewer “needing support”, which is good news. Again, with such a small sample of children from unknown backgrounds, that provides reason for cautious optimism at best.

There is also quite a bit of movement between the bands, both up and down, and not all students saw accelerated achievement in decoding ability. For the 516 children for whom we have clear data, “transformational” is perhaps not the right word.

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

– ref. Why claims of ‘transformational’ school reading improvement are premature – https://theconversation.com/why-claims-of-transformational-school-reading-improvement-are-premature-267522

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam G. Arian, Lecturer Accounting & Finance, Australian Catholic University

When we talk about diversity in business, it’s usually in moral or social terms – fairness, inclusion and representation. But our new research suggests diversity also pays off in a very practical way: helping companies make better financial and investment decisions.

Company boards often get the attention in discussions about corporate leadership. Yet much of the real decision-making happens within smaller, specialised board committees – groups of directors responsible for areas such as audit, risk, remuneration and sustainability.

These committees are where many of the big investment and governance decisions are debated and ultimately shaped.

Our study looked at the effect of diversity within these board committees across Australia’s 300 largest listed companies (the ASX 300).

The results were striking. Firms with more diverse committees – in terms of gender, independence and professional background – made smarter and more efficient investment decisions.

Our research

To conduct our research, we built a detailed index to measure how diverse committees really are. This went beyond simple gender counts.

We considered whether companies had key committees in place, how large they were, the proportion of women, the diversity of professional backgrounds, and the mix of independent and non-executive members.

We then linked this “committee diversity index” to how well companies invested their capital.

In simple terms, we looked at whether companies were putting their money to productive use. That is, investing in projects that would generate long-term value, not wasteful spending or short-term gambles.

Smarter decisions

Across our study period (2018–2020), the results were consistent. Companies with higher committee diversity achieved better returns on invested capital and returns on equity. Both are measures of how efficiently they use their funds to generate profits.

More importantly, the benefits appeared in strategic investments, not just in day-to-day operations. Diverse committees were more disciplined and forward-looking when deciding where to allocate resources.

They were less likely to overinvest when times were good or underinvest when markets turned. Put simply, diversity improved judgement under uncertainty.

A wider lens for decision-making

Why would having a mix of people around the table make such a difference? It’s likely because complex decisions benefit from a wider range of perspectives.

Think about how a company decides whether to expand into a new market, buy a rival firm, or launch a risky product line. A committee made up of people who share the same background and experience may overlook risks or alternative strategies.

A more diverse group – bringing together financial experts, engineers, marketers and people with different life experiences – is more likely to ask hard questions and spot blind spots early.

Our results suggest this mix leads to less waste and more focus on long-term value. Larger, mixed-experience committees helped avoid over-investment and misallocation of resources. In contrast, smaller or more homogeneous groups were more prone to inefficient decisions and short-term thinking.

Seeing more sides of the story

These findings add to a growing body of research showing diversity isn’t just a moral imperative but a governance advantage. Studies have linked gender-balanced boards to lower risk-taking, better innovation, and improved financial performance.

Diverse teams of employees also tend to outperform more homogenous ones because they bring different viewpoints to problem-solving.

When people with different backgrounds and expertise work together, companies see more sides of the story before committing to a particular path.

Diversity beyond the boardroom

Our findings fit within a wider global conversation about diversity in business leadership. For years, researchers have debated whether diverse boards and workplaces actually perform better financially.

Some studies find strong evidence, others less so – partly because most research has focused on the main board rather than the specialised committees where many critical investment decisions are actually made.

But committees are often where the real decisions happen. Audit and risk committees oversee financial integrity; nomination and remuneration committees shape leadership and incentives; sustainability committees increasingly guide long-term strategy.

As organisations face uncertain markets, economic transitions and growing scrutiny, the ability to see problems from multiple angles is becoming a core strength.

Why this matters

In Australia, regulators and investors are placing more emphasis on transparency, governance quality and environmental, social and governance (ESG) accountability.

As these expectations rise, companies are under pressure to show not just that they have diverse boards, but that this diversity extends into their decision-making structures.

For investors, our research has a clear message: diversity is a signal of sound governance and smarter resource allocation.

For companies, it’s a reminder that inclusive leadership is more than a reputational box to tick. It’s also a practical way to build resilience and long-term value.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. More than just good ethics: new research links corporate diversity to better investment decisions – https://theconversation.com/more-than-just-good-ethics-new-research-links-corporate-diversity-to-better-investment-decisions-267324

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shelley Inglis, Senior Visiting Scholar with the Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights, Rutgers University

What happens now?

That may well be the question being asked by “No Kings” protesters, who marched, rallied and danced all over the nation on Saturday, Oct. 18, 2025.

Pro-democracy groups had aimed to encourage large numbers of Americans to demonstrate that “together we are choosing democracy.” They were successful, with crowds turning out for demonstrations in thousands of cities and towns from Anchorage to Miami.

And while multiple GOP leaders had attacked the planned demonstrations, describing them as “hate America” rallies, political science scholars and national security experts agree that the current U.S. administration’s actions are indeed placing the world’s oldest continuous constitutional republic in jeopardy.

Once a democracy starts to erode, it can be difficult to reverse the trend. Only 42% of democracies affected by autocratization – a transformation in governance that erodes democratic safeguards – since 1994 have rebounded after a democratic breakdown, according to Swedish research institute V-Dem.

Often termed “democratic backsliding,” such periods involve government-led changes to rules and norms to weaken individual freedoms and undermine or eliminate checks on power exercised by independent institutions, both governmental and non-governmental.

Democracies that have suffered setbacks vary widely, from Hungary to Brazil. As a longterm practitioner of democracy-building overseas, I know that none of these countries rival the United States’ constitutional traditions, federalist system, economic wealth, military discipline, and vibrant independent media, academia and nonprofit organizations.

Even so, practices used globally to fight democratic backsliding or topple autocracies can be instructive.

In a nutshell: Nonviolent resistance is based on noncooperation with autocratic actions. It has proven more effective in toppling autocracies than violent, armed struggle.

But it requires more than street demonstrations.

Tactics used by pro-democracy movements

So, what does it take for democracies to bounce back from periods of autocratic rule?

Broad-scale, coordinated mobilization of a sufficient percentage of the population against autocratic takeover and for a renewed democratic future is necessary for success.

That momentum can be challenging to generate. Would-be autocrats create environments of fear and powerlessness, using intimidation, overwhelming force or political and legal attacks, and other coercive tactics to force acquiescence and chill democratic pushback.

Autocrats can’t succeed alone. They rely on what scholars call “pillars of support” – a range of government institutions, security forces, business and other sectors in society to obey their will and even bolster their power grabs.

However, everyone in society has power to erode autocratic support in various ways. While individual efforts are important, collective action increases impact and mitigates the risks of reprisals for standing up to individuals or organizations.

Here are some of the tactics used by those movements across the world:

1. Refuse unlawful, corrupt demands

When enough individuals in critical roles and institutions – the military, civil servants, corporate leaders, state government and judges – refuse to implement autocratic orders, it can slow or even stop an autocratic takeover. In South Korea, parts of the civil service, legislature and military declined to support President Yoon Suk Yeol’s imposition of martial law in 2024, foiling his autocratic move.

2. Visibly bolster the rule of law

Where would-be autocrats disregard legal restraints and install their supporters in the highest courts, individual challenges to overreach, even if successful, can be insufficient. In Poland, legal challenges in courts combined with public education by the judiciary, lawyers’ associations initiatives and street protests like the “March of a Thousand Robes” in 2020 to signal widespread repudiation of the autocratic government’s attacks on the rule of law.

3. Unite in opposition

This year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner, Maria Corina Machado from Venezuela, is an example of how political parties and leaders who cooperate across differences can offer an alternative vision.

Novel candidates can undermine the ability of autocrats to sow division and demonize major opponents. However, coalitions can be difficult to form and sustain to win. Based on experiences overseas, historian Anne Applebaum, author of “Autocracy Inc.,” has called for a pro-democracy coalition in the U.S. that could unite independents, Libertarians, the Green Party, dissident Republicans and the Democratic Party.

4. Harness economic power

Everyday consumers can pressure wealthy elites and corporations that acquiesce to, or prop up, would-be autocrats through boycotts and other methods, like the “Tesla Takedown” in the U.S. that preceded a drop in Tesla share value and owner Elon Musk’s departure from his government role. General strikes, led by labor unions and professional associations, as in Sudan or Myanmar, can be particularly effective.

5. Preempt electoral manipulation

Voting autocrats out of office remains the best way to restore democracy, demonstrated recently by the u-turn in Brazil, where a pro-democracy candidate defeated the hard-right incumbent. But this requires strategic action to keep elections truly free and fair well in advance of election day.

6. Organize your community

As in campaigns in India starting in 2020 and Chile in 2019, participating in community or private conversation forums, local town halls or councils, and nonpartisan student, veterans, farmers, women’s and religious groups provides the space to share concerns, exchange ideas and create avenues to take action. Often starting with trusted networks, local initiatives can tap into broader statewide or national efforts to defend democracy.

7. Shape the story

Driving public opinion and communicating effectively is critical to pro-democracy efforts. Serbian students created one of the largest protest movements in decades starting in 2024 using creative resistance – artistic expression, such as visual mediums, satire and social media – to expose an autocrat’s weaknesses, reduce fear and hopelessness and build collective symbolism and resilience.

8. Build bridges and democratic alternatives

Bringing together people across ideological and other divides can increase understanding and counter political polarization, particularly when religious leaders are involved. Even in autocratic countries like Turkey or during wartime as in Ukraine, deepening democratic practices at state and local levels, like citizen assemblies and the use of technologies that improve the quality of public decision-making, can demonstrate ways to govern differently.

Parallel institutions, such as schools and tax systems operating outside the formal repressive system, like during Slobodan Milosevic’s decade-long crackdown in Kosovo, have sustained non-cooperation and shaped a future vision.

9. Document abuses, protect people, reinforce truth

With today’s technologies, every citizen can record repressive incidents, track corruption and archive historical evidence such as preserving proof of slavery at danger of being removed in public museums in the U.S., or collecting documentation of human rights violations in Syria. This can also entail bearing witness, including by accompanying those most targeted with abusive government tactics. These techniques can bolster the survival of independent and evidence-based media, science and collective memory.

10. Mitigate risk, learn and innovate

The success rate of nonviolent civil resistance is declining while repressive tactics by autocrats are evolving. Democracy defenders are forced to rapidly adjust, consistently train, prepare for diverse scenarios, try new techniques and strategically support each other.

International solidarity from global institutions, like European Union support for democrats in Belarus or Georgia, or online movements, like the Milk Tea Alliance across Southeast Asia, can bolster efforts.

Democracy’s future?

The end of American democracy is not a foregone conclusion, despite the unprecedented rate of its decline. It will depend, in part, on the choices made by every American.

With autocracies outnumbering democracies for the first time in 20 years, and only 12% of the world’s population now living in a liberal democracy, the future of the global democratic experiment may well depend on the people of the United States.

Until July 1, 2025, Shelley Inglis served as a Senior Policy Advisor in the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Governance of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

– ref. 10 effective things citizens can do to make change in addition to attending a protest – https://theconversation.com/10-effective-things-citizens-can-do-to-make-change-in-addition-to-attending-a-protest-266432

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mike Jones, Course Director MA (Music Industries), University of Liverpool

The Mercury prize almost always produces surprises – among them, Gomez not The Verve in 1998, and English Teacher not Charlie XCX in 2024 – but perhaps the biggest surprise is that the prize has survived for so many years. That it has been won this year by Sam Fender in his native Newcastle speaks very much of the time that has passed in those 34 years.

Conceived as a kind of credible alternative to the Brit Awards – a prize for those beyond the razzamatazz of mainstream pop music – the (then) Mercury Music prize was introduced in 1992.

This was the year of a general election which, while won by the Conservative party, did not see the re-election of Margaret Thatcher. But Thatcher’s work had been done: the introduction of neoliberal policies which ravaged many UK industries and the regions in which they were located.

Fender can be understood as a voice of that ravaged Britain. He was born two years after John Major’s election victory, and grew up in a disintegrating family in a disintegrating former industrial region. He survived the chaos and has written about that collective suffering with great skill and passion over three albums.

It is telling, too, that the (renamed) Mercury Prize lost its corporate sponsorship along the way. Being publicly allied with music is no longer the marketing “must have” it once was. This year’s award event was paid for jointly by Newcastle City Council and the regional authority.

As Britain attempts to cope with the evaporation of major industries and the suffering that permanent loss of employment infrastructure induces, many UK regions now foreground the creative abilities of their residents as a reason to invest in their particular area. Demand for music, and for the creativity it carries and expresses, has become a key feature of social and economic as well as cultural life.

This begs the question: what is it that creative people actually contribute? The 2025 Mercury prize shortlist gives us some clues, especially if we look at three of the nominees who missed out on the prize: Pulp, Wolf Alice and Martin Carthy. Both Pulp and Wolf Alice are previous winners (1996 and 2018 respectively), but Carthy has won very few awards over the 84 years of his life.

“Notable” musicians tend to be of their time. This is partly because their choice of instruments and combinations of keys, notes and tempos resonate with the moments they and their audiences are living through. But there is more to being a musician than this.

Real, affecting performance draws on and mobilises symbolic information far beyond musical soundmaking – even though that demands skill and ability. Fender, for example, is unequivocally a Geordie, even as he fits the mould of a kind of Bruce Springsteen for his times.

Both Pulp and Wolf Alice are challenging to discuss. Where Jarvis Cocker is concerned, the word “uncompromising” comes to mind, but what does that mean? Here is someone who is unique – yet what his vision of the world is, is never quite apparent. Cocker is “about something”, and he is about it so strongly that people stand back and admire him for it.

Wolf Alice are something different: a successful rock band in a time when rock bands have gone into decline. It is almost the band’s own self-awareness that, somehow, “they shouldn’t be” that gives them their energy – mining rock’s extensive back catalogue to support essentially introspective lyrics about (mainly singer Ellie Rowsell) self-adjusting to the demands of an evermore turbulent world.

In this, there are shades of Cocker. And with Fender singing about negotiating this turbulence too (only with a more explicit set of references to a world beyond his interior), so the core strengths of contemporary music begin to emerge.

Popular musicians go on providing a soundtrack for our lives because they express themselves through the idioms of the moment. If we take Fender’s previous album, Seventeen Going Under, as a point of reference, every aspect of the recording and its video speaks to his growing up in the northeast of England and his continuing loyalty to the place.

His moving acceptance speech and rapport with the audience were evidence of this. His performance of People Watching was almost pure Bruce Springsteen – mainstream rock inflected and defined by a hometown sensibility.

Which brings us to Martin Carthy. It is impossible to capture Carthy’s significance in words, because his voice cannot be heard on the page – and it is so powerfully distinctive that it needs to be heard.

Carthy was the soul of English folk music in the 1960s and ’70s. His brand of folk music speaks to a resilience through suffering – the suffering of pre-industrial society articulated through song. Now, Fender is speaking to the suffering of post-industrial society. They both should have won.

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

– ref. Sam Fender wins Mercury prize: ‘Geordie Springsteen’ is voice of a UK ravaged by industrial decline – https://theconversation.com/sam-fender-wins-mercury-prize-geordie-springsteen-is-voice-of-a-uk-ravaged-by-industrial-decline-267767

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naomi Joseph, Arts + Culture Editor, The Conversation

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein has long served as a parable – a warning against the hubris of playing God, the dangers of motherless creation, reckless parenthood and unchecked scientific ambition. It’s a story that continues to resonate, revealing how little human ego and error have changed over time.

In the latest adaptation from horror maestro Guillermo del Toro, the tale of a mad scientist and his unnatural creation is reimagined with his signature touch. Like Shelley’s original, the film challenges us to ask: Who is the real monster?

Del Toro layers this timeless question with visual and thematic echoes from his own canon. Fans will spot traces of Crimson Peak in the gothic set design, Cronos in the intricate costuming, and The Shape of Water in its emotional core.

This version of Frankenstein is a visual feast – lavishly constructed and meticulously researched. As our reviewer Sharon Ruston points out, it incorporates real elements from early surgical education, including the gruesome 17th-century anatomy guides known as the Evelyn Tables. It also weaves in the history of Arctic exploration; those familiar with the doomed voyages of the Terror and Erebus will recognise their spectral influence.

I strongly recommend seeing this in cinemas. The immersive sound design and Alexandre Desplat’s haunting score pull you deep into this eerie, beautiful world. And if you’re in London, don’t miss the exhibition at Selfridges, where you can get up close to the props and costumes and appreciate the craftsmanship behind the film. It pairs perfectly with a visit to the Hunterian Museum, where the real Evelyn Tables are on display.

Frankenstein is in cinemas now, and will be available to watch on Netflix from November 7.

Read more:
Guillermo de Toro’s Frankenstein: beguiling adaptation stays true to heart of Mary Shelley’s story

Bold women

Virginia Woolf has a new book out. No, she hasn’t sent it from beyond the grave. And no, it’s not the product of an AI trained on her oeuvre. The Life of Violet is a newly unearthed early work by Woolf, available to read for the very first time.

This early foray into the genre of mock biography – which she would later explore more fully in Flush and Orlando – is composed of three short, fairytale-like stories chronicling the life of her close friend, Violet Dickinson.

Within these vivid, fantastical sketches, we see the early sparks of themes that would later define Woolf’s work: sharp satire of societal ills, the suffocating constraints of social norms, the joys and limits of womanhood, the quiet power of female friendship, and the deep yearning for freedom and choice.

Short, surreal and bitingly witty, these stories are a treat for new readers and a treasure for long-time Woolf fans who thought they had read it all.

Life of Violet: Three Early Stories is available at most bookshops

Read more:
The Life of Violet: three unearthed early stories where Virginia Woolf’s genius first sparks to life

If you’re looking for something binge-worthy this weekend, don’t miss Riot Women, Sally Wainwright’s bold and brilliant new drama.

The series follows five menopausal women who rediscover themselves – and find their voices – through punk at a time when life is pulling them in every direction: children, ageing parents, difficult men and demanding jobs with lousy bosses.

Tonally rich and emotionally layered, Riot Women balances laugh-out-loud moments with poignant, deeply felt drama. It’s a nuanced portrait of midlife – of caregiving, exhaustion, resilience and the fierce beauty of friendship. “These are not neat storylines,” reviewer Beth Johnson writes, “they are ongoing negotiations with life.”

The show’s strength lies in Wainwright’s deft storytelling, and an exceptional cast including Joanna Scanlan, Tamsin Greig and Rosalie Craig.

Riot Women is available to watch on BBC iPlayer now

Read more:
With Riot Women, Sally Wainwright is turning menopause into punk rebellion

More than just art

I first encountered the work of Lee Miller last year at the Heide Museum of Modern Art in Melbourne. I was instantly captivated. Here was a woman far ahead of her time: model, fashion photographer, surrealist artist and one of the few female war correspondents accredited by the US Army during the second world war.

Her photographs are fearless, witty and wide-ranging – from surreal shots of Egypt’s landscapes to scenes of wartime London. As fine art expert Lynn Hilditch notes, the documentation of people in the liberated Holocaust camps and refugees in the aftermath stand out as both harrowing and deeply human.

Now, Miller’s work takes centre stage in the first major UK retrospective at Tate Britain. Featuring more than 250 vintage and modern prints, film and original publications (many never before shown), the exhibition is a long-overdue celebration of her legacy.

Lee Miller is at Tate Britain in London till 15 February 2026.

Read more:
Lee Miller retrospective confirms her as one of the most important photographers of the 20th century

If you’re after an autumn city break, Amsterdam makes for a perfect long weekend – and right now, the Van Gogh Museum is offering something truly special.

On show is a remarkable exhibition bringing together 14 portraits of the family of Joseph Roulin – the postman who became one of Van Gogh’s closest friends during his time in Arles, in the south of France. Van Gogh painted Roulin’s wife Augustine and their three children with affection and intensity, transforming ordinary subjects into something universal.

As Frances Fowle writes, Van Gogh wasn’t just painting individuals – he was capturing archetypes. In these enigmatic portraits, we see not just a family but timeless figures: a comforting mother, a boy desperate to be a man, an innocent baby.

Van Gogh and the Roulins – Together Again At Last is at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam until January 11 2026.

Read more:
Van Gogh and the Roulins: a family reunion of the artist’s greatest portraits

In other exciting news, The Conversation UK’s arts team is launching a podcast to mark 250 years since Jane Austen’s birth. This series will take you on a  journey through the author’s life and times with the help of the UK’s top Austen experts.

Over six episodes, one per book, we visit a scandal-filled bun shop in Bath, go for a windswept walk along the sea shore at Lyme Regis, and attend a glittering Regency ball in York to find out more about the woman behind the novels. This is Austen as you’ve never known her before. The first episode is out in November, but you can listen to the trailer here now.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

– ref. Monsters, menopause and bold women – what to see, read and visit this week – https://theconversation.com/monsters-menopause-and-bold-women-what-to-see-read-and-visit-this-week-267693

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirsten Banks, Lecturer, School of Science, Computing and Engineering Technologies, Swinburne University of Technology

For roughly 4.5 billion years, the Moon has kept Earth company. In the much shorter span of time that humans have been around, we’ve admired the great silver beacon in the night sky.

The Moon may soon also serve as our launchpad to celestial bodies farther afield in the Solar System. Major space players including the United States, Russia and China all have plans to establish bases on the Moon’s dusty surface within the next ten years. And one of the goals of NASA’s Artemis Moon mission is to enable humans to one day travel to Mars.

Tech billionaire and SpaceX head Elon Musk is even more bullish. “SpaceX will colonise Mars”, he said last year. Musk believes this could happen by 2055 – and would be just the beginning of humans becoming a multi-planetary species in order to save ourselves from future annihilation.

Not everyone agrees this is possible. But it raises a more fundamental question: should humans colonise space?

We asked five experts – four of whom said no. It’s not just a question of whether humans try to live in space, but also about how we do it. Here are their detailed answers.

Alice Gorman receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is also co-vice chair of the Global Expert Group on Sustainable Lunar Activities and a fellow of the Outer Space Institute.

Art Cotterell, Ben Bramble, Kirsten Banks, and Sara Webb do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Should humans colonise space? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/should-humans-colonise-space-we-asked-5-experts-267436

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Strating, Director, La Trobe Asia, and Professor of International Relations, La Trobe University

The long-awaited meeting between US President Donald Trump and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is finally set to happen in Washington this week.

While unforeseen circumstances could still derail it, the stakes for Australia are high. Albanese will be seeking to discuss a wide range of issues, from tariffs and trade to the future of AUKUS and deeper cooperation on critical minerals and supply chains.

The lead-up to the meeting has been subject to much speculation. Questions about when the two leaders would finally sit down only intensified after Albanese appeared to be left off Trump’s schedule at the UN General Assembly in September.

It is fair to say Australia is not high on Trump’s list of priorities. But neither, more broadly, is Asia. So far, Trump’s foreign policy attention has been consumed by Russia’s war in Ukraine, suspected drug boats coming from Venezuela, and conflicts in the Middle East.

Why personal relationships are important

There’s also been much debate in the Australian media about whether a face-to-face meeting with Trump matters.

Traditionally, high-level, public meetings signal that leaders value the relationship between their countries. They offer a chance to reinforce existing commitments and make new ones, highlight shared priorities, and make the case for national interests directly.

Such meetings also underscore the importance of personal diplomacy. The quality of leader-to-leader ties can shape the tone and direction of a bilateral relationship. As history shows – think of George W. Bush’s relationship with John Howard – personal rapport can deepen alliances and build momentum for cooperation.

But with Trump, these encounters are less about relationships and more about performance.

During his now-infamous clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House in February, Trump declared, “This is going to be great television.”

A few months later, he ambushed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in front of reporters at the White House over baseless claims of a “white genocide” in South Africa.

Respect and reciprocity, it seems, are rarely front of mind for Trump in foreign engagements.

Flattery vs recognition

For Australia, this raises critical questions about the role of image and reputation – for both Albanese and the country itself – and how to manage the optics of a meeting with such an unpredictable figure.

Canberra will be thinking carefully about who is watching. This includes Trump’s inner circle, the broader Washington establishment, the Australian public and international observers. In the age of viral clips and Truth Social public diplomacy, a single awkward exchange can eclipse months of careful diplomacy.

That means Albanese’s messaging must be carefully calibrated: confident and respectful, without appearing deferential.

Flattery can be tempting. Some leaders have dangled talk of a Nobel Peace Prize to win Trump’s favour. Albanese recently congratulated Trump for his role in brokering the Gaza ceasefire, a move that may have been designed to appeal to Trump’s well-known desire for recognition.

There is, however, a fine line between genuine acknowledgement and flattery. Overdoing it would likely backfire. Australian voters have firmly rejected Trump-style politics in their own elections. And being seen to grovel to Trump would be politically damaging.

Other leaders have stood up to Trump when necessary. Japan, for example, cancelled a high-level meeting between foreign policy and defence leaders after Washington demanded Tokyo spend more on defence.

Be prepared for surprises

So, how best to engage, especially considering Trump wields an outsize influence over foreign policy decisions? Is it smarter to build a positive personal relationship or keep a safe distance?

Trump’s former communications chief, Anthony Scaramucci, offers sound advice about being a “co-producer” of the encounter – knowing the script and having an agenda in mind. “Get in. Produce it well. Be respectful. Get out,” he says.

There is always a risk Trump could use the meeting as a platform to criticise Australian positions he dislikes, such as Palestinian statehood, climate change, pharmaceutical pricing, and so on.

The challenge for Albanese will be emphasising the importance of the alliance, while keeping potential disputes separate. The mantra that guides Australia’s approach to China – “cooperate where we can, disagree where we must, and engage in our national interest” – may apply equally to the United States under Trump.

A certain degree of open disagreement with Washington might not be a bad thing. Closer to home, demonstrating different views on issues like Palestine and climate change could bolster Australia’s reputation as an independent actor. In Southeast Asia, in particular, Australia has sometimes been viewed as a US lackey.

What’s at stake

Some argue the upcoming meeting is crucial for shoring up AUKUS, the trilateral security agreement with the United States and United Kingdom. A formal US review of AUKUS is underway and expected to be completed in the coming weeks.

An alternative viewpoint: it might be good Trump appears to know little about it. He may be less likely to interfere or make further demands on Australia if it is not front of mind.

Either way, Australian leaders have remained outwardly confident the deal will proceed as planned, frequently emphasising its benefits to the US. It’s surely no coincidence that Canberra announced another billion-dollar payment to support the pact ahead of Albanese’s visit.

But Australian officials have also been careful to dodge certain US demands, such as committing to defend Taiwan in a potential conflict with China or raising defence spending to 3.5% of GDP.

Handled well, the Albanese-Trump encounter could reaffirm Australia’s relevance in Washington, bolster AUKUS, and project confidence in an uncertain regional order. Navigating Trump’s world of theatrics will require Albanese to stay calm, clear and confident.

Rebecca Strating currently receives funding from the governments of Australia and Korea.

– ref. Flattery or calm confidence? How Anthony Albanese should handle Donald Trump at the White House – https://theconversation.com/flattery-or-calm-confidence-how-anthony-albanese-should-handle-donald-trump-at-the-white-house-266783

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lakshini Gunasekera, PhD Candidate in Neurology, Monash University

We’ve known for a long time that women are more likely than men to have migraine attacks.

As children, girls and boys experience migraine equally. But after puberty, women are two to three times more likely to experience this potentially debilitating condition.

Recently, an Australian study showed it may be even more common than we previously thought – as many as one in three women live with migraine.

For comparison, migraine affects roughly one in 15 men in Australia.

So, what’s behind the difference? Here’s what we know.

More than a headache

Migraine is not just a bad headache – it is a complex disorder that causes the brain to process sensory information abnormally.

This means “migraine brains” can have difficulty processing information from any of the five senses:

• sight (leading to problems with light sensitivity and glare)
• sound (leading to noise sensitivity)
• smell (certain smells can trigger headaches)
• touch (leading to face or scalp tenderness)
• taste (causing distorted taste, nausea and vomiting).

Migraine attacks typically last anywhere from four hours to three days – but can be longer.

In addition to the symptoms above, attacks can include throbbing head pain, dizziness, fatigue and difficulty concentrating. It is these extra symptoms that help diagnose migraine – not the location of head pain or pain severity.

Why are attacks more frequent in women?

Puberty is when the difference between men and women emerges. This is when our bodies massively increase the production of sex hormones.

People are often surprised to learn that both men and women produce oestrogen, progesterone and testosterone. Testosterone levels are higher in men, whereas women have higher levels of oestrogen and progesterone.

However, it is not just the type of hormone that makes a difference, but the way they fluctuate over time.

For many women, there are certain “milestone moments” when their migraine tends to worsen due to hormonal fluctuations – puberty, menstruation, pregnancy and perimenopause (the lead-up to your final period).

For example, some women notice migraine flare-ups every month, linked to phases in their monthly menstrual cycle when oestrogen levels drop.

They might even be able to predict when their period will start, as migraine attacks typically start a few days before the bleeding.

How hormones affect the brain

Women with migraine can be more sensitive to hormonal changes. This is particularly the case for sudden decreases in oestrogen. But even more subtle changes to hormone levels can cause migraine attacks.

These hormonal changes can activate brain processes that trigger migraine, such as cortical spreading depression. This is a very slow wave of electrical activity that spreads in the brain, causing some areas to function more slowly than others after it passes.

Decrease in oestrogen can also affect how we receive and process information through the trigeminal nerve. This plays a key role in the onset and maintenance of migraine pain.

All kinds of fluctuations can be a trigger

Pregnancy can often destabilise migraine again and make attacks more likely, even when someone has previously enjoyed a period of good migraine control.

Migraine symptoms often become uncontrolled in the first trimester in particular, due to rapid hormonal changes needed to sustain a pregnancy. This usually settles in the second and third trimesters, when hormonal changes stabilise.

However, giving birth is yet another change.

Towards the end of pregnancy, oestrogen levels can be 30 times higher than pre-pregnancy levels, and progesterone can be 20 times higher. When these hormones plummet back to normal after giving birth, migraine attacks can often sharply worsen again.

Perimenopause can also involve random surges of oestrogen from the dwindling supplies of eggs within the ovaries – which previously produced these hormones cyclically and in abundance. This irregular hormone production can cause random spikes in migraine attacks. It can be extra challenging when combined with other symptoms of menopause such as hot flushes or mood changes.

Hormonal contraceptives and menopause hormone therapy can also affect migraine control. Sometimes, supplementing hormones at a regular, steady daily dose can help manage the hormone-sensitive headaches and other symptoms. However, for others, adding extra hormones can cause head pain to flare up.

Does migraine run in the family?

Genes also play a role. It’s not a coincidence that migraine is passed down in families through the maternal side.

This is because mothers pass on mitochondria to children (while fathers do not). Mitochondria are parts inside the cell that control energy.

People with migraine have fewer functional enzymes within their mitochondria, meaning their brains are in an energy-deficient state. This worsens with migraine attacks as there is even more stress to the system.

This is also why extra stress (such as sleep deprivation, missed meals, or emotional stress) can trigger a migraine and worsen pain.

There is also a strong link between migraine in women and anxiety and depression – conditions women are more likely to develop in response to stressful life events.

Knowing your own patterns

If you suspect hormones may be affecting your migraine attacks, it is helpful to keep a diary of symptoms, including headaches. Mark each day per month where you get migraine symptoms, as well as your period, to find patterns.

Identifying patterns in pain flares helps doctors guide you to a personalised medication plan, which may include hormone therapies or non-hormonal therapies.

Read more:
What happens in my brain when I get a migraine? And what medications can I use to treat it?

Lakshini Gunasekera receives funding from the Victorian Government Catalyst grant program to investigate hormonal therapies for menstrual migraine.

Jayashri Kulkarni is a National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Level 3 academic. She has received funding for clinical trials of antidepressants, antipsychotics from various pharmaceutical industries. No funding was received for this article and there is no conflict of interest to declare.

Caroline Gurvich and Eveline Mu do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why is migraine more common in women than men? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-migraine-more-common-in-women-than-men-265293

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nitika Garg, Professor of Marketing, UNSW Sydney

You check prices online for a flight to Melbourne today. It’s $300. You leave your browser open. Two hours later, it’s $320. Half a day later, $280. Welcome to the world of algorithmic pricing, where technology tries to figure out what price you’re willing to pay.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is quietly remaking how companies set prices. Not only do prices shift with demand (dynamic pricing), but firms are increasingly tailoring prices to individual customers (personalised pricing).

This change isn’t just technical – it raises big questions about fairness, transparency and regulation.

How different pricing models work

Dynamic pricing reacts to the market and has been used for years on travel and retail websites.

Algorithms track supply, demand, timing and competitor prices. When demand peaks, prices rise for everyone. When it eases, they fall. Think Uber’s surge fares, airline ticket jumps in school holidays, or hotel rates during major events. This kind of variable pricing is now commonplace.

Personalised pricing goes further. AI uses personal data – your browsing history, purchase habits, device, even postcode – to predict your willingness to pay. The price varies with the individual. Some call this “surveillance pricing”.

Two people looking at the same product at the same time might see different prices. A person who always abandons carts might get a discount, while someone who rarely shops might see a premium price.

A study by the European Parliament defines personalised pricing as “price differentiation for identical products or services at the same time based on information a trader holds about a potential customer”.

Whereas dynamic pricing depends on the market, personalised pricing depends on the individual consumer.

It started with airfares

This shift began with the airline industry. Since deregulation in the 1990s, airlines have used “yield management” to alter fares depending on how many seats are left or how close to the departure date a booking is made.

More recently, airlines combine that with personalisation. They draw on shopping behaviour, social media context, device type, past browsing history – all to craft fare offers uniquely for you.

Hotels followed. A hotel might raise its base rate, but send a special “member only” discount to someone who has stayed before, or offer a price drop to someone lingering on a booking page. In hotel revenue management, pricing strategies enable companies to target distinct customer segments with different benefits (such as leisure versus business travellers).

AI enhances this process by enabling automated integration of large amounts of customer data into individual pricing.

Now the trend is spreading. E-commerce platforms such as Booking.com routinely test personalised discounts, depending on your profile. Ride-share apps, grocery promos, digital subscription plans – the reach can be broad.

How AI-driven personalised pricing works

At its core, such systems mine data, a lot of it. Every click, the amount of time spent on a web page, prior purchases, abandoned carts, location, device type, browsing path – these all feed into a profile. Machine learning models predict your “willingness to pay”. Using these predictions, the system picks a price that maximises revenue while hoping not to lose the sale.

Some platforms go further. At Booking.com, teams used modelling to select which users should receive a special offer, while meeting budget constraints. This drove a 162% increase in sales, while limiting the cost of promotions for the platform.

So you might not be seeing a standard price; you might be seeing a price engineered for you.

The risk is consumer backlash

There are, of course, risks to the strategy of personalised pricing.

First, fairness. If two households in the same suburb pay different rent or mortgage rates, that seems arbitrary. Pricing that uses income proxies (such as device type or postcode) might entrench inequality. Algorithms may discriminate (even unintentionally) against certain demographics.

Second, alienation. Consumers often feel cheated when they find a lower price later. Once trust is lost, customers might turn away or seek to game the system (clear cookies, browse in incognito mode, switch devices).

Third, accountability. Currently, transparency is low; firms rarely disclose the use of personalised pricing. If AI sets a price that breaches consumer law by being misleading or discriminatory, who’s liable — the firm or the algorithm designer?

What the regulators say

In Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is taking notice. A five-year inquiry
published in June 2025 flagged algorithmic transparency, unfair trading practices, and consumer harms as central issues.

The commission said:

current laws are insufficient and regulatory reform is urgently needed.

It recommended stronger oversight of digital platforms, economy-wide unfair trading rules, and mechanisms to force algorithmic disclosure.

Is this efficient, or creepy?

We’re entering a world where your price might differ from mine — even in real time. That can unlock efficiency, new forms of loyalty pricing, or targeted discounts. But it can also feel Orwellian, unfair or exploitative.

The challenge for business is to deploy AI pricing ethically and transparently, in ways customers can trust. The challenge for regulators is to catch up. The ACCC’s actions suggest Australia is moving in that direction but many legal, technical, and philosophical questions remain.

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

– ref. AI is using your data to set personalised prices online. It could seriously backfire – https://theconversation.com/ai-is-using-your-data-to-set-personalised-prices-online-it-could-seriously-backfire-266995

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Opposition leader Sussan Ley will commit the opposition to taking a plan to cut personal income tax to the election – despite being unable to foresee what the budgetary and economic circumstances will be by then.

In a Monday speech to the Centre for Independent Studies Ley will say the Coalition’s tax plan would “start where the pressure is greatest – low and middle income earners”.

Her firm commitment comes as the opposition has been under increasing pressure to put out policy, even though it is only a few months since the election.

She is also anxious to present a contrast to the opposition’s stance at the May election when it not only did not have a dedicated income tax package but opposed Labor’s tax cuts.

In her speech, extracts of which were released ahead of delivery, Ley says while early work on the tax plan has started “we will determine the scale and scope of our eventual package as the final budget position becomes clearer over the next two and a half years.

“But during this term when Labor wastes a dollar and people hear me and my team say we oppose that spending, I want Australians to have this pledge front of mind,” Ley says.

“I have never been more convinced, more determined and more passionate about anything I have ever done in public life than I am today in making this pledge to the Australian people.

“Every instinct in my being tells me that Australians should keep more of what they earn.”

She says the work of the shadow ministry will have two primary goals – lower personal income taxes and budget repair.

“Every time we say no to Labor’s waste, we will look first to return those savings to taxpayers or to strengthen the nation’s finances.”

Ley also flags that opposition policy will target changes Labor has made in industrial relations.

“Multi-employer bargaining laws are threatening small businesses with conditions they cannot afford,” she says.

“Labor’s push to legislate one-size-fits-all approaches across whole sectors ignores the needs of many employers and workers.

”“We will chart a different course,” she says.

But Ley does not spell out precise changes the Coalition would make, in an area where it is always at risk from a Labor scare campaign.

She says the Coalition believes in enterprise bargaining and options like flexible hours, remote work arrangements and modern award structures.

“A fair and balanced industrial relations system would create more jobs and more productivity gains. These gains, shared between workers and businesses, provide the foundations for higher living standards and economic growth.”

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

– ref. Sussan Ley commits to offering income tax cuts at the election – https://theconversation.com/sussan-ley-commits-to-offering-income-tax-cuts-at-the-election-267823

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angus Dowell, PhD Candidate, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

When Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meets US President Donald Trump on Monday, the visit is expected to seal major big tech investment deals on artificial intelligence (AI) and data centres.

In the lead-up, Atlassian cofounder Scott Farquhar (in his role as chair of the Tech Council of Australia) has been pitching a plan to make Australia a “regional AI hub”.

In July, Farquhar unveiled his vision in a speech at the National Press Club of Australia in which he held up Singapore and Estonia as proof that nimble regulation to attract foreign capital can turn nations into digital powerhouses.

But based on my research on the geopolitics of data-centre markets, these examples don’t quite hold up – and following them risks narrowing the debate about Australia’s tech future at a crucial moment.

However, as Australia advances its AI agenda, these examples can offer important lessons if read more carefully.

The Estonian data embassy

Farquhar proposes Australia should host “digital embassies”. These would be datacentres on Australian soil owned by foreign companies and exempt from Australian law. He cites as a precedent Estonia’s data embassy in Luxembourg.

Estonia’s case, though, is quite different from what Farquhar proposes. After a series of Russian cyberattacks in 2007, Estonia sought to guarantee the continuity of government if its domestic systems were ever disabled.

The result was a bilateral treaty with Luxembourg. The treaty allows encrypted copies of critical state registries – citizenship, land and business records – to be stored under Estonian jurisdiction abroad.

It was an act of defensive statecraft built on the Vienna Convention. This agreement grants diplomatic immunity to state functions but explicitly excludes commercial activity.

By contrast, the digital embassies proposed by Farquhar would cater both to states and to foreign corporates. It would allow them to operate under their own law but draw on Australian resources.

Farquhar himself concedes this would necessitate revising the Vienna Convention. But this would undermine six decades of established diplomatic practice and further destabilise an already fragile international system.

Without the diplomatic costume, Farquhar’s digital embassies look more like special economic zones. These are areas designed to attract investment through the strategic loosening of laws.

What really transformed Singapore

Farquhar’s reading of Singapore’s example similarly overlooks its deeper economic and political foundations.

Singapore is often romanticised by neoliberal thinkers as a haven of free enterprise. But Singapore’s success in using its natural strengths and foreign direct investment has rested on massive state-led investment and equity in infrastructure and firms.

Through its sovereign wealth funds, Temasek and GIC, Singapore retains dominant stakes in its airlines, banks, ports and telecoms. That same strategic state investment produced Changi Airport and the Jurong Industrial Estate, cornerstones of Singapore’s regional hub status.

Australia has taken a different path.

For example, recent Australian Tax Office data shows major technology firms – such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft and Google – have secured billions in government contracts while contributing relatively little in tax.

In 2024, Microsoft reported $8.63 billion in Australian revenue, but only $118 million – about 1.4% – was payable in tax. Amazon Web Services earned $3.4 billion locally yet paid just $61 million after deductions reduced its taxable income to $204 million.

Much of this is explained by profit-shifting arrangements. Most revenue is booked in tax havens such as Ireland through inter-company “service fees”.

US tech companies have undoubtedly captured significant domestic value. However, local benefits, such as jobs, exportable digital industries and global competitiveness, remain largely hypothetical.

A cloudy memory

Australia has chased the dream of jurisdictional deregulation before.

More than a decade ago, Google and Microsoft told then prime minister Julia Gillard they could build a “Silicon Beach” here. This echoed Ireland’s “Silicon Docks” – a digital growth strategy of creating a deregulated haven for big tech.

Farquhar’s AI-hub vision appeals to the same logic. However, it has even thinner appreciation for the statecraft and public investment required.

Without it, Australia is unlikely to achieve AI hub status.

Some will argue Australia’s minerals and favorable relations with the US make it an inevitable frontier of data-centre expansion. Yet that position also gives Australia leverage to define sovereign growth on its own terms.

As economist Alison Pennington has asked, “is a shift from foreign-owned mining to foreign-owned data mining with even less control the best we can do?”

If Australia wants to build a resilient and credible AI sector, it won’t find its edge by joining the global race to the bottom – puncturing its territory with legal carve-outs and filling them with foreign-owned and unfettered direct investment.

Instead, Australia could build a model of sovereign control by investing in public infrastructure, skills and governance frameworks that secure national forms of ownership and accountability.

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

– ref. Australia’s tech lobby wants deregulated ‘digital embassies’ for offshore clients. Here’s why that might not be a great idea – https://theconversation.com/australias-tech-lobby-wants-deregulated-digital-embassies-for-offshore-clients-heres-why-that-might-not-be-a-great-idea-266769