Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lister Staveley-Smith, Professor at the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR), The University of Western Australia

Most of the ordinary matter in the universe is hydrogen. But surprisingly, less than 20% of this hydrogen sits inside galaxies. The rest lies in the vast spaces between them – the so-called intergalactic medium.

This cosmic reservoir is thought to fuel the birth of new stars, as gas slowly falls into galaxies over billions of years. Yet much of that material doesn’t stay put: supernova explosions and powerful outflows from supermassive black holes can fling gas back out into intergalactic space.

The push-and-pull between inflows and outflows is central to understanding how galaxies grow and change over cosmic time. Probing this balance is one of the aims of the WALLABY survey, carried out using the Australian SKA Pathfinder (ASKAP) telescope at Inyarrimanha Ilgari Bundara, CSIRO’s Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory in Western Australia.

A new discovery from WALLABY, published today in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, sheds new light on the cosmic cycle of matter into, through and out of galaxies.

What is WALLABY?

Despite its name, WALLABY isn’t about animals. It’s a somewhat contrived acronym – Widefield ASKAP L-band Legacy All-sky Blind surveY – for a large survey of neutral hydrogen (the atomic form of hydrogen) across nearly half the southern sky. The ASKAP telescope is sensitive enough to detect hydrogen in and around galaxies up to a billion light years away.

Because it’s a “blind” survey, WALLABY doesn’t target known galaxies. Instead, it scans huge patches of sky – each night covering an area about 150 times the size of the full Moon.

A galactic bridge

We then use automated algorithms to search for signs of hydrogen in the resulting data. One such search revealed an unusual gas bridge linking two otherwise unremarkable galaxies on the outskirts of the Virgo cluster, in the constellation Virgo. The bridge, at least 160,000 light years long, likely formed through tidal interactions between two dwarf galaxies known as NGC 4532 and DDO 137.

These tides are the cosmic equivalent of Earth’s ocean tides, but on a vastly larger scale and made of hydrogen rather than water. Gas pulled from the galaxies now stretches between them, filling the surrounding intergalactic space.

Such bridges are hard to detect because they contain few stars. But we have a local example: the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, two dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way, are joined by a 70,000-light-year-long gas bridge.

An extraordinary tail

The newly discovered bridge also helps explain a long-standing puzzle: an enormous gas tail streaming away from the dwarf galaxies NGC 4532 and DDO 137, first detected more than 30 years ago with the Arecibo telescope. This tail is ten times longer than the bridge and is the largest ever observed from a galaxy system.

New observations suggest that while tidal forces created the bridge and the envelope of gas around the galaxies, the spectacular tail was produced by another process.

As the pair of galaxies plunges into the Virgo cluster, they encounter extremely hot, thin gas that fills the cluster. The galaxies’ motion through this medium produces ram pressure – much like the resistance felt when cycling into a strong headwind – which strips gas from them and sweeps it out behind.

Remarkably, the gas density required for this effect is only around ten atoms per cubic metre, a value consistent with new measurements from the eROSITA X-ray telescope. Thanks to the galaxies’ high infall speed – more than 800 kilometres per second – this sparse medium is enough to create the vast tail.

The bigger picture

These two galaxies are just a fraction of the 200,000 WALLABY expects to detect by the end of its survey. Each discovery adds to our picture of how gas flows in and out of galaxies, enriching the intergalactic medium and shaping galactic evolution.

Together, they will help astronomers untangle the so-called baryonic cycle – the continuous recycling of matter between galaxies and the space around them.

Lister Staveley-Smith receives research funding from ICRAR, the Western Australian government, and the University of Western Australia.

– ref. What a newly discovered gas bridge between galaxies tells us about the cosmic cycle of matter – https://theconversation.com/what-a-newly-discovered-gas-bridge-between-galaxies-tells-us-about-the-cosmic-cycle-of-matter-265760

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robyn Arianrhod, Affiliate, School of Mathematics, Monash University

The Irish mathematician and physicist William Rowan Hamilton, who was born 220 years ago last month, is famous for carving some mathematical graffiti into Dublin’s Broome Bridge in 1843.

But in his lifetime, Hamilton’s reputation rested on work done in the 1820s and early 1830s, when he was still in his twenties. He developed new mathematical tools for studying light rays (or “geometric optics”) and the motion of objects (“mechanics”).

Intriguingly, Hamilton developed his mechanics using an analogy between the path of a light ray and that of a material particle. This is not so surprising if light is a material particle, as Isaac Newton had believed, but what if it were a wave? What would it mean for the equations of waves and particles to be analogous in some way?

The answer would come a century later, when the pioneers of quantum mechanics realised Hamilton’s approach offered more than just an analogy: it was a glimpse of the true nature of the physical world.

The puzzle of light

To understand Hamilton’s place in this story, we need to go back a little further. For ordinary objects or particles, the basic laws (or equations) of motion had been published by Newton in 1687. Over the next 150 years, researchers such as Leonard Euler, Joseph-Louis Lagrange and then Hamilton made more flexible and sophisticated versions of Newton’s ideas.

“Hamiltonian mechanics” proved so useful that it wasn’t until 1925 – almost 100 years later – that anybody stopped to revisit how Hamilton had derived it.

His analogy with light paths worked regardless of light’s true nature, but at the time, there was good evidence that light was a wave. In 1801, British scientist Thomas Young had performed his famous double-slit experiment, in which two light beams produced an “interference” pattern like the overlapping ripples on a pond when two stones are dropped in. Six decades later, James Clerk Maxwell realised light behaved like a rippling wave in the electromagnetic field.

But then, in 1905, Albert Einstein showed some of light’s properties could only be explained if light could also behave as a stream of particle-like “photons” (as they were later dubbed). He linked this idea to a suggestion made by Max Planck in 1900, that atoms could only emit or absorb energy in discrete lumps.

Energy, frequency and mass

In his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, where light dislodges electrons from certain metals, Einstein used Planck’s formula for these energy lumps (or quanta): E = hν. E is the amount of energy, ν (the Greek letter nu) is the photon’s frequency, and h is a number called Planck’s constant.

But in another paper the same year, Einstein introduced a different formula for the energy of a particle: a version of the now-famous E = mc ². E is again the energy, m is the mass of the particle, and c is the speed of light.

So here were two ways of calculating energy: one, associated with light, depended on the light’s frequency (a quantity connected with oscillations or waves); the other, associated with material particles, depended on mass.

Did this suggest a deeper connection between matter and light?

This thread was picked up in 1924 by Louis de Broglie, who proposed that matter, like light, could behave as both a wave and a particle. Subsequent experiments would prove him right, but it was already clear that quantum particles, such as electrons and protons, played by very different rules from everyday objects.

A new kind of mechanics was needed: a “quantum mechanics”.

The wave equation

The year 1925 ushered in not one but two new theories. First was “matrix mechanics”, initiated by Werner Heisenberg and developed by Max Born, Paul Dirac and others.

A few months later, Erwin Schrödinger began work on “wave mechanics”. Which brings us back to Hamilton.

Schrödinger was struck by Hamilton’s analogy between optics and mechanics. With a leap of imagination and much careful thought, he was able to combine de Broglie’s ideas and Hamilton’s equations for a material particle, to produce a “wave equation” for the particle.

An ordinary wave equation shows how a “wave function” varies through time and space. For sound waves, for example, the wave equation shows the displacement of air, due to changes in pressure, in different places over time.

But with Schrödinger’s wave function, it was not clear exactly what was waving. Indeed, whether it represents a physical wave or merely a mathematical convenience is still controversial.

Waves and particles

Nonetheless, the wave-particle duality is at the heart of quantum mechanics, which underpins so much of our modern technology – from computer chips to lasers and fibre-optic communication, from solar cells to MRI scanners, electron microscopes, the atomic clocks used in GPS, and much more.

Indeed, whatever it is that is waving, Schrödinger’s equation can be used to predict accurately the chance of observing a particle – such as an electron in an atom – at a given time and place.

That’s another strange thing about the quantum world: it is probabilistic, so you can’t pin these ever-oscillating electrons down to a definite location in advance, the way the equations of “classical” physics do for everyday particles such as cricket balls and communications satellites.

Schrödinger’s wave equation enabled the first correct analysis of the hydrogen atom, which only has a single electron. In particular, it explained why an atom’s electrons can only occupy specific (quantised) energy levels.

It was eventually shown that Schrödinger’s quantum waves and Heisenberg’s quantum matrices were equivalent in almost all situations. Heisenberg, too, had used Hamiltonian mechanics as a guide.

Today, quantum equations are still often written in terms of their total energy – a quantity called the “Hamiltonian”, based on Hamilton’s expression for the energy of a mechanical system.

Hamilton had hoped the mechanics he developed by analogy with light rays would prove widely applicable. But he surely never imagined how prescient his analogy would be in our understanding of the quantum world.

Robyn Arianrhod 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. 100 years before quantum mechanics, one scientist glimpsed a link between light and matter – https://theconversation.com/100-years-before-quantum-mechanics-one-scientist-glimpsed-a-link-between-light-and-matter-261551

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

United States President Donald Trump is well advanced in his systematic campaign to undermine the American media and eviscerate its function of holding him and others in power to account.

Since the late 18th century this function has often been called the fourth estate. It’s the idea the media is a watchdog over the other three estates which, in modern democracies, are parliament, the executive government and the judiciary.

In the US, Trump has had considerable success in weakening the other three.

His Republican Party controls both Houses of Congress, and they have shown no sign of wishing to restrain him.

He has stacked the executive government with cronies and ideological fellow travellers, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr (and his anti-vaccination agenda) as secretary of health, a brief stint by Elon Musk as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, and former Fox News host Pete Hegseth as defence secretary.

He has secured the support of the Republican Party to stack the Supreme Court with politically aligned judges who have routinely struck down lower court decisions against Trump, most notably in the matter of deporting migrants to countries other than their homelands.

Pulling funding, applying pressure

The fourth estate’s turn started in March, when Trump stripped federal funding from Voice of America, a public broadcasting service with a global reach, because it was “anti-Trump” and “radical”.

These cuts also hit two other projections of American soft power, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia.

In July, he cut funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) in a move that ended all federal support for National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting service and their member stations.

Now he has turned to the private sector media. He does not have the power to cut their funding, so he is taking a different approach: financial shake-downs and threats to the foundations of their business.

In October 2024, even before he was elected, Trump sued the Paramount company for US$10 billion (about A$15 billion). He alleged an interview with Kamala Harris during the 2024 election campaign had been “deceptively edited” by the CBS television network, a Paramount subsidiary.

In February 2025, after he had been sworn in as president, Trump upped the ante to US$20 billion (A$30 billion).

The case was considered by lawyers to have no legal merit, but at that time, Paramount was anxious to merge with Skydance Media, and this was subject to regulatory approval from the Trump administration.

So Paramount was vulnerable to, how shall we say? Blackmail? Extortion? Subornation?

A busy, dangerous July

On July 2, Paramount settled with Trump for US$16 million (A$24 million), which ostensibly is to go towards funding his presidential library.

On July 17 Paramount’s CBS network announced its longtime Late Show would be cancelled from May 2026 after its presenter Stephen Colbert, an outspoken critic of Trump, condemned the corporate cave-in. The Trump administration approved the merger shortly after.

Subsequently the House of Representatives Judiciary and Energy and Commerce committees announced an investigation into whether the $16 million settlement constituted a bribe.

Also in July, Trump sued Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal for defamation arising from an article linking Trump to the sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. He claimed the now-familiar amount of US$10 billion (A$15 billion) in damages.

Legal experts in the US say Trump has next to no chance of winning. In the US, public figures who sue for defamation have to prove that the publisher was motivated by malice, which means they published either knowing the material to be untrue, or not caring whether it was true or not.

This case is never likely to end up in court, nor is it likely that Trump will see a red cent of Murdoch’s money. The two men need each other too much. To borrow a phrase from the Cold War, they are in a MAD relationship: Mutually Assured Destruction.

Coming to heel, one by one

Rupert Murdoch was a guest at Windsor Castle at the recent banquet given for Trump by King Charles.

Considering Murdoch’s bitter history with the Royal Family, it is difficult to imagine Buckingham Palace inviting him without Trump’s urging. It may have been a sign of rapprochement between the two men.

Meanwhile Trump has set his sights on The New York Times, suing it for defamation and claiming US$15 billion (A$27 billion).

Referring to the Times’ endorsement of Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, he said it had become a “mouthpiece for the Radical Left Democrat Party”.

This case faces the same difficulties as his suit against the Wall Street Journal. The question is whether the Times will stand its ground or whether, like Paramount, it caves.

Among the big three US newspapers, the Times is the only one so far not to have been intimidated by Trump. The other two, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, refused to endorse a candidate at the election on instructions from their owners, Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong respectively, both of whose wider business interests are vulnerable to Trumpian retribution.

Read more:
Two of the US’s biggest newspapers have refused to endorse a presidential candidate. This is how democracy dies

The Post’s decision was condemned as “spineless” by its celebrated former editor Marty Baron.

Now Disney is in the firing line. It owns another of the big four US television networks, ABC. On September 17, it pulled its late-night talk show Jimmy Kimmel Live.

Kimmel had responded to White House accusations that leftists were responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk, saying:

we hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.

In what had all the hallmarks of a preemptive buckle, ABC and two of its affiliate networks took Kimmel off air indefinitely after Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chair of the Federal Communications Commission, said his agency might “take action” against the network because of Kimmel’s comments.

Kimmel is returning to TV, but the damage is already done.

Read more:
Jimmy Kimmel’s cancellation is the latest sign we’re witnessing the end of US democracy

Over at cable network MSNBC, its senior political analyst Matthew Dowd was fired after he had uttered on air the blindingly obvious statement that Kirk’s own radical rhetoric may have contributed to the shooting that killed him.

This cable network is no longer part of the main NBC network, so it can’t be said that NBC itself has yet come to heel.

Within 24 hours of Brendan Carr’s veiled threat, Trump stripped the veil away and made the threat explicit. Trump said of the national networks:

All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed, they’re not allowed to do that. They’re an arm of the Democrat party. I would think maybe their licence should be taken away.

Whether cancelling a licence would breach the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, is a question that might ultimately come before the Supreme Court. Given the present ideological proclivities of that court, the outcome would be by no means certain.

So Trump now has two out of three national newspapers, and two out of the big four national television networks, on the run.

Only one national newspaper and two national networks to go, and one of those is Murdoch’s Fox News, Trump’s most reliable cheerleader.

Denis Muller 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. Lawsuits, cancellations and bullying: Trump is systematically destroying press freedom – https://theconversation.com/lawsuits-cancellations-and-bullying-trump-is-systematically-destroying-press-freedom-265848

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Beard, Associate Professor in Public Health, University of Sydney

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared Australia free of measles in 2014.

Historically, high childhood measles vaccination coverage and thorough follow-up of suspected cases have helped prevent outbreaks.

But in the last six weeks, a growing outbreak in Queensland – along with cases and clusters in Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales – shows measles can still spread here.

In 2021, no cases were recorded in Australia. But case notifications have continued to climb since, with 57 reported in 2024 and 122 so far in 2025 – and it’s only September. Some of these cases are in children too young to be vaccinated, but most are in adults.

So, what’s going on? Is Australia at risk of losing its herd immunity with lower vaccination rates? Let’s unpack the evidence.

What is herd immunity?

Measles is one of the most contagious human diseases. Symptoms generally include red sore eyes, a runny nose, cough and fever. The distinctive rash usually doesn’t appear until a few days into the illness, meaning the infection may spread to others before measles is suspected.

An unvaccinated person with measles will on average transmit the virus to 12–18 people in a non-immune population. This reproductive rate is six times higher than the original strain of COVID-19.

For this reason, the WHO recommends at least 95% of the total population receive two doses of the measles vaccine in childhood.

This is to create “herd immunity”.

This means a large proportion of the population is immune, either through vaccination or previous infection, protecting the most vulnerable – including those who can’t get vaccinated.

The measles vaccine contains a very weakened form of measles virus. So it can’t be given to people whose immune systems will struggle to contain it, for example, those undergoing chemotherapy.

The measles “herd immunity threshold” is 93–95% in the total population. It is higher for measles than many other diseases because it is so contagious.

If immunity falls below this level, infection may start to spread more widely and large outbreaks can occur.

How do vaccines work in Australia?

Australia has had a nationally funded measles vaccination program since 1972.

The measles vaccine is recommended in two doses, either in combination with mumps and rubella (as MMR vaccine) or with varicella to also prevent chickenpox (the MMRV vaccine).

Under the National Immunisation Program, children get the first dose (MMR) at 12 months and the second (MMRV) at 18 months of age.

Infants as young as six months can safely receive the MMR vaccine for free in certain cases, such as when travelling to countries where measles is occurring.

This currently includes many countries across the world, including in North America and the United Kingdom.

Are vaccination rates going down?

In Australia, immunisation rates in Australia had been increasing prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2002, the proportion of five year-olds who’d had two doses of the measles vaccine was just 82%. By the time the pandemic arrived, in 2020, this had risen to 96.8% – and was 94% among two year-olds.

However, since 2020 rates of “fully vaccinated” young children – meaning they have had most recommended vaccines – have fallen year on year.

The proportion of two year-olds who’d had two doses of the measles vaccine fell to 93% in 2023.

The timeliness of measles vaccination has also fallen. Around one in three children now get their first dose late. This means more children are at risk of catching measles at a younger age, when the disease tends to be more serious.

These trends are concerning.

In terms of overall herd immunity, the impacts at this stage may be relatively small. But measles immunity gaps are much greater in some parts of Australia, such as the north coast of New South Wales and the Gold Coast in Queensland.

Measles immunity is also lower in some adults, because vaccination rates were lower when they were children. A second dose of measles vaccine was not added to the National Immunisation Program until 1992.

Read more:
Why people born between 1966 and 1994 are at greater risk of measles – and what to do about it

Why is coverage dropping?

There is a mix of reasons vaccination coverage has been falling in Australia since the COVID-19 pandemic.

These include an increase in questions about the need for, safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

The enormous rise in false and misleading information can sow doubt about the benefits of recommended vaccines.

Concerns about vaccination should be addressed in a respectful way, making use of accurate and up-to-date information, such as that available on the Sharing Knowledge About Immunisation (SKAI) website.

But we also need to minimise practical barriers to accessing vaccination, such as the cost, or difficulty making or getting an appointment.

To maintain herd immunity, we need to ensure all adults under 60 and children from one year are two dose measles vaccinated.

In Australia, free catch-up measles vaccination is available for anyone born after 1966 who doesn’t have proof of two doses of measles vaccine.

Amid a global resurgence of measles and more cases in travellers, supporting international efforts to boost immunisation rates in all countries is critical. This will further reduce the chance of outbreaks here.

We would like to thank Zoe Croker for assistance in drafting this article.

Kristine Macartney administers Australian and NSW Government funding to the NCIRS and NCIRS receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and Gavi the Vaccine Alliance.

Frank Beard 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. New measles cases in Queensland show ‘herd immunity’ is more important than ever – https://theconversation.com/new-measles-cases-in-queensland-show-herd-immunity-is-more-important-than-ever-265850

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Strong, Associate Professor, Music Industry, RMIT University

Last week, Spain joined Ireland, Slovenia, Iceland and the Netherlands in announcing it will not take part in Eurovision 2026 if Israel is allowed to participate. Other countries such as Belgium and Finland have indicated they are considering withdrawing. Boycotting countries would not send an act, pay to participate or be able to vote.

Spain is one of Eurovision’s “big five” competitors. The broadcasters from Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy make the largest financial contributions to the contest, and their acts are guaranteed a spot in the grand final each year.

The addition of one of the big five to the boycott raises the stakes for the contest. The inclusion of Spain will likely increase the legitimacy of the protest and put pressure on countries to declare their position.

Spain’s announcement coincided with a United Nations inquiry calling the events unfolding in Gaza a genocide. In supporting the Spanish broadcaster’s decision, the country’s culture minister Ernest Urtasun equated allowing Israel to continue to compete with looking away from the atrocities being committed.

He said

if Israel takes part, and if we don’t manage to get it thrown out, then we’ll have to take steps [such as withdrawing]. I don’t think we can normalise Israel’s participation in international forums as if nothing’s happened.

Previous controversies

Germany, another of the big five, has been critical of the boycott. On Saturday, their culture minister Wolfram Weimer referred to the foundations of Eurovision, designed to unify people through song after the second world war, to argue against excluding Israel.

He said

It’s precisely because Eurovision was born on the ruins of war that it should not become a scene of exclusion.

Austria, the host for 2026, has similarly made an appeal to the peaceful and collaborative nature of the event in a plea for countries to not drop out.

However, the hosts may find themselves with an easier job if Israel does not compete. The previous two events have been marred by significant controversy. Pro-Palestinian protesters were on the streets in host cities Basel, Switzerland, in 2025, and Malmo, Sweden, in 2024, and were subject to at times violent crackdowns by police.

In the arena, there were reports of tensions between the Israeli delegation and those from other countries, and fans tried to stage protests during the Israeli performance.

Who decides on who participates?

Israel is a member of the body that organises Eurovision, the European Broadcasting Union, an alliance of public service media organisations. Australia’s SBS is an associate member.

Broadcasters decide on who the act will be for their country (sometimes using a public vote), and help fund the event. The EBU has the final call on which countries can take part, and what songs can be performed, including demanding changes to songs deemed too political.

The EBU have pushed the deadline for countries to commit to taking part in the May 2026 competition from early October to mid-December, as it continues a consultation process with broadcasters over Israel’s inclusion.

Governments recognise the contest’s utility as a form of diplomacy, and the countries that are participating in the Eurovision boycott have all strongly criticised Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The actions of the broadcasters who have said they will boycott the event reflect their nations’ positions. National broadcasters are unlikely to ignore national policies and relationships when acting in an area like this that will attract international attention.

Russia’s removal from the 2022 contest is being used as a precedent for the EBU sanctioning a country. In announcing their decision to block Russia from participating, the EBU stated

in light of the unprecedented crisis in Ukraine, the inclusion of a Russian entry in this year’s Contest would bring the competition into disrepute.

In response, Russia has announced plans to revive the Intervision song contest, the USSR’s cold war era answer to Eurovision, further deepening a reemerging political divide.

However, using Eurovision as a sanction may be more effective with Israel. Israel’s participation in international cultural events such as Eurovision is an effort at cultural diplomacy. These platforms allow Israel to present itself as progressive and cool.

In particular, Israel’s use of queer performers at Eurovision has been criticsed as “pinkwashing” – displaying support for the LGBTQIA+ community to construct an image of tolerance and morality.

While the UN declaration that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza already makes that image hard to maintain, condemnation from cultural institutions keeps the issue in the spotlight.

Where to for Australia?

Pressure has been building on Israel politically over the last 24 months. This week Australia recognised Palestine as a state. However, the destruction of Gaza continues, with renewed offensives on a desperate population.

Calls are beginning for Australia to join the boycott.

While this would be a decision made by SBS, which is officially independent from the government, there will be many factors influencing what they do. A boycott could create diplomatic tensions. There may also be backlash for SBS amid efforts to combat antisemitism which critics say risks conflating antisemitism with legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and constraining free speech on Gaza.

But some Australians are holding small hope that maybe SBS can show the way forward for our government and sanction Israel – even if just at a song contest.

Catherine Strong is affiliated with the Defend Dissent Coalition.

– ref. Countries are threatening to boycott Eurovision over Israel’s inclusion. How will Australia respond? – https://theconversation.com/countries-are-threatening-to-boycott-eurovision-over-israels-inclusion-how-will-australia-respond-265747

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nial Wheate, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

The US government has announced controversial guidance on the prevention and treatment of autism in children.

New health recommendations aim to discourage pregnant women from taking the painkiller paracetamol – also known as acetaminophen and by the brand name Tylenol – to prevent autism.

The recommendations also include using the drug leucovorin to treat speech-related difficulties that children with autism sometimes experience.

So what is leucovorin and what does the science say about its ability to treat autism?

What is leucovorin?

Leucovorin is a form of folic acid, a B vitamin our bodies usually get from foods such as legumes, citrus fruits and fortified grains.

The medication is most often used in cancer treatment. It’s typically used alongside the chemotherapy drug fluorouracil, a cancer treatment that stops cancer cells from making DNA and dividing. Leucovorin enhances the effects of fluorouracil.

Leucovorin is also used to reduce the toxic side effects of methotrexate, another chemotherapy drug.

Methotrexate works by blocking the body’s use of folate, which healthy cells need to make DNA. Leucovorin provides an active form of folate that healthy cells can use to make DNA, thereby “rescuing” them while methotrexate continues to target cancer cells.

Because methotrexate is also used to treat the skin condition psoriasis, leucovorin can also be used as a rescue agent during treatment for this autoimmune condition.

Why is folate important?

Because folate is essential for making DNA and other genetic material, which cells need to grow and repair properly, it’s especially important during pregnancy.

This is because insufficient folate is linked to the development of spina bifida, a condition where a baby’s spine does not develop correctly. For this reason, women are advised to take folic acid supplements before conception and during the early months of pregnancy.

Folate is also important for supporting the production of red blood cells and overall brain function.

Why is it being considered to treat autism?

The recommendation to use leucovorin to treat autism seems to stem from a theory that low levels of folate in the brain can lead to a condition called cerebral folate deficiency.

Children with cerebral folate deficiency don’t usually display symptoms for the first two years. Then they show signs of speech difficulties, seizures and intellectual disability.

As the signs of autism are similar and it usually presents at around the same age, some people have proposed a link between cerebral folate deficiency and autism.

What does the evidence say?

So can giving children folate, in the form of leucovorin, help them to function better with autism? The evidence says maybe yes, and here’s what we know so far.

A review of the evidence in 2021 analysed the results of 21 studies that used leucovorin for autism or cerebral folate deficiency. Children who took the drug generally had improved autism symptoms. But the authors also said more studies were needed to confirm the findings.

Since then, a small 2024 study involved about 80 children aged two to ten years with autism. Half took a daily maximum dose of 50mg of folinic acid (similar to leucovorin), the other half took a placebo. Children given folinic acid showed more pronounced improvement when compared with those who took the placebo.

A similar 2025 study examined the same dose of folinic acid given to Chinese children with autism. Those given folinic acid had greater improvement in a type of social skill known as social reciprocity when compared with children given placebo.

While promising, none of these trials are at the level to change medical practice. We’d need further, larger studies before doctors can make a proper recommendation.

Like all drugs, leucovorin has side effects. The most serious or common are severe allergic reactions, seizures and fits, and nausea and vomiting.

In a nutshell

Overall, the latest health recommendations are not yet backed by sufficient evidence.

While the US Food and Drug Administration will now allow doctors to prescribe leucovorin to treat autism symptoms, the Australian government should not change its prescribing guidance.

Support for people with autism should continue to follow evidence-based best practice until the data from clinical trials of leucovorin is more robust.

Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd (a medical device company) and was previously a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. He is a member of the Haleon Australia Pty Ltd Pain Advisory Board. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design and testing.

Jasmine Lee 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. What is leucovorin, the drug the Trump administration says can treat autism? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-leucovorin-the-drug-the-trump-administration-says-can-treat-autism-265849

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zoe Goodall, Research Associate, HHAUS research group, Swinburne University of Technology

Sharehousing has traditionally been a rite of passage for many young people and students in Australia, but is also increasingly common among all age groups.

Conflicts with landlords – over issues such as repairs, leaks or mould – are too often part of the renting experience. Our new research explores how renting is complicated for sharehouses – where relationships between housemates can vary from a tight-knit group of friends who share everything and care for each other, to renting a room from a stranger.

Our paper, published today in the journal Housing, Theory and Society, is based on interviews with 25 sharehouse tenants in Melbourne.

We found that achieving “housing justice” is often no simple matter for people living in a sharehouse. Problems with housing conditions, between housemates, and the landlord or real estate agent, can overlap and compound each other.

When faced with these issues, sharehouse tenants can pursue legal action, attempt to negotiate, move out, or just put up with it. But these strategies can cause problems for tenants, especially when not not everyone in the sharehouse agrees on the way forward.

Mould and other housing problems

Many participants spoke about living – currently or previously – in poor-quality housing. One enduring theme that emerged was the problem of mould.

Penelope (all names changed to protect identities) said she’d lived in a sharehouse that was “decrepit” and

excessively damp and mouldy, to the point where all of our furniture and clothes and stuff started to get mould on it.

She considered taking the landlord to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) but “didn’t end up getting all the way to VCAT, because it’s extremely difficult.”

In the end, Penelope and her housemate had to leave the house

very urgently because our stuff was starting to get ruined.

They were temporarily homeless, while the landlord and real estate agent “got away with it” and continued to rent out the house.

Lucas, meanwhile, described the futility of trying to negotiate with property managers who would not respond to maintenance requests, meaning he had to put up with “untenable” housing:

There’s definitely been times where I’ve just felt like, all I have to do is grit my teeth and take it. Because otherwise, I’m just gonna lose.

Sharing as a source of both solidarity and conflict

Housemate relationships are at the heart of sharehousing.

One positive aspect of these relationships is that they may help build solidarity when experiencing problems with housing quality or other conflicts with the property manager.

One participant, Sarah, told of how her housemate successfully secured compensation from their property manager after the landlord started major renovations while she and her housemates were still living there. Seeing her housemate gain compensation enabled her to do the same.

On the other hand, relationships with housemates can complicate attempts to achieve justice.

Stacey, another interviewee, reported how efforts to negotiate with a property manager eventually led to “internal conflict within the house”, and how one housemate became hostile during the process.

Another interviewee, Tayler, also experienced problems with a landlord who was also his housemate, which intensified the conflict.

One participant, Jess, had also experienced domestic violence from a housemate.

I had to, I left before the lease was up. Like I moved back in with my parents because it was so bad. But I continued paying rent because […] I just didn’t want to deal with the further consequences of that.

While Jess was able to move out in this scenario, others described how this wasn’t possible due to a shortage of affordable housing. For example, Janet described how she’d prefer to move out rather than confront a housemate, but didn’t always have the option:

I’ve only left when I’ve had the capacity to do so. Often I’ve had to stay quite a lot longer than I would have liked to, because [I] don’t have the option to move, can’t afford it or nothing available.

Relationships and regulations

Regulations surrounding renters and landlords are framed in a way that assumes there are two parties in a dispute: the tenant and the property owner.

This renders the relationships within sharehousing invisible. Yet, there is clear evidence they impact the way tenancy disputes are managed and addressed.

For example, one interviewee named May was invited to move into a sharehouse by her friend. However, the friend’s property manager said May could not move in if she brought her cat (which is illegal in Victoria).

This shows how sharehousing depends on relationships between housemates and relationships with the property manager. May was aware of the need to put up with this to secure housing:

renters aren’t in a position of power. So, you kind of have to play the game just to have a roof over your head.

Relationships matter when we think about renting problems. While this research focused on sharehousing, there are implications for other renter households especially where conflict or even family or intimate partner violence occur.

Our future research will look at possible policy solutions to better capture the nuances of sharehousing in Australia.

Zoe Goodall has received funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), the Victorian government, the Brian M. Davis Charitable Foundation, Kids Under Cover, and YWCA Australia. She is a recipient of an Australian government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Deb Batterham has received funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) and the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council (ARC). She previously worked for Launch Housing which is a provider of Specialist Homelessness Services and is a registered Community Housing provider.

– ref. Managing mould, housemates, and landlords: new research reveals sharehousing horror stories – https://theconversation.com/managing-mould-housemates-and-landlords-new-research-reveals-sharehousing-horror-stories-265851

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Wood, Professor, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead Clinical School, University of Sydney

United States President Donald Trump has urged pregnant women to avoid paracetamol except in cases of extremely high fever, because of a possible link to autism.

Paracetamol – known as acetaminophen or by the brand name Tylenol in the US – is commonly used to relieve pain, such as back pain and headaches, and to reduce fever during pregnancy.

Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration today re-affirmed existing medical guidelines that it’s safe for pregnant women to take paracetamol at any stage of pregnancy.

Paracetamol is classified as a Category A drug. This means many pregnant women and women of childbearing age have long used it without increases in birth defects or harmful effects on the fetus.

It’s important to treat fevers in pregnancy. Untreated high fever in early pregnancy is linked to miscarriage, neural tube defects, cleft lip and palate, and heart defects. Infections in pregnancy have also been linked to greater risks of autism.

How has the research evolved in recent years?

In 2021 an international panel of experts looked at evidence from human and animal studies of paracetamol use in pregnancy. Their consensus statement warned that paracetamol use during pregnancy may alter fetal development, with negative effects on child health.

Read more:
Take care with paracetamol when pregnant — but don’t let pain or fever go unchecked

Last month a a group of researchers from Harvard University examined the association between paracetamol and neurodevelopmental disorders including autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in existing research.

They identified 46 studies and found 27 studies reported links between taking paracetamol in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders in the offspring, nine showed no significant link, and four indicated it was associated with a lower risk.

The most notable study in their review, due to its sophisticated statistical analysis, covered almost 2.5 million children born in Sweden between 1995 and 2019, and was published in 2024.

The authors found there was a marginally increased risk of autism and ADHD associated with paracetamol use during pregnancy. However, when the researchers analysed matched-full sibling pairs, to account for genetic and environmental influences the siblings shared, the researchers found no evidence of an increased risk of autism, ADHD, or intellectual disability associated with paracetamol use.

Siblings of autistic children have a 20% chance of also being autistic. Environmental factors within a home can also affect the risk of autism. To account for these influences, the researchers compared the outcomes of siblings where one child was exposed to paracetamol in utero and the other wasn’t, or when the siblings had different levels of exposure.

The authors of the 2024 study concluded that associations found in other studies may be attributable to “confounding” factors: influences that can distort research findings.

A further review published in February examined the strengths and limitations of the published literature on the effect of paracetamol use in pregnancy on the child’s risk of developing ADHD and autism. The authors noted most studies were difficult to interpret because they had biases, including in selecting participants, and they didn’t for confounding factors.

When confounding factors among siblings were accounted for, they found any associations weakened substantially. This suggests shared genetic and environmental factors may have caused bias in the original observations.

Working out what causes or increases the risk of autism

A key piece to consider when assessing the risk of paracetamol and any link to neurodevelopmental disorders is how best to account for many other potentially relevant factors that may be important.

We still don’t know all the causes of autism, but several genetic and non-genetic factors have been implicated: the mother’s medication use, illnesses, body mass index, alcohol consumption, smoking status, pregnancy complications including pre-eclampsia and fetal growth restriction, the mother and father’s ages, whether the child is an older or younger sibling, the newborn’s Apgar scores to determine their state of health, breastfeeding, genetics, socioeconomic status, and societal characteristics.

It’s particularly hard to measure the last three characteristics, so they are often not appropriately taken into account in studies.

Other times, it may not be the use of paracetamol that is important but rather the mother’s underlying illness or reason paracetamol is being taken, such as the fever associated with an infection, that influences child development.

Read more:
Autism is not a scare story: What parents need to know about medications in pregnancy, genetic risk and misleading headlines

I’m pregnant, what does this mean for me?

There is no clear evidence that paracetamol has any harmful effects on an unborn baby.

But as with any medicine taken during pregnancy, paracetamol should be used at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time.

If you’re pregnant and develop a fever, it’s important to treat this fever, including with paracetamol.

If the recommended dose of paracetamol doesn’t control your symptoms or you’re in pain, contact your doctor, midwife or maternity hospital for further medical advice.

Remember, the advice for taking ibuprofen and other NSAIDS when you’re pregnant is different. Ibuprofen (sold under the brand name Nurofen) should not be taken during pregnancy.

Nicholas Wood previously received funding from the NHMRC and has held a Churchill fellowship.

Debra Kennedy 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. It’s OK to use paracetamol in pregnancy. Here’s what the science says about the link with autism – https://theconversation.com/its-ok-to-use-paracetamol-in-pregnancy-heres-what-the-science-says-about-the-link-with-autism-265768

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Thomas, Honorary Lecturer in Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Three million years ago, an extinct relative of todays’s great penguins – emperors and kings – lived in Aotearoa New Zealand.

We know this because our new study describes a spectacular fossilised skull of a great penguin found on the Taranaki coast.

Overall, it is 31% longer than the skull of an emperor penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri), which can be more than a metre tall and weigh upwards of 35 kilograms.

Compared to emperor penguins, however, the Taranaki great penguin had a much stronger and longer beak. It probably looked more like a king penguin (Aptenodytes patagonicus), only much bigger.

At the time, the world was warmer than today. But when the climate cooled, this penguin vanished.

We argue the cold wasn’t to blame because crested and little penguins in New Zealand weathered the same change and remained. Great penguins shifted south and today live in the frozen wastes of Antarctica. So what drove their ancient relative to extinction?

The sediments that now form beach-side cliffs in South Taranaki were deposited at a time when global temperatures were about 3°C above those of the pre-industrial era. Fossils from this period are transforming our understanding of how biodiversity might respond to rising temperatures.

For example, Aotearoa was home to box fish and monk seals, both of which are still (sub)tropical species today. In a strange contradiction, they coexisted with great penguins – now only found in much colder climates – in ancient New Zealand.

The northernmost breeding colonies of king penguins today are around latitude 46.1°S in the subantarctic Crozet Islands, where seawater temperatures reach 3-10°C. From there, it only gets colder towards the higher latitudes where emperor penguins live.

Three million years ago, Aotearoa’s great penguins extended as far north as 40.5°S, where South Taranaki was located then. They foraged in waters that were 20°C, much warmer than their relatives experience today.

This balmy existence ended with the Pleistocene ice ages around 2.58 million years ago. Ice extent and sea level shifted back and forward as temperatures fluctuated and ultimately ratcheted downwards. But why would such cooling eradicate giant penguins, which thrive under polar conditions today, from New Zealand?

Giant aerial predators

Fossil evidence for giant penguins in Aotearoa is limited and the exact reasons for their demise remain unclear. Even so, their sheer presence suggests they were less constrained by sea surface temperatures than previously thought. Another mechanism must be at play.

Up until about 500 years ago, Aotearoa was the hunting ground of the giant Haast’s eagle and the huge Forbes’ harrier. These were big raptors. They included large birds like moa in their diet. Their ancestors arrived from Australia inside the last three million years.

Based on what we see with living great penguins, the Taranaki great penguin almost certainly formed large exposed colonies along the coast. These could have been easy targets for a giant eagle or harrier hunting from the air.

By contrast, the smaller penguins still found in Aotearoa today have more cryptic breeding behaviour. They nest in burrows, natural crevices and dense vegetation, and tend to cross beaches at night, which may have helped them avoid aerial predators.

Predation on land is just one hypothesis, though, to help explain why these penguins became extinct in the region while others survived. Other possibilities include changes in the marine environment.

We know that reduced food availability can be devastating for penguins, but it is challenging to see why this would single out the great penguins.

Importantly, our study provides new insight into the habitat tolerances of great penguins. Both king and emperor penguins today can withstand temperatures up to 20°C higher than those they usually forage in.

Three million years ago, their relative experienced such warmth. As the world continues to warm, we need to remember that the geographic range of a species can change as circumstances change.

The marine ecosystem of Aotearoa will move into the habitable zone of many new species, making investigations of the last warm period more important than ever before.

We would like to acknowledge our research co-author Dan Ksepka from The Bruce Museum, Kerr Sharpe-Young for discovering the fossil, and Ngāti Ruanui and Ngāruahine for supporting the collection and research of fossils from their rohe.

Daniel Thomas has received funding from Massey University.

Alan Tennyson and Felix Georg Marx 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. Close relatives of emperor penguins lived in NZ some 3 million years ago. What caused their extinction? – https://theconversation.com/close-relatives-of-emperor-penguins-lived-in-nz-some-3-million-years-ago-what-caused-their-extinction-265585

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eliza Middleton, Senior Ecologist, University of Sydney

Spring in Australia has arrived like a celebration. Magpies are warbling in the morning, wildflowers are bursting open across bushland, and the air is humming with life as tiny creatures have stirred back into action after the winter: bees darting between flowers, dragonflies skimming across ponds, and swarms of flying ants mating.

But we are largely blind to Australia’s insects, and more specifically, what has happened to them over years and decades. That’s because Australia – despite having some of the richest insect biodiversity on the planet – doesn’t have long-term datasets about insects. And because of this, we don’t have a coordinated way to know whether our native bees, butterflies, or even pest species are stable, declining, or booming.

But we can all help address this knowledge gap, and now is the perfect time of the year to do so.

Huge changes in insect numbers

Depending on where we look, and which insects we look at, we are seeing huge changes in insect populations.

For example, Europe’s long-running insect monitoring programs, such as the Krefeld study in Germany, have revealed dramatic declines in flying insect biomass, with losses of up to 75% over three decades.

The lack of similar monitoring programs and long-term data about insect populations in Australia is already having consequences. Take the bogong moth.

Once so abundant its migrations darkened the skies of eastern Australia, its numbers have plummeted by more than 99% in some areas in recent years. The mountain pygmy possum, an endangered species that depends on these moths for spring feeding, is now struggling to survive without its main food source.

This cascading effect is a stark reminder that when insect populations collapse, everything that depends on them – plants, animals, even people – can feel the impact.

Yet, we only noticed the bogong moth crash after it happened. Without consistent monitoring, we simply don’t have a baseline to detect change early – let alone prevent it.

Why spring matters for data collection

Spring is when insect life explodes into action. It’s when pollinators emerge to feed and breed, when decomposers such as beetles and flies begin their crucial work recycling nutrients, and when countless species begin to build the food webs that sustain ecosystems through the year.

Miss the spring data collection window, and you miss the moment when insect activity is at its peak. It’s like trying to understand traffic flow in a city by observing it at 3am instead of during peak hour.

Without good insect data, we can’t track shifts in emergence times that are changing due to warming temperatures (aphids are emerging up to a month earlier in the United Kingdom), or notice if key species are missing altogether.

That makes it harder to support agriculture, manage ecosystems, or respond to biodiversity loss in a meaningful way.

The need for a national monitoring network

For years Australian entomologists have been calling for a national insect monitoring network, one that collects regular, standardised data across ecosystems and seasons.

Without better baseline data, we simply lack the capacity to detect or respond to significant declines.

While not a fully fledged national network, initiatives such as Butterflies Australia demonstrate the potential of citizen science to contribute to long-term monitoring through standardised protocols and broad public participation.

Beyond conservation and risk detection, a national monitoring network would also play a critical role in discovering new species. Many of Australia’s invertebrates remain undocumented, and ongoing monitoring can lead to significant scientific discoveries.

One recent discovery came from a citizen science project where students helped identify a previously unknown wasp species in suburban Perth. This highlights the potential of a national-scale approach to not only track what we know, but also uncover what we don’t know.

What you can do

While Australia still lacks a national insect monitoring network, you can help fill the data gaps right now. Whether you’re a budding naturalist, a student, or simply curious about the life around you, there are ways to get involved in building the baseline scientists urgently need.

The Christmas Beetle Count runs every summer and involves taking photos of Christmas beetles to help researchers understand if their populations have declined. From this initiative, we have been able to see Christmas beetles that have not been observed in decades.

The Great Southern Bioblitz is a big citizen science project, where users of iNaturalist are encouraged to upload photos of all kinds of nature to the website. Its goal is to increase our knowledge of southern hemisphere nature.

If you’ve got kids and want to observe nature, the app Seek provides a safer environment for children to take photos and contribute to citizen science.

On a more local scale, you can join a local initiative run by some councils and environmental groups, such as Moth Night and the Sutherland Shire Beetle Hunt.

Insects are the unsung heroes of our ecosystems, pollinating crops, recycling nutrients, feeding birds, and much more. By getting involved in citizen science, you’re not just collecting data, you’re laying the groundwork for a national monitoring system Australia urgently needs, and ensuring we notice what’s changing before it’s too late.

Eliza Middleton received funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with Accounting for Nature, and is a forum member of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures.

Caitlyn Forster is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia.

– ref. Spring air is humming with insects. But we’re blind to what’s happening to them – https://theconversation.com/spring-air-is-humming-with-insects-but-were-blind-to-whats-happening-to-them-265200

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Harrison Brennan, Director, Sydney Policy Lab, University of Sydney

The upcoming social media ban for people aged under 16 continues to be hotly debated.

Bans in public policy are a blunt instrument with a mixed track record of success. Some issues are better suited to a ban than others.

So what determines the success or failure of banning and what can be done instead?

A brief history

Bans, differing in scope, method and duration, have featured in public policy over time and across a range of areas. These have mostly been aimed at preventing harm.

These can be blanket bans (such as recreational vaping), or efforts to strongly disincentivise certain things.

Gun control laws worked to disincentivise gun ownership. Following the national gun buyback scheme after the Port Arthur Massacre, there was not a single mass shooting in Australia for more than 20 years.

Australia was also the first country in the world to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products. The move aimed to discourage people from taking up smoking and reduce the appeal for those who already smoked.

A 2015 independent study found 25% of the decline in smoking prevalence was attributable to plain packaging.

Slow off the mark

In other areas, preventative action has been slow at state and federal levels.

For instance, when the Whitlam government first moved in 1973 to phase out tobacco advertising, the United Kingdom and United States had already banned it.

The connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer had been evident since the 1920s. Two studies had been published in the 1950s linking smoking to lung cancer, but the tobacco lobby had been searingly strong.

Today, Australians suffer the highest losses and greatest harm due to gambling per adult anywhere in the world.

But Australian governments have lacked the political will to do much about it, including banning gambling ads.

How do we change behaviour?

Something all these policies have in common is the aim to change people’s behaviour to reduce harm.

But key to this is establishing whether you need policy to change a population’s behaviour, or policy to change the behaviour of individual people, or both.

In the field of public health, for instance, the most important thing to work out is whether you are dealing with sick individuals (treating the person at high personal risk of disease) or a sick population (which means focusing on modifying environmental or societal factors causing disease across the population).

By focusing on solutions at the level of the individual, we have often led public policy astray by neglecting to address the broader picture.

So how can make policy for all of society?

We can learn a lot about societal solutions from a somewhat unlikely case study: reducing salt intake.

Salt is an essential micronutrient and a much-needed preservative. But high salt consumption is linked to elevated blood pressure and hypertension, largely due to the sodium contained in salts.

Many studies have researched peoples’ blood pressure problems and left it up to them to change their daily habits

But can we act at a population level instead?

In a community-wide salt replacement initiative in northern Peru, in which one of the authors of this article took part, we swapped regular salt for another salt containing potassium and less sodium.

We made this replacement in households, shops, bakeries. And with food street vendors, community kitchens and restaurants. It was a “mass replacement” for the entire population.

The result was not only reduced high blood pressure in all villages, including in young adults, but was also fewer new cases of hypertension. The reduced availability of salt led to better outcomes at the individual, population and system levels.

Social media, like salt, is also widely available and part of everyday life. Asking people not to use it for their own good is rarely effective in the face social pressure. This is why restricting access to those under 16 is a good example of policy to reduce harm at the population level.

Providing real alternatives

But as any parent or salty food fan will know, when you take something away, you need to offer something in its place.

The Peru study didn’t ban salt, it replaced it. When supermarkets phased out plastic bags, biodegradable or paper ones were provided instead. People trying to drink less can buy non-alcoholic alternatives.

For broad restrictions to be effective, there needs to be, among other things, an alternative: something that actually fulfils the deep, underlying human needs that were fuelling use in the first place.

This is a central challenge to the social media ban. If the desired replacement is real social connection, there needs to be a clear way to achieve it. Accessible and engaging after-school care has high potential in this regard.

Framing the debate

The way we talk about banning something also contributes to its effectiveness and public support.

Preventative action can be perceived as either prohibition or abolition.

Prohibition means stopping someone from doing something, potentially something they used to be able to do. That can create a sense of deprivation.

Alternatively, if people believe something is worth abolishing (not just prohibiting), they think it allows them to have greater freedom to live lives they value.

The ban on single-use plastics focuses on harm reduction for the environment. Although it took some 20 years for all states and territories to ban them, it’s been relatively uncontroversial. The benefits are significant and the substitutes feel good.

One of the challenges with the social media ban is the way it is seen (by adults and kids alike) as the adults taking something away from the kids, thereby prohibiting it.

Instead, the government could frame the ban differently. They could say by abolishing social media use for under 16 year olds, it gives kids the best possible childhood, free of online harm.

Overall, good public policy to reduce harm assesses whether the action should be individual or society-wide, offers an effective replacement and frames the change positively. As we head towards the December 10 implementation of the social media ban, these will be important factors for the government to consider.

Kate Harrison Brennan was an advisor to Prime Minister Julia Gillard. She has received funding from the Paul Ramsay Foundation for the Australia Cares project at the Sydney Policy Lab. The Sydney Policy Lab has: a project with funding from a Social Determinants of Health Innovation Grant from the Ramsay Hospital Research Foundation; a partnership with SEED Futures, engaged on primary prevention in the early years; and a project with the Brain and Mind Centre at the University of Sydney on Beyond the Bell – rethinking after school hours in Australia. Kate serves on the Advisory Council of SEED Futures.

Jaime Miranda acknowledges having received funding support from the Academy of Medical Sciences, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, Bloomberg Philanthropies (via University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health), FONDECYT, British Council, British Embassy and the Newton-Paulet Fund, DFID/MRC/Wellcome Global Health Trials, Fogarty International Center, Grand Challenges Canada, International Development Research Center Canada, Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, National Cancer Institute, National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, National Health and Medical Research Council, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institute on Aging, National Institute for Health and Care Research, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute of Mental Health, NSW Health, Medical Research Future Fund, Swiss National Science Foundation, UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome, World Diabetes Foundation and the World Health Organization.

He is affiliated with the following academic organisations: Professor at the Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, and founding Director of the CRONICAS Centre of Excellence in Chronic Diseases, both at Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (Peru); Honorary Professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (UK); Lown Scholar at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (USA); and Distinguished Fellow at The George Institute for Global Health (Australia). He is also a member of the Advisory Board of the InterAmerican Heart Foundation (IAHF); and member of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) of the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research at the World Health Organization.

– ref. Banning something to reduce harm is a tricky business. Here’s what works – https://theconversation.com/banning-something-to-reduce-harm-is-a-tricky-business-heres-what-works-265498

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Pate, Senior Lecturer in Physiotherapy, University of Technology Sydney

Most children bounce back from pain after an injury or illness. But for one in five – approximately 877,000 children in Australia – the pain continues.

Clinicians call this chronic or persistent pain, meaning pain that lasts longer than three months. Chronic pain in children such as headaches or abdominal pain may be caused by an injury or underlying condition (for example, arthritis). But pain without a known cause is also common.

For a new report commissioned by Chronic Pain Australia, published on Sunday, we surveyed 229 children, young people and families about their experiences of living with chronic pain.

They told us chronic pain affects every aspect of their lives – from sport, school and friendships, to parents’ ability to work. But it often remains invisible.

What kids and families told us about chronic pain

The 2025 National Kids in Pain Report included 53 responses from children and young people who live with chronic pain and 176 responses from caregivers. The aim was to explore their experiences of chronic pain and how much it affected day-to-day life.

The report paints a stark picture: pain disrupts schooling, erodes friendships, reshapes family life, and places enormous strain on national productivity.

It revealed consistent issues, including:

• diagnosis delays: 64% of families had waited more than three years for a diagnosis, and many had never received one

• school disruption: 83% of children had missed classes because of pain, and more than half had fallen behind academically

• sleep and mental health: 84% struggled with sleep, while more than 80% experienced anxiety, low mood or other psychological impacts

• family and economic costs: almost half of carers had reduced work hours or left employment. One in five parents had resigned, and one in 20 were fired

• gender disparities: girls were disproportionately affected, representing 57% of cases.

The annual economic toll is conservatively estimated at A$15 billion. But perhaps most troubling is how long children waited for their pain to be believed.

One parent told us:

She first complained of pain when was eight, but we didn’t get a formal diagnosis until she was nearly 12. By then she had already missed so much school and was falling behind socially.

Families reported they were repeatedly dismissed, told it was anxiety (71%), “growing pains” (54%) or attention-seeking (35%).

These stigmatising responses can break trust in health-care systems and schools. One young person told us:

I wish someone had believed me earlier. Waiting years made everything worse – school, friends, even just believing in myself.

Invisibility has consequences

Chronic pain in Australia remains largely invisible because it is not formally recognised as a condition or tracked in national health data. This means it is not considered in how health services are planned and funding is allocated.

Although the World Health Organization recognised chronic pain as a distinct condition in 2019, Australia has yet to align with this recommendation.

In paediatric care, this leaves significant gaps.

There are only nine paediatric pain clinics across Australia, and none at all in Tasmania and the Northern Territory.

There are promising signs in New South Wales. New guidance in 2025 sets out how specialised paediatric pain services should deliver coordinated, culturally safe care and connect with schools. The next step is consistent implementation and shorter wait times, especially outside cities.

But federally, the government has moved away from a national plan to specifically manage pain, to a broader approach that focuses on chronic conditions. This risks further erasing pain from national health policy and planning.

Read more:
Australians are in more pain – and our new data shows it’s not just due to ageing

But we know what works

Parents and carers must often navigate referrals for specialists, waiting lists and school adjustments, while also juggling jobs and other children. Caregivers are frequently stressed and their work is disrupted.

But when care is coordinated – connecting health professionals with schools and giving families clear plans to manage pain – parents’ health and work outcomes improve.

International and Australian guidelines for managing chronic pain in children advocate a practical mix of approaches, including:

• age-appropriate movement with pacing (very gradually increasing physical activity)

• sleep support

• skills for managing flare-ups

• psychological therapies that reduce fear and build confidence, and in some instances can reduce pain and disability

• using medicines carefully when needed.

For schools, making “reasonable adjustments” is already a federal requirement under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Disability Standards for Education – even if the child does not have a formal diagnosis.

When clinics, families and schools work together on flexible timetables, safe places to rest, and ways to participate remotely, young people can keep learning and stay connected while recovery unfolds.

Recognising chronic pain

We already have evidence-based solutions to deliver better care for young people living with pain. What’s missing is national recognition of this experience and its impact.

Australia should follow the World Health Organization by classifying chronic pain as a distinct condition. This is the first step to fully recognising – and then addressing – paediatric pain.

Children and their carers want what any of us would want: to go to school, play sport, and live a life not dominated by pain.

Joshua Pate has received speaker fees for presentations on pain and physiotherapy. He receives book royalties.

Mark Hutchinson oversees program of work funded by NHMRC, MRFF, ARC, DSTG, DMTC, USDA, MLA, SIF and NIH. He is employed by Adelaide University. He is affiliated with the Australian Pain Solutions Research Alliance as chair of the board, he chairs the Safeguarding Australia through Biotechnology Response and Engagement (SABRE) Alliance advisory board, he is a Member of the Prime Minister’s National Science and Technology Council and he is a board member of Australia’s Economic Accelerator. He serves as an advisor to Alyra Biotech and to the Australian Wool Sustainability Scheme.

– ref. Not just ‘growing pains’: 1 in 5 Australian kids live with chronic pain, but it’s often invisible – https://theconversation.com/not-just-growing-pains-1-in-5-australian-kids-live-with-chronic-pain-but-its-often-invisible-265680

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Turton, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Geography, CQUniversity Australia

Australia’s worrying future under climate change was laid bare last week when the first National Climate Risk Assessment was released. It revealed extreme heat, fires, floods, droughts and coastal inundation already threatens lives and livelihoods – and will wreak further havoc in coming decades.

Much media attention focused on the effects in the continent’s south, where most Australians live. But the assessment found Northern Australia will be hardest hit on many fronts, including extreme heat.

This has major implications. Big plans are afoot to turn Northern Australia into Asia’s “food bowl”, as part of broader development for the region. It would involve building large-scale irrigation, dam and water infrastructure to increase agricultural production, create jobs and boost local economies.

But any discussion about transforming Northern Australia must confront the climate hazards threatening the region’s prosperity.

What’s the food bowl idea?

Northern Australia comprises roughly 53% of Australia’s land mass.

Turning the region into a food bowl would involve irrigating savannas and other ecosystems across northern parts of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland. The concept dates back decades, but gained momentum in 2015 when the Abbott government released a national white paper on developing Northern Australia.

Efforts to bring the plan to fruition are continuing. In 2018 for example, CSIRO released analysis of Northern Australia’s water resources and agricultural potential. And last year, a business case was developed for a major irrigation area in Far North Queensland.

The vision has been criticised due to concerns about river ecosystems, economic feasibility and Indigenous rights.

A decade ago, I challenged the Northern Australia development agenda from a climate change perspective. While proponents pointed to a bright future for the north – with new roads, rail, dams and food production – I argued climate change may eventually make large parts of the region unlivable.

Since then, changes in climate across the north have confirmed many concerns I described.

More frequent and intense extreme weather poses the biggest climate risk for the region. Northern Australia is largely tropical and subtropical, so global heating effects will be more pronounced. This will force natural, social and economic systems into uncharted climate territory.

Research already shows people, food production and nature will be vulnerable to higher-intensity cyclones, more intense heatwaves, floods, droughts, bushfires and other climate harms.

The new climate risk report paints an even more dire future for the region.

Danger in store for the north

As the risk assessment made clear, the world is on track to heat by at least 2.7°C by the 2090s if we don’t change course. In light of this, the report says:

Northern Australia is likely to experience escalating challenges as its proneness to hazards increases as global temperature rise. This will put pressure on
health, critical infrastructure, natural species and ecosystems, and primary industries. It will also pose additional challenges to emergency responders.

Extreme weather events, including heatwaves, bushfires, flooding and tropical cyclones, will intensify safety and security risks, potentially resulting in loss of life, destabilisation of community structures, and increased migration away from high-risk areas.

The number of heatwave days is projected to increase across Australia – but particularly in the north.

Global heating is already affecting the production of some tropical tree crops, including mangoes and avocados. These crops need periods of cooler winter weather to flower and bear good fruit.

Livestock grazing is the economic lifeblood for many communities in the north’s tropical savannas. The risk assessment notes changes in temperature and water can worsen pasture for livestock. Increasing thermal stress in northern cattle herds is also a significant threat.

The risk assessment also raises concerns about other primary industries, many of which exist in the north. Changes in practices may buy more time. Much will depend on future carbon emissions.

Supply chains – such as storage, transport and distribution – are crucial for getting agricultural produce to consumers. Extreme weather, such as Cyclone Jasper in 2023, is already disrupting supply chains in the north. This will only worsen.

And an agriculture industry needs people. But the risk assessment says without action, some areas of the north may become unliveable and uninsurable. Floods, tropical cyclones and bushfires can leave communities isolated, and these and other hazards pose serious health risks.

What must happen now

Northern Australia has much to lose if carbon emissions keep rising and global heating continues. Adaptation and innovation may allow human communities and industries to survive for a while. But at some stage, crucial tipping points will be breached.

This will degrade the natural assets underpinning the north’s food, fibre and tourism industries.

Australia, like the rest of the world, must continue the journey to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. This includes meeting Australia’s new pledge to reduce emissions by 62–70% below 2005 levels by 2035.

Unless global warming is dramatically curbed, Northern Australia is unlikely to prosper in the second half of this century – and grandiose plans to turn the region into a food bowl will turn to dust.

Steve Turton has received funding from the Australian Government.

– ref. Dangerous climate change threatens Northern Australia’s big ‘food bowl’ dreams – https://theconversation.com/dangerous-climate-change-threatens-northern-australias-big-food-bowl-dreams-265727

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob Richardson, Senior Lecturer in Culinary Arts & Gastronomy, Auckland University of Technology

Come on, baby, light my fire.

We can be pretty sure Jim Morrison wasn’t referring to BBQ when he wrote those famous lyrics – but he may as well have been. As the weather starts to warm across the country, throngs of people will take to the great outdoors to bask in the sun, crack open a cold one and, inevitably, fire up the grill.

It’s a pattern we all know well. But it tends to overshadow another often overlooked pattern, concerning who is holding the tongs?

Traditional masculinity continues to have a stronghold on BBQ. Even as other forms of cooking are (unfairly) treated as “womens’ work”, cooking meat on an open flame is largely framed as an activity for men.

How might we explain these gendered dynamics?

Which came first, the human or the fire?

According to English anthropologist Richard Wrangham, the ability to control fire, and therefore cook food, was the key driver in human evolution. In Wrangham’s words, “we humans are the cooking apes, the creatures of fire”.

Gender division in food and cookery is nothing new. Our prehistoric ancestors structured their society around food. There’s a common perception these early societies were simply split into two groups of “man the hunter” and “woman the gatherer”.

Reality, however, was far more nuanced, with many experts suggesting communal wellbeing overrode distinct gender division. And increasing evidence suggests that, despite their child-rearing responsibilities, women would have hunted, just as men would have gathered.

Today, it is women who do the majority of household cooking in Australia.

The original barbies

In terms of food preparation, butchering predates cooking, and can be traced back to about 2.6 million years ago.

Filleting meat into smaller pieces made it easier to chew and digest large mammals such as mammoths, which allowed meat to become part of our diets early on. There is indirect evidence that homo erectus’ anatomy diverged from non-human primates some 1.9 million years ago because of this shift in diet.

While it’s unclear exactly when humans started to control and manipulate fire, evidence of cooking in the Levant region goes as far back as 780,000 years.

There was even an entire mammoth economy around the end of the last ice age (27,000 years ago), which involved procurement, carcass transport, butchery, food preparation and storage.

Meat was cold-smoked in smokehouses, allowing it to be consumed fresh, or stored long-term. But experts are divided as to who did the cooking. Did the hunters bring their catch back to the group to cook, or did they cook it at the kill site? The general consensus is it was probably both.

Why are BBQs such a sausage fest?

Not only do women do most of the cooking today, they also spend the most time hunting and gathering (from the supermarket). However, this gap is narrowing – particularly in certain demographics.

The genderisation of food remains strong in the retail industry, and extends to advertising and marketing. When did you last see an ad that showed a woman in charge of the BBQ?

Barbecue cookbooks consistently have covers featuring men. There’s not a single woman to be found on the covers of the top 50 best-selling BBQ and grilling books on Amazon.

And just as you’re more likely to see cake mixers on special for Mother’s Day, you’re more likely to see BBQ-related products on sale for Father’s Day.

This gender divide is also noticeable in the professional hospitality industry.

Chef Lennox Hastie of Sydney’s Firedoor restaurant is someone who knows a thing or two about fire. Hastie told us:

There’s no denying that, historically, fire has been wrapped up in a kind of rugged mythology – primal, elemental, often masculine. But some of the oldest, most enduring fire traditions have always been in the hands of women – it’s the industry that’s been slow to catch up. […] Fire doesn’t care who you are. It doesn’t respect ego. It requires attentiveness, intuition, patience – qualities that aren’t gendered.

Although deliberate fire starting, or arson, is a male dominated crime, there’s no evidence men are biologically wired, or pathologically driven, toward fire-setting.

Their over-representation in arson may be better explained by social, behavioural and psychological risk factors, including peer influence, antisocial personality traits, and a lack of emotional regulation.

Peacocking at the grill

Backyard BBQ as we know it is a relatively recent thing, gradually infiltrating our lifestyles in the 1950s and becoming firmly embedded with the introduction of the gas BBQ in the 1960s.

In many ways it is the modern equivalent of the Sunday roast; it fulfils the role of social and cultural ritual and reflects aspects of prestige, generosity and patriarchy. All of this plays into hegemonic masculinity, which frames men as the dominant sex in society: the provider, the carver, the griller.

In contrast, everyday cookery tends to be seen as domestic work, more in service of family wellbeing than a show of social status. It is an unpaid and often undervalued part of the invisible labour that still falls largely on woman.

It’s difficult to give precedence to just one of the multitude of theories that try and explain mens’ dominance over the BBQ. But there is a high chance historical social stereotypes and gendered expectations have a role to play.

Either way, best to keep a fire extinguisher handy.

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. Women do the most cooking at home. So why do men get to hog the BBQ? – https://theconversation.com/women-do-the-most-cooking-at-home-so-why-do-men-get-to-hog-the-bbq-260419

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katie Pickles, Professor of History, University of Canterbury

Jacinda Ardern’s second book released within four months, following her memoir, is a simple children’s story. Its title – Mum’s Busy Work – appears to still hold true, then, despite her no longer being prime minister.

Dedicated to her daughter Neve (the narrator of this tale), the “busy work” in fact refers to the big briefcase Ardern brings home nightly.

But the metaphor isn’t laboured in these 32 pages. It’s a book about emotions rather than events, dancing through the days of the working week that dictate Neve’s lifeworld.

Review: Mum’s Busy Work – Jacinda Ardern (Penguin Random House)

“First bloke” Clarke Gayford is there, doing the washing and being present when Neve wakes up on Tuesday and mum is already at work. All three go out for a Saturday picnic. Mum arrives home early on Friday to play hide-and-seek.

In fact, positive mentions of work are thin on the page. On Monday, mum tells Neve she doesn’t always like going to work; Neve thinks, “She looked really tired when she got home.”

There is a welcome chocolate treasure hunt in the prime minister’s office when Neve visits. While mum works at home on Sunday, Neve asks what her job is. Mum replies, “Looking after everyone, like you.”

The book ends with Monday rolling round again and Neve going from stomping her feet at the thought of daycare to dancing with mum in her “clippy-cloppy” work shoes. For Neve, this is mum’s real job: spending time with her, dancing, reading, playing and loving.

Work on her own terms

The pages are cleverly illustrated by Ruby Jones, best known for her TIME magazine cover after the 2019 terror attack in Christchurch. Her signature spare, colourful style captures Neve’s perspective and mood, from separation anxiety to love and joy.

Of course, Neve didn’t write the book. But, as Ardern notes at its end:

This book is based on the words and lessons taught to me by my daughter […] while I was the prime minister of New Zealand. May every child know that no matter what, they are our life’s greatest work.

There is an echo of C S Lewis in this, who said, “Children are not a distraction from more important work. They are the most important work.”

There’s also a hint of conservatism in Ardern’s insistence on labelling herself a “mum” as well as a professional politician. According to the blurb of her recent memoir, A Different Kind of Power, she also “considers her greatest roles to be those she will hold for life – being a mum and proud New Zealander”.

But this isn’t really a retreat. Ardern is subverting the issue of women and work on her own terms. She’s working through her experience of being “a working mother who juggled mum guilt” to open up a conversation and find a better way.

In the memoir, Ardern writes of her fear that the guilt she felt about being absent after Neve was born would have been reinforced by “guilt-inducing words” from her daughter.

It hadn’t been. What I felt – that constant ache that I should be with her more – had been created by me, all on my own. But tonight, Neve finally asked me the question I’d known would come eventually: “Mummy, why do you have to work so much?”

Having a working mum is OK

We have to remember that Ardern had only just learned she was pregnant when she became prime minister – at 37, New Zealand’s youngest in 150 years.

She was entering new leadership territory on the national and international stage, and was only the second world leader to give birth while in office (after Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto 30 years earlier).

As women in paid work often do, she largely left the backdrop of juggling new motherhood with her public role out of the picture. Neve was kept out of the spotlight and Ardern separated her job from her family’s private lives.

When she took Gayford and baby Neve to the UN in 2018, it was maybe a signal of things to come. Now, with a memoir, this book and a documentary about her time in power just released, she is challenging that separation.

Feminist scholars call it an “androcentric” view of work, where women entering traditional workplaces have to conform to restrictive and dominant masculine culture, rather than being able to craft new selves.

Mum’s Busy Work responds to that in two ways. On the one hand, it is clearly positioned as an “inspiring and heartwarming” story about the relationship between a working mum and her daughter.

On the other, it belongs to the genre of children’s books that tackle the challenges of unconventional households, such as those with same-sex or sole parents, or those made up of blended families.

This one is about “celebrating the relationship between working mums and their children”. Message: even if your mum works and you go to daycare Monday to Friday and feel separated from her, you are still the most important thing to her.

It’s a book that will be enjoyed and appreciated by working parents who’ve been asked “where is your child?” and “are you still working?”. And by children, who will hear that having a working mum is OK, being a working mum is OK – and missing mum is OK, too.

Katie Pickles 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. In her new children’s book, Jacinda Ardern explores working ‘mum guilt’ through her daughter’s eyes – https://theconversation.com/in-her-new-childrens-book-jacinda-ardern-explores-working-mum-guilt-through-her-daughters-eyes-265465

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Coppola, Visiting Researcher, Cambridge Neuroscience, University of Cambridge

What gives rise to human consciousness? Are some parts of the brain more important than others? Scientists began tackling these questions in more depth about 35 years ago. Researchers have made progress, but the mystery of consciousness remains very much alive.

In a recently published article, I reviewed over 100 years of neuroscience research to see if some brain regions are more important than others for consciousness. What I found suggests scientists who study consciousness may have been undervaluing the most ancient regions of human brains.

Consciousness is usually defined by neuroscientists as the ability to have subjective experience, such as the experience of tasting an apple or of seeing the redness of its skin.

The leading theories of consciousness suggest that the outer layer of the human brain, called the cortex (in blue in figure 1), is fundamental to consciousness. This is mostly composed of the neocortex, which is newer in our evolutionary history.

The human subcortex (figure 1, brown/beige), underneath the neocortex, has not changed much in the last 500 million years. It is thought to be like electricity for a TV, necessary for consciousness, but not enough on its own.

There is another part of the brain that some neuroscientific theories of consciousness state is irrelevant for consciousness. This is the cerebellum, which is also older than the neocortex and looks like a little brain tucked in the back of the skull (figure 1, purple). Brain activity and brain networks are disrupted in unconsciousness (like in a coma). These changes can be seen in the cortex, subcortex and cerebellum.

What brain stimulation reveals

As part of my analysis I looked at studies showing what happens to consciousness when brain activity is changed, for example, by applying electrical currents or magnetic pulses to brain regions.

These experiments in humans and animals showed that altering activity in any of these three parts of the brain can alter consciousness. Changing the activity of the neocortex can change your sense of self, make you hallucinate, or affect your judgment.

Changing the subcortex may have extreme effects. We can induce depression, wake a monkey from anaesthesia or knock a mouse unconscious. Even stimulating the cerebellum, long considered irrelevant, can change your conscious sensory perception.

However, this research does not allow us to reach strong conclusions about where consciousness comes from, as stimulating one brain region may affect another region. Like unplugging the TV from the socket, we might be changing the conditions that support consciousness, but not the mechanisms of consciousness itself.

So I looked at some evidence from patients to see if it would help resolve this dilemma.

Damage from physical trauma or lack of oxygen to the brain can disrupt your experience. Injury to the neocortex may make you think your hand is not yours, fail to notice things on one side of your visual field, or become more impulsive.

People born without the cerebellum, or the front of their cortex, can still appear conscious and live quite normal lives. However, damaging the cerebellum later in life can trigger hallucinations or change your emotions completely.

Harm to the most ancient parts of our brain can directly cause unconsciousness (although some people recover) or death. However, like electricity for a TV, the subcortex may be just keeping the newer cortex “online”, which may be giving rise to consciousness. So I wanted to know whether, alternatively, there is evidence that the most ancient regions are sufficient for consciousness.

There are rare cases of children being born without most or all of their neocortex. According to medical textbooks, these people should be in a permanent vegetative state. However, there are reports that these people can feel upset, play, recognise people or show enjoyment of music. This suggests that they are having some sort of conscious experience.

These reports are striking evidence that suggests maybe the oldest parts of the brain are enough for basic consciousness. Or maybe, when you are born without a cortex, the older parts of the brain adapt to take on some of the roles of the newer parts of the brain.

There are some extreme experiments on animals that can help us reach a conclusion. Across mammals – from rats to cats to monkeys – surgically removing the neocortex leaves them still capable of an astonishing number of things. They can play, show emotions, groom themselves, parent their young and even learn. Surprisingly, even adult animals that underwent this surgery showed similar behaviour.

Altogether, the evidence challenges the view that the cortex is necessary for consciousness, as most major theories of consciousness suggest. It seems that the oldest parts of the brain are enough for some basic forms of consciousness.

The newer parts of the brain – as well as the cerebellum – seem to expand and refine your consciousness. This means we may have to review our theories of consciousness. In turn, this may influence patient care as well as how we think about animal rights. In fact, consciousness might be more common than we realised.

Peter Coppola 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. Major theories of consciousness may have been focusing on the wrong part of the brain – https://theconversation.com/major-theories-of-consciousness-may-have-been-focusing-on-the-wrong-part-of-the-brain-264609

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dafydd Townley, Teaching Fellow in US politics and international security, University of Portsmouth

Following the shooting of his political ally, the far-right activist and commentator Charlie Kirk, on September 10, Donald Trump has signalled his intention to pursue his political enemies – what he refers to as the “radical left”. In the days following Kirk’s assassination, the US president took to social media to announce he was planning on designating the antifa movement a terrorist organisation.

Calling antifa a “SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER”, Trump also threatened to investigate any organisations funding antifa. And when Kirk’s widow, Erika, said she forgave the person who has been arrested for the murder, Trump said he did not. “I hate my opponent,” he told people at a memorial event for Kirk at the weekend.

But Trump’s decision to target his ideological opponents faces significant legal and constitutional issues.

It’s not the first time that Trump has threatened such action. In 2020, he threatened the same thing on social media in response to the widespread protests following the death of George Floyd. But just as is the case in the present day, there was no legal process to designate any domestic group as a terrorist organisation.

Trump also appears to have misunderstood what antifa is. He represents it as a defined organisation, when it is more like a broad ideology. Mark Bray, a historian at Rutgers University, New Jersey, described the movement as similar to feminism. “There are feminist groups, but feminism itself is not a group. There are antifa groups, but antifa itself is not a group,” he said.

Antifa is shorthand for “anti-fascist”. It has no centralised leadership or defined structure. Despite being able to mobilise to oppose far-right groups with protests and counter-demonstrations, the movement’s dispersed character hampers efforts to classify it as an organisation of any formal kind.

Plans to use Rico laws

One of the laws Trump has suggested that US attorney-general Pam Bondi could use against antifa is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (Rico) Act of 1970. This was passed by Richard Nixon to tackle organised crime, but its application has since been extended to investigate various other organisations and individuals. This has included Donald Trump himself, over alleged irregularities in Georgia during the 2020 presidential election.

Although it would be challenging, the Trump administration might try to use Rico laws to break up antifa’s network if the movement is classified as a terrorist organisation. Authorities could argue that specific individuals are engaged in a series of racketeering activities, including any acts of violence or other criminal behaviour linked to the movement. But this method would undoubtedly face considerable legal challenges.

If the US government finds a way to define antifa as a group and identify people as members – it’s not clear at the moment whether this might be possible – it would then be possible to seek out and attempt to prosecute anyone who facilitates their activities or gives them funds. But as David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University, North Carolina, told the BBC this week: “Under the First Amendment, no one can be punished for joining a group or giving money to a group.”

Nevertheless, antifa activists may be subject to increased surveillance if the movement is proscribed. Such actions would mirror the FBI’s extra-legal counterintelligence programme (Cointelpro) that targeted the new left in America during the 1960s. Civil rights groups and Democrats would inevitably raise serious questions concerning executive overreach and possible violations of civil liberties.

Power grab

Labelling antifa as a terrorist group would allow the federal government to circumvent state-controlled law enforcement. It may seek to do so especially in Democrat states and cities where authorities might be hesitant to act against liberal or left-wing demonstrators. Federal agencies such as the FBI and Department of Homeland Security might be drafted in to lead investigations and prosecutions, superseding state authorities.

This consolidation of power would create further legal and political difficulties. While the Posse Comitatus Act is supposed to bar the use of federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement, there are exceptions. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807 it would give him the power to deploy troops to restore order.

Antifa’s classification as a terrorist organisation could have profound effects on the first amendment rights of large numbers of law-abiding US citizens. It would be a serious danger to American democracy if US citizens were unable to voice their protest and exercise their right to free speech because of this classification.

A decision to vilify anti-establishment rhetoric would set a dangerous precedent for silencing dissent and infringing fundamental constitutional rights in the US during the 21st century.

The administration’s position on domestic extremism has changed significantly with Trump’s plan to label antifa as a terrorist organisation. The political consequences are far-reaching, potentially setting important precedents for the balance between civil liberties and US national security. This could shift the focus more toward security and potentially harm individual freedoms.

But it’s unlikely that the Trump administration will be deterred by any constitutional considerations. This is an executive branch that has acted first and sought justification through the courts. There will be a lengthy legal process if Trump follows through on this. But by the time courts make their final decision, the damage will already have been done to the US political system.

Dafydd Townley 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. Going after ‘antifa’: Donald Trump’s plans to crush his political foes – https://theconversation.com/going-after-antifa-donald-trumps-plans-to-crush-his-political-foes-265686

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland

“Cut out all dairy. Ditch gluten. Never touch sugar again.” More than 20 million people have watched TikTok videos listing these kinds of rules under the banner of “anti-inflammatory diets.”

The promise is simple: avoid entire food groups and you’ll lose weight, banish bloating and transform your health.

But while the idea of eating to reduce inflammation has a scientific foundation, the social media version strips out nuance and risks becoming unnecessarily restrictive.

Let’s check what’s going on.

What is inflammation?

People often think of inflammation as something to avoid at all costs, but it’s actually a healthy and normal process that helps the body heal and defend itself against infections, injuries, or diseases. Without it, we wouldn’t recover from even small injuries.

Inflammation and the immune system work together: when the body notices injury or infection, the immune system starts to trigger inflammation, which brings immune cells, nutrients and oxygen to the affected area. This helps with healing.

Inflammation can be short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic). Acute inflammation is helpful and part of normal healing. For example, a scraped knee becomes red, swollen and warm as the skin repairs, or a sore throat swells while fighting infection.

Chronic inflammation, on the other hand, can be harmful. It occurs at a low level over time and is often unnoticed, but is linked with many chronic diseases including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer.

What causes chronic inflammation?

Factors such as age, smoking, sedentary behaviour, obesity, hormonal changes, stress and irregular sleep patterns have all been linked with chronic inflammation.

Diet also plays a key role. A typical Western diet, which is high in ultra-processed foods such as packaged baked goods, soft drinks, fast food, processed meats and confectionery, and low in fresh fruits and vegetables, has been strongly linked with higher levels of inflammation.

Can anti-inflammatory diets help?

Yes. What we eat can influence inflammation in the body. Diets rich in fruits, vegetables, wholegrains, legumes and healthy fats – and low in highly processed foods and added sugars – are associated with lower levels of inflammation.

The Mediterranean-style diet is the most researched example. It’s packed with vegetables, fruits, wholegrains, nuts, seeds and olive oil, with moderate amounts of fish, chicken, eggs and dairy, and minimal red or processed meat and added sugars.

In 2022, researchers reviewed the best available evidence and found people following a Mediterranean-type diet had lower levels of inflammatory markers in their blood, suggesting it can help reduce chronic inflammation.

Growing research also suggests diets high in processed foods and low in fibre can change the balance of bacteria in the gut, which may contribute to low-level, chronic inflammation.

Where TikTok gets it right… and wrong

Right: probiotics may help

Many TikTok videos recommend probiotic supplements to lower inflammation, and there is emerging science to support this. A 2020 review of randomised controlled trials (the strongest form of evidence) found probiotics may reduce some inflammatory blood markers in both healthy people and those living with a health condition.

But while promising, researchers caution more studies are needed to determine which strains and doses are most effective.

Wrong: ‘avoid lists’ (gluten, dairy) without a medical reason

TikTok advice to avoid dairy or gluten to reduce inflammation isn’t backed by strong science for most people.

Inflammation from dairy or gluten typically only occurs in those with allergies or coeliac disease, in which case, medical dietary restriction is necessary. Cutting them out without cause risks unnecessary nutrient gaps.

For the general population, systematic reviews show dairy products often have neutral or even protective effects on inflammation.

Plus, foods such as yogurt, kefir and certain cheeses are rich in probiotics, which are helpful in reducing inflammation.

Many people believe cutting out gluten will lower chronic inflammation and avoid it to help with gut issues or fatigue.

But there’s little scientific evidence to back this up. In fact, wholegrain consumption has been shown to positively affect health status by improving inflammation.

A Mediterranean-style diet already avoids most processed, gluten-heavy foods such as cakes, pastries, white bread, fast food and packaged snacks. If you feel sensitive to gluten, this way of eating naturally keeps your intake low, without the need to cut out nutritious wholegrains that can benefit your health.

Who might benefit from an anti-inflammatory diet?

For people with certain medical conditions, an anti-inflammatory eating pattern can play a useful role alongside conventional care.

Research suggests potential benefits for conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, autoimmune conditions and arthritis, where chronic inflammation contributes to symptoms or disease progression.

Read more:
Could changing your diet improve endometriosis pain? A recent study suggests it’s possible

In these cases, dietary approaches should be guided by an accredited practising dietitian to ensure that changes are safe, balanced and tailored to individual needs.

The bottom line for healthy people

If you’re otherwise healthy, you don’t need to cut out entire food groups to reduce inflammation.

Instead, focus on balance, variety and minimally processed foods: essentially a Mediterranean-style eating pattern. Support your body’s natural defences with a colourful plate full of vegetables and fruit, enough fibre, healthy fats such as olive oil and nuts. No TikTok “avoid list” required.

Alongside a balanced diet, being physically active, getting good-quality sleep, drinking only minimal alcohol and not smoking all help the body keep inflammation in check. These healthy habits work together to strengthen the immune system and lower the risk of chronic disease.

Lauren Ball receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Health and Wellbeing Queensland, Heart Foundation, Gallipoli Medical Research and Mater Health, Springfield City Group. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

Emily Burch 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. Do TikTok ‘anti-inflammatory diets’ really work? – https://theconversation.com/do-tiktok-anti-inflammatory-diets-really-work-265089

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katy Bell, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

Medical imaging is one of the biggest contributors of a hospital’s energy use. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) are particularly carbon intensive, partly due to their need to be constantly cooled. Hospital staff typically leave these machines running 24/7 because they’re often needed for emergency scans.

But do all machines really need to be kept on all of the time? Switching off medical imaging equipment when it isn’t needed would be an obvious way to save energy, costs and reduce carbon emissions.

Our study, published today in the Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, shows it’s possible to safely do so, and the energy savings are significant.

What did we do?

To investigate the potential for carbon savings in medical imaging, we partnered with the New South Wales Health Net Zero clinical lead for imaging – a practising radiographer.

Together, we came up with a method to test whether changing which CT scanners are left running at certain times could lead to energy savings without compromising care.

We tested this at a large public hospital with three CT scanners. One of these was largely used only during regular daytime hours, but left on to run continuously for potential emergencies if the other two scanners were in use.

The goal was to see the impact of switching this “surplus” CT scanner off when it wasn’t needed – after hours and on weekends. We compared the scanner’s power use with a control period when it was left running continuously.

With the simple intervention of switching off this CT scanner when not in use, we reduced its energy consumption by 32%. This saved 140 kWh of energy in a single week – slightly more power than it takes to run an average Australian household.

There appeared to be no downsides, either. The radiographers reported no impacts on their workflow and there were also some financial savings for the hospital.

Encouragingly, the staff kept it up after the study. Radiographers at the hospital now regularly switch off the scanner when not in use. And radiographers at two other hospitals in the same local health district are now also switching off scanners overnight when they’re not in use.

Towards more sustainable healthcare

There’s no doubt we all must urgently reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent further climate change impacts.

Health care is no exception – it currently contributes about 2 gigatonnes of global carbon emissions each year. Both the Australian Government and healthcare workers recognise that environmental sustainability is a priority.

This CT project was part of a larger program on sustainable healthcare.

Other projects in this program have found ways to reduce emissions from anaesthetic gases, optimise pharmaceutical waste, and reduce unnecessary use of pathology tests in emergency departments, non-sterile gloves in surgical inpatient wards, plastic in procedural packs, and single-use equipment in operating theatres.

In all of these projects we found opportunities to save money and carbon without negatively impacting patient care.

Frontline clinicians can see the unnecessary waste and environmental harm from current healthcare practices. They’re well placed to implement and sustain changes.

By partnering with researchers to generate the evidence base for others to use, we hope to achieve changes at scale. To date, our work has already proven we can move to net-zero health systems that still deliver high quality healthcare but take a smaller toll on the environment.

Katy Bell receives funding from NHMRC. She is an investigator with Wiser Healthcare and the Healthy Environments and Lives (HEAL) Network.

Scott McAlister receives funding from NHMRC.

– ref. CT scanners secretly waste more energy than used by a typical household – but there’s a fix – https://theconversation.com/ct-scanners-secretly-waste-more-energy-than-used-by-a-typical-household-but-theres-a-fix-265582

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Historian, Australian Catholic University

In today’s world, we barely think about picking up a fork. It is part of a standard cutlery set, as essential as the plate itself. But not that long ago, this now-ordinary utensil was viewed with suspicion, derision and even moral outrage.

It took centuries, royal marriages and a bit of cultural rebellion to get the fork from the kitchens of Constantinople (today’s Istanbul) onto the dining tables of Europe.

A scandalous utensil

Early versions of forks have been found in Bronze Age China and Ancient Egypt, though they were likely used for cooking and serving.

The Romans had elegant forks made of bronze and silver, but again, mainly for food preparation.

Eating with a fork – especially a small, personal one – was rare.

By the 10th century, Byzantine elites used them freely, shocking guests from western Europe. And by around the 11th century, the table fork began to make regular appearances at mealtimes across the Byzantine empire.

In 1004, the Byzantine Maria Argyropoulina (985–1007), sister of Emperor Romanos III Argyros, married the son of the Doge of Venice and scandalised the city by refusing to eat with her fingers. She used a golden fork instead.

Later, the theologian Peter Damian (1007–72) declared Maria’s vanity in eating with “artificial metal forks” instead of using the fingers God had given her was what brought about divine punishment in the form of her premature death in her 20s.

Yet by the 14th century, forks had become common in Italy, thanks in part to the rise of pasta.

It was far easier to eat slippery strands with a pronged instrument than with a spoon or knife. Italian etiquette soon embraced the fork, especially among the wealthy merchant classes.

And it was through this wealthy class that the fork would be introduced to the rest of Europe in the 16th century by two women.

Enter Bona Sforza

Born in into the powerful families Sforza of Milan and Aragon of Naples, Bona Sforza (1494–1557) grew up in a world where forks were in use; more, they were in fashion.

Her family was used to the refinements of Renaissance Italy: court etiquette, art patronage, ostentatious dress for women and men, and elegant dining.

When she married Sigismund I, king of Poland and grand duke of Lithuania in 1518, becoming queen, she arrived in a region where dining customs were different. The use of forks was largely unknown.

At courts in Lithuania and Poland, cutlery use was practical and limited. Spoons and knives were common for eating soups and stews, and the cutting of meat, but most food was eaten with the hands, using bread or trenchers – thick slices of stale bread that soaked up the juices from the food – for assistance.

This method was not only economical but also deeply embedded in courtly and noble dining traditions, reflecting a social etiquette in which communal dishes and shared eating were the norm.

Bona’s court brought Italian manners to the region, introducing more vegetables, Italian wine and, most unusually, the table fork.

Though her use of it was likely restricted at first to formal or court settings, it made an impression. Over time, especially from the 17th century onwards, forks became more common among the nobility of Lithuania and Poland.

Catherine de’ Medici comes to France

Catherine de’ Medici (1519–89) was born into the powerful Florentine Medici family, niece of Pope Clement VII. In 1533, aged 14, she married the future King Henry II of France as part of a political alliance between France and the Papacy, bringing her from Italy to France.

Catherine de’ Medici, introduced silver forks and Italian dining customs to the French court.

Like in the case of Bona Sforza, these arrived in Catherine’s trousseau. Her retinue also included chefs, pastry cooks, and perfumers, along with artichokes, truffles and elegant tableware.

Her culinary flair helped turn court meals into theatre.

While legends exaggerate her influence, many dishes now claimed as French, trace their roots to her Italian table: onion soup, duck à l’orange and even sorbet.

The ‘right’ way to eat

Like many travellers, the curious Englishman Thomas Coryat (1577–1617) in the early 1600s brought tales of fork-using Italians back home, where the idea still seemed laughably affected.

In England, using a fork in the early 1600s was a sign of pretension. Even into the 18th century, it was considered more masculine and more honest to eat with a knife and fingers.

But across Europe, change was underway. Forks began to be seen not just as tools of convenience, but symbols of cleanliness and refinement.

In France, they came to reflect courtly civility. In Germany, specialised forks multiplied in the 18th and 19th centuries: for bread, pickles, ice cream and fish.

And in England, the fork’s use eventually became a class marker: the “right” way to hold it distinguished the polite from the uncouth.

As mass production took off in the 19th century, stainless steel made cutlery affordable, and the fork became ubiquitous. By then, the battle had shifted from whether to use a fork to how to use it properly.

Table manners manuals now offered guidance on fork etiquette. No scooping, no stabbing, and always hold it tines down.

It took scandal, royal taste, and centuries of resistance for the fork to win its place at the table. Now it’s hard to imagine eating without it.

Darius von Guttner Sporzynski receives funding from the National Science Centre, Poland as a partner investigator in the grant “Polish queen consorts in the 15th and 16th centuries as wives and mothers” (2021/43/B/HS3/01490).

– ref. The thousand-year story of how the fork crossed Europe, and onto your plate today – https://theconversation.com/the-thousand-year-story-of-how-the-fork-crossed-europe-and-onto-your-plate-today-260704

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark A Gregory, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, RMIT University

Multiple people have died after a botched Optus network upgrade on Thursday prevented around 600 emergency calls to Triple Zero across Australia.

The deaths currently linked to the outage – which Optus only revealed to the public, emergency services and state/territory leaders on Friday evening at a press conference – include two men, aged 49 and 74, in Western Australia, and a 68-year-old woman in Adelaide.

The outage – plus Optus’s delayed response to it – has sparked fury and condemnation. “I have not witnessed such incompetence from an Australian corporation in respect to communications worse than this,” South Australian premier Peter Malinauskas said.

This isn’t the first time a blunder by Optus has meant people in crisis have been unable to call emergency services. So what exactly went wrong? And what could be done to prevent a similar tragedy occurring again?

What happened?

Telecommunications companies routinely conduct network upgrades. Ideally, the upgrades should include a suite of tests performed beforehand as well as immediately afterwards. These tests can quickly identify any network or system problems. If a problem is identified, the upgrade can be reversed. Alternatively, what’s known as a failover system can be used if the upgrade will take some time to implement. A failover system is one that has not been upgraded.

On Thursday, Optus conducted a network upgrade. In the process of doing so it failed to identify a technical failure, which impacted Triple Zero calls.

Normal calls were still connecting during this Triple Zero outage. That’s because Triple Zero is a cooperative service that involves telecommunications companies, as well as the governments and emergency services in each state or territory. The Triple Zero core components are implemented separately, meaning any issue with them does not affect calls on the normal network.

The Telecommunications (Emergency Call Service) Determination 2019 sets out obligations on telecommunications companies to ensure they have arrangements in place for dealing with emergency calls. For example, they must provide access to the Triple Zero call service free of charge. They must also have what’s known as a “camp-on” mechanism in place. This allows your mobile phone to connect to another network to make Triple Zero calls if your network has failed.

On Friday afternoon, Optus CEO Stephen Rue apologised to the families of the people who died, as well as the broader community, for the outage.

“You have my assurance that we are conducting a thorough investigation and once concluded we will share the facts of the incident publicly”.

Not the first time

That might sound familiar. That’s because this isn’t the first time a telecommunications blunder of this kind has happened.

On March 1 2024, a Telstra network disruption resulted in 127 calls to Triple Zero failing – thankfully without fatal consequences. In that case, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) fined Telstra A$3 million.

On November 8 2023, Optus was responsible for another network meltdown which prevented more than 2,100 people from accessing Triple Zero. Optus also failed to conduct 369 welfare checks on people who had attempted to make an emergency call during the outage.

Nobody died as a result of that failure either. Optus, however, was hit with a A$12 million fine by the ACMA for breaching emergency call regulations. It was also subject to a formal review, commissioned by the Australian government and completed in April, which made 18 recommendations to prevent similar incidents occurring again.

These recommendations included establishing a “Triple Zero custodian” who would have oversight and overarching responsibility for the efficient functioning of the Triple Zero ecosystem. They also included more clearly and explicitly articulating precisely what is expected of network operators in regard to ensuring calls are delivered to Triple Zero, and requiring telecommunications companies to share real time network information detailing outages with emergency services and other relevant parties.

Following the most recent outage, federal Communications Minister Anika Wells said the Australian government has “accepted all recommendations from the previous Optus Outage Review and has fully implemented 12 of the 18 recommendations, with the remaining six underway”.

But the fact three people are dead because they couldn’t reach Triple Zero due to yet another network outage highlights the urgent need for more action.

Encouraging all telcos to lift their game

The federal government should consider even stronger minimum performance standards for telecommunications companies that provide the foundation for enforcement. These standards could stipulate, for example, minimum download and upload speeds. They could also require telecommunications companies to make a public notification about an outage within a specified time period – ideally as soon as they themselves are aware of it.

There should also be a mandated requirement for telecommunications companies to establish reasonable engineering practices to help prevent updates taking out part or the whole network. These practices could include automated testing before and after updates are carried out.

And while the ACMA will soon launch an investigation into this recent outage, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission could also investigate it. Specifically, the commission could look at whether the actions of Optus amounts to unconscionable conduct, and issue more severe fines.

This may serve to encourage Optus and other telecommunications companies to lift their game and better protect public safety.

This article has been amended to update the number of deaths linked to the outage after further investigation occurred over the weekend.

Mark A Gregory has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network grants program and the auDA Foundation. He is a life member of the Telecommunications Association.

– ref. Optus Triple Zero outage has left multiple people dead. A telecommunications expert explains what went wrong – and how to fix it – https://theconversation.com/optus-triple-zero-outage-has-left-multiple-people-dead-a-telecommunications-expert-explains-what-went-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it-265692

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Terence C. Cheng, Associate Professor, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University

If you’re one of the 45% of Australians with private health insurance, chances are the government pays, or has paid, a proportion of your premiums via rebates.

Taxpayer spending on these private health insurance rebates is projected to reach A$7.6 billion in 2025.

The rebates are a key source of revenue for private hospitals. In 2022–23, private health funds contributed $9.7 billion. This is around 45% of the $21.5 billion spent on private hospital services.

But are rebates achieving their aim of reducing pressure on the public hospital system? And if not, should the government scrap them and direct this funding to ailing public hospitals?

Remind me, what are the rebates?

The private health insurance rebate was designed to encourage Australians to purchase private health insurance. The goal was to reduce both cost and capacity pressures on the public health-care system.

The Howard government introduced the rebate in the late 1990s, alongside:

• Medicare levy surcharges, a 1–1.5% levy on taxable income for those without private health insurance

• Lifetime health cover policies, a 2% loading on premiums (per year for ten years) if you take out private health insurance after you turn 31.

Initially, the private health insurance rebate covered 30% of premiums for all Australians, and subsidies were eventually made higher for people over 65.

Since April 2014, the rebate has been indexed annually, and the government’s contribution has gradually declined as a share of total premiums.

The rebate is also means-tested, with higher-income Australians receiving a smaller subsidy.

Singles under 65 years of age earning less than $97,000 receive a 24.3% rebate. The subsidy gradually phases out to zero for those earning above $151,000.

Why do we subsidise private health insurance?

A justification for the rebates is that higher uptake of private health insurance would reduce pressure on the public healthcare system.

There is good evidence that people with private health insurance are more likely to opt for private care when they need hospital treatment.

A 2018 study showed having private health insurance increased the likelihood of a private hospital admission by 16 percentage points, and reduced the likelihood of a public admission by 13 percentage points.

However, getting more Australians to take out private health insurance doesn’t necessarily ease pressure on the public system in a meaningful way.

Read more:
Does private health insurance cut public hospital waiting lists? We found it barely makes a dent

A 2024 study of Victoria’s public hospital system found higher rates of private health insurance coverage leads to only marginal reductions in public hospital wait times.

So rather than relying on private insurance, a more direct way to reduce public hospital waiting times would be to increase funding for the public hospital system.

Do the benefits exceed the costs?

A recent study commissioned by Avant Mutual showed the rebates are cost-effective, generating $1.25 in savings for every dollar spent on the rebates.

A 2023 review of the private health insurance incentives commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care also found that having rebates results in net savings for the government. In other words, the government saves on health-care costs from people holding private health insurance and the savings outweigh what it spends on subsidies.

The review concluded the policy was “a very good financial deal for the government”.

Conversely, my past research indicated savings from scrapping the rebate would outweigh the additional costs of treating more patients in the public system.

This is likely because there are still significant financial incentives for people to maintain their health cover, especially among people on high incomes who are liable for the Medicare Levy Surcharge.

Another study from 2024 examined the relationship between having private insurance and the choice of private or public care. It concluded that even under optimistic assumptions about substitution, the potential savings in public hospital expenditure could not justify the cost of the rebates.

How can we make sense of these conflicting conclusions?

Part of the answer lies in the fact the studies rely on different assumptions, methodology and data. A key modelling consideration is how responsive consumers are to changes in the price of insurance.

The academic literature generally finds consumers aren’t very sensitive to changes in the price of insurance. As such, a reduction in the rebate would likely lead to only a small decline in private health insurance membership and a limited impact on public hospital use.

Private health insurance rebates are declining over time due to indexation and means-testing, and the government’s contribution to premiums has gradually declined over time.

The available evidence tells us private health insurance does little to relieve pressure on the public system, contrary to the rebate’s intended purpose.

Yet there is no consensus on whether reducing or removing rebates would produce net savings, or end up costing the government more than it saves. This is one area where more independent and rigorous research is needed.

Don’t cut rebates – but don’t expand them either

In the current environment with cost-of-living pressures, increasing private health premiums are placing growing strain on household budgets. In this context, rebates provide some relief and there is a good argument for maintaining them at their current levels.

Some argue rebates should be reinstated to their original 30%. However, since private health insurance does little to relieve pressures on the public system, the evidence doesn’t support expanding the rebates.

Any new funding would be better directed to expanding public system capacity or directly funding elective surgery in private hospitals to reduce public hospital waiting times.

Terence C. Cheng receives funding from the World Health Organisation and the Harvard China Fund.

– ref. Should we scrap private health insurance rebates and direct the funding to public hospitals? – https://theconversation.com/should-we-scrap-private-health-insurance-rebates-and-direct-the-funding-to-public-hospitals-258296

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rewi Newnham, Professor in Physical Geography, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The latest projections suggest New Zealand could be heading into a neutral or La Niña summer, which would bring rainier conditions to the north and east of the country.

While the prospect of a wet summer might not appeal to most people, for pollen allergy sufferers this could be a blessing in disguise.

Our latest research on pollen levels in Auckland backs up what we have long suspected but haven’t had the data to prove.

Unlike many developed countries, New Zealand doesn’t routinely monitor airborne pollen, and speculation about how La Niña and El Niño summers affect allergy sufferers has been just that. Until now.

With new data, we are able to show the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which brings us changing phases of a natural climate cycle, can have profound effects on pollen allergy levels in Auckland.

For the one-in-five of us who suffer from hay fever or asthma, this has important implications.

Tracking pollen levels

Over the 2023/24 summer – a dry El Niño season – we monitored pollen levels in Auckland each day using equipment located on top of the War Memorial Museum. This was something of a milestone, marking the first time pollen levels have been monitored in the city this century.

We were able to compare our data with results from two previous pollen monitoring projects conducted almost four decades ago. By a stroke of luck, one of these projects monitored pollen levels during a strong La Niña season in 1988/89 and the second during a neutral summer (neither La Niña nor El Niño).

This comparison clearly showed the pollen season during the La Niña summer was much shorter and less severe than during the other two seasons – just as we would have predicted.

The main reason for the differences was rainfall, which is typically higher and more frequent in northern New Zealand during La Niña summers. Grasses, like all plants, need rainfall to survive and grow but they tend not to release pollen on rainy days which can also ‘flush’ already airborne pollen out of the atmosphere.

So, periods of excessive or sustained rainfall in spring and summer can lead to suppressed or shortened pollen seasons. This seems to have been the case in Auckland during the La Niña summer of 1988/89. The grass pollen season in that year lasted 41 days.

In contrast, the other two seasons had comparatively moderate rainfall – enough to maintain grass growth and pollen production but with plenty of dry, sunny and windy days for higher levels of pollen to be released and spread.

In the 2023/24 El Niño summer, the grass pollen season lasted 77 days, almost twice as long as that seen in 1988/89.

We must acknowledge that a sample of just three seasons bookending a 35-year interval would not normally be a convincing basis for confident conclusions.

Nevertheless, the consistent pattern observed in this limited dataset is in line with expectations about how contrasting weather patterns affect pollen production and dispersal, and the results shouldn’t be sneezed at.

Advice for allergy sufferers

What does this research mean for those of us who suffer from pollen allergies?

Better understanding of pollen season variability and its causes can inform the two pillars of allergy management: treatment and avoidance of allergy triggers.

Sophisticated predictive models can forecast changing La Niña and El Niño phases many months in advance. Now that we can show these phases affect pollen levels, we can be forewarned about the likely severity of the pollen season ahead.

Above all, our research shows that pollen seasons can be highly variable – from one year to the next and likely between regions due to variations in La Niña and El Niño effects in different parts of the country.

This highlights the importance of continuing pollen monitoring to better understand the causes and consequences of seasonal pollen allergy.

Climate change, and in particular rising temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, altered patterns of precipitation and greater inter-annual variability all likely have an impact on pollen levels in New Zealand.

In the longer term, climate projections suggest Auckland will see increasingly drier and warmer springs and summers – and that’s likely to mean more pollen in the air and more bad news for those with allergies.

Rewi is part of the Aotearora Airborne Pollen Collective, a team of health and environmental researchers aiming to develeop routine airborne pollen monitoring in Aotearoa New Zealand to promote better understanding of allergy health

– ref. Parts of NZ could be heading into a wetter summer – a blessing in disguise for allergy sufferers – https://theconversation.com/parts-of-nz-could-be-heading-into-a-wetter-summer-a-blessing-in-disguise-for-allergy-sufferers-251818

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Burdon, CEO Climate Resource, and Senior Advisor to Melbourne Climate Futures , The University of Melbourne

This week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will attend the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York. He will bring something important: Australia’s new 2035 emission cut target of 62–70% on 2005 levels.

UN Secretary General António Guterres has invited global leaders to gather to present their new 2035 targets, known formally as Nationally Determined Contributions, ahead of the COP30 climate talks in Brazil in November.

COP30 is shaping up as the most consequential round of climate commitments since the 2015 Paris Agreement. Even as climate damage intensifies, there are worrying signs of backsliding on climate action in some nations.

The United States is focused on increasing fossil fuel production and hobbling clean energy. Other nations are stepping up. China’s clean energy exports are reshaping electricity markets around the world. The UN is hoping more ambitious 2035 targets will build momentum.

What role will Australia play? Our 2035 goal, announced by Albanese last week, will be important in driving the domestic transition to a clean economy. It will also factor into international climate efforts.

Australia’s target is not ambitious enough to be in line with pathways to hold climate change under 1.5°C, but it offers clarity. It also raises the possibility of achieving net zero earlier than 2050 if underpinned by strong, rapid action.

How does Australia’s target stack up?

Australia’s 62–70% target range has been critiqued from several sides. Climate advocates wanted more ambition. Some business groups wanted a lower figure, while others called for a 75% target.

In reality, this pathway seeks a balance between pragmatism and higher ambition. The planned emission cuts are actually more ambitious than if Australia were to cut emissions at a steady rate between 2030 and 2050 – the year we need to reach net zero.

Over the past decade, Australia’s emissions outside the land-use sector have been falling slowly. Falling emissions from electricity production have been offset by rising emissions in transport and other sectors.

At present, emissions are about 28% lower than 2005 levels, due largely to changes in land use.

The nation’s 2030 goal is a 43% cut before hitting a minimum of 62% by 2035. Our analysis indicates this will require a sharp acceleration in how fast emissions fall between 2030 and 2035.

To make this steep trajectory less challenging, Australia could go faster in the next five years to make the path to 2035 smoother. If Australia maintained this pace, it could have another benefit: increasing the feasibility of Australia reaching net zero at an earlier date.

Global temperatures are tracking upwards

As global momentum builds ahead of COP30, the choices made by major economies such as Australia will influence whether a 1.5°C pathway remains within reach. As one of the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters, Australia’s decisions on energy and climate policy can shift global markets and boost momentum toward a 1.5°C future.

The Paris Agreement commits countries to hold the increase in global temperature well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.

Some have concluded the 1.5°C goal is already out of reach, but this is premature.

The World Meteorological Organization confirmed 2024 was likely the first year where global average temperatures had risen to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. There’s a 70% chance average warming in the five-year period from 2025–29 will be above 1.5°C.

Despite this, the best estimates of long-term average warming are still below 1.5°C, hovering between 1.34°C and 1.44°C between 2015 and 2034.

Can we still limit warming to 1.5°C?

Every fraction of a degree past 1.5°C adds more risks to food and water security, health and ecosystems, as well as costing more in adaptation and raising chances of irreversible impacts such as sea level rise and species extinctions.

The 1.5°C target is also legally significant. In July, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that states have legal duties under international law to prevent significant harm to the climate, using 1.5°C as a benchmark for responsible action.

The latest figures on the global carbon budget show the remaining volume of carbon dioxide able to be emitted for a 50:50 chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C is now just 130 gigatonnes.

Given the world is still emitting more than 40 gigatonnes a year, this budget will be used up in a little over three years. Global emissions have simply not declined fast enough. They may peak in 2025, but this is still unclear.

As a result, feasible scenarios for limiting end-of-century warming to 1.5°C now involve overshooting this target temporarily while working towards net zero and then bringing it back down. The risk here is that carbon removal techniques and other measures may not be viable on the timelines and scale required.

These 1.5°C scenarios will require strong global action to rapidly phase out fossil fuels, strengthen net zero targets by bringing them forward, and scaling up realistic and sustainable forms of carbon removal.

What are other countries doing?

As of September 2025, 36 countries have submitted new or updated targets for 2030 or 2035, covering around 23% of global emissions.

This includes major emitters such as the US (under the former Biden administration), Japan, Canada and Brazil, while others such as China and India are yet to submit. The European Union has flagged an indicative 2035 target of 66.3–72.5% below 1990 levels.

If all existing national emission reduction goals and net-zero targets are implemented in full, warming is projected to reach 1.7–2.1°C by 2100.

If countries instead continue to emit at levels in line with their 2030 targets, warming will be well over 2°C.

These estimates may change as leaders announce more 2035 targets. If these targets collectively set the world on a straight line towards net zero – backed by strong implementation – it will mark a decisive shift in global efforts to limit warming and avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

Achieving this for the world as a whole means high-income, high-emitting countries such as Australia must be as ambitious as possible in setting targets and taking action. They also have a responsibility to support global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C to ensure a fairer and more climate-resilient future.

Rebecca Burdon also works for Climate Resource, which consults to organisations on NDCs and the warming implications of country targets. No conflicts exist in relation to this article.

– ref. With 2035 emissions targets set, what Australia does next will help shape global efforts to keep 1.5°C alive – https://theconversation.com/with-2035-emissions-targets-set-what-australia-does-next-will-help-shape-global-efforts-to-keep-1-5-c-alive-265665

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Gundlach, Lecturer in Education, The University of Melbourne

In-person lectures have been a staple of university learning for centuries.

But for more than a decade, there has been increasing debate about the relevance of lectures in modern higher education. Some academics and institutions argue they are no longer needed in the same way.

But research shows in-person lectures can be an important way to keep students connected to their peers and what they are learning.

If we want to keep the in-person lectures, we need to change the way they are delivered.

What’s happening to lectures?

Changes to in-person lectures were accelerated by COVID lockdowns, where everyone learned from home, alongside the rise of online learning platforms.

In the post-pandemic era, universities have increasingly offered online, “asynchronous” learning. This allows students to choose when they engage with course resources and tasks. There is a growing acceptance of online learning as a preferred option, rather than a lockdown necessity.

There are financial benefits for universities. Online lectures can increase enrolments through people who may not otherwise be able to attend due to where they live, or to work commitments. It also removes class size restrictions.

There can also be reduced overhead costs of in-person facilities.

More controversially, universities might reuse lectures across semesters, employ fewer faculty, or outsource teaching to external providers.

‘Speed-watching’ and learning from home

Online lectures cater to different learning preferences. Recorded lectures allow students, particularly those for whom English is an additional language, to watch with subtitles or transcripts. Students can pause to make notes or check reference material.

Some students “speed-watch” lectures on faster playback speed or listen to them like podcasts while exercising or commuting.

This flexibility is also helpful for students who do not live near their university or who have mobility issues, illnesses, or care responsibilities.

But campus attendance can deprive students of valuable in-person interactions with their peers and teachers. This is particularly crucial for certain fields, such as healthcare, education and service-based industries, where professional socialisation plays a vital role in career preparation.

Research suggests online only courses do not suit students who are weaker academically or who have poor self-discipline or time management.

So there is a difficult balance to strike between convenience and educational quality.

But something else is going on

Beyond the convenience aspects, there could be other reasons lectures are dying out.

Lecturers need to update their teaching style.

Reading dot points on slides, reciting essays, and delivering content in a monotone voice do not cut it in the age of TED talks, TikToks and short format media.

Lectures should not be lonely

I’ve been looking at how students engage with both in-person and online learning as part of a scoping review and routine quality assessment. Academics can see how many students download lectures, which pages they visit, how long they visit for, and how much they contribute in online forums.

Internal data from a number of large higher education institutions indicates up to 60% of students are not attending in-person lectures in some faculties. Despite the accessibility and convenience of online learning, up to 40% of students are not accessing lecture recordings at all. This data aligns with similar studies in the field.

This means students are missing out on opportunities to chat about ideas with classmates and lecturers. They’re missing the chance to make friends and professional contacts in their field. They’re not having their ideas challenged or supported. And they are not being exposed to key curriculum content.

It’s a domino effect. When fewer people engage with lectures, smaller in-person tutorials suffer too, because students do not have the curriculum knowledge to engage at a meaningful level.

For students who do show up, it can feel pretty lonely. Lecturers find it less satisfying too.

How can we encourage students to come back?

So maybe it’s not just about preserving lectures. It’s about reinventing them for today’s students.

Just as the corporate world is facing the challenge of enticing workers back to the office, we need to think about how to attract students to in-person lectures.

Lectures must offer unique experiences that can only be done in-person.

Research suggests the key is to make lectures more personal, experiential, engaging and interactive.

Though university positions are called “lecturers”, let’s reimagine what a “lecture” can be. It may encompass formats such as debates, Q&A sessions, or “Ask Me Anything” formats. It can be case studies, role-plays, mock activities, panels, hands-on workshops, competitions, or pitches. It may even be as simple as using slideshows better.

Technology can help lecturers engage with students who are attend in-person via polls, live questions and chat threads on their phones or devices.

What’s the point here?

Of course, different courses, subjects, and groups of students will need different approaches.

While breaking content into small modules might be beneficial in some subjects, the ability to follow an argument or concentrate for longer periods is still important in many others.

With students too, some international students come from learning cultures of quiet listening, which is quite different from the less formal, opinionated style we’re used to in English-speaking countries.

But we need to be upfront about what we’re trying to achieve.

The goal isn’t simply get students sitting in a theatre. It’s about creating a learning experience worth showing up for, and facilitating more engaged and interactive learning.

Hugh Gundlach 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. To save in-person lectures, unis need to provide lessons worth showing up for – https://theconversation.com/to-save-in-person-lectures-unis-need-to-provide-lessons-worth-showing-up-for-265275

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giuseppe Carabetta, Associate Professor of workplace and business law, UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney

Within days of American conservative Charlie Kirk’s assassination, people posting on social media or commenting on his death – including TV host Jimmy Kimmel, teachers, pilots, a football team employee, and a US Secret Service employee – were being censured, suspended or sacked.

Whether you support or oppose those decisions, it’s striking they occurred in the United States, which has strong constitutional protections for free speech. But even those rights don’t necessarily shield people from workplace consequences when reputational harm or breach of conduct is alleged.

Australians don’t have a constitutional right to free speech. Instead, we rely on a narrow, implied freedom of political communication, which offers limited protection and rarely applies to employment disputes.

Recent high-profile disputes have tested the boundaries of what Australians can say at work and outside it. Think journalist Antoinette Lattouf, rugby player Israel Folau and pianist Jayson Gillham.

Without clearer legal guidance in Australia, disputes over workplace speech — especially on social media — are likely to keep ending up in court.

Lattouf vs the ABC

The Fair Work Act is Australia’s main legislation outlining the rules for employee and employer relationships.

But it offers only limited protection for political opinion. It also lacks a direct or general mechanism for balancing employees’ rights to express personal views with employers’ legitimate interests.

That legal ambiguity has been at the heart of several high-profile cases, most recently a Federal Court decision involving the ABC and Lattouf.

Lattouf was dismissed mid-contract in 2023, after the ABC claimed she breached its social media guidelines and ignored a direction not to post about the conflict in Gaza.

However, in June this year the Federal Court found no such direction had been issued and no actual breach identified. It held her dismissal was unlawful under section 772 of the Fair Work Act, which prohibits termination based on political opinion.

This ruling didn’t break new legal ground. But it was significant for highlighting the fragility of employee protections, when codes of conduct are vague or inconsistently applied.

Other high-profile Australian cases

Lattouf’s case joined a growing list of disputes with a common thread: the lack of consistent standards and guidance on workplace speech.

Israel Folau’s dismissal by Rugby Australia for posting religious views on Instagram sparked national debate on freedom of religion and expression in 2018. His case, settled out of court the following year, left unresolved how far codes of conduct can override statutory protections.

Similarly, pianist Jayson Gillham’s dispute with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra — centred on political expression during a performance last year — reflects the same tension.

Read more:
Who really gets fired over social media posts? We studied hundreds of cases to find out

It’s unclear what ‘political opinion’ even means

Codes of conduct serve legitimate purposes: preventing harassment or discrimination, ensuring impartiality, and managing safety.

But when used to suppress dissent or punish unpopular views, they risk undermining democratic values.

In the Lattouf vs ABC case, Justice Darryl Rangiah pointed out that section 772 of the Fair Work Act reflects Australia’s international human rights obligations – specifically Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It was a reminder that our employment laws don’t exist in a vacuum.

Yet the Fair Work Act does not define “political opinion”, and courts elsewhere have struggled to apply it.

Does it include attending rallies? Sharing memes? Criticising policy? The answer remains unclear.

Legal solutions could clear up confusion

Legislative reform would help.

One option would be to amend the Fair Work Act to define “political opinion” more clearly. This definition could include not just party membership or views on government policy, but also civic participation – such as protests or petitions – and moral or ideological beliefs with political dimensions.

It could also clarify that political expression includes both verbal and non-verbal acts, such as social media posts or peaceful protest attendance.

But definition alone isn’t enough.

Currently, the Fair Work Act offers limited protection. Employers can often justify disciplinary action by pointing to breaches of workplace policy or failure to follow lawful directions, effectively sidestepping the issue of political belief.

Provisions like section 772 of the Fair Work Act offer no clear framework for weighing an employer’s right to protect its reputation and maintain a safe workplace against an employee’s right to express personal views.

A federal Human Rights Act could offer a more robust solution. There’s also a strong case for an independent oversight body — perhaps a Workplace Rights Commissioner or an expanded Fair Work Ombudsman — to offer guidance, mediate disputes early, and help balance the rights of employees with the needs of employers and others affected.

Legal scholars Joellen Riley Munton and Therese MacDermott have proposed expanding the Fair Work Commission’s unfair dismissal and bullying jurisdictions to handle such disputes.

Reform won’t be easy. But unless we want more workplace conflicts playing out in court for years to come, a clearer legal framework is urgently needed — for everyone’s sake.

Giuseppe Carabetta 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. Expressing strong opinions can put your job at risk. Clearer laws would help – https://theconversation.com/expressing-strong-opinions-can-put-your-job-at-risk-clearer-laws-would-help-265085

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sonia Akter, Associate Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Beginning in the second half of 2019, what we now know as the Black Summer fires began devastating eastern Australia.

Thousands of homes were destroyed, hundreds of lives were lost (mainly from smoke-induced health impacts) and smoke blanketed cities for weeks. By summer’s end in 2020, an area estimated to be larger than the United Kingdom had burned.

These fires were not normal. They were megafires: vast, intense blazes that burn for weeks or months. Warming temperatures and prolonged droughts are making such disasters more frequent in Australia, the United States, Canada and southern Europe.

The scale of Black Summer was staggering. So, too, was its uneven impact on different communities, which went beyond damage to property.

Our new research examined the impact of these fires on Australians living through them, in terms of income, housing stress and unpaid work. By focusing on these aspects, and not just property damage, we found the fires made a range of preexisting inequalities worse. Poorer communities, renters and women carried the heaviest burdens after the fires were put out.

This month, Australia’s National Climate Risk Assessment found “susceptibility to fire across southern and eastern Australia is projected to increase, due to increases in heat and the frequency of heatwave conditions”.

So, what can we learn from our new research on Black Summer to make future bushfire recoveries fairer for everyone?

Before and after

Our research included thousands of small Australian communities, each with an average of about 400 people. For comparison, we matched burned areas with unburned areas that had similar characteristics prior to the fires.

This allowed us to statistically compare how similar communities in both burned and unburned areas had changed between 2016 and 2021: before and after the Black Summer fires.

By linking fire extent maps to Australian Bureau of Statistics census data, we traced shifts in income, housing and household work.

We found the impacts of the fires differed across location, gender, housing (homeowner or renter) and socio-economic status. All of this affected how quickly households recovered from the Black Summer fires.

Shorter work hours and job losses

Many households’ incomes were hit by the fires. But these losses were concentrated in the most severely burnt areas, especially in “peri-urban” areas, where suburbia meets the bush.

These places offer proximity to nature while also being within a relatively easy commute of jobs, shops and schools. In these locations, we found communities that experienced the highest burn severity had the largest falls in average, weekly personal income.

We looked at both “poor” areas (defined as being in the bottom half of Australia’s Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage Index), where people not only earn less money but also experience other forms of disadvantage, as well as “non-poor” areas (those in the top half).

In poorer burned areas in peri-urban locations, the share of households reporting no or negative income increased, by about 1.3 percentage points compared to unburned areas.

These impacts were likely due to disruptions to local businesses and tourism, meaning shorter work hours and job losses for some.

A housing nightmare

For renters, the fires triggered an even greater housing crisis. Across all burned areas, rents increased compared to those in communities in unburned areas.

Across all burned areas, rents increased by an average of about A$20 per week, or roughly 10%. But in poorer communities, the average rise was even greater: closer to A$26 a week or 13%.

Unsurprisingly, crowding in homes became more common in areas affected by fires. Those without shelter because of fire damage or destruction, or who were simply priced out of the rental market because of reduced supply, most likely moved in with friends or relatives.

Many families also faced long waits to rebuild their homes, or struggled to secure temporary housing. Widespread underinsurance, the slow pace of rebuilding, and surging construction costs all made it worse.

More unpaid labour

Another hidden impact of the fires was an increase in unpaid work. Such work is rarely counted in disaster statistics, but it erodes wellbeing and prolongs recovery.

After the fires, many faced tasks such as repairing damaged homes and making insurance claims. With lower incomes and housing costs rising, poorer households were even less able to hire tradespeople to help in their recovery efforts.

But we found additional unpaid household work pressures fell disproportionately on women, amplifying pre-existing inequalities.

For women in highly burned areas, the share of them spending at least 15 hours a week on unpaid tasks rose by around 1.7 percentage points compared to women in unaffected communities. For men, the increase was smaller, at around 1 percentage point.

What we can learn

Understanding these often overlooked impacts matters in how Australia plans for disasters and designs for recovery. If we prioritise property damage and insured losses, recovery funds flow disproportionately to wealthier households.

This risks leaving poorer communities – with fewer assets but heavier hidden losses – behind.

This is not just an Australian problem. The United Nations has produced the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, urging governments to consider how disasters affect different groups, including a gender action plan.

The Black Summer fires highlight disasters are not “great equalisers”. They widen existing inequalities. Unless disaster planning fully considers these hidden losses, uneven recovery will deepen social and economic divides.

Sonia Akter receives funding from 2023 ANU College Of Science Brooke Bushfire Research Fund.

Quentin Grafton 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. New research shows Black Summer’s megafires left lasting scars far beyond property damage – https://theconversation.com/new-research-shows-black-summers-megafires-left-lasting-scars-far-beyond-property-damage-264195

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael James Walsh, Associate Dean and Associate Professor in Social Sciences, University of Canberra

Spotify has been subject to various lingering critiques. These range from criticism of its payment model, to the presence of “fake artists”, the Joe Rogan boycott saga, and controversies around AI-made music.

More recently, cofounder and chief executive Daniel Ek has come under fire for investing €600 million (more than A$1 billion) in the military AI company Helsing. The news prompted several artists to remove their music from the platform, including King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard, Xiu Xiu, Deerhoof, Wu Lyf and, as of last week, Massive Attack.

To top it all off, Spotify has been steadily raising its prices for premium subscribers.

We’ve seen a spate of headlines targeting users who for one reason or another are considering, or determined to, tune out from the platform. For many, this may not be a hassle-free adjustment – but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

Users are picking up the tab

As of 2022, streaming accounted for 67% of the revenue generated by the music industry.

It’s estimated one in 12 people are regular Spotify users – putting the streaming giant well ahead of its nearest rivals YouTube Music (a Google subsidiary) and the China-domiciled Tencent Music.

While most users access Spotify for free, about 268 million of its 696 million monthly active users pay a premium for ad-free access.

For many years, Spotify kept prices fairly steady as it concentrated on growth. It did not make a profit until 2024. But chief business officer Alex Norström recently said price rises “were part of our toolbox now”.

Spotify has promised price rises will be accompanied by new features. Norström said the platform was developing a feature for “superfans” of popular artists, not to mention introducing (belatedly) “lossless” (higher-quality) sound.

Other music streaming services, such as Amazon Music, are also raising prices, to varying degrees of success.

Why Spotify dominates music streaming

There are several reasons for the dominance of streaming, and the broader dematerialisation of music media. As David Bowie foresaw in 2002: “music itself is going to become like running water or electricity”.

Streaming services such as Spotify avoid the stigmas associated with consuming pirated music recordings. They also remunerate artists (although many would say these payments are inadequate).

Ek made it clear a key aim of the company was to ensure no perceivable “latency” (annoying delays due to buffering) when songs were selected to play.

Spotify has also been at the forefront of leveraging the social dimensions of music streaming. It promotes user-created playlists and wayfinding functions that allow fans to feel like they own “their” music collection, despite not having the physical artefacts such as vinyl or CDs.

Users can interact with one another. They can share their listening activity on dating profiles, with peers, and through marketing initiatives such as Spotify Wrapped.

From the early days, Spotify sought to present itself in ways that resembled social media. More recently, it has released TikTok-inspired feeds, comments, polls, artist stories, collaborative playlists and a messaging feature.

Calling the tune through algorithms

A significant part of Spotify’s success stems from its continuous development of its interface and recommendation algorithms. These algorithms have become central to how users find, access and listen to music.

Importantly, Spotify caters to what scholars identify as a “lean-back” mentality. Users are encouraged to consume editorial playlists, rather than actively browse for tracks. This increases its power to influence the music with which listeners engage.

It aims to be an easy-to-use, always-convenient service, catering to any moment:

Spotify has a playlist to match your mood. Not only in the morning, but at every moment of your day.

Switching may be hard, but not impossible

The move away from streaming may now be hard to reverse, even as it becomes more expensive. Despite the resurgence of vinyl, many listeners have given up on physical music collections.

Spotify has also developed features to increase “stickiness” for subscribers. Users have created nearly nine billion playlists. As it’s difficult to transfer playlists to another streaming service, it makes users more likely to stick with Spotify.

It also has a reputation for having the most songs available. There is a large chance it will have the song you want to listen to.

Nonetheless, that doesn’t mean alternatives aren’t available. And most of them are cheaper than the A$15.99 per month Spotify charges in Australia.

Apple Music is an audio (and now video) streaming app developed by Apple, and launched in 2015. It promotes spatial and high-resolution music and integrates effectively with iOS devices.

Amazon Music is a music streaming platform included with an Amazon Prime subscription, offering access to songs, podcasts and playlists. It also integrates with Amazon’s Alexa virtual assistant devices.

YouTube Music is available to YouTube Premium subscribers. Succeeding Google Play Music, it offers various playlists and radio station features, with strong integration into YouTube’s video ecosystem.

Tidal is a music streaming service that positions itself as the leader in high-fidelity audio. Alongside Spotify, Tidal was one of the first platforms to allow users to follow selected Facebook friends and receive music recommendations from them.

Anghami, launched in 2012, is the leading music streaming service dedicated to music from the Middle East and North Africa.

There are also third-party apps (both paid and unpaid) you can use to transfer your old Spotify playlists to a new service, such as Free Your Music, Tune My Music, Soundiiz and SongShift (only for iOS).

Read more:
‘I almost feel like stuck in a rut’: how streaming services changed the way we listen to music

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. Criticisms against Spotify keep mounting. Luckily there are alternatives – https://theconversation.com/criticisms-against-spotify-keep-mounting-luckily-there-are-alternatives-264982

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marija Taflaga, Senior Lecturer, School of Political Science and International Relations, Australian National University

In May, immediately after the 2025 election, debate swirled about whether the Coalition agreement would survive. The consensus was that it would be madness for the Liberals and the Nationals to part ways. Nonetheless they did so, briefly, before awkwardly reconciling. It was not a convincing display.

Fast forward four months and the Liberals are riven by factional conflicts on net zero and immigration, driven by actors from the National Party, including former leaders Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack, and recent Nationals defector Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. Some who have been touted as future party leaders are threatening to quit the frontbench over a net zero target 25 years away.

Many will be asking how the Liberals got to this point. But I think the more interesting question is where they might be headed.

Internal conflict has a long history

The first thing to note is that conflicts over immigration and climate change are not new.

The Liberal Party is a hybrid conservative-liberal party. This means it’s an awkward coalition of liberal and conservative interests, which united to oppose organised Labor more than a century ago, and have undergone various transformations and iterations since.

From an ideological perspective, some principles these different groups hold are contradictory. These include, for example, how much the state should get involved in people’s private lives, or an ongoing tension between economic or social “progress” and tradition. These differing worldviews can cause problems.

The Nationals add an additional layer of complexity, because the shared Coalition party room allows members of the Liberal Right to form policy coalitions across the party divide, placing additional pressure on the moderate faction.

Within the Liberal Party, ideological differences are usually managed by the disciplining incentive of government or an overwhelming desire to win government. But at times like these, on the back of two catastrophic election losses, those guardrails are nowhere to be found.

Unlike Labor, the Liberal party doesn’t have a formal factional system, which means it doesn’t have a bargaining infrastructure to help manage disputes. This means the way the Liberals resolve internal conflicts is through leadership change and, inevitably, one faction dominating the other.

Again, the Nationals complicate this, because their additional numbers in the Coalition party room create more opportunities for policy entrepreneurs within the Liberal Right to push conservative policy positions. It’s not just numbers, but powers too, as Opposition Leader Sussan Ley is limited in her ability to exercise authority over Nationals members who are not in the shadow cabinet.

In many ways, the events of the past week have a familiar pattern to political observers. But the difference is the overall political landscape.

Australia is undergoing a realignment in how citizens vote. This means Australian voters are no longer as rusted onto a particular party as they have been in the past. It also means the Australian party system, like those in other Western democracies, is in flux.

So, is this the beginning of the end for the Liberal Party?

Unlikely.

Despite all the existential talk about the Liberal Party, there remain significant institutional ballasts and supports. These range from public funding (including payments to help parties run administration and IT security), party infrastructure, volunteer networks, bricks-and-mortar buildings, brand recognition and even exemptions from Australia’s privacy laws.

There are also all the privileges the Liberal Party receives as the official opposition, including additional salaries, staff and resources to assist with policy formation, and the rights and powers of our legislative chambers such as question time or the budget reply.

It is really hard to build a successful new party – most fail – so while the Liberal Party might be in serious institutional decline, it remains worth fighting for.

But something is happening to the Liberals

On top of the advantages listed above, voters think of the Liberals as the natural governing alternative to Labor.

However, as noted above, the Australian party system is in flux. The 2025 election saw the return of most of the teal independents. With each election cycle, the habit of voting Liberal weakens, particularly as fewer voters are switching to conservative parties as they age. The cohort of “rusted-on” Liberals is ageing and is not being replaced at the same rate.

If the Liberals spend multiple cycles not engaging with the median voter, and can’t articulate a credible alternative story about the Australian economy, it does raise the question: who will voters turn to when they decide to throw Labor out?

To be clear, it is healthy for political parties to debate policy. But the crucial thing happening to the Liberal Party while it undertakes these policy debates is that Australians are voting out the moderates from the party. By switching to the teals in the Liberals’ former blue-ribbon seats, voters are removing the traditional elite of the party.

If you don’t believe me, consider the example of the Victorian Liberals, who keep losing to a long-lived and unpopular Labor government. The risk for the Liberals is that there comes a point where there is no viable future for a moderate Liberal in the party. It is no longer worth fighting over the remaining institutional infrastructure and brand advantage. In this situation, those candidates (and their voters) would need to find a new political home.

That could lead to a situation where there are three parties on the right needing to cooperate to form a governing coalition. Another alternative might be a merged National and Liberal Party that would form a coherent conservative party and would seek to work with a new liberal force.

This is why the debate inside the Liberal Party is important. But that’s also why it matters that it does not appear to be happening in a constructive way that would lead to a new consensus. Instead, it looks like a set of factional power plays.

Incidentally, immediately after losing the 2022 election, Scott Morrison advocated for a future in which the Liberals and Nationals merged and a new Liberal force emerged in the centre. Morrison was always highly rated as a numbers man. Perhaps he will be right about the Liberal Party’s future, too.

Marija Taflaga receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. The Liberal Party is riven with disagreements and discontent. Can it survive? – https://theconversation.com/the-liberal-party-is-riven-with-disagreements-and-discontent-can-it-survive-265387

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

Much of the world is focused on a two-state solution in resolving the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears devoted to realising his vision of a “Greater Israel” instead.

Netanyahu appears to be halfway through achieving this goal, despite all the international condemnation of his war in Gaza and the increasing isolation of Israel.

The two-state solution now seems to be no more than a catchword for governments around the world that want to show their solidarity with the Palestinian cause at a time when Israel is hard at work to ensure the concept becomes totally defunct.

The prospects for creating an independent Palestinian state out of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip to live side-by-side with Israel in peace and security have never been dimmer.

Israel maintains Trump’s unwavering support

In the wake of Israel’s attack on Hamas leaders in Qatar earlier this month, an emergency Arab-Muslim summit was convened by Qatar to provide a collective response.

The meeting proved to be very ineffective. The leaders issued a strong condemnation of the strike on Qatar, but no plan for how to prevent Israel from attacking its neighbours or halt what a United Nations commission has now called a genocide in Gaza.

Instead, the leaders offered a tepid statement, saying they would:

take all possible legal and effective measures to prevent Israel from continuing its actions against the Palestinian people.

Middle East leaders know the only power that can rein in Israel is its committed strategic partner, the United States.

Washington does not appear prepared to do that. While President Donald Trump has assured the region Israel will not repeat its attack on Qatar, his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, urgently flew to Israel to reconfirm America’s unshakeable alliance with the Jewish state.

In praying together with Netanyahu at the Western Wall with a kippah on his head, Rubio demonstrated the Trump administration would stand by the prime minister all the way.

And Netanyahu was quick to declare that Israel reserves the right to hit the “Hamas terrorists” anywhere. He has demanded Qatar expel Hamas officials or face Israel’s wrath again.

A vision for a ‘Greater Israel’

Based on the language used by the Israeli leader and his extremist ministers, the creation of “Greater Israel” appears to be a priority.

In recent weeks, Netanyahu has publicly alluded to this, saying he was “very” connected to the idea.

The “Greater Israel” phrase was used after the Six-Day War in 1967 to refer to the lands Israel had conquered: the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula (which has since been returned to Egypt).

This concept was enshrined in 1977 in the founding charter of Netanyahu’s Likud Party, which said “between the [Mediterranean] Sea and the Jordan [River] there will only be Israeli sovereignty”.

Last year, Netanyahu affirmed that Israel must have “security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River”. He added, “That collides with the idea of [Palestinian] sovereignty. What can we do?”

Netanyahu is now firmly in a position to annex the Gaza Strip, followed by formally extending Israeli jurisdiction over all the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, where more than 700,000 settlers live under the protection of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), and potentially annex the entire area.

In addition, Israel has made extraterritorial gains in both Lebanon and Syria after degrading Hezbollah and striking both southern Syria and Iran. He has said the IDF’s footprint in both countries will not be pulled back any time soon.

Arab and Muslim leaders have strongly condemned Netanyahu’s references to a “Greater Israel”. The US also has not publicly endorsed it, though the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has been a supporter of the idea.

What can the world do?

Netanyahu and his colleagues have weathered the international criticism over their catastrophic Gaza operations for nearly two years, with unwavering US security, economic and financial backing.

Equally, Netanyahu’s critics say he has shown little concern about the safety and freedom of the remaining Israeli hostages still in Hamas’s custody. He has brushed off the desires of a majority of Israelis for a ceasefire and release of the hostages.

For Netanyahu and his ruling clique, the end justifies the means. Given this, the expected recognition of the state of Palestine by many Western countries at the UN General Assembly this week will have little or no bearing on Israel or, for that matter, the US. They have both already rejected it as a meaningless and unworthy symbolic exercise.

This begs the question of what needs to be done to divert Israel from its path. The only means that could possibly work would be sanctioning Netanyahu and his government and severing all military, economic and trade ties with Israel.

Anything short of this will allow the Israeli leadership to continue its pursuit of a “Greater Israel”, if this is indeed their ultimate plan.

This would come at a terrible cost not only for the Palestinians and the region, but also for Israel’s global reputation. When Netanyahu eventually leaves office, he will leave behind a state in international disrepute. And it may not recover from this for a very long time.

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. Is Benjamin Netanyahu on a mission to realise a Greater Israel? – https://theconversation.com/is-benjamin-netanyahu-on-a-mission-to-realise-a-greater-israel-265662