Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Yao, Senior Lecturer, School of Management, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

China’s economic rocket ride appears to be ending – or slowing, at least. Growth has declined from 8.4% in 2021 to 4.5% today, youth unemployment has climbed to 16.9%, and cities are filled with unfinished buildings after the collapse of property developer Evergrande in 2024.

For a while now, a phrase has been buzzing on Chinese social media sites Weibo and RedNote to describe what’s happening: “garbage time”.

Borrowed from basketball slang, it refers to the final minutes of a game whose outcome is already decided. The best players sit out. The bench players take over. No one tries as hard because there’s less at stake.

The term caught on last year and seems to capture a mixture of sadness and dark humour. Basically, people now seem to expect less. It’s not so much an economic crash as a slow decline of hope.

For those born in the 1980s and 1990s, who grew up during China’s four decades of fast growth, this is a major shift. Wages aren’t climbing, houses are losing value and jobs in tech and finance are harder to find.

But “garbage time” is also making room for younger and middle-class Chinese to redefine success and contentment. With good jobs, luxury goods and home ownership now harder to attain, a generation is questioning what matters most in a changing socioeconomic landscape.

From Prada to ‘living light’

Only ten years ago, many in China’s middle classes were chasing big dreams: they bought homes and designer brands, and sent their children overseas for schooling. “Getting rich is glorious,” former leader Deng Xiaoping once said.

Many Chinese fully embraced this idea. According to a 2021 study of millennial consumption habits, 7.6 million young Chinese spent an average of 71,000 yuan (US$ 10,375) on luxury goods in 2016, approximately 30% of the global luxury market.

Now they appear to be changing course, putting that kind of spending on hold because of financial anxiety.

Take the rising phenomenon of “tang ping”, for instance, which is seeing more young people embrace “living light” and rejecting hustle culture. Or the notion of “run xue” or “run philosophy” – literally the study of how to leave China.

Young Chinese are marrying later, too, with rising wedding costs and changing attitudes to traditional family values seen as the main reasons.

Shopping habits appear to confirm the trends. Xianyu, China’s biggest online used-goods seller, reached 181 million users in 2024. Sales topped one trillion yuan, ten times the 2018 level. Chinese car maker BYD now outsells prestige foreign brands.

This is about more than just saving money. Traditionally, Chinese culture has valued career success and family status, but job scarcity and falling house prices are challenging old assumptions.

Young Chinese are now questioning the value of hard work in a system that may no longer reward it. They increasingly value personal wellbeing over chasing status. If the trend continues, it could see a new sense of middle-class identity emerge.

Ripples hit the world

The global implications of all this are significant. When 500 million people change their spending habits, global markets notice.

A once favoured brand like Apple has lost ground while local brand Huawei gained. Homegrown sportswear maker Li Ning is challenging Nike. Companies that planned for seemingly endless Chinese growth are having to recalculate. Along with other regulatory and geopolitical complexities, this makes planning harder.

School and work life is changing too. China’s intensive education system has seen pushback from some students and its “996 work culture” (9am to 9pm, six days a week) is fading.

Overall, China’s economic sprint is slowing to a steadier pace. And this deceleration of the economic model that drove the nation’s rise presents major challenges for its government.

With Donald Trump’s tariff policies looming in the background, China’s imports declined at the start of this year. Exports still grew, but at a much slower rate.

The middle-class has been both the engine and the beneficiary of China’s extraordinary growth. But with 40% having seen their wealth decline in recent years, robust consumer confidence cannot be assumed.

Whether this is a long-term trend or merely a strategic adjustment, for now it seems a new economic identity is emerging. Either way, one thing is certain: when the world’s second-largest economy changes how it spends, everyone feels it.

Christian Yao 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. Living in ‘garbage time’: when 500 million Chinese change their spending habits, the world feels it – https://theconversation.com/living-in-garbage-time-when-500-million-chinese-change-their-spending-habits-the-world-feels-it-253341

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirk Dodd, Lecturer in English and Writing, University of Sydney

Some say Shakespeare invented the “history play” – but he had a lot of help.

Shakespeare was mainly writing comedies in the early 1590s when he is believed to have coauthored the play we now call Henry VI Part 2 with Christopher Marlowe and others.

Following the commercial success of this play and its coauthored sequel, Henry VI Part 3, a rival theatre company wrote a prequel play we now call Henry VI Part 1. Studies suggest Shakespeare was never a primary author of this play, but he did contribute to it later.

As previous coauthors died, all three Henry VI plays fell into Shakespeare’s lap by 1595, and he was tasked with editing all three plays together as a trilogy (or a tetralogy, with his Richard III).

After the success of this first tetralogy, Shakespeare reached further back in time to write Richard II, followed by the two Henry IV plays, then Henry V.

By 1599, Shakespeare had two tetralogies to his name (or two “Henriads”, as Shakespeare scholars dub them), dramatising the hundred-odd years, and various reigns, between Richard II and Richard III (1377–1485).

These eight plays have now been stitched together by director Damien Ryan as The Player Kings, which can be watched over two nights or as one performance lasting from 11:30am to 11:00pm.

This is binge-worthy Shakespeare, stupendously absorbing and exquisitely realised.

A modern history

Ryan begins in the 1950s, before evolving to catch up with contemporary times when we see a sniper drone launched against Richard III. Lily Moody and Ruby Jenkins’ stylish costumes lend a sense of chronology to the historical plights.

Richard II is elegantly 1950s, but the wayward Prince Hal channels 1960s Mick Jagger. Jack Cade’s rebellion in Henry VI is working-class 80s (one character wears a Back to the Future t-shirt). The devilish Richard III is cool black leathered nonchalance.

Ryan is a master of delighting his audiences by delivering Shakespeare’s lines faithfully with unexpected visual scenarios. In Richard II, the king and queen partake in a royal photo shoot. This segues into a scenario where technicians develop the black and white photos under red lights, all the while speaking Shakespeare’s lines.

In a sequence from Henry VI, the blue and white tiles of the court transform into a shimmering pool for a languid pool party. Ryan praises Shakespeare in the program for letting “his form match his content, which is the very point of poetry”. Ryan also achieves this with his exciting direction.

Kate Beere’s dynamic and malleable set combines a grassy knoll with other green spaces and a tiled court centre stage, joined to a rutted cement staircase and backed by a windowed entrance. This doubles as a screen for historical footage of 20th century social upheavals, with video design from Aron Murray. News cameras are brought onstage to project live footage of a monarch’s “comms” with the populace, a place where egos and diplomacy clash.

Perched atop all this is the musical nest of composer Jack Mitsch, who plays guitars and drums underpinning the drama.

Brilliantly performed

The acting is second to none. Sean O’Shea gives a mesmerising performance as Richard II, a flippant self-centred king genuinely attached to his favourites.

Katrina Retallick’s Queen Isabel is vibrant and assured. Longstanding doyens of Australian theatre, Peter Carroll and John Gaden, are paired up as the two gardeners.

Gareth Davies as the banished, but soon-to-be usurping Henry Bolingbroke plays a psychological game as he slowly wrests the crown from Richard, prompted more by political survival than ordained succession. Christopher Stollery is controlled, astute and forceful as Northumberland.

Ryan’s casting of his two young sons in Henry IV is inspired. Oliver Ryan performing Prince Hal and Max Ryan as Harry Hotspur adds poignancy to these rivals who must duel each other to the death.

The Boar’s Head Tavern becomes a 60s “lock-in” of counterculture mayhem, with Emma Palmer delivering a superbly stoned Doll Tearsheet. Steve Rodgers’ Falstaff is raw and straight from the pub, licentious to the max, and prone to mooning the crowd. Lulu Howes’ wild Lady Hotspur yearns for her distracted husband’s attention. Andrew Cutcliff gives a thundering and manly impression of King Henry V.

The rarely performed Henry VI plays are fused together in an embroiling dynastic power-play. Outstanding performances include Davies as a delicate King Henry VI, unschooled in the vicious brutalities of monarchical contest, and Henaway as a commanding Joan of Arc.

As civil strife erupts between the “white-rosed” Lancastrians and the “red-rosed” Yorkists, we see the early rise of “that valiant crook-back prodigy”, Richard of Gloucester (Gamble), who murders his way to becoming King Richard III. In that final play, Palmer gives a vociferous Margaret of Anjou.

Glued to the action

Eight plays delivered in two 4.5 hour sessions, and yet Sport for Jove is mindful of audience comforts. Each session has two intermissions and most blocks run less than 90 minutes. The acting and dynamism on stage works so well that the crowd I attended with was glued to the action from first word to last, 12 hours later.

While Shakespeare made history with these plays, The Player Kings becomes history in the making: a landmark Australian production.

The Player Kings from Sport for Jove is at the Seymour Centre, Sydney, until April 5.

Kirk Dodd 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. Could you watch 8 plays in 12 hours? How The Player Kings creates binge-worthy Shakespeare – https://theconversation.com/could-you-watch-8-plays-in-12-hours-how-the-player-kings-creates-binge-worthy-shakespeare-252042

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacqueline Boyd, Senior Lecturer in Animal Science, Nottingham Trent University

Scent is how dogs largely experience the world, a lot like the way we humans rely on sight. We know little about how dogs interpret scent, but thanks to a recent study, we may be getting closer to understanding what a dog’s nose actually knows.

Dogs are primed to detect smells. The average dog’s nose has more than 10 million scent receptors in their nose, compared to humans, who only have about 6 million.

This makes the canine nose more than 10, 000 times better at detecting scents than we are. They can detect minute quantities of scent. For example, forensic detection dogs can detect 0.01 microlitres of gasolene. A microlitre is one millionth of a litre.

Humans have exploited dogs’ olfactory superpowers in a number of ways, which has no doubt contributed to the deep relationship we have developed with our canine companions over 40,000 years living together.

Dogs still join us as hunting partners, sniffing out food. They work beside us as vital members of crime-fighting teams, finding illicit substances, as medical colleagues for disease detection, and as partners in conservation efforts, finding rare and endangered species.

Despite the widespread involvement of dogs as natural scent detectors, we remain largely oblivious as to how dogs interpret what they smell and how they perceive the world in which they live.

Exploring the brain activity of dogs when they are exposed to specific smells can help identify which of their brain regions are associated with scent detection. This helps scientists understand what the dog is experiencing, which might help us enhance the selection and training of sniffer dogs.

Until now, scientists needed expensive equipment to study dogs’ brains and research methods that required dogs to stay still. This means we know less about the brains of active working dogs who might struggle to remain motionless for long periods.

But we can’t simply apply the data from dogs who can cope with sitting still since dog breeds have differences in their training and scenting skills.

Sensing scents

The recent study I mentioned at the beginning of this article uses a new, cheap and non-invasive method to explore how the canine brain responds to scent. The researchers think that this method – known as AI speckle pattern analysis – will help us identify how dog brains react to scents and what it means for how dogs perceive and respond to the world around them in future research too.

The researchers developed an optical sensor to target three brain areas involved in canine scent discrimination: the amygdala, olfactory bulb and hippocampus. The amygdala is responsible for emotional responses to stimuli.

The olfactory bulb is involved with odour processing and the hippocampus is associated with memory formation.

The equipment used in the study consisted of a high resolution digital camera linked to a computer, plus a green laser. Laser light, capable of penetrating dog fur and skull bone, was shone on the heads of four relaxed, blindfolded study dogs who were exposed to four different scents: alcohol, marijuana, menthol and garlic. These substances all appear to evoke similar olfactory responses in dogs.

As laser light was reflected from the three brain areas, the camera detected interference as a distinct “speckle” pattern. The camera made recordings for five seconds, repeated four times for each scent.

AI analysed differences in the speckle patterns from the different brain regions to create models of how the brain regions of the dogs responded to each scent.

It’s not just sniffing

The study results highlighted the importance of the amygdala for canine scent discrimination. This suggests that there could be an emotional component to how dogs sense their environment. Taste and odour detection are also known to be linked to memory formation and emotional state in humans.

Because dogs appear to experience emotional responses to scents, training methods and experiences might need to take this into consideration. For example, dogs often link the characteristic aroma of the veterinary surgery with less-than-fun situations.

Dogs in training for scent detection would also probably benefit from being in a positive emotional state when they are exposed to training odours.

This research could even pave the way to developing specialised equipment for detecting and translating the olfactory responses of dogs. Mobile equipment that works rapidly could allow us to interpret what dogs’ noses are telling them in real time.

This isn’t as far-fetched as it may sound. If you’ve seen the Disney movie Up, you probably remember Dug the dog who wore a bark translation collar. Well, scientists have developed a real collar that claims to tell you what your dog’s vocalisations mean.

It’s difficult to say how accurate it is without analysing the data the collar’s AI was trained on, but the database is growing as more dogs use the collars. If the collars do prove accurate, it might not be too long before wearable technology can tell us exactly what our dogs are saying and smelling.

Jacqueline Boyd is affiliated with The Kennel Club (UK) through membership and as advisor to the Health Advisory Group. Jacqueline is a full member of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT #01583) and she also writes, consults and coaches on canine matters on an independent basis, in addition to her academic affiliation at Nottingham Trent University.

– ref. Dogs see their world through smell – and scientists are starting to translate it like never before – https://theconversation.com/dogs-see-their-world-through-smell-and-scientists-are-starting-to-translate-it-like-never-before-252659

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Wilcockson, Research assistant, University of Glasgow

Until recently, fans of William Wordsworth could visit his final home, Rydal Mount and Gardens, nestled in the heart of England’s green and beautiful Lake District. Renowned as one of the most prominent British poets, the works of Wordsworth (1770-1850) include what is widely regarded as the most famous poem in the English language, I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud.

So it’s not surprising that his immaculately maintained house and gardens, with breathtaking views of Lake Windermere and Rydal Water, once attracted 45,000 visitors a year.

However, rising costs, a fall in visitor numbers to 20,000 or fewer per year, and the residual effects of the pandemic have placed the future of the museum in question.

The current owners have put Rydal Mount on the market for the first time since 1969 for £2.5 million – meaning this important piece of literary heritage, depending on who buys it, could become closed to the public.

The house was bought by Mary Henderson, Wordsworth’s great-great-granddaughter, in 1969 and opened as a writer’s house museum a year later.

Rydal Mount was originally a small 16th-century cottage. By 1813, there was enough room for Wordsworth, his wife Mary and three surviving children, plus Wordsworth’s sister-in-law Sara and sister Dorothy – author of the Grasmere Journal, which detailed the household’s life.

Leaving the cramped conditions of the more famous Dove Cottage behind them, it was at Rydal Mount that Wordsworth truly settled, building a “writing hut” and extensively landscaping the grounds to his own design.

This article is part of our State of the Arts series. These articles tackle the challenges of the arts and heritage industry – and celebrate the wins, too.

Next to Rydal Mount is Dora’s Field, which also has literary significance. Here, the poet is believed to have planted 1,847 daffodils to mark his daughter Dora’s memory, following her death from tuberculosis aged 42. These daffodils still bloom every spring.

While living at Rydal Mount, Wordsworth revised his epic “The Prelude” and wrote many other popular poems. This too is the house where he died in 1850. It was only when Mary died in 1859 that the family’s tenancy of the house came to an end.

Visitors get to step into the house where all this happened and see a wealth of rare objects, including a rare portrait of Dorothy and Wordsworth’s letter to Queen Victoria refusing the job of Poet Laureate (which he later accepted).

Owning England’s heritage

Visitors go to literary museums to experience the “spirit of the place”, to “encounter” the author and absorb some of their creativity. One recent visitor to Rydal Mount was so disappointed not to meet Wordsworth personally that they wrote a disparaging review, telling of their confusion that the poet “wasn’t in” and “when [they] asked when he would be home, all [they] got was blank stares.”

Wordworth is so closely connected to the Lake District that marketing strategies have used him to promote the area since the 1800s. Rydal Mount has had an integral role in maintaining these traditions. The estate agent’s advert is keen to stress the “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to own a piece of England’s heritage” and the “superb gardens … designed by Wordsworth himself”.

In selling the museum as it is, there is a real risk that Rydal Mount could become a private home lost to the public eye – much like Greta Hall, the home of Wordsworth’s fellow poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge, which has long been privately owned.

Prospective closure is not uncommon for smaller museums in 2025. A recent report noted that three in five small museums fear closure because of declining revenue and footfall. 2020 was the 250th anniversary of Wordsworth’s birth and should have been a bumper year of events and tourism for the Lake District. Instead, the pandemic ravaged the celebrations and left tourist attractions in financial peril that many have not recovered from.

Critics will argue that even if Rydal Mount does close, there are still three more Wordsworth homes open to visitors (Dove Cottage, the favourite of tourist guides, Wordsworth House and Garden, and Allan Bank). Even Wordsworth’s old school is a museum.

The closure of Rydal Mount would inevitably boost these other sites’ visitor numbers – particularly Dove Cottage, which is on the same (albeit long) road as Rydal Mount. And the condition of Wordsworth’s last home could potentially be improved by a private owner with ample funds to upkeep the house.

However, it is also true that public appreciation of museums remains high, with 89% of adults in a 2024 YouGov survey advocating for their importance to UK culture, and 54% registering disappointment if their local museum were to close.

While the British Museum has experienced its highest visitor numbers since 2015, more needs to be done to save regional museums and writer’s house museums from closure. The sale of Rydal Mount into private hands may prove a severe loss to literary history, leaving the Lake District much the poorer for it.

Amy Wilcockson 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. William Wordsworth’s last home is up for sale – returning it to a private residence would be a loss for the UK’s cultural heritage – https://theconversation.com/william-wordsworths-last-home-is-up-for-sale-returning-it-to-a-private-residence-would-be-a-loss-for-the-uks-cultural-heritage-253561

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Riehle, Lecturer in Intelligence and Security Studies, Brunel University of London

Aleksandr Dugin, sometimes referred to as “Putin’s brain” because of his ideological influence on Russian politics, endorsed the policies of Donald Trump in a CNN interview aired on March 30. Dugin said Trump’s America has a lot more in common with Putin’s Russia than most people think, adding: “Trumpists and the followers of Trump will understand much better what Russia is, who Putin is and the motivations of our politics.”

Dugin made his name by espousing Russian nationalist and traditionalist – including antisemitic – themes, and publishing extensively on the centrality of Russia in world civilisation. So, this endorsement should be a warning of the disruptive nature of the Trump White House. It implies that Dugin believes Trump’s policies support Russian interests.

Dugin began his career as an anti-communist activist in the 1980s. This was less because of an ideological antipathy for communism than his rejection of the internationalism that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union espoused. He also criticised the party for breaking from traditional – especially religious – values.

Dugin proposes what he calls a “fourth political theory”. The first three, he claims, are Marxism, fascism and liberalism – all of which he thinks contain elements of error, especially their rejection of tradition and the subordination of culture to scientific thought.

Dugin’s fourth political theory takes pieces from all three and discards the elements with which Dugin disagrees, especially the dwindling importance of traditional family and culture. The culmination is a melange of ideas that sometimes appear Marxist and sometimes fascist, but which always centre on the criticality of traditional Russian culture.

His founding philosophy is traditionalism, which he views as a strength of Russia. Thus, he has become a strong supporter of the country’s president, Vladimir Putin, who emphasises traditional Russian values. Dugin and Putin align in their criticism of liberalist anti-religious individualism, which they claim destroys the values and culture on which society is based.

Dugin has value for Putin because he advances the president’s objectives. Putin’s security goals are in part founded on the principle that political unity is strength and political division is weakness. If Russia can maintain political unity by whatever means necessary, it retains its perception of strength. And if a state opposed to Russia is divided internally, it can be portrayed as weak.

The Russian government claims complete political unity inside Russia. Its spokespeople reinforce that claim by declaring, for example, the Russian electorate was so unified behind Putin that the 2024 Russian presidential election could have been skipped as an unnecessary expense. They also push a strained claim that the Russian population is unanimously behind the Ukraine war.

Dugin energises voters behind Putin, basing his support on the philosophy of Russian greatness and cultural superiority, and the perception of Russian unity. His influence has been felt throughout the Russian government and society. He publishes prolifically, and lectures at universities and government agencies about the harms of western liberalism. He also served as an advisor to Sergey Naryshkin, currently director of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) of the Russian Federation.

Dugin’s views support an expansionist Russia, especially in the direction of Ukraine. He questions the existence of Ukraine and promotes Russia’s war there wholeheartedly. But his support for the war led to an attempt on his life. On August 20 2022, a bomb exploded in a car owned by Dugin, killing his daughter, Darya, who was driving it back from a festival of Russian traditional art.

Divide and conquer

Russia applies the same principle of “unity equals strength” to its adversaries, but in reverse. Many Russian political thinkers try to emphasise political divisions in unfriendly states. They work hard to broaden existing disagreements and support disruptive political parties and groups.

Such operations give the Russian government the ability to denigrate the foreign powers that Russia considers adversaries by making them look weak in the eyes of their own people – and more importantly, in the eyes of the Russian population.

Dugin lays a philosophical foundation for foreign parties that oppose the European Union and western liberalism, and that disrupt political unity. His views have been adopted by far-right political groups such as the German National Democratic Party, the British National Party, Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary, and the National Front in France.

Dugin’s interview in which he endorsed Trump’s policies is likely to have been directly authorised by the Kremlin. He pushes a Kremlin-sponsored endorsement of Trump’s divisive – and thus weakening – effect on US politics.

But Dugin’s extreme Russian nationalist rhetoric at times clashes with Putin’s attempts to include all peoples of Russia in a strong unified state, rather than only ethnic Russians. As it is a multi-ethnic state, Russian ethnic nationalism can obstruct Putin’s attempts at portraying strength through unity. The label “Putin’s brain” is only accurate sometimes.

The Russian government uses Dugin when he is useful and separates itself from him when his extremism is inconvenient. Dugin is a tool who says many of the right things and facilitates Kremlin goals. His endorsement of Trump should be seen in its context: Russia attempting to strengthen itself at the expense of the US.

Kevin Riehle 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. ‘Putin’s brain’: Aleksandr Dugin, the Russian ultra-nationalist who has endorsed Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/putins-brain-aleksandr-dugin-the-russian-ultra-nationalist-who-has-endorsed-donald-trump-253466

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felix Arndt, Professor and John F. Wood Chair in Entrepreneurship, University of Guelph

When United States President Donald Trump first floated the idea of annexing Canada, many observers rolled their eyes. The common assumption was that this proposal, like much of Trump’s bombast, amounted to little more than a fleeting soundbite.

Yet, amid continuing public remarks about Canada becoming the 51st state and suggestions of genuine intent, the idea has become part of a broader conversation about North America’s future.

The idea of the U.S. merging with Canada outright has not been received well in Canada, especially because Trump’s threats have been accompanied by economic warfare aimed at forcing Canada into submission. After all, the U.S. already has 50 states. Canada, with its population of about 40 million and its immense geographic size, would be an outsized “51st” by any comparison.

But any serious analysis of this proposition quickly reveals that annexation would be far more complicated — and far less one-sided — than the label “51st state.”

Our analysis is premised on an assumption that the U.S. remains a democratic system that has not turned into a pseudo-monarchy, in keeping with a Trump social media post in early February proclaiming “long live the King.”

The most important takeaway from our analysis is that a unified country would need to inaugurate a new president and Parliament. The path towards the integration of the countries would have to start with closer economic integration, not the alienation currently in place.

A multi-state reality

As we argue in our newest self-published book Make America Greater? A Scenario of a Friendly Canada-U.S. Merger, Canada would not simply become part of the U.S. as a single state under the provisions of the American Constitution.

Based on population and the distribution of power in U.S. Congress, Canada’s 10 provinces and three northern territories would almost certainly be carved into multiple states, perhaps nine or more.

This is no small detail.

America’s unique electoral arithmetic grants each state two senators, while seats in the House of Representatives depend on population size. With around 40 million new citizens, a unified North America would reshape the balance of power in both the Senate and the House.

Read more:
Canada as a 51st state? Republicans would never win another general election

Critically, the new country formed via unification might end up looking far more like Canada than many Americans imagine.

Why? Canadian voters lean more centrist — or even centre-left — than the average American does. Over time, that could tilt congressional priorities in favour of policies reflecting Canada’s taste for universal health care, stricter gun control and robust social welfare.

The longstanding political tug-of-war in the U.S. could see its centre of gravity shift, likely to the chagrin of some more conservative segments of the existing union.

Tariffs, politics and tensions

Officials on both sides of the border are already locked in a dance of retaliatory tariffs.

Each new measure escalates anxieties, threatening to derail one of the world’s largest bilateral trading relationships.

Some might argue that if tariffs are putting negative pressures on the economy and roiling the markets, perhaps deeper integration — or even full-blown unification — could serve as a release valve. But the path towards a friendly merger is best taken step-by-step and starts with stronger economic integration, not alienation.

Read more:
Canada’s response to Trump’s tariffs was strategic, but there is room for improvement

Forging a genuine union goes well beyond removing trade barriers. Canada and the U.S. differ on far more than just economics: from bilingualism laws to gun regulations, from health care to environmental policy, the two countries embody contrasting visions of how society should function.

Canadians would expect to preserve elements of their social contract that many regard as superior to American norms — particularly their single-payer health-care system and comparatively strict firearms restrictions.

A process genuinely aimed at integrating the two countries would take this into account. It would extend the United States-Mexico-Canada trade deal further to strengthen economic integration, elevate the rights of French and Spanish speakers in the U.S. in order to signal compatible cultural values and extend Medicare to show an appreciation of the common denominators of the two societies.

Trump’s current rhetoric, however, does not seem to indicate a genuine desire for a unification.

Why a merger could favour Canada

As surprising as it seems, our analysis suggests that a unified North America could lean Canada’s way over time.

Even if the American Electoral College were reimagined — or scrapped — Canadian provinces transformed into states would wield significant power, influencing everything from budget allocations to Supreme Court appointments.

Read more:
As Joe Biden becomes president, here’s an easy proposal for Electoral College reform

What’s more, cultural convergence has an asymmetrical pull. Younger Americans show a growing appetite for social safety nets, while Canadians remain broadly wedded to their publicly funded health-care model.

Over a few election cycles, these forces could converge into a more expansive welfare regime, something that would astonish traditional conservatives across the current 50 states.

A combined North America would boast one of the largest economies on Earth, including abundant natural resources and technological innovation.

The promise of frictionless trade, a single currency and vast internal markets might delight big business and certain multinational interests. Yet the path would be fraught.

Constitutional arrangements, Indigenous rights, linguistic protections and environmental regulations — all areas in which Canadian norms diverge significantly from American precedents — would have to be reconciled.

Canadians, proud of their universal healthcare, progressive climate policies and lower rates of gun violence, would worry about being subsumed by a more rambunctious, militarized neighbour. Americans, meanwhile, would fear they would be forced to adopt new taxes and policies at odds with their historic emphasis on individual freedoms.

A country more closely resembling Canada

Regardless of whether Trump’s annexation talk proves more than just bluster, the notion of a friendly U.S.–Canada merger invites reflection. It reminds us that North America’s two largest nations remain economically interlocked and geographically co-located, though culturally distinct.

With tariffs in place and cross-border tensions mounting, creative solutions are worth examining, even if a merger can — at best — be seen as a long-term vision.

A genuine offer of a merger would require that Canadians to be assured that if such a union did transpire, their voices might echo far more loudly than expected in the halls of Washington, D.C.

And Americans — facing shifting demographics and changing societal values — may discover that the annexation Trump initiated could bring surprises that tilt the new country much closer to its northern neighbour’s ideals than to the status quo below the 49th parallel.

Felix Arndt is an author of a book referred to in this article.

Barak Aharonson is an author of a book with a similar topic.

– ref. Canada a 51st state? Here’s how American annexation could actually favour Canada – https://theconversation.com/canada-a-51st-state-heres-how-american-annexation-could-actually-favour-canada-251547

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giulio Ponte, Research Engineer at the Centre for Automotive Safety Research, University of Adelaide

When a vehicle and a cyclist collide, the cyclist almost always emerges worse off. Globally, more than 40,000 cyclists are killed and millions more seriously injured in road crashes.

In most of these collisions, the driver is responsible.

So, what factors are involved when a cyclist and a car collide?

The most common factors

The most common types of vehicle-cyclist crashes are caused by:

• drivers turning in front of cyclists
• drivers not giving right-of-way to cyclists
• drivers opening doors in front of cyclists
• drivers side-swiping cyclists by passing too close to them
• drivers rear-ending cyclists.

When drivers ‘look-but-failed-to-see’

Many drivers fail to notice cyclists until it’s too late. Sometimes this phenomenon is referred to as SMIDSY (“sorry mate, I didn’t see you”).

Crash researchers often classify these types of crash as a “looked-but-failed-to-see” error.

Cyclists are extremely susceptible to this. They are small, not a safety threat to drivers, are outnumbered and are typically ranked low on a driver’s “attentional hierarchy”. It may also be that drivers just don’t expect cyclists to be around.

Cyclists can be inconspicuous but even if they are visible, drivers may look but not “see” them because they’re focusing on something else.

This selective attention test highlights how easy it is to end up in a looked-but-failed-to-see situation:

It is inevitable drivers will occasionally make errors resulting in near misses and crashes. Telling drivers to look out for cyclists and not crash into them won’t stop crashes with cyclists. So what might help?

Solutions with limited effectiveness

While errors are inevitable, improving road infrastructure and using layouts that highlight cyclists in potential conflict areas can help.

In practice, this means things such as advanced stop lines or holding areas that place cyclists ahead of motor vehicles at intersections so cyclists are more visible and can move off safely.

Advanced green lights (where the traffic light turns green for cyclists before it does for cars) could also help, as they allow cyclists to move off while motor vehicle traffic is still stopped.

Bicycle-activated warning signage provide a visual warning to alert drivers that a cyclist is near by.

Improved road lighting to highlight cyclists better on the network at night, would also help.

There are also things cyclists can do to improve their own safety. These include

• using permanent running lights (bicycle lights that are constantly on)
• wearing bright clothes
• wearing reflective strips on their lower legs to highlight the natural motion of their feet and legs.

Many roads have white lines painted on them to allocate separate space to cyclists and there are mandatory passing distance laws throughout Australia as well as in some international jurisdictions.

However, research has shown that close passing is still relatively common and that painted bike lanes may actually increase the frequency or severity of these dangerous interactions.

Speed limit reform

If we know that errors are inevitable and crashes will occur, then we should make those events survivable.

Humans are fragile. Being struck by a car at 50 km/h is estimated to result in a 90% chance of being killed. At 30 km/h, the risk of being killed decreases to just 10%.

Speed limits of 40 km/h and 30 km/h improve safety for both cyclists and pedestrians, particularly in high pedestrian and cyclist locations.

While lowering speed limits is widely supported within the road safety fraternity, more efforts are needed to promote acceptance throughout the wider community.

Autonomous emergency braking

One opportunity for reducing or eliminating collisions with cyclists (in the absence of speed limit reform) may be with advanced driver assistance systems such as autonomous emergency braking.

These systems constantly and rapidly process visual information in the traffic environment.

They can help prevent certain crashes, or reduce collision speeds, when human error occurs.

They can also help prevent “dooring”, which is where a cyclist collides with a car door suddenly opened by the driver.

However, these technologies are not 100% effective; emergency situations between vehicles and cyclists can occur suddenly, with little time for automated systems to respond appropriately.

These systems are also generally only available on newer vehicles. Given the average age of Australian vehicles is over 11 years, it will take some time before they are widely prevalent and have a significant influence on bicycle safety.

Eliminating conflicts

Dedicated separated infrastructure is optimal for cyclist safety as it avoids interactions between vehicles and cyclists completely.

However, this infrastructure often forces cyclists to share space with pedestrians such as children, dog walkers, wheelchair users, and parents with prams (which can introduce other safety issues).

Additionally, these dedicated separated paths are not always well connected, or may “lead to nowhere”, so they don’t always appeal to cyclists.

Another way to eliminate conflicts is through changes to the traffic network. For example, controlling turn movements at traffic lights with right-turn arrows means drivers no longer need to decide when it’s safe to turn.

But this comes at a cost to traffic efficiency. In our society, unfortunately, there are many who value lost time more than the cost of road crashes and injury trauma.

Ultimately, if we want to focus on the value of human life and live-ability, we need to rethink the transport hierarchy to place more value on the most vulnerable road users. This could be achieved with “presumed liability” laws, where a driver who collides with a cyclist must prove they were not at fault.

Finally, we should remember that we are all vulnerable at some point in our transport journeys.

Giulio Ponte has membership in Bike Adelaide, as well as his local Bicycle User Group, the Royal Automobile Association of South Australia and the Australian College of Road Safety (SA Chapter).

Jamie Mackenzie is a member of the Australasian College of Road Safety. He is currently the Chair of the South Australian Chapter of the Australasian College of Road Safety and sits on the Executive Council of the national body.

– ref. ‘Sorry mate, I didn’t see you’: when drivers look but don’t see cyclists on the road – https://theconversation.com/sorry-mate-i-didnt-see-you-when-drivers-look-but-dont-see-cyclists-on-the-road-244935

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter J. Dean, Director, Foreign Policy and Defence, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

International and domestic policy have collided in Australia in recent weeks with a force not seen in decades.

Foreign policy concerns have dominated media headlines, from the Chinese research vessel travelling along the south coast (and the Chinese navy’s circumnavigation of Australia), to the continued war in Ukraine, the resumption of hostilities in Gaza and US President Donald Trump’s mercurial approach to foreign policy.

This has brought home to the Australian public, and its political leaders, how tenuous our geostrategic and economic circumstances are.

This is a policy debate the leaders of both major parties would prefer they didn’t have to have. Debating defence spending is like going down a political cul-de-sac. Once you enter it, it is a dead end with only one way to turn around and get out: spending more money on defence.

Credibility on the line

Both political leaders understand federal elections are not won on defence policy debates. Polling data has revealed, unsurprisingly, that cost of living is front and centre of voter’s minds.

Defence is central, though, to political credibility and it does influence voters’ perceptions. To be seen as “soft” on national security is to fail one of two major credibility tests of national political leadership (the other being basic economic management).

For the Coalition, national security is perceived as a traditional strength. But in the most recent election, Scott Morrison tried to make security a key election issue and lost control of the agenda, badly damaging his already bruised political image.

This time, neither leader has much of a choice but to engage in defence and national security debates. Global uncertainty has put defence spending in the frame as a key election issue.

Trump and his tariffs were front and centre during Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s press conference when he announced the election on Friday morning. The shadow of Trump will stalk both the main candidates wherever they go for the rest of the campaign.

Pre-election arms race?

A potential election campaign defence spending arms race is in the making. This is a political reality both that Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton know.

Dutton has had to accept more risk and was the first to blink. He committed A$3 billion, in addition to existing defence spending, to buy a fourth squadron of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

The government responded with an extra $1 billion for defence over the next two years in the budget.

Dutton parried again in his budget reply, pledging to “energise our domestic defence industry” and flagging more announcements to come during the campaign.

This means that along with the cost of living, health and energy, defence will likely be a key election issue.

Closer to home

This defence debate is different from election campaigns of decades past. It is far less about faraway conflicts of political choice, although peacekeeping for Ukraine is still to be decided.

Instead, the contemporary strategic debate is about how global and regional disruptions are impacting the foundations of the Australian economy.

And as the Chinese navy’s unprecedented actions off the coast of Australia, including unannounced live fire exercises, underscored, the real question is about how well-prepared we are to defend the homeland.

Read more:
Should Australia increase its defence spending? We asked 5 experts

The government spends around 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) on defence, but with pressures on the existing defence budget, this is widely regarded as not enough.

Since mid-2024, the main question among defence pundits has been whether the number should be 3% of GDP. If so, how quickly can we get there?

The pressure for 3% has only increased with the election of Trump and his demands that US allies pay more for their own defence, especially as the US spends 3.4% of its GDP on defence.

GDP may well be a poor way to measure defence spending, but it has political cache, both domestically and internationally.

A different debate

Traditional defence spending debates in Australia have largely focused on big platform announcements, such as which planes, ships and tanks a government will buy for the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The Coalition’s pledge for more F-35s fits this traditional policy mould perfectly.

But this debate has shifted. The latest defence strategy calls for Australia to work strategically to circumvent the strength of major powers, rather than trying to achieve the same strength. This requires a shift in traditional defence thinking.

Even more significantly, defence policy is no longer just about the types of major platforms our military will have decades into the future. Now, the debate is centred more on what can be done to ensure the ADF is ready to “fight tonight” or in the near future.

This focus on preparedness and readiness is at the centre of the 2024 National Defence Strategy the Albanese government brought into place following the 2023 Defence Strategic Review.

Core to this approach is the concept of “national defence”. This includes key national resilience issues such as field, energy and cyber security, industrial resilience, supply chain resilience, innovation, science and technology, and defence workforce. These should be key focuses.

This means the real question in the election campaign should be: what can be done with any additional defence spending to ensure we are addressing these issues more quickly and more efficiently?

Peter J. Dean was co-lead of the 2023 Defence Strategic Review (DSR) Secretariat. He also works at the United States Studies Centre, an independent research centre at the University of Sydney that receives grant funding from the Australian Department of Defence; Bechtel, HII, and Babcock; Thales; Raytheon; Lockheed Martin; US State Department; the National Endowment for Democracy; the Japan Foundation and the Taiwanese Economic and Cultural Office. He is a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. The author maintains academic freedom and the views expressed in this article are his own.

– ref. Defence is shaping up to be a key election issue, whether politicians like it or not – https://theconversation.com/defence-is-shaping-up-to-be-a-key-election-issue-whether-politicians-like-it-or-not-253440

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

The Labor party on Wednesday will urge the Fair Work Commission to grant a real wage increase to Australian workers on awards.

This goes further than Labor’s recommendations in earlier years, which have been for real wages not to go backwards.

In the new submission, Labor will say that the increase should be “economically sustainable.” It says a rise in minimum and award wages should be consistent with inflation returning sustainably to the Reserve Bank’s target band of 2% to 3%.

The move sets up a debate between the government and opposition about what are responsible wage increases.

The submission says: “Labor believes workers should get ahead with a real wage increase. Despite heightened global uncertainty and volatility, the Australian economy has turned a corner. Inflation is now less than one third of its peak, unemployment remains low, there are over 1 million additional people employed than in May 2022, and interest rates have started to come down.

“Economic growth rebounded at the end of last year and the private sector is now a key contributor to growth. Importantly, real wages growth has now returned and is forecast to continue across 2024-25 and 2025-26. A soft landing in our economy looks more and more likely.”

More than 2.9 million workers have their pay set by an award and are directly affected by the commission’s Annual Wage Review. The national minimum wage is presently $24.10 an hour, which is $915.90 for a 38 hour week, equivalent to $47,626.80 a year.

The submission points out that women are disproportionately represented in jobs that are under awards and low paid.

The government argues that its position is both economically responsible and fair, and will ensure low paid workers can get ahead as inflation moderates. It says that if its recommendation is accepted, this will help about three million workers, including cleaners, retail workers and early childhood educators.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese recalled that during the 2022 campaign he was asked if he supported a wage increase for low paid workers.

After he said “absolutely”, the Liberals had said this would wreck the economy,

“Since then we’ve seen wages going up, inflation coming down and interest rates starting to fall. This campaign will again advocate for workers to get a pay rise to not only help them deal with the pressures of today, but to get ahead in the future.”

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said: “The choice at this election is between a Labor government which has been creating jobs, getting wages moving again, rebuilding living standards and rolling out responsible cost-of-living help versus a Coalition that wants Australians working longer for less.”

In its submission Labor says an economically sustainable real wage increase would complement the measures the government has introduced to ease cost-of-living pressures.

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

– ref. Labor will urge Fair Work Commission to give real wage rise to three million workers – https://theconversation.com/labor-will-urge-fair-work-commission-to-give-real-wage-rise-to-three-million-workers-253560

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Holloway, Senior Research DECRA Fellow, Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has begun his election campaign with fresh criticism of schools.

The Coalition has previously raised concerns the national curriculum is “unwieldy” and “infused with ideology”. On Monday night, Dutton suggested states needed new funding conditions to make sure schools were teaching appropriate content. He told Sky News federal money should be conditional to ensure schools are not “guided into some sort of an agenda that’s come out of universities”.

He added to his comments on Tuesday, saying he wants students at schools (and universities) to receive an education that “reflect[s] community standards”.

I support young Australians being able to think freely, being able to assess what is before them and not being told and indoctrinated by something that is the agenda of others and that is the approach we would take.

Education Minister Jason Clare responded by claiming Dutton had a “bigger agenda” to “cut funding from schools”.

What is the curriculum and who decides what Australian students are taught?

What do students learn in Australian schools?

All Australian schools are required to teach the Australian Curriculum. Commonwealth and state and territory education ministers first approved the curriculum in 2009. It applies from the first year of schooling through to Year 10.

The curriculum sets out:

the expectations for what all young Australians should be taught, regardless of where they live in Australia or their background.

It is made up of eight “learning areas”: English, mathematics, science, humanities and social sciences, the arts, technologies, health and physical education and languages.

It can be described as a “map” of what teachers are expected to cover in each subject and year level.

This is to ensure all students across the country, whether in a small regional school or a large city one, have access to the same broad foundation of knowledge and skills.

Who develops the curriculum?

The Australian Curriculum is designed by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, an independent statutory authority established by the Australian government.

The authority describes the curriculum as:

provid[ing] teachers, parents, students and the community with a clear understanding of what students should learn regardless of where they live or what school they attend.

Every six years, the curriculum is reviewed and approved by education ministers from each state, territory and the Commonwealth. The current version was endorsed in April 2022 under the Morrison government (just before the last federal election).

The next review is expected in 2027-2028. This process includes consultation with teachers, curriculum experts, academics, professional associations and the wider public.

Do teachers and universities decide what’s taught?

Classroom teaching is guided by the Australian Curriculum. While teachers have professional discretion in how they deliver content, they are expected to “know the content and how to teach it”.

In fact, some education experts believe the curriculum is too crowded and leaves little flexibility for teachers to tailor learning to local contexts or student needs.

Universities do not control the curriculum. Their main role in Australian schooling is to train teachers and conduct research. But teacher education programs must meet national accreditation standards. These need to fit with the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers and Australian Curriculum.

So while universities play an important role in preparing teachers to interpret and deliver the curriculum, they are not responsible for what schools teach.

Who does what?

Debates about what schools teach are not new and are likely to continue. But it is important they are grounded in an accurate understanding of how the system works.

Teachers, universities and governments all have different roles in shaping school education.

The Australian Curriculum is a nationally agreed framework, developed through public consultation and ministerial oversight. Teachers implement the curriculum according to professionally-acredited standards and attention to students’ individual needs. Universities support the education system through teacher preparation and research.

Jessica Holloway has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Who decides what Australian students are taught in schools? – https://theconversation.com/who-decides-what-australian-students-are-taught-in-schools-253532

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy is doing little to enhance his country’s standing abroad. But it is helping to reinforce his political authority at home.

Congress and the courts are typically deferential to the president on foreign policy – and, in particular, issues related to national security. By putting most of his agenda under the banner of foreign policy, Trump is now taking advantage of that deference to minimise challenges to his power.

Trump has claimed for decades that US domestic problems can be solved with a more aggressive foreign policy.

This focus certainly helps him deal with his political problems, allowing him to attack his enemies and evade accountability under the guise of “saving the country”.

Trump has even gone so far as to call April 2 – when sweeping new tariffs are imposed on foreign goods – “Liberation Day”.

This is a term usually used to celebrate the end of long wars rather than the beginning of them.

Congress ceded its foreign policy powers

We are used to thinking of the US president as having almost unlimited power over US foreign policy. But the Constitution actually gives a lot of that power to Congress.

For example, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. It also gives Congress the power to “collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises”, which include tariffs.

Given these shared responsibilities, the legal scholar Edward Corwin described the Constitution as “an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy.”

Since at least the Second World War, the president has been decisively winning that struggle. Or more accurately, Congress has been declining invitations to use its power.

For example, American wars no longer begin with declarations. The US has not declared war since 1941, even though the country has been at war almost every year since then. Presidents instead initiate and escalate military conflict in other ways, nearly always with Congressional approval. That approval usually remains in place until a war goes badly wrong.

Congress also passed legislation in 1934 giving the president power to negotiate trade agreements and adjust tariffs. That power expanded significantly with an act in 1962 that authorised the president to impose tariffs if imports threaten “national security”.

Although Trump claims tariffs will bring economic prosperity back to the US by reviving manufacturing, his administration justifies them on national security grounds. For example, it is currently using another federal act passed in 1977 that allows tariffs in response to an international emergency as justification for its tariffs on Canada and Mexico.

Given the dubiousness of these justifications and the economic damage tariffs might do, Congress could try to reassert its constitutional power to set tariffs.

But this isn’t likely to happen soon, given the loyalty of Republicans to Trump. Members of Congress are also reluctant to be seen standing in the way of the president if national security is at stake.

One revelation of “Signalgate” was the fact the US bombed Yemen without even the pretext of an urgent national security reason. But the Congressional grilling of Trump’s intelligence leaders, predictably, did not address this.

The courts are no better

The courts are supposed to review the constitutionality of government actions. But on foreign policy, the courts have been deferential to the president even longer than Congress.

In a sweeping judgement in 1918, the Supreme Court wrote that foreign relations counted as a “political power” of the executive and legislative branches, not subject to judicial review.

The Supreme Court has rarely ruled on foreign policy questions since then. When it does, it nearly always supports the president against anyone challenging his right to make foreign policy, including Congress.

A federal judge recently complained the Trump administration ignored his order blocking deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.

Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify deporting the Venezuelans, even though some have no criminal record.
And Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued the deportations were a “foreign policy matter”, and “we can’t have the judges running foreign policy”.

Mass deportation is one of Trump’s most popular policies. If he is going to pick fights with the judiciary, it makes political sense to do it on an issue where public opinion is on his side – even if the law is not.

Rubio’s comment is also a likely preview of the arguments Trump’s lawyers will make when cases about immigration reach the Supreme Court.

Similarly, the Trump’s administration is relying on the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act to deport protesters who have committed no crimes. This law allows the secretary of state to deport non-citizens if their presence in the US has “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences”.

Deportations under both acts are going to face legal challenges. But the Trump administration is betting the Supreme Court will take Trump’s side, given its conservative members generally hold an expansive view of executive power.

A Supreme Court win would be a major political victory for Trump. It would encourage him to focus even more on using deportation as a political weapon, and making foreign policy justifications for legally dubious acts.

War as a political tool

Trump is effectively putting the US on a war footing. He is justifying his executive actions by recasting allies as enemies who menace national security with everything from illegal drugs to unfair subsidies, and by labelling millions of foreign nationals as “invaders”.

Many Americans don’t believe him. But as long as he can make threatening foreigners the main focus of American politics, he can find political and legal support for almost anything he wants to do.

David Smith 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. Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’: why the US is on a war footing over tariffs and mass deportations – https://theconversation.com/trumps-liberation-day-why-the-us-is-on-a-war-footing-over-tariffs-and-mass-deportations-252808

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

The Reserve Bank of Australia left its benchmark interest rate unchanged at 4.1% today, stressing the uncertainty in the economic outlook.

As the Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock told a media conference, “since February there has been a lot more uncertainty introduced in the international context”.

The on-hold decision was widely expected and Bullock described it as a “consensus decision” by the board.

The decision to hold was not because the election campaign is underway. It was because there has not been enough new economic data to change materially its view on inflation. The governor said the board had never mentioned the election in its discussions.

In a statement, the central bank said:

Recent announcements from the United States on tariffs are having an impact on confidence globally and this would likely be amplified if the scope of tariffs widens.

As the Reserve Bank Governor put it, “we’re paid to worry” and they are discussing with peer central banks the response to global uncertainties.

Decline in inflation is welcome

The volatile monthly inflation series fell marginally, from 2.5% to 2.4%, in February.

The more trustworthy quarterly consumer price index (CPI) will come out on April 30 and will be an important factor in the Reserve Bank’s decision at its next meeting, on May 20.

The CPI report is likely to show the “trimmed mean” underlying inflation returning to the 2–3% target band for the first time since 2021. Headline inflation could be in the lower half of the band.

The unemployment rate has been steady at 4.1%. This is below what the Reserve Bank had regarded as the level consistent with steady inflation. But it has not been associated with an acceleration in wages. Indeed, wages have slowed to 3.2% growth, less than the Reserve Bank was forecasting for 2025.

This could all give the Reserve Bank the confidence to make another cut to the cash rate. Financial markets are predicting a cut in May.

The board itself said the current level of rates “remains restrictive”. So they will cut rates further once inflation is sustainably around the middle of the target band.

The (lack of) impact of the budget

The main impact of last week’s federal budget will be to delay the bounceback in electricity prices, after the end of the current rebates, for another six months. If there is a change in government, there will be a temporary fall in petrol prices for a year.

Read more:
We calculated how much Dutton’s excise cut would save you on fuel – and few will save as much as promised

But both of these have only temporary effects on the “headline” inflation rate. The Reserve Bank is more concerned about sustained movements in underlying inflation.

Labor’s proposed income tax cuts, which will be cancelled if the Coalition wins power, are only “modest” (in the treasurer’s own words) and do not come into effect until July 2026. They are also unlikely to have a material impact on the Reserve Bank’s inflation forecasts.

The governor suggested as much, commenting that the forecasts following the budget would be similar to those made in February. She described increasing government spending as “filling a gap” in relatively weak private demand.

The fallout from tariffs

We will not know the extent of the new tariffs being announced by United States President Donald Trump until later in the week. And even then he may change them within days – or even on the same day.

The US tariffs will push up prices there. But if they trigger a trade war, the global economy will weaken and this may lead to lower prices globally. The governor pointed out that trade diversion prompted by tariffs could lower the price of some imports.

Bullock said the central bank was assessing the potential impact of tariffs on Australia’s trading partners including China. If Chinese authorities boosted support for their economy, then the economic impact on Australia might be “muted”.

The Reserve Bank’s 0.25% interest rate cut in February to 4.1% was the first change in the cash rate since November 2023 and marked the first small reversal of 13 rate increases that began in the closing days of the Morrison government.

Read more:
The Reserve Bank has cut rates for the first time in four years. But it is cautious about future cuts

The Reserve Bank and the election

The heightened attention placed on the Reserve Bank in an election campaign is not that unusual. With Australian parliamentary terms limited to three years, but with no fixed duration, we are often approaching a possible election.

While cutting interest rates will suit one side of politics, not cutting benefits the other. The impartial approach taken by the Reserve Bank is to make the same decision as they would if no election were looming.

The new board

This is the first meeting of the new monetary policy board, which is now separate from the central bank’s governance board.

This specialisation was a recommendation of the 2023 Reserve Bank review commissioned by the treasurer. But seven of the nine member remain from the previous board. The two new members, including one of the authors of the review, are not expected to hold markedly different views to the continuing members.

John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist with the Reserve Bank.

– ref. Reserve Bank holds rates steady, cautious about the economic outlook – https://theconversation.com/reserve-bank-holds-rates-steady-cautious-about-the-economic-outlook-253434

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Neal, Senior lecturer in Economics / Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

The damage climate change will inflict on the world’s economy is likely to have been massively underestimated, according to new research by my colleagues and I which accounts for the full global reach of extreme weather and its aftermath.

To date, projections of how climate change will affect global gross domestic product (GDP) have broadly suggested mild to moderate harm. This in part has led to a lack of urgency in national efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

However, these models often contain a fundamental flaw – they assume a national economy is affected only by weather in that country. Any impacts from weather events elsewhere, such as how flooding in one country affects the food supply to another, are not incorporated into the models.

Our new research sought to fix this. After including the global repercussions of extreme weather into our models, the predicted harm to global GDP became far worse than previously thought – affecting the lives of people in every country on Earth.

Weather shocks everywhere, all at once

Global warming affects economies in many ways.

The most obvious is damage from extreme weather. Droughts can cause poor harvests, while storms and floods can cause widespread destruction and disrupt the supply of goods. Recent research has also shown heatwaves, aggravated by climate change, have contributed to food inflation.

Heat also makes workers less productive. It affects human health, and disease transmission, and can cause mass migration and conflict.

Most prior research predicts that even extreme warming of 4°C will have only mild negative impacts on the global economy by the end of the century – between 7% and 23%.

Such modelling is usually based on the effects of weather shocks in the past. However, these shocks have typically been confined to a local or regional scale, and balanced out by conditions elsewhere.

For example, in the past, South America might have been in drought, but other parts of the world were getting good rainfall. So, South America could rely on imports of agricultural products from other countries to fill domestic shortfalls and prevent spikes in food prices.

But future climate change will increase the risk of weather shocks occurring simultaneously across countries and more persistently over time. This will disrupt the networks producing and delivering goods, compromise trade and limit the extent to which countries can help each other.

International trade is fundamental to the global economic production. So, our research examined how a country’s future economic growth would be influenced by weather conditions everywhere else in the world.

What did we find?

One thing was immediately clear: a warm year across the planet causes lower global growth.

We corrected three leading models to account for the effects of global weather on national economies, then averaged out their results. Our analysis focused on global GDP per capita – in other words, the world’s economic output divided by its population.

We found if the Earth warms by more than 3°C by the end of the century, the estimated harm to the global economy jumped from an average of 11% (under previous modelling assumptions) to 40% (under our modelling assumptions). This level of damage could devastate livelihoods in large parts of the world.

Previous models have asserted economies in cold parts of the world, such as Russia and Northern Europe, will benefit from warmer global temperatures. However, we found the impact on the global economy was so large, all countries will be badly affected.

Costs vs benefits

Reducing emissions leads to short-term economic costs. These must be balanced against the long-term benefits of avoiding dangerous climate change.

Recent economic modelling has suggested this balance would be struck by reducing emissions at a rate that allows Earth to heat by 2.7°C.

This is close to Earth’s current warming trajectory. But it is far higher than the goals of the Paris Agreement, and global warming limits recommended by climate scientists. It is also based on the flawed assumptions discussed above.

Under our new research, the optimal amount of global warming, balancing short-term costs with long-term benefits, is 1.7°C – a figure broadly consistent with the Paris Agreement’s most ambitious target.

Changing course

Our new research shows previous forecasts of how such warming will affect the global economy have been far too optimistic. It adds to other recent evidence suggesting the economic impacts of climate change has been badly underestimated.

Clearly, Earth’s current emissions trajectory risks our future and that of our children. The sooner humanity grasps the calamities in store under severe climate change, the sooner we can change course to avoid it.

Timothy Neal 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. Global warming of more than 3°C this century may wipe 40% off the world’s economy, new analysis reveals – https://theconversation.com/global-warming-of-more-than-3-c-this-century-may-wipe-40-off-the-worlds-economy-new-analysis-reveals-253032

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

The small Queensland town of Eromanga bills itself as Australia’s town furthest from the sea. But this week, an ocean of freshwater arrived.

Monsoon-like weather has hit the normally arid Channel Country of inland Queensland. Some towns have had two years’ worth of rain in a couple of days. These flat grazing lands now resemble an inland sea. Dozens of people have been evacuated. Others are preparing to be cut off, potentially for weeks. And graziers are reporting major livestock losses – more than 100,000 and climbing. In some areas, the flooding is worse than 1974, the wettest year on record in Australia.

Why so much rain? Tropical, water-laden air has been brought far inland from the oceans to the north and east. This can happen under normal climate variability. But our ocean temperatures are the highest on record, which supercharges the water cycle.

In coming weeks, this huge volume of water will wend its way through the channels and down to fill Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre, the ephemeral lake which appears in the northern reaches of South Australia. It’s likely this will be a Lake Eyre for the ages.

In the first three months of the year, deadly record-breaking floods hit northern Queensland before Cyclone Alfred tracked unusually far south and made landfall in southeast Queensland, bringing widespread winds and rains and leaving expensive repair bills. Now the rain has come inland.

Why so much rain in arid areas?

Some meteorologists have dubbed this event a pseudo-monsoon. That’s because the normal Australian monsoon doesn’t reach this far south – the torrential rains of the monsoonal wet season tend to fall closer to the northern coasts.

Because the Arafura and Timor Seas to the north are unusually warm, evaporation rates have shot up. Once in the air, this water vapour makes for very humid conditions. These air masses are even more humid than normal tropical air, because they have flowed down from the equator. Many Queenslanders can vouch for the intense humidity.

But there’s a second factor at work. At present, Australia’s climate is influenced by a positive Southern Annular Mode. This means the belt of intense westerly winds blowing across the Southern Ocean has been pushed further south, causing a ripple effect which can lead to more summer rain in Australia’s southeast, up to inland Queensland. This natural climate driver has meant easterly winds have blown uninterrupted from as far away as Fiji, carrying yet more humid air inland.

These two streams of converging humid tropical air were driven up into the cooler heights of the atmosphere by upper and surface low pressure troughs, triggering torrential rain over wide areas of the outback

While these humid air masses have now dumped most of their water, more rain is coming in the aftermath of the short-lived Cyclone Dianne off northwest Australia. These rains won’t be as intense but may drive more flood peaks over already saturated catchments.

This is why it has been so wet in what is normally an exceptionally dry part of Australia.

What is this doing to the Channel Country?

Many Australians have never been to the remote Channel Country. It’s a striking landscape, marked by ancient, braided river channels.

Even for an area known for drought-flood cycles, the rainfall totals are extreme. This is a very rare event.

People who live there have to be resilient and self-sufficient. But farmers and graziers are bracing for awful losses of livestock. Livestock can drown in floodwaters, but a common fate is succumbing to pneumonia after spending too long in water. After the water moves down the channels, it will leave behind notoriously boggy and sticky mud. This can be lethal to livestock and native animals, which can find themselves unable to move.

Where will the water go next?

Little of these temporary inland seas will ever reach the ocean.

Some of the rain has fallen in the catchment of the Darling River, where it will flow down and meet the Murray. The Darling is often filled by summer rains, while the Murray gets more water from autumn and winter rains. This water will eventually reach the Southern Ocean.

But most of the rain fell further inland. The waters snaking through the channels will head south, flowing slowly along the flat ground for weeks until it crosses the South Australian border and begins to fill up Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre. Here, the waters will stop, more than 300 km from the nearest ocean at Port Augusta, and fill what is normally a huge, salty depression and Australia’s lowest point, 15 metres below sea level.

When Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre fills, it creates an extraordinary spectacle. Millions of brine shrimp will hatch from eggs in the dry soil. This sudden abundance will draw waterbirds in their millions, while fish carried in the floodwaters will spawn and eat the shrimp. Then there are the remarkable shield shrimps, hibernating inland crabs and salt-adapted hardyhead fish.

The rain event will send enough water to keep Lake Eyre full for many months and it usually takes up to two years for it to dry out again. We can expect to see a huge lake form – the size of a small European country. Birdwatchers and biologists will flock to the area to see the sight of a temporary sea in the desert.

Eventually, the intense sun of the outback will evaporate every last drop of the floodwaters, leaving behind salted ground and shrimp eggs for the next big rains.

As the climate keeps warming, we can expect to see more sudden torrential rain dumps like this one, followed by periods of rapid drying.

Steve Turton has previously received funding from the federal government.

– ref. Torrential rains created inland seas in outback Queensland. Soon, they will supersize Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre – https://theconversation.com/torrential-rains-created-inland-seas-in-outback-queensland-soon-they-will-supersize-kati-thanda-lake-eyre-253529

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kai Riemer, Professor of Information Technology and Organisation, University of Sydney

Social media has recently been flooded with images that looked like they belonged in a Studio Ghibli film. Selfies, family photos and even memes have been re-imagined with the soft pastel palette characteristic of the Japanese animation company founded by Hayao Miyazaki.

This followed OpenAI’s latest update to ChatGPT. The update significantly improved ChatGPT’s image generation capabilities, allowing users to create convincing Ghibli-style images in mere seconds. It has been enormously popular – so much so, in fact, that the system crashed due to user demand.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as ChatGPT are best understood as “style engines”. And what we are seeing now is these systems offering users more precision and control than ever before.

But this is also raising entirely new questions about copyright and creative ownership.

How the new ChatGPT makes images

Generative AI programs work by producing outputs in response to user prompts, including prompts to create an image.

Previous generations of AI image generators used diffusion models. These models gradually refine random, noisy data into a coherent image. But the latest update to ChatGPT uses what’s known as an “autoregressive algorithm”.

This algorithm treats images more like language, breaking them down into “tokens”. Just as ChatGPT predicts the most likely words in a sentence, it can now predict different visual elements in an image separately.

This tokenisation enables the algorithm to better separate certain features of an image – and their relationship with words in a prompt. As a result, ChatGPT can more accurately create images from precise user prompts than previous generations of image generators. It can replace or change specific features while preserving the rest of the image, and it improves on the longstanding issue of generating correct text in images.

A particularly powerful advantage of generating images inside a large language model is the ability to draw on all the knowledge already encoded in the system. This means users don’t need to describe every aspect of an image in painstaking detail. They can simply refer to concepts such as Studio Ghibli and the AI understands the reference.

The recent Studio Ghibli trend began with OpenAI itself, before spreading among Silcon Valley software engineers and then even governments and politicians – including seemingly unlikely uses such as the White House creating a Ghiblified image of a crying woman being deported and the Indian government promoting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s narrative of a “New India”.

Understanding AI as ‘style engines’

Generative AI systems don’t store information in any traditional sense. Instead they encode text, facts, or image fragments as patterns – or “styles” – within their neural networks.

Trained on vast amounts of data, AI models learn to recognise patterns at multiple levels. Lower network layers might capture basic features such as word relationships or visual textures. Higher layers encode more complex concepts or visual elements.

This means everything – objects, properties, writing genres, professional voices – gets transformed into styles. When AI learns about Miyazaki’s work, it’s not storing actual Studio Ghibli frames (though image generators may sometimes produce close imitations of input images). Instead, it’s encoding “Ghibli-ness” as a mathematical pattern – a style that can be applied to new images.

The same happens with bananas, cats or corporate emails. The AI learns “banana-ness”, “cat-ness” or “corporate email-ness” – patterns that define what makes something recognisably a banana, cat or a professional communication.

The encoding and transfer of styles has for a long time been an express goal in visual AI. Now we have an image generator that achieves this with unprecedented scale and control.

This approach unlocks remarkable creative possibilities across both text and images. If everything is a style, then these styles can be freely combined and transferred. That’s why we refer to these systems as “style engines”. Try creating an armchair in the style of a cat, or in elvish style.

The copyright controversy: when styles become identity

While the ability to work with styles is what makes generative AI so powerful, it’s also at the heart of growing controversy. For many artists, there’s something deeply unsettling about seeing their distinctive artistic approaches reduced to just another “style” that anyone can apply with a simple text prompt.

Hayao Miyazaki has not publicly commented on the recent trend of people using ChatGPT to generate images in his world-famous animation style. But he has been critical of AI previously.

All of this also raises entirely new questions about copyright and creative ownership.

Traditionally, copyright law doesn’t protect styles – only specific expressions. You can’t copyright a music genre such as “ska” or an art movement such as “impressionism”.

This limitation exists for good reason. If someone could monopolise an entire style, it would stifle creative expression for everyone else.

But there’s a difference between general styles and highly distinctive ones that become almost synonymous with someone’s identity. When an AI can generate work “in the style of Greg Rutkowski” – a Polish artist whose name was reportedly used in over more than 93,000 prompts in AI image generator Stable Diffusion – it potentially threatens both his livelihood and artistic legacy.

Some creators have already taken legal action.

In a case filed in late 2022, three artists formed a class to sue multiple AI companies, arguing that their image generators were trained on their original works without permission, and now allow users to generate derivative works mimicking their distinctive styles.

As technology evolves faster than the law, work is under way on new legislation to try and balance technological innovation with protecting artists’ creative identities.

Whatever the outcome, these debates highlight the transformative nature of AI style engines – and the need to consider both their untapped creative potential and more nuanced protections of distinctive artistic styles.

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. ChatGPT’s Studio Ghibli-style images show its creative power – but raise new copyright problems – https://theconversation.com/chatgpts-studio-ghibli-style-images-show-its-creative-power-but-raise-new-copyright-problems-253438

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hunter Bennett, Lecturer in Exercise Science, University of South Australia

Getting a headache during or after exercise can be seriously frustrating – especially if you have kept hydrated to try and stop them from happening.

But why do these headaches occur? And does keeping hydrated make any difference?

What are exercise headaches?

Exercise headaches (also known as “exertional headaches”) are exactly what they sound like: headaches that occur either during, or after, exercise.

French doctor Jules Tinel first reported these headaches in the medical literature in 1932 and they’ve been a regular point of discussion since.

Exercise headaches commonly present as a throbbing pain on both sides of the head. They most often occur after strenuous exercise – although what is considered “strenuous” can differ between people, depending on their fitness levels. They can last anywhere from a few minutes to a couple of days.

Exercise headaches are thought to impact about 12% of adults, although this number varies from 1% all the way up to 26% across individual studies.

In most circumstances, these headaches are harmless and will resolve on their own, over time. Some research suggests you will stop getting them after a few months of starting a new type of workout.

But while they are usually harmless, they can sometimes signal an underlying condition that requires medical attention.

What causes exercise headaches?

Despite a good amount of research looking at exertional headaches, we don’t know their exact cause, but we do think we know why they occur.

The leading theory suggests they are caused by changes in blood flow to the brain. During intense exercise, blood vessels in the brain dilate, increasing blood flow and pressure, leading to pain.

Because long-term exercise improves our cardiovascular health, including our ability to dilate and constrict our blood vessels, this theory makes sense when we consider that exercise headaches tend to resolve themselves over time. This might explain why research suggests fitter people are less likely to get exercise headaches.

People with migraines appear more likely to experience exercise headaches, which are thought to be caused by this same mechanism.

Does heat and dehydration cause exercise headaches?

There is evidence suggesting that exercise headaches are more likely to occur in the heat.

Your brain cannot dissipate heat by sweating like the rest of your body can. So when it’s hot, your body has to increase blood flow to the brain to help bring down its temperature, which can increase pressure.

Similarly, exercise headaches also seem to get worse, and occur more often, when people are dehydrated.

However, we are not sure why this happens. Some research has shown that dehydration results in increased strain during exercise. As such, dehydration might not necessarily cause the headache, but make it more likely to occur.

Red flags: when to see a doctor

Most exercise headaches resolve themselves after a few hours and result in no lasting negative effects.

In some rare instances, they could be sign of something more serious occurring in the brain, such as a subarachnoid haemorrhage (a bleed between the brain and the tissues that cover it), reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (a spasming of blood vessels), cervical artery dissection (or tear), intracranial hypertension (pressure in the brain), or an infection.

See a doctor to rule out anything serious if:

• it’s your first exercise headache
• the headache is severe and sudden (also known as a thunderclap headache)
• it’s accompanied by other symptoms such as vision changes, confusion, or sensations of weakness
• you experience a stiff neck, nausea, or vomiting with your headache
• it lasts for more than 24 hours and doesn’t seem to be getting better.

Can you prevent exercise headaches?

There is no surefire way to prevent exercise headaches.

But a recent review suggests that ensuring you’re adequately hydrated and gradually warm-up to your desired exercise intensity can make them less likely to occur.

Beyond this, you may wish to keep your exercise intensity in a light-to moderate range for a couple of months. This will give your cardiovascular system some time to adapt before trying more strenuous exercise, hopefully reducing the likelihood of getting exercise headaches at all.

Exercise headaches are annoying, but are generally harmless and should subside on their own over time.

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

– ref. Why do I get headaches when I exercise, even when I drink lots of water? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-i-get-headaches-when-i-exercise-even-when-i-drink-lots-of-water-253039

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Dempsey, Associate Professor in Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury

New Zealand’s North Island features a number of geothermal systems, several of which are used to generate some 1,000 MegaWatts of electricity. But deeper down there may be even more potential.

The government is now investing NZ$60 million to explore what is known as “supercritical” geothermal energy, following five years of feasibility research led by GNS Science.

Supercritical geothermal is hotter and deeper than conventional geothermal sources. It targets rocks between 375°C and 500°C, close to – but not within – magma.

Water at these temperatures and depths has three to seven times more energy for conversion to electricity, compared to ordinary geothermal generation at comparatively cooler temperatures of 200°C to 300°C.

The investment is staged, with $5 million earmarked for international consultants to design a super-deep well, and further funds to be released later for drilling to depths of up to six kilometres. Consultation is underway, with resources minister Shane Jones hoping to convince Māori landowners to collaborate.

GNS Science estimates the central North Island might have about 3,500MW worth of this resource, although actually accessing it might be difficult and expensive. The energy consulting firm Castalia was engaged to predict how much would be worth developing, suggesting between 1,300MW and 2,000MW, starting from 2037.

This would be a lot of extra power. Even better, it would reduce the peaks and troughs in generation that arise from more variable solar and wind sources, which are expected to make up a growing share of electricity generation in the future. Supercritical geothermal is reportedly cost effective, which means the technology deserves serious consideration. But such claims should be subject to scrutiny.

Successive governments have supported major state energy projects, including the Manapouri power station, petroleum exploration during the early 2000s, early geothermal drilling and the investigation of a pumped hydro scheme at Lake Onslow. The need for energy security clearly motivates such investments.

But New Zealand has a healthy geothermal industry. In the past two decades, geothermal companies have invested $2 billion in hundreds of new wells and new power plants. The industry already knows how to drill wells and profit from them. So why is the government stepping in now?

In practice, supercritical geothermal exploration and development faces several research, technical and economic risks. Private enterprise seems unwilling to bear them alone, prompting the government to step in to establish feasibility.

How to crack soft rock

One problem supercritical geothermal might encounter is that drilling deeper might find lots of hot rock, but not much water. Drilling experiments in Japan and Italy have shown that reaching 500°C is possible, but in both cases the rock was so ductile (pliable and easily stretched) because of the high temperatures that it couldn’t keep open the gaps needed for water to flow.

However, the experience was different in Iceland where two wells managed to find water above 400°C. At this stage, it’s not clear whether this is because Iceland has special rocks – particularly basalts, which are less ductile – or because the country is being stretched through tectonic forces at a high rate. New Zealand is less able to count on basalts but it does experience rapid tectonic stretching.

Deep drilling would test this key hypothesis: is there permeability (gaps for water to flow through) at supercritical conditions? The only way to know for sure is to drill down.

If there isn’t permeability, the government could either abandon the investment or look into methods to create it. Multi-stage hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) is an option which has worked overseas in the North American shale gas industry. It has also recently been demonstrated in some US geothermal systems.

Even if we did find permeability, the water produced in Iceland’s supercritical wells was enormously corrosive. A better option then might be to inject cold water into the well, suppressing the corrosive fluids. The injected water would heat up and rise into the overlying geothermal system – flushing the heat upwards.

However, both water injection and fracking can trigger earthquakes, perhaps a magnitude 4-5 every year or a magnitude 5-6 every few decades. This happened in 2017 in Pohang in South Korea where water injection triggered a magnitude 5.5 earthquake. It resulted in the cancellation of the geothermal project.

But there are many other geothermal projects where injection has not led to concerning earthquake activity.

Fierce competition from solar, wind and batteries

The other risk is economic. Supercritical geothermal might one day be technically feasible, but its potential contribution in New Zealand will be limited if it can’t beat other generation technologies on cost.

Worldwide, the renewable energy sector continues to be disrupted by unprecedented cost decreases driven by innovations in utility-scale battery storage and solar photovoltaics.

But the supply chains are largely overseas, mostly concentrated in China. This adds geopolitical complexity to the energy security calculus. Homegrown solutions are a strength.

Nevertheless, the International Renewable Energy Agency reports cost reductions for solar and battery modules of 89% and 86% between 2010 and 2023. Solar costs drop 33% each time the built amount doubles. Drops in battery cost are enabling large deployments for daily smoothing of the peaks and troughs of intermittent solar and wind generation.

This shifting cost landscape creates financial uncertainty for energy investors. While cost declines might not continue forever, it’s hard to pick when they will level off. Meanwhile, geothermal costs have been flat for a long time. A billion-dollar geothermal investment might quickly become uncompetitive.

Despite all these caveats, we shouldn’t overlook the positive signal of the government taking a bet on New Zealand science and innovation. It will be exciting to see what’s happening at six kilometres of depth underground. And although the plan is not to drill for magma, an accidental strike (as happened in Iceland) would lead to some amazing science.

Lastly, energy security deserves to be taken seriously over the long term. While supercritical geothermal won’t fix our immediate vulnerability to winter scarcity, it could help avoid similar issues in the 2040s.

David Dempsey receives science funding from MBIE for research into geothermal energy.

– ref. Hotter and deeper: how NZ’s plan to drill for ‘supercritical’ geothermal energy holds promise and risk – https://theconversation.com/hotter-and-deeper-how-nzs-plan-to-drill-for-supercritical-geothermal-energy-holds-promise-and-risk-252910

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natalie Peng, Lecturer in Accounting, The University of Queensland

When Lisa’s husband passed away unexpectedly, she assumed accessing his superannuation death benefit would be straightforward. Instead, she spent months navigating a bureaucratic maze.

She repeatedly sent documents, waited weeks for callbacks and struggled to get answers from his fund.

Her experience is far from unique. A damning new report reveals systemic failure by Australia’s A$4 trillion superannuation industry in handling members’ death benefits.

A system in disarray

The Australian Security and Investments Commission’s landmark review of ten major super trustees, managing 38% of super assets, exposes an industry that is not serving its members.

Grieving families routinely face excessive delays, insensitive treatment and unnecessary hurdles when trying to access death benefits. It found they sometimes waited over a year for payments to which they were legally entitled.

The central problem was a fundamental breakdown in claims processing, with five critical failures exacerbating inefficiency and distress.

1. Poor oversight

No trustee monitored end-to-end claims handling times, leaving boards unaware of how long families were waiting. While the fastest trustee resolved 48% of claims within 90 days, the slowest managed just 8%.

In one case, a widow waited nearly a year despite her husband having a valid binding nomination. ASIC found 78% of delays stemmed from processing inefficiencies entirely within trustees’ control.

2. Misleading and inadequate information

Many funds misled on processing times and masked extreme delays. Boards often received reports only on insured claims, despite most death benefits not involving insurance. This meant boards were unable to fix systemic problems.

3. Process over people

Risk-averse procedures often overrode common sense. Many funds imposed claim-staking – delaying payments for objections – even for straightforward cases, adding a median 95 day delay.

Communication failures further compounded delays, with claimants receiving inconsistent advice and few or no status updates.

4. Outsourcing without accountability

Claims handled in-house were processed significantly faster than those managed by external administrators. Only 15% of outsourced claims were resolved within 90 days, compared to 36% of in-house claims.

The securities commission is calling for stronger oversight. External administrators significantly slow down responses, so some funds may need to bring claims processing back in-house to ensure efficiency.

5. Lack of transparency

Many funds failed to provide clear timelines or explanations for delays and had no accountability mechanisms.

The ten funds investigated include the Australian Retirement Trust, Avanteos (Colonial First State), Brighter Super, Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, HESTA, Hostplus, NM Super (AMP), Nulis (MLC), Rest and UniSuper.

Two others, Australian Super and Cbus, are being sued separately by ASIC for either failing to pay out or delaying payments to thousands of eligible beneficiaries.

KEY FINDINGS

• None of the trustees monitored or reported on end-to-end death benefit claims handling times
• 27% of claims files reviewed involved poor customer service – for example, calls were not returned, queries were dismissed
• 8% vs 48% was the difference in claims closed in 90 days between the slowest and the fastest trustee
• 78% of claim files reviewed were delayed by processing issues within the trustee’s control
• 17% of claim files reviewed involved vulnerable claimants. About 30% of those were handled poorly

Source: Taking ownership of death benefits: How trustees can deliver outcomes Australians deserve, ASIC, March 2025.

Will ASIC’s fixes work?

ASIC has made 34 recommendations to improve death benefit processing. This will require real change, not box ticking. Changes should include setting performance objectives and empowering frontline staff to cut unnecessary steps.

There should be consequences for failure. Unlike the United Kingdom, which fines pension providers for missing statutory deadlines, ASIC’s recommendations lack penalties.

Without consequences, some funds may continue prioritising administrative convenience over members receiving their entitlements.

What needs to happen now?

ASIC’s report is a wake-up call, but real reform requires strong action.

Super funds must be held to clear, binding processing timelines, with meaningful penalties for non-compliance. Standardising requirements across the industry would eliminate unnecessary hurdles, ensuring all beneficiaries are treated fairly.

Beyond regulation, funds must improve communication and accountability. Bereaved families deserve clear, plain language guidance on what to expect, not bureaucratic roadblocks or sudden document requests.

Technological upgrades should focus on reducing delays, not just internal efficiencies.

And to better support families, an independent claims advocate could help navigate the process, ensuring no one is left to struggle alone.

Has ASIC gone far enough?

While ASIC’s review is a step in the right direction, it does not fundamentally overhaul flawed claims-handling practices.

The recommendations lack enforceability, relying on voluntary compliance.

Also, the role of insurers within super remains largely unaddressed, despite death benefits being tied to life insurance policies. This often causes further complications and delays.

Ensuring insurers adopt and apply ASIC’s recommendations will be critical for meaningful change.

Most importantly, super funds must remember that behind every claim is a grieving family. No one should have to fight for what they are owed during one of the most stressful times in their life.

Natalie Peng 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. ‘Behind every claim is a grieving family’. Death benefits inquiry demands change but lacks penalties – https://theconversation.com/behind-every-claim-is-a-grieving-family-death-benefits-inquiry-demands-change-but-lacks-penalties-253419

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul McGreevy, Professor, School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney

Australia’s horse racing industry is in the spotlight after recent allegations of tranquilliser use on horses so they can be “worked” (exercised) between race days.

A recent ABC report stated workers in the Australian racing industry allege horses are being routinely medicated for track work at the peril of rider and horse safety.

Using tranquillisers on horses during training and management may not be illegal but this could breach nationwide racing rules.

The prevalence of the practice is not clear but many industry insiders report it as common.

Racing Australia had “recently become aware” of the use of acepromazine for track work and had begun collecting data about the practice, but had not been made aware of any complaints or concerns.

What medications are horses given?

Horses may be given a low dose of a tranquilliser, most commonly acepromazine. This makes their behaviour easier to control in certain situations, such as when they’re being examined by a veterinarian.

This drug must be prescribed by an attending veterinarian, and it can calm unfriendly and apprehensive animals. This could assist with making excited, hyperactive horses easier to control and less likely to buck, rear or put people at risk of injury from uncontrolled flight responses.

But proprioception – the way horses feel the world around them, notably the ground beneath them – is likely to be compromised. So, from a work health and safety perspective, the risk of tripping and falling is front of mind.

Other risks to horses from acepromazine can include impaired blood clotting, lower blood pressure, respiratory depression and, in rare cases, permanent paralysis of the penis in male horses.

A dangerous combination

In the racing industry, tranquillisers are given to reduce the difficulties that come from riding and handling very fit, young horses that have been bred, fed and managed to be highly reactive and move at very high speeds.

This combination of selective breeding and only basic training can make them very difficult to control both during trackwork, when speeds of over 60 kilometres per hour can be reached, as well as during routine management.

Thoroughbreds’ diets, intensive management and relative lack of behavioural conditioning can be a dangerous combination.

The diets and confinement make them excitable and likely to take off; if they do, the lack of appropriate training makes them difficult to stop.

What makes race thoroughbreds hard to handle?

All horses have three fundamental needs – friends, forage and freedom, known as the “three F’s”.

Friends: horses have evolved to spend time with large mixed groups. They feel safer in these groups and this safety is highly valued: mutual grooming with preferred conspecifics (other equids) can calm them. In contrast, most stabled horses have no choice about who their neighbours are and can usually only have minimal physical interactions. Once out on the track, horses are highly motivated to stay with other horses and are more likely to be distracted rather than to attend to the rider.

Freedom: horses evolved to move for up to 70% of their day, which is essential for their welfare. In contrast, most racehorses, and indeed many other performance horses, often spend up to 23 hours a day confined in stables. Unfortunately, stabled horses are harder to train and more likely to buck. Prolonged confinement leads to many horses becoming more reactive, a state that increases the likelihood of injuries to riders.

Forage: horses are trickle feeders that graze on high-fibre, low-nutrient forages for up to 16 hours a day. In contrast, racehorses are fed high-energy diets that can be quickly consumed, leading to risk of digestive disturbances, such as gastric ulcers and long periods during which, confined to their stables, they have nothing to do.

Modern racehorse management and training often denies them access to these “three F’s”, which leads to behavioural problems that are then sometimes managed by tranquillising the horse.

Lastly, there’s the kind of work racehorses do.

High-intensity work increases the concentrations of adrenaline and cortisol to support the energy demands of the work. However, this increases the horse’s arousal and reduces their ability to attend to rider cues.

This can make them hard to control.

Collectively, these factors create horses that are not having their fundamental needs met. It’s no wonder that, once free of the confinement of their stables, they can become excited and hard to control, putting their riders and even themselves at risk of injury.

A band-aid solution

There is no textbook that advises vets on how to diagnose or treat horses that are hyperactive, nor are there any data on how horses can be safely tranquillised before being ridden.

However, a UK government data sheet for the most common equine tranquilliser globally, acepromazine maleate, states: “do not, in any circumstances, ride horses within the 36 hours following administration of the product”.

In Australia, racing trainers must keep records of all medications given to horses. Unfortunately, the veterinarians who supply this medication to trainers for use on racehorses are usually doing so without a specific diagnosis or treatment plan.

Routine use of tranquillisers is a band-aid solution to an industry-wide practice of confining, over-feeding and under-training fit, young horses that have been bred to run.

If this practice is ever policed, there will likely be enormous repercussions for the sustainability of racing.

As a first step to addressing this issue, the industry could commit to monitoring and publishing annual data on the routine use of tranquillisers.

Paul McGreevy has received funding from the Australian Research Council, RSPCA Australia and animal welfare focussed philanthropy. He is a Fellow of the International Society for Equitation Science, a member of the British Veterinary Association and currently sits on the NSW Veterinary Practitioners Board.

Cathrynne Henshall receives funding from the Hong Kong Jockey Club Welfare Foundation. She is a trustee and council member of the International Society for Equitation Science.

– ref. Using tranquillisers on racehorses is ethically questionable and puts horses and riders at risk – https://theconversation.com/using-tranquillisers-on-racehorses-is-ethically-questionable-and-puts-horses-and-riders-at-risk-245167

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

This election is already shaping up as very much about energy. But notably, ambitions for and debate about combatting climate change have receded in recent times.

Peter Dutton has his proposal for an east coast gas reservation scheme at the centre of his campaign. Then of course there is that much-contested nuclear policy. But the government has declined to produce a 2035 emissions reduction target before polling day and, apart from its commitment to net zero by 2050, the Coalition won’t talk targets in opposition.

John Connor, CEO of the Carbon Marketing Institute, says “probably not since 2004 has climate been so much in the shadows, at least at this stage”. It’s a matter of the “energy wars” rather than the “climate wars” so far, he says.

The climate change issue was potent in 2022, especially in helping the “teal” candidates get elected. It probably is still cutting through in their sort of seats. And climate change demonstrators are targeting election events.

But more generally, things have changed.

The Freshwater poll in the Australian Financial Review on Monday asked people to list three issues of top concern for them.

Unsurprisingly, cost of living was a mile ahead of anything else, at 74%. Then came housing (37%), healthcare (27%), economy (26%), crime (25%) and tax (19%). Climate change followed seventh, with 18%, ahead of immigration (15%) and defence (13%).

When asked who would be best to respond to concern about climate change, Labor held a solid lead, 35% to the 22% who nominated the Coalition, but 43% said neither or were unsure.

The Morgan poll early this year compared issues of most importance to people in the September quarter of 2024 and the June quarter of 2022. Just under a third nominated global warming and climate change in 2022 (32%); by 2024 this was down to less than a quarter (23%).

The cost-of-living crisis is the most obvious reason why climate change has faded in many voters’ minds. That has pushed almost everything else aside, as families struggle with financial practicalities.

(The Carbon Market Institute says, however, that polling it commissioned, to be released later this week does show the public understand the link between climate change and the cost of living, even if the politicians are reluctant to go there just now. 62% of respondents agreed impacts of climate change – such as more frequent and severe bushfires and flooding – worsen the cost of living through insurance cost increases and grocery prices, with just 13% disagreeing.)

Now we are deeply into the transition to a clean economy the inevitable downsides are more to the fore. However necessary, they are painful, including high power bills (that have had to be subsidised by the government) and local arguments about transmission lines and wind farms blighting parts of the landscape.

After it was elected Labor highlighted the importance of climate change by legislating its 2030 43% emissions reduction target. But it has become reticent when asked to talk about the 2035 target for Australia.

That was initially due to be submitted under the Paris agreement by February, but now it won’t be announced until closer to the September deadline. Nor will the Climate Change Authority, headed by former NSW Liberal treasurer Matt Kean, produce its recommendation to the government before the election. The government’s explanation for its delay is that it can’t act before the the authority’s recommendation.

Dutton remains committed to the Paris agreement and the zero emissions by 2050 target. But he flagged at the weekend that he would not proceed with Australia’s bid to host COP31 in 2026.

The opposition says it would keep the safeguards mechanism that regulates emissions from large emitters, but we don’t know what changes it would make to it.

Nor do we know what would happen under a Dutton government to the various framework institutions around climate change policy. But Kean and his authority are certainly in the gun sights. Opposition finance spokeswoman Jane Hume has said, “I don’t think that we could possibly maintain a Climate Change Authority that has been so badly politicised”.

Peter Dutton wouldn’t live in The Lodge (though it was good enough for Robert Menzies)

What is it about some modern conservative leaders and The Lodge?

Peter Dutton on Monday declared that, if he became PM, he would live at Kirribilli House, not The Lodge.

“We love Sydney, we love the harbour, it’s a great city, and so yes. You’ve got the choice between Kirribilli or living in Canberra. I think I’ll take Sydney any day over living in Canberra,” he said.

The opposition leader’s disdain for Canberra was obvious. Then again, perhaps when you’re planning to get rid of tens of thousands of Canberra-based public servants, Kirilly Dutton might find a browse around the Manuka shops potentially awkward.

From the way he extolled the virtues of Sydney, it doesn’t seem that Dutton wishes he could stay in his home city of Brisbane, prevented from doing so only by the lack of an official residence there.

As prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull didn’t just stay living in Sydney – he chose to remain in his own house. It was certainly more glam than The Lodge.

Yet The Lodge was good enough for the leader to whom the Liberals all pay homage. Robert Menzies and his family lived there quite happily for a very long time. Menzies’ daughter Heather Henderson, in her book A Smile for My Parents, tells of life in the bush capital, when her mother kept a shanghai in the wisteria to take potshots at the currawongs.

They were simpler days. The security-conscious Dutton would be appalled at the anecdote about the intruder who appeared one night in the Lodge kitchen. Pattie Menzies, who happened to be carving the roast for dinner at the time, walked into the kitchen, armed with the knife. The intruder fled. There was no official inquiry – just a reprimand for the maid for not snibbing the door.

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

– ref. Election diary: Energy is in the foreground – but climate change is ‘in the shadows’ – https://theconversation.com/election-diary-energy-is-in-the-foreground-but-climate-change-is-in-the-shadows-253115