Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rowan Martin-Hughes, Senior Research Fellow, Burnet Institute

In January, the Trump administration ordered a broad pause on all US funding for foreign aid.

Among other issues, this has significant effects on US funding for HIV. The United States has been the world’s biggest donor to international HIV assistance, providing 73% of funding in 2023.

A large part of this is the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which oversees programs in low- and middle-income countries to prevent, diagnose and treat the virus. These programs have been significantly disrupted.

What’s more, recent funding cuts for international HIV assistance go beyond the US. Five countries that provide the largest amount of foreign aid for HIV – the US, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the Netherlands – have announced cuts of between 8% and 70% to international aid in 2025 and 2026.

Together, this may mean a 24% reduction in international HIV spending, in addition to the US foreign aid pause.

We wanted to know how these cuts might affect HIV infections and deaths in the years to come. In a new study, we found the worst-case scenario could see more than 10 million extra infections than what we’d otherwise anticipate in the next five years, and almost 3 million additional deaths.

What is HIV?

HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is a virus that attacks the body’s immune system. HIV can be transmitted at birth, during unprotected sex or thorough blood-to-blood contact such as shared needles.

If left untreated, HIV can progress to AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), a condition in which the immune system is severely damaged, and which can be fatal.

HIV was the world’s deadliest infectious disease in the early 1990s. There’s still no cure for HIV, but modern treatments allow the virus to be suppressed with a daily pill. People with HIV who continue treatment can live without symptoms and don’t risk infecting others.

A sustained global effort towards awareness, prevention, testing and treatment has reduced annual new HIV infections by 39% (from 2.1 million in 2010 to 1.3 million in 2023), and annual deaths by 51% (from 1.3 million to 630,000).

Most of that drop happened in sub-Saharan Africa, where the epidemic was worst. Today, nearly two-thirds of people with HIV live in sub-Saharan Africa, and nearly all live in low- and middle-income countries.

Our study

We wanted to estimate the impact of recent funding cuts from the US, UK, France, Germany and the Netherlands on HIV infections and deaths. To do this, we used our mathematical model for 26 low- and middle-income countries. The model includes data on international HIV spending as well as data on HIV cases and deaths.

These 26 countries represent roughly half of all people living with HIV in low- and middle income countries, and half of international HIV spending. We set up each country model in collaboration with national HIV/AIDS teams, so the data sources reflected the best available local knowledge. We then extrapolated our findings from the 26 countries we modelled to all low- and middle-income countries.

For each country, we first projected the number of new HIV infections and deaths that would occur if HIV spending stayed the same.

Second, we modelled scenarios for anticipated cuts based on a 24% reduction in international HIV funding for each country.

Finally, we modelled scenarios for the possible immediate discontinuation of PEPFAR in addition to other anticipated cuts.

With the 24% cuts and PEPFAR discontinued, we estimated there could be 4.43 million to 10.75 million additional HIV infections between 2025 and 2030, and 770,000 to 2.93 million extra HIV-related deaths. Most of these would be because of cuts to treatment. For children, there could be up to an additional 882,400 infections and 119,000 deaths.

In the more optimistic scenario in which PEPFAR continues but 24% is still cut from international HIV funding, we estimated there could be 70,000 to 1.73 million extra new HIV infections and 5,000 to 61,000 additional deaths between 2025 and 2030. This would still be 50% higher than if current spending were to continue.

The wide range in our estimates reflects low- and middle-income countries committing to far more domestic funding for HIV in the best case, or broader health system dysfunction and a sustained gap in funding for HIV treatment in the worst case.

Some funding for HIV treatment may be saved by taking that money from HIV prevention efforts, but this would have other consequences.

The range also reflects limitations in the available data, and uncertainty within our analysis. But most of our assumptions were cautious, so these results likely underestimate the true impacts of funding cuts to HIV programs globally.

Sending progress backwards

If funding cuts continue, the world could face higher rates of annual new HIV infections by 2030 (up to 3.4 million) than at the peak of the global epidemic in 1995 (3.3 million).

Sub-Saharan Africa will experience by far the greatest effects due to the high proportion of HIV treatment that has relied on international funding.

In other regions, we estimate vulnerable groups such as people who inject drugs, sex workers, men who have sex with men, and trans and gender diverse people may experience increases in new HIV infections that are 1.3 to 6 times greater than the general population.

The Asia-Pacific received US$591 million in international funding for HIV in 2023, which is the second highest after sub-Saharan Africa. So this region would likely experience a substantial rise in HIV as a result of anticipated funding cuts.

Notably, more than 10% of new HIV infections among people born in Australia are estimated to have been acquired overseas. More HIV in the region is likely to mean more HIV in Australia.

But concern is greatest for countries that are most acutely affected by HIV and AIDS, many of which will be most affected by international funding cuts.

Rowan Martin-Hughes receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. He has previously received funding to conduct HIV modelling studies from the Australian government Department of Health and Aged Care, Gates Foundation, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, UNAIDS, UNFPA, UNICEF, World Bank and World Health Organization.

Debra ten Brink has previously received funding to conduct HIV modelling studies from the Australian government Department of Health and Aged Care, Gates Foundation, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, UNAIDS, UNFPA, UNICEF, World Bank and World Health Organization.

Nick Scott receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. He has previously received funding to conduct HIV modelling studies from the Australian government Department of Health and Aged Care, Gates Foundation, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, UNAIDS, UNFPA, UNICEF, World Bank and World Health Organization.

– ref. Foreign aid cuts could mean 10 million more HIV infections by 2030 – and almost 3 million extra deaths – https://theconversation.com/foreign-aid-cuts-could-mean-10-million-more-hiv-infections-by-2030-and-almost-3-million-extra-deaths-253017

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Linda Mussell, Senior Lecturer, Political Science and International Relations, University of Canterbury

With the government’s Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill about to become law within days, New Zealand’s already high incarceration rate will almost certainly climb even higher.

The new legislation essentially limits how much judges can reduce a prison sentence for mitigating factors (such as a guilty plea, young age or mental ability). A regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Justice estimated it would result in 1,350 more people in prison.

This and other law changes are effectively putting more people in prison for longer. By 2035, imprisonment numbers are expected to increase by 40% from their current levels, with significant cost implications. Last year, the Corrections budget was NZ$1.94 billion, up $150 million from the previous year.

In sheer numbers, the Ministry of Justice projects the prison population will increase from 9,900 to 11,500 prisoners over the next decade. But Minister of Corrections Mark Mitchell recently said government policies could see a peak of 13,900 prisoners over that period.

New Zealand’s imprisonment rate is already high at 187 per 100,000 people. That’s double the rate of Canada (90 per 100,000), and well above Australia (163 per 100,000) and England (141 per 100,000).

Accounting for imprisonment and population projections, New Zealand’s prisoner ratio could be between 238 and 263 per 100,000 by 2035. That is higher than the current imprisonment rate in Iran (228 per 100,000).

The role of remand

Much of this increase is driven by the number of people awaiting trial or sentencing on remand. This has risen substantially in the past ten years and is expected to keep rising.

Remand prisoner numbers are projected to nearly equal sentenced prisoners in 2034. Among women and young people, remand numbers are already higher than for sentenced prisoners.

In October 2024, 89% of imprisoned youth were on remand, a 15% increase in seven years. In December 2024, 53% of women prisoners were on remand, more than double the 24% rate a decade ago. Men on remand comprise 41% of prisoners, nearly double the 21% rate a decade ago.

Māori are affected most by these increases, making up 81% of imprisoned youth, 67% of imprisoned women and 53% of imprisoned men.

Some 30% of those on remand are not convicted. Of those who are, data released to RNZ last year showed 2,138 people (15% of remand prisoners) were not convicted of their most serious change, almost double the 2014 figure of 1,075 people.

Significant court delays can mean people are remanded for a long time. By 2034, it is projected the average remand time will be 99 days, compared with 83 days in February 2024. As well as being a human rights concern, this is very expensive.

Putting more people away for longer

Crime and imprisonment rates fluctuate independently of each other, as the former Chief Science Advisor acknowledged in a 2018 report. Increasing imprisonment rates are the result of political decisions, not simple arithmetic.

The Bail Amendment Act 2013 reversed the onus of proof in certain cases, meaning the default rule is that an accused person will not be granted bail. This results in more people being sent to prison while awaiting a hearing, trial or sentencing.

When this week’s changes to the Sentencing Act come into effect, they will further constrain judges’ discretion, capping sentence reductions for mitigating factors at 40% (unless it would be “manifestly unjust”).

At the same time, it has become more difficult for prisoners to return to the community. For example, some are kept in prison or recalled because they do not have stable housing. (Dean Wickliffe, currently on a hunger strike over an alleged assault by prison staff, was arrested for breaching parole by living in his car.)

Last year, Corrections received $1.94 billion in operating and capital budget, a $150 million increase to account for rising imprisonment numbers and prison expansion. There was no meaningful increase in funding for rehabilitation programmes or investment in legal aid.

Imprisoning people is expensive. The cost of a person on custodial remand has almost doubled since 2015, from $239 a day to $437. For sentenced prisoners, it is $562 per day. This comes to between $159,505 and $205,130 per year to confine one person.

The Waikeria expansion and beyond

Corrections has developed a Long-Term Network Configuration Plan to meet anticipated prison population growth. This year’s budget in May will fund 240 high-security beds and 52 health centre beds at Christchurch men’s prison, at a cost of approximately $700-800 million.

Those 240 beds will fit within 160 cells, meaning “double-bunking”. This is known to have a significant impact to prisoner health and rehabilitation, and can also add to staffing costs.

Former corrections minister Kelvin Davis acknowledged this before the first 600-bed expansion of Waikeria prison, costed at $750 million in 2018. By June 2023, that had increased by 22% to $916 million.

The second Waikeria expansion will deliver another 810 beds for an estimated $890 million, although the exact budget has been unclear. These projects will involve public private partnership, a model known for not always delivering the cost savings and service quality initially promised.

There will be other costs for facilities maintenance, asset management services and financing. And there can be unanticipated costs, too. For example, the government’s partner in the Waikeria expansion, Cornerstone, claimed $430 million against Corrections in 2022 for “time and productivity losses” due to COVID-19.

These overall trends are happening while the government is also cutting funding for important social services. Shifting resources to improve social supports would be a better option – and one that has worked in Finland – than pouring more money into expanding prisons.

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

– ref. New sentencing laws will drive NZ’s already high imprisonment rates – and budgets – even higher – https://theconversation.com/new-sentencing-laws-will-drive-nzs-already-high-imprisonment-rates-and-budgets-even-higher-253119

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Andrews, Senior Manager, Policy & Engagement, Australian National University

The year 2000 marked an inflection point for many Western countries, including Australia, in their outlook towards the world.

The focus began to shift away from the peacekeeping interventions that had dominated the previous decade to one shaped by counter-terrorism operations and deployments to the Middle East.

The threat of terrorism hasn’t gone away. But Australia is much more preoccupied by threats of a different nature 25 years later, largely emanating from China. These include cyber attacks, economic coercion, political interference, and the harassment of Australian Defence Force (ADF) ships, aircraft and personnel.

Though our international outlook has changed a lot over the past quarter century, Australia’s alliance with the US has remained a constant throughout.

However, as our militaries have grown closer, the US-China competition has also intensified. Combined with the array of unpredictable and destabilising decisions coming from the second Trump administration, this closeness has caused some unease in Australia.

Evolving threats and challenges

In December 2000, the Howard government released its first Defence White Paper. This marked the beginning of a period of major change in Australia’s international outlook and presence.

It emphasised that “two interrelated trends seem likely to shape our strategic environment most strongly – globalisation and US strategic primacy”. It also noted that “military operations other than conventional war [were] becoming more common.”

The paper was prescient in respect to China’s rise, as well. It said:

The United States is central to the Asia-Pacific security system […] It will be in Asia that the United States is likely to face the toughest issues in shaping its future strategic role – especially in its relationship with China.

There is a small but still significant possibility of growing and sustained confrontation between the major powers in Asia, and even of outright conflict. Australia’s interests could be deeply engaged in such a conflict, especially if it involved the United States.

Yet, nine months after that document’s release, the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, followed by the Bali bombings of 2002, began to dramatically reshape the global security outlook.

A few days after the September 11 attack, Howard invoked the ANZUS Treaty for the first and only time, joinging US President George W. Bush’s “war on terror”. Australian forces then deployed to Afghanistan as part of the US-led invasion in October 2001.

By the time the 2003 Foreign Policy White Paper was released, it highlighted “terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional disorder and transnational crimes such as people smuggling” as the key features of Australia’s “more complex security environment”.

A month later, Australia joined the US-led “coalition of the willing” to invade Iraq to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein and locate and destroy stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction believed to be there. (It later emerged that evidence of the existence of these weapons was erroneous.)

Australia contributed 2,000 troops to the mission. Our soldiers remained actively engaged in training, reconstruction and rehabilitation work in Iraq until July 2009.

Both of these events tied Australia’s foreign policy interests to the US to a greater degree than any time since the Vietnam War.

Although the relationship with the US had been critical to Australian defence and foreign policy for decades, it had become less prominent in Australia’s strategic planning in the years following the end of the Cold War.

US support – and diplomatic pressure on Indonesia – had been vital in securing the post-referendum presence of Australian peacekeepers in East Timor in 1999. However, it was the “war on terror” that really re-centred the relationship as core to Australian foreign policy.

In fact, Australia was even referred to as the US’ “deputy sheriff” in the Asia-Pacific – a nickname used by Bush in 2003 that caused some unease at home and in the region.

This image has since gone on to have significant staying power, and it’s proved difficult for Australia to dislodge.

History repeating?

Though the accusations of war crimes levelled against Australian special forces in Afghanistan continue to reverberate, our foreign policy focus has shifted firmly back to our own region.

This change was driven in large part by the perceived threat posed by a rising China. While the need to focus more on China was acknowledged as early as the 2009 Defence White Paper, this emphasis became most pronounced under Scott Morrison’s leadership.

The 2024 National Defence Strategy portrayed Australia as facing “its most challenging strategic environment since the Second World War”.

It advocated for a significant change in the ADF’s strategic objectives and structure, noting the optimism of the 1990s had been “replaced by the uncertainty and tensions of entrenched and increasing strategic competition between the US and China”.

Today, the military ties between the US and Australia are arguably as close as they have ever been.

The ADF operates top-tier US platforms like the F-35 combat aircraft, P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, M1 Abrams tanks, and AH-64 Apache helicopters. Defence Minister Richard Marles has gone so far as to say the ADF should not only interoperable with the US, but interchangeable.

If all goes to plan, Australia will also build and operate its own fleet of nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS partnership in the coming decades.

At the same time, US President Donald Trump’s “America First” positioning has made the US’ closest allies nervous.

His early moves have put paid to the notion that globalisation is the goal all major states are pursuing. In fact, some argue that deglobalisation may be taking hold as the US aggressively enacts tariffs against its allies, pursues economic onshoring and withdraws from key international bodies.

These actions have led to many to question whether Australia has become too dependent on its major ally and if we need to emphasise a more self-reliant defence posture. However, this is much easier said than done.

Looking back, the year 2000 represented the beginning of a period of major change for Australian foreign policy. Such is the pace of change now, we may view 2025 in the same light in another quarter century.

Whether Australia’s alliance with the US will face long-term harm is yet to be seen. No matter how the bilateral relationship may change, the Indo-Pacific region will continue to be at the core of Australia’s foreign policy outlook, much as it was at the turn of the century.

This piece is part of a series on how Australia has changed since the year 2000. You can read other pieces in the series here.

David Andrews has not personally received funding from any relevant external bodies, but he has previously worked on projects funded by the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Home Affairs, and Defence. David is a member of the Australian Labor Party and Australian Institute of International Affairs, and previously worked for the Department of Defence.

– ref. Australia may no longer be a ‘deputy sheriff’, but its reliance on the US has only grown deeper since 2000 – https://theconversation.com/australia-may-no-longer-be-a-deputy-sheriff-but-its-reliance-on-the-us-has-only-grown-deeper-since-2000-252501

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

In the wild, dogs spend a lot of their time chewing on bones, carcasses, sticks and kernels. For example, Australian dingoes can feed for up to 108 minutes in a single session.

But most domestic dogs chew far less than their free-roaming counterparts. This is largely because of the introduction of easy-to-eat, processed pet foods such as kibble, which now comprises the majority of domestic dogs’ diet.

This is a problem because although chewing carries some risks, overall it has significant benefits for dogs.

As our new review, published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, demonstrates, it enriches the physical, psychological and emotional health of dogs in many interconnected ways.

1. Food acquisition and nourishment

Dogs chew primarily to nourish themselves.

Their large canine, premolar and molar teeth and wide gape help them to capture and dismember prey. Chewing whole carcasses provides them access to marrow, fibre and minerals that would otherwise be inaccessible.

When they are not chowing down on body parts, free-ranging dogs forage on nuts, berries, and insects – a portion of which are also hidden in kernels, shells or exoskeletons and require chewing.

2. Clean teeth and oral hygiene

Dental disease is one of the most common health issues in companion and kennelled dogs. It is more common in smaller and older dogs.

The abrasive action of chewing on hard and fibrous materials helps to remove and prevent the formation of plaque.

This reduces bad breath, gum disease, tooth loss and therefore the requirement for dental procedures at the vet clinic.

Of course, dogs with existing dental issues might find it impossible to chew. And it is recognised that some dental fractures may arise from chewing.

3. Gastrointestinal health

Chewing between meals can help facilitate digestion in all mammals.

It can also prevent stomach inflammation and stimulate peristalsis (waves of contractions) in the gastrointestinal tract.

This helps maintain regular bowel movements and stool consistency.

4. Healthy microbiome

The action of chewing promotes resident bugs that comprise a healthy microbiome and reduces harmful microbes, both in the oral cavity and in the lower intestine.

The microbes of the microbiome work for their own survival and also for that of their dog host, for whom they help maintain healthy oral hygiene and gut health.

5. Stress management

Chewing stimulates the rest-and-digest elements of a dog’s life and can reduce acute stress.

This gives dogs a potential mechanism to manage some of the challenges of both boredom and over-arousal.

In this way, providing long-lasting chewables can help to alleviate anxiety associated with challenging situations such as being home alone.

6. Bone density

Stress is common to all mammals. It causes a release of cortisol, a hormone that can reduce bone density and, over time, lead to osteoporosis.

Because chewing makes dogs less stressed, it can help to prevent some forms of osteoporosis by reducing corticosteroid concentrations in the blood.

7. Performance and focus

Dogs can moderate their own arousal levels if they have the opportunity to chew.

This appears to be bidirectional in that chewing can be stimulating for a bored dog or calming for an unsettled dog.

As such, chewing may be a unique means of bringing dogs into the Goldilocks zone of arousal, also known as “eustress”. This zone improves a dog’s ability to focus, learn and perform complex tasks.

8. Ageing well

Dogs are living longer than they have in the past. Because of this, more are experiencing cognitive decline.

Research has shown that in other mammals, such as humans and rodents, chewing can protect cognitive function.

For dogs already suffering some loss of cognitive function, chewing, with its variety and manipulative challenges, may be a valuable management tool to help sustain quality of life.

9. Positive welfare

The pet industry supplies myriad chewable products ranging from toys, dried or fresh animal products and commercially made chews.

They are meeting the market populated by carers who’ve noticed their dogs relish chewing.

Dogs usually become enlivened when offered chews, seeking them out and playing with them.

Some even find a chew so highly valuable that they risk breaking bonds with dog or human family members by exhibiting resource-guarding behaviours.

When we fail to provide chewables, dogs will instead select other less appropriate articles to serve their purpose. In the smorgasbord of potential targets in our homes, leather shoes are often toward the top of the menu.

10. Happy dogs make happy humans

The very latest study on dog-human relationships has revealed a correlation between dogs’ cardiac responses to positive interactions and those of their human guardians.

Although this study focussed on co-operative breed types, such as herding dogs, known to be highly responsive to humans, it demonstrated that cardiac activity of dogs and their owners mirrored each other. It also indicated cross-species connections comparable to those found in attachment relationships between humans.

So, providing your dog with a way to de-stress can have the same benefits for your own emotional and physiological state.

Incorporating chewing into the daily lives of our dogs may be one simple yet important way to ensure they are living happy and healthy lives. Note that chewing ability is individual and advice on the type of chew and its suitability for your dog should be sought from your veterinarian.

We would like to acknowledge the enormous contribution of Rimini Quinn to this article.

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

Kathryn Mills is affiliated with University of Sydney School of Veterinary Science

– ref. Happy dogs make happy humans, and 9 other reasons science says dogs need to chew – https://theconversation.com/happy-dogs-make-happy-humans-and-9-other-reasons-science-says-dogs-need-to-chew-244028

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Changyan He, Lecturer, School of Engineering, University of Newcastle

Most brain surgery requires doctors to remove part of the skull to access hard-to-reach areas or tumours. It’s invasive, risky, and it takes a long time for the patient to recover.

We have developed new, tiny robotic surgical tools that may let surgeons perform “keyhole surgery” on the brain. Despite their small size, our tools can mimic the full range of motion of a surgeon’s wrist, creating new possibilities for less-invasive brain surgery.

Tiny tools for brain surgery

Robotic surgical tools (around 8 millimetres in diameter) have been used for decades in keyhole surgery for other parts of the body. The challenge has been making a tool small enough (3mm in diameter) for neurosurgery.

In a project led by the University of Toronto, where I was a postdoctoral fellow, we collaborated with The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) in Canada to develop a set of very small neurosurgery tools.

The tools are only about 3mm in diameter. In a paper published in Science Robotics, we demonstrated these tools could grip, pull and cut tissue.

Their extremely small size is possible as they are powered not by motors but by external magnetic fields.

Current robotic surgical tools are typically driven by cables connected to electric motors. They work in much the same way as human fingers, which are manipulated by tendons in the hand connected to muscles in the wrist.

However, pulleys smaller than several millimetres wide to control the instruments are weak and prone to friction, stretch and fracture. This creates challenges in scaling down the instruments, because of difficulties in making the parts of the system, assembling the mechanisms and managing friction in the cables.

Magnetic controls

The new robotic system consists of two parts. The first is the tiny tools themselves: a gripper, a scalpel and a set of forceps. The second part is what we call a “coil table”, which is a surgical table with several electromagnetic coils embedded inside.

In this design, the patient would be positioned with their head on top of the embedded coils, and the robotic tools would be inserted into the brain via a small incision.

By altering the amount of electricity flowing into the coils, we can manipulate the magnetic fields, causing the tools to grip, pull or cut tissue as desired.

In open brain surgery, the surgeon relies on their own dexterous wrist to pivot the tools and tilt their tips to access hard-to-reach areas, such as removing a tumour inside the central cavity of the brain. Unlike other tools, our robotic neurosurgical tools can mimic this with “wristed” movements.

Surprising precision

We tested the tools in pre-clinical trials where we simulated the mechanical properties of the brain tissue they would need to work with. In some tests, we used pieces of tofu and raspberry placed inside a model of the brain.

We compared the performance of these magnetically operated tools with that of standard tools handled by trained surgeons.

We found the cuts made with the magnetic scalpel were consistent and narrow, with an average width of 0.3–0.4mm. That was even more precise than those from traditional hand tools, which ranged from 0.6 to 2.1mm.

As for the grippers, they could pick up the target 76% of the time.

From the lab to the operating room

We were surprised by how well the robotic tools performed. However, there is still a long way to go until this technology could help patients. It can take years, even decades, to develop medical devices, especially surgical robots.

This study is part of a broader project based on years of work led by Eric Diller from the University of Toronto, an expert on magnet-driven micro-robots.

Now, the team wants to make sure the robotic arm and magnetic system can fit comfortably in a hospital operating room. The team also wants to make it compatible with imaging systems such as fluoroscopy, which uses x-rays.
After that, the tools may be ready for clinical trials.

We’re excited about the potential for a new era of minimally invasive neurosurgical tools.

Changyan He 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. Tiny robot tools powered by magnets could one day do brain surgery without cutting open the skull – https://theconversation.com/tiny-robot-tools-powered-by-magnets-could-one-day-do-brain-surgery-without-cutting-open-the-skull-253042

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Hobbs, Associate Professor and Transforming Lives Fellow in Spatial Data Science and Planetary Health, Sheffield Hallam University

Exposure to air pollution in early life could have lasting effects on child development and mental health in adolescence, according to our recent study.

We integrated air pollution data with existing longitudinal data from the Christchurch Health and Development Study (CHDS). The CHDS has followed more than 1,200 children born in the city in 1977, with a strong focus on developmental and mental health outcomes.

Our aim was to examine how exposure to air pollution shapes development and mental health in later childhood and adolescence. We found an increased risk of attention problems, conduct issues, lower educational attainment and substance abuse in adolescence associated with higher exposure.

Existing evidence often focuses on adulthood. However, by tracking air pollution exposure from the prenatal period to the age of ten, and linking this data to subsequent cognitive and mental health outcomes, we were able to highlight the long-term consequences of growing up in polluted environments.

Air pollution is one of the leading environmental contributors to disease, especially respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. Children are especially vulnerable to air pollution because their brains and bodies are developing.

A growing body of evidence suggests air pollution could affect brain development, educational attainment and mental health, contributing to depression, anxiety and conduct or attention problems. Despite this, few studies have tracked long-term exposure to air pollution from early childhood.

Patterns of exposure

We chose to conduct this research in Christchurch because the city is a historical air-pollution hotspot, with a documented history of measurements, and because of its long-running birth cohort study.

The CHDS collects detailed information on participants’ health, development, education and family backgrounds from prenatal into adulthood.

For this study, we linked historical air-pollution data, measured as the concentration of black smoke from 1977 to 1987, to residential locations of birth cohort members. This allowed researchers to estimate each child’s annual exposure to air pollution during key developmental periods.

We found four distinct patterns of air-pollution exposure across childhood (see graph below):

• consistently low (these children had the lowest levels of air pollution throughout childhood)

• consistently high (this groups had the highest levels of air pollution from birth to the age of ten)

• elevated preschool (exposure peaked between ages three to six and then declined)

• high prenatal and postnatal (high exposure before and immediately after birth, but declining later).

We then examined whether children in the higher exposure groups were more likely to experience adverse impacts on cognition, educational achievement and mental health in later childhood and adolescence.

We adjusted for a range potential confounders such as socioeconomic status, neighbourhood disadvantage and parental characteristics.

We found children with elevated pre-school exposure had poorer educational attainment and a higher likelihood of conduct disorders and substance abuse problems. High prenatal and postnatal exposure was linked to a greater risk of attention problems as well as substance abuse in adolescence.

Children with persistently high air-pollution exposure were more likely to develop attention problems and had higher odds of substance abuse issues in adolescence.

What these findings mean

The effects of air pollution on several outcomes were small at an individual level, but they could be highly important at a population level.

This is because even small shifts in cognitive and mental health outcomes, when applied to entire populations of children exposed to poor air quality, could have major consequences affecting future educational achievement, workforce productivity and public health burdens.

These findings support previous research suggesting air pollution could affect brain function by causing inflammation, oxidative stress and affecting neurodevelopmental pathways. Importantly, they reinforce the idea that certain developmental periods, such as the prenatal period and early childhood, may be especially sensitive to pollution exposure.

We need further research to confirm our findings but potential considerations include reducing children’s exposure to air pollution and improving urban air quality by cutting emissions from vehicles, industry and residential heating.

We should also promote cleaner energy sources to decrease exposure to harmful pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter. Providing better access to green spaces may mitigate the impact of air pollution.

To strengthen public health and policy measures, we need stricter air quality regulations, particularly around schools and childcare centres. We should also implement air-quality monitoring in urban areas to identify high-risk zones for children.

Better public information is crucial to minimise indoor and outdoor pollution exposure. This could include the use of air purifiers for indoor activies or limiting outdoor exposure during peak pollution periods.

Further research and action

Our study highlights the need for more research on air pollution’s effects on children’s mental health and cognition, particularly in different environmental and socioeconomic contexts.

Policymakers, educators and healthcare professionals must consider air pollution as a potential risk factor for developmental challenges, not just a physical health concern.

Air pollution may not be visible in the same way as poor housing or inaccessible healthcare, but its impact on child development could be important at a population level.

Given the rising prevalence of mental ill health in young people and adults, tackling air pollution could be an overlooked but essential public health strategy for protecting future generations.

Associate Professor Matthew Hobbs receives funding from Health Research Council of New Zealand and the Clare Foundation, New Zealand.

Joseph Boden receives funding from the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

Lianne Jane Woodward and Susie (Bingyu) Deng 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. Early exposure to air pollution could affect brain development and mental health later in life: new research – https://theconversation.com/early-exposure-to-air-pollution-could-affect-brain-development-and-mental-health-later-in-life-new-research-252644

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

Labor has committed A$690 million over four years to cut the maximum cost of medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) to $25. The Coalition has matched the promise, which is estimated to save Australians $200 million a year.

But consumers could save even more if an existing policy met its potential.

In 2023, the federal government introduced 60-day prescribing. This meant consumers could get twice as many pills per script, with fewer trips to the pharmacist (and to the doctor for a script).

The government announced that consumers would save up to $190 a year for a single medicine, and up to $46 for a concession card holder, compared to the costs of a 30-day script.

But after a tough fight to get this policy, it isn’t living up to its promise.

A hard-won policy

It took political courage, and government spending, to get this change.

Data on political donations show pharmaceutical interests make up the vast bulk of donations from the health sector. The Pharmacy Guild, which represents pharmacy owners, spent the most by far. These donations are an attempt to wield influence behind the scenes. When that fails, the guild isn’t afraid to attack governments in public.

The federal government stared down a histrionic scare campaign against 60-day prescribing. The guild claimed pharmacies would close due to reduced dispensing fees. It also claimed medicines would run out, and children would overdose due to pill hoarding.

The government pushed through the policy, but directly compensated rural pharmacies with ongoing payments worth $20 million a year.

The government also brought forward negotiation of the eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement, which sets how much the government pays pharmacists for dispensing, medication management, and other services. The agreement was signed last year and added $3 billion in new spending.

A long wait for longer scripts

After all that conflict and cost, our analysis of PBS data shows the uptake of longer scripts has been painfully slow.

About 300 drugs for chronic health conditions have been added to the eligibility list in three stages.

For the first stage of medicines, the 60-day option became available in late 2023. This included common medications such as statins for high cholesterol, perindopril for high blood pressure, and alendronate for osteoporosis.

More than a year later, in November 2024, only 30% of eligible stage one medicines dispensed were from a 60-day script.

That’s well short of expectations. The Department of Health and Aged Care predicted 60-day uptake would reach 45% in 2023–24, 58% in 2024–25, and 63% in 2026–27, if fully implemented.

Across all medicines eligible for 60-day prescribing, including those added in the second and third stages, just 21% of medicines dispensed were from a 60-day script.

Even at these low rates, we estimate the policy has saved consumers more than $110 million so far. Higher uptake, closer to the rates the department predicted, would mean even more savings.

Millions of people are missing out. In 2024, there were about 28 million 30-day scripts for statins, compared to about 5 million 60-day scripts. If half of these patients had a 60-day script, they would have saved an extra $27 million a year.

If half of all eligible medicines were dispensed for 60 days, we estimate patients would have saved an extra $310 million a year. That’s more than the $200 million in expected savings from the $25 medicines promise.

And while the government spends money on the $25 medicines policy, it saves money from 60-day scripts, by paying pharmacists fewer dispensing fees.

We estimate the government has already saved $141 million from 60-day prescribing. It could save an extra $297 million a year if uptake increased to 50%.

So why aren’t more GPs writing longer scripts?

Despite the Pharmacy Guild’s efforts to undermine the reform, low uptake is more about doctors than pharmacists: the GP who writes the script determines its duration, not the pharmacist.

Risks for patients aren’t the problem. While 60-day prescribing won’t be right for all patients, experts selected the eligible drugs because prescribing them for 60 days is usually appropriate and safe.

While there’s some variation in 60-day prescribing rates for different medicines, it’s low across the board. That suggests the problem isn’t about GPs being much more cautious with some drugs than with others.

The culprit is probably inertia. GP practice software generates default prescriptions when a patient has had a drug before. With most people still getting 30-day prescriptions, that will be the default for most repeat scripts. And many patients might not be aware the new 60-day option is available.

It’s time to get results

With cost-of-living and health system pressures never far from the headlines, making progress on 60-day prescribing should be a priority.

The benefits for patient and government budgets are obvious. But the benefits of freeing up time for busy clinicians shouldn’t be overlooked. Longer scripts means less GP time to write them, and less pharmacist time to fill them.

As Australia gets older and sicker, the need for GP and pharmacist care grows, and there are severe primary care shortages in many parts of the country.

Every second of GP time that can be freed up for diagnosis, treatment, and to help patients manage their conditions is precious.

There is also good evidence pharmacists can provide cost-effective medication reviews, chronic disease management advice and other services. Shifting their time from retail to services is a great way to take pressure off the health system.

So what can be done?

Fortunately, there are some easy shortcuts to longer scripts.

Providers of GP software should make 60-day prescribing the default for relevant medicines.

The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the professional body for GPs, should continue to encourage GPs to write longer scripts.

Primary Health Networks, the regional bodies responsible for improving primary care, should tell GPs how they compare with their peers, giving a nudge to GPs with low rates of 60-day prescribing.

Finally, the federal government and consumer groups should run campaigns to inform patients about their options.

Longer scripts are a triple win: savings on medicines for patients, budget savings for the government, and more time for GPs and pharmacists. Few reforms tick all those boxes, so it’s important this one makes its way from good policy to standard practice.

Grattan Institute has been supported in its work by government, corporates, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

– ref. 60-day scripts were supposed to save time and money. So why are we still waiting for cheaper medicines? – https://theconversation.com/60-day-scripts-were-supposed-to-save-time-and-money-so-why-are-we-still-waiting-for-cheaper-medicines-250061

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jill Sheppard, Senior Lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

With another election campaign unofficially underway, voters may feel it hasn’t been long since they were last at the voting booth.

Australia’s Constitution dictates:

every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General.

This allows the sitting government to call an election sooner than three years after taking office, but recent norms are for governments to use the full term length available to them.

But how do politicians and the public feel about this format, and could this change anytime soon?

Early elections

In 1998, the John Howard Liberal government called an early election seeking voters’ support for its ambitious plans to introduce a goods and service tax. It came very close to defeat, but clawed its way to victory and nine more years of power.

In 2016, the Malcolm Turnbull Liberal government took a similar punt, calling an early double dissolution election ostensibly on the issue of union corruption. Again, it came very close to defeat but clawed its way to victory (and six more years of power).

Despite their reasons for calling early elections, both Howard and Turnbull faced declining global economic conditions and arguably moved tactically to avoid campaigning in the worst of the headwinds.

Most governments have less appetite for capitalising on external events – like interest rate cuts – when calling an election. Voters already largely distrust politicians, and cynical early elections will only confirm their beliefs.

Fixed versus non-fixed parliamentary terms

The ability of a government to unilaterally decide the election date is unusual.

The political systems most similar to Australia – New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States – all have fixed election dates. Australian states and territories have also increasingly moved to fixed dates, where the government of the day has no discretion over election timing.

As prime minister, Julia Gillard effectively relinquished her right to manipulate the 2013 election date in her favour. She announced it more than seven months ahead of time. Her government lost the subsequent election.

Unsurprisingly, there is little political will to move to fixed dates for federal elections. Only current Special Minister of State Don Farrell has expressed even passing support for the idea (and then, only if voters were clearly in favour).

Fixed terms would undoubtedly benefit voters, who could plan their calendars well in advance. They would also benefit non-government parties and independent candidates, who could budget and plan campaigns around a known election date.

Who wants longer terms?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese supports four-year terms, reflecting long-term Labor Party policy.

The Liberal Party has generally been more ambivalent. Howard was supportive but “not mad keen” in 2005 and supportive, but resigned to failure in 2024.

Current leader Peter Dutton also backs longer terms, but observes that, among voters, “generally, there is a reluctance to do anything that makes the life of a politician easier”.

Beyond voters’ reluctance to grant a one-year extension to politicians’ tenure, the issue of senate term lengths is an obstacle to reform.

Current tradition sets senate terms twice the length of House of Representatives terms, however, Penny Wong has argued that eight-year terms are too long.

Both New South Wales and South Australia have experience with eight-year terms in their upper houses, but no other states have yet followed.

How could (and will) terms be changed?

Any change to federal parliamentary terms would require a successful referendum. The question has been put to Australians once before, in 1988. Only 33% of voters supported the proposal, and no state achieved majority support.

Polling from April 2024 finds only 38% support, with 18% unsure. Independent and minor party voters – the fastest growing group in Australian politics – were also the most strongly opposed to longer terms.

As Dutton noted, voters have been reluctant to support “politician-friendly” referendums in the past. There seems almost no chance the 48th parliament would consider a referendum on the issue.

Would 4-year terms make politics better?

David Coleman, recently promoted to the Liberal Party’s frontbench, has confidently declared “businesses and consumers tend to hold off on investment during election periods and the phoney war that precedes them”, and so longer terms would improve the domestic economy.

The business sector seems to agree.

Are they right? And what about non-economic outcomes?

Academic research backs up the assumption governments are less likely to announce major tax reforms in the months leading into an election. Shorter terms might also make governments less likely to introduce austerity (strict cost-cutting) measures.

The weight of academic evidence suggests that whichever party is in power matters far more than the length of the electoral cycle.

Researchers have struggled to find differences in how politicians with longer terms (usually four years) behave from those with shorter terms (usually two years). Activity levels for the shorter-term politicians appear slightly more frenetic – more fundraising and expenditure, more campaigning – but the outcomes are similar.

Longer terms do not seem destined to fix Australia’s political malaise.

Jill Sheppard receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Every 3 years, we play the election date waiting game. Are fixed terms the solution? – https://theconversation.com/every-3-years-we-play-the-election-date-waiting-game-are-fixed-terms-the-solution-250273

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

Opposition leader Peter Dutton will promise in his Thursday budget reply that a Coalition government would immediately halve the fuel excise on petrol and diesel.

The cut, which would take the excise from 50.8 cents a litre to 25.4 cents, would be for a year, at a cost of A$6 billion.

The opposition says the measure would mean a household with one vehicle filling up once a week would save about $14 weekly, on average. This would amount to about $700 to $750 over the year, based on a 55 litre tank.

A two-car household would save about $28 a week on average – nearly $1500 over the year.

Legislation for the excise cut would be introduced on the first parliamentary sitting day after the election so it could come into effect “as quickly as possible”.

Dutton contrasted the immediate relief with the longer time frame before people received the tax cuts announced in the budget.

Under the tax changes, taxpayers will receive a tax cut of up to $268 from July 1 next year and up to $536 every year from July 1 2027.

The $17.1 billion income tax package was being rushed through the Senate on Wednesday night, as the parliament readies to rise for the election, that could be called as early as Friday for May 3.

The government wanted to pass the legislation immediately to put the Coalition, which opposed the bill and voted against it in parliament, on the spot.

Also, having the tax cuts in law gives greater certainty to them, as Labor promotes them in the coming campaign.

Dutton said of his proposed excise cut: “If elected, we will deliver this cost of living relief immediately – whereas people have to wait 15 months for Labor’s 70 cent a day tax tweak.”

“This cost of living relief will make a real difference to families and small businesses – everyone from tradies, to mums and dads, to older Australians, and to transport delivery workers,” he said.

“The commute to work, taking the kids to school or sport, the family drive, or the trip to the shops will all cost less under the Coalition. Our plan will save many hundreds of dollars for families across Australia.

“Lowering costs to small businesses, means lower costs for goods and services at the checkout.”

The Morrison government introduced a six-month cut to fuel excise in 2022. The Albanese government declined to extend it when it expired.

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. Peter Dutton promises $6 billion 12-month halving of petrol and diesel excise – https://theconversation.com/peter-dutton-promises-6-billion-12-month-halving-of-petrol-and-diesel-excise-250896

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ruby Ekkel, PhD student in Australian History, Australian National University

➡️ View the full interactive version of this article here.

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

– ref. ‘The bush calls us’: the defiant women who demanded a place on the walking track – https://theconversation.com/the-bush-calls-us-the-defiant-women-who-demanded-a-place-on-the-walking-track-241126

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dileep Sharma, Professor and Head of Discipline – Oral Health, University of Newcastle

Around one in three Australians delayed their visit to a dentist in the last financial year – or didn’t go at all – due to cost.

Given it doesn’t look like dental treatment is being added to Medicare any time soon, what can you do?

Most oral and dental diseases are preventable, if you take care of your teeth and mouth. In-between visits to the dentist, here’s what you can do to avoid preventable issues – and blow-out costs.

What causes diseases in your mouth?

More than 1,000 species of microbes live in the mouth. Most dental and oral diseases are due to an imbalance or overgrowth in these microbes within the plaque (or “biofilm”).

Plaque gathers on the hard surfaces inside the mouth (your teeth), as well as soft surfaces (such as your tongue). Removing plaque manually with brushing and flossing is the most effective way to maintain oral health.

Plaque starts to form immediately after brushing, which is why you should remove it regularly.

Things to do

1. Brush twice a day

Use a toothbrush with soft bristles (either electric or manual). Soft bristles remove plaque without damaging the teeth or gums. A fluoridated toothpaste will help strengthen the teeth.

Brush for at least two minutes, using a sweeping and scrubbing motion, away from the gums. It’s a good idea to start at the back teeth and work your way through to the front teeth. Don’t forget to scrub the biting surface of the teeth.

2. Floss

Don’t skip this step – it’s crucial to clean in-between the teeth where a toothbrush can’t reach. Once a day should be enough.

Whether you use floss, a pick, a bottle brush or other devices may depend on the space between your teeth.

3. Clean your tongue

To completely remove the microbes, it’s also important to clean your tongue regularly (twice daily). You can use a toothbrush while you’re already brushing, or a special tongue scraper – just don’t brush or scrape too hard.

Things to avoid

1. Sugary drinks and refined food

What we eat and drink can affect the mouth’s pH.

When bacteria in the mouth break down sugars, they produce acids. The acidity can dissolve minerals in the teeth and lead to decay.

Refined foods – such as white bread, cakes and pastries – can easily be broken down by the mouth’s bacteria. So, having a lot of them, as well as sugary drinks, can damage the teeth and cause cavities.

Water is the best choice to drink with your meals. Sparkling and soda water are acidic and can lead to mineral loss from the teeth, even when they are unflavoured. There is evidence flavoured sparkling water can be as harmful as orange juice.

2. Tobacco and vaping

Smoking or using smokeless tobacco (such as chewed tobacco or snuff pouches) is linked to oral cancer.

Nicotine is also known to increase the severity of gum diseases – even when inflammation isn’t visible.

This is true for both smoking and smokeless tobacco (such as chewed tobacco or snuff pouches).

Vaping also increases your risk of developing cavities and gum disease.

3. Too much alcohol, tea and coffee

Drinking a lot of coffee, tea or red wine can stain your teeth. So if you’re concerned about your teeth appearing yellow or brown, it’s best to limit your intake.

Drinking alcohol is also linked to an increased risk of developing oral cancers, which most commonly affect the tongue, floor of the mouth, cheek and palate.

Your mouth’s health is linked to your overall health

Leaving oral diseases untreated (such as gum disease) has been linked to developing other conditions, such as liver disease, and pre-existing conditions getting worse.

This is particularly evident if you have diabetes. Evidence shows it’s easier to manage blood sugar levels when gum diseases are properly treated.

You can keep an eye on symptoms, such as bleeding gums which may be an early sign of gum disease. If symptoms that worry you, talk to your GP or diabetes educator. They may be able to refer you to a dentist if needed.

Dileep Sharma receives funding from Dental Council of NSW, International Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research, Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, International College of Dentists and Tropical Australian Academic Health Centre for his dental research projects. He is affiliated with The International Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research and Australian Dental Association.

– ref. Going to the dentist is expensive. Here are 3 things you can do to protect your oral health – and 3 things to avoid – https://theconversation.com/going-to-the-dentist-is-expensive-here-are-3-things-you-can-do-to-protect-your-oral-health-and-3-things-to-avoid-250786

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William van Caenegem, Professor of Law, Bond University

The Labor government used this week’s budget to announce it plans to ban non-compete agreements for employees on less than A$175,000 per year, a move that will affect about 3 million Australian workers.

Describing them as “unfair”, a media release by federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers said non‑compete clauses “are holding back Australian workers from switching to better, higher‑paying jobs”. Banning non-compete clauses could lift the wages of affected workers by up to 4%, the government has said.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry quickly called the measure “heavy-handed”, arguing that very few employees, according to businesses, turn down employment due to non-compete clauses.

However, research I did with colleagues from Melbourne and Monash universities showed very few employees signing a new job contract ever think about the end of the relationship and what might happen after.

Workers often accept non-compete clauses with little understanding or regard for their practical implications.

What the law currently says

The current law says contractual clauses that stop departing workers from taking a new job in their preferred line of work, often for long periods of time, are – in principle – unenforceable.

That is, however, unless a court says a particular non-compete clause is “reasonably required” to protect a “legitimate interest”.

Therein lies the problem: it is hard to predict when, where or under what circumstances a court will find a particular clause is “reasonably required”.

Our research concluded this uncertainty favoured employers with greater nous and resources.

These employers have the advantage over employees, who are rarely willing or able to go to court arguing their non-compete clause is invalid.

This has a chilling effect on the mobility of employees. In other words, these clauses make it harder for workers to change jobs.

That’s detrimental to labour market competition and can hold back knowledge-sharing and economic growth.

Global efforts to ban non-compete clauses

In California, non-compete clauses have long been banned. Many economists have identified this as among the key reasons for the success of the Californian knowledge economy. This example also featured in a submission I made (with researcher Caitlyn Douglas) to a 2024 Treasury review into non-compete clauses in Australia.

US research from 2021 also found non-compete clauses can hinder labour mobility. They can impede fundamental freedoms such as freedom of employment and freedom of general competition.

In 2024, under President Biden, the US Federal Trade Commission banned non-competes clauses across the US.

However, the ban has been blocked due to legal challenges in the US Federal Court. It’s also been reported the Trump administration may kill off these reforms altogether.

The UK government proposed in 2023 limiting non-competes to a maximum of three months.

Holding employees back

Unlike in some countries, Australian law does not require employers to compensate their ex-employee for loss of income during their non-compete period.

This means that if workers comply and do not work in the field they’re most skilled for, they will take a serious financial hit for months or more.

This is another detrimental effect of non-compete clauses. They really hurt if the worker in question is lower paid and has very specific skills (such as hairdressers or dental assistants).

In that respect, Labor’s mooted ban on such clauses for employees on less than $175,000 is well conceived.

Courts will usually only enforce a non-compete clause if its terms are reasonable to protect a legitimate interest, such as trade secrets an employee has learned during their employment.

However, it’s mostly higher-ranked employees that have access to really significant trade secrets, such as technical information, confidential business plans or pricing structures.

Higher paid employees are also more often the “public face of the business”. A court might decide it’s fair to say such workers can’t leave and the next day turn up as the main face of a competing business.

And the new government proposal won’t leave employers without any recourse against employees who take their genuine trade secrets and pass them on to their new employers. They will still be able to sue for breach of confidence.

Challenges for reform

The proposed reforms are well supported by authoritative legal and economic research.

The federal government will have to consider carefully how to make sure the prohibition cannot be easily circumvented.

And they’ll have to ensure these reforms don’t make it more likely judges will find restraints valid for those on more than A$175,000. Labour and knowledge mobility remain crucially important for them too.

Another key challenge will be ensuring a ban doesn’t encourage practices or clauses restricting competition to emerge or become too prevalent.

That could include “garden leave” clauses. These give a departing employee a long notice period, during which they are paid but do not work and are isolated from their employment (and instead “doing the gardening” at home).

The risk is that if employers can no longer include non-compete clauses in contracts, they might use long garden leave provisions more often.

Although it is good that “garden leave” employees get paid during that period (unlike during a non-compete term), they are still isolated from their work, stagnating in their skills and unable to move to new employment.

William van Caenegem received funding from the Australian Research Council a decade ago for some of the research referred to in this article.

– ref. Non-compete clauses make it too hard to change jobs. Banning them for millions of Australians is a good move – https://theconversation.com/non-compete-clauses-make-it-too-hard-to-change-jobs-banning-them-for-millions-of-australians-is-a-good-move-253101

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

Commentators have branded last night’s federal budget as an attempt to win over typical Australian voters concerned about the cost of living, ahead of what is expected to be a tightly fought federal election.

The budget’s big-ticket items included tax cuts and energy bill relief, plus measures to make childcare and healthcare cheaper.

There was little in the budget dedicated to stemming Australia’s environmental crises. Given this, one might assume the average voter cares little for action on conservation and curbing climate change. But is this true?

Polling suggests the clear answer is “no”. Voters consistently say they want more government action on both conservation and climate change. As the federal election looms, Labor is running out of time to show it cares about Australia’s precious natural environment.

What environmental spending was in the budget?

The main spending on the environment in last night’s budget had been announced in the weeks before. It includes:

• A$250 million over five years to help protect 30% of Australia’s land and waters by 2030

• $2 billion over 19 years to help Australia’s aluminium smelters transition to renewable electricity

• $1 billion over seven years to support new facilities and supply chains for “green” iron.

These measures are welcome. However, the overall environment spending is inadequate, given the scale of the challenges Australia faces.

Australia’s protected areas, such as national parks, have suffered decades of poor funding, and the federal budget has not rectified this. It means these sensitive natural places will remain vulnerable to harms such as invasive species and bushfires.

More broadly, Australia is failing to stem the drivers of biodiversity loss, such as land clearing and climate change. This means more native species become threatened with extinction each year.

Experts say conserving Australia’s threatened species would cost an extra $2 billion a year. Clearly, the federal budget spending of an extra $50 million a year falls well short of this.

And global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. This contributes to ever-worsening climate change, bringing heatwaves, more extreme fires, more variable rainfall and rising seas.

Contrary to what the federal budget priorities might suggest, Australians are concerned about these issues.

What does the average voter think about the environment?

Results from reputable polling provide insight into what the average voters want when it comes to environmental policy and spending.

When it comes to conservation, the evidence is clear. Polling by YouGov in October last year (commissioned by two environment groups) estimated that 70% of Australians think the Labor government should do more to “protect and restore nature”. The vast majority of voters (86%) supported stronger national nature laws.

Essential Research polling in October 2023 found 53% of voters think the government is not doing enough to preserve endangered species. About the same proportion said more government action was needed to preserve native forests, and oceans and rivers.

On climate change, the average voter appears to have views significantly out of step with both major parties. The Australia Institute’s Climate of the Nation report last year found 50% of voters believed the government was not doing enough to prepare for and adapt to climate impacts.

The report also found 50% of voters supported a moratorium on new coal mines in Australia, 69% support charging companies a levy for each tonne of carbon pollution they emit, and 69% are concerned about climate change.

Also in 2024, a Lowy Institute poll found 57% of Australians supported the statement that “global warming is a serious and pressing problem, and that we should take steps now to mitigate it even if it involves significant costs”.

There’s a caveat here. As the cost-of-living crisis has worsened, the issue has edged out all others in terms of voter concerns at the upcoming election.

For example, in January this year, Roy Morgan polling found 57% of voters considered cost of living one of their top-three issues of concern. Only 23% considered global warming a top-three issue.

However, global warming was still more of a concern for voters than managing the economy (22%), keeping interest rates down (19%) and reducing taxes (15%). It was tied with reducing crime (23%).

It’s also important to note that climate change and cost-of-living pressures are not separate issues. Research suggests that as climate change worsens, it will cause inflation to worsen.

Labor’s unmet election promises

The singular focus on the cost of living in last night’s federal budget means environmental spending has been neglected.

Context matters here. Labor has utterly failed to deliver its 2022 election promise to rewrite federal environmental protection laws and create an environmental protection agency.

The government could have used this budget to repair its environmental credentials going into the next election – but it didn’t. The many voters concerned about the environment might well wonder if Labor considers the environment a policy priority at all.

The upcoming election result may show whether minor parties and independents better reflect the Australian electorate’s views on this important issue.

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. The 2025 federal budget fails the millions of voters who want action on Australia’s struggling environment – https://theconversation.com/the-2025-federal-budget-fails-the-millions-of-voters-who-want-action-on-australias-struggling-environment-253099

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Coghlan, Senior Lecturer in Digital Ethics, Centre for AI and Digital Ethics, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

Every day, users ask search engines millions of questions. The information we receive can shape our opinions and behaviour.

We are often not aware of their influence, but internet search tools sort and rank web content when responding to our queries. This can certainly help us learn more things. But search tools can also return low-quality information and even misinformation.

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have entered the search scene. While LLMs are not search engines, commercial web search engines have started to include LLM-based artificial intelligence (AI) features into their products. Microsoft’s Copilot and Google’s Overviews are examples of this trend.

AI-enhanced search is marketed as convenient. But, together with other changes in the nature of search over the last decades, it raises the question: what is a good search engine?

Our new paper, published in AI and Ethics, explores this. To make the possibilities clearer, we imagine four search tool models: Customer Servant, Librarian, Journalist and Teacher. These models reflect design elements in search tools and are loosely based on matching human roles.

The four models of search tools

Customer Servant

Workers in customer service give people the things they request. If someone asks for a “burger and fries”, they don’t query whether the request is good for the person, or whether they might really be after something else.

The search model we call Customer Servant is somewhat like the first computer-aided information retrieval systems introduced in the 1950s. These returned sets of unranked documents matching a Boolean query – using simple logical rules to define relationships between keywords (e.g. “cats NOT dogs”).

Librarian

As the name suggests, this model somewhat resembles human librarians. Librarian also provides content that people request, but it doesn’t always take queries at face value.

Instead, it aims for “relevance” by inferring user intentions from contextual information such as location, time or the history of user interactions. Classic web search engines of the late 1990s and early 2000s that rank results and provide a list of resources – think early Google – sit in this category.

Journalist

Journalists go beyond librarians. While often responding to what people want to know, journalists carefully curate that information, at times weeding out falsehoods and canvassing various public viewpoints.

Journalists aim to make people better informed. The Journalist search model does something similar. It may customise the presentation of results by providing additional information, or by diversifying search results to give a more balanced list of viewpoints or perspectives.

Teacher

Human teachers, like journalists, aim at giving accurate information. However, they may exercise even more control: teachers may strenuously debunk erroneous information, while pointing learners to the very best expert sources, including lesser-known ones. They may even refuse to expand on claims they deem false or superficial.

LLM-based conversational search systems such as Copilot or Gemini may play a roughly similar role. By providing a synthesised response to a prompt, they exercise more control over presented information than classic web search engines.

They may also try to explicitly discredit problematic views on topics such as health, politics, the environment or history. They might reply with “I can’t promote misinformation” or “This topic requires nuance”. Some LLMs convey a strong “opinion” on what is genuine knowledge and what is unedifying.

No search model is best

We argue each search tool model has strengths and drawbacks.

The Customer Servant is highly explainable: every result can be directly tied to keywords in your query. But this precision also limits the system, as it can’t grasp broader or deeper information needs beyond the exact terms used.

The Librarian model uses additional signals like data about clicks to return content more aligned with what users are really looking for. The catch is these systems may introduce bias. Even with the best intentions, choices about relevance and data sources can reflect underlying value judgements.

The Journalist model shifts the focus toward helping users understand topics, from science to world events, more fully. It aims to present factual information and various perspectives in balanced ways.

This approach is especially useful in moments of crisis – like a global pandemic – where countering misinformation is critical. But there’s a trade-off: tweaking search results for social good raises concerns about user autonomy. It may feel paternalistic, and could open the door to broader content interventions.

The Teacher model is even more interventionist. It guides users towards what it “judges” to be good information, while criticising or discouraging access to content it deems harmful or false. This can promote learning and critical thinking.

But filtering or downranking content can also limit choice, and raises red flags if the “teacher” – whether algorithm or AI – is biased or simply wrong. Current language models often have built-in “guardrails” to align with human values, but these are imperfect. LLMs can also hallucinate plausible-sounding nonsense, or avoid offering perspectives we might actually want to hear.

Staying vigilant is key

We might prefer different models for different purposes. For example, since teacher-like LLMs synthesise and analyse vast amounts of web material, we may sometimes want their more opinionated perspective on a topic, such as on good books, world events or nutrition.

Yet sometimes we may wish to explore specific and verifiable sources about a topic for ourselves. We may also prefer search tools to downrank some content – conspiracy theories, for example.

LLMs make mistakes and can mislead with confidence. As these models become more central to search, we need to stay aware of their drawbacks, and demand transparency and accountability from tech companies on how information is delivered.

Striking the right balance with search engine design and selection is no easy task. Too much control risks eroding individual choice and autonomy, while too little could leave harms unchecked.

Our four ethical models offer a starting point for robust discussion. Further interdisciplinary research is crucial to define when and how search engines can be used ethically and responsibly.

Damiano Spina has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is an Associate Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S).

Falk Scholer has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is an Associate Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S).

Hui Chia and Simon Coghlan 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. What makes a good search engine? These 4 models can help you use search in the age of AI – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-a-good-search-engine-these-4-models-can-help-you-use-search-in-the-age-of-ai-252927

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Murray, Professor of Cybersecurity, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

Yesterday, The Atlantic magazine revealed an extraordinary national security blunder in the United States. Top US government officials had discussed plans for a bombing campaign in Yemen against Houthi rebels in a Signal group chat which inadvertently included The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.

This is hardly the first time senior US government officials have used non-approved systems to handle classified information. In 2009, the then US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fatefully decided to accept the risk of storing her emails on a server in her basement because she preferred the convenience of accessing them using her personal BlackBerry.

Much has been written about the unprecedented nature of this latest incident. Reporting has suggested the US officials involved may have also violated federal laws that require any communication, including text messages, about official acts to be properly preserved.

But what can we learn from it to help us better understand how to design secure systems?

A classic case of ‘shadow IT’

Signal is regarded by many cybersecurity experts as one of the world’s most secure messaging apps. It has become an established part of many workplaces, including government.

Even so, it should never be used to store and send classified information. Governments, including in the US, define strict rules for how national security classified information needs to be handled and secured. These rules prohibit the use of non-approved systems, including commercial messaging apps such as Signal plus cloud services such as Dropbox or OneDrive, for sending and storing classified data.

The sharing of military plans on Signal is a classic case of what IT professionals call “shadow IT”.

It refers to the all-too-common practice of employees setting up parallel IT infrastructure for business purposes without the approval of central IT administrators.

This incident highlights the potential for shadow IT to create security risks.

Government agencies and large organisations employ teams of cybersecurity professionals whose job it is to manage and secure the organisation’s IT infrastructure from cyber threats. At a minimum, these teams need to track what systems are being used to store sensitive information. Defending against sophisticated threats requires constant monitoring of IT systems.

In this sense, shadow IT creates security blind spots: systems that adversaries can breach while going undetected, not least because the IT security team doesn’t even know these systems exist.

It’s possible that part of the motivation for the US officials in question using shadow IT systems in this instance might have been avoiding the scrutiny and record-keeping requirements of the official channels. For example, some of the messages in the Signal group chat were set to disappear after one week, and some after four.

However, we have known for at least a decade that employees also build shadow IT systems not because they are trying to weaken their organisation’s cybersecurity. Instead, a common motivation is that by using shadow IT systems many employees can get their work done faster than when using official, approved systems.

Usability is key

The latest incident highlights an important but often overlooked lesson in cybersecurity: whether a security system is easy to use has an outsized impact on the degree to which it helps improve security.

To borrow from US Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, we might say that a system designer who prioritises security at the expense of usability will produce a system that is neither usable nor secure.

The belief that to make a system more secure requires making it harder to use is as widespread as it is wrong. The best systems are the ones that are both highly secure and highly usable.

The reason is simple: a system that is secure yet difficult to use securely will invariably be used insecurely, if at all. Anyone whose inbox auto-complete has caused them to send an email to the wrong person will understand this risk. It likely also explains how The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief might have been mistakenly added by US officials to the Signal group chat.

While we cannot know for certain, reporting suggests Signal displayed the name of Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat group only as “JG”. Signal doesn’t make it easy to confirm the identity of someone in a group chat, except by their phone number or contact name.

In this sense, Signal gives relatively few clues about the identities of people in chats. This makes it relatively easy to inadvertently add the wrong “JG” from one’s contact list to a group chat.

A highly secure – and highly usable – system

Fortunately, we can have our cake and eat it too. My own research shows how.

In collaboration with Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Group, I helped develop what’s known as the Cross Domain Desktop Compositor. This device allows secure access to classified information while being easier to use than traditional solutions.

It is easier to use because it allows users to connect to the internet. At the same time, it keeps sensitive data physically separate – and therefore secure – but allows it to be displayed alongside internet applications such as web browsers.

One key to making this work was employing mathematical reasoning to prove the device’s software provided rock-solid security guarantees. This allowed us to marry the flexibility of software with the strong hardware-enforced security, without introducing additional vulnerability.

Where to from here?

Avoiding security incidents such as this one requires people following the rules to keep everyone secure. This is especially true when handling classified information, even if doing so requires more work than setting up shadow IT workarounds.

In the meantime, we can avoid the need for people to work around the rules by focusing more research on how to make systems both secure and usable.

Toby Murray receives funding from the Department of Defence. He is Director of the Defence Science Institute, which is funded by the Victorian, Tasmanian and Commonwealth Governments. He previously worked for the Department of Defence.

– ref. Leak of US military plans on Signal is a classic case of ‘shadow IT’. It shows why security systems need to be easy to use – https://theconversation.com/leak-of-us-military-plans-on-signal-is-a-classic-case-of-shadow-it-it-shows-why-security-systems-need-to-be-easy-to-use-253036

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Conley Tyler, Honorary Fellow, Asia Institute, The University of Melbourne

This week’s budget will come as a relief to Australia’s neighbours in the Indo-Pacific that rely on development assistance. The Albanese government did not follow the lead of US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in cutting its foreign aid.

The Trump administration froze foreign assistance and dismantled the US Agency for International Development (USAID) when it came into office. Meanwhile, the UK announced 40% aid cuts of its own.

It is to Australia’s credit this has not happened here. Australia’s development budget remains intact this year and in forward estimates.

Sensible policymakers seem to recognise that Australia’s strategic circumstances are different. As a nation surrounded by low- and middle-income countries, Australia cannot vacate the field on development issues without enormous reputational, diplomatic and strategic damage.

This budget shows Australia is committed to its region – with 75% of the foreign assistance budget flowing to the Indo-Pacific – and sees development partnerships as a way to solve shared problems.

What’s in the budget for aid and development

The details of the development budget show Australia has been listening to its partners to identify critical gaps and reprioritise funds.

In the Pacific, funding has risen to a historic high, with no country receiving less aid. There have been changes in focus to respond to the US funding cuts, including programs on HIV/AIDS in Papua New Guinea and Fiji and gender-based violence in the Pacific.

This fits with Australia’s desire to be a partner of choice – and to prevent an increased Chinese presence in the region.

In Southeast Asia, Australia has increased its aid to all countries and has shifted funding, particularly in health where the US was a major donor.

This is in Australia’s interest. A new program on Indonesian human and animal health, for example, will help prevent health system failures in areas such as tuberculosis and polio elimination on Australia’s doorstep.

Funds have also been reallocated to support civil society organisations working in vital areas like media freedom and human rights, which would have been a casualty in the US cuts.

There was also a shift in humanitarian funding to Myanmar and Bangladesh, where the US aid withdrawal has left Rohingya refugees in a desperate state.

Importantly, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is helping local organisations survive US cuts by allowing temporary flexibility in the use of grant funding to help them continue to deliver essential services.

Beyond these reprioritisations, the other heartening thing about the budget is its normality.

It maintains funding for assistive technology for people with disabilities and an Inclusion and Equality Fund to support LGBTQIA+ civil society organisations and human rights defenders. There are programs on maternal health, including reproductive rights.

The future is still precarious

However, it would be wrong to think this budget will fill the gaps left by the US withdrawal.

The ANU Development Policy Centre estimates that traditional OECD donors will cut at least 25% of their aid by 2027. It said, “when that much of a thing goes missing, it’s clearly at risk of collapse”.

Some development organisations will close their doors, potentially including household names that Australians have donated to for years. This is a time of huge transformation for the sector.

Another future problem will be maintaining multilateral institutions that rely on US funding – including the World Health Organization, World Food Programme, World Bank and Asian Development Bank. This will require a concerted effort with other countries.

So, while the Australian budget shows a government deploying current funding as intelligently as possible, there will eventually be limits to this approach.

In the “new world of uncertainty” described in the treasurer’s budget speech, it simply won’t be possible to meet Australia’s strategic aims and keep development spending at its current rate. It is still far away from 1% of the federal budget.

At some point, Australia must rethink the trajectory of its international commitments.

Analysis by the Development Intelligence Lab, a think tank working on development cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, has shown that over the last 25 years, the international parts of the federal budget – defence, intelligence, diplomacy and development – have held steady at around 10%.

In a time of disruption, this might need to change. In 1949, for example, Australia invested almost 9% of the federal budget on development and diplomacy alone – not including defence.

Those in the foreign aid sector can celebrate Australia has not pulled back on its commitments like the US and UK. At the same time, we should expect the next government will inevitably be called on to do more.

Melissa Conley Tyler is Executive Director at the Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy & Defence Dialogue (AP4D), an initiative funded by the foreign affairs and defence portfolios and hosted by the Australian Council for International Development..

– ref. Australia stands firm behind its foreign aid in the budget, but the future remains precarious – https://theconversation.com/australia-stands-firm-behind-its-foreign-aid-in-the-budget-but-the-future-remains-precarious-253028

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Garrow, Editorial Web Developer

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has described the income tax cuts in this week’s federal budget as a “top-up”. They will amount to roughly one cup of coffee a week for every taxpayer in the first year.

But they will add another A$17 billion to the deficit over coming years, in addition to a raft of previously announced spending measures and very little savings.

That is against a backdrop of the most uncertain global economic outlook since the Global Financial Crisis of 2007–08. Australia may face a real economic shock if trade wars trigger recessions in our major trading partners.

We asked five experts if this is the right budget for these economic times. Only two agreed, with three saying much more is needed to address long-term structural debt and meaningful economic reform.

– ref. Is this the right budget for these economic times? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/is-this-the-right-budget-for-these-economic-times-we-asked-5-experts-252922

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Ellerton, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Education; Curriculum Director, UQ Critical Thinking Project, The University of Queensland

There is a Fox News headline that goes like this:

Transgender female runner who beat 14,000 women at London Marathon offers to give medal back

Read about the event elsewhere and it turns out the athlete was also beaten by thousands of people and it was a participation medal. While the Fox News headline is true, it is framed to potentially elicit a negative reaction.

Misinformation is on the rise. We’re told we need to think critically when we read things online, but how can we recognise such situations? And what does it mean to think critically anyway?

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking is based on the idea that if all ideas are equal, then all ideas are worthless. Without this assumption, there can be nothing to be critical of.

When we think critically, we focus on the quality of our reasoning and the factors that can influence it. In other words, thinking critically primarily means being critical of your own thinking.

Importantly, critical thinking is not strongly correlated with intelligence. While some believe intelligence is basically fixed (though there is debate around this), we can learn to think critically.

Other factors being equal, there’s also no evidence thinking critically is an innate ability. In fact, we have evidence critical thinking can be improved as a skill in itself, and it is transferrable to other contexts.

The tools of argumentation

Many factors can affect the quality of your thinking. They include things like cognitive biases (systemic thinking errors), prior beliefs, prejudices and worldviews, framing effects, and how much you know about the subject.

To understand the quality of our reasoning, we can use the concepts and language of argumentation.

People often think “arguments” are about conflicting views. A better way to understand argumentation is to view it as a way of making our thinking visible and accessible to each other.

Arguments contain premises, those things we think are true about the world, and conclusions, which is where we end up in our thinking. Moving from premises to conclusions is called inferring, and it is the quality of these inferences that is the concern of critical thinking.

For example, if I offer the premises

P1: All Gronks are green

P2: Fred is a Gronk

Then you have already inferred the conclusion

C: Fred is green

You don’t even need to know what a Gronk is to make that inference.

All our rational judgements and decisions are made up of chains of inferences. Constructing, evaluating and identifying types of arguments is the core business of critical thinking.

How can we improve our critical thinking skills?

To help us get better at it, we can understand critical thinking in three main ways.

First, we can see critical thinking as a subject we can learn. In this subject, we study how arguments work and how our reasoning can be influenced or improved. We also learn what makes for good thinking by using ideas like accuracy, clarity, relevance, depth and more. These are what we value in good thinking. By learning this, we start to think about how we think, not just what we think about.

Second, we improve our critical thinking by using what we’ve learned in real situations. This helps us build important thinking skills like analysing, justifying, evaluating and explaining.

Third, we can also think of critical thinking as a habit or attitude – something we choose to practice in our everyday lives. This means being curious, open-minded and willing to question things instead of just accepting them. It also means being aware of our own biases and trying to be fair and honest in how we think.

When we put all three of these together, we become better thinkers – not just in educational contexts, but in life.

Practical steps to improving critical thinking

Since critical thinking centres on the giving and taking of reasons, practising this is a step towards improvement. There are some useful ways to do this.

1. Make reasoning – rather than conclusions – the basis of your discussions with others.

When asking for someone’s opinion, inquire as to why they think that. And offer your thinking to others. Making our thinking visible leads to deep and meaningful conversations in which we can test each other’s thinking and develop the virtues of open-mindedness and curiosity.

2. Always assess the credibility of information based on its source and with a reflection on your own biases.

The processes of our thinking can shape information as we receive it, just as much as the source can in providing it. This develops the virtues of carefulness and humility.

3. Keep the fundamental question of critical inquiry in mind.

The most important question in critical thinking is: “how do we know?”. Continually testing the quality of your inquiry – and therefore thinking – is key. Focusing on this question gives us practice in applying the values of inquiry and develops virtues such as persistence and resilience.

You are not alone!

Reasoning is best understood as a social competence: we reason with and towards each other. Indeed, to be called reasonable is a social compliment.

It’s only when we have to think with others that we really test the quality of our thinking. It’s easy to convince yourself about something, but when you play in the arena of public reasoning, the bar is much higher.

So, be the reasonable person in the room.

That doesn’t mean everyone has to come around to your way of thinking. But it does mean everyone will get closer to the truth because of you.

Use online resources

There are many accessible tools for developing critical thinking. Kialo (Esperanto for “reason”), brings together people from around the world on a user-friendly (and free) platform to help test our reasoning in a well-moderated and respectful environment. It is an excellent place to practice the giving and taking of reasons and to understand alternative positions.

The School of Thought, developed to curate free critical thinking resources, includes many that are often used in educational contexts.

There’s also a plethora of online courses that can guide development in critical thinking, from Australian and international universities.

Peter Ellerton is affiliated with the Rationalist Society of Australia.

– ref. Critical thinking is more important than ever. How can I improve my skills? – https://theconversation.com/critical-thinking-is-more-important-than-ever-how-can-i-improve-my-skills-252517

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vita Pilkington, Research Fellow, PhD Candidate in men’s experiences of sexual trauma, The University of Melbourne

In Australia, it’s estimated almost one in five boys (18.8%) experience child sexual abuse. And at least one in 16 men (6.1%) experience sexual violence after age 15.

However, many boys and men don’t tell others about these experiences. Studies show men are less likely to disclose sexual abuse and assaults than women.

It also takes boys and men longer to first disclose sexual abuse or assaults. On average, men wait 21 years before telling anyone about being abused.

This is a problem because talking to others is often an important part of understanding and recovering from these traumatic experiences. When boys and men don’t discuss these experiences, it risks their mental health problems and isolation becoming worse and they don’t get the support they need.

We wanted to understand what prevents boys and men from telling others about sexual abuse and assaults (or “sexual trauma”). So we conducted a systematic review, where we pooled together evidence from a range of studies on the topic.

We found 69 relevant studies, which included more than 10,500 boys and men who had experienced sexual trauma from around the world. Studies were published in 23 countries across six continents, with most studies from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Two studies were published in Australia.

Our new findings offer clues as to how we can break down the barriers preventing men and boys from discussing sexual trauma.

Upending masculine identities

We found across countries and cultures, boys’ and men’s sexual trauma affected their masculine identities. This included feeling as though they are not “real men”, or that they’re weak for having been targeted and assaulted.

In one study, a participant explained:

Sexual abuse to a man is an abuse against his manhood as well.

Almost universally, boys and men suffered intense feelings of shame and guilt about being victimised, and many blamed themselves for years to decades.

Many boys and men said they were worried others would think they were gay if they disclosed being abused or assaulted. This harmful stereotype reflects widespread homophobic attitudes as well as mistaken beliefs about survivors of abuse and assaults.

Sexual abuse against boys and men has been long been overlooked, dismissed and misunderstood. The taboo nature of the issue was felt by participants. As a therapist who supported male survivors of abuse said in one study:

We don’t have a cultural place for men as victims.

LGBTQIA+ men face additional barriers to disclosure. Some experienced distress surrounding concerns abuse or assaults somehow cause, or contribute to, their sexualities. Many also reported receiving unsupportive and homophobic responses when they disclosed abuse and assaults to others. This includes their stories being minimised and dismissed, or suggestions they must have consented given their attraction to other men.

Stigma if they do tell

In many cases, boys and men who tried to tell others about their sexual trauma were met with stigmatising and unhelpful responses. Some were blamed, told they were making it up, or even mocked.

Others were discouraged from speaking out about their experiences again. In some countries, people tell boys and men not to talk about being abused or assaulted because this is seen as bringing shame on themselves and their families.

Boys and men who were assaulted by women were often told their experiences can’t be classified as abuse or assaults, or aren’t bad enough to warrant support.

Understanding why men don’t talk

Many of these barriers to disclosure are linked to harmful myths about sexual abuse and assaults among boys and men. These include mistaken beliefs that men are not abused or assaulted, and that only gay men are abused or assaulted.

What’s more, many people believe experiencing sexual abuse or assaults is at odds with socially-held ideas about how men “should” behave: for example, constantly demonstrating physical strength, dominance, self-reliance and toughness.

These strict ideas about what it means to be a man appear to prevent many boys and men from disclosing sexual trauma, and impact how others respond when they do disclose.

It can also mean boys and men try to bury their difficulties after sexual trauma because they feel they’re expected to be unemotional and cope with their problems independently.

What can we do better?

We know having experienced sexual trauma is closely linked to significant mental health problems in boys and men. These include substance abuse and addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and even suicide.

Receiving unsupportive and stigmatising responses when they try to seek help only makes these issues worse, and adds to cycles of silence and shame.

We must break down barriers that stop boys and men disclosing these traumatic experiences. Doing so could save lives.

Helping boys and men disclose sexual trauma isn’t just about encouraging them to come forward. We need to make sure other people are prepared to respond safely when they choose to speak up.

There are many ways to raise awareness of the fact sexual abuse and assault happens to boys and men. For example, television shows such as Baby Reindeer helped put this issue at the forefront of conversation. Public health campaigns that explicitly bring boys and men into discussions about sexual trauma can also be helpful.

We also need to do more to make sure boys and men who experience sexual trauma have suitable places to go for support. Australia has some services doing vital work in this space, such as the Survivors & Mates Support Network. However, more funding and support is crucial so men across the country have safe spaces to discuss and recover from their experiences.

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

Vita Pilkington led this project and receives funding from the Melbourne Research Scholarship and the Margaret Cohan Research Scholarship, both awarded by the University of Melbourne.

Sarah Bendall has been awarded a NHMRC Investigator Grant to support research surrounding understanding and treating trauma in young people with mental health difficulties. She has previously held a NHMRC Early Career Fellowship and a McCusker Philanthropic Foundation Fellowship. She advises government on trauma and youth mental health policy, including Victoria’s statewide trauma service (Transforming Trauma Victoria).

Zac Seidler receives funding from an NHMRC Investigator Grant. He is also the Global Director of Research with the Movember Institute of Men’s Health.

– ref. ‘We don’t have a cultural place for men as victims’: why men often don’t tell anyone about sexual abuse – https://theconversation.com/we-dont-have-a-cultural-place-for-men-as-victims-why-men-often-dont-tell-anyone-about-sexual-abuse-252630

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Corey Martin, Lecturer/Podcast Producer, Swinburne University of Technology

Podcasting was once the underdog of the media world: a platform where anyone with a microphone and an idea could share their voice.

With low barriers to entry and freedom from institutional gatekeeping, it promised to amplify marginalised voices and allow underrepresented groups to tell their own stories, on their own terms.

Today, however, this promise seems increasingly strained as corporate interests tighten their grip on the industry. As money flows in, the podcasting space is beginning to resemble the rest of the digital media world – driven by advertising revenues and political polarisation.

The promise of podcasting

Six years ago, audio scholars Martin Spinelli and Lance Dann described podcasting as a “revolutionary” medium for its ability to inspire empathy through innovative forms of audio.

Podcasting was heralded as a format that broke through the barriers of traditional media by offering new ways to engage with underrepresented voices and ideas. Media and cultural studies pointed to the direct-to-ear delivery – free from the biases of visual culture – as a uniquely intimate way to consume content.

Globally, the industry boomed as a result of pandemic lockdowns, with the number of podcasts on Spotify skyrocketing from 450,000 in 2019, to 1.5 million in 2020.

Listenership has also surged in Australia. According to a 2024 report by Edison Research, we’ve seen a 20% increase in listenership from 2022 to 2024 – with 48% of the those aged 12 and above having listened to a podcast within the past month.

From open space to rat race

In his 2024 book Podcasting in a Platform Age, podcast researcher John Sullivan warns the podcasting space is being increasingly dominated by a handful of powerful media companies that dictate what and who gets visibility.

Larger podcasts with higher production budgets, celebrity hosts and backing from major networks are attracting larger audiences, with independent creators struggling to get a foot in the door.

At the time of writing, of the top 50 most popular podcasts in Australia, more than half (52%) come from overseas, and primarily the United States.

Of the 24 Australian-made podcasts on the list, 80% are backed by a media organisation, with most (64%) connected to major networks such as LiSTNR, which is owned by Southern Cross Austereo. Only 12% of the Australian podcasts on the list come from truly independent creators without any corporate funding or major production support.

Why does it matter that large-network ownership is on the rise? To understand this, it helps to first understand how ads keep podcast networks in business – and how this can impact content decisions.

Deepening ideological divides

Advertisers follow the crowds. In a podcasting context, this means they’re more likely to funnel their dollars into large networks, further bolstering their resources.

At the same time, networks want to drive as many ears to their ad sponsors as possible. To do this, they focus on producing content they know will get the most engagement.

The result is a vicious cycle in which attention and advertising power feed each other, making it even harder for independent voices to break through. Over time, this feedback loop can lead to less content diversity and more polarisation.

It’s here that we’re seeing an increase of politicians using podcasts to push their views and cultivate ideological loyalty.

In the lead-up to the 2024 US election, Kamala Harris appeared on Call Her Daddy (the second most popular Spotify podcast in 2024), while Donald Trump was on The Joe Rogan Experience (the most popular). Both interviews were later fact-checked and found to contain false or misleading claims.

Trump’s interview in particular was flagged by CNN for having 32 false claims. Nonetheless, analysts and researchers pointed to it as a driver behind his success with young male voters.

The political podcasting trend is also playing out in Australia ahead of the next federal election.

Late last year, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton appeared on the podcast Diving Deep With Sam Fricker. This was followed by an appearance on Straight Talk, hosted by businessman Mark Bouris, in January.

More recently, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Greens leader Adam Bandt separately appeared on It’s A Lot with Abbie Chatfield.

Read more:
Misinformation is rife and causing deeper polarisation – here’s how social media users can help curb it

Diversity in the podcasting space

According to 2022 Pew Research Centre data, 55% of Americans said their major reason for listening to podcasts was “to learn”, while 29% said they wanted to stay up-to-date with current affairs. But information-hungry listeners may be getting shortchanged, as podcasts are less likely to be fact-checked against the same editorial standards that govern traditional media.

As platform researcher Michael Bossetta notes, although large platforms such as Spotify have the potential to create a more informed world, they
are more likely to push content that keeps users hooked (that is, content they already enjoy and/or agree with).

Recommender algorithms also have a role to play. One 2020 study found that while Spotify’s personalised suggestions increased user engagement by 28.90%, they also reduced the individual-level diversity of podcast streams by 11.51%.

But platforms do have the power to do better. They could, for instance, use their algorithms to prioritise content diversity. This would help ease the “engagement-diversity trade-off”, in which personalisation increases engagement, but limits the diversity of content consumed by an individual.

That said, it’s unlikely platforms will voluntarily change the way they operate. If meaningful reforms are to happen, they will more likely have to come from government regulations or through independent governing bodies.

In the meantime, listeners aren’t powerless. While we can’t stop algorithms from pushing certain content to the top of our feeds, we can disrupt them by actively seeking out independent voices and diverse stories.

Corey Martin 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. Podcasting was once a rebel medium for diverse voices. Now it’s slowly being consumed by big media – https://theconversation.com/podcasting-was-once-a-rebel-medium-for-diverse-voices-now-its-slowly-being-consumed-by-big-media-252169

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jade Wrathall, Teaching Fellow, Te Kura Toi Tangata – School of Education, University of Waikato

The New Zealand government’s plan to purchase a standardised tool to assess reading, writing and mathematics for school children between Year 3 and 10 has caught parents, schools and education groups by surprise.

The tool would essentially be a return to a form of national standards, a policy introduced in 2008 under John Key’s National government.

Under this policy, children were compared against the level of achievement expected for their age and time at school. The goal was to improve results across the education system.

The policy was ended by Labour in 2017 after there was little improvement in international testing results and several criticism from the sector. The National Standards in their Seventh Year survey of teachers and principals found just 16% of respondents said the standardised testing had a positive impact.

The planned introduction of a new standardised assessment tool is concerning for a number of reasons – particularly when it comes to long-term consequences for schools and student learning.

But what has also raised the hackles of many in education is how the tender process for the new tool happened without warning. Here is what parents, schools and the public should know about the background to this debate.

A narrowing curriculum

There is plenty of research – from New Zealand and overseas – highlighting the negative consequences of standardised testing in education.

Standardised assessment can, for example, lead to schools being ranked against each other according to their achievement data. A low ranking could jeopardise a school’s reputation and therefore the number of enrolments and subsequent funding they receive.

In this high-stakes environment, teachers can be pressured to focus on assessed subjects, often to the detriment of the broader curriculum. While the curriculum in New Zealand has already been considerably narrowed under the government’s “Teaching the Basics Brilliantly” policy, a standardised assessment could further exacerbate this trend.

Teachers may also be inclined to “teach to the test” and employ rote learning strategies, where children are encouraged to memorise the correct answers. While this may result in high test scores, it is questionable whether deeper learning will occur.

Focusing on assessment can also be detrimental to children’s belief that they could learn and their attitudes towards learning, particularly when they are labelled according to their level of achievement.

Finally, while standardised tests might promise an “easy fix” to improve educational outcomes, they do not address the deeper socioeconomic disparities which continue to significantly affect educational achievement.

A lack of consultation

This shift back towards a national testing standard is happening without any known consultation with the education sector. Instead, the plan to use one standardised assessment tool only became evident when the government tender was released.

But the introduction of a standardised test also doesn’t fit with the government’s previous public statements on testing.

In 2024, Education Minister Erica Stanford announced plans to allow schools to choose between two tools to assess students. These tools were selected specifically to prevent comparison across schools because they were so different from one another.

At the time, Stanford said

It’s not our intention to pit schools against each other. This data is for parents to know how their kids are going, teachers to inform practice, and as a system to know how we’re tracking.

But according to documents released later the same year, the government already had a plan to rely on a single standardised assessment tool that could produce comparable data.

Control from afar

While the Ministry of Education says this new standardised assessment tool “will deliver a long-term solution to support all schools and kura”, there are reasons to be sceptical.

Standardised assessment can be used by the government to control what teachers do in the classroom and provide data to reallocate resources to where they are most needed. This resource allocation strategy, however, can leave some schools without the funding and support they need.

Principals and teachers can also be held accountable for student achievement, while larger contextual factors, such as socioeconomic inequalities, are ignored. This can ultimately lead to educators being blamed if achievement targets are not met.

Regardless of who wins the tender for the new assessment tool, New Zealand’s recent experience with standardised testing didn’t achieve what was promised. Returning to national standards – either in name or just in spirit – should raise alarms for everyone.

Marta Estellés has previously received funding from The Spencer Foundation, New Zealand National Commission of UNESCO, the Division of Education at The University of Waikato and The University of Cantabria.

Jade Wrathall 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. National standards by stealth? Why the government’s latest plan for schools might fail the history test – https://theconversation.com/national-standards-by-stealth-why-the-governments-latest-plan-for-schools-might-fail-the-history-test-252917

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

Tax cuts are the centrepiece of the Albanese government’s cost-of-living budget bid for re-election in May. The surprise tax measures mean taxpayers will receive an extra tax cut of up to A$268 from July 1 next year and up to $536 every year from July 1 2027.

Delivering his fourth budget on Tuesday night, Treasurer Jim Chalmers described the tax relief as “modest”. It will cost the budget $3 billion in 2026-27, $6.7 billion in 2027-28 and just over $17 billion over the forward estimates.

From July 1 2026 the 16% tax rate – which applies to taxable income between $18,201 and $45,000 – will be reduced to 15%. From July 1 2027, this will be further reduced to 14%.

While cost of living is at the heart of the budget, apart from the tax changes, almost all the other measures have been announced. These include about $8.5 billion to strengthen Medicare (mostly to boost bulk billing) and $150 per household to extend energy relief until the end of the year. The government has also previously announced measures on cheaper medicines and improved access to childcare.

The opposition has so far refused to say what a Coalition government would do on tax. It will now be under pressure to quickly produce a counter tax policy for the election, which is likely to be called this weekend.

Chalmers presented a cautiously optimistic picture on the economy, while stressing the uncertain international times ahead.

“Our economy is turning the corner,” he said. “This budget is our plan for a new generation of prosperity in a new world of uncertainty.”

“It’s a plan to help finish the fight against inflation [and] rebuild living standards.”

Read more:
A ‘modest’ tax bribe, delivered against dark clouds of Trump-induced uncertainty

After delivering two budget surpluses, this budget has deficits for the foreseeable future.

This financial year’s deficit is estimated at $27.6 billion, rising to $42.1 billion in 2025-26 (in the December 2024 update it was expected to be $46.9 billion). The cumulative deficits across the forward estimates reach $179.5 billion.

The budget predicts 335,000 in net migration in 2024-25, which is a fall of 100,000 from the previous year. It projects 260,000 for 2025-26.

Chalmers described the global economy as “volatile and unpredictable” with “storm clouds” gathering. “Trade disruptions are rising China’s growth is slowing, war is still raging in Europe and a ceasefire in the Middle East is breaking down,” he told parliament.

“Treasury expects the global economy to grow 3.25% for the next three years, its slowest since the 1990s. It’s already forecasting the two biggest economies in the world will slow next year – with risks weighing more heavily on both,” he said.

Chalmers said Australia was “neither uniquely impacted nor immune” from the international pressures. “But we are among the best placed to navigate them.”

Australia’s economic growth is forecast to increase from 1.5% this financial year to 2.5% in 2026-27, with the private sector “resuming its rightful place as the main driver of this growth.”

Read more:
The 2025 budget has few savings and surprises but it also ignores climate change

Unemployment is projected to peak at 4.25%, lower than previously anticipated. Employment and real wage growth will be stronger and inflation was coming down faster, Chalmers said.

“Treasury now expects inflation to be sustainably back in the [2%-3%] target band six months earlier than anticipated,” he said. “The worst is now behind us and the economy is heading in the right direction.”

Chalmers told his Tuesday afternoon conference the budget is a “story of Australian exceptionalism”.

He called the tax cuts “top up tax cuts” that built on the recalibrated stage 3 tax cuts. He claimed the average household with two earners would save $15,000 over four years through a combination of all these tax cuts and energy bill relief.

Read more:
Tax cuts are coming, but not soon, in a cautious budget

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. Albanese government bids for votes with ‘top-up’ tax cuts for all – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-bids-for-votes-with-top-up-tax-cuts-for-all-253021

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Digital Storytelling Team, The Conversation, The Conversation

What’s the theme?

Many budget measures are aimed at easing cost of living. The headline announcement is tax cuts: everyone will get one, but not until July 1 2026. Other major spends are on Medicare, medicines and energy bill rebates. If this seems familiar, it’s because the government has already announced most of these measures before budget day.

Your tax cut calculator

Key announcements:

Read the full analysis from our experts:

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. At a glance: the 2025 federal budget – https://theconversation.com/at-a-glance-the-2025-federal-budget-252637

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra

By the standards of pre-election budgets, this one is surprisingly modest. There are only a handful of new revenue and spending initiatives. The Budget Paper 2 book, which contains new measures, is a slim document.

In part, this is because many of the most significant new spending proposals have been announced already – support for more bulk billing, the Future Made in Australia program, funding for schools and pre-schools and the Housing Australia Future Fund.

It can be hard to discern the new initiatives from the old. For example, the budget commits the government to support wage growth by “funding wage increases for aged care workers and early childhood educators” and “advocating for increases to award wages”. It will also ban non-compete clauses (contract provisions that hinder workers from moving between employers) for low- and middle-income workers.

These should in theory significantly shift wages upwards. Yet the economic forecast for the wage price index barely moves – from 4.1% in 2023-24 to 3% in 2024-25 and 3.25% in 2025-26. That is because the forecasts had already built in assumptions on the impact of things like aged care and childcare wage rises – they aren’t new.

The non-compete reform is a new initiative and over the longer term has the potential to improve wages as people move jobs. More importantly, it will improve flexibility in the labour market and improve productivity.

Overall, the deficits are forecast to continue for the foreseeable future.

Some more tax cuts on the way

The one surprising element of the budget is tax cuts. In essence, they return some bracket creep to low- and middle-income earners for a couple of years, after which revenue estimates return to trend. Bracket creep refers to increases in tax revenues as taxpayers move into higher tax brackets.

It is one of the reasons why governments have resisted calls to index the income tax brackets to inflation. Giving back bracket creep from time to time in the form of a tax cut, especially when an election looms, is more politically attractive.

There were few savings initiatives. The main one was the old chestnut of more funding to the Australian Taxation Office for compliance.

The Taxation Office receives an additional A$999 million over four years to combat tax avoidance including non-compliance, under reporting of income and illicit tobacco. This is expected to recoup $3.2 billion over five years, while increasing payments by $1.4 billion – some of the additional tax collected will go to GST payments to the states. So in net terms therefore this is also a modest saving.

One thing to look for in every budget is the provision for “decisions taken but not yet announced”. This refers to money put aside in the budget for future announcements – such as election promises.

It is not clear what the government might have planned. Revenue drops in 2025-26, but it climbs back up again in the following two years. Spending decisions include $323 million next year, which is relatively small change in the overall budget.

For transparency, we should not have any undisclosed decisions but at least the ones in this budget are far from extravagant.

Public service numbers

On staffing in the public service, there has been a large increase since the government took office. There will be some 33,000 more public servants – the majority outside Canberra – in 2025-26 than in 2022-23. However, the rate of increase is slowing. Not all agencies have had staff increases in this budget.

Nevertheless, the government has devoted ten pages to arguments for investing in the public service, and why the public service is a valuable resource. This is probably to emphasise one of the few points of difference between it and the opposition.

The defence budget saw almost no change. The treasurer was asked in his budget lockup press conference why this was, given the uncertain geopolitical environment documented in the budget papers.

Chalmers agreed “the world is a dangerous place right now” but pointed to increases in defence spending in previous budgets and argued these had positioned Australia to respond.

One missing element of the budget is new spending to combat climate change. The threat of climate change to the budget estimates has grown significantly. This is acknowledged briefly with a half page in the budget’s “statement of risks” – “climate change is expected to have a significant impact on the budget”.

However, that impact is not quantified – possibly because of “significant uncertainty”. Yes, there is uncertainty.

But the same applies to other parts of the budget, including the international economy, which is discussed in much more depth. The climate change department is one of a handful that lose staff in this budget. It may take more severe disasters before it regains prominence in the budget papers.

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

– ref. The 2025 budget has few savings and surprises but it also ignores climate change – https://theconversation.com/the-2025-budget-has-few-savings-and-surprises-but-it-also-ignores-climate-change-253026

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

Today’s budget is a cautious and responsible response to the cost-of-living pressures facing voters.

As noted ahead of budget night, many of the major spending initiatives had already been announced.

But, in the only major surprise, there are income tax cuts for all income taxpayers. Even if we need to be patient. The new tax cuts only start in July 2026, with a second round in July 2027.

And as Treasurer Jim Chalmers himself said, they are “modest” cuts. A worker on average earnings will receive A$268 in the first year, rising to $536 in the second year.

Combined with the government’s first round of tax cuts in last year’s budget, this will add up to $2,190 per year in 2027.

The cost to the budget of the latest tax cuts in 2026-27 will be $3 billion, and over three years will be $17.1 billion. The cuts still need to pass parliament.

But calls by economists such as Chris Richardson and Ken Henry for major tax reform have not been heeded. Major reforms inevitably create losers as well as winners. So, big changes were never likely just weeks before an election.

And there is still bracket creep (increases in tax revenues as taxpayers move into higher tax brackets) over the next decade. Total tax receipts are projected to rise from 25.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2024-25 to 26.8% in 2035-36. This will do most of the work in the very gradual windback of the budget deficit.

How concerned should we be about the budget moving into deficit?

In the first back-to-back surpluses for almost 20 years, there were budget surpluses in 2022-23 and 2023-24. This year we are returning to deficit and further deficits are expected for about a decade. Should we be alarmed?

A balanced or surplus budget is not necessarily a good budget. What we want is a budget appropriate to current economic conditions and sustainable in the long run.

The Australian economy has only been growing modestly in recent years and is forecast to grow 1.5% in the current year. Inflation is near the target range in underlying terms. So, a modest deficit is not unreasonable.

The longer run projections show a very gradual return to balance. But this assumes no recession and no further income tax cuts, for a decade. It might be better to rebuild the fiscal position more quickly so as to be better placed to provide fiscal stimulus in the event of a global recession or another pandemic.

‘A new world of uncertainty’

As Chalmers said, we are in a “new world of uncertainty” with “the threat of a global trade war”. The volume of Australian exports is forecast to only expand by 2.5% in 2025-26 and 2026-27, but it could be lower.

In February, the Reserve Bank forecast headline inflation would rebound above the 2% to 3% target range when the electricity rebates expired. The extension of the rebates in Tuesday’s budget as well as the reductions in the price of prescription medicines will help keep inflation below 3%. Headline inflation is forecast to improve to 2.5% in 2026-27.

In the December 2024 budget update, the unemployment rate was forecast to be around 4.5% in mid-2025 and stay around that level for the next couple of years. Given the unemployment rate was steady at 4.1% in February, the reduction to 4.25% seems plausible.

What will it mean for interest rates?

One reason the government went for a modest tax cut rather than a wild “cash splash” is it did not want to undermine the narrative there will be future interest rate cuts by stimulating household spending too much.

If households were given immediate cash to spend, this could drive up inflation.

The Reserve Bank is unlikely to change interest rates at its April 1 meeting. But it would be very unhelpful for the government’s electoral prospects if the minutes showed the central bank had become more concerned about inflation and less likely to cut interest rates at future meetings.

The Reserve Bank is unlikely to feel this budget contains enough government spending to boost economic activity in the near term and therefore change its view on the economic outlook.

So, a further interest rate cut remains possible at the bank’s following meeting on May 20.

And any further relief on interest rates would be welcomed by households – as well as whoever might be in government by then.

John Hawkins was a formerly a senior economist at the Treasury and Reserve Bank.

– ref. Tax cuts are coming, but not soon, in a cautious budget – https://theconversation.com/tax-cuts-are-coming-but-not-soon-in-a-cautious-budget-253027

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Parker, Adjunct Fellow, Naval Studies at UNSW Canberra, and Expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University

A report in The Atlantic today sent shockwaves through Washington and beyond: senior US officials shared military operations for a bombing campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen in a Signal group chat that inadvertently included the magazine’s editor.

Military planning of this nature is highly classified, which is why some media outlets are characterising it as “an extraordinary breach of American national security intelligence”.

Here are three key reasons why this incident is so concerning, and how such conversations are typically handled.

What are the potential consequences of this kind of breach?

From an operational and strategic level, this incident could have had significant implications.

Had the Houthis or their Iranian backers managed to access this information, they could have moved the individuals or equipment that was being targeted, making the strikes ineffective.

In addition, depending on what military assets the US was using to conduct the strikes – for example, ships and aircraft – the information could have given away their positions. This could have allowed the Houthis to pre-emptively target these assets, which is another significant concern.

Or, the Houthis could have pre-emptively attacked something else, such as oil facilities in neighbouring Saudi Arabia, which they have targeted successfully in the past.

At the strategic level, this breach provides an insight into the dynamics of the people involved in the key defence decision-making in the Trump administration. Many names were reportedly shared, including an active intelligence officer.

If America’s adversaries were able to access this information, they could use it to target these people or people around them.

More broadly, this incident is just a bad look. This is a classified discussion about military planning being conducted on an unclassified platform that was accessed by a journalist who didn’t have high-level clearances and shouldn’t have had access to the information.

How are classified conversations usually conducted?

During my time in the Australian Defence Force, I was a former director of operations of a 38-nation coalition of maritime forces in the Middle East.

And I was quite surprised to see these US plans being discussed on Signal.

Normally, operations of this kind are discussed strictly on secure, classified devices only, such as phones or laptops. Military commanders are contactable on these devices at all hours of the day or night.

These devices are “cleaned” before they’re issued by the Department of Defence and regularly checked. You can’t plug a foreign device into them, which ensures they can’t be compromised in any way. Any communications that take place on these devices would also be encrypted.

In addition, on a classified network, it would be impossible to add someone to a conversation in the way the Atlantic editor was, unless they had access to the same secure technology.

I would be highly surprised if the US secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, and the national security advisor, Mike Waltz, do not have access to these devices. They may have chosen to have this conversation on Signal for ease, but it clearly makes the information much more vulnerable.

If high-level conversations do need to happen on an unclassified platform like Signal, the participants would normally use a code word that doesn’t give away what they’re talking about. This keeps a conversation encrypted to a degree until a secure device can be accessed.

Should America’s allies worry about intelligence lapses, too?

The US’ key partners and allies should seek to have a conversation with the Americans behind closed doors to understand the context of what happened.

The big questions are: what does this kind of lapse mean and what is the US doing to address it?

The US National Security Council has already said it intends to look at the situation in depth.

So, at this stage, I don’t think America’s Five Eyes partners should necessarily be concerned about the potential for other intelligence breaches.

Jennifer Parker 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 is the US group chat on Houthi attack plans so concerning? A military operations expert explains – https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-us-group-chat-on-houthi-attack-plans-so-concerning-a-military-operations-expert-explains-253029

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Watson, Professor in Conservation Science, School of the Environment, The University of Queensland

In 2022, Australia and many other nations agreed to protect 30% of their lands and waters by 2030 to arrest the rapid decline in biodiversity.

Since then, the Albanese government has protected large new areas of ocean, taking the total up to 52% of territorial waters. In tonight’s federal budget, the government is expected to announce A$250 million in funding to protect an additional 30 million hectares of land over the next five years. At present, Australia protects 22% of its lands through its National Reserve System. This would take the total to 30%.

You might expect conservationists to be ecstatic. But we’re not. Large new areas of desert and arid areas are likely to be protected under this scheme, because these areas have minimal population and are not sought after by farming. But these ecosystems are already well protected.

We have to come back to the point of the 30 by 30 agreement: protect biodiversity. That means the government has to protect representative samples of all ecosystems – including in areas sought for farming or other human uses.

Buying land is only a fraction of the task

For years, Australia’s National Reserve System of national parks, state parks and Indigenous Protected Areas has languished. The last big infusion of funding and political interest came between 2007 and 2010 under a previous Labor government, when Peter Garrett was environment minister. Then, the government expanded the reserve system, grew Indigenous Protected Areas and ensured new reserves would preserve a representative sample of Australia’s ecosystems.

Since then, conservation efforts have largely not been up to scratch. Funding has stagnated. National parks are riddled with invasive species and other environmental problems.

On funding grounds alone, the $250m announced by Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek is welcome. It is, however, just a fraction of what’s needed to properly protect the right areas.

In 2023, environmental organisations called for a $5 billion fund to buy and protect important habitat – and to pay for maintenance.

The purchase of land represents perhaps 10% of the overall cost of conservation. If you buy land and do nothing, it can be overrun by invasive species. Australia’s ever-larger number of threatened species are often threatened because of these species, as well as the growing threat of land clearing in Queensland and the Northern Territory. Fire management is another cost.

Which lands actually need protection?

As successive governments have backed away from conservation, non-government organisations such as the Australian Land Conservation Alliance, Bush Heritage Australia and Australian Wildlife Conservancy have stepped up. These organisations are doing fine work in protecting land and doing the necessary on-ground land management to safeguard threatened species and ecosystems, but they do not have access to resources at a government scale.

So how will this government funding be used? It’s likely we will see further growth in Indigenous Protected Areas – areas managed by Traditional Owners alongside authorities to protect biodiversity.

These areas are often located where low rainfall often means they are not viable for farming. This means there’s less conflict over what to do with the land. If our government is determined to meet the 30% target as quickly and cheaply as possible, we may well see more arid lands and desert protected.

When you set a target of 30% protected land by 2030, governments often see the top-line figure and aim for that alone. But the text of the international agreement stresses the need to prioritise “areas of particular importance for biodiversity”.

Governments have a choice: the easy, less effective way or the hard but effective way. The recent growth in marine protected areas suggests the government is taking the easy path. Even though the science is clear that marine parks bolster fish stocks in and outside the park, they are still controversial among fishers who believe they are being locked out.

As a result, Australia’s marine park system has made greatest gains where there are very few humans who might protest, such as quadrupling the protected areas around the very remote Heard and McDonald Islands in the sub-Antarctic region. (The government has expanded marine parks at a smaller scale closer to population centres too.)

This same story may well play out on land.

What would it look like if our government was willing to do what was necessary? It would involve actively seeking out the ecological communities in clear decline, such as native grasslands, brigalow woodlands and swamps, and buying up remaining habitat.

Saving here, clearing there

On the one hand, 22% of Australia’s land and 52% of seas come under some form of protection. But on the other, over the last two decades an area the size of Tasmania has been cleared – largely for livestock farming and mining. Satellite analyses show land clearing is actually increasing in many parts of the country.

Land clearing places further pressure on threatened species. In fact, most species considered threatened with extinction are largely in this situation because the land they live on has attributes prized by farmers or graziers, such as grass and water.

Australia’s environment faces real challenges in the next few years. Intensified land clearing, worsening climate change and whiplash drought-flood cycles, to say nothing of ballooning feral populations.

If we protect the right 30% of Australia, we have a chance to ensure most of our ecosystems have areas protected. But if we protect the wrong 30% and leave the rest open to bulldozers, we will only lock in more extinctions.

James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council, National Environmental Science Program, South Australia’s Department of Environment and Water, Queensland’s Department of Environment, Science and Innovation as well as from Bush Heritage Australia, Queensland Conservation Council, Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and Birdlife Australia. He serves on the scientific committee of BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with Bush Heritage Australia and Wildlife Conservation Society. He serves on the Queensland government’s Land Restoration Fund’s Investment Panel as the Deputy Chair.

– ref. A budget splash to conserve 30% of Australia’s lands will save species – if we choose the right 30% – https://theconversation.com/a-budget-splash-to-conserve-30-of-australias-lands-will-save-species-if-we-choose-the-right-30-252918

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Irene Nikoloudakis, PhD Candidate in Law, University of Adelaide

Being robbed is a horrible experience under any circumstances. But being robbed by your employer involves a unique betrayal of trust.

So it was a sign of real progress when “wage theft” finally became a crime in New Zealand earlier this month with the passage of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Act.

Heralded by trade unions and the Labour Party as a victory for workers, the new law makes it a criminal offence under the Crimes Act for an employer to intentionally (and without reasonable excuse) fail to pay workers what they’re entitled to.

Wage theft can include deliberately underpaying wages or holiday pay, or making unlawful deductions from pay packets. The question now is how well the new law will be enforced.

While there is little research on how widespread wage theft in New Zealand is, we do know it all too often affects temporary migrant workers and those in labour-intensive industries such as hospitality, construction and horticulture.

But if, as seems likely, the police are tasked with investigating allegations of wage theft, the new law may struggle to be enforced effectively.

Who investigates wage theft?

Until the law change, wage theft was only addressed through the civil system, not the criminal courts. Underpaid employees could take an employer to court to recover what was owed – if they had the means to navigate what could be a complex process.

It took an initiative by former Labour MP Ibrahim Omer – who as a refugee in New Zealand had experienced wage theft – to begin the reform process. He introduced a members’ bill to parliament in 2023 seeking to make wage theft a criminal offence.

Under the new law, the maximum penalties for wage theft are the same as for general theft. For serious offences, this means employers can be imprisoned for stealing their workers’ pay.

The trouble is, the law doesn’t state which government agency will be responsible for investigating such crimes. This is important because adequately enforcing the law is the whole point.

A 2024 report by the Ministry of Justice had suggested investigative responsibility might sit with New Zealand’s workplace regulator, the Labour Inspectorate. This seemed a logical move.

But when the legislation was being debated in parliament, it became clear MPs assumed enforcement responsibility would lie with police. Confirming the law change this month, Labour MP Camilla Bellich said:

Theft is theft, and before this bill was law workers had to take up a civil case. Civil wage claims are difficult for any employee to initiate and often time consuming and expensive. Now workers can go to the police and report wage theft as a crime.

How Australia does it

On the face of it, the police might seem like the logical enforcement agency. They investigate crimes and play an important role in crime prevention. But wage theft isn’t an area they have dealt with before. And uncovering wage theft in practice is very difficult.

First, those most at risk – such as migrant workers and young employees – are the least likely to report it, often for fear of the consequences or because they simply don’t know how to make a formal complaint.

Secondly, bad employers are good at covering their tracks, leaving no paper trail or fudging the books.

Without specialised knowledge or experience in these areas – as well as dealing with their existing resourcing challenges – the police will potentially struggle to uncover wage theft offending.

A better model might be Australia’s criminal wage theft regime, which came into effect at the start of this year. Overall, it is tougher and more targeted than New Zealand’s.

The Australian law applies hefty maximum penalties for wage theft offences – up to ten years’ imprisonment and monetary fines in the millions. Investigations are the responsibility of the national workplace regulator, the Fair Work Ombudsman.

This makes sense, because it’s the Fair Work Ombudsman which has significant experience in uncovering breaches of national employment laws, not the police.

Put the Labour Inspectorate in charge

The equivalent enforcement agency in New Zealand is the Labour Inspectorate, whose entire remit is to uncover breaches of employment standards.

The Labour Inspectorate, far more than the police, will understand the intricacies of wage theft, including which workers and industries are most vulnerable, and what methods dodgy employers use to hide wage theft.

If necessary, the inspectorate’s powers and resources could be reviewed and modified to ensure it has the tools to conduct criminal investigations, including the ability to search and seize evidence.

Finally, empowering an agency with the right tools, knowledge and experience to investigate wage theft would leave the police to deal with the other serious crimes already demanding their attention.

Irene Nikoloudakis 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. Wage theft is now a criminal offence in NZ – investigating it shouldn’t be left to the police – https://theconversation.com/wage-theft-is-now-a-criminal-offence-in-nz-investigating-it-shouldnt-be-left-to-the-police-252712