Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phillip Baker, ARC Future Fellow and Sydney Horizon Fellow, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, University of Sydney

Ultra-processed foods are displacing traditional foods and meals globally, degrading diet quality, and contributing to the rise of diet-related chronic diseases.

And despite the combined advertising spend of the leading ultra-processed food companies dwarfing even the total budget of the World Health Organization, there is plenty that governments, communities and health professionals can do about it.

These are the findings, published today in the journal The Lancet, of our three landmark papers on ultra-processed foods.

These are products engineered from industrial ingredients and cosmetic additives, typically containing few or no intact ingredients. Examples include soft drinks, chips, and many breakfast cereals.

The problem, we argue, is not a lack of willpower on the part of individuals but rather is primarily commercially driven – the result of a powerful industry.

The evidence

The first paper summarises the evidence, showing that ultra-processed foods are spreading globally. The share of ultra-processed foods in diets has climbed over decades in countries across the world.

In the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, it’s been consistently high for decades (around 50% of daily energy). Ultra-processed foods are essentially the national diet. The same goes for Australia.

Second, this paper shows diets high in ultra-processed foods induce overeating and are nutritionally poor: more sugars, saturated fat and energy density, less fibre and key vitamins and minerals, and fewer whole foods.

Third, this paper summarises the health risks. A systematic review we carried out, which included 104 long-term studies, found 92 reported greater associated risks of one or more chronic diseases. Meta-analyses of these studies confirmed associations for obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, Crohn’s disease, depression, and early death from all causes.

Crucially, it’s not just about “too much sugar, salt and fat”. Clinicaltrials show that when adults eat diets heavy in ultra-processed foods, they consume about 500–800 extra calories per day, gain weight and fat mass, and eat more rapidly, when compared with eating a non-ultra-processed diet with the same proportions of macronutrients. This is likely because of higher energy density, tastiness, and soft textures that make overeating ultra-processed foods easy.

More research is clearly needed. However, the evidence is now strong enough to justify a global public health response.

Policy options

Our second paper outlines policy options for governments that wish to address the problem. Four stand out:

1. Changing the products: reformulation – when sugar is swapped for sweeteners or fat is swapped for additives that provide a fat-like texture – does not solve the problem. Instead, governments could set limits on selected additives and use “ultra-processed food markers” such as colours, flavours and non-sugar sweeteners (as well as high levels of sugar, fat and salt) to identify ultra-processed products for regulation.

2. Fixing food environments: evidence-based policy options include:

• adopting mandatory front-of-pack warning labels, which work well to inform consumers and reduce purchasing

• protecting children under 18 – especially on digital platforms – from ultra-processed food marketing and extend protections beyond “kids’ hours”

• taxing sugary drinks (by at least 20%) and selected ultra-processed foods; use revenue to subsidise fruits, vegetables and freshly prepared meals for lower-income households

• removing ultra-processed foods from schools, hospitals and other public institutions, limiting the share of ultra-processed foods on supermarket shelves, and curbing availability of ultra-processed foods near schools.

3. Curbing corporate power: governments could do more to regulate companies’ portfolios and monitor and constrain the proportion of sales from ultra-processed foods; strengthen competition policy and consider tax reforms that curb excessive market power.

4. Addressing subsidies and supply chains: governments could redirect agricultural subsidies away from monoculture commodity ingredients for ultra-processed foods (such as corn, soy and sugar), and align environmental policies (on issues such as plastics reduction or water use) with nutrition goals.

Success will come from tailored, coordinated packages – there’s no silver bullet.

Countering the ultra-processed food industry

Our third paper asks why ultra-processed foods are taking over human diets and how to mobilise a global public health response.

The answer: address corporate power and profitability. Ultra-processing food is the food sector’s most profitable business model. The largest transnationals sit atop global supply, marketing and lobbying networks that expand markets, shape science and public debate, and block regulation.

Ultra-processed food manufacturers can use profits to spend much more on marketing, build factories and spread ultra-processed foods globally, and to fund lobbyists.

For instance, in 2024 leading food companies spent vastly more on advertising than the World Health Organization’s entire operating budget.

Corporations and their connected groups follow the same playbook as the tobacco and fossil fuel industries: lobbying, litigation, self-regulation, and sponsored science to delay policy response.

Our paper calls for a global public health response:

• disrupt the ultra-processed food business model, by taxing ultra-processed foods production, mandating corporate plastics recycling, and redirecting resources to support healthy food producers and families

• protect policymaking and science from interference, with conflict-of-interest safeguards and clear rules of engagement for industry. We should end reliance on industry self-regulation and use public policy and law

• build coalitions to advocate to policymakers and drive policy change, from legal support to strategic communications.

Our papers show that without policy action and a coordinated global response, ultra-processed foods will continue to rise in human diets, harming health, economies, culture and planet. The time to act is now.

Phillip Baker has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and UNICEF for research projects relevant to ultra-processed foods.

Camila Corvalan has received funding for her research from the Chilean Research Agency (ANID), Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the International Canadian research Office (IDRC). She is part of the strategy group of the Latin American and Caribbean Nutrition and Health Community of Practice (COLANSA), Next Generation Leadership Collective and Alianza Global para la Alimentación Saludable de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes In Latin America. She is a member of the policy and prevention working group of the World Obesity Federation and the Ultraprocessed Foods Task Force of the International Union of Nutritional Sciences (IUNS). She currently serves as president of the Latin American Society of Nutrition.

Gyorgy Scrinis received a Bloomberg Philanthropies grant that supported the research for the Lancet series.

Priscila Machado received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), The Heart Foundation of Australia, São Paulo Research Foundation, and Thailand’s Sweet Enough Network/ThaiHealth for research projects relevant to ultra-processed foods.

Carlos Monteiro 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 ultra-processed foods problem is driven by commercial interests, not individual weakness. Here’s how to fix it – https://theconversation.com/the-ultra-processed-foods-problem-is-driven-by-commercial-interests-not-individual-weakness-heres-how-to-fix-it-269401

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

One Nation surges to a new record 18% in a federal Redbridge poll as the Coalition falls to 24%, but Labor dominates with 38%. In Victoria, the final poll of Brad Battin’s Liberal leadership had the Coalition narrowly ahead.

A national Redbridge and Accent Research poll for The Financial Review, conducted November 7–13 from a sample of 1,011, gave Labor a 56–44 lead by respondent preferences, a two-point gain for Labor since the September Redbridge poll.

Primary votes were 38% Labor (up four), 24% Coalition (down five), 18% One Nation (up four), 9% Greens (down two) and 11% for all Others (down one). The Coalition’s primary vote matched the record low they had in the late October Newspoll, while One Nation’s 18% is a new record high for them in any national poll.

By 2025 election preference flows, Labor would lead by about 56.5–43.5. Anthony Albanese led Sussan Ley as preferred PM by 40–10, with 28% for “neither”, 9% “about the same” and 13% unsure.

Favourable ratings were given for Albanese (39–37 unfavourable), Ley (34–13 unfavourable), One Nation leader Pauline Hanson (45–32 unfavourable) and Greens leader Larissa Waters (13–6 unfavourable). It’s likely these included neutral or never heard of ratings that were not disclosed.

Instead of Labor versus Coalition issue questions, this poll asked which of Labor, the Coalition, One Nation or the Greens would be best to handle various issues. On cost of living, Labor had 30%, the Coalition 21%, One Nation 11% and the Greens 7%.

One Nation led on rate of immigration with 27%, with Labor at 20%, the Coalition 19% and the Greens 4%. The Greens led on climate change with 27%, with Labor at 18%, the Coalition 11% and One Nation 9%.

The Coalition led One Nation by just six points in this poll. In the late October Newspoll, the Coalition led by nine points, but the early November Resolve poll still had the Coalition ahead of One Nation by 17 points.

This poll was conducted during a period when the Liberals were debating their approach to net zero, but before the decision to abandon the net zero emissions target by 2050 was announced.

Additional federal Resolve and Newspoll questions

I previously covered the early November national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers. In additional questions regarding net zero by 2050, 26% thought Australia should adhere to the target and do its utmost to meet it, 28% keep it as an aspiration but not a binding law, 19% abandon the target but still take action on emissions where affordable and 12% abandon the target and take little action.

Overall, that’s 54–31 in favour of keeping net zero, but Coalition voters favoured abandoning net zero by 47–41. By 49–22, respondents did not think Australia would achieve its target of reducing carbon emissions by 43% by 2030.

By 43–28, respondents were in favour of Australia becoming a republic (38–25 in September). This is the highest support for a republic since Resolve started tracking this question in January 2022.

King Charles’ net favourability improved eight points since September to +16, but former prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s net favourability was -46. By 61–14, respondents thought Andrew should be removed from the line of succession.

In additional questions from the late October Newspoll, 64% wanted Australia to accept fewer immigrants than now, 26% the same number as now and just 10% more immigrants than now. On the impact of immigration, 23% thought it beneficial for most Australians, 20% harmful for most Australians and 55% said there was a mix of benefit and harm for most Australians.

Freshwater October poll

Full details of a national Freshwater poll for The Daily Telegraph can be downloaded here. This poll was taken October 15–20 from a sample of 1,530. It gave Labor a 55–45 lead by respondent preferences, from primary votes of 33% Labor, 31% Coalition, 14% Greens, 10% One Nation and 11% for all Others.

Freshwater’s final poll before the 2025 election gave the Coalition 37% of the primary vote (actual 31.8%). It overstated the Coalition’s primary vote by more than any other pollster.

Albanese led Ley by 48–31 as preferred PM. Albanese’s net favourable was -7, while Ley’s was -5. Other politicians and parties asked for were between net zero and -8 net favourable, with the exceptions of Liberal MP Andrew Hastie (+4), National MP Barnaby Joyce (-11), the federal Greens (-15) and Donald Trump (-36).

Final Victorian poll before Battin dumped as Liberal leader

On Tuesday Jess Wilson replaced Brad Battin as Victorian Liberal leader after a leadership spill. The Herald Sun released a Freshwater poll that day that gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, from primary votes of 37% Coalition and 30% Labor, with no other primary votes given. This poll was conducted November 14–17 from a sample of 1,217.

Battin had a net favourability of +15 while Labor premier Jacinta Allan was at -28. Battin led Allan as preferred premier by 45–34. By 60–26, respondents thought the Allan government was doing a bad job. Only 34% thought Labor deserved to be re-elected, while 54% said it was time to give Battin and the Liberals a chance.

The next Victorian election is in November 2026. Despite dismal ratings for Allan and a preferred premier deficit to Battin, Labor has been competitive in Victorian polls since Labor’s surprise landslide at the May federal election. Normally the preferred premier/PM measure favours incumbents compared with voting intentions.

By the next election, Labor will have governed in Victoria for the last 12 years and 23 of 27 years since 1999. There is probably an “it’s time” factor.

Adrian Beaumont 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. One Nation’s surge continues in Redbridge poll, but Labor dominant – https://theconversation.com/one-nations-surge-continues-in-redbridge-poll-but-labor-dominant-269593

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colin Klein, Professor, School of Philosophy, Australian National University

You might think a honey bee foraging in your garden and a browser window running ChatGPT have nothing in common. But recent scientific research has been seriously considering the possibility that either, or both, might be conscious.

There are many different ways of studying consciousness. One of the most common is to measure how an animal – or artificial intelligence (AI) – acts.

But two new papers on the possibility of consciousness in animals and AI suggest new theories for how to test this – one that strikes a middle ground between sensationalism and knee-jerk scepticism about whether humans are the only conscious beings on Earth.

A fierce debate

Questions around consciousness have long sparked fierce debate.

That’s in part because conscious beings might matter morally in a way that unconscious things don’t. Expanding the sphere of consciousness means expanding our ethical horizons. Even if we can’t be sure something is conscious, we might err on the side of caution by assuming it is – what philosopher Jonathan Birch calls the precautionary principle for sentience.

The recent trend has been one of expansion.

For example, in April 2024 a group of 40 scientists at a conference in New York proposed the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness. Subsequently signed by over 500 scientists and philosophers, this declaration says consciousness is realistically possible in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians and fishes) as well as many invertebrates, including cephalopods (octopus and squid), crustaceans (crabs and lobsters) and insects.

In parallel with this, the incredible rise of large language models, such as ChatGPT, has raised the serious possibility that machines may be conscious.

Five years ago, a seemingly ironclad test of whether something was conscious was to see if you could have a conversation with it. Philosopher Susan Schneider suggested if we had an AI that convincingly mused on the metaphysics of consciousness, it may well be conscious.

By those standards, today we would be surrounded by conscious machines. Many have gone so far as to apply the precautionary principle here too: the burgeoning field of AI welfare is devoted to figuring out if and when we must care about machines.

Yet all of these arguments depend, in large part, on surface-level behaviour. But that behaviour can be deceptive. What matters for consciousness is not what you do, but how you do it.

Looking at the machinery of AI

A new paper in Trends in Cognitive Sciences that one of us (Colin Klein) coauthored, drawing on previous work, looks to the machinery rather than the behaviour of AI.

It also draws on the cognitive science tradition to identify a plausible list of indicators of consciousness based on the structure of information processing. This means one can draw up a useful list of indicators of consciousness without having to agree on which of the current cognitive theories of consciousness is correct.

Some indicators (such as the need to resolve trade-offs between competing goals in contextually appropriate ways) are shared by many theories. Most other indicators (such as the presence of informational feedback) are only required by one theory but indicative in others.

Importantly, the useful indicators are all structural. They all have to do with how brains and computers process and combine information.

The verdict? No existing AI system (including ChatGPT) is conscious. The appearance of consciousness in large language models is not achieved in a way that is sufficiently similar to us to warrant attribution of conscious states.

Yet at the same time, there is no bar to AI systems – perhaps ones with a very different architecture to today’s systems – becoming conscious.

The lesson? It’s possible for AI to behave as if conscious without being conscious.

Measuring consciousness in insects

Biologists are also turning to mechanisms – how brains work – to recognise consciousness in non-human animals.

In a new paper in Philosophical Transactions B, we propose a neural model for minimal consciousness in insects. This is a model that abstracts away from anatomical detail to focus on the core computations done by simple brains.

Our key insight is to identify the kind of computation our brains perform that gives rise to experience.

This computation solves ancient problems from our evolutionary history that arise from having a mobile, complex body with many senses and conflicting needs.

Importantly, we don’t identify the computation itself – there is science yet to be done. But we show that if you could identify it, you’d have a level playing field to compare humans, invertebrates, and computers.

The same lesson

The problem of consciousness in animals and in computers appear to pull in different directions.

For animals, the question is often how to interpret whether ambiguous behaviour (like a crab tending its wounds) indicates consciousness.

For computers, we have to decide whether apparently unambiguous behaviour (a chatbot musing with you on the purpose of existence) is a true indicator of consciousness or mere roleplay.

Yet as the fields of neuroscience and AI progress, both are converging on the same lesson: when making judgement about whether something is consciousness, how it works is proving more informative than what it does.

Colin Klein receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Templeton World Charity Foundation.

Andrew Barron receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Templeton World Charity Foundation.

– ref. Are animals and AI conscious? We’ve devised new theories for how to test this – https://theconversation.com/are-animals-and-ai-conscious-weve-devised-new-theories-for-how-to-test-this-269803

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aude Bernard, Associate Professor, Queensland Centre for Population Research, School of the Environment, The University of Queensland

Immigration has become a hot-button issue in Australia, particularly amid specious claims it is responsible for the housing crisis and straining the economy.

Recent anti-immigration rallies across the country have brought it further into the public spotlight.

With the next federal election less than three years away and the Coalition set to release its migration policy very soon, there have been some claims that more than one million new migrants could become citizens by 2028.

It is a dramatic claim, but it does not stack up.

New data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics tell a more complex story. Yes, overseas migration has surged since the COVID pandemic, but most migrants are here temporarily.

In other words, few will become Australian citizens in the next few years.

Record migration numbers

Australia recorded an historic high of 739,000 arrivals in 2022–23. After accounting for people leaving the country that year, that is a net gain of 536,000 people. The following year, net overseas migration went down to 446,000.

In addition, not everyone in that group is new to Australia. One in six were in fact returning Australians or New Zealand citizens.

What has really changed is who is coming. Twenty years ago, less than half of new arrivals held a temporary visa. Now, it is closer to 70%. These temporary migrants are mainly international students, working holidaymakers, and skilled workers.

In contrast, the number of permanent visas that let people settle long-term and eventually become citizens has barely changed in a decade, sitting at about 190,000 a year. This imbalance means a smaller proportion of newcomers will stay for good and become citizens.

Fewer migrants settling long-term

To find out what happens to migrants, we have tracked over seven years the visa journeys of 2.5 million temporary migrants who arrived between 2006 and 2016. The results show just how much migration patterns have shifted.

Almost half of those who arrived in 2016 had left Australia within seven years. Another 14% were still on temporary visas, double the proportion recorded a decade earlier. Only one in five had become Australian citizens.

If this trend continues, fewer than 150,000 of the roughly 1 million 2022–24 temporary arrivals will be Australian citizens by 2028. That’s almost ten times fewer than the 1.3 million some have claimed. And that is optimistic, given it usually takes longer than five years to become a citizen because of processing times.

Most students and backpackers don’t stay

International students now make up nearly half of all temporary arrivals. Visitors, working holidaymakers, and temporary skilled workers make up most of the rest.

But many do not settle in Australia. About half of international students leave once they finish studying, and around 70% of working holiday-makers leave Australia within seven years, most within two years of arrival. These figures suggest most temporary migration programs are operating as intended by supporting circulation and exchange, not permanent settlement.

The group most likely to stay are temporary skilled workers, who were brought in to fill gaps in the labour market. Close to 70% become permanent residents or citizens within seven years.

The rise of ‘permanent temporariness’

There is another side to this story. While many temporary migrants leave, a growing proportion is staying on temporary visas for longer.

In 2004, only about a third of permanent visas were granted to people already living in Australia. Today, it is around 60%. This is the new face of Australian migration: a system built on “multi-step migration”, with most migrants arriving on a temporary visa, then holding multiple temporary visas before applying for permanent residence.

That shift has helped employers fill skills shortages quickly. But it has also created a group of people who live, work and pay taxes long-term without the certainty and rights of permanent residents.

A bigger debate about the kind of migration we want

Australia’s reliance on migration to drive economic growth, fill labour shortages and mitigate population ageing is not new. What is new is the growing divide between temporary and permanent migrants.

Economically, temporary migration delivers clear benefits. But socially, it raises difficult questions. What happens when hundreds of thousands of people live here for years without being able to settle down or plan for the future?

The idea that more than a million new citizens will appear before 2028 simply does not hold up. The real issue is more complicated. It is about how we manage a system that increasingly relies on temporary workers, many of whom will never become citizens, even after years of contributing to the Australian economy and society. It is about managing social cohesion by ensuring we do not create inequalities between those who can settle permanently and those who cannot.

Temporary migration has quietly become one of Australia’s defining policy challenges. Getting it right means thinking not only about numbers, but about people and the kind of Australia we want to build together.

Aude Bernard receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the Australian Population Association, the European Population Association and the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population.

Charles Irvin Siriban and Gin (Jing) Wu 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. Yes, migration to Australia is up. But new figures show most migrants do not become citizens – https://theconversation.com/yes-migration-to-australia-is-up-but-new-figures-show-most-migrants-do-not-become-citizens-267731

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

State and territory governments have reacted angrily to a letter from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in September asking them to rein in hospital spending.

This comes amid negotiations for the next five-year funding agreement to determine the federal government’s contribution to state-run public hospitals.

The states are angry because hospitals are under intense pressure. Demand is rising, emergency departments are packed, and workers are stressed. More money will be needed as Australians get older and sicker.

But public hospital spending has surged by an average of A$3 billion, or 4.5%, every year for the past decade. The federal government is understandably concerned about such rapid spending growth, some of which may not be good value.

To lighten the load, the federal and state governments should invest in prevention and primary care from GPs and others to prevent people getting sick enough to need to go to hospital.

Governments must also strike a deal to pay for rising costs, and to spend hospital dollars better. Our new Grattan Institute report explains how.

Not all spending is necessary

Some hospitals spend a lot more than others on similar admissions. Those gaps can’t be fully explained by differences between patients (such as being older and sicker), or hospitals (such as being smaller, or more specialised).

Instead, variable practices are partly to blame, such as keeping people in hospital longer, higher rates of infections and falls, using more tests, less efficient workforce roles, or costly local procurement of supplies and services.

We estimate there is $1.2 billion of avoidable cost in the system each year, enough to fund 160,000 extra hospital visits.

Get budgeting back on track

Too often, state budgeting for hospitals is a sham that repeats year after year.

First, hospitals overspend. Then, governments cover the deficit because hospitals are too important to fail. Next, trying to enforce discipline, governments set the next budget unrealistically low. With uncertainty and short-termism baked in, hospitals struggle to plan and invest. Then the cycle repeats.

Even before the COVID pandemic, budgets routinely predicted that hospital funding would fall, which almost never happens. Since 2015-16, actual spending has exceeded state budget funding by an average 6% a year.

It’s a chaotic way to run a vital system. It leaves hospitals without the stability, or the incentive, to invest in productivity.

Breaking the cycle requires predictability and responsibility on both sides. States should set realistic system-wide budgets based on the projected growth in demand and costs.

Consistently well-run hospitals should get three-year budgets so they can plan and invest. In exchange, bailouts should stop, with consequences for boards and CEOs that oversee persistent deficits.

Federal contributions should be predictable and fair too. Since 2017, the federal government has capped its hospital funding growth at 6.5% a year. That means the federal share of growth shrinks when inflation or population growth spikes, leaving states funding the shortfall.

The cap should be redesigned so the federal government automatically shares funding for reasonable increases in demand and cost. But it can also push productivity. The cap should rise along with state populations and need for care, but it should go up a little below the projected rise in costs.

Price for best practice

Public hospital pricing is based on paying the average cost of care for a visit of a standard length. But how a standard length is defined is way out of date.

Australia’s independent pricing authority should develop prices that promote shorter stays, when they’re safe. States should be rewarded with more federal funding if they embrace these changes.

Other countries have made pricing changes to promote safe same-day care. France, Denmark, Germany and Norway pay the same amount for same-day and longer stays for many surgeries. That creates a strong incentive to send eligible patients home sooner.

Australia, by contrast, often pays less for one-day stays.

It’s no wonder same-day joint replacements are common overseas but rare here. In 2022–23, just 0.3% of hip replacements and 0.2% of knee replacements were same-day, whereas comparable countries have climbed to 5, 10, or even 20%. This cuts costs, without compromising patient outcomes.

Fund solutions for stranded patients

Some patients stay in hospital long after they are medically ready to leave, because they are waiting for residential aged care or disability services. Those extra bed days shouldn’t be funded like bed days that are needed for health reasons.

The average National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participant waits 16 days in hospital after being medically ready to leave. State governments report that about 8–10% of public hospital bed days are taken up by people waiting to be discharged somewhere else.

No one likes being in hospital longer than necessary, and every extra day carries the risk of infections or complications. And it’s expensive. The average cost of a hospital visit for a new resident at a residential aged care facility is more than $6,500 higher than for an otherwise identical patient returning home.

Like in England, Sweden and Norway, Australia should impose financial penalties for keeping people stranded in hospital. The federal government is responsible for aged care and the NDIS. It should pay for hospital stays after someone is medically ready to leave, or alternative temporary accommodation arranged by the hospital.

Read more:
Could geriatric hospitals reduce pressure on the health system? Maybe – but improving aged care is paramount

Use purchasing power

Supplies and services are roughly a quarter of hospitals’ operating costs. Bigger contracts mean better deals and less duplicated administration. But many states leave money on the table by letting hospitals buy separately what they could buy together.

Centralised procurement lowers prices and cuts duplication. New South Wales’ HealthShare model shows what’s possible across uniforms, meals, linen, payroll and patient transport. Smaller jurisdictions should piggyback on their bigger neighbour’s buying, and for some specialised technologies, a national approach makes sense.

Spending on temporary doctors and nurses has surged since COVID. Hospitals often end up bidding against one another, driving wages up. States should set maximum daily rates, as Queensland does, or consider an in-house locum agency, like Western Australia’s.

There’s also a clinical dimension to scale: centralising some procedures in high-volume surgical centres is often safer and cheaper. States should steadily consolidate where the evidence supports it, and make sure patients who need help to travel to hospital get it.

Time for a productivity pact

Governments are currently debating the next national health agreement. Recent deals have mostly been about slicing up the funding pie, not making it go further. Now there’s a chance to change that.

With productive prices, and a fairer federal cap, states can give their health systems more certainty and better incentives.

Add tougher, more realistic hospital budgets and savings through scale, and we’ll get more care for every hospital dollar.

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.

Elizabeth Baldwin 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. Hospitals are under pressure. These changes could save $1.2 billion a year – and fund 160,000 extra hospital visits – https://theconversation.com/hospitals-are-under-pressure-these-changes-could-save-1-2-billion-a-year-and-fund-160-000-extra-hospital-visits-269492

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucas Walsh, Professor of Education Policy and Practice, Youth Studies, Monash University

When we talk about whether the education system is working we often look at results and obvious outcomes. What marks do students get? Are they working and studying after school? Perhaps we look at whether core subjects like maths, English and science are being taught the “right” way.

But we rarely ask young people themselves about their experiences. In our new survey launched on Tuesday, we spoke to young Australians between 18 and 24 about school and university. They told us they value their education, but many felt it does not equip them with the skills, experiences and support they need for future life.

Our research

In the Australian Youth Barometer, we survey young Australians each year. In the latest report, we surveyed a nationally representative group of 527 young people, aged 18 to 24. We also did interviews with 30 young people.

We asked them about their views on the environment, health, technology and the economy. In this article, we discuss their views on their education.

‘They don’t teach you the realities’

In our survey, 57% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed their education had prepared them for their future. This means about two fifths (43%) didn’t agree or were uncertain.

Many said school made them “book smart” but didn’t teach essential life skills such as budgeting, taxes, cooking, renting or workplace readiness. As one 23-year-old from Queensland told us:

They don’t teach you the realities of life and being an adult.

This may explain why 61% of young Australians in our study had taken some form of online informal classes, such as a YouTube tutorial. Young people are looking to informal learning for acquiring practical skills such as cooking, household repairs, managing finances, driving and applying for jobs.

Some interviewees discussed how informal learning – outside of formal education places – was a key site for personal development. One interviewee (21) from Western Australia explained how they had learned how to fix computer problems online: “I’ve learnt a great deal from YouTube”. Others talked about turning to Google, TikTok and, more recently, ChatGPT.

A key question here is the reliability of these sources. This is why students need critical thinking and online literacy skills so they can evaluate what they find online.

‘This is so much money’

Young people in our survey echoed wider community concerns about the rising costs of a university education. As one South Australian man (23) told us:

I was looking at the HECS that came along with [certain courses] and I was like, this is crazy, this is so much money.

One woman (19) explained how the fees had been part of the reason why she didn’t want to go to uni.

Truthfully there was nothing at uni that interested me, any careers that it would be leading me to […] also because university is so expensive, I wouldn’t want to get myself in a HECS debt for the rest of my life.

‘Why don’t I know anyone?’

For those who did go to uni, young people spoke about how they were missing out on the social side of education – partly due to COVID lockdowns, the broader move to hybrid/online learning and changes in campus experiences. As one Queensland 19-year-old told us:

For the past year and a half I kind of just went to class and then went home again and I was like, ‘Why don’t I know anyone? Why do I have no friends?’

While some students reported online study saved time, others told us they found it impersonal and disengaging. As one Victorian (23) told us:

It’s more like I’m learning from my laptop, not by a university I’m paying thousands of dollars to.

Another 23-year-old from NSW said students would complain but learn more if they had face-to-face classes:

[online is] more flexible but it means it’s harder to turn off and on […] more traditional university would be nice.

Some young people are worried

One of the key roles of education is to provide pathways to desirable futures. But 40% of young people told us they were worried about their ability to cope with everyday tasks in the future. Almost 80% told us they thought they would be financially worse off than their parents, up from 53% in 2022.

Education alone can’t address all the challenges facing young people, but we can address some key immediate issues. Our findings suggest young people believe education in Australia needs to be more affordable, practical, social and engaging. To do this we need:

• more personalised career counselling and up-to-date labour market information for school leavers and university graduates – so young people have clearer ideas about what study or training can lead to particular jobs and careers

• better ways of ensuring online learning enables connections and interactions between students and students and teachers – so learning is not as impersonal and there are more opportunities to learn in person or deliberately social online ways

• more investment in campus clubs, student wellbeing programs and peer support so young people have more opportunities to make friends and build networks.

Lucas Walsh receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. 57% of young Australians say their education prepared them for the future. Others are not so sure – https://theconversation.com/57-of-young-australians-say-their-education-prepared-them-for-the-future-others-are-not-so-sure-269938

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenny Buchan, Emeritus Professor, Business School, UNSW Sydney

The blue and red boxes with white dots are immediately recognisable as containing Domino’s pizzas. The pizza chain is Australia’s largest and is run as a franchise, with the ASX-listed public company Domino’s Pizza Enterprises holding the Australian master franchise rights.

Industry analysts IBISWorld calculate Domino’s has 4.2% of the fast food and takeaway market in Australia.

But recent reports suggest all is not well with many of the store owners, who are struggling with rising costs and declining profitability.

Troubling reports

The central issue appears to be what the federal government describes in its code of conduct as the “the imbalance of power between franchisors and franchisees”.

The Australian Financial Review has reported troubling claims in two key areas:

• Domino’s appears to have doubled the margin on the key food ingredients it sells to franchisees and increased its advertising levy, according to a letter from store owners represented by the Australian Association of Franchisees. This could reduce their profitability

• Domino’s Australian chief operating officer, Greg Steenson, reportedly encouraged franchisees in a presentation to take advantage of restructuring schemes that allow insolvent companies to continue to trade by negotiating repayment plans with the tax office and other creditors.

In a letter to Domino’s quoted in the report, the franchisees said their earnings have remained flat for 15 years, and have not kept up with inflation.

A long history of disputes

A former franchisee told a parliamentary inquiry into the franchising model the margin squeeze meant

franchisees can be ripped off by [Domino’s Pizza Enterprises] when forced to buy supplies at a higher price than they could get through their wholesalers.

He said the cost of food, labour, rent and other fixed costs had risen, but in 2019 pizzas were still sold at 1990s prices. “Nobody is left to pay for this but the franchisees,” the former owner said.

According to the Financial Review article, the cost of supplies remains a problem for franchisees. Time will tell whether Domino’s proposed 70 cent increase in pizza prices will help.

In response to questions from the Financial Review, Domino’s said the food margin had not “materially changed” in five years, despite volatility in ingredients prices.

Government reviews found the previous regulations had loopholes that did not sufficiently protect franchisees. There have been a string of high-profile disputes involving auto services company Ultra Tune, coffee chain 85 Degrees Coffee, Pizza Hut and others.

Following a 2024 inquiry, changes to the code of conduct were introduced this year.

Advertising costs on the rise

Advertising expenditure comes from what is now known as a “special purpose fund” in the code of conduct. Franchisors need to provide franchisees with disclosure about how the money is spent.

In 2017, the consumer regulator Australian Competition and Consumer Commission fined Domino’s A$18,000 for allegedly slipping on its obligations to advise franchisees about its marketing spend.

Ensuring franchisees have a genuine say in how their increased contribution is spent could help to address any imbalance of power between Domino’s and its franchisees.

Franchisees reportedly now pay 6% of their earnings to Domino’s for marketing and advertising, up from 5.35%. That is in addition to 7% of gross sales paid as royalties, and other costs for email and bookkeeping.

What insolvent means

The insolvency law for small businesses is explained by the Australian Taxation Office as a process that enables financially distressed but viable firms to restructure their existing debts and continue to trade.

The press reports say the franchisees of about 65 Domino’s stores were on repayment plans with the Australian Taxation Office. Many franchisees own two or more outlets.

Under the Corporations legislation, companies on these repayment plans may be trading insolvent, or believe they will become insolvent. Insolvent means they cannot pay their debts when they fall due. If this is the case, a key question that needs to be answered by Domino’s is whether their franchised outlets can become profitable.

In another media report, Domino’s was quoted as saying it disputed the number of stores on repayment plans, adding it was a “significantly smaller” number of franchisees.

The company was contacted for comment but did not respond before deadline.

What this means for the stores

So what does this mean for Domino’s store owners who may be trading insolvent?

Under the law, the restructuring process allows eligible small business companies:

• to retain control of the business, property and affairs while developing a plan to restructure with the assistance of a small business restructuring practitioner
• to enter into a restructuring plan with creditors.

If a company proposes a restructuring plan to its creditors, it is taken to be insolvent. This is a game changer for the franchisee and its creditors.

Franchisees receive protection from creditors who want to enforce rights under existing contracts. A franchisee’s creditors include suppliers, its landlord, employees, the tax office and the franchisor (in this case, Domino’s).

Currently these store owners are protected from any creditors pushing them to pay their debts. The restructuring process gives the store owners some breathing room while the debt negotiations take place.

The imbalance of power persists

Despite government inquiries and reviews, it seems the imbalance of power between the Domino’s franchisees and their franchisor persists.

But Domino’s can’t afford to stay the same. Franchisees need to make a profit. The move to enter restructuring could be a temporary band aid.

Domino’s largest shareholder and executive chairman, Jack Cowin, was appointed in July after the former chief executive left after just seven months. Cowin understands the franchised fast food sector and has pledged to lead a cost reduction program that will improve the profitability of stores.

Jenny Buchan is affiliated with H&H Lawyers.

– ref. Franchise businesses have long been plagued by scandals. Domino’s is just the latest – https://theconversation.com/franchise-businesses-have-long-been-plagued-by-scandals-dominos-is-just-the-latest-269601

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona Wilkes, PhD Candidate, The University of Western Australia

Whether its Alex DeLarge from A Clockwork Orange (1971), Hans Landa from Inglourious Basterds (2009), Homelander from The Boys (2019–), or Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men (2007) – there’s no denying there’s something sinister about onscreen milk drinkers.

The most recent character to join these ranks is Victor Frankenstein, as imagined by Guillermo del Toro in the new Netflix film adaptation of Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel.

At first glance, del Toro’s Frankenstein is a mistreated child-turned excited inventor. However, his ambition swiftly turns to cruelty when he fails to recognise intelligence in his creation, in the same way his own father failed to recognise his intelligence.

In imbibing milk, Frankenstein signals he is both the neglected child, and the adult man capable of inflicting neglect on others.

An image of purity

As professor of English literature Matthew Beaumont has previously argued:

milk is a liquid that, in a symbolic sense, is superficially secure in its identification with innocence and purity.

For Victor, whose doted-upon mother dies in childbirth when he is still a child himself, the choice of milk could be viewed as a desire to be mothered. Yet his younger brother, William, who grows up without a mother at all, is never seen drinking milk.

In one scene, William Frankenstein, his fiancé Elizabeth, and her uncle sit at the dinner table with Victor. All three drink red wine, while Victor nurses his milk and discusses plans to create life from death.

In this case, the “the milk drinker” trope suggests to audiences they ought not to trust the seemingly innocent person onscreen.

The Frankenstein of del Toro’s imagining is perhaps the most villainous version of the character I have seen. He is obviously mad, and is cruel in that madness, even as a child. As such, our typical associations between milk and innocence are complicated by his character.

I, too, am a milk drinker. So why does it make my stomach turn to watch Frankenstein slosh it back while other characters sip on their wine?

Consumption as destruction

In his 1972 essay Wine and Milk, French literary theorist Roland Barthes argues milk is a symbol of strength.

In comparing milk to wine, which Barthes claims is a “galvanic substance”, he argues:

milk is the opposite of fire by all the denseness of its molecules, by the creamy, and therefore soothing, nature of its spreading. Wine is mutilating, surgical, it transmutes and delivers; milk is cosmetic, it joins, covers, restores. Moreover, its purity, associated with the innocence of the child, is token of strength, of a strength which is not revulsive, not congestive, by calm, white, lucid, the equal of reality.

Not all characters that drink milk are evil. Take the goofy and lovable Joey Tribbiani from Friends (1994–04) who claims, and then proves, he can drink a gallon of milk in under a minute.

More recently, in the miniseries Fellow Travelers (2023), Jonathan Bailey’s character Tim is told by his lover to “shut up and drink your milk”, which he gladly does. Indeed, milk does hold us a symbol of innocence when shown through such characters.

However, I would argue if milk is the symbol of innocence, then a consumer of milk can’t themselves be innocent or, at least, can’t remain innocent – since their consumption of the substance (and symbol) could also be viewed as a destruction of it.

Overwhelmingly, when milk is consumed onscreen, a game of power and control is played out. In Babygirl (2025), for example, Nicole Kidman’s character is delivered a glass of milk which has been ordered for her by a much younger but dominant lover as a test of her submission.

Then there’s the example of actor Christoph Waltz who plays perhaps the most famous milk drinker in cinematic history – the Nazi “Jew-hunter” Hans Landa – in Quentin Tarantino’s film Inglourious Basterds (2009).

In one early scene, Landa sits at the table of Perrier LaPadite and, although he is offered wine by his host, requests a glass of milk. Minutes later he has his men execute almost the entirety of a Jewish family who are hiding beneath the farmhouse’s floorboards.

In a recent interview with YouTube channel Mythical Kitchen, Waltz is asked what he thought “makes a villain drinking a glass of milk so uniquely terrifying?” He replies:

I’m not thinking about these things in these terms… I’m just thinking about, you know, this is the character and now I drink a glass of milk, and that distance between is what I negotiate. And that’s it.

Sounds to me like something a milk drinker would say.

Fiona Wilkes previously received funding from RTP PhD Domestic Stipend.

– ref. Why are screen villains always drinking milk? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-screen-villains-always-drinking-milk-269191

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Garritt C. Van Dyk, Senior Lecturer in History, University of Waikato

Donald Trump has a problem with comedian Seth Meyers and it fits a consistent pattern of hyper-sensitivity to criticism and satire.

Early this month, Trump declared in a post on Truth Social that a Meyers monologue was “100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!” (His capitals, not mine.)

More recently, he called for broadcaster NBC to fire Meyers in a post that was then reposted by the chair of the Federal Communications Commission.

Meyers is just the latest target. Trump has repeatedly clashed with entertainers and comedians, from Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen to Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert, over their criticism of his administration.

Funny on one level, worrying on another. With next year’s 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, one of the basic tenets of American democracy, freedom of speech, is under threat.

Trump’s attack on Meyers prompted a resolution from Democrat Senator Edward Markey, rebuking the president for suggesting criticism is illegal:

Let me be clear: in America, criticizing the President is not a crime. It is a constitutional right. It is a democratic duty. It is essential for a free society.

Markey went on to point out the principle is enshrined in the first amendment contained in the Bill of Rights, which guarantees Congress “shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”.

Alas, Republicans blocked the resolution, and Trump’s apparent desire to be above criticism or mockery now recalls the ancient law of “crimen maiestatis” which protected the dignity of Roman emperors.

This later became known as “lèse-majesté”, shielding European monarchs from insults, and it appears to be making a comeback in Washington.

Freedom of speech or freedom from criticism?

From the medieval period until the French Revolution, offending the monarch was considered an act of treason, sometimes punishable by being drawn and quartered. Lèse-majesté once preserved the authority of absolutist rulers across Europe, Asia and Russia.

It is still a criminal offence in Thailand and Cambodia to criticise the royal family, and the idea generally aligns with Trump’s ambitious interpretation of unchecked executive power.

The No Kings movement and protests are a response to this overreach and its chilling effect on dissenting opinion.

Over time, societies have responded to the threat by guaranteeing freedom of the press. But these laws and conventions can never be taken for granted.

In 1766, Sweden issued the world’s first such declaration, which was also effectively a freedom-of-information act.

There were notable exemptions, however, including prohibitions on blasphemy and attacks on the king, royal family and civil servants. After a brief surge of political pamphlets promoting civil rights, King Gustav III reintroduced a policy of royal censorship in 1772 that wasn’t lifted until 1812.

The principle of the free press enshrined in the US Constitution was adopted in 1791, but suspended after only seven years during an undeclared war with France.

The Sedition Act of 1798 was an attempt by the majority Federalist Party to control the press, and criminalised “false, scandalous, or malicious writing” against the president and government.

The act expired in 1801 and had been so unpopular that John Adams lost the presidential election to Thomas Jefferson in 1800.

But another law, the Alien Enemies Act, had also been passed in anticipation of an uprising of French nationals if war broke out. In another strange historical echo, the Trump administration recently revived this old law to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members to prisons in El Salvador.

‘The price of leadership’

Jefferson was a champion of free speech in theory, but less enthusiastic when under personal attack.

In 1802, when a disgruntled former supporter reported Jefferson had fathered children with an enslaved woman, Sally Hemings, the president observed:

Indeed the abuses of the freedom of the press here have been carried to a length never before known […] but it is so difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use of the press.

In the end, Jefferson thought the public capable of making the distinction between real and fake news:

We have found it better to trust the public judgement, rather than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth & falsehood, and hitherto the public judgement has performed that office with wonderful correctness.

Trump, on the other hand, seems to lean closer to the conventions of lèse-majesté. Addressing negative media coverage recently, he said:

When 97% of the stories are bad about a person, it’s no longer free speech […] They’ll take a great story and they’ll make it bad […] See, I think that’s really illegal.

No doubt Thomas Jefferson and Seth Meyers would disagree.

But perhaps the last word should go to Lyndon Johnson, president from 1963 to 1969.

Johnson had an adversarial relationship with the media, and blamed the US failure in Vietnam on negative television reporting. He particularly hated being the butt of relentless jokes by TV comedy duo the Smothers Brothers.

After Johnson decided not to run for reelection, the Smothers Brothers apologised for “going too far”. Johnson responded:

It is part of the price of leadership of this great and free nation to be the target of clever satirists. You have given the gift of laughter to our people. May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate the humor in our lives.

Garritt C. Van Dyk has received funding from the Getty Research Institute.

– ref. Comedians and kings: is Donald Trump reviving the ancient crime of lèse-majesté? – https://theconversation.com/comedians-and-kings-is-donald-trump-reviving-the-ancient-crime-of-lese-majeste-269261