The Conversation – Articles (AU)

The ABC gives true crime the comedy panel show treatment – with expectedly mixed results

2025-11-04T19:10:00Z

ABC

ABC’s new offering is a new take on true crime, where comedian host Julia Zemiro is joined by criminologists Professor Danielle Raynold and Dr David Bartlett and a changing lineup of comedians to unpick key crime issues.

I was intrigued when I saw the trailer for Crime Night, wondering how successful the marriage of crime and comedy could be. Would it work?

I have watched the first two episodes, and as a basic educational tool, this show may be of some interest. But is it educational or entertainment? It doesn’t feel like the creators have made up their mind and so the whole show hasn’t quite come together, at least not yet.

Dissecting eyewitness testimony

The format is this: the host leads the panel through a series of questions, starting with the criminologists who add some facts around the topic of the week. Then clips from true crime shows, or inserts sharing statistics or fun facts. The comedians are asked questions, or chip in to add a lighter moment. The panel discussion is supplemented by “experiments” both inside and outside of the studio, with the comedians or with the audience, hoping to add more light on the topic at hand.

The topic of the first episode is eyewitness testimony.

This is a good first pick: is it incredibly important in criminal investigations, and eyewitnesses get identifications wrong all the time. In Australia, 6% of wrongful convictions involve eyewitness error.

The show touches on some of the reasons this happens. An infamous case from the United States is outlined as an example, where Richard Phillips was misidentified by two witnesses, and subsequently spent almost 46 years in prison for murder.

A key element of this case was “own race bias” – people’s increased cognitive ability to accurately recognise and remember faces of the same geographic ancestry as ourselves. In the case example they used, Phillips was black and the two eyewitnesses were white.

The criminologists do a good job of explaining the case and outline the key elements in an accessible and engaging way.

After the discussion of the Phillips case, the comedians attempt to interject and add some humour to the discussion. Commenting on how the witnesses had not seen the offender clearly, Celia Pacquola quipped “they should have gone to Specsavers”.

While I understand the comedians are there to be funny, it felt flat and pushed. It felt like the comedians were really trying hard to be funny on a topic that naturally elicits few laughs.

Crafting an experiment

As a psychological experiment, when comedians Pacquola and Mel Buttle arrived at the ABC to record the episode, they were covertly filmed in the foyer witnessing an angry woman on the phone.

As part of the show, they had to recreate the face of the woman who was involved in the call from memory.

Surprisingly, the outcomes were remarkably accurate.

There is a huge amount of variation in how accurate people are when attempting to recollect a stranger’s face. Time since observation is key: the sooner a witness is asked to create a composite, the more accurate it is likely to be.

This is complicated by the fact that some people are good at remembering faces and some people are terrible. Where someone is sitting on that scale will heavily affect how well they recognise and remember a stranger committing a crime.

And as an experiment, although a very basic one, it was interesting and added to the production.

Looking at scams

The second episode, focused on scams, is smoother. The two criminologists are the same and the two new comedians, Steph Tisdell and Rhys Nicholson, are more comfortable. The style is less formulated and more discursive; the laughs more natural.

This week’s experiment is conducted on the unwitting audience. On arriving at the studio, the audience were asked to scan a QR code to get a free gift after the show. The purpose was to test the audiences’ trust in the ABC, and to manipulate that trust to encourage them to reveal personal details: 62% of the audience scanned the code, and in this context were “scammed”.

At the end of the show, they use another game to illustrate how easy it is to create deep-faked audio clips that are indistinguishable from the real person. Scary – but a good warning to everyone watching to be very vigilant.

With a focus on scams, the producers appear to be sticking with gentler crimes. It would be very, very hard to make murder, sexual abuse, or domestic and family violence funny. However, I wonder how many types of crime they can cover in this softer space, where the mix of crime and comedy won’t become offensive.

At the end of episode one, I was left wondering what the point was. But at the end of episode two, I thought this show could be used to educate people about current issues that will affect them.

In a world of media where everyone is searching for the new formula, this show might grow into something that could actually do some good.

I’m at least going to give episode three a go. If you are interested in contemporary issues in criminal justice, you might find something of value here.

Crime Night premieres tonight on ABC and ABC iView.

Xanthe Mallett 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.

Yes, you can be intolerant to fruit and veg

2025-11-04T19:09:39Z

Any Lane/Pexels

For most people, eating a wide variety of fruit and vegetables is the cornerstone of a healthy diet.

But for people with hereditary fructose intolerance, even a couple of bites of juicy watermelon or some sun-dried tomatoes in a salad can cause serious health problems.

This rare condition isn’t a food allergy or sensitivity.

But it can lead to serious health problems if not identified and correctly managed.

What is hereditary fructose intolerance?

Hereditary fructose intolerance is a rare genetic condition that affects how the body manages the sugar fructose.

Fructose isn’t just in fruit. It’s in honey, some vegetables, sweetened drinks, and many packaged foods, such as cakes, cookies, sauces and some breads. Fructose can also be added during the processing of some meats (deli meats and sausages) and dairy products (chocolate milk).

Sucrose (table sugar) and sorbitol (a sugar substitute often in chewing gum, toothpaste and medications) also contain fructose or are converted into fructose during digestion. This means people with hereditary fructose intolerance are also intolerant to these sugars.

People with the condition don’t have the key enzyme aldolase B needed to break down fructose.

This means fructose builds up in the liver, kidneys and intestines. This excess fructose can cause serious health problems, such as seizures, coma and, in some cases, death from liver and kidney failure.

How common is it?

Hereditary fructose intolerance is passed down to a person when both their parents carry the gene. It is considered a rare condition that affects about one in 10,000 people.

It usually becomes noticeable when babies begin eating solid foods including fruit, vegetables or sweetened baby foods that contain fructose.

In adults, hereditary fructose intolerance can be missed or misdiagnosed as other conditions such as glycogen storage disease, an eating disorder or recurrent hepatitis.

Because of this overlap in symptoms, hereditary fructose intolerance in adults can remain undetected for years.

How is it different to a food allergy or sensitivity?

Hereditary fructose intolerance is markedly different to a food allergy. A food allergy involves the immune system reacting to a food – for example, cow’s milk protein – as if it’s harmful to the body. This can cause symptoms such as hives and welts, swelling of the mouth or trouble breathing.

Hereditary fructose intolerance is also different to a food sensitivity, such as lactose intolerance or non-coeliac gluten sensitivity. This doesn’t involve the immune system but can still cause discomfort such as bloating, altered bowel habits or stomach pain.

Hereditary fructose intolerance is a genetic condition that causes a food intolerance and is not immune-related.

The condition is also different to fructose malabsorption (which, confusingly has previously been referred to as “dietary fructose intolerance” informally). This is a milder digestive condition where the small intestine doesn’t absorb fructose well, and causes symptoms such as stomach pain, bloating and gas.

How do you know if you have it?

In babies and young children, symptoms may include vomiting, unusual sleepiness or irritability, food refusal and failure to gain weight.

Some children instinctively avoid sweet foods, which may mask the condition until later in childhood or adulthood.

In adults, symptoms can include chronic stomach pain, fatigue and unexplained low blood glucose (sugar) levels. Doctors may notice subtle clues such as a swollen liver, abnormal liver tests or signs of fatty liver disease.

Confirming the condition requires genetic testing or a specialised glucose (sugar) tolerance test. But for many, diagnosis only comes after years of confusion, frustration, and dietary trial and error.

How is it managed?

There’s no cure for hereditary fructose intolerance. But it can be managed by strictly avoiding fructose, sucrose and sorbitol. Reading labels becomes essential for daily life, as even sauces, medications and toothpaste can contain these sugars.

People with the condition need to watch the following:

fruits: avoid all fruits, juices, canned fruit and other fruit products
cereals/grains: avoid cereals with added sugars, honey, molasses, dried fruit or sweet flavourings. Pasta, rice and other plain grains such as quinoa or buckwheat are generally safe but avoid flavoured or pre-made varieties
vegetables: most vegetables are fine, except sweeter ones such as peas, corn, beetroot, onions, pumpkin, sweet potatoes, carrots and zucchini
breads: only those made without added sugars or sweeteners are OK.
desserts and dairy: avoid sweetened desserts or flavoured yogurts (natural yogurts are usually fine). Be wary of plant-based milks, such as almond milks, which often have added sugars
protein: non-sweetened or flavoured red meat, chicken, turkey, fish, beans and lentils, eggs, tofu and tempeh are usually safe. But avoid processed meats, such as sausages/deli meats, or marinated meats
other foods: be cautious with sauces, dressings and condiments as they many contain hidden sugars or sorbitol. Choose homemade versions using safe ingredients.

Awareness matters

If someone avoids certain foods or if they unwell after eating fruit, don’t assume they’re fussy or dieting – they might have hereditary fructose intolerance.

Greater awareness of this rare condition could mean earlier diagnosis and better support for those affected.

For parents, noticing a child’s sudden or strong aversion to sweets, repeated vomiting or slow growth can be an important clue.

And for doctors, considering hereditary fructose intolerance as a possible cause of unexplained digestive problems, low blood glucose or liver changes could make a life-changing difference.

More information about hereditary fructose intolerance is available, including recipes, tips on how to read food labels, and support.

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

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

Mackenzie Derry 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.

Ancient Greeks and Romans knew harming the environment could change the climate

2025-11-04T19:09:28Z

Universal History Archive / Contributor/Getty

Humans have known about, thought about and worried about climate change for millennia.

Since at least the fourth century BC, the ancient Greeks and Romans recognised that the climate changes over time and that human activity can cause it.

They worried deeply about the impact it would have on us as individuals, and on broader society.

The earliest mention of climate change?

Greek writer Theophrastus of Eresus (who lived roughly from 372 BCE to 282 BCE) was a student of Aristotle. He is sometimes credited with the earliest reference to climate change.

In his treatise On Winds, Theophrastus notes people in Crete recognised their climate had changed over the centuries:

[they say] that now the winters are longer and more snow falls, presenting as proof the fact that the mountains once had been inhabited and bore crops, both grain and fruit-tree, the land having been planted and cultivated.

For there are vast plains among the Idaean mountains and among others, none of which are farmed now because they do not bear (crops).

But once, as was said, they were in fact settled, for which reason indeed the island was full of people, as heavy rains occurred at that time, whereas much snow and wintery weather did not occur.

It’s unclear how accurate Theophrastus’ account of Crete’s climate might be or what time period is meant by the word “once”.

Modern scientific studies suggest that from 8000 BCE to 600 BCE Crete experienced various alternations of climate, for example from humid and warm to dry and warm to cold and humid, while in the time when Theophrastus was writing the climate is meant to have been relatively warm and dry.

Theophrastus’ observation shows people handed down information about climate change from generation to generation.

Ancient awareness of the role of humans in climate change

In ancient Greek and Roman times, some were even aware that human actions could contribute to changes in climate.

The Roman aristocrat Pliny the Elder (23/24-79 CE) wrote a work titled Natural History, in which he gave examples of human induced climate change.

In one passage, Pliny noted that

in the district of Larisa in Thessaly the emptying of a lake has lowered the temperature of the district.

According to Pliny, because of this change of climate:

olives which used to grow there before have disappeared, also the vines have begun to be nipped (by frost), which did not occur before.

Pliny noted this kind of change caused by human activity had happened elsewhere in Greece:

The city of Aenos, since the river Maritza was brought near to it, has experienced an increase of warmth and the district round Philippi altered its climate when its land under cultivation was drained.

Ancient awareness of long-term climate changes

Ancient Greeks and Romans understood the climate is not static over time.

The Roman writer Columella (active around 50 CE) noted in his work On Agriculture that climate change had been mentioned by earlier writers:

For I have found that many authorities […] were convinced that with the long passing of the ages, weather and climate undergo a change.

Columella refers to the Roman writer Saserna (who was active in the early first century BCE). Saserna had observed how:

Regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and the weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus (wine) in the greatest abundance.

Saserna did not, however, attribute these long-term climactic changes to human activity. He suggested they were caused by the position of the Earth in relation to the Sun and the other planets, writing that:

The position of the heavens has changed.

Ancient responses to climate change

Greek and Roman writers sometimes complained about the destruction being done to the environment.

Roman writer Pliny the Elder said that:

We taint the rivers and the elements of nature, and the air itself, which is the main support of life, we turn into a medium for the destruction of life.

However, most ancient authors tended not to link environmental damage or pollution with climate change as much as we do today. The exception is when they talk about the draining of lakes or diversions of rivers, which worried many.

Some ancient leaders, such as Roman emperor Nerva, took action to clean up the environment. Universal Images Group/Getty

Ancient authors did, however, see protection of the environment as a serious concern. Their view was making the environment unhealthy would make people unhealthy, too.

For example, the physician Galen (129-216 CE) said that in his time the Tiber River in Rome was so polluted that it was not safe to eat fish caught there. Nonetheless, many people ate the fish, got sick, and died. The main pollution sources were sewage and rubbish.

Some ancient leaders took action to clean up the environment.

For instance, the Roman emperor Nerva (who ruled 96-98 CE) undertook construction works that caused the appearance of the city to be “clean and altered” and made the air “purer”, according to the Roman writer Frontinus.

What the modern world can learn

Ancient Greek and Roman writings reveal ancient concerns about our negative impact on the environment.

They show that places once rich and fertile later became desolate and barren.

Although the Greeks and Romans linked environmental harm with climate change to a more limited extent than we do today, they nevertheless knew harming the environment could change the climate.

This, they understood, can ultimately bring harm to ourselves personally and to our societies as a whole.

Konstantine Panegyres 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.

After 2 years of devastating war, will Arab countries now turn their backs on Israel?

2025-11-04T19:09:04Z

The Middle East has long been riddled by instability. This makes getting a sense of the broader, long-term trends in the aftermath of the Gaza war particularly challenging.

The significance of Trump’s 20-point peace deal that has (hopefully) brought an end to the Gaza war cannot be overstated.

However, this deal – and what comes next – will not change the Middle East. Rather, the wars of the past two years merely consolidated trends that were already under way. They didn’t serve as a radical break from the past.

The impact of October 7 on the region

Before October 2023, Israel’s place in the region seemed to be improving, despite the formidable “axis of resistance” Iran and its allies had built to counter it.

On top of its earlier peace agreements with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994, Israel had normalised relations with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan under the Abraham Accords. It looked set to normalise relations with Saudi Arabia, too.

However, once Iran and Saudi Arabia reached a detente in their long-simmering rivalry in March 2023, the urgency of closer ties with Israel faded.

Then came October 7. One of Hamas’ apparent aims in launching the attack was to refocus the region’s attention on Palestinian liberation.

At the beginning, it looked like Hamas had partially succeeded. Among Arab states, only the UAE and Bahrain condemned the attack.

The remainder of the region either chose to join the fight against Israel (Iran, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon) or maintain a duplicitous dance in between – not making the US angry by speaking out too forcefully against Israel, while placating (or repressing) their angry pro-Palestinian citizens at home.

Two years later, the “resistance” camp led by Iran and its proxies has been significantly weakened – an undeniable victory for Israel.

And while Arab popular opinion still largely supports armed Palestinian resistance to Israel, regional leaders do not. In a significant step in August, the Arab League officially condemned Hamas’ October 7 attacks and called for its disarmament.

Why Arab states are now backing Trump’s plan

Historically, even when the Palestinians have seemed at their weakest, they have had an outsize effect on the stability and legitimacy of Arab regimes in the Middle East.

A case in point is the wave of coups in the region that followed the Nakba in 1948, when around 750,000 Palestinians were either expelled or forced to flee during the war that created the state of Israel.

Today’s peace deal is no different. Israel’s neighbours are backing Trump’s 20-point plan because they have learned from history – rather than out of any sense of moral obligation.

For these states, the plan is not perfect. In fact, it makes a mockery of more robust peace proposals from the past, such as the 2002 Saudi-led Arab Peace Initiative to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Though Trump’s plan recognises the continued Palestinian presence in Gaza, it denies them political agency or accountability for alleged Israeli crimes. The plan only pays lip-service to the idea of a two-state solution. And given the facts on the ground and the prevailing political sensibilities in the US and Israel, Palestinian statehood seems highly unlikely.

Yet, regional states are aware that ongoing conflict is in no one’s interests, save for the Israeli far right.

Trump’s plan therefore represents a fig leaf for a region desperate to be seen to be ameliorating Palestinian suffering, while ensuring more robust US support. Such a concern became existential for the Gulf countries in the wake of Israel’s attacks on Hamas’ leadership in Qatar in September.

What comes next?

If the ceasefire holds and the peace plan proceeds, Trump sees an expanded Abraham Accords in the future, with other states lining up to normalise diplomatic relations with Israel (including possibly Saudi Arabia).

But other deals may get under way first. Israel and the United States are moving ahead with a series of initiatives. These include the India-Middle-East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) (a rail-sea link to transport goods between India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Europe), and the Abraham shield plan (a proposed security and infrastructure partnership between the Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Israel).

Currently, it is unclear which land routes will be preferred for linking India and China with Europe. The Gulf states are prioritising Israel, while Turkey is positioning itself as an alternative northern route that extends China’s Belt and Road rail and road projects through Central Asia.

As the US has strengthened its military ties with Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, this will probably tilt the balance in favour of Israel and the Gulf countries, in spite of Turkey’s regional importance and NATO membership.

Given the huge public and private sums and geostrategic stakes involved, this is really where the region’s focus lies now.

So, even if the ceasefire falters and popular anger around the region intensifies, most Arab leaders will continue to expand and embrace Israeli cooperation.

Michelle Burgis-Kasthala has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Australia is facing an ‘AI divide’, new national survey shows

2025-11-04T19:08:23Z

Pixabay/Pexels

In the short time since OpenAI launched ChatGPT in November 2022, generative artificial intelligence (AI) products have become increasingly ubiquitous and advanced.

These machines aren’t limited to text – they can now generate photos, videos and audio in a way that’s blurring the line between what’s real and what’s not. They’ve also been woven into tools and services many people already use, such as Google Search.

But who is – and isn’t – using this technology in Australia?

Our national survey, released today, provides some answers. The data is the first of its kind. It shows that while almost half of Australians have used generative AI, uptake is uneven across the country. This raises the risk of a new “AI divide” which threatens to deepen existing social and economic inequalities.

A growing divide

The “digital divide” refers to the gap between people or groups who have access to, can afford and make effective use of digital technologies and the internet, and those who cannot. These divides can compound other inequalities, cutting people off from vital services and opportunities.

Because these gaps shape how people engage with new tools, there’s a risk the same patterns will emerge around AI adoption and use.

Concerns about an AI divide – raised by bodies such as the United Nations – are no longer speculative.

International evidence is starting to illustrate a divide in capabilities between and within countries, and across industries.

Who we heard from

Every two years, we use the Australian Internet Usage Survey to find out who uses the internet in Australia, what benefits they get from it, and what barriers exist to using it effectively.

We use these data to develop the Australian Digital Inclusion Index – a long-standing measure of digital inclusion in Australia.

In 2024, more than 5,500 adults across all Australian states and territories responded to questions about whether and how they are using generative AI. This includes a large national sample of First Nations communities, people living in remote and regional locations and those who have never used the internet before.

Other surveys have tracked attitudes towards AI and its use.

But our study is different: it embeds questions about generative AI use inside a long-standing, nationally representative study of digital inclusion that already measures access, affordability and digital ability. These are the core ingredients people need to benefit from being online.

We’re not just asking “who’s trying AI?”. We’re also connecting the use of the technology to the broader conditions that enable or constrain people’s digital lives.

Importantly, unlike other studies of AI use in Australia collected via online surveys, our sample also includes people who don’t use the internet, or who may face barriers to filling out a survey online.

Australia’s AI divide is already taking shape

We found 45.6% of Australians have recently used a generative AI tool. This is slightly higher than rates of use identified in a 2024 Australian study (39%). Looking internationally, it is also slightly higher than usage by adults in the United Kingdom (41%), as identified in a 2024 study by the country’s media regulator.

Among Australian users, text generation is common (82.6%), followed by image generation (41.5%) and code generation (19.9%). But usage isn’t uniform across the population.

For example, younger Australians are more likely to use the technology than their elders. More than two-thirds (69.1%) of 18- to 34-year-olds recently used one of the many available generative AI tools, compared with less than 1 in 6 (15.5%) 65- to 74-year-olds.

Students are also heavy users (78.9%). People with a bachelor’s degree (62.2%) are much more likely to use the technology than those who did not complete high school (20.6%). Those who left school in Year 10 (4.2%) are among the lowest users.

Professionals (67.9%) and managers (52.2%) are also far more likely to use these tools than machinery operators (26.7%) or labourers (31.8%). This suggests use is strongly linked to occupational roles and work contexts.

Among the people who use AI, only 8.6% engage with a chatbot to seek connection. But this figure rises with remoteness. Generative AI users in remote areas are more than twice as likely (19%) as metropolitan users (7.7%) to use AI chatbots for conversation.

Some 13.6% of users are paying for premium or subscription generative AI tools, with 18 to 34-year-olds most likely to pay (17.5%), followed by 45 to 54-year-olds (13.3%).

Also, people who speak a language other than English at home report significantly higher use (58.1%) than English-only speakers (40.5%). This may be associated with improvements in the capabilities of these tools for translation or accessing information in multiple languages.

Bridging the divide

This emerging AI divide presents several risks if it calcifies, including disparities in learning and work, and increased exposure for certain people to scams and misinformation.

There are also risks stemming from overreliance on AI for important decisions, and navigating harms related to persuasive AI companions.

The biggest challenge will be how to support AI literacy and skills across all groups. This isn’t just about job readiness or productivity. People with lower digital literacy and skills may miss out on AI’s benefits and face a higher risk of being misled by deepfakes and AI-powered scams.

These developments can easily dent the confidence of people with lower levels of digital literacy and skills. Concern about harms can see people with limited confidence further withdraw from AI use, restricting their access to important services and opportunities.

Monitoring these patterns over time and responding with practical support will help ensure the benefits of AI are shared widely – not only by the most connected and confident.

Kieran Hegarty receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Telstra, the Department of Government Services Victoria and the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network.

Anthony McCosker receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Telstra, the Department of Government Services Victoria, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. He is affiliated with the Australian Digital Inclusion Alliance.

Jenny Kennedy receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Telstra, and the Department of Government Services Victoria.

Julian Thomas receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Telstra, Google Australia, and the Department of Government Services Victoria.

Sharon Parkinson receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Telstra, the Department of Government Services Victoria, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, and The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

The threat of space terrorism is no longer science fiction, but we’re ill-prepared to combat it

2025-11-04T17:39:37Z

Getty Images

As satellite technology surges ahead and space becomes increasingly accessible to private and state actors alike, the new and unsettling threat of space terrorism looms above Earth’s atmosphere.

Once the domain of science fiction, the idea of terrorist activity in outer space is now a growing concern among experts.

The democratisation of space has not only opened the door to innovation but also to vulnerability. The current legal frameworks may not be equipped to respond.

Over the past decade, the proliferation of commercial space ventures and the reduced costs of developing satellite technology have dramatically lowered the barriers to entry for “spacefaring”.

This shift has empowered not only governments but also private corporations and, alarmingly, non-state actors.

Groups and individuals once considered insignificant in the realm of space security are now capable of launching cyber attacks on satellites and ground stations.

In March 2022, Network Battalion (NB65), a group affiliated with Anonymous, allegedly hacked the Russian civilian space agency Roscosmos in protest of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The group claimed control over several satellites, prompting Roscosmos chief Dmitry Rogozin to declare that disabling another country’s satellites could be considered a “casus belli” – a cause for war.

While causing minimal damage, the incident underscores a broader trend: the increasing capability of non-state actors to disrupt space infrastructure. It also raises urgent questions about accountability, jurisdiction and the adequacy of international law.

Legal vacuum in the cosmos

International space law, anchored by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, was crafted in an era when only a handful of states had access to orbit.

The treaty emphasises peaceful exploration and cooperation, stating that activities in space must align with the UN Charter and promote international peace. However, it lacks explicit provisions addressing terrorism or the actions of non-state entities.

Article VI of the treaty does hold states responsible for national activities in space, whether conducted by government agencies or private entities. But it fails to define “non-governmental entities” or outline mechanisms for enforcement.

This ambiguity leaves a gaping hole in the legal architecture, especially as private companies increasingly take on roles once reserved for national space agencies.

The Liability Convention of 1972 offers some recourse for damage caused by space object. But it too focuses on state actors and does not contemplate ideologically motivated attacks by rogue groups or individuals.

One of the most pressing challenges in addressing space terrorism is the lack of a coherent definition.

Traditional definitions of terrorism emphasise the intent to coerce a state into action or inaction through violence. But how does this translate to the orbital realm?

Some experts propose defining space terrorism as ideologically motivated destruction targeting the space industry. Their definition captures the economic dimension but omits the national security aspects unique to space.

Without a comprehensive definition, acts ranging from cyber intrusions to physical attacks on satellites risk being misclassified or overlooked entirely.

Historical precedents and emerging threats

Though under-reported, space terrorism is not a new phenomenon. In 1999, the UK’s Skynet military satellite was allegedly targeted by hackers demanding ransom.

While the Ministry of Defence remained tight-lipped, reports suggested communication channels were compromised, hinting at a sophisticated breach of national security.

More recently, Russia has been accused of persistently jamming UK satellites. This tactic disrupts communications and poses serious risks to both civilian and military operations.

These incidents have intensified concern that satellite attacks – whether through hacking, jamming or physical destruction – will become more frequent and sophisticated in the coming years.

As space systems become more integrated with Earth-based infrastructure, supporting everything from telecommunications to navigation, the stakes grow exponentially. Experts warn the next decade could see a surge in ideologically motivated attacks on satellites, with devastating consequences for global security and commerce.

The UN Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) has only recently begun to address space security threats. But without a dedicated legal framework, efforts remain fragmented.

One avenue would be to develop transparency and confidence-building measures to cultivate trust and cooperation among state and non-state actors. But data-sharing agreements remain difficult to negotiate due to national security concerns.

Future research must explore how UNOOSA can support states in crafting domestic laws that address space terrorism. This includes defining what constitutes an act of terrorism in space, establishing protocols for incident reporting and determining liability for attacks on commercial and civilian infrastructure.

Space terrorism is no longer a theoretical concern. It is a tangible threat with real-world implications. As the line between state and non-state actors blurs, and as private companies take on greater roles in space exploration, the need for a robust, adaptable legal framework becomes critical.

The question is no longer whether space terrorism occurs, but how the international community responds when it does. Without clear rules, accountability mechanisms and cooperative strategies, humanity risks turning the final frontier into the next battlefield.

Anna Marie Brennan is a Borrin Foundation Women Leaders in Law Fellow.

ASIO boss warns of ‘realistic possibility’ foreign government could attempt to kill a dissident in Australia

2025-11-04T09:40:51Z

The Australia Security Intelligence Organisation believes there is a “realistic possibility” a foreign government will try to assassinate a “perceived dissident” in Australia, ASIO’s boss Mike Burgess has revealed.

Delivering the 2025 Lowy lecture on Tuesday, Burgess said: “This threat is real.

"We believe there are at least three nations willing and capable of conducting lethal targeting here. It is entirely possible the regimes would try to hide their involvement by hiring criminal cut outs, as Iran did when directing its arson attacks.”

He stressed he was talking about an “attempt to assassinate”.

“ASIO and our law enforcement partners are acutely alive to this threat and are working around the clock, using all our powers, to protect Australia and Australians,” he said.

Burgess said Australia had never faced simultaneously and at scale so many different threats.

There are multiple, cascading and intersecting threats to our social cohesion, fuelled by three distinct but connected cohorts:

the aggrieved,

the opportunistic, and

the cunning.

He said many Australians were feeling dispossessed, disaffected, and disenfranchised, with spikes in polarisation and intolerance.

Many of the foundations underpinning our security, prosperity and democracy were being tested.

Social cohesion was eroding, there was declining trust in our institutions and truth was being undermined by misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theories.

“Similar trends are playing out across the Western world.

"Angry, alienated individuals are embracing anti-authority ideologies and conspiracy theories; engaging in uncivil debate and unpeaceful protest.

"Many of the aggrieved do not necessarily espouse violent views, but may still see violence as a legitimate way to effect political or societal change.”

Burgess said extremist organisations were skilled at exploiting fissures in cohesion and harvesting grievances.

“The way nationalist and racist violent extremists attempted to leverage the so-called March for Australia rallies is a case in point.

"The biggest neo-Nazi group, the National Socialist Network – or White Australia as it is rebranding itself – identified the demonstrations as a vehicle to raise its profile.

"It strategically and opportunistically exploited the organisers’ complaints about immigration and the cost of living,” Burgess said.

“Even if the organisation does not engage in terrorism, I remain deeply concerned by its hateful, divisive rhetoric and increasingly violent propaganda, and the growing likelihood these things will prompt spontaneous violence, particularly in response to perceived provocation,” he said.

“While nationalist and racist violent extremists make up the significant majority of our investigations into ideologically motivated extremism, events in the Middle East triggered a troubling increase in anarchist and revolutionary extremism, which is also straining cohesion.

"Since October 2023, we’ve seen more provocative protests and a notable uptick in intentionally disruptive and damaging tactics by anti-Israel activists, including multiple acts of arson, vandalism and violent protest against defence companies accused of supplying weapon components.”

Burgess said of the three cohorts he was canvassing, “the cunning is the most concerning”.

“Aggrieved individuals clawing at our social fabric is one thing. Extremist groups opportunistically undermining it is another.

"But cunning nation states deliberately trying to set the fabric alight and fan the flames is something else again in terms of threat.

"Regimes are operating in a security ‘grey zone – using non-traditional tools to interfere in decision-making, promote discord, amplify distrust and spread false narratives in Western democracies.

"Authoritarian regimes demonstrate a chilling willingness to exploit fault lines in countries they consider hostile.”

He highlighted ASIO’s identifying the Iranian regime being behind some of the anti-semitic attacks in Australia

Burgess said that in our region ASIO was tracking the spread of a strain of extremist propaganda.

“While the material purports to be from a transnational terrorist group, ASIO and our international partners suspect it is fake, and is actually being created and disseminated by a hostile nation state.

"The propaganda glorifies violent extremism and advocates attacks on specific targets, presumably to encourage violence, alarm communities, incite sectarianism and destabilise regional governments.”

He said ASIO had recently uncovered links between pro-Russian influences in Australia and an offshore media organisation that almost certainly received directions from Russian intelligence.

“The Australians publish and push extreme online narratives justifying the invasion of Ukraine and condemning Australia’s support for Kiev.

"Deliberately hiding their connection to Moscow – and the likely instruction from Moscow – the propagandists try to hijack and inflame legitimate debate. They use social media to spread vitriolic, polarising commentary on anti-immigration protests and pro-Palestinian marches.

"ASIO’s investigation is ongoing,” Burgess said.

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.

View from The Hill: fractured Liberals drown net zero and themselves in a torrent of verbiage

2025-11-04T08:14:45Z

Here is a statistic that tells you what a self-defeating funk the federal opposition is in. On Monday alone, as it wallowed in the crisis over energy policy, its parliamentarians indulged in more than 35 media appearances.

Opposition members can’t resist talking about themselves, fighting their battles in the glare of the spotlight. In particular, Sky News is an irresistible honey pot.

All this is good for the media, but not for messaging. It amplifies the shambles.

Of course the Nationals, having dumped net zero on Sunday, don’t themselves feel in chaos. They’ve just been the prime cause of the chaos for the Liberals and the Coalition generally.

Here’s where the current state of things appears to stand within the Liberals.

The majority of the parliamentary party has shifted in favour of ditching net zero. Core conservatives wanted this all along. For less ideological Liberals who’d like to keep net zero as an aspiration, that has become too hard.

But as of Tuesday, the hardcore moderates were fighting on, wanting to retain at least some reference to net zero. This group includes the deputy leader of the Liberals in the Senate, Anne Ruston, Angie Bell, and senators Andrew Bragg, Dave Sharma and Maria Kovacic.

The question is, how far would the moderates be prepared to go to push their point? Would they take their rout lying down, or would any consider resigning from frontbench positions in protest?

With her leadership on the line, Ley is pragmatic, willing to drop net zero altogether for the sake of preserving her position. Her deputy, Ted O'Brien, is in favour of ditching it. (His deputy position is bound to Ley’s survival: if she went, so would he.)

But Ley also has to anticipate whether the moderates would fight to the death. If they did, the fracas could bring her down.

That would pave the way for conservative aspirant Angus Taylor to become leader – a prospect that could stay the hand of the moderates.

The exact timetable for resolving the Liberals’ position remains fluid. The Coalition party room was told on Tuesday the finished review of energy policy by spokesman Dan Tehan was imminent.

Tehan is copping some criticism for not moving faster on the review at an earlier stage and for being overseas, inspecting nuclear facilities in the United States, when the government announced its 2035 emissions reduction target.

The current thinking appears to be that the Liberal Party will return to Canberra to consider its policy before the last parliamentary sitting week, which is at the end of this month.

Alex Hawke, Ley’s numbers man, in comments on Tuesday reflected the move away from net zero.

Asked what his position was on whether the Liberals should remain committed to net zero by 2050, Hawke said, “well, like most of my colleagues, we have always been concerned about the cost of net zero. […] The cost of net zero is starting to hit our economy.”

Hawke played down any threat to Ley’s leadership. “Colleagues are minded to land the policy. We’ll do that. […] Sussan will lead us. There’s no one proposing anything different.”

Victorian Senator Jane Hume, who has previously strongly advocated the retention of net zero, said, “Let’s face it, net zero has become a new form of whether you believe in climate change or not – that’s crazy.”

Asked about Ley’s leadership Hume, who has been critical of Ley on occasion, said, “that’s not an issue”.

She said she “absolutely” had confidence in Ley.

“The most important thing now, though, is that the leader takes a position on energy policy and does so with a matter of urgency, because we cannot allow this conversation to continue.”

That’s a statement hard for any Liberal to dissent from.

Politics with Michelle Grattan: Niki Savva and David Solomon on The Dismissal

2025-11-04T04:37:04Z

Tuesday November 11 will be the 50th anniversary of the dismissal of the Whitlam government by the then Governor-General Sir John Kerr. It was a dramatic day in our federal political history, with Malcolm Fraser appointed prime minister. Fraser then led the Coalition to a landslide victory in the subsequent election.

The debate about – and in some quarters, the rage over – what Kerr did continues today, with opinions divided over its impact on Australian political history.

To talk about their memories of the time, we’re joined by journalist Niki Savva, who was a reporter working in the parliamentary press gallery, and David Solomon, press secretary to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam during the crisis.

On the atmosphere on November 11, Solomon recalls the mood of Whitlam office:

We expected […] this would be a good day. This was the day when the governor-general would agree to a half-Senate election and that, we thought, would be the circuit breaker in the problem over getting supply. Of course, during the time, it turned totally on its head. And we finished up wondering just what had happened and why, and how it had happened.

[When the news broke] I was actually having lunch in the Lobby along with quite a lot of other people and it was a question of hurrying back to Parliament House to find out as much as we could. Where there was, I must say, very little information at all. All that people knew was that the government had been dismissed and people were, including me, were fairly hopeless about getting any information.

Savva explains the general state of shock after the announcement:

I’d gone out at lunchtime to go and do a bit of shopping because I didn’t think very much was going to happen that day. And when I drove back, I could usually find a parking spot right next door to the steps and just walk in. I had to go all the way up to Camp Hill to find a spot. And there was a chap from the parliamentary library who was literally running past me. Yelling out, “Gough’s been sacked!” And I thought, what the hell? So I started running, too, and got back into the building. And by that time, word had got around. But it was […] I don’t know, a state of shock.

On whether a dismissal could happen again, both agree that while the same powers exist today, things have now changed. Solomon says:

All of the facts are still the same. It could happen. I don’t think it is likely […] I think the psyche of all the political parties was affected by what happened on November 11 and I think that they do not want it ever to happen again. It is one of those events that must be avoided at all costs.

In Savva’s view:

It would also need people of similar character to the main figures of the time, like a Whitlam, a Kerr, a Fraser, a [Reg] Withers [Leader of the opposition in the Senate]. And do any people like that exist in parliament today or at Government House? I don’t think so. But you’re right about […] having a dampening effect on politicians and whether they would want to put the country through something like that today, when we are a different society, much more polarised. I think we survived 1975 in reasonable shape, even though a lot of friendships were shattered and trust was broken.

A half-century on, neither Savva or Solomon have softened their views. Savva says she remains “outraged”:

I am still outraged because I don’t think it was appropriate for a governor-general to sack an elected government and particularly to deceive in such a contrived manner what his intentions were. He did not alert Whitlam to the possibility that he might sack him and I think that is one of the most egregious things that happened.

Solomon says time and the further releasing of information has only reinforced his view:

No, I haven’t changed. I’ve become, in fact, even more concerned about what Kerr did, the more information we have about why Kerr acted as he did and the material that he had before him when he decided to do this. In particular, first of all, the correspondence with the palace, but secondly, the advice he got from one of the High Court judges who he consulted, namely Sir Anthony Mason, who said, yes, you have the power to sack the government, but you must first of all alert the government to the fact that you are considering doing it. And I think that was absolutely sound advice. It should have been followed. And if it had been, the crisis would have been very different and the resolution would have been different.

RBA keeps interest rates on hold, leaving borrowers looking further ahead for relief

2025-11-04T04:08:34Z

As expected, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has kept the cash rate steady at 3.6%. Its board unanimously agreed it was better to “remain cautious” on interest rates.

While borrowers may have been hoping for rate relief, the decision came as little surprise to economists and markets, after stronger-than-expected inflation data – something the board’s statement emphasised, along with local and global uncertainty.

“Inflation has fallen substantially since the peak in 2022 […] but more recently, inflation has picked up,” the board noted, describing the September quarter figures released last week as “materially higher than expected”.

For many mortgage holders, this marks another month of frustration. Three rate cuts earlier this year offered some respite, but not enough to offset the sharp rise in interest rates since the tightening cycle began in mid-2022.

There is another RBA meeting in early December. But today’s board statement suggest borrowers have longer to wait for any further relief.

Don’t expect a rate cut soon

Financial markets and the major banks share the RBA’s cautious tone. The big four banks were already expecting the next rate cut in 2026, reflecting their view that inflation will take longer to return comfortably to target.

Market pricing also points to a prolonged pause. Traders have scaled back expectations of near-term easing, and interest rate futures now imply only modest reductions through next year.

Some economists are even warning the RBA might be forced to raise rates, either next year or in 2027.

In short, the era of cheap money isn’t returning quickly.

Inflation still running hot

The latest inflation data released last week showed headline inflation back above the RBA’s 2–3% target band, and the bank’s preferred measure – the trimmed mean – sitting right on the upper edge of that range. Prices are still rising faster than the RBA is comfortable with.

While prices for some goods, such as furniture and electronics, have eased, costs for housing, insurance, health care and education continue to rise. This persistence explains why the RBA is reluctant to loosen policy.

As the latest board statement put it:

the recent data on inflation suggest that some inflationary pressure may remain in the economy […] Financial conditions have eased since the beginning of the year, but it will take some time to see the full effects of earlier cash rate reductions.

The bank has repeatedly said it needs sustained evidence that inflation is moving towards the midpoint of its target. For now, that evidence is still missing – and today’s decision reinforces that message.

Growth and jobs show resilience

Economic growth remains modest but stronger than expected. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ gross domestic product figures show the economy grew 1.8% over the year to June 2025 – the strongest result in two years and well above expectations.

Growth continues to be supported by business investment and population gains. Household spending, though soft, hasn’t collapsed despite cost-of-living pressures.

The labour market also remains firm. Unemployment has ticked up but is still low at 4.5% in September.

Ahead of today’s board decision, RBA Governor Michele Bullock also said the jobs market remains “a little tight”, meaning many businesses are struggling to find workers – a factor that keeps upward pressure on wages and prices.

Until the bank sees clearer signs of cooling – such as slower wage growth or a sustained lift in unemployment – it is unlikely to risk cutting rates.

Bullock has stressed that future moves will depend on the data. With the next quarterly consumer price index data due out in early January, the bank will be watching for clearer signs that inflation in both goods and services is easing.

The bigger picture

Overseas, the US Federal Reserve cut its policy rate at its October 2025 meeting, bringing the target range to 3.75–4.0%. Yet Fed Chair Jerome Powell struck a hawkish tone, warning further cuts aren’t guaranteed and will depend on incoming data.

That cautious stance mirrors the RBA’s own. Both central banks want to avoid declaring victory over inflation too early, especially with ongoing risks from energy prices, supply disruptions and tight labour markets.

With the European Central Bank and Bank of England also adopting a wait-and-see approach, the RBA remains broadly in step with its global peers.

For now, the bank sees more risk in moving too soon than in waiting a little longer. A premature cut could reignite price pressures and undo the progress made since 2023.

For homeowners, that means high borrowing costs are likely to persist for some time yet. It’s a disappointing Melbourne Cup Day for mortgage holders – but for the RBA, caution still wins the race.

Stella Huangfu 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.

Jamie Morton joins The Conversation New Zealand as Deputy Editor

2025-11-04T03:07:24Z

Former New Zealand Herald journalist Jamie Morton has joined The Conversation New Zealand as Deputy Editor.

Jamie comes to The Conversation with 20 years of experience in newsrooms, including 14 years at The New Zealand Herald, where he covered science, technology, climate change and the environment.

During his time at the Herald, Jamie reported from disaster zones, global climate summits, national parks and Antarctica. He helped lead the newspaper’s coverage of major events such as the COVID pandemic, the Whakaari/White Island tragedy, the 2016 Kaikoura Earthquake, the 2011 MV Rena disaster and 2023’s Cyclone Gabrielle.

Jamie’s journalism has been recognised with numerous awards and nominations, including being named science reporter of the year four times. Along with his reporting, Jamie has contributed to books and reporting desk guides on climate change and has helped judge national and international awards for science communication and climate journalism.

After leaving the Herald in April 2025, Jamie produced policy briefs, special reports and science and climate-focused articles for NGOs, public agencies, corporate clients and universities. He also helped launch a new editorial partnership between the University of Auckland and Newsroom, exploring various sustainability issues.

“At a time when misinformation and polarisation pose increasingly serious challenges,” says Jamie, “clear, evidence-based journalism and analysis couldn’t be more important.”

Having Jamie join The Conversation New Zealand means we – and more importantly, you, our readers – will enjoy the benefits of his exceptional journalistic skills and experience. His strong background in news and current affairs, and his close contacts in the academic research world, are the perfect fit for The Conversation.

Jamie began his role last week and can be contacted at jamie.morton@theconversation.com.

Former Prince Andrew’s biographer predicts ‘lots more to come’, after years charting his vices

2025-11-04T02:34:48Z

Andrew Lownie is a lucky author. He spent many years researching the story of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, speaking to 300 people with intimate knowledge of the couple – far more refused – and accessing files from the National Archives for which he needed a court order. Last week, King Charles announced his brother would be stripped of his royal titles, including prince, and will move out of his home, Royal Lodge.

Entitled, his unauthorised biography of Andrew and Sarah, appeared shortly before Andrew’s precipitous fall from grace and will undoubtedly be a bestseller. (There is more up-to-date information, and perhaps less speculation, than in Nigel Cawthorne’s 2020 book Prince Andrew: Epstein, Maxwell and the Palace.)

“I think there’s lots more still to come, lots more, and it will be even more damaging material,” Lownie said last week of the ongoing revelations about the former prince, now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

Review: Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York – Andrew Lownie (William Collins)

A historian, journalist and literary agent, Lownie has specialised in writing about royal scandals. Entitled seems an obvious next step for an author whose last book was about the Duke of Windsor, whose 1936 abdication to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson was the biggest crisis for the monarchy in the past century.

Even for those not interested in royal gossip, Entitled is a fascinating read. As Lownie writes, “It is a tale of childhood trauma, infidelity, lust, betrayal, corruption, greed, extravagance, arrogance, entitlement, Establishment cover-up and hubris.”

Reckless and corrupt

We have known for most of the past 20 years that ex-Prince Andrew was both reckless and corrupt. We have also known Sarah Ferguson (Fergie), his former wife and apparently continuing housemate, at least until now (she has announced she will be moving into her own separate home), was equally so. There is no suggestion, however, that her contact with Jeffrey Epstein involved seeking sexual favours.

It was the couple’s closeness to convicted sex offender Epstein that brought them down. Lownie writes that “Randy Andy” was not only close to Epstein, but apparently shared young women with him. Epstein claimed “he likes to engage in stuff that’s even kinky to me — and I’m the king of kink”.

In 2019, Andrew famously resigned from royal duties (at his then 98-year-old father’s instigation, writes Lownie) after his disastrous hour-long interview with BBC Newsnight. In it, among other things, Andrew denied meeting Virginia Giuffre Roberts, the self-described Epstein “sex slave” who said she had sex with Andrew three times and was photographed with him and Epstein’s co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell.

The infamous BBC Newsnight interview that had Andrew removed from royal duties in 2019.

The tragic April suicide of Giuffre, and the publication last week of her memoir Nobody’s Girl, finally forced the palace to take significant action.

Though Andrew had denied Giuffre’s accounts of having sex with him, he paid her out a large sum, then lied about his continuing association with Epstein. Court documents released in January reveal a “member of the British royal family”, believed to be Andrew, emailed Epstein saying: “Keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon!!!!”

A BBC producer told Lownes the team “found personal email discussions between Ghislaine and Andrew discussing Virginia” and “they worked together to build a dossier about Virginia to leak to the media”.

Dubious deals

Andrew equally deserved to lose his position because of years of dubious deal-making with an extraordinary series of crooks and tyrants.

After a long career in the British Navy, including time as a helicopter pilot in the 1982 Falklands War, he was found a position supporting British trade and investment abroad. At this point, any sense he might have had of the distinction between royal duty and personal advancement vanished.

Even before this, Andrew had shown a disregard for restraint and a willingness to use his royal privilege at enormous cost to the state, demanding helicopter flights to take him to private golf games. But with the imprimatur of the Foreign Office, he appears to have spent considerable time with a series of deeply unpleasant regimes – Libya, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan – in pursuit of his own financial interests.

I lost track of the many complex ways in which Andrew sought to use his position to make money, some of which, such as his dealings with a Chinese businessman with close ties to the Chinese government, caused considerable concern for the UK government.

It remains something of a mystery why the king is now apparently prepared to provide Andrew with an income, given the amount of money he has reputedly earned over the past decades.

Sarah’s spending ‘literally staggering’

As a commoner, one assumes Andrew will continue to enjoy expensive watches and cars, even if he is confined to racing them around the Sandringham estate. He might emulate his wife and appear on the US television and speech circuit. Back in 2007, Lownie writes, Sarah was paid half a million dollars to give five speeches, plus the cost of transporting her entourage across the Atlantic, a group of at least ten.

But Sarah’s involvement in murky deals is also problematic. She appears to be a woman of enormous energy, whether in spending money at a rate only the Kardashians could match or flying off to yet another all-expenses-paid holiday courtesy of rich friends.

Sarah’s father had been a polo manager for Prince Charles, and she had a friendship with Princess Diana that preceded their respective marriages. Once a member of “the firm”, as the royals refer to it, she took to heart Gore Vidal’s dictum that “in the world of stars, no-one is a stranger”, and moved into the world of celebrities and the ultra-rich.

The amount of money Sarah has earned and spent is literally staggering. Over her time as Duchess of York, she was paid millions for her childrens’ books, television appearances and her work with Weight Watchers. She engaged in considerable charity work and apparently showed a genuine capacity for empathy with disabled and orphaned children.

At the same time, many of her charitable ventures seem to have rewarded her and her friends more than the causes they were meant to support. She may well be big-hearted and generous; she is also imperious and wasteful. Like Andrew she treats servants, of whom they both appear to need large numbers, with a striking lack of courtesy.

Comparisons to Trump

Reading about the Mountbatten Windsor family, as they will now be known, I was struck by the comparison with the Trump family. (Trump himself has just commented on King Charles’ decision to strip Andrew of his titles: “I feel very badly,” Trump said. “It’s a terrible thing that’s happened to the family.”)

When they built and furnished their first home, Sunninghill, it sounded remarkably like something Trump might construct: “One entered by the thirty-five-foot high stone floor hall, which rose to a glass dome and minstrels gallery through a lobby adorned with a medieval soldier’s helmet from Windsor Castle and the head of a North American buffalo — a gift from a royal tour.”

Trumplike, too, is the way their children, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, have been gifted profitable access to some of the Middle East potentates who befriended Andrew, though Lownie tells us remarkably little about the princesses. (He does not even comment on the fact their royal titles are not shared by their cousins, the children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward.)

Lownie is an engaging author, and his book is a compulsive read. He is skilful in dropping in a casual comment that becomes relevant later. The best example is several accounts of Andrew seen dancing at nightclubs and sweating profusely; those of us who watched his fateful television interview will recall his protestation that the stress of his service in the Falklands War cost him the ability to sweat.

Among the many people whose reputations are soiled in this sorry tale, that of the late Queen Elizabeth is most striking. While others in the family – Prince Phillip, Prince William, even Princess Margaret – were appalled by the couple, the queen remained blind to Andrew’s dealings and consistently bailed him out. After the BBC interview, she was deliberately photographed riding with Andrew in the grounds of Windsor Castle, Lownie writes.

Lownie remains discreet in his discussion of the queen and is on record as a supporter of the monarchy. (Though he told an interviewer last week: “I think the queen has to take some responsibility for the monster she created.”)

If there is a gap in this book, it is his reluctance to question how far the sense of entitlement, carried to the extreme by Andrew and Sarah, is common to others in the family.

Can the monarchy survive?

Lownie ends his book warning of the harm this story has done to the British monarchy. He finished it before King Charles acted to decisively exorcise Andrew from “the firm” and banished him to what the royals call “a cottage” on Charles’ private Sandringham estate.

I suspect this has saved the monarchy in Britain, at least for now. Charles has proved to be a far more effective constitutional monarch than most expected, as he demonstrated when he very carefully hosted Trump’s state visit. That the Canadian prime minister invited Charles to open the nation’s parliament earlier this year suggests he is seen as a valuable political asset.

Whether exile to Sandringham will prevent further moves against Andrew is unclear. With royal status removed, he is vulnerable to other possible accusations emerging. I would not be surprised were he to end up in Dubai, where he could share reminiscences of royal splendour with the disgraced Spanish king, Juan Carlos. Or in Abu Dhabi, where he has reportedly been offered the use of a lavish royal palace by the country’s ruler.

Reading Entitled, it is hard to feel monarchy is justified. But I return to the dilemma that led me to write my book God Save the Queen: many of the countries we regard as most democratic – Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands – are constitutional monarchies.

In the end, Britain’s monarchy will survive because its political leaders are trusted even less than its hapless royals.

Dennis Altman 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.

Even if heads roll at Optus, we may not know much about their executive payouts

2025-11-04T01:49:50Z

Optus has promised its staff will be held accountable for September’s Triple Zero outage – but only after “the dust settles” on current investigations. Three deaths have been linked to the outage.

On Monday, the first day of hearings for a Senate inquiry into the incident, inquiry chair and Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young bluntly asked “who’s going to get the sack?” from inside Optus’ executive team.

Optus chairman John Arthur replied:

If you’re asking me whether or not there will be accountabilities here, and accountabilities not just for junior people, then I can assure you that there will be, when the dust settles.

Yet even if that happens, how much will Australians know about any future exit payouts for Optus executives? Probably less than Optus customers would like, thanks to it being a foreign-owned company.

When major corporate failures occur, Australians expect meaningful accountability – including on executive pay.

Why leaving a company can be worth more than staying

Modern executive pay extends far beyond salaries. Think of it as a financial layer cake. Base salary is often just the bottom layer.

On top of this can sit performance bonuses, stock options worth millions, and restricted shares that “vest” over time. Vesting means the shares have completed a required waiting period and now fully belong to the employee.

There are also retention bonuses, designed to keep executives during uncertain periods, and severance agreements that can shield executives from the financial fallout of poor performance.

When an executive’s departure is described as “mutual”, rather than being fired “for cause”, they typically keep the rights to exercise stock options they have earned and claim severance payments.

They may even get accelerated access to restricted shares that hadn’t yet “vested”. This is the icing on the cake.

In some cases, leaving the company can be more financially rewarding than staying.

Leaders respond to incentives

Research shows executives who hold valuable stock and options can become reluctant to make decisions that might threaten that wealth, even when those decisions would benefit shareholders.

Yet, when failures occur, these holdings often survive their departure completely intact.

Research examining executive compensation has found the sensitivity of stock options to price changes can encourage executives to pursue strategies that increase volatility, regardless of long-term benefit to shareholders or the public.

Consider what happened at Qantas after the COVID pandemic. While the airline illegally dismissed ground workers and sold tickets on thousands of already-cancelled “ghost flights”, chief executive Alan Joyce departed with a substantial payout.

Despite widespread public outcry and major regulatory penalties, his compensation remained largely protected by contracts negotiated before the crisis.

Without visibility into compensation structures, we cannot determine whether pay arrangements appropriately align executive incentives with public safety – or whether compensation design itself contributed to corporate failures.

Why Optus is even more opaque

Despite being one of Australia’s largest telecommunications providers, delivering essential services to millions, the public has limited visibility into how Optus’ executives are compensated.

Optus, while wholly owned by Singapore’s publicly listed Singtel, operates as a private subsidiary in Australia.

This means it faces less stringent local disclosure requirements than a company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), such as Telstra.

For listed Australian companies, executive departures and remuneration details must be disclosed in their annual reporting, in the directors’ remuneration report. However, this may occur with a significant time lag.

As a proprietary company, Optus has no such duty.

While parent company Singtel reports to the Singapore Exchange, these disclosures rarely detail individual Australian executive payments.

This means Australians would likely never know the full financial details of any executive exit packages following the Triple Zero outage, despite the direct impact on public safety.

3 changes to boost accountability

When corporate failures compromise access to emergency services, three key changes would offer greater transparency. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), Australia’s telecommunications regulator, would be the appropriate authority to enforce such requirements for companies like Optus.

1. Mandatory compensation disclosure

Companies providing essential services should be required to publicly disclose total compensation for departing executives following major failures, regardless of their listing status.

This should include the value of equity holdings, what was forfeited, what was retained, and any severance paid.

2. Automatic clawback provisions

Companies providing essential services should face automatic clawback provisions (where companies can recover compensation already paid) when corporate failures result in significant public harm, regardless of whether financial misreporting occurred.

3. Clear distinctions in public statements

There is a world of difference between being fired “for cause” and departing “by mutual agreement”. Yet companies routinely blur these lines in public announcements. The compensation treatment should match the reality, and both should be disclosed.

Whether an organisation is listed on the ASX, privately held, or operates as a subsidiary should not determine whether the public can assess if executives face real consequences for failures.

Anish Purkayastha 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.

Cuts to key research facilities threaten Australia’s ability to be a global scientific leader

2025-11-04T01:18:37Z

A view towards the particle injector of the Australian Synchrotron. Paul Moons/Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

There has been much excitement since Australia signed a landmark agreement with the United States last month to expand cooperation on critical minerals and rare earth elements.

These materials are essential for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and clean energy technologies. The deal promises to help Australia move beyond simply digging and shipping raw materials. Instead, we would refine and manufacture advanced, high-value products here at home.

But at the very moment we’re being asked to play a bigger role in global clean-tech supply chains, the science facilities that underpin these ambitions are under threat.

Making great science possible

The Australian Synchrotron in Melbourne and the Australian Centre for Neutron Scattering at Lucas Heights in Sydney are among Australia’s most important pieces of scientific infrastructure.

These facilities are operated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). They house several instruments, including the infrared microscopy and terahertz/far-infrared beamlines which fire a high-intensity and continuous spectrum of X-ray light at samples. Researchers use these to probe materials at the atomic scale. This helps reveal how atoms are arranged, how they move, and how they interact.

These insights underpin everything from advanced batteries to pharmaceuticals, green hydrogen production, and new materials for defence and aerospace. They also allow researchers to study the chemistry of living cells and tissues in real time, develop lightweight fire-fighting suits, explore new cancer therapies and fight antibiotic resistance.

The tools also contributed to research that led to the 2025 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for metal-organic frameworks. These materials, invented in Melbourne, can capture carbon dioxide or filter PFAS contaminants from water.

Hundreds of projects and hundreds of PhD students and early-career researchers rely on these instruments for training and discovery.

In short, these facilities don’t just make great science possible – they make it possible in Australia.

A false economy

Despite this, ANSTO has recently proposed a series of “sustainability measures” – that is, funding cuts – for the Australian Synchrotron and Australian Centre for Neutron Scattering, as first reported by the Sydney Morning Herald. It says these cuts are needed to “support financial stability for the long term”.

The proposed cuts include the closure of the world-leading experimental beamlines that continue to make so much great science possible. As such, they would erode the very foundation of Australia’s scientific and industrial capability.

They would also result in the closure of a program that allows Australian scientists to use overseas synchrotron beamlines when local facilities can’t meet specific experimental needs.

A final decision on the proposed cuts will reportedly be made in December. They could be classified as a false economy: they will save little in the short term but undermine future innovation and growth.

Vital for the future economy

The recent US–Australia critical minerals partnership highlights how vital the scientific facilities that are in the firing line are for the future economy.

Processing and refining critical minerals such as lithium, nickel, cobalt and rare earths, requires deep understanding of how materials behave under complex conditions. That’s exactly the kind of insight neutron and X-ray scattering experiments can provide.

To do this sustainably, Australia must also innovate in “clean manufacturing”. This means developing processes that reduce emissions and waste, just as we are striving to create green steel and green hydrogen. These large-scale research facilities will be essential for making that transition real.

Many other major economies recognise that large-scale research infrastructure is a national asset. Europe is investing billions in the European Spallation Source, a major neutron scattering research facility, which will house initially 15 beamlines. Elsewhere, the US, Japan and the United Kingdom continue to expand their neutron and synchrotron capabilities.

Australia has a much smaller budget than these countries. Yet it consistently produces world-class science and innovation outcomes. If we let these cuts proceed, we risk losing our competitive position.

We also risk losing the next generation of scientific talent these facilities train and inspire.

A moment for leadership

ANSTO’s neutron and synchrotron facilities are among the best-run and most productive parts of Australia’s research system. Their reported “deficits” stem not from mismanagement within these programs, but from broader financial pressures elsewhere at ANSTO. It would be a grave mistake to allow short-term accounting to jeopardise long-term national capability.

Scattering instruments are “enablers across disciplines”. That is, they accelerate innovation and deliver both scientific and commercial returns.

If we want to lead in fields such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing and health technology, we must keep our national research infrastructure strong.

Scientists are ready to find ways to save these irreplaceable facilities. In fact, many are already exploring cost-sharing models with universities and industry. They are also exploring mail-in and remote-access operations to cut travel costs, and sponsorship approaches.

Scientists are prepared to make changes to protect the foundations of our national science capability. But ANSTO and the Australian government will need to do their bit, too.

Michael Preuss receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (UK), Rolls-Royce Submarine Ltd (UK), and Amentum (UK). He is president of Australian Neutron Beam Users Group, a not-for-profit society representing the Australian and New Zealand neutron scattering community.

Maggie Zhai receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Victorian Government, the Australian Academy of Science, and ANSTO. She is currently the chair of the Australian Synchrotron User Advisory Committee.

A deadly European hornet has reached NZ – we can all help stop its spread

2025-11-03T22:24:04Z

An Asian hornet (right) hunting honeybees as they emerge from the hive. Jean-Bernard Nadeau/Science Photo Library, CC BY-NC-ND

The discovery of yellow-legged hornet nests in Auckland is frightening.

There have been five confirmed detections to date. Two of these were small nests, more than a kilometer apart, which suggests there are likely more in the region.

Why should we worry? This hornet is a serious concern for all New Zealanders. Yellow-legged hornets are aggressive predators and can become highly abundant. They threaten people’s health, biodiversity and especially honey bees.

The yellow-legged hornet (Vespa velutina) was accidentally introduced into France in 2004. It then spread rapidly, at around 100 kilometres per year, and was established across France by 2017.

This nest is in France, where hornets are now established. Michiel Vaartjes/Alamy, CC BY-ND

The hornet is now well established in Spain, Portugal, Germany and other European countries. It was first detected in the UK in 2016, and its predicted range extends as far north as Scotland. Their success in Europe suggests they could thrive across much of New Zealand.

In some European areas, densities of up to 13 nests per square kilometre have been recorded, with mature nests housing several thousands of workers. Some even reach up to 13,000 individuals.

Risk to people and pollinators

People can die from hornet stings. Yellow-legged hornets will aggressively defend their nests and have been known to attack people even from hundreds of metres away.

In parts of Europe, they are now considered one of the most common causes of analphylaxis, with multiple stings potentially leading to multi-organ failure. There have also been reports of eye injuries, particularly when well-meaning people attempt to destroy nests. Hornets can spray venom into eyes through the visors of beekeeping suits.

Their diet includes a significant proportion of honey bees. One European study found that 40% of their prey were honey bees, 30% flies and the remainder included other wasps and pollinators. In some high-pressure regions of Europe, beekeepers have reported losses of up to 80% of their hives once yellow-legged hornets became established.

More typical hive losses cluster around 30%. European beekeepers have resorted to desperate control measures – some even stand outside their hives with badminton rackets, swatting the hornets as they hover near the hive entrance.

When preying on honey bees, hornets hover outside hive entrances, waiting for tired bees to return from their foraging trips. The hornet snatches the bee mid-flight, kills it, and carries its body back to its nest as food. If bees sense the hornets, they may stop foraging altogether, staying inside the hive – a behaviour known as “foraging paralysis”.

Yellow-legged hornets feeds on bees and other insects. Bonzami Emmanuelle/Alamy, CC BY-NC-ND

The yellow-legged hornet poses a serious threat to both native and introduced pollinators, and to pollination itself.

Beekeepers in the UK are intensely worried, with reports of record numbers of nests this year, with infestations as far north as Yorkshire. One nest can consume around 11 kilograms of insects in a single season.

Quick action is key to eradication

New Zealand is uniquely vulnerable to wasp and hornet invasions. Unlike the UK and Europe, our biodiversity did not evolve alongside social hornets or wasps. Our native insects have no co-evolved or natural defences.

Add to that our warm, temperate climate, and it’s no surprise we already have some of the world’s highest wasp nest densities and hold the world record for the largest individual wasp nest, at 3.7 metres long. Hornets would likely become widespread and highly damaging if they established here.

If there is any chance of eradication, we must pursue it now.

Invasive hornets and social wasps are hard to eradicate, but it has been done before. In the United States, a programme to eliminate the giant Asian hornet (Vespa mandarinia) appears to have succeeded.

Closer to home, German wasps were successfully eradicated from the Chatham Islands. And Spain at least temporarily celebrated the eradication of the yellow-legged hornet from the island of Mallorca – although populations have since been rediscovered.

The key to success in any eradication programme is acting early, while populations are still small and localised.

Citizen science has played a vital role in early detection and eradication efforts for many invasive species, including these hornets. We have to find the hornet nests to destroy them and it is crucial to do so early in the year, before new queens and males are produced in autumn.

Public trapping and reporting of sightings have already proved invaluable overseas. We need people engaged and watching for these hornets now. Traps have been designed specifically for yellow-legged hornets in Europe, and the Ministry of Primary Industries would be wise to implement them here.

But homemade traps made from plastic drink bottles, cut in half with the top inverted, can work, too. The hornets are attracted to a range of foods in spring, including protein such as fish or meat, and even beer.

If any country can catch this hornet early, it’s New Zealand. Our tradition of public vigilance and commitment to protecting our unique biodiversity would be of major benefit now.

You can report any suspected sightings either online at report.mpi.govt.nz or by calling the exotic pest and disease hotline on 0800 809 966.

Phil Lester 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.

Cabbage tree palm: a sweet-leafed Australian native that waits 150 years to bloom

2025-11-03T19:10:32Z

Auscape / Contributor

When you think of palms, you might be mentally transported to tropical islands and beaches. But palms are a diverse and interesting group of plants of roughly 180 genera and more than 2,000 species. Most, but not all, grow in the tropics.

Australia has at least 50 native palm species, and one of my favourites is the cabbage tree palm, Livistona australis.

This slender palm can reach 25m or more in height with a stem diameter of 25–35cm. It has an extensive range down the Australian east coast from southern Queensland reaching almost to Orbost in Victoria. It is Victoria’s only native palm.

Strength and beauty

The stem of the cabbage tree palm has a very intricate patterning formed by the old leaf bases, which give the stem its strength.

If the stem is damaged, the cabbage tree palm cannot grow over or heal the damage. So, take care not to harm its stem (or, for that matter, the stem of other palms).

The cabbage tree palm has fan-shaped leaves about 10–30cm long. These occur at the end of leaf stalks (called petioles) that can be 1.5–2m long. Its small (3mm) white flowers are borne on what’s called a panicle (a branching spike), which can be up to 1.5m long.

The fruits are red but turn black when ripe. It’s at this stage they are ready to plant, if you wish to propagate.

Young palms may have little prickles or a rough texture at the base of the leaves. This is a protective mechanism common to many palms – but the long spines on some can really hurt if you’re not careful.

Cabbage tree palms are moderately frost-sensitive, but once they get up to a few metres in height they are quite tough. They’re resilient, drought-tolerant and cope well with full sun.

The older leaves dry out and hang down from the crown and may stay like this for some years. If many accumulate, they can eventually fall. This can be dangerous, so many gardeners have them regularly pruned.

However, in natural sites they are important nesting and feeding sites for birds and small native mammals such as bandicoots. In urban gardens, they may house possums and rodents.

The dead leaves can burn fiercely in a bushfire, but as long as the crown of the stem is not too badly burnt, cabbage tree palms are moderately fire-resistant. New leaves are produced quite quickly as part of the general fire recovery, as seen around Mallacoota and in New South Wales after the 2019–20 fires.

A useful plant

Like other palm species, cabbage tree palms have a long history of human use.

Indigenous people used leaves for basket-weaving, fibres for twines, ropes and fishing lines and medicine.

Young leaves were reported to be quite sweet and were boiled and eaten: hence the name cabbage tree palm.

The fruits are edible, but have to be cooked as they are quite tough. Parts of the stem can also be eaten as the “heart of the palm”. The heart of the palm can also be found in other palm species, such as the coconut palm (Cocus nucifera) or palmetto (Sabal species); the most common heart of the palm species, however, is the cultivated peach palm (Bactris gasipeas).

The crown is the softest part, but consuming it kills the palm.

Like most tall growing palms, the stems are very fibrous, which can make them difficult to cut with a chainsaw; the chain tends to clog.

This fibrous structure makes the stems quite flexible in strong winds, when the palms bend with the wind rather than breaking.

Author Marcus Clarke wearing a cabbage tree hat in the 1800s. State Library of Victoria

The fibre from cabbage tree palms was used by early European settlers to make a protective sun hat called a cabbage tree hat.

Like many palms, the root systems of cabbage tree palms are shallow, fibrous and very dense, meaning the plants can be readily dug up and transplanted (provided you take a sufficiently large root mass).

This puts natural palm populations at risk if they are dug up and sold without proper regulation.

If you wish to remove a palm, it’s best to dig below the stem and cut the larger fibrous roots. There may be ten or more roots – often 20mm or less in diameter – that can be easily cut, but even one or two can securely anchor the palm.

Patience is a virtue

Like many plants that have an arborescent (meaning tree-like) growth form, Livistona australis takes its time.

Details are sparse, but there are estimates of palms being nearly 400 years old.

Trees operate over much longer time scales than humans do and so when growing cabbage tree palms, you might need to be patient.

The cabbage tree palm can take between 20 and 60 years to develop a proper stem.

If you are keen to see your cabbage tree palm flower, don’t hold your breath. It may take, according to some estimates, 150-170 years before a first flowering. If you can wait that long, it usually happens between August and October.

Gregory Moore 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.

Could a cheetah win the Melbourne Cup?

2025-11-03T19:10:14Z

Every year on the first Tuesday of November, many Australians tune in to watch “the race that stops a nation”: the Melbourne Cup.

Run at Flemington across 3,200 metres (two miles), the Melbourne Cup dates back to 1861.

It’s one of the world’s richest races, with A$10 million in total prize money on offer this year.

The fastest winning time at Flemington came in 1990, when Kingston Rule flashed home in 3 minutes 16.3 seconds – an average speed of 58.7 kilometres per hour.

The highly trained thoroughbreds that compete are considered the best of the best in world racing. But are they really top of the tree in the broader animal kingdom?

As an evolutionary biomechanist specialising in the relationship between form, function and ecology of living and extinct animals, I ran the numbers to find out, comparing the fastest land animals in the world across 3,200 metres.

The maths behind the predictions

To compare thoroughbreds with different species in this hypothetical race, we need to estimate a few variables.

The first is the maximum steady speed an animal can maintain. In the scientific literature this is known as “critical speed”. At this pace, animals should be able to run around the track easily.

When sprinting, though, animals can only maintain a maximal effort for a short distance or time. This is called the “distance reserve”.

Using these values we can make some good guesses about how long different animals might take to run the 3,200m race, based on a formula designed by exercise physiologist Mark Burnley.

The formula looks at the time to run the race, the distance of the race, the distance reserve and critical speed.

For a full breakdown of the calculations used in the below predictions, check them out here.

Let the race begin

Let’s start off by looking at us humans. We can use marathon world-record pace as a practical stand-in for critical speed. The men’s world record marathon time was set by Kelvin Kiptum in 2023, who completed the 42km event in 2 hours 35 seconds, an average of 21km per hour.

Based on my formula, the best male runner would finish the Melbourne Cup in about 8 minutes 19 seconds (the fastest woman would take about 9 minutes 6 seconds).

That’s elite by any track standard but nowhere near the Melbourne Cup’s equine averages.

Of course, humans aren’t even the fastest animals on two legs, so what if we swapped sneakers for talons?

The ostrich brings a different kind of stride to the starting gate.

The ostrich is the world’s fastest biped, can run over a broad range of speeds, and is exceptionally economical, thanks to long tendons and elastic energy storage.

In 2016, researchers at the Royal Veterinary College in London tested the running speed of ostriches by putting tiny backpacks containing high-speed GPS units on them, then chasing them around a paddock with a quad bike (yes, really).

They found the top speed of ostriches was about 41km/h but the most preferred speed (when undisturbed) was 15.7km/h.

Conservatively, my prediction would be an ostrich finishing the Melbourne Cup in about 9 minutes 5 seconds.

That’s not far off what humans could do, but still off the pace of horses.

We need something faster.

The cheetah is the ultimate sprinter – but can it go the distance?

Using the same backpack from the ostrich study, the same research group headed to Africa to collect data on cheetahs hunting in the wild.

A remarkable top speed of 93km/h was recorded. Yet the typical mean top speed was around 54km/h and the longest hunting chases rarely exceeded about 500m before the cheetah either caught or abandoned its prey.

Rearranging our model and plugging it into the Melbourne Cup equation gives a predicted 3,200m time of around 9 minutes 30 seconds – worse than humans and ostriches!

We need something with more staying power.

Let’s try out an Aussie favourite.

Kangaroos are endurance oddballs: at some point in the 1970s, researchers managed to train a kangaroo to hop on a treadmill while wearing a metabolic mask.

This now classic lab experiment showed red kangaroos hop with remarkable efficiency for sustained speed. This comes from their extreme elastic energy recycling in the hindlimb tendons, combined with their unique hopping gait.

While this research shows kangaroos’ critical speed is about 23.4km/h, peak speed estimates are harder to find. Various unverified sources exist online that estimate it to be around 60–65km/h.

Using these estimates, I predict the kangaroo would be able to finish the Melbourne Cup in about 6 minutes 35 seconds.

That’s much better than humans and ostriches, but still well behind the horses.

Few animals are as specialised for high-speed sprinting as the greyhound.

Track data show elite racers reaching speeds of about 68km/h over 500m, with longer “stayer” races (700–950m) run at average speeds of about 56km/h.

Laboratory treadmill studies report these dogs can only sustain their highest pace for about a minute. Using stayer-distance race records only, and again using the aforementioned formula, the fastest greyhound would finish the Melbourne Cup in about 4 minutes 7 seconds.

That’s impressively close to the Melbourne Cup record. However, greyhounds rarely run more than 1km – their sprint-adapted muscle fibres lead to rapid heat build-up and fatigue, suggesting even this might be a generous estimate.

So, it appears thoroughbreds are in a class of their own. Maybe we need to find another competitor more horse-like.

In the 2005 cinematic masterpiece “Racing Stripes”, Stripes, an abandoned circus zebra competes in and (spoiler alert) wins the Kentucky Open.

Could a wild zebra beat our Melbourne Cup field?

In a 2018 study, researchers fitted GPS collars on seven zebras (and other species), gathering 1,801 runs from zebras. They found zebras had significantly lower maximal muscle power and acceleration than their lion pursuers.

They estimated a burst speed of about 54km/h and a conservative sustainable pace of about 26.5km/h.

Plugging this into our model gives a 3,200m estimate of about 8 minutes 8 seconds.

It’s respectable for a grazing ungulate but far behind elite stayers.

And the winner is …

So the science has spoken and the results are in. The Melbourne Cup thoroughbreds easily win this race against most other running species.

The greyhound finishes second if it can hang on, and the kangaroo comes home in a respectable third place. We’d then have to wait about two minutes for the next group to come in with the humans, zebras, ostriches and cheetahs all finishing around the same time.

Christofer Clemente 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.

Op-shopping, worm farms and cornstarch blood bags: how Australian theatre is staging a greener future

2025-11-03T19:09:58Z

Theatre has long gathered and connected communities through story and shared experience. The performing arts can educate, provoke and inspire climate action. Yet the industry grapples with its own environmental footprint.

In response, the Theatre Green Book was released as a free, global framework for sustainable theatre practice.

The Theatre Green Book began as a collective initiative by writer Paddy Dillon and theatre-makers in the United Kingdom, in response to calls for coordinated climate action within the arts. Since then, it has been adapted into more than 17 iterations and used in more than 50 countries.

The Australian version adapts the European framework to an Australian context. It was first published online in 2023 by myself (Grace Nye-Butler) and Chris Mercer. The second edition, published today, was developed in collaboration with First Nations performing arts practitioners and the wider industry.

This edition grounds sustainability in relationship, legacy and innovation. It offers a Country-centred approach that honours First Nations Custodianship of Country, connection to Culture and Community.

As Dalisa Pigram, co-artistic director of dance company Marrugeku, explained during collaboration for the book:

Country is the oldest ancestor and the first teacher. If you care for Country, Country will care for you. It has ways to reset things.

An Australia-centred response

The performing arts sector’s environmental footprint can be traced to a range of sources, from energy used for lighting and venues, to emissions from touring and audience travel, to materials used for sets, props and costumes.

A recent study by Griffith University researchers found 74% of practitioners believe Australia’s performing arts sector has a responsibility to act on the climate crisis. Yet only 28% of organisations currently measure their own environmental footprint.

The Theatre Green Book Australia provides a practical, step-by-step guide to help companies reduce their environmental impact across three key areas: productions, operations and buildings.

Towards regenerative and equitable futures

The second edition was trialled over six months with seven theatre companies: Bangarra Dance Theatre, Bell Shakespeare, Belvoir Street Theatre, Griffin Theatre Company, Monkey Baa, Performing Lines, and Sydney Dance Company.

The Green Book responds directly to the continent’s ecological and logistical challenges. It acknowledges, for instance, the vast distances involved in touring, the diversity of local ecosystems, and the distinct supply chains and materials used in Australia.

By using the framework, theatre companies can align with international sustainability efforts in a way that remains locally meaningful. It also opens opportunities for global collaboration.

As Sydney Dance Company resident stage manager Simon Turner said:

Enhancing the ability to think “outside the box”, collaborating with other organisations has broadened the possibilities to bolster [the company’s] sustainable practices.

Central to the Green Book’s approach is the view that sustainability should be seen as a creative opportunity – not a constraint.

Practical changes include setting up composting and worm farms, connecting to local community gardens, using biodegradable blood packs made from corn starch, and creating asset-tracking systems to reuse sets, props and costumes.

Cat Studley, production manager at Bangarra Dance Theatre, said, in reference to the company’s production of Illume:

When we built Illume and the large set element – an oversized trumpet shell – we explored various methods and chose 3D printing in recycled black ABS (synthetic polymer), helping us exceed our goal of 50% of onstage materials being recycled or reused.

The companies that took part also developed a strong peer-sharing network, exchanging ideas and resources.

Dani Ironside, company manager at Bell Shakespeare, said:

Connecting with other theatre companies has expanded our insights into what’s achievable and shown us that the roadblocks we once saw to reaching baseline goals are, in fact, possible to overcome.

Other initiatives included investing in additional resources for sustainable sourcing, shopping at op-shops instead of fast-fashion outlets, incorporating sustainability criteria into hiring and contractor selection, and actively recruiting people with eco-conscious values.

The success of the Theatre Green Book in Europe, and now in Australia, shows meaningful change is underway. With commitment and creativity, theatre companies are proving sustainability can be woven into the fabric of storytelling and production.

Antonia Seymour, executive director at Arts on Tour, said the trial outcomes were a promising sign that eco-thinking could become the new “normal” for the sector:

We knew the only way to drive momentum and embed eco-literate theatre-making in the sector was by working collaboratively, using a common language and a global framework.

This is a moment of collective opportunity. Through shared knowledge, the performing arts can lead the way in imagining and enacting a regenerative future.

The author would like to thank Chris Mercer, co-author of The Theatre Green Book Australia, for his contribution to this work.

Grace Nye-Butler is the co-director of the Theatre Green Book Australia and currently works as a Reseach Fellow at the Performance and Ecology Research Lab at Griffith University.

‘How should I cast my soul?’ Patti Smith’s intimate new memoir is a quest for her true self

2025-11-03T19:09:17Z

Steven Sebring/Bloomsbury

Patti Smith’s new memoir, Bread of Angels, arrives on a significant date. On November 4, 1946, Smith’s artistic soulmate and first true love, the late photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, was born. Forty-eight years later, on the same day, her “king among men”, beloved husband and fellow musician, Fred “Sonic” Smith, died of a heart attack.

It seems entirely fitting that this most intimate, comprehensive book – a decade in the making – should be published on such a hallowed day, almost 50 years exactly since her debut album, Horses, was released.

“The hourglass overturns,” she writes in the opening pages, shattering the illusion of time. “Each grain a word that erupts into a thousand more, the first and last moments of every living thing.”

Like her poetry, Smith’s life writing is profound and illuminating. The award-winning Just Kids (a reader-voted New York Times best book of the 21st century) details her extraordinary relationship with Mapplethorpe, as the two establish their artistic careers in New York during the 1970s. M Train and Year of the Monkey offer insights into her spiritual outlook and creative process as she contemplates the passing of time while travelling the world. Devotion explores the business of writing as a call to action that keeps her from being subsumed by the work of others.

Bread of Angels folds all of this together, weaving reverie, dreams, visions and images into an autobiographical tale of deep love, unbearable loss, fortitude and artistic practice. Inevitably, some of the details appear in Smith’s previous works, but here she spins them anew, casting a more intimate light, achieving a greater sense of completion.

Loosely arranged around the recurring motif of the “rebel hump”, ultimately this book is the story of Smith’s quest for her true self. It follows her on a journey of individuation, through one painful growth period after another, as she strives to disguise the “miniature Quasimodo” that lurks, metaphorically, inside her body.

Over the decades, Smith edges her way around her “unbecoming” hump, harnessing her innate curiosity and powerful imagination into a foundation of unshakeable self-belief and self-possession. An inimitable force, she develops a level of conviction that borders on hubris yet rests on humility, as she takes her cues from the spirit world.

Naturally reflective, with a questioning mind, Smith continually wonders who she is and who she is becoming. At the same time, she resists self-doubt and refuses compromise. “I always felt like myself,” she writes. “And there were times when I didn’t identify with anybody.”

Her physical image develops accordingly. Now almost 79, with her wild grey hair, soulful, smiling eyes and an arresting gaze, Smith possesses the hard-won beauty of wisdom. She is a younger woman on the cover of her new book: alluring and ethereal, her introspective expression contrasting with a gesture of supplication.

The photograph, taken by Mapplethorpe for her 1979 album, Wave, was intended to capture the essence of Dancing Barefoot, her love song for Fred – and to bid her fans farewell on the eve of her retirement.

Like the book it now adorns, the image radiates both intimacy and mystery, and carries the shiver of a spell.

Patti Smith performing Dancing Barefoot, her love song for her husband Fred, in 1979.

Quivering with meaning

Beginning with her childhood, Bread of Angels recalls Smith’s life through significant events and personal experiences that quiver with meaning. It spans her impoverished upbringing in Philadelphia and her pivotal role as a post-punk revolutionary in New York, to family life in Michigan with Fred – and finally her return, through grief, to writing, travel and performance.

Throughout, Smith navigates the world by symbols and synchronicity, finding sacred patterns and purpose where others might see only luck or coincidence. At seven, a dangerous bout of scarlet fever is a “mystical illness” to be conquered so she can atone for stealing from a friend who dies of lupus. At ten, a broken foot is a reminder to keep a clear head. During a growth spurt, she finds affinity with the local weed trees. “You are my bamboo, I would whisper, the princesses of the train yard.”

Smith was born in Chicago, with bronchial distress, on December 30, 1946: to Beverly, a widowed waitress, and her second husband, Grant, a returning soldier weakened by malaria. A sickly but spirited girl, she grew up in condemned housing with three younger siblings.

Talkative and curious, Smith led her brother and sisters in elaborate games, throwing herself into boisterous play, fending off the local bullies, finding solace in quiet pockets of nature with the precious books that fed her inner world.

Entranced by her favourite fairy tales, she would toss her pocket money into the overgrown garden of an abandoned cottage in the hope it would transform into gold, and once spent the morning communing with a snapping “king” turtle instead of going to school. A social studies project initiated her interest in Buddhism. She felt the presence of spirits in the fields around her home and believed in the magical properties of material objects.

Reluctant to lose her sense of wonder, she resolved to stay connected to these more visionary realms as she grew older, like “a singular traveler in search of the garden of childhood’s hour”.

On a family outing to the Philadelphia Museum of Art, 13-year-old Smith came across the work of Picasso and vowed to dedicate herself to the transformative power of art. Adolescence brought poetry and music in the shape of Oscar Wilde, Mexican artist Diego Rivera, French poet Arthur Rimbaud and Bob Dylan.

But at 19, while training to be a schoolteacher, Smith was prematurely wrenched into adulthood through pregnancy. Faced with little choice for her child, she arranged an adoption and underwent a lonely and difficult birth. Physically and emotionally scarred, dismissed from college, she packed a suitcase, turned her back on her family, and boarded a bus for New York: heartbroken, but intent on keeping her promise to Picasso. The year was 1967.

Just Kids

In the city, Smith met Mapplethorpe. The pair became key players in New York’s vibrant community of visionaries and creatives, while embarking on an intense relationship. Eventually, his attraction to men split them up, but the pair remained deeply bound to each other within the socially and culturally progressive arts movements of the late 60s and early 70s.

Just Kids offers a poignant close-up of this period, chronicling the details of the couple’s formative years together. The new book focuses more on Smith’s spiritual evolution and changing identity within her social milieu during this time. As her musical and artistic circles expanded, she drew on a widening range of influences while staying true to herself, all the while, asking: “how should I cast my soul?”

New York’s burgeoning underground music scene provided the answer. In 1971, Smith began performing her poetry, accompanied by guitarist Lenny Kaye. Before long, she gathered her band and transmuted into a rock’n’roll revolutionary, claiming her territory with thrilling live shows. In 1975, her groundbreaking debut album, Horses, was released to critical acclaim.

With its improvisational direction and Mapplethorpe’s iconic cover photograph, Horses embodied freedom and defiance. Opening with a reworking of Van Morrison’s Gloria, a sexual song clearly intended to be sung by a man, the record confronted the limitations of duality, refused the constraints of convention and issued an explosive challenge to the establishment. Smith was launched as the high priestess of punk and set off on the road with her band, entrancing audiences across America with her bewitching stage presence.

“I had new dark glasses, charms sweet angels stitched on my sleeve,” writes Smith of her new incarnation. “The hyena was showing her wet teeth […] We were touring Horses, riding straight into the future.”

Life-changing love

Four months after the release of Horses, at a party before her show in Detroit, Smith had a momentary but fateful encounter with former MC5 guitarist, Fred “Sonic” Smith. Touring commitments dictated the initial pace of their relationship, but Smith knew this tall, brooding man with the pale blue eyes would alter the course of her life.

After recording her second album, Radio Ethiopia, another turning point occurred in January 1977: supporting roots rock musician Bob Seger in Florida, Smith tumbled from a dangerously high stage and sustained serious injuries. Left with fractures to her skull and spine, she was forced into a lengthy rehabilitation but chose to find divine meaning and creative direction in her accident. Encouraged by Lenny Kaye, she spent her recovery writing poems for what would become her first published volume, Babel.

During this time, her love for Fred deepened. But as she grew stronger, she began to grapple with her need to write in solitude, and the opposing impulse to get back on the road.

In 1979, two more albums later (Easter and Wave, each containing songs either inspired by or co-written with Fred), Smith finally departed from rock'n'roll – after the theft of a tour truck in Chicago.

Exhausted by constant travel between New York and Fred in Detroit, she was no longer writing, drawing or journaling. She interpreted the robbery as an opportunity, and conducted a psychological and emotional audit. “I threw open the carpet of my life,” she writes. “It was time to hold myself accountable trusting there was no harsher judge nor jury.”

In a typically symbolic gesture, towards the end of what proved to be her final show in September, she invited the crowd to swarm the stage, encouraging her fans to replace her by occupying their own central positions instead.

And so, aged 32, Smith arrived at her next point of departure, or her “second declaration of existence”, as she calls it. A few months after her final show, during the leap year of 1980, she and Fred were married in a small, private ceremony at the Mariners’ Church in Detroit, at the time of a full moon, on March 1.

Patti Smith performing with love of her life, Fred ‘Sonic’ Smith.

A life of quiet romance

Away from the spotlight, Smith lived a life of quiet romance in St Clair Shores, near Detroit, with her husband. Beyond the confines of time, tied to nobody but each other, the couple fell into their own rhythms, creating a home in a little Belgian-style house, complete with a turret. Here, with her low table, a Moroccan silk cushion and a Persian cup for her mint tea, she found a way to be “entirely myself”, writing and ruminating in the room she called “my vagabondia”.

The couple’s occasionally lonely existence was obscure and authentic. It required Smith to grow into a better version of herself, both as a person and a writer. All the while, her mind and imagination continued to dance, nourishing her internal world while she performed her domestic tasks and renovated a boat with Fred.

In time, the couple had two children, Jackson, born in 1982 and Jesse, born in 1987, and the days took on a different shape. With a family to support, Smith and Fred needed to generate an income. Together, they wrote and recorded Dream of Life (released in 1988) and planned a follow-up album with the working title, Going West.

In March 1989, Mapplethorpe succumbed to complications from HIV in a Boston hospital. Utterly bereft, Smith channelled her grief into The Coral Sea, a loving tribute of prose poetry to the man she refers to as her “artist in life”.

The following year, Fred fell ill. After a few difficult months of sickness, he was admitted to the hospital where his children were born. Aged 46, he died from a heart attack on what would have been Mapplethorpe’s 43rd birthday, November 4, 1994.

Loss and renewed purpose

Smith briefly refers to Fred as a “troubled man” whose health was damaged by drugs in his late teens and twenties. “I was never to penetrate the true nature of those troubles,” she writes, adding “his decline was the tragedy of my life, and it profits no one to outline the private battles of a very private man.”

Heartbroken, she lay her personal king and protector to rest in the church where they married, wearing the expensive black gown she wore when they met. At the memorial service, she sang What a Wonderful World, after hearing it on the car radio on her way there. She didn’t particularly like the song, but Fred had always deemed it hers because of her optimistic nature. Now, it seemed he was insisting she perform it just for him.

By Christmas, Smith had regained enough energy to buy presents for her children, but on her return from the toyshop, she suffered another blow. She came home to the news that her brother Todd had died from a stroke.

Smith was broken by this third, devastating bereavement. She stopped writing, retreated into a state of emptiness, and waited for a sign from Fred. In February 1995, while the snow was falling and her children were asleep, she received a phone call from REM’s singer, Michael Stipe who told her how sorry he was about her husband. Knowing she was alone, he offered to be her Valentine, a kindness which touched her deeply.

Very slowly, with the support of friends, Smith began another journey towards yet another new life back in New York. It was not an easy return. The city had changed beyond recognition since she left, and she was set adrift, wandering through the streets in tears. One day, wearing Fred’s leather jacket, she bumped into photographer Annie Leibovitz. who whisked the grief-stricken, disoriented singer away to her studio. There, they shot what would eventually be the cover photograph for Gone Again, the album first mapped out with Fred as Going West.

Slowly, Smith began to find renewed purpose in the present, and the courage to face her future.

Recognising the rebel hump

The closing chapters of this shimmering memoir pay homage to Smith’s parents, Grant and Beverly, as she recovers long-held secrets regarding her genetic identity and searches for her first, adopted daughter. These interlocking, profoundly moving stories offer the author a certain resolution as she pieces her personal puzzle together, working from the future back into the past.

Shifting, recalibrating, ultimately settling, by tracing “the blood of my mosaic” she is left with a new understanding of herself – and her parents – and is able to locate herself more firmly within the world.

In the concluding pages, from a hotel room in Nice, fittingly overlooking the Bay of Angels, she returns to the motif of the rebel hump as she muses on the ways in which she has changed and not changed over the years.

She imagines a young girl plucking a mirror from the grass. A girl who leaps with joy and lands with delicate certainty – who now accepts the rebel hump, finally recognising its value in a conscious, and loving, act of integration.

Liz Evans 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.

Does fasting dull your mental edge? We crunched the data for the best advice

2025-11-03T19:09:05Z

Getty Images

Ever worried that skipping breakfast might leave you foggy at work? Or that intermittent fasting would make you irritable, distracted and less productive?

Snack food ads warn us that “you’re not you when you’re hungry”, reinforcing a common belief that eating is essential to keep our brains sharp.

This message is deeply woven into our culture. We’re told constant fuelling is the secret to staying alert and efficient.

Yet time-restricted eating and intermittent fasting have become hugely popular wellness practices over the past decade. Millions do it for long-term benefits, from weight management to improved metabolic health.

This raises a pressing question: can we reap the health rewards of fasting without sacrificing our mental edge? To find out, we conducted the most comprehensive review to date of how fasting affects cognitive performance.

Why fast in the first place?

Fasting isn’t just a trendy diet hack. It taps into a biological system honed over millennia to help humans cope with scarcity.

When we eat regularly, the brain runs mostly on glucose, stored in the body as glycogen. But after about 12 hours without food, those glycogen stores dwindle.

At that point, the body performs a clever metabolic switch: it begins breaking down fat into ketone bodies (for example, acetoacetate and beta-hydroxybutyrate), which provide an alternative fuel source.

This metabolic flexibility, once crucial for our ancestors’ survival, is now being linked to a host of health benefits.

Some of the most promising effects of fasting come from the way it reshapes processes inside the body. For instance, fasting activates autophagy, a kind of cellular “cleanup crew” that clears away damaged components and recycles them, a process thought to support healthier ageing.

It also improves insulin sensitivity, allowing the body to manage blood sugar more effectively and lowering the risk of conditions such as type 2 diabetes.

Beyond that, the metabolic shifts triggered by fasting appear to offer broader protection, helping reduce the likelihood of developing chronic diseases often associated with overeating.

What the data showed

These physiological benefits have made fasting attractive. But many hesitate to adopt it out of fear their mental performance will plummet without a steady supply of food.

To address this, we conducted a meta-analysis, a “study of studies”, looking at all the available experimental research that compared people’s cognitive performance when they were fasting versus when they were fed.

Our search identified 63 scientific articles, representing 71 independent studies, with a combined sample of 3,484 participants tested on 222 different measures of cognition. The research spanned nearly seven decades, from 1958 to 2025.

After pooling the data, our conclusion was clear: there was no meaningful difference in cognitive performance between fasted and satiated healthy adults.

People performed just as well on cognitive tests measuring attention, memory and executive function whether they had eaten recently or not.

When fasting does matter

Our analysis did reveal three important factors that can change how fasting affects your mind.

First, age is key. Adults showed no measurable decline in mental performance when fasting. But children and adolescents did worse on tests when they skipped meals.

Their developing brains seem more sensitive to fluctuations in energy supply. This reinforces longstanding advice: kids should go to school with a proper breakfast to support learning.

Timing also seems to make a difference. We found longer fasts were associated with a smaller performance gap between fasted and fed states. This might be due to the metabolic switch to ketones, which can restore a steady supply of energy to the brain as glucose runs out.

Performance in fasted individuals tended to be worse when tests were conducted later in the day, suggesting fasting might amplify the natural dips in our circadian rhythms.

The type of test also mattered. When cognitive tasks involved neutral symbols or shapes, fasting participants performed just as well, or sometimes even slightly better.

But when tasks included food-related cues, fasted participants slipped. Hunger doesn’t create universal brain fog, but it does make us more easily distracted when food is on our minds.

What this means for you

For most healthy adults, the findings offer reassurance: you can explore intermittent fasting or other fasting protocols without worrying that your mental sharpness will vanish.

That said, fasting isn’t a one-size-fits-all practice. Caution is warranted with children and teens, whose brains are still developing and who appear to need regular meals to perform at their best.

Similarly, if your job requires peak alertness late in the day, or if you’re frequently exposed to tempting food cues, fasting might feel harder to sustain.

And of course, for certain groups, such as those with medical conditions or special dietary needs, fasting may not be advisable without professional guidance.

Ultimately, fasting is best seen as a personal tool rather than a universal prescription. And its benefits and challenges will look different from person to person.

David Moreau 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.

Food insecurity affects 1 in 3 regional people – and it’s worse for those with poor mental health

2025-11-03T19:08:53Z

VioletaStoimenova/Getty Images

It’s becoming harder for many Australians to afford enough healthy food, especially in regional areas, our new research shows.

We surveyed almost 700 adults across the Illawarra and Shoalhaven regions of New South Wales – online and through local community centres. We asked residents about their access to food, well-being, mental health and social connections.

Food insecurity means not having reliable access to enough affordable, nutritious food. For some, it’s the worry that their money won’t stretch to the end of the week. For others, it means skipping meals or going without so their children can eat.

Food insecurity is often described as being purely financial, but our study highlights it’s also tied to well-being and social connection.

We found more than one in three people had struggled to afford food in the past year. Those who were socially isolated or had a mental illness were twice as likely to experience food insecurity as the wider population.

The link likely goes both ways

In our survey, people who rated their mental health as only fair or poor were twice as likely to be food insecure. The same pattern appeared among people with diagnosed depression or anxiety.

This link likely goes both ways. The stress of wondering where your next meal will come from can take a toll on mental health, causing anxiety and fatigue. And having poor mental health can make it harder to plan meals, manage bills or ask for help.

A recent study from the United Kingdom and France reported similar results, finding mental health declined during months when people experienced food insecurity.

As one local resident aged 25–34 years told us:

I have been unable to purchase fresh fruit or vegetables which has left me heavily fatigued and has worsened my mood and anxiety disorders.

Why connection matters

People in our study who often felt isolated were also more likely to experience food insecurity.

Loneliness can make it harder to reach out for help, while financial stress can lead people to withdraw socially, compounding the problem.

As one mother aged 35–44 years said:

I don’t ever do a “full” shop anymore, my daughter and I just get by with whatever we have and try to make it stretch. It puts a strain on friendships because I don’t want my daughter to have friends over because we don’t have enough food to share.

People living in regional Australia can face extra challenges that heighten these risks. Geographic isolation often means fewer job opportunities, higher transport costs and limited access to affordable fresh food, especially in smaller towns where supermarkets and services are scarce.

One woman aged 18–24 years told us:

We can’t afford to have a fair diet because the supermarkets are too far to catch a bus and carry it home and we don’t have a car so we have to use Uber Eats which cost a lot more.

At the same time, regional residents may experience more barriers in accessing health care and mental health support, due to fewer community services and social networks.

Even when food relief is available, it doesn’t always reach those most in need. Less than one-quarter of severely food-insecure households in our study said they had accessed emergency food relief.

Many told us they preferred to deal with the issue themselves, which may be due to stigma around accessing support.

One father aged 45–54 years explained

When bills come in, as a parent, I will starve rather than see my children go hungry […] I do without so the rest of the family can eat.

For those in need, community centres often fill this gap despite not having enough resources to meet the growing demand.

Our research found people visiting community centres face higher levels of food insecurity and poorer health than the broader community, yet they report feeling more supported.

Community centres don’t just give out food, they also connect people to health care, education, employment and mental-health services. As local community centre managers said, “food is the glue” that brings people through the door and helps them find wider support.

Turning evidence into action

In addition to recent national statistics, some states and territories have begun monitoring food insecurity.

But we still don’t have a clear picture of what’s happening in many regional areas. Without good local data, it’s hard for governments and community services to see where the need is greatest or what support actually works.

The federal government’s upcoming Feeding Australia National Food Security Strategy is a step toward a coordinated national plan.

But the biggest impact will come from people already on the ground who understand what their communities need most.

In the Illawarra and Shoalhaven, this kind of data is already helping drive solutions. The Illawarra Shoalhaven Food Futures Taskforce brings together government, health workers, researchers and community organisations for practical, local action to ensure everyone has access to healthy, affordable food.

To really tackle food insecurity in Australia we need to deal with the causes: low income, housing stress, poor mental health and social isolation.

Local programs such as food hubs, community kitchens and food cooperatives, are also important. These initiatives often involve communities collectively purchasing, cooking and sharing lower-cost, nutritious food using supermarket surplus, donations or locally grown produce. They not only help put food on the table but support community connection, making them a key part of Australia’s long-term solution to food insecurity.

Katherine Kent has received funding from The Australian Nutrition Trust Fund, The Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success and The Dementia Collaborative Research Centre. She is affiliated with the Australian Academy of Science, National Committee for Nutrition.

Karen Charlton receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a Future Fellowship (2023-27) and has previously had funding from the Dementia Collaborative Research Centre, Bloomberg Philanthropy Foundation, Medical Research Futures Fund, Arepa Pty Ltd. and Actial Pharmaceuticals.

Don’t dismiss kids’ sadness or anger. How to minimise family conflict over the social media ban

2025-11-03T19:08:40Z

Cottonbro Studio/ Pexels

In just over a month Australia’s social media ban will begin.

From December 10, those under 16 will only be able to see publicly available content on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X and YouTube. They will not be able to have their own accounts.

For example, they could look up Taylor Swift’s latest music video on YouTube, but they would not be able to post their own content.

There are no penalties for children who access an account on an age-restricted platform, or for their parents. Platforms face fines of up to A$49.5 million if they don’t take reasonable steps to implement the ban.

While the changes have been welcomed by some safety experts and parent advocates, eSafety acknowledges, “many parents and carers are worried about how under 16s will react to no longer having access to social media accounts”.

If you have a child or teen who loves social media, how can you help approach this change, while minimising conflict in your family?

Social media is already a source of conflict

My research shows young people’s social and digital media use is already a major source of conflict for families.

A lot of the tension comes from parents not understanding the important role digital media plays in young people’s lives, and young people reacting to “unfair” restrictions imposed by parents.

So conflict around screen time rules and parents’ social media restrictions is common. Young people can put a lot of pressure on their parents for devices or access to certain platforms to fit in with their peers (“but all my friends have it”).

One of the federal government’s rationales for the social media ban is to help parents manage this situation – because people are already finding it hard.

So, potentially, some families may find relief in being able to say “this is just what the government says, this is the law”.

Uncertainty ahead

But we still don’t really know what’s going to happen come December 10. Some of the criticism of the ban has been that young people will find a way around it, such as by using a VPN (which can mask location and identity). Experts are also concerned about the reliability and privacy implications of age verification technology,

Meanwhile, some parents may also help their children circumvent the restrictions.

If a lot of parents in a friendship group are helping their children get around the ban, this could in turn create pressures on other parents and lead to conflict or resentment in families.

Parents need to remember there is no blanket right or wrong answer. All families and kids are different and its important to make decisions based on your family values and your child’s maturity.

Acknowledge it’s hard

Either way, if young people are used to social media and suddenly it’s gone, they might be really sad, annoyed or angry. And parents will have to manage the fall out.

We know young people can forge important connections with others over social media. It’s not just mindless scrolling, it’s a significant way to interact with peers. This is especially important for marginalised young people.

So young people will need to find other ways to connect – and parents should help their kids maintain their social connections.

It’s also important parents are not dismissive and acknowledge this may be a difficult time and transition.

Young people tend to respond much better to rules and regulations when they are given a clear rationale and a clear reason.

For example,

I know it’s hard. It’s out of my hands, this is a decision made by the government. We may not like it, but this is the way it is. Can I help you find another way to connect with your friends or participate in these communities?

You may also want to note how time away from social media, where young people may be doomscrolling or exposed to cyberbullying, can be healthy.

Don’t assume kids are now ‘safe’

One risk of the ban is parents will now think kids are “safe” online. We know children are likely to find other spaces online – and if they don’t, their friends will. And the ban only covers certain platforms.

Parents needs to keep talking to their children about what they see and do online

Parents also need to keep providing opportunities for children to develop critical digital literacy skills – this means they can assess what they are reading and seeing and not just taking it on face value. Children also need help to navigate social relationships online as they grow up.

This means children under 16 need ongoing opportunities to explore online spaces with support and guidance. This doesn’t necessarily mean parents monitor everything their children do online. But they should show an interest in their children’s activities, and be available to help navigate any risks and tricky situations.

Catherine Page Jeffery receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

The ‘doorman fallacy’: why careless adoption of AI backfires so easily

2025-11-03T19:08:26Z

Weichao Deng/Unsplash

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming commonplace, despite statistics showing that only approximately 7% to 13% (depending on size) of companies have incorporated AI into their regular business workflows.

Adoption in specific business functions is far higher, with up to 78% of companies reporting use of AI tools in at least one business area. And more than 90% of companies plan to increase AI investment within three years.

This surge in adoption is underpinned by expectations of significant efficiency gains and cost reduction.

Widespread implementation of AI is also accompanied by layoffs. Estimates vary, but it’s clear that within the next decade, millions of jobs will be reshaped or even replaced thanks to AI.

However, despite the lofty promises of AI, many companies aren’t seeing the payoff. Data on productivity gains from AI use is murky at best, and many companies are facing costly implementation failures.

Organisations are falling for what is known as the doorman fallacy: reducing rich and complex human roles to a single task and replacing people with AI. This overlooks the nuanced interactions and adaptability humans bring to their work.

What is the doorman fallacy?

British advertising executive Rory Sutherland coined the term “doorman fallacy” in his 2019 book Alchemy. Sutherland uses the concept of the humble hotel doorman to illustrate how businesses can misjudge the value a person brings to the role.

To a business consultant, a doorman appears to simply stand by the entrance. They engage in small talk with those coming and going, and occasionally operate the door.

If that’s the entirety of the job, a technological solution can easily replace the doorman, reducing costs. However, this strips away the true complexity of what a doorman provides.

The role is multifaceted, with intangible functions that extend beyond just handling the door. Doormen help guests feel welcome, hail taxis, enhance security, discourage unwelcome behaviour, and offer personalised attention to regulars. Even the mere presence of a doorman elevates the prestige of a hotel or residence, boosting guests’ perception of quality.

When you ignore all these intangible benefits, it’s easy to argue the role can be automated. This is the doorman fallacy – removing a human role because technology can imitate its simplest function, while ignoring the layers of nuance, service and human presence that give the role its true value.

Doormen everywhere

As AI becomes increasingly common, many companies have started evaluating employees the way a consultant might evaluate a doorman. The judgement is based purely on the most visible, basic tasks they perform, such as taking food orders or answering phones.

The focus is on what can be automated and what costs can be reduced. What often gets overlooked is the broader value a person brings through context, judgement, and the countless invisible contributions that support a thriving workplace.

This narrow view leads straight into the doorman fallacy, assuming a role is simple because only the obvious parts are seen.

Earlier this year, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia fired 45 customer service staff and rolled out an AI voice bot, claiming the bot drastically cut call volumes.

After the workers’ union challenged the layoffs, the bank reversed its decision, admitting it “did not adequately consider all relevant business considerations and this error meant the roles were not redundant”.

In the United States, fast-food chain Taco Bell has been rolling out voice AI in its drive-throughs since last year, in hopes of cutting errors and speeding up service.

After a barrage of customer complaints and social media videos documenting various glitches, the company is now rethinking its AI use. Taco Bell’s chief technology officer conceded to the Wall Street Journal it might not make sense to only use AI at drive-through and that human staff might handle things better, especially during busy times.

These are not isolated examples. A recent report from software platform Orgvue states up to 55% of the companies that replaced employees with AI now acknowledge they moved too quickly. Some companies are rehiring the very people they let go.

On top of that, consumers dislike dealing with AI in customer service settings, and most say they’d likely choose a competitor that doesn’t use AI.

A job is more than a list of tasks

To avoid the doorman fallacy, companies must recognise jobs are more than the visible tasks listed on a job description.

Employees frequently contribute in subtle ways that leaders don’t see day-to-day, yet those contributions hold real value for customers and organisations as a whole.

Smart AI adoption requires a full understanding of the human elements inside every role. The concept of “efficiency” should be expanded to valuing customer experience and long-term outcomes as much as cost savings.

Before a company attempts to automate any roles and hand tasks over to AI, it must have a deep understanding of the roles in question. If the task needs human oversight and intervention, it’s not a good candidate for automation.

AI can be implemented in roles that don’t require human oversight, such as data entry, image processing, or even predictive maintenance that monitors the health of equipment – roles that are rule based and clearly measurable, freeing up people to do other things.

The evidence so far is clear: the best way to use AI is to pair it with human judgement. This approach preserves the parts of work where context, personal touch, and trust matter.

By supplementing human roles with AI, standardised and repetitive tasks can be completed efficiently, allowing individuals to focus on contextual work where a human touch is important.

Gediminas Lipnickas 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.

Is the Melbourne Cup losing its appeal? Here’s what the numbers reveal

2025-11-03T19:07:59Z

The Melbourne Cup, a 3,200–metre race for horses more than three years old, has long been called “the race that stops the nation”.

Held each year on the first Tuesday in November at Flemington Racecourse in Melbourne, it attracts racehorses from overseas, politicians, sporting identities, fashionistas and others from among the wealthy and the famous.

It’s also a bonanza for betting companies. As Australia’s biggest one-day race gambling event, the total amount wagered currently exceeds that of any other Australian horse race by far.

But much of the gloss has been rubbed off. Other prestige races are coming up on its heels, and punters are increasingly drawn to betting on other activities – such as AFL and NRL.

And there’s also been a long-term decline in interest in animal racing in general, amid growing concerns about animal cruelty.

So, is the Melbourne Cup still stopping the nation in the way it used to? Here’s what the numbers reveal.

Shrinking crowds

In 2003, in-person attendance at the Cup was nearly 123,000, the biggest crowd since the turn of the millennium. By 2024, that had declined to 91,000.

The largest crowd in the intervening years was in 2010, when over 110,000 attended.

The Victoria Racing Club argues active attempts were made to reduce crowd sizes after 2003, when it became clear that a crowd of over 120,000 people made for an uncomfortable day at the races.

But the trend for attendance has been on a downward trajectory throughout the 21st century. There has been a modest recovery post-pandemic restrictions, but crowds are still well down from the peak.

A TV broadcast watched by fewer people across the nation

What about the Melbourne Cup’s TV audience? Many workplaces around the country still stop work to watch the race on TV – even in the work-from-home era. Victoria has a dedicated public holiday.

The Australian Financial Review reports that before 2015, the TV audience was over 3 million. In 2021, that declined to 1.7 million, and in 2022 to 1.35 million.

A new broadcaster, the Nine network, took that viewership back up to 1.9 million in 2024. But it’s still well off its high.

Bookmakers’ big day – but it is falling

Bookmakers love the Melbourne Cup. It provides them with a major opportunity to sign up new, casual punters who open an account to place a bet on the day.

Once they’re on board, the marketing to these customers is unending.

In 2022, turnover on the Cup – the amount that is bet, as opposed to revenue, which is the amount punters lose (and bookies keep) – was A$226 million.

By 2024, that had declined to $214 million.

According to Racing Victoria, this remains the highest race turnover in Australia, well above the next placed. But it still represents a decline between 2022 and 2024 of about 13% in real terms (adjusted for inflation).

In recent years, total wagering turnover in Australia – meaning betting on any events, from sports to elections – has also surprisingly declined.

Total real wagering turnover was $22.3 billion in 2023-24, down from $31.2 billion in 2020-21 (again, in real terms).

A recent survey on gambling behaviour in New South Wales reported race wagering as a proportion of the NSW population declined from 24% in 2011 to 9.9% in 2024.

Participation in sports wagering in NSW, however, grew from 6.1% in 2019 to 7.6% in 2024, with stronger engagement among younger men.

Competition from ‘richer’ races

The Melbourne Cup also faces competition from relatively new entries in the prestige (group 1) race stakes.

For example, since 2017, Racing NSW has run The Everest, now a $20 million race, at Royal Randwick racecourse in Sydney, on Caulfield Cup day. It has since moved to second place in wagering turnover, surpassing every other race except the Melbourne Cup.

However, wagering turnover is well behind the Cup. Crowds are much smaller, too, at around 50,000. It needs to grow quite a bit to overshadow the Cup.

Societal shift

So, why is the Melbourne Cup, and horse racing generally, in decline?

Falling wagering overall, and the emergence of new gambling markets, go some way to explain it.

Researchers have also reported a societal shift towards “a strong animal ethics sentiment combined with a more generalised disdain towards the racing industry and its wider societal ramifications”.

The “#Nuptothecup” movement is credited with much of this shift. It runs a website listing alternative activities and providing arguments against animal racing.

The parent organisation of this movement, the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses, runs a “deathwatch” cataloguing the number of racehorses killed in races: 175 in 2024-25. This has become an important issue for many.

Those who support the Melbourne Cup tend to rely on slightly opaque economic arguments: it employs people, generates revenue for Victoria and boosts business income because of tourism.

The Cup is still big business. But it’s not as big as it used to be, either culturally or even in dollar terms.

Charles Livingstone has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the (former) Victorian Gambling Research Panel, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Institute, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Finnish Alcohol Research Foundation, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, the Turkish Red Crescent Society, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He was a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Lancet Public Health Commission into gambling, and of the World Health Organisation expert group on gambling and gambling harm. He made a submission to and appeared before the HoR Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm.

View from The Hill: Unmoored Ley has the appearance of a dead woman walking

2025-11-03T07:20:49Z

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley is looking like a dead woman walking.

The latest Newspoll, which has Labor leading the Coalition 57–43% on the two-party vote, the Coalition’s primary vote down by 4 points to 24%, and Ley’s net approval at minus–33, is devastating for the opposition and Ley in particular.

Her net approval has dropped 13 points since the previous poll, with her ill-judged remarks about US Ambassador Kevin Rudd and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Joy Division T-shirt no doubt contributing to the markdown.

Ley would be in terrible shape any time with these figures, let alone when the Liberals and the Coalition are in an existential crisis over energy policy, making her challenges over the coming days dire.

The Liberals are split over the 2050 net-zero target, but now that the Nationals have dumped it, they are inevitably being dragged closer to the position of the minor party.

Ley in the past said she wanted to see net zero reached as soon as possible. Now she will struggle to have the Liberals retain any commitment to it, even as an aspiration.

A few weeks ago, Angus Taylor, her main leadership rival, was said to be willing to go along with a compromise that involved net zero in some form, despite personal opposition to it.

Now, Taylor is said to be close to the Nationals’ position.

The Liberal moderates, especially the Liberals’ deputy Senate leader, Anne Ruston, are fighting a rearguard action. Ruston reportedly said in a Sunday meeting of senior Liberals that the Nationals were again putting a gun to the heads of the Liberals. Asked about this on Sky on Monday, Ruston said she didn’t talk about private meetings, but did not deny the report.

Another moderate, NSW Senator Andrew Bragg, told Sky “we should do net zero better than Labor’s done it”.

“I think, as I’ve said before, that you can get to net zero at some stage this century.”

Some moderates would be happy enough to see the Coalition split; so would some Nationals.

It’s not just Ley who’s in a weak leadership position – so is the Nationals’ David Littleproud, who has been pulled to the right by his own troops.

Most of the Nationals have never been keen on net zero, but the spike in One Nation’s vote in recent polls – a massive 15% in Newspoll – is concentrating their minds on the danger of being outflanked on the right.

It would take an opposition leader of enormous authority to find a way through this chaos, and Ley carries little or no authority.

No one can criticise her work rate, or her attempts to tap into the community. She tells her personal story, that of a varied life, as she tries to get known. But she lacks a strong framework of political beliefs to project. She comes across as unmoored.

Ley’s multiple enemies and critics want – and mostly expect – to see her removed. But they don’t want that to happen now. Ditching the Liberals’ first female leader six months in would look very bad, a caricature of a party with a “woman problem”.

With her opponents thinking it would be indecently early to move against her, Ley will be left in limbo. Then at some point, the Liberals will change leaders and quite probably remain as badly off.

Why do giraffes have such long legs? Animal simulations reveal a surprising answer

2025-11-03T01:38:05Z

If you’ve ever wondered why the giraffe has such a long neck, the answer seems clear: it lets them reach succulent leaves atop tall acacia trees in Africa.

Only giraffes have direct access to those leaves, while smaller mammals must compete with one another near the ground. This exclusive food source appears to allow the giraffe to breed throughout the year and to survive droughts better than shorter species.

But the long neck comes at a high cost. The giraffe’s heart must produce enough pressure to pump its blood a couple of metres up to its head. The blood pressure of an adult giraffe is typically over 200mm Hg – more than twice that of most mammals.

As a result, the heart of a resting giraffe uses more energy than the entire body of a resting human, and indeed more energy than the heart of any other mammal of comparable size. However, as we show in a new study published in the Journal of Experimental Biology, the giraffe’s heart has some unrecognised helpers in its battle against gravity: the animal’s long, long legs.

Meet the ‘elaffe’

In our new study, we quantified the energy cost of pumping blood for a typical adult giraffe and compared it to what it would be in an imaginary animal with short legs but a longer neck to reach the same treetop height.

This beast was a Frankenstein-style combination of the body of a common African eland and the neck of a giraffe. We called it an “elaffe”.

The imaginary ‘elaffe’, with the lower body of an eland and an extended giraffe neck, would use even more energy to pump blood from its heart all the way up to its head. Estelle Mayhew / University of Pretoria

We found the animal would spend a whopping 21% of its total energy budget on powering its heart, compared with 16% in the giraffe and 6.7% in humans.

By raising its heart closer to its head by means of long legs, the giraffe “saves” a net 5% of the energy it takes in from food. Over the course of a year, this energy saving would add up to more than 1.5 tonnes of food – which could make the difference between life and death on the African savannah.

How giraffes work

In his book How Giraffes Work, zoologist Graham Mitchell reveals that the ancestors of giraffes had long legs before they evolved long necks.

This makes sense from an energy point of view. Long legs make the heart’s job easier, while long necks make it work harder.

The ancestors of giraffes evolved long legs before their long necks. Zirk Janssen Photography

However, the evolution of long legs came with a price of its own. Giraffes are forced to splay their forelegs while drinking, which makes them slow and awkward to rise and escape if a predator should appear.

Statistics show giraffes are the most likely of all prey mammals to leave a water hole without getting a drink.

How long can a neck be?

In life, the Giraffatitan dinosaur would most likely have been unable to lift its head this high. Shadowgate / Wikimedia, CC BY

The energy cost of the heart increases in direct proportion to the height of the neck, so there must be a limit. A sauropod dinosaur, the Giraffatitan, towers 13 metres above the floor of the Berlin Natural History Museum.

Its neck is 8.5m high, which would require a blood pressure of about 770mm Hg if it were to get blood to its head – almost eight times what we see in the average mammal. This is implausible because the heart’s energy cost to pump that blood would have exceeded the energy cost of the entire rest of the body.

Sauropod dinosaurs could not lift their heads that high without passing out. In fact, it is unlikely that any land animal in history could exceed the height of an adult male giraffe.

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.

COP30: NZ’s lack of climate ambition undermines global goals and free-trade agreements

2025-11-03T01:20:57Z

Climate change minister Simon Watts. Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

As nations prepare to gather in Brazil next week for this year’s United Nations climate summit COP30, only a third have so far submitted the required update on their emissions-reduction commitments, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

China, the world’s largest emitter, and major fossil fuel exporters such as Iran, Russia and Australia, are among states that have updated their NDCs, but they have been criticised for lack of ambition.

Likewise, New Zealand, which announced in February it would commit to reducing emissions by 51–55% below 2005 levels by 2035. This amounts to only 1–5% above the country’s previous NDC of a 50% cut by 2030 and has been described as “underwhelming”.

This comes as UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres warned that humanity has failed to keep warming at 1.5°C and must change course urgently towards deeper and faster emissions cuts.

The Paris Agreement requires states to pledge successively more ambitious NDCs. Technically, New Zealand’s NDC represents a progression, albeit the smallest possible one.

It was criticised as insufficiently aligned with the Paris Agreement’s purpose to hold global average temperature rise well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to keep it at 1.5°C.

Lack of climate ambition

Several domestic climate-related legal and policy changes are sending a message that New Zealand’s coalition government isn’t treating climate change as a high priority.

The Fast-track Approvals Act, which came into force at the end of 2024, has accelerated permits to explore and develop New Zealand’s petroleum and mineral resources (including metallurgical coal used in steel production), facilitating new fossil fuel use at home and abroad.

In August this year, the government passed the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2025 to overturn a ban on offshore oil and gas exploration which had been in place since 2018. It also pledged NZ$200 million to co-invest in the development of new gas fields.

In October, the government lowered targets for methane emissions. This will require an amendment to the country’s flagship climate legislation, the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019.

The previous target was to cut methane emissions from livestock by 25–47% below 2017 levels, but the government has reduced this to 14–24% and ruled out a methane tax on agricultural emissions. This is contrary to the Climate Change Commission’s recommendation to raise the target to 35–47%.

New Zealand’s transport emissions continue to rise but the government axed a clean investment fund. And recently, it softened mandatory climate reporting requirements and lifted the threshold for how big a company needs to be before it has to report on its efforts to cut emissions.

There are some welcome developments, including the government’s NZ$46 million investment in a climate finance initiative in partnership with the United Kingdom.

The Transforming Island Development through Electrification and Sustainability (TIDES) fund will finance renewable energy projects in six Pacific Island countries – Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands, Vanuatu and Solomon Islands – that currently rely on imported energy. This will strengthen the Pacific region’s renewable energy options and reduce reliance on polluting and expensive diesel imports.

Also positive are government plans to double renewable energy by 2050 and to install 10,000 electric vehicle charging stations by 2030, although critics point out little progress has been made towards the latter.

But perhaps the clearest signal of the government’s move away from climate-conscious leadership is the decision in June this year to quit the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA). Established at COP26 in 2021, BOGA is an international coalition of states working to accelerate the managed phase-out of oil and gas production and support a just transition to clean energy.

Trade and climate commitments

Many of these moves have been defended as necessary to deliver on the government’s priority to build a stronger and more productive economy.

The government sees trade as crucial to this. It has heralded the free-trade agreement between the European Union and New Zealand as a successful catalyst for boosted trade, supporting 8% growth in two-way trade and reaching a record $21.6 billion of annual trade in goods and services since it came into force in May 2024.

But the EU-NZ free-trade agreement should also act as a reminder that international trade must go hand in hand with responsible action on climate change. The agreement commits both parties to:

effectively implement the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, including commitments with regard to nationally determined contributions and … to refrain from any action or omission that materially defeats the object and purpose of the Paris Agreement.

It also requires parties to:

promote the mutual supportiveness of trade and climate policies and measures, thereby contributing to the transition to a low greenhouse gas emission, resource-efficient and circular economy and to climate-resilient development.

The central aim of the Paris Agreement is to strengthen the global response to climate change by limiting global temperature rise. Government actions that loosen emissions targets and facilitate and invest in new fossil fuel use are contrary to this aim.

Consequently, such actions risk undermining the EU-NZ free-trade agreement and other agreements crucial to delivering on the government’s promise of economic growth.

As New Zealand’s representatives head to Brazil, they should have this trade-climate connection firmly in mind. Climate-attuned policies at home alongside stronger international commitments, including an ambitiously revised NDC, are necessary for limiting destructive climate change. They also make good economic sense.

Nathan Cooper 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.

Is it aliens? Why that’s the least important question about interstellar objects

2025-11-03T01:17:38Z

Interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS, captured by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope captured on July 21 2025. NASA, ESA, David Jewitt (UCLA); Image Processing: Joseph DePasquale (STScI)

On October 29, Comet 3I/ATLAS reached its closest point to the Sun.

This point, known as perihelion, was around 210 million kilometres from the Sun, or 1.4 times the distance between the Sun and Earth, and it was on the opposite side of the Sun to Earth. This means the Sun has been blocking the comet from our view (from Earth). There are already reports it’s been detected again using ground-based telescopes.

The comet is the third interstellar object (hence the “3I”) we’ve detected flying through our Solar System.

When it was first detected on July 1 2025 by the Asteroid Terrestrial Last Alert System (or “ATLAS”), one of the first questions people asked was “but is it aliens?”.

This isn’t the first time the alien question has come up in the context of a new astronomical discovery. But although it might be fun, it can also detract from the real (and very cool) science, and fuel misinformation.

A long history of speculation

Similar alien speculation arose when the first two interstellar objects were discovered: 1I/2017 U1 ‘Oumuamua and Comet 2I/Borisov.

And it doesn’t just happen for interstellar objects.

In 2019, I wrote my first public article about a discovery I made as a PhD student. I had found radio light coming from a binary star system, the first object found by the MeerKAT telescope to be changing brightness over time. Even though this had nothing to do with aliens, the editor asked me to include speculation about them.

In 1967, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, then a PhD student, discovered a rapidly repeating flash of radio light.

As a joke, she labelled it LGM 1 for “Little Green Men”, but the astronomers working on it did not really believe they had discovered aliens. They were, however, concerned about the possibility that alien-related media coverage would sensationalise the discovery and hinder their scientific investigations.

A 7 billion-year-old visitor

This concern remains for astronomers today.

Comet 3I/ATLAS is possibly the oldest thing we’ve ever seen in our Solar System. Our Solar System formed 4.6 billion years ago, while recent research points to Comet 3I/ATLAS possibly being more than 7 billion years old.

It has spent a lot of that time zipping through the universe just to spend a few months in our Solar System. When the comet reached perihelion, that’s probably the closest it’s been to a star in at least millions of years.

Research has shown the comet has more carbon dioxide in its outer layers than has been seen in most comets in our Solar System. It also has a higher ratio of nickel to other elements than has been seen in local comets.

These chemical signatures give us a unique insight into the chemical composition of the cloud of gas that formed the solar system where the comet came from.

This is one of the key reasons why we should only be asking about aliens when all other possibilities are exhausted. When we talk about aliens first, we might miss all this amazing information.

As astronomer Carl Sagan said (in his rewording of a principle by French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace), “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. It’s true we can’t completely explain every detail of the comet yet, but not knowing everything is not evidence of aliens.

Embrace the uncertainties

Talking about aliens also leaves room for misinformation to spread.

For example, there have been claims of things such as trajectory shifts and Comet 3I/ATLAS “hiding” behind the Sun. Despite no evidence to support this, I received many questions along these lines when I spoke about the comet online. This demonstrates how easy it is for misinformation to be generated and spread when we’re talking about “aliens”.

There are ways to see the comet while it’s on the other side of the Sun. For example, the European Space Agency plans to observe the comet using the Mars Express, ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter and the Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer.

And if you’d like to see the trajectory of Comet 3I/ATLAS and find out where it is right now, you can.

There might be something to be learned from poets here. Romantic poet John Keats wrote about something he called “negative capability”. It’s a strange name, but the concept is about being able to sit with “uncertainties, mysteries and doubts” and be content with not knowing.

There’s a lot we don’t know about Comet 3I/ATLAS and about the universe. It wouldn’t be much fun to be an astronomer if we knew everything already. But when there’s something unknown, we humans like to fill that gap.

For astronomy mysteries, the gap tends to be filled with aliens. However, not knowing all the answers is not proof of aliens. It just means that we have work to do.

Laura Nicole Driessen is an ambassador for the Orbit Centre of Imagination at the Rise and Shine Kindergarten, in Sydney's Inner West.

Adult ADHD is diagnosed when you are ‘functionally impaired’. But what does that mean?

2025-11-03T01:14:55Z

Tim Roberts/Getty Images

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental condition that affects around 2.5% of adults and 7% of children. It causes difficulties with attention, impulsivity and hyperactivity.

If unrecognised and untreated, ADHD can significantly impact educational and work achievements, and social and emotional wellbeing. It can also increase the risks of serious accidents and injuries, offending, mental illness and substance abuse.

When accurately identified and appropriately treated, these negative outcomes can be significantly reduced.

But as a recent article in the Medical Journal of Australia highlights, some people struggle to access and afford diagnoses and treatment the disorder.

Meanwhile, some popular social media channels that provide online “tests” for ADHD are sponsored by private clinics that, once you have screened positive, direct you to their sites for an online assessment. This has raised concern about potential over-diagnosis.

So, what is ADHD diagnosis actually based on? A key component is functional impairment. Let’s take a look at what that means.

Why a brief assessment isn’t enough

In Australia, there are reports of business models where clinics are charging several thousand dollars for a quick, brief online assessment and diagnosis.

These brief assessments don’t comply with evidence-based guidelines and are problematic because they:

focus solely on ADHD and don’t attempt to assess other aspects of a person’s difficulties
rely heavily on information from the person being assessed and don’t seek the opinions of significant others
rely heavily on information about symptoms, gathered through questionnaires, and don’t assess their impact on day-to-day functioning.

This is important because a core requirement for a diagnosis of ADHD is evidence that the:

symptoms must interfere significantly with social, academic, or occupational functioning.

No matter how many symptoms you have, if they’re not having an impact on your day-to-day life, a diagnosis of ADHD shouldn’t be made.

So what is a comprehensive assessment?

To make an accurate diagnosis of ADHD, a comprehensive assessment is needed. This includes a clinical interview to evaluate the current and past presence (or absence) of each of the 18 core ADHD symptoms and associated impairment.

While there are scales such as the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale and the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule that can aid assessment, these are best used as conversation starters rather than stand-alone tools.

A comprehensive assessment also includes a broader assessment for current mental and physical health problems, developmental history, personal and family mental health, substance use, addiction and, where appropriate, interactions with the justice system.

This interview shouldn’t be conducted as a simple tick-box exercise, with yes and no answers. A detailed interview is needed to explore and identify symptoms, and evaluate their impact on functioning.

It’s also strongly recommended the clinician hears from one or more people who can speak to the person’s childhood and current functioning.

What counts as ‘functional impairment’ is very individual

The diagnostic manuals don’t give detailed accounts of what counts as significant enough impairment to be diagnosed with ADHD.

This has led some commentators to complain that lack of a standardised definition could lead to over-diagnosis.

But the impacts of ADHD are so broad it would be very difficult to formulate a clear, comprehensive and encompassing list of valid impairments.

Such a list would also fail to capture the very personalised nature of these impairments. What is impairing for me may not be for you and vice versa.

So a rigid definition would likely result in missed as well as mis-diagnoses.

How do clinicians determine if someone is impaired?

Clinicians are very used to assessing the impact of symptoms on functioning. They do so for many other mental and physical health conditions, including depression and anxiety.

Research has identified several common themes in ADHD:

impaired romantic, peer and professional relationships
parenting problems
impaired educational and occupational achievements
increased accidents and unintentional injuries
driving offences
broader offending
substance use and abuse
risky sexual behaviours.

ADHD symptoms are often associated with:

emotional dysregulation
exhausting levels of mental and physical restlessness
low self-esteem
fatigue
high stress levels.

One caveat is that some people are receiving a lot of support and scaffolding or have found ways to compensate for their difficulties. Whether or not this should count as impairment depends on the circumstances and requires considerable thought.

However, ADHD shouldn’t be ruled out on the basis of high levels of achievement in certain aspects of life like school or work. A person may be under-achieving relative to their potential, or having to put in extreme levels of effort to keep afloat.

An adult with ADHD, for example, may be excelling at work but by the end of the workday is too exhausted to do anything but sleep. They may also be experiencing impairments in other aspects of their lives that aren’t obvious unless specifically asked about.

Others will present multiple impacts that, when explored, aren’t true functional impairments.

So it’s crucial clinicians drill down into the details until they’re confident that it is or isn’t a genuine impairment related to the core ADHD symptoms.

Clinician training is essential

The skill of accurately assessing impairments in ADHD is not difficult to train or learn. This is done by observing experienced clinicians and practising with structured protocols.

Newly trained clinicians quickly become confident in assessing impairment and there is generally close agreement between different professionals about whether an ADHD diagnosis should be made.

However, few health professionals currently get high-quality training in ADHD either during their core or more advanced training. This must change if we’re going to improve the accuracy of assessment and reduce missed and mis-diagnoses.

David Coghill has received honoraria from Medice, Novartis, Takeda and Servier and royalties from Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. He receives research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Australian Medical Research Futures Fund, and the Financial Markets Foundation for Children. He is the President and a director of the Australasian ADHD Professionals Association.

Coalition’s primary vote plunges to record low and One Nation surges to record high in Newspoll

2025-11-03T00:22:17Z

The Coalition’s primary vote slumped four points to a record low 24% in the latest Newspoll, while One Nation was up four points to a record high 15%. One Nation also surged to 15% in an Essential poll.

The national Newspoll, conducted October 27–30 from a sample of 1,265 voters, gave Labor a 57–43% lead over the Coalition, unchanged from the previous Newspoll in early October.

Primary votes were 36% for Labor (down one point), 24% for the Coalition (down four points), 15% for One Nation (up four points), 11% for the Greens (down one point) and 14% for all others (up two points).

Analyst Kevin Bonham said the poll set or matched a few records:

the worst Coalition primary vote ever in a public national poll
a tie for the highest One Nation vote in a national poll, matching last week’s Essential poll
the lowest combined vote for Labor and the Coalition in Newspoll history.

The Coalition’s previous worst primary vote was 27% in a mid-September Newspoll.

In the new Newspoll, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s net approval was down four points to -5, with 51% of voters dissatisfied with his performance and 46% satisfied.

Opposition leader Sussan Ley’s net approval slumped 13 points to -33; she has dropped 24 points since August.

Albanese led Ley by 54–27% as better prime minister, compared to 52–30% in early October.

This is the graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll with a trend line. Labor easily won the 2025 election, despite his ratings being negative at the time.

Australia may be on a trajectory where One Nation overtakes the Coalition to become the main right-wing party. Far-right parties have already overtaken centre-right parties in some European countries.

In the United Kingdom, the Election Maps UK poll aggregate has the far-right Reform party leading with 30.5%, followed by Labour at 19.1%, the Conservatives at 17.5%, the Liberal Democrats at 13.4% and the Greens at 12.6%. With the UK’s first-past-the-post voting system, Reform would win a majority of House of Commons seats on this polling.

Even if One Nation overtakes the Coalition in Australia, the Australian Labor Party has a far higher primary vote than UK Labour. I expect Coalition preferences would favour One Nation, but as long as the combined vote for Labor, the Greens and left-leaning others holds up, One Nation wouldn’t win an Australian election.

Essential poll: One Nation surges to 15%

The national Essential poll, conducted October 22–26 from a sample of 1,041 voters, gave Labor a 50–44% lead over the Coalition by respondent preferences, including undecided voters. Labor’s lead was 51–44% in late September.

Primary votes were 36% for Labor (up one point), 26% for the Coalition (down one point), 15% for One Nation (up two points), 9% for the Greens (down two points), 8% for all others (up one point) and 6% undecided (steady).

By 2025 election preference flows, Labor would lead the Coalition by a more than 55–45% margin.

Albanese’s net approval was up three points in the Essential poll to +1, with 45% of respondents approving of his performance and 44% disapproving. Ley’s net approval was down two points to -11.

On Albanese’s October 20 meeting with US President Donald Trump in Washington, 37% thought it was good for Australia’s long-term interests, 18% bad and 26% said it would have no real impact.

On the direction the Liberals should take to provide an alternative government, 48% of total respondents said they should adopt more progressive positions, 24% more conservative positions and 28% thought they should maintain their current positions. Among only Coalition voters, 49% were in favour of more progressive positions, compared to 29% for more conservative.

Ley was thought best to lead the Liberals by 13% of total respondents, followed by Andrew Hastie and Jacinta Price at 10% each, with 42% unsure. Among only Coalition voters, Ley had 22%, Hastie 20% and Price 13%.

Overall, respondents supported Australia’s target to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 by a 44–27% margin. Among only Coalition voters, this support shrank to 38%, with 35% opposed.

Labor has big lead in NSW DemosAU poll

A New South Wales state poll by DemosAU and Premier National, conducted October 17–22 from a sample of 1,016 voters, gave Labor a 59–41% lead over the Coalition (compared to Labor’s lead of 54.3–45.7% at the March 2023 election).

Primary votes were 37% for Labor, 30% for the Coalition, 13% for the Greens and 20% for all others.

The next NSW election will be in March 2027. Before the May federal election, Labor had been struggling in the NSW polls, but the party has surged since then.

Labor Premier Chris Minns led the Liberals’ Mark Speakman by 44–25% as preferred premier in the poll. Cost of living was rated the most important issue by 36% of respondents, followed by housing affordability on 25%.

Upper house voting intentions were 30% for Labor, 21% for the Coalition, 15% for One Nation, 13% for the Greens, 5% for Family First and 3% each for Animal Justice and Legalise Cannabis.

Half of the 42 upper house seats will be up for election in 2027, using statewide proportional representation with preferences.

Polls of upper house voting intentions are rare in Australia and typically understate major party support. It’s unrealistic for the combined vote for the Coalition and Labor in the upper house to be 16 points below the lower house figure.

Queensland DemosAU poll has solid LNP lead

A Queensland state poll by DemosAU and Premier National, conducted October 13–20 from a sample of 1,006 respondents, gave the Liberal National Party (LNP) a 54–46% lead over Labor, a one-point gain for Labor since a July DemosAU poll.

Primary votes were 37% for the LNP (down three points), 29% for Labor (up one point), 14% for One Nation (up two points), 12% for the Greens (down one point) and 8% for all others (up one point).

LNP Premier David Crisafulli led Labor’s Steven Miles as preferred premier by a 44–32% margin.

On the biggest issue facing Queensland, 30% said lack of affordable housing, 27% cost of living and 20% crime. On the performance of the government on key issues, the LNP had net ratings of -36 on housing and -38 on cost of living, but a much better rating on crime (-2).

A recent Resolve Queensland poll had primary votes that implied a narrow Labor lead after preferences. This DemosAU poll is far better for the LNP.

Midterm elections in Argentina and Trump’s ratings slide

In Argentina’s midterm elections on October 26, far-right President Javier Milei’s Liberty Advances party made decisive gains in both chambers of the legislature, though it still remains short of a majority. I covered these elections for The Poll Bludger.

In the United States, Trump’s net approval rating in analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls has dropped to -11.8 (with 54.6% of Americans disapproving of his performance, compared to 42.9% approving). This is down 4.2 points since October 20.

Trump’s falling approval ratings could be linked to the ongoing government shutdown in the US, which began on October 1 and is now poised to become the longest in US history, breaking the 35-day record set during Trump’s first term.

Voters will head to the polls on Tuesday in the US in several key elections, including the governorship in Virginia and New Jersey and the mayoral race in New York City. Democratic front-runner Zohran Mamdani has led independent candidate and former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in the New York City race, though the polls have tightened in recent days.

I will follow the election results for The Poll Bludger.

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.

Tony Abbott’s history of Australia wants us to be proud of men like him

2025-11-03T00:10:08Z

Former prime minister (and journalist) Tony Abbott has published a political history of Australia. Across 18 well-written chapters, he narrates the nation’s trajectory, starting with the establishment of a penal colony in 1788 and ending with the failed Voice referendum of 2023. Abbott’s aim is to restore national pride by showing that our past was “far more good than bad”.

Review: Australia: A History – Tony Abbott (Harper Collins)

This “balance sheet” approach was first introduced to Australia by historian Geoffrey Blainey in 1993, sparking the “history wars”. Argument focused on the impact of colonisation on Indigenous Australians and especially the scale of frontier warfare. Abbott’s perspective also feeds into the continuing culture war about Britain’s imperial past and polarised views about how to remember the Empire. As historian Stuart Ward recently noted, such debate is as old as imperialism itself.

Abbott begins with a rebuke to professional historians:

This is the book that never should have been needed. Until quite recently it was taken for granted that Australia was a country that all its citizens could take pride in, even the Aboriginal people, for whom the 1967 referendum marked full, if belated, acceptance into the Australian community.

His lifelong passion for history, he explains, was sparked by the Ladybird books, specifically the “adventures from history” series he read as a child. These narrated “great things done […] by great men and women”. He too tells his story in part through “key individuals”.

For Abbott, Australia has been a project characterised by “a consistent high-mindedness, a largeness of spirit or liberality” from its political leaders.

But Abbott’s Australia is narrowly conceived, excluding the perspectives of non-British cultures, women, and especially First Nations people. Abbott wants us to be proud of the achievements of men like him.

The Ladybird history of Australia?

Much of his account offers a very readable synthesis of mainstream historical research, and he acknowledges his research team, Andrew Kemp, Alex McDermott, Paddy O'Leary and Dom O’Leary, supported by the Institute of Public Affairs.

The first third of the book covers the 19th century, from “1788 and all that”, to the achievement of federation. But a series of omissions allows him to tell a story of linear progress from an “ancient” past to modernity, as signalled by the book’s tagline: “How an ancient land became a great democracy”.

Most glaring is his cartoonish depiction of First Nations culture, whose history he states is “now largely lost”, evident only through archaeological traces and colonial records. Citing anthropologist W.E.H. Stanner, Abbott characterises Aboriginality as “timeless”, reducing traditional life to a “tough existence”. He quotes from Robert Hughes’ 1986 blockbuster The Fatal Shore, which described “a ceaseless grubbing and chasing for subsistence foods”. This was a derogatory description, even for its time.

Abbott ignores the last half-century of scholarship, which has explored the richness and dynamism of First Nations life across the continent. He dismisses the survival of Indigenous traditions and knowledge into the present. In this way, First Nations cultures are relegated to a static primitivism, which has no place in a modern nation state.

He pays far more attention to British history, arguing that by the 1780s Britain had “become the world’s leading power and most enlightened country”. This is the first of many such claims to be “the best”. Again:

The Britain of the 1780s was […] at the forefront of the liberal enlightenment, of the development of private property rights, the growth of markets and the beginning of the anti-slavery crusade.

Yet praise for the anti-slavery movement is not matched by acknowledgement of Britain’s status as the world’s leading slave-trading nation during the years of its “enlightenment”. British slavery was only abolished in 1833 and thus was entangled with Australian colonisation for more than 50 years.

Such selectivity allows him to paint a rosy picture of the convict system. He adopts conservative historian John Hirst’s argument, focusing on the era of Governor Macquarie in Sydney, that convicts enjoyed relative freedom in colonial society. Hirst suggested that the independence granted to many convicts after emancipation was the foundation of democratic institutions and an egalitarian Australian ethos.

Abbott’s insistence that “convicts were not slaves”, and that “Sydney could hardly have been less like a slave colony” is sharply contradicted by contemporary evidence for the system’s brutality and heartbreak.

For example, as Bermuda-born Chief Justice of New South Wales Francis Forbes explained in 1825, Australian convicts were not proto-citizens. As a “West Indian” himself, he thought their assigned masters regarded them “precisely in the same way as a planter in the West Indies regards his slaves”.

Indeed, Macquarie and his first wife Jane, the daughter of a wealthy Antiguan slave-owner, bought “two young, smart slave Boys” as household servants while stationed in Bombay in 1795 and they came with his household to Sydney.

Thus Abbott argues for a “comparatively benign experience” for convicts sent to New South Wales. This is indeed the Ladybird view of history, omitting any darkness or complexity.

Abbott’s denial echoes former prime minister Scott Morrison’s June 2020 comments that “there was no slavery” in Australia’s history, which prompted heated responses from First Nations leaders.

The Australian Wars

Abbott and his research team have moved on from the “history wars” debate about frontier violence, acknowledging this now well-established history. However, Abbott’s account of colonialism remains a partial story.

Evidence for the rigorously researched Colonial Frontier Massacre Map, which records around 11,257 Aboriginal deaths between 1788 and 1930, is termed “guesstimates” by Abbott. Conflict, he writes, was a result of pastoral expansion and “the survival of the fittest”. But he challenges a view of “the expansion of settlement as only a series of ‘frontier wars’”.

Instead, Abbott suggests that conflict was tempered by the “indispensable” role of Aboriginal labour and local knowledge in the settling of Australia. Settlers’ children were cared for by “Aboriginal tribes”. Frontier warfare is construed as scattered episodes of “conflict” or “massacre”, rather than integral to the system of colonisation.

Later in his book, Abbott claims gun reform after the Port Arthur Massacre was relatively easy to accomplish because we lack an “entrenched gun culture”, due to “our relatively peaceful settlement”. Another new book shows otherwise.

The Australian Wars, following director and editor Rachel Perkins’ successful SBS documentary series, presents extensive research. The book’s editors, Perkins, Stephen Gapps, Mina Murray and Henry Reynolds, demonstrate that Indigenous nations resisted occupation of their lands “territory by territory”, as the frontier moved across the continent.

As Perkins explains, these were Australian Wars because combatants fought for “a way of life and sovereignty of a whole continent”.

Abbott’s is a Sydney-centric origin story, which also excludes the centuries-old regional engagement across the continent’s north. This is dismissed in a sentence as “a bit of canoe traffic around northern Queensland and some trepang trading with Indonesian fishermen”.

Western Australian readers will be surprised to hear that their state was also an offshoot of the convict system. Misleadingly, Abbott suggests Sydney emancipist Solomon Levey initiated the Swan River colony by providing the necessary capital. In fact, the drivers of western colonisation included imperial rivalry, trade and a desire for new products. Levey was just one of numerous private investors who saw a profit to be made from the continent’s first free colony. Freedom from the convict taint was a key selling point.

Abbott is on surer ground as he moves into the 20th century. He devotes the book’s middle third to the new nation’s “bold experiment” of democratic institutions, participation in two world wars and the Great Depression. In focusing on federal leadership and summarising the key events of Australian politics, Abbott and his team are at their best. The final third of the book spans the post-war “liberal revival” of the 1940s and 1950s to the Sydney Olympics in 2000.

As a political history, perhaps it is not surprising there are few if any “great women” in Abbott’s account. Nor that the impact of his “great men’s” policies upon others generally remains unexamined. Thus the idealistic, rights-informed vision for Aboriginal assimilation devised by Paul Hasluck, Menzies’ Minister for Territories, is fairly set out. Yet the impact of child removal upon Aboriginal families is downplayed.

There is no mention of the Stolen Generations, nor the landmark 1997 Bringing Them Home report – just an index entry for “Aboriginal Australians, removal of children from”.

Abbott’s bias toward his own side of politics is also to be expected. The 1975 Dismissal of Gough Whitlam by governor general Sir John Kerr, for example, is portrayed as the sensible democratic solution to political deadlock. Alternative views of this event are omitted, for example Jenny Hocking’s analysis of more than 200 palace letters between Kerr and the queen, revealing his prior consultation with the monarchy before he sacked Whitlam.

Linking past and present

As we approach the present, Abbott abandons his measured tone, celebrating the glory days of the Hawke–Howard era. The final chapter, titled “Drifting Backwards”, offers a counterweight to the boosterish tone of the rest of the book. Here, Abbott switches from history to lament the “cultural confusion” of our present moment.

Howard, he suggests, might be our “best-ever PM”, despite initiatives which later became “problematic”. These included a ban on introducing civil nuclear power, establishing renewable energy targets, environmental legislation “that gave green busy-bodies legal standing” and a commitment to “acknowledging Indigenous people in the Constitution”. Abbott’s own achievements were to stop the boats, repeal carbon and mining taxes, and “the biggest federal infrastructure spend in history”.

Abbott’s choice to end with the Voice referendum is significant. In his words, this was “the rejection of the proposed entrenchment in our nation’s Constitution of a new body chosen by Indigenous people only and comprising Indigenous people only but with a significant say over the government of all of us”.

Abbott’s characterisation is wrong. The October 2023 referendum asked voters to approve an alteration to the Australian constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by creating a “Voice” able to make representations to parliament on matters relating to First Nations peoples. While its final form was undecided, this body would have offered advice only.

For Abbott, this would have given First Nations people “a status and a say beyond that of everyone else”. Its rejection was a triumph for an “essentially colourblind” society.

But we do not live in an equal, “colourblind” society. Many inequalities in the present are the outcome of the structural nature of colonial violence, the Stolen Generations and Indigenous pain. Abbott’s partial history precludes recognition of these links.

In 1998, historian Mark McKenna noted in his parliamentary report, Different Perspectives on Black Armband History, there was broad agreement regarding “content” from both sides. Disagreement focused on “emphasis”. He suggested that, “As a people, we are trying to come to terms with the fact that ‘Australian’ history is no longer written purely from the perspective of the majority.”

Similarly, multiculturalism expert Andrew Jakubowicz argues democratic societies work on the basis of how much trust there is between people. Commenting on the two recent reports to the government by its envoys to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia, he noted that different communities need to recognise and respect “the sort of pain that the others have”.

In this sense, Abbott’s history of Australia returns us to the polarised “black armband” 1990s and the refusal to recognise others’ experience.

Abbott never spells out exactly why we should feel national pride. I assume on one level he sees it as the basis for unity. Nor does he question whether “pride” is necessarily an outcome of being “the best” or having a “good” history.

But when I talk to my students about the idea that we should judge our history as either “good” or “bad”, they are quick to challenge this approach. They see historical processes such as imperialism as complex, with diverse outcomes and perspectives.

For some of us, confronting our unequal past is no cause for shame or pessimism. On the contrary, truth telling and recognition of diverse views seem necessary for a united future.

Jane Lydon receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Your say: week beginning November 3

2025-11-02T19:38:17Z

Every day, we publish a selection of your emails in our newsletter. We’d love to hear from you, you can email us at yoursay@theconversation.edu.au.

Monday November 3

Home for a family

“It seems blindingly obvious to me that one of the main reasons the fertility rate is declining is because of the lack of housing affordability. I am in my early 20s and the number one comment from my peers when talking about children is that we’ll never be able to find stable, affordable housing to bring a child home to. Gen Y and Z are struggling to find stable and affordable housing to suit a couple, let alone something fit for a family. I have always wanted children, but they now genuinely seem like a luxury I won’t be able to home, afford, or provide for.”

Jade Needham

Bypassing the BOM

“Like a large number of Australians, I also dislike the new format of the BOM radar offering. While the Bureau inserted the new format into the longstanding rain radar website, it did not remove the much-loved ‘traditional’ rain radar. Rather, the much-loved ‘traditional’ rain radar has been moved to a different web page. For those like me who prefer to engage with the much loved rain radar, go to: reg.bom.gov.au”

Dr Bruce Moon

Republishing shocker

“I’m very disappointed to learn people ‘borrow’ and benefit from your work (Wednesday, October 29), although we can understand your response. We do the same – share our books for negligible profit so the world can read these unique stories. On that basis we are making a small donation. Thank you for your service.”

Anna Borzi AM

ED: Thank you for your generosity, Anna. You can read more about our republishing here.

Tuesday November 4

Entrenched stereotypes

“The continuing discrepancy between men’s and women’s wages and housework contribution is an old story, based on deeply entrenched patriarchal stereotypes. When I asked my then-husband some 40 years ago for a little help with the housework, his response was to bellow: ‘You earn as much money as I do and I’ll do as much housework as you do!’ Hole in one. Yet he had contributed to my situation by refusing to let me work once the children came along.”

Alison Lambert

Sporting volunteers

“In the article on unpaid work I had difficulty finding anything that mentions the thousands of hours volunteers spend managing recreation and sporting activities. I spent 15 years in volunteer club administration at club and state level. Incidentally, a large proportion of those duties were being undertaken by men (and yes, plenty of women too). Coaching, organising clubs and competitions, afternoon teas, putting up goalnets, keeping clubrooms clean after the game, preparing season fixtures, umpires, scorers … you get the idea.”

Peter Nicholls

Men are slower

“The number of hours spent on domestic chores is a poor comparator. Men work at a much slower speed than women, so do less work in a given timeframe. Ask any woman.”

Lee Grosberg

Wednesday November 5

Buying a home

“To Jade (Your Say, Monday November 3), don’t despair, be patient, remain focussed and do your research to put a plan in place. Time is on your side. I was 33-years-old when we had our first child to bring home to a modest house.”

Ross Melrose

Thanks, Bev!

“Today I was reminded again of the rich variety of well-researched topics available in The Conversation. I am a curious young/elderly person and could not have access if they were beyond a paywall. My mornings reading the daily email often set the tone of my day and lead to further exploration through the links. Please continue to enrich my end days by continuing your daily publication.”

Bev Cranwell

Fewer mistakes please

“Having had a career of almost half a century as a sub-editor, I see reminders every day of how editing standards have declined. In Monday’s newsletter the term ‘average woman’ raised my hackles, because there is no such thing. Only numbers can be expressed as an average, and there are various ways of measuring it. The newsletter also contains ‘fall between the cracks’. This should be through, as presumably there is solid metaphorical material between the cracks.”

Ken Turnbull, Maldon VIC

‘Wog’ humour, tense US politics and real-world monsters: what to watch in November

2025-11-02T18:59:41Z

Netflix, 10play

As the year begins to wind down, and the days grow longer, our critics have a fresh slate of films and series to keep you glued to your screen.

This month’s streaming picks include a 90s “filmic time capsule”, some tense US political drama (refreshingly set in a non-Trumpian America), and the harrowing real-life story of child sex abuse at a Jewish school in Melbourne. There’s also some sharp, tender animation from the creator of Bojack Horseman.

Whether you’re chasing comfort, catharsis or a good cliffhanger, November’s streaming picks are sure to delight.

Surviving Malka Leifer

Stan

Surviving Malka Leifer, directed by Adam Kamien, centres the survivors of Leifer’s abuse. Sisters Nicole Meyer, Dassi Erlich and Elly Sapper reveal their trauma and claim their power through this film.

The sisters are interviewed alone and together and we see their video diaries. While the sisters recount their abuse, we are often taken into a constructed dollhouse, classroom and courtroom where the sisters are represented as tiny dolls. A spider moves about these constructed rooms – it appears enormous relative to the dolls.

Alongside Freya Berkhout’s haunting original music and the raw accounts of the documentary subjects, these devices heighten the sense of risk and vulnerability in the film. As we follow the chronology of the sisters’ campaign to bring Leifer to Australia, we become ever more engaged in their rising panic about whether she will face justice.

We learn about the sisters’ psychological torment, to the point of suicidality and hospitalisation. The delay in justice is central to the film’s narrative. The sisters’ trauma was compounded over their many years of campaigning and waiting.

Surviving Malka Leifer tells several important stories. We see how the perceived interests of an insular religious community are prioritised over the victims of sexual abuse. We see how legal processes, especially when protracted, re-traumatise victims and maintain their vulnerability as abusers pose counter-narratives before courts.

We also see three women who have persisted through unimaginable trauma in their campaign for justice. Their courage is breathtaking.

– Amy Maguire

The Diplomat, season three

Netflix

Season three of The Diplomat is back, with romance and comedy wrapped up in high politics. Star of the show, Keri Russell, is the United States ambassador in London and a possible candidate for the vice presidency. Instead she ends up as second lady, maintaining a trans-Atlantic marriage with her vice-president husband, the infuriating Hal Wyler (Rufus Sewell).

The program is infused with nostalgia for a pre-Trumpian world, symbolised by the ascension of President Grace Penn (Allison Janney) who, like her First Gentleman Todd Penn (Bradley Whitford), also starred in West Wing (1999-2006). That series, with its thoughtful and liberal president, represented a vision of politics which has now largely vanished in the US.

Meanwhile there is growing tension between the US and Britain, whose prime minister Nicol Trowbridge (Rory Kinnear) is a thug without charm. This tension dates back to an attack on a British naval vessel, in which the US was apparently involved. But if the exact reasons for it seem murky, it’s because the show moves at such a fast pace – and we are carried along as it features increasingly improbable romantic entanglements.

The Penn White House remains more attractive than its real-life counterpart. And President Penn doesn’t seem interested in demolishing part of the building.

– Dennis Altman

The Celebrity Traitors UK

ThreeNow (New Zealand) and 10 Play (Australia)

The British didn’t do The Traitors first, but they definitely do it the best. The reality show pits traitors against faithful in a social deduction game built on bluffs, double bluffs, “murders” and banishments – with a stack of money awaiting the winners.

The latest season, technically a spin-off, stars UK celebrities – and it’s really bloody good. As usual, there’s dramatic footage of the Scottish Highlands, the looming Adross castle, many extremely camp cutaways, some outrageous and well-produced outdoor missions, and host Claudia Winkleman stalking around in impeccable knitwear, whispering threats and encouragements in equal measure.

The winnings (apart from bragging rights) go to charity. Kudos to the casting director; this season’s lineup features national treasures such as Sir Stephen Fry and Jonathan Ross (dubbed the “big dogs” early on), as well as sporting stars, actors, singers, comedians, presenters and Gen Z celebs. They’re all thrown into scenarios that cut through carefully curated personas.

The season particularly excels at juxtaposing the gothic with absurdity. Where else would beloved actress Celia Imrie be caught out loudly stress-farting before a particularly gross challenge? It also plays with preexisting friendships and professional relationships in a sly fashion, as the cast struggle to play as strategically as “civilian” casts usually do.

You might tear your hair out at some people’s ability (or lack of) to figure out the show’s deceptions, but it all makes for impeccable viewing for old fans and newbies alike.

– Erin Harrington

Son of a Donkey

Netflix

Son of A Donkey, from the comedy duo Superwog (brothers Theodore and Nathan Saidden), tells the epic tale of Theo, his best friend Johnny, and Theo’s unnamed parents as Theo attempts to buy back his impounded car and to resolve his daddy issues once and for all.

Superwog are part of the third wave of wog humour. Here, their skewering of the vagaries of modern life leans more to the carnival of Pizza (2000–07) than the cosmopolitan ethos of Acropolis Now (1989–92). But the juxtaposition of classical music against some of the show’s more ridiculous scenes serves as a sly wink to its audience.

Its satire of an Epstein-esque sex island, conspiracy theorists, Jordan Peterson and the manosphere is at once ludicrous and needle-sharp. Even as they sink into a misogynist rabbit-hole, Johnny’s grandma is there to remind them who really is the boss in the ethnic family.

The main challenge for the Saidden brothers is to move from the disconnected episodic approach of Superwog to a cohesive narrative arc for Son of A Donkey. In this, they largely succeed, progressing the overarching story incrementally across the six episodes even as each has their own micro-misadventure.

Ultimately – despite flying shoes and rancid food – wog blood is thicker than water.

– Jess Carniel

Monster: The Ed Gein Story

Netflix

The Ed Gein Story is the third season of Ryan Murphy’s anthology series, Monster, an examination of violent killers at the centre of some of America’s most shocking crimes. This latest instalment follows the life and crimes of one of the most culturally impactful serial killers of the 20th century – a man who inspired the films Psycho (1960), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and The Silence of the Lambs (1991).

Perhaps most surprising, then, given Gein’s reputation, is the sensitivity and empathy shown to him in Murphy’s portrayal. In Monster, Gein is abused, downtrodden, soft-spoken, lonely and easily confused. His killings are (largely) unplanned – the result of bursts of anger. His desecration and mutilation of corpses is suggested to be a simultaneous function of his desire to bring his much-missed mother back to life, and to experiment with his own gender identity.

Murphy’s depiction is not limited to a reenactment of Gein’s crimes. It also looks at his influence on popular culture, via other serial killers who emulate his actions, as well as big-screen adaptations by directors such as Alfred Hitchcock.

But ultimately, as Monster would have it, it is we who are responsible for Gein’s celebrity. As Gein himself tells the viewer: “you’re the one who can’t look away”.

– Jessica Gildersleeve

Mother and Son, season two

ABC iView

Season two of Mother and Son, a beautiful remake of the original 1980s–90s Australian sitcom, is just as strong as the first. And luckily, viewers don’t need to have seen the original show in order to enjoy it. The latest season features significant character development, as well as some delightful gender and genre gear shifts that make for cutting-edge situational comedy.

There is not one weak link in the ensemble cast. Denise Scott, who plays the mother, Maggie, and Matt Okine, who plays her son Arthur, are one of the best pairings in recent comedy history. They are supported the most by Angela Nica Sullen, the “golden child” Robbie, and the lovely alternative parent/adult child pairing of Tony and Maya, played respectively by Ferdinand Hoang and Catherine Van-Davies.

The tension between comedy and accessibility – especially the looming “D word” (dementia) for Maggie, and Arthur’s social isolation – makes the story arc of each episode and the overall season quite compelling.

This season is a collection of dark, funny and thoughtful moments. And the stunning cameos from Jean Kittson and Virginia Gray are wonderful easter eggs for those with a deeper knowledge of Australian comedy.

– Liz Giuffre

House of Dynamite

Netflix

It’s Dr. Strangelove meets Rashomon in Kathryn Bigelow’s House of Dynamite. The film has blasted onto Netflix with 22.1 million views in the first three days.

It details the 39-minute countdown until a nuclear missile hits America’s mainland. The Pentagon has taken issue with the film over its claim that America’s missile defence system isn’t perfect, whereas screenwriter Noah Oppenheim stands by his research for the film. Oppenheim is, however, “glad” the Pentagon watched it – “or is watching and is paying attention to it, because this is exactly the conversation we want to have”.

The ensemble cast is stacked with Rebecca Ferguson, Anthony Ramos, Tracy Letts, Idris Elba, Gabriel Basso, Greta Lee, Kaitlyn Dever and Jared Harris all having great moments in the tense drama.

House of Dynamite has a Rashomon-style narrative, where the countdown is told three times over with new perspectives each time. In the first segment, Rebecca Ferguson holds a tense conference call where we hear the voices of Greta Lee and Idris Elba, and see Jared Harris and Gabriel Basso via a screen. In later segments, we see this countdown from their perspectives.

Some may find the handheld camera distracting, and the ending frustrating, but the film is nonetheless intense, with Bigelow never letting up the pressure. With its apolitical, hard-working staffers, it feels very at odds with the contemporary political climate. This seems a deliberate choice from Bigelow.

In the moment, several players realise that while they know they need to focus on their jobs, they have loved ones in the target city. Do they stop what they are doing and tell them they only have minutes left to live?

– Stuart Richards

Disclosure

Netflix

There is almost an unwritten rule that every great 1990s thriller must have Michael Douglas playing the scandal-prone leading man. Douglas doesn’t disappoint in Disclosure (1994). He pays Tom Sanders, a middle manager at the DigiCom computer company who is falsely accused of sexual harassment. Demi Moore is also at the height of her star power here playing Meredith Johnson, the young, predatory career woman who lies and cheats her way to the top.

However, it’s Donald Sutherland who really steals the show as Bob Garvin, the power-hungry director who gets a sadistic thrill from playing favourites among the staff, and promoting his sexy, surrogate “daughter” Meredith above more senior and meritorious colleagues.

There are many guilty pleasures in this 90s filmic time capsule. First, there is the nostalgic amusement of watching clunky, outdated technologies (answering machines! CD-ROMS!) being presented as contemporary or even cutting-edge. The film also features a deliciously melodramatic soundtrack and other neo-noir elements. The first image we have of Meredith Johnson (Demi Moore), for example, is a close shot of her black, killer high heels. When the camera pans up to her blood red lips and defiant stare, we are reminded of the old sexist stereotype of the manipulative “vamp”.

Like many other erotic thrillers of the 1990s (think Fatal Attraction) Disclosure offers the politically-conservative reaction against female power that feminist Susan Faludi famously described as the “backlash”. The film is certainly dated in its sexual politics. On the other hand, its subplot about economic recession, redundancies, ruined careers, competition and corruption remain relevant and very entertaining.

– Susan Hopkins

Long Story Short, season one

Netflix

Long Story Short is a quirky adult animation that oozes charm and heartfelt realness. The series centres on podcast scriptwriter and playlist creator, Avi Schwooper, a character based somewhat on the lived experiences of creator Raphael Bob-Waksberg, the mind behind BoJack Horseman (2014–2020).

In this first season, Long Story Short explores Avi’s everyday existence in California, negotiating his complex attachments to his parents, siblings, ex-wife, daughter, and his Jewish faith.

Episodes jump between various decades and generations up to the 2020s and routinely grapple with the absurd. Episode 6 (“Wolves”) satirises the public education system in the US via a bizarre lockdown situation, which occurs when wolves start roaming the halls of the middle school Avi’s daughter, Hannah, attends.

Episode 3 (“There’s a Mattress in There”) also stands out as affecting. It focuses on Avi’s neurodivergent brother, Yoshi, on a quest to prove himself equal to his siblings, only to be undone by unscrupulous capitalists.

Visually speaking, the series has a groovy colour palette reminiscent of vintage storybooks, and a distinctive hand-drawn aesthetic. Each figure is both exaggerated yet realistic in a way that avoids slipping into caricature thanks to the influence of designer and supervising producer Lisa Hanawalt.

There are some strong, resonant themes around family, memory, selfhood and generational continuity. It is funny, yet achingly sad – a bit like life, really.

– Phoebe Hart

Amy Maguire receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Jess Carniel received funding from the Army History Unit for her research into wog history.

Dennis Altman, Erin Harrington, Jessica Gildersleeve, Liz Giuffre, Phoebe Hart, Stuart Richards, and Susan Hopkins 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.

Here’s why people with mental illness die, on average, 11 years earlier than other Australians

2025-11-02T18:59:23Z

AlexLinch/Getty

If you know five people, the chances are at least one is living with a mental health condition. More than 8.5 million Australians will need mental health treatment in their lifetime for depression, anxiety, substance use and or psychosis.

But why do these people die on average more than a decade earlier than people who don’t access mental health support?

People aged 15–74 who are treated for mental illness make up just over 22% of the total population. But they account for almost half (49.3%) of all premature deaths.

The vast majority die due to physical health issues – and they’re preventable.

Life expectancy has increased for others

Over the past 30 years, Australians overall have enjoyed a five to six year increase in life expectancy. This is largely due to improvements in health care and healthier behaviours, such as reductions in smoking and advances in early detection and treatment of cancer and heart disease.

However, people with mental illness have not enjoyed the same increases in life expectancy, leading to a widening gap.

This is true for a range of mental health conditions.

People with serious mental illnesses, such as psychosis, die on average 14 years earlier than the general population. Those with more common mental illnesses, such as depression and anxiety, also face a shorter life expectancy, dying 9–13 years earlier.

What are people with mental illness dying from?

Contrary to popular belief, the life expectancy gap among people with mental illness is not due to suicide.

Suicide makes up 1.6% of deaths, while the leading causes of early death are preventable physical conditions such as cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease and diabetes.

Our 2024 study used national data to analyse deaths from chronic diseases among people with mental illness. We found they were two to six times more likely to die prematurely than the rest of the population.

For example, people with mental illness are five to six times more likely to die from breast or prostate cancer than the rest of the population, and four times more likely to die from diabetes.

Overall, this leads to 16,658 preventable deaths for this population each year.

Why is this happening?

Many interconnected factors contribute to this health disparity. They include discrimination, socioeconomic disadvantage, access barriers, medication side effects, and the symptoms of the mental illness itself.

People with mental illness often face prejudice and discrimination, including from health-care workers, making them reluctant to seek care. When they raise health concerns, they may not be believed, are seen to be exaggerating, or their symptoms are dismissed.

This is known as diagnostic overshadowing. It means someone’s mental health condition “overshadows” their physical health and other concerns, and these are overlooked. This can mean serious health issues go undetected and untreated.

People with mental illness also face other challenges accessing preventative care and treatment. They are less likely to be vaccinated and much less likely to access screening and treatment for conditions such as cancer and heart disease, meaning diagnosis often happens at a more advanced stage, lowering survival rates.

This may be due to poor communication from health-care workers, stigmatising attitudes, and accessibility problems, such as not having access to transport.

When people are socially isolated, live regionally, or experience socioeconomic disadvantage, they may find it even harder to access care – and are even more likely to die early than others with a mental illness.

Medication side effects can also carry longer-term health risks, such as developing obesity from using antipsychotic medications.

What should change

Health care is a human right. For Australia to meet its commitments to the United Nations – and turn the tide on preventable deaths – we need to make sure people with mental illness enjoy the same quality of care as the rest of the population.

This means educating the health-care workforce about the dramatically higher risk of early death among people with mental illness, training staff how to recognise and respond to physical health concerns without stigma.

Integrating GPs with community mental health teams and including people with mental illness in designing policy and in health services is also key.

We need nationally funded programs for vaccination, smoking cessation and cancer screening that target people with mental illness. Regular monitoring and reporting can track progress and see whether these programs are working to close the life expectancy gap.

As a friend, family member, carer or health professional of someone with a mental illness, you can also help. For example, by asking when the person last had a physical health check-up, whether they have accessed cancer screenings and vaccinations, and if they need support.

Something simple – such as helping them make or attend an appointment – can make a big difference.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Justin Chapman is employed by Equally Well Australia, funded by the Department of Health, Disability and Aging.

Russell Roberts is employed by Charles Sturt University and also receives research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Australian Government Community Grants program for research relating to the physical health of people living with mental health conditions.

Victoria Erskine receives some funding from Equally Well Australia in support of her PhD study exploring communication in Collective Impact social change movements.

‘Supervised’ self-driving cars are here – and Australia’s laws aren’t ready. Here are 3 ways to fix them

2025-11-02T18:59:09Z

In September, US electric car maker Tesla rolled out a semi-autonomous driving feature it describes as “the future of transport” in Australia.

As its name suggests, the Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system blurs the line between human and machine control. Our current licensing and road-safety frameworks were not designed to handle this situation.

A federal government strategy for high-tech road transport released last week has little to say about how this new semi-autonomous technology should be managed.

As experts in cities and transport, and how people use them, we have some concrete policy ideas for how to manage this innovation safely: changes to licensing rules, safety testing, and accountability and transparency.

What is ‘supervised self-driving’?

Tesla’s new system is the most advanced form of semi-autonomous driving yet available to Australian consumers.

The car can follow routes from start to finish, handle intersections, change lanes, and respond to traffic lights. These tasks go well beyond traditional “autopilot” or adaptive cruise control.

Tesla says that “under your active supervision”, the system “will drive you almost anywhere”. Despite “full self-driving” in the product name, the active supervision part is crucial.

Early testing in Australia by reviewers from The Drive and CarExpert shows a technically impressive system that is nevertheless far from flawless:

the car recognises signs but doesn’t always read or reliably interpret them
lane changes can be slow, sometimes confusing nearby drivers
navigation can falter when satellite coverage is weak
the system occasionally selects the wrong lane or misjudges right of way
it may park awkwardly, at times straddling two bays
wearing dark sunglasses can confuse the camera that monitors the driver, and disable the system.

The overall impression is of a vehicle that can handle itself most of the time, but which needs an actual driver ready to take over at a moment’s notice. And to be fair to Tesla, the company does say the system “requires an attentive driver to maintain proper control of the vehicle who must be ready to take immediate action at all times”.

Is Australian regulation keeping up?

The federal government’s new National Road Transport Technology Strategy outlines how Australia plans to prepare for connected and automated transport.

The strategy commits to developing a “consistent national regulatory framework” for automated vehicles. However, it notes that implementation will rely on state and territory transport strategies, which set out more detailed plans for adopting and deploying new technologies.

In short, the strategy recognises automation but says little about how it will be governed.

What policies could work?

Supervised automation occupies a grey zone between human and machine control. Australia’s current policy framework has yet to define how that space should be managed.

There is no single solution, but several areas stand out where modest, evidence-based steps could help the supervised driving technology mature safely.

1. Driver training and licensing reform

Supervised automation changes what it means to drive. The driver’s role shifts from active control to continuous monitoring. Research shows people are not naturally good at this.

When drivers are not required to maintain continuous control, their awareness of their situation can erode quickly. This may lead to slower or poorer reactions when they need to take control.

Modest updates to existing licensing tests could help to address this. State authorities could introduce additional knowledge questions or a short modules covering these systems and their limitations.

These would ensure every driver using such systems has at least a basic understanding of how they work, and where human accountability begins and ends.

2. Pre-deployment certification and transparency

Before semi-autonomous systems reach the public, they should demonstrate they can perform safely under local road, climate and traffic conditions.

At present, Australia has no requirement for such validation. Once a vehicle meets the Australian Design Rules, manufacturers can activate or modify automation features via software updates. They do not have to submit supporting safety data or seek regulatory approval.

Manufacturers could be required to provide validated performance data before releasing updates. This might include things such as how often and how well humans take over from the system, how often sensors fail and what happens afterwards, and measures of how effectively the system avoids crashes.

Trials of “beta” or experimental software could still be possible, but only within regulator-approved test zones under controlled monitoring.

A complementary step would be to embed minimum performance benchmarks for these systems within the Australian Design Rules or ANCAP safety-assessment protocols. These might cover the timing of alerts, the reliability of the system, and transparency of about the system’s performance.

3. Accountability and data integrity

At present, Australia has no requirement for semi-autonomous car manufacturers to share data on crashes, near-misses, or times when the system turns off or hands over to the human driver.

When incidents occur, the evidence often stays solely with the company. This limits public scrutiny and independent investigation.

Here, Australia can learn from regulations in other jurisdictions.

For example, California publishes annual “disengagement reports” from all developers testing automated systems. The European Union requires manufacturers to retain and share data from critical safety systems for crash investigation and oversight.

Several legal and regulatory questions also remain unresolved, regarding who is responsible for crashes, what drivers’ obligations are, and how insurance should work.

What now?

Australia faces the task of making rules for the in-between space of “supervised self-driving”.

The technology itself is no longer experimental. It is active on our roads. What’s experimental is how we govern it.

Building clear, modest guardrails now will help ensure that automated mobility develops safely. We shouldn’t wait for major incidents to reveal the gaps and create a drive for hurried regulation.

Milad Haghani receives funding from The Australian Government, The Office of Road Safety.

Angus McKerral receives funding from the National Road Safety Action Grants Program and is a member of the Australasian College of Road Safety.

Kristen Pammer has received funding from government road safety programs and is a member of the Australasian College of Road Safety.

Michael Regan has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Zahra Shahhoseini 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.

Trump is repeating the long, painful history of US ‘policing’ of Latin America

2025-11-02T18:58:06Z

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has launched military strikes against more than a dozen boats off the coasts of Venezuela and Colombia, killing more than 60 people.

The administration claims it is defending the United States from what it says are drug-trafficking vessels. However, Colombia’s president Gustavo Petro has accused the US of “murdering” its citizens and threatening its sovereignty.

US interference in Latin America is hardly new. In fact, the US has been meddling in the affairs of its southern neighbours from the time many Latin American nations gained independence from European powers in the 1820s.

In 1823, US President James Monroe issued a foreign policy proclamation called the Monroe Doctrine that warned European countries not to intervene anymore in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere.

The United States saw Latin America as its sphere of influence, and the Monroe Doctrine set the stage for future US expansionism and intervention in the region.

By 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine claimed the United States had the right to “police” the hemisphere in response to “flagrant cases of […] wrongdoing or impotence”.

Such “policing” has since led to revolutions, coups and what some analysts are now calling illegal extrajudicial killings.

A new “corollary” of the Monroe Doctrine is seemingly taking shape today under current president, Donald Trump. Ignoring the painful history of US interventions in Latin America, the Trump administration’s strategy is based on open hostility, military force and a carefully stoked moral panic.

Preparing for invasion?

Some believe the US attacks on suspected drug boats may be merely a prelude to a much bigger military operation.

In recent days, the Pentagon has deployed the aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford and a fleet of warships to the Caribbean Sea. They will join about 10,000 US troops already in the region aboard eight other warships, ostensibly to fight “narcoterrorism”.

Yet, many experts believe the US might be preparing for an invasion or other military action to topple Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The Trump administration has already authorised covert operations in the country and put a bounty of US$50 million (A$76 million) on Maduro’s head.

The legitimacy of Maduro’s government has long been in question – he’s been accused of rigging elections and jailing opposition figures.

Next door, however, Colombia’s president has been democratically elected – and Trump is targeting him, too.

Trump has called the left-wing president, Gustavo Petro, a “thug” and “illegal drug leader”. The US Treasury has also imposed sanctions on Petro, along with his family and cabinet members, based on the alleged permissiveness of his government toward drug trafficking.

Petro, in turn, has accused Trump of seeking to interfere in Colombia’s elections next year to weaken its democracy in order to more easily access Venezeula’s oil.

History, however, suggests that such adventures rarely end well. As the CIA itself put it, the United States can suffer “blowback” – or unintended consequences and side effects – from its own covert operations.

Trump would do well to remember that Latin America has long been the graveyard of US certainty. Two examples stand out: Mexico and Nicaragua.

Mexico: descent into civil war

Mexico has constantly been a testing ground for Washington’s imperial actions, beginning with the Mexican-American war (1846-1848) that resulted in Mexico ceding 55% of its territory to its northern neighbour.

Then, in 1911, the US helped facilitate the assassination of President Francisco I. Madero, the democratically elected reformer who had overthrown Porfirio Díaz’s dictatorship. US Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson, acting far beyond his diplomatic role, brokered the infamous “Pact of the Embassy” that paved the way for General Victoriano Huerta’s coup.

Three years later, US Marines occupied the port of Veracruz, ostensibly to prevent a German arms shipment from reaching Huerta’s forces. In reality, the invasion aimed to depose the dictator that Washington had helped install.

The intervention, which left hundreds of civilians dead, ignited a nationalist backlash and deepened the chaos of the Mexican Revolution.

By the time the last Marines withdrew, Mexico was engulfed in civil war – one that would last a decade and shape a century of suspicion toward US power.

Nicaragua: occupation in the name of ‘stability’

Nicaragua’s long entanglement with the United States began in 1909. This was when Washington helped oust President José Santos Zelaya, who had dared to negotiate with Germany and Japan over the construction of a trans-oceanic canal.

US Marines occupied the country in 1912, ostensibly to preserve “stability” but in reality to protect American financial interests and ensure no other canal would threaten the one being built in Panama.

The occupation lasted, on and off, for more than two decades. During that time, the US created and armed the Nicaraguan National Guard, which later became the personal army of the Somoza dynasty of dictators.

Opposition to US rule was led by Augusto César Sandino, whose guerrilla movement fought American troops until his assassination in 1934 – carried out by the same National Guard the Americans had trained.

The Sandinista National Liberation Front, founded in the 1960s, took its name and inspiration from Sandino’s struggle. When it overthrew President Anastasio Somoza Debayle in 1979, the US again intervened – this time through the Contras, a paramilitary force funded and armed by Washington.

In 1986, the International Court of Justice ruled that Washington had breached international law by supporting the Contras and mining Nicaraguan harbours to destabilise the Sandinista government.

But the Reagan administration dismissed the judgement and prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any compensation. The UN General Assembly later passed a resolution urging the US to comply, to no effect.

Today, Nicaragua remains a perennial thorn in the side of the United States – a reminder that its quest to remake the hemisphere has instead eroded the moral authority it once claimed as the champion of liberty.

In Latin America, US interventions have always promised order but delivered chaos. Trump’s “new corollary” seems poised to repeat the cycle.

The potential blowback to Trump’s actions is not only political, it is also moral. The tragedy of US power in the region is that it never realises its greatest enemy has always been itself.

Luis Gómez Romero 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.

Unpaid ‘women’s work’ is worth $427 billion, new research shows. See how much your unpaid labour is worth

2025-11-02T18:57:26Z

Canva/The Conversation, CC BY-SA

All those thousands of hours that Australians put towards unpaid household work and care – cooking, cleaning and caring for family members – are an essential thread that keeps our economy stitched together.

But they’re not recognised in official economic statistics.

My new research puts a dollar value on what all this unpaid labour is worth to the economy: about A$688 billion. That’s equivalent to around one-third of gross domestic product – and is mostly contributed by women.

What happens when we count it in?

The System of National Accounts, which guides how countries worldwide define “production” and measure the size of their economy, is limited to activities that have a price tag or market wage.

Unpaid work and care falls outside this official definition.

In my new academic paper, published in the Economic Record, I calculate a dollar value of this unpaid productive activity by adding up how much it would cost if we were to pay someone an hourly wage do this work as their paid job.

For example, we can value each unpaid hour looking after children as the equivalent of a childcare worker’s average hourly wage.

Each hour spent on housework can be calculated by using a domestic cleaner’s wage as a proxy. And time spent on meal preparation can be proxied using a kitchen hand’s typical wage.

Women contribute the bulk (61.5%) of total time spent on unpaid work and care, based on data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Time Use Survey.

The average time and type of unpaid work that women do, which tallies to 3 hours and 56 minutes per day, equates to A$771 worth of labour per week.

Men’s typical unpaid work and care, which averages 2 hours and 28 minutes per day, adds up to $493 weekly.

Tallying up for the population, women’s unpaid labour is worth the equivalent of $427.3 billion per year. Men’s unpaid work amounts to $261 billion. Yet none of this vital work is counted in our national accounts.

Women’s real contribution to the economy

Let’s imagine we add another column to our national accounts ledger which now counts this invisible labour and adds it to our measurement of paid labour.

We see that women’s share of total labour effort in the economy expands to 47.2%. This compares with just 36.8% when we only count paid work.

One problem with this “replacement wage” methodology is many of these proxy occupations used to value unpaid work and care are female-concentrated – and systematically undervalued on the basis of gender.

We can fix this by estimating a wage equation, using HILDA Survey data, to measure the extent by which an occupation is systematically paid less (or more) on the basis of its gender composition. While we’re at it, we can also estimate the wage premium enjoyed by men irrespective of their industry and occupation.

When we adjust for these sources of gender-based undervaluation, women’s share of total labour climbs to 50.5%.

In other words, women and men are contributing roughly equal labour effort to our economy. But it’s not reflected in the way we measure our economy, or in the gender gaps that persist in pay, wealth, assets and control over resources.

These findings have practical use in setting wages, dividing up household assets, and even measuring productivity.

The observed decline in measured productivity – occurring at the same time the care sector is rapidly swelling in size – could very well be due to an economic system that is failing to fully recognise the value of female-concentrated sectors.

This is about more than just numbers

The invisibility and under-recognition of “women’s work” – that is, the work that society assigns to women – is not just a matter of numbers.

It’s an erasure and diminishing of the value of women’s capabilities and contributions to our economy.

The gender biases embedded in conventional economic architecture are a marker, and driver, of women’s lower status, power and decision-making authority.

Feminist economics have long been pointing out the shortcomings of economic frameworks that centre on the productive activities traditionally assigned to men. As feminist academic Marilyn Waring bluntly observed:

The laws of economics and those that govern the UNSNA [United Nations Systems of National Accounts] are creations of the male mind and do not reflect or encompass the reality of the female world. The conceptual models are limited to the world that the economist knows or observes, and housework is most certainly not part of that world.

Counting unpaid work and care is now possible with the Australian Bureau of Statistics bringing back the Time Use Survey in 2020–21. The survey was previously last conducted in 2006.

This ongoing investment in Australia’s data infrastructure is crucial for applying a gender lens to our economic statistics and policy analysis, undoing gender biases, and shining a spotlight on uncounted “invisible” work.

Leonora Risse receives research funding from the Trawalla Foundation and the Women's Leadership Institute Australia. She serves as an Expert Panel Member for the Fair Work Commission and the Parliamentary Budget Office, and is a member of the ABS Time Use Survey Reference Group.

View from The Hill: Nationals dump net zero – say Australia shouldn’t cut emissions faster than comparable countries

2025-11-02T05:57:44Z

Once again, the Nationals have got out in front of the Liberals on a key issue, this time net zero, announcing on Sunday they were dumping their commitment to it.

This is not unexpected, but more than awkward for their Coalition partner. It makes it trickier for the Liberals to retain the target – which is politically important in city seats – albeit in some watered-down form. It raises the question: if the Liberals stick with net zero what does that mean for the Coalition relationship?

And it puts the Liberals under greater pressure to get a policy out quickly. The party will now speed up its release – it was already planning to do this before Christmas.

The early positioning follows the pattern of the Voice referendum, where the Nationals announced their opposition ahead of the Liberals. In climate and energy debates over the years, the Nationals have been earlier out and more stridently conservative than the Liberals.

The Nationals party room, after several hours of discussion on Sunday, agreed unanimously to a revised policy that says Australia should cut its emissions in line with the developed world, rather than moving faster in order to achieve net zero by 2050.

On Saturday, the party’s federal council called on the parliamentary party to drop the net zero commitment. The Nationals signed up to it in 2021 when Scott Morrison was prime minister and Barnaby Joyce was deputy prime minister and Nationals leader.

The council’s resolutions are not binding on the parliamentary party, but the timing of the council and the parliamentary party meeting was coordinated, given it was clear where the party was moving.

Nationals leader David Littleproud told a Sunday news conference, “We are not walking away from reducing emissions. We can peg ourselves to the rest of the world. If the world moves we move with them”.

He described this as an “agile” model, and was anxious to distance it from denying climate change.

Litteproud said Australia had cut emissions more than like countries. “OECD countries have been cutting their emissions by 1% per year. Australia has been cutting its emissions by about 2% per year – double the OECD rate.”

The Nationals policy would tie the reduction to the average of OECD countries (this would exclude China and India which are not full OECD members). Under this formula the Albanese government’s 2035 target of a 62% to 70% cut on 2005 levels would come down to a 30% to 40% cut.

“Our emissions cuts will be capped and calibrated, which is common sense,” Littleproud said.

“The responsibility will be shared and transparent,” he said.

He pointed to the “proven model” of the Emissions Reduction Fund, saying that in 2014–2023 it “facilitated real emission reductions that didn’t ruin the economy.

"We will incentivise lower emissions through a renewed Emissions Reduction Fund. This will be a small fraction of the $9 billion now being spent each year on net-zero subsidies, regulations, and administrative costs.

"Our approach will increase investment in cheaper electricity by broadening the Capacity Investment Scheme [which presently excludes coal and gas] to include all energy technologies and remove the moratorium on nuclear energy,” Littleproud said.

Senator Matt Canavan, one of those leading the work on the new policy, said that under the Albanese government’s plans Australia would be cutting its emissions at a rate three times more than the rest of the world.

Littleproud said he had informed Opposition Leader Sussan Ley of the Nationals’ position. After the Liberal Party reached its position the two parties would talk. He would not speculate on what the Liberals would do.

Liberals gave their views on net zero on Friday at a meeting organised by a Coalition backbench committee.

Within the Liberal Party there is a spectrum of views, with hardline conservatives wanting to ditch the net zero commitment, some moderates strongly believing in keeping the 2050 target firmly in place, and yet others seeking a compromise such as retaining the target as an aspiration.

Environment Minister Murray Watt said once again in the Coalition “we’re seeing the tail wagging the dog”.

“We’ve got the National Party, which didn’t even rate 4% of the vote in the last federal election, dictating terms to the Liberal Party who claim to be the majority party in a coalition,” Watt told the ABC.

He said it was a repeat of the nuclear issue “where the National Party went out first to drag the Liberal Party into supporting nuclear, only to be resoundingly rejected by the Australian people at the last election”.

The Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young denounced the Nationals’ policy move – and sought to invoke it in relation to another issue, the government’s attempt to get a deal with the opposition or the Greens for its changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

“The question I have for the Labor party now is how on earth can you work with such a ridiculous, out-of-touch party like the Coalition in order to pass your environment laws over the next few weeks, or indeed into next year?” Hanson-Young said.

Crossbencher Zali Steggall said the Nationals’ decision showed they were “captured by fossil fuel interests”.

Another independent, Allegra Spender, said the Liberals “are left with a choice – either be honest that the Nationals are once again setting the Coalition’s climate policy, whatever words the Libs come up with to dress up their own policy, or split with the Nationals altogether”.

How to recognise child-on-child sexual abuse – and how to respond appropriately

2025-10-31T07:52:29Z

Darya Komarova/Getty Images

Allegations of sexual abuse by early childhood educators have rocked Australia in recent months.

Now, the ABC’s investigation into the childcare sector has revealed hundreds more cases – this time committed by children against other children.

But some distressed parents have told the ABC their concerns were not taken seriously by the centre or police because it happened between children.

So, when is sexual behaviour from children normal and when is it abusive? And how can we intervene to make sure it doesn’t keep happening?

What is child-on-child sexual abuse?

These kinds of incidents can be difficult to pin down – and even to describe.

Practitioners and researchers often use the term “harmful sexual behaviour” to acknowledge abusive behaviour can be driven by childhood trauma, and to avoiding stigmatising children who sexually harm.

But research I have done with colleagues interviewing victim-survivors shows they often prefer the term “child-on-child sexual abuse”. It also seems to be the term people are using to seek help and information on platforms such as Reddit and among some survivor advocates.

So, what is it?

Children’s sexual behaviour is typically understood on a continuum, from “normal” to “problematic” through to “harmful”.

At pre-school age:

normal sexual behaviour might involve playing “mummies and daddies” or using “rude” words to be funny
problematic sexual behaviour might mean children trying to expose their own genitals or those of other children, or trying to engage siblings or others in masturbation (touching themselves or each other).
harmful sexual behaviour can involve forcing other children into penetrative acts, such as oral sex, or coercing other children into sexual “play”.

Victim-survivors of this kind of abuse may feel confused about their experiences, even as adults, because they were made to feel complicit or the abuse was not taken seriously. Adults may dismiss the behaviour as kids’ normal exploration or experimentation.

But child-on-child sexual abuse is not normal. The impacts on victim-survivors are profoundly negative and lifelong, comparable to adult-perpetrated sexual abuse.

What we know – and don’t know – about why it happens

We actually know very little about very young children in Australia who develop problematic sexual behaviours.

But the evidence we do have shows early childhood educators often receive training about mandatory reporting of child abuse, but no specific training about how to identify and intervene when child-on-child sexual abuse occurs.

One 2002 study from the United States looked at 37 preschool aged children with problematic sexual behaviours. It found more were female (65%) than male (35%), contrary to studies in school aged children. And while we know harmful sexual behaviour can stem from abuse, many (62%) did not have histories of sexual abuse.

However, the majority had been exposed to other forms of sexual activity: 35% had seen sexually explicit imagery and 27% had witnessed their parents have sex.

What should intervention involve?

Some evidence suggests most children who display harmful sexual behaviour do not go on to perpetrate abuse as adults.

This is true when children receive therapeutic intervention by a specialist practitioner who works with harmful sexual behaviour in children, such as a social worker, counsellor or psychologist.

They work with children and young people and their families, to develop safety plans and help them understand how and why the abusive behaviour developed, and what can be done to prevent abuse in the future.

But there is a gap in our understanding of how best to identify and most effectively address this growing issue. A new national framework for approaches to children with harmful sexual behaviours will help guide clinical practice when the National Office for Child Safety releases it. We don’t yet know when this will be.

Colleagues and I have also helped develop a program to address child-on-child sexual abuse, called “Power to Kids in Schools”. The program trains educators how to have “brave conversations” about healthy relationships, exploitation and sexual safety.

It also helps them identify problematic and harmful sexual behaviours and intervene appropriately. For example, an educator may notice behaviour changes and ask directly if the child is experiencing abuse or exploitation from another child.

This kind of program could be adapted to use in childcare centres, and help fill the gap so educators understand better how to actively intervene.

We are also developing a website and helpline called “What’s OK?” Australia, based on successful models in the United Kingdom and United States. School aged children and young people will be able to access anonymous help if they are worried about their sexual thoughts and behaviours.

What you can do

Attention this week has been on sexual abuse in childcare centres. But child-on-child sexual abuse can happen anywhere, to any child. There are particularly alarming forms of child-on-child sexual abuse emerging that are sadistic, often perpetrated by groups of teen boys and young men.

At early ages, one of the most protective things we can do is teach kids about body safety – and we can do this at any age, even before they can talk.

But it is equally important to target contextual factors, such as children’s access to sexually explicit material and platforms that facilitate sexual abuse.

As safe adults, it is also our responsibility to learn about this form of abuse and to stay vigilant.

If a child discloses sexual abuse by another child, do not dismiss it. Believe them, and act to make it stop.

If this story has raised any issues for you, please contact one of the services below:

Lifeline, 24-hour crisis support and suicide prevention: 13 11 14
Bravehearts, counselling and support for survivors of child sexual abuse: 1800 272 831
Kids Helpline (ages 5–25 and parents): 1800 55 1800

Gemma McKibbin receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse.

How common is sexually abusive behaviour between children? How should daycare centres respond?

2025-10-31T05:24:35Z

Gpointstudio/ Getty Images

Parents have spoken about harrowing cases of their young children being abused by other children in daycare centres, as part of an ABC investigation into the New South Wales sector.

How common is sexually abusive behaviour between children?

Why does it happen? And what can daycare centres do about it?

What does the data say?

There is no national data to track these incidents in childcare centres.

The national childcare regulator reports on the number of “serious incidents”. But there is a lack of detail around what these involve and they don’t even necessarily include child abuse.

States and territories also report on “reportable conduct allegations” (claims of abuse of children) in early childhood. But there are inconsistent standards, expectations and enforcement mechanisms across jurisdictions.

The best data we have about all forms of child sexual abuse is from the 2023 Australian Child Maltreatment Study. As part of the study, a nationally representative sample 8,503 Australians aged 16 and older were asked about their experiences of child maltreatment, including child sexual abuse.

Overall, 28.5% of the group reported they had experienced child sexual abuse. The interviewer then asked who did this to them. As a proportion of the population, here’s what they said about abuse from other young people:

10% of Australians reported child sexual abuse from other known children or adolescents (not romantic partners)
2.5% reported sexual abuse from adolescent romantic partners
1.4% reported sexual abuse from an unknown adolescent
1.6% reported sexual abuse from a sibling.

As the study relied on adults recalling childhood experiences, it may mean it’s an under-representation of cases, particularly very early in childhood.

We need a lot more data about what’s going in the early years.

Is the problem getting worse?

Nevertheless, the Australian Child Maltreatment Study study suggests sexual abuse between peers is becoming more common.

Those aged 16-24 were more likely to have been sexually abused by a peer (18.2%) than by an adult (11.7%). Older age groups were more likely to have been abused by adults. For example, of those aged 25-44, 14.1% reported having experienced child sexual abuse by another young person, compared to 17.9% by an adult.

This pattern suggests we have made some progress in reducing the rates of adult perpetrated child sexual abuse, but sexual abuse between peers is increasing.

Why is this happening?

We can understand this at both an individual and situational level.

If a child is engaging in harmful or abusive sexual behaviours, this may be because they have been exposed to sexual abuse, violence in the home, pornography, or other trauma. They may be reenacting or processing something they have seen or experienced.

But there are also situational factors that enable this behaviour, such as a lack of supervision. We know this is an issue in childcare centres if there are low staff numbers, educators are overworked or there is a lack of adequate training.

How can centres respond?

Research tells us we need to create safe environments for little (and bigger) kids. On top of adequate supervision, this means:

everyone, from kids to educators and parents, understands body safety (what is appropriate touching? What are healthy boundaries?)
everyone is able to recognise if something is not right
everyone feels safe to talk to someone if they need to
trusted adults take incidents or concerns seriously.

This then means, even if a child is at risk of harming a peer or inappropriate touching – there is little chance they will have the opportunity to do so. And there is a culture to support healthy interactions between kids.

It should not matter who is in the room or the playground, every child deserves to feel and be safe.

How should childcare centres talk about bodies?

Children are naturally interested in their bodies and other people’s bodies. This is part of growing up and learning about their world.

If curious children do something inappropriate, good quality childcare centres will deal with these episodes calmly, as they arise. For example, a child might say:

I felt yuck because Sam asked me to pull down my pants.

Educators should respond in a kind, empathetic way and not shame anyone involved.

They can use the situation to explain we don’t ask our friends to do this. And just because someone asks us to do something to or with our bodies, it does not mean we have to say yes. We often think of consent education being the job of high schools, but this education needs to start much earlier.

Educators can also model this. For example, with little children, they should let them know they will be changing their nappy. For example,

You need a nappy change because you’ve done a wee. Do you want Alex or Kim to do it?

This teaches children a safe adult only touches your genitals for the purposes of care or hygiene, and always with communication and respect.

These micro-level practices build up over time. Ideally, they can also help show parents what is healthy and safe behaviour.

We should not demonise little kids

Lastly, we should not demonise children who engage in harmful sexual behaviour. Most children do not go on to offend later in life.

What they need is support, guidance and supervision, not stigma or exclusion. While schools or childcare centres sometimes isolate children who have harmed others, exclusion rarely addresses the root cause and can make the problem worse.

Instead, we need to create opportunities for positive, healthy relationships and help children experience safe and appropriate forms of touch. For example, high-fives, hand-holding and hugs within clear boundaries and supportive adult supervision.

Abusive behaviours between children are deeply distressing, but are also preventable. By ensuring strong supervision, body safety education from early years, and responding to children with empathy rather than fear, we can protect kids.

Daryl Higgins receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council (as one of the Chief Investigators on the Australian Child Maltreatment Study), Australian government and state/territory government departments.

Gabrielle worked with the Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS) team as part of her PhD candidature. She has also previously worked for Bravehearts in various roles, including for the Turning Corners program, which provides support to young people who have displayed harmful sexual behaviours.

A stage adaptation of Dying: A Memoir asks the big questions about death – but ends up strangely unmoving

2025-10-31T03:12:58Z

Pia Johnson/Melbourne Theatre Company

What makes a good death? Quietly surrounded by friends and family or going out in a flash of blazing glory (whatever that means)?

Would you like to know when you’re going to die?

Will knowing when you die help you to appreciate all the small finalities – the last time you drive a car, the last touch of grass on your fingertips, the last time you feel your partner’s breath on your cheek, a final kiss on the lips?

Or do these small closures matter at all when looking backwards is a distraction from “the great unknown” that lies ahead?

Do you deserve the right to choose when you die?

Author Cory Taylor was confronted with these questions when diagnosed with melanoma after a biopsy of a mole on the back of her right leg. She was just about to turn 50.

Death in modern Western society exists in a peculiar limbo – simultaneously sanitised and sensationalised. We’ve outsourced dying to hospitals, nursing homes and palliative care units, creating physical and emotional distance that leaves too many people unprepared for when loss arrives.

In her 2016 book Dying: A Memoir, published just months before her death, Taylor writes:

For this is one of the most lamentable consequences of our reluctance to talk about death. We have lost our common rituals and our common language for dying, and must either improvise, or fall back on traditions about which we feel deeply ambivalent.

Taylor exposes the cost of our cultural avoidance: by refusing to engage meaningfully with mortality, Western society has left individuals to face death’s deepest questions in isolation.

Playwright Benjamin Law brings Dying: A Memoir to the stage in a one-woman show starring Genevieve Morris, directed by Jean Tong for Melbourne Theatre Company.

Immediate intimacy

Morris gives a commanding performance. She brings a formidable presence to her portrayal of Taylor and fluidly inhabits a range of characters in Taylor’s world: doctors, siblings and acquaintances connected to Exit International, a support and advocacy group for voluntary euthanasia.

Tong’s direction creates immediate intimacy with the audience. Morris begins out of character, gently acknowledging the difficulty of discussing death while honouring Taylor, before the performance proper begins. This connection with her audience is strengthened across the show.

Set and costume design (James Lew), lighting design (Rachel Lee) and sound design (Darius Kedros) all function to support Morris’ delivery, its constant movement and fluidity.

James Lew’s set design features red theatre chairs which are rearranged into various configurations. Pia Johnson/Melbourne Theatre Company

Red theatre chairs on wheels form the main set piece, which Morris rearranges into various configurations. The surrounding black walls feature small reveals and cracks of light that reflect thematic shifts.

The sound design anchors each scene with precision: the hum of a doctor’s waiting room, the noise and clatter of a restaurant, the clinical quiet of a psychologist’s office. Mostly understated, it punctuates key moments with purposeful intensity, working to mark emotional shifts.

Oppressive lighting pervades the production, its unrelenting bleakness mirroring the subject matter too literally. The lack of variation or contrast flattens what could be a more visually complex exploration of its themes.

Evading the emotionally complex

Law’s persistent examination of the end of Taylor’s life within his adaptation reveals an evasion of the book’s more emotionally complex and spiritually challenging entanglements.

Taylor’s memoir spans three interconnected acts; Law’s adaptation fixates primarily on the first, circling questions about euthanasia and the right to a “good death” in ways that lean into and recapitulate parts of popular debate.

Acts two and three of Taylor’s memoir overflow with childhood recollections – vivid, nostalgic landscapes painted through thick descriptive prose and family memory. These sections reflect closely the relationship with her mother and father, giving rise to questions of: where do we come from? What is home? How are we formed and by who?

Taylor’s memoir spans three interconnected acts; Law’s adaptation fixates primarily on the first. Pia Johnson/Melbourne Theatre Company

This complex and poetic examination of life is excised from Law’s play. But, for his part, he manages to embed his signature biting wit while telling Taylor’s story.

On the frustrations of managing one’s final affairs, and specifically password retrieval, Morris turns to the audience and flatly delivers the line: “If cancer doesn’t kill me, two factor authentication will.”

The situation with an over-enthusiastic therapist is described as a “government-subsidized hostage situation”.

These moments of searing humour help make the story feel fresh and grounded.

However, Law chooses didacticism to end the play as Morris steps out of character again. The choice drains the production of Taylor’s sharp intelligence and emotional depth, leaving the audience instructed rather than stirred. Despite a chorus of sniffles amongst the audience, the ending is strangely unmoving.

It avoids the mess and the grit that fascinates Taylor in composing her memoir. She quotes T.S. Eliot:

In my beginning is my end
Old fires to ash, and ashes to the earth
Which is already flesh, fur and faeces
Bone of man and beast, cornstalk and leaf

The kind of raw and unflinching acceptance of death’s physical reality that inspired Taylor is upended in favour of what is, sadly, a little too sterile and neat.

Dying: A Memoir is at Melbourne Theatre Company until November 29.

Jonathan Graffam-O’Meara 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.

New linguistics research casts doubt on decades-old murder conviction

2025-10-31T02:21:02Z

On September 8 1988, 20-year-old Janine Balding was abducted, raped, and brutally murdered in New South Wales. Police quickly arrested four youths, who accused an older man nicknamed “Shorty”.

Two weeks later, police interviewed Stephen “Shorty” Jamieson. Within a few hours, they had a full confession, typed by one of the detectives, and signed by Jamieson as a “record of interview” given of his own free will.

But when Jamieson arrived at his committal hearing, the youths called out to authorities: “you’ve got the wrong Shorty!”. It seems they had been referring to another man, also nicknamed Shorty, known to wear a black bandanna similar to the one used to gag the victim.

Nevertheless, Jamieson’s trial continued. In June 1990, he was convicted, along with two of the youths, and sentenced to life in prison. There he remains to this day, despite longstanding efforts by solicitor Peter Breen to have his conviction reviewed.

Recent hearings have focused on DNA analysis of the black bandanna. Our new linguistics research casts doubt on the confession that convicted Jamieson.

Confessions as legal gospel

It’s important to be clear that while the other two were convicted on the basis of substantial evidence of guilt (which both later admitted), Jamieson’s conviction depended wholly on the confession transcribed by police.

Nowadays, police interviews must be electronically recorded. At the time of Jamieson’s trial, a verbal confession could be admitted as a typed “record of interview”.

However, the risk of “verballing” (police faking a confession that was never really made) was already well known.

Jamieson’s lawyers opposed the transcript vigorously during the trial, but the detectives testified it was accurate:

Defence lawyer: You see there is a very lengthy answer there that goes on for something in excess of half a page?

Detective: Yes.

Lawyer: Are you saying that those words were recorded exactly as Jamieson said it?

Detective: Yes, I am saying that.

Lawyer: You did not need to prompt him in any way?

Detective: No

Lawyer: Didn’t need to remind him about anything?

Detective: No. I did not.

In convicting Jamieson, the jury must have been persuaded by the detectives’ strong testimony.

A 1992 appeal was unsuccessful. The defence had one last hope: official review of the conviction.

Just the ‘gist’

A 2001 application to review Jamieson’s conviction included linguistic analysis by Rod Gardner (one of the authors of this piece), who compared the 1988 police transcript to a professional transcript of another interview with Jamieson, audio-recorded in 1995.

Finding many differences, Gardner concluded:

it is extremely unlikely that [the police transcript] is an accurate record of what would have been said in a police interview with Jamieson.

However, Justice Bruce James rejected the application, dismissing Gardner’s conclusion. He acknowledged the transcript was not Jamieson’s exact words, but thought it captured the gist of a genuine confession. Any inaccuracies simply reflected the detective typist’s “limited proficiency”.

He even excused the detective’s strong testimony, saying it was merely “an emphatic denial” of the defence suggestion, during cross-examination, that police “had concocted the whole interview”.

Confession or construction?

The Research Hub for Language in Forensic Evidence has undertaken a fresh analysis of Jamieson’s case.

This asked if the detectives could have transcribed even the gist of an interview in real time, as they claimed.

A new experiment simulating their task suggests not. It used the video of a recent (unrelated) police interview. Participants had to type as much as they could of a three minute clip, without pausing.

All participants were fast typists. Average speed was 68 words per minute – well into the professional typing range. One live-captioning expert managed an astonishing 142 words per minute.

Nevertheless, their average accuracy was only 34%, compared to the reference transcript.

Importantly, those who typed around 40 words per minute (surely the most Jamieson’s transcriber could claim, given his “limited proficiency”) averaged a mere 20% accuracy. That’s hardly the “gist” of an interview.

What does this mean for the 1990 trial?

The detectives, under oath, told the jury the transcript captured the confession “exactly as Jamieson said it”. Our research really questions whether that claim can possibly be true.

Many assume Jamieson’s signature proves the confession was genuine, if not exact. However, flaws in this assumption were clear as far back as 1987. According to the Australian Law Reform Commission:

just as oppressive conduct can cause a suspect to make false admissions, so it can cause a suspect to sign a document containing those admissions.

This was one reason behind 1995 legislation introducing compulsory electronic recording of interviews. By then, it had been officially acknowledged at the highest levels that admitting an unverified transcript risks verballing.

Jamieson’s interview was completely unverified. He was alone with the detectives until a Justice of the Peace came to read the record of interview back to him (he couldn’t read at the time), and witness him signing his “voluntary” confession (which he withdrew as soon as the interview was over).

Where to from here?

Of course, none of this proves conclusively that Jamieson was verballed.

What it does do, surely, is strengthen the case for review of his conviction, to be made again in coming weeks.

Jamieson’s 1990 jury reached their verdict on the basis of testimony that has been acknowledged to be inaccurate, under legal procedures that have been acknowledged to be deeply flawed.

As long ago as 1989, a Queensland inquiry made a recommendation that resonates beyond state borders:

special consideration be given for a review of the convictions of any individuals who have raised allegations of “verballing” […] who are still in prison.

More to the story?

It’s comfortable to think the possibility of verballing died with mandatory electronic recording. But it lives on for those convicted under pre-1995 rules.

It also survives in legal procedures that still allow juries to be misled by inaccurately transcribed confessions.

The authors would like to acknowledge researchers Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Stephen Cordner, Robert Turnbull and James Uy Thinh Quang for their contributions to the research on which this article is based.

Michele Ruyters is affiliated with the Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative, which has assisted in this case.

Eleanor Kettle, Helen Fraser, Kate Burridge, and Rod Gardner 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.

Prince Andrew stripped of all titles after Virginia Giuffre’s memoir. Her family declares ‘victory’

2025-10-31T02:05:48Z

Content warning: this article includes graphic details about sexual assault some readers may find distressing.

Prince Andrew will be stripped of his royal titles, including prince, and will move out of his home, Royal Lodge, to a private residence. Buckingham Palace issued a statement today that King Charles has initiated a formal process to remove the “style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew”, who “will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor”.

The decision comes in the wake of Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir Nobody’s Girl, published this fortnight. The memoir includes an inside account of the two years Giuffre spent as a “sex slave” working for Jeffrey Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre died by suicide in April this year, aged 41, on her farm in Western Australia.

Three weeks before she died, she emailed her co-author, journalist Amy Wallace, and longtime publicist Dini von Mueffling: “In the event of my passing, I would like to ensure that Nobody’s Girl is still released.”

“Today,” Giuffre’s family said, “she declares a victory. She has brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage”.

British historian and author Andrew Lownie (author of a book about Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, called Entitled), told Sky News earlier this month, “the only way the story will go away is if [Andrew] leaves Royal Lodge, goes into exile abroad with his ex-wife, and is basically stripped of all his honours, including Prince Andrew”. Sarah Ferguson will also move out of Royal Lodge.

As a trauma memoir, Nobody’s Girl forces us to bear witness to an uncomfortable truth: Giuffre’s abuse was hidden in plain sight.

“Don’t be fooled by those in Epstein’s circle who say they didn’t know what Epstein was doing,” she writes. “Anyone who spent any significant amount of time with Epstein saw him touching girls.” She continues: “They can say they didn’t know he was raping children. But they were not blind.”

Review: Nobody’s Girl: A memoir of surviving abuse and fighting for justice – Virginia Roberts Giuffre (Doubleday)

Four days before the memoir was published, Prince Andrew announced he would no longer use the titles conferred upon him, including Duke of York. Three days later, leaked emails from 2011 suggested he gave Giuffre’s date of birth and social security number to one of his protection officers, hours before the infamous photograph of him with her was published.

Maxwell’s brother, Ian Maxwell, published an article in the Spectator today, headlined “Don’t take Virginia Giuffre’s memoir at face value”. The memoir keeps his sister, who was convicted of charges including sex trafficking of a minor, in world headlines – at a time Donald Trump has said he will “take a look” at pardoning her. Earlier this year, Maxwell was moved to a lower security prison to continue her 20-year sentence.

Allegations of parental abuse

Giuffre writes that her father began molesting her at the age of seven. He “strenuously” denies this. While the memoir makes this public for the first time, Giuffre’s older brother Danny Wilson told ABC’s 7.30 he first heard the allegations years before the memoir was published – and confronted his father about it.

Giuffre regularly wet her pants at school – earning her the cruel nickname “Pee Girl”. She recalls: “I began to get painful urinary tract infections. My infections were so severe, I couldn’t hold my urine.”

After one (of several) medical examinations, a doctor told her mother her primary school aged daughter’s hymen was broken. Giuffre writes of this moment:

My mother didn’t hesitate. ‘Oh, she rides horses bareback,’ she explained. That was the end of that. I didn’t even know what a hymen was.

Later, she recalls her mother raising suspicions about her involvement with Epstein and “apex predator” Maxwell, questioning “what this older couple wanted with a teenage girl who had no credentials”.

Giuffre writes: “I guess I was glad she cared enough to have suspicions, but at the same time, wasn’t it a little late for that? I knew she couldn’t save me; she’d never saved me before.”

Around the time of her doctor’s visit, the memoir alleges, Giuffre’s father began “trading” his daughter to a friend – a tall, muscular man with “a military bearing” who was also abusing his own stepdaughter. In 2000, the man was convicted of molesting another girl in North Carolina. He spent 14 months in prison and a decade as a registered sex offender.

Giuffre writes that she was abused by these men for five years, from ages seven to eleven; it only stopped when she began menstruating.

Heartbreakingly, Giuffre discloses that at one point she imagined Maxwell (or “G-Max” as she wanted to be known) as her mother: “While I was hardly equipped to judge, it often seemed to me that Epstein and Maxwell behaved like actual parents.” Among other things, the pair gave Giuffre her first cell phone, whitened her teeth, and taught her how to hold a knife and fork “just so”.

‘The younger, the better’

Giuffre’s memoir is a courageous and clear-eyed account of what trauma takes – and what recovery demands.

Told in four chronological parts – “Daughter”, “Prisoner”, “Survivor” and “Warrior” – the memoir meticulously records the “sexual assaulting, battering, exploiting, and abusing” Giuffre endured throughout her life, most notably at the hands of Epstein and Maxwell.

The result is a devastating exposé of the fetishisation and abuse of girls – “the younger, the better”, Epstein said – and society’s failure to protect the most vulnerable.

It is also a damning indictment of everyone who knew and looked away.

‘Please don’t stop reading’

Giuffre was 16 and working as a locker-room attendant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort when Ghislaine Maxwell recruited her to “service Epstein”, under the pretence of training as a masseuse. (In October 2007, Trump – who is portrayed favourably in the memoir – reportedly banned Epstein from his resort after Epstein hit on the teenage daughter of another member.)

Over the next two years, and roughly 350 pages, Giuffre tells how she was trafficked to “a multitude of powerful men”, including Prince Andrew, French modelling agent Jean-Luc Brunel, a prominent psychology professor and a respected United States senator.

Giuffre’s original memoir manuscript was titled “The Billionaire’s Playboy Club”.

In one of the most distressing scenes, Giuffre describes how she was trafficked to “a former minister”, who raped her so “savagely” she was left “bleeding from [her] mouth, vagina, and anus”. When Virginia told Epstein about the brutal attack, which made it hurt to breathe and swallow, he said, “You’ll get that sometimes.”

Eight weeks later, he returned Giuffre to the politician, who this time abused her on one of Epstein’s private jets. In the US version of the memoir, the politician is described not as a “former minister”, but as “a former Prime Minister”.

“I know this is a lot to take in,” Giuffre writes. “The violence. The neglect. The bad decisions. The self-harm. But please don’t stop reading.”

One of the most devastating revelations comes toward the end of the memoir. Giuffre – now in her forties – receives a phone call from a confidant claiming to have evidence that Epstein paid off her father when she was a girl. In 2000, when Epstein and Maxwell started abusing the teenager at El Brillo Way, it is alleged that her father accepted “a sum of money” from the paedophile.

According to Giuffre, when she confronted her father, there was “a brief silence” before “he started yelling at [her] for being an ungrateful daughter”.

Of all the betrayals she endured, this one stands alone: “I will never get over it”.

Girls no one cared about

“When a molester shows his face,” Giuffre writes, “many people tend to look the other way.”

In chapter 11, Giuffre describes how Epstein’s personal chef, the celebrity cook Adam Perry Lang, made her her favourite food – pizza. This, apparently, became something of a tradition – Lang feeding Giuffre, but never “ogl[ing]”, “even if I was standing naked in front of him, which was not unusual”. She wrote: “When I’d finished attending to Epstein or one of the other guests, Lang would have a cheesy hot pie waiting.”

In 2019, Lang issued a statement about working for Epstein: “My role was limited to meal preparation. I was unaware of the depraved behavior and have great sympathy and admiration for the brave women who have come forward.”

In another scene, Giuffre reveals that Epstein “never wore a condom”. After falling pregnant at the age of 17, she suffered an ectopic pregnancy.

On this day, Giuffre recalls how Epstein and Maxwell (“two halves of a wicked whole”) – with the help of Epstein’s New York butler – drove her to hospital after she woke in “a pool of blood”. Epstein lied to the doctor about her age, Giuffre alleges, and the two men seemed to enter “a gentlemen’s agreement” in which “whatever was going on between this middle-aged man and his teenage acquaintance […] would be kept quiet”.

“We were girls who no one cared about, and Epstein pretended to care,” Giuffre writes. “At times I think he even believed he cared.” She describes how Epstein “threw what looked like a lifeline to girls who were drowning, girls who had nothing, girls who wished to be and do better.” As a self-described “pleaser” who “survived by acquiescing”, Giuffre writes that Epstein and Maxwell “knew just how to tap into that same crooked vein” her childhood abusers had: abuse cloaked in “a fake mantle of ‘love’.”

Sex as birthright

In March 2001, at Maxwell’s upscale townhouse in London’s Belgravia – where Prince Andrew was famously pictured with his arm around the teenager – Giuffre recalls how Maxwell invited Andrew to guess her age. When the prince correctly guessed 17, he reportedly told her, “My daughters are just a little younger than you.”

Later that night, she writes, Prince Andrew bought the teenager cocktails at Tramp – an exclusive London nightclub – where she and the prince danced awkwardly and the prince “sweated profusely”. In the car, on the way home, Maxwell instructed Giuffre “to do for [Andy] what you do for Jeffrey”.

In November 2019, in his calamitous interview with BBC’s Newsnight, Prince Andrew denied any wrongdoing, claiming he had “no recollection of ever meeting this lady”. He told presenter Emily Maitlis he could not have danced sweatily at Tramp because he had “a peculiar medical condition” that prevented perspiration, caused by what he described as “an overdose of adrenaline” in the Falklands War.

In that interview, Andrew admitted his decision to stay at Epstein’s New York home in December 2010 – months after Epstein was released from jail for soliciting and procuring minors for prostitution – was “the wrong thing to do”. However, the prince claimed his decision was “probably coloured by [his] tendency to be too honourable”.

In her memoir, Giuffre describes Andrew as “friendly enough but entitled” – “as if he believed having sex with [her] was his birthright.” She alleges she had sex with the prince on two more occasions.

The last word

Publishing a book posthumously can be an ethical minefield. Critics often question whether posthumous publication is what the author would have wanted. They point to the author’s right to protect their work and their literary reputation – a right that cannot survive them.

However, Giuffre left no space for speculation. In the email she sent her co-author and publicist before her death, she made her wishes clear:

It is my heartfelt wish that this work be published, regardless of my circumstances at the time. The content of this book is crucial, as it aims to shed light on the systemic failures that allow the trafficking of vulnerable individuals.

As the memoir progresses, Giuffre’s health spirals. The physical, emotional and mental toll of trauma closes in on her. Epstein is dead. Maxwell is in prison. But Giuffre is still “trapped in an invisible cage”.

“From the start,” she says, “I was groomed to be complicit in my own devastation. Of all the terrible wounds they inflicted, that forced complicity was the most destructive.”

Before she died, Giuffre made a promise to her husband and children that she would try with “all her might” to believe her life mattered. Her final goal was to prevent “the emotional time-bomb” inside her from detonating.

While Giuffre may at last be beyond harm, the truth remains. She – like the hundreds of girls abused by Epstein and his associates – was wronged.

Her fight, like theirs, transcends death: release the Epstein files; hold abusers and their enablers accountable; expose the systems that protect predators; abolish statutes of limitations for the sexual abuse of minors. Ensure no other child suffers. This is what Giuffre wanted.

By publishing her memoir, she ensured the fight would survive her. She made certain her voice would outlast her pain.

In this way, she got the last word.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

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.

Kate Cantrell 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.

No longer ‘Prince Andrew’: an expert on how royals can be stripped of their titles

2025-10-31T01:31:42Z

Prince Andrew will be stripped of his royal titles, meaning he will no longer be called “prince” or “His Royal Highness”.

A statement from Buckingham Palace said:

His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew.

Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor […] These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.

Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.

The statement also noted Andrew will have to leave his current home, Royal Lodge, and move to alternative private accommodation.

These moves follow allegations, which Andrew continues to “vigorously deny”, surrounding his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

But how can a prince – who is, after all, the son of a queen – be stripped of the title “prince”?

Here’s how it works – and what it might mean for succession.

How do you actually strip a prince of his titles?

This is within the remit of the monarch, Charles III. The monarch issues an official document called a letters patent.

They are typically used to grant a title or a right, but this is doing the opposite: withdrawing it from Andrew.

There are precedents for monarchs removing titles in this way. When Diana and Charles divorced, she lost the use of “Her Royal Highness”, as did Sarah Ferguson, the former wife of Andrew. So a royal losing their title doesn’t always have to be scandalous or unusual.

But what’s not happened yet – because it’s not within the remit of the king – is the removal of Andrew’s position as eighth in line to the throne.

That requires parliamentary legislation to do – and not just the Westminster parliament, either.

To do that, the Westminster parliament would have to introduce a bill and pass it. However, the move would also require virtually identical legislation in all of the Commonwealth parliaments (such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on).

That’s not beyond the realm of possibility.

A bit over a decade ago, with what came to be known as the Perth agreements, the Commonwealth parliaments agreed to change the rules around succession and gender. No longer would older princesses be leapfrogged by younger brothers to get a spot on the throne.

It happened very smoothly, so it is certainly possible for all Commonwealth parliaments to agree to coordinate on something. However, the Westminster parliament cannot instruct other parliaments to pass such legislation.

So, could all the Commonwealth parliaments coordinate to remove Andrew from the line of succession? I have not seen any mention of this in media reports so far, but I would be highly surprised if this didn’t happen in future.

It seems incompatible that Andrew would lose his title and still be in line for succession.

But is the son of the queen not always a prince?

By custom, yes, the son of a queen is known as a prince. But as we have seen, that title can be removed.

The best example is in 1936, when King Edward VIII abdicated so as to marry divorcee Wallis Simpson, and he lost the title of king.

He was thereafter no longer entitled to the title “His Royal Highness” and he got a new title: Duke of Windsor. He had some prestige, but was no longer entitled to use his royal title.

Edward VIII (who was also Andrew’s great uncle) did not have any children. But if he had, they wouldn’t have been entitled to inherit the throne.

And that was an actual reigning king, not just a prince.

Acting in a moment of crisis

Andrew has reportedly accepted the latest decision but it was made by his brother, the king.

This is a signal from Charles not just to the public but also to his heir, William, that he’s doing everything he can to smooth the path for William’s succession and to respond to public anger over the allegations against Andrew.

As an historian, this is a moment to reflect on how this is another example of the British monarch taking decisive action in a moment of crisis, to save the reputation of and public support for the monarchy.

Another example would be King George V, who acted decisively in the first world war not only to strip titles from family members who had supported Germany in the war, but to also change the name of his family.

They were known as Saxe-Coburg Gotha (a German name), but they became the house of Windsor.

Cindy McCreery has received funding from the ARC.

Spiders inspired biologists to create artificial webs to capture airborne DNA for biodiversity monitoring

2025-10-31T01:03:05Z

Getty Images

The global crisis of diminishing biological diversity is challenging our current ability to monitor changes in ecosystems.

Environmental DNA, or eDNA, has become a popular method. It involves taking a sample from the environment and extracting the DNA to document the species that are (or were recently) present.

Just like matching barcodes to an item’s price at the supermarket, eDNA data are matched to a corresponding identification record in a reference database.

But most eDNA sampling takes place in water, passing litres of liquid through a filter that retains DNA fragments for analysis. This method works very well for freshwater and marine species, but less so on land.

Enter airborne DNA, or airDNA, an emerging method not yet optimised for widespread commercial applications but with great promise for capturing signals of land-based biodiversity.

Researchers have been exploring the question of whether natural spiderwebs could be used to collect DNA, but our research takes this a step further.

Artificial spiderwebs are as good as natural spiderwebs at capturing DNA from the air. Authors provided, CC BY-ND

Inspired by a bit of Halloween decoration, we designed artificial spiderwebs to see if they are as good as the real thing in capturing airborne DNA. Our data show artificial spiderwebs performed similarly to real spiderwebs in detecting land-dwelling species.

History of DNA capture

eDNA has been used to monitor changes in biodiversity, detect new species and evaluate the success of restoration or eradication projects. It is easy to use, cheap and non-invasive, and is now being deployed by citizen scientists, community groups and mana whenua.

But species living mostly on land – mammals, birds, bats, reptiles, insects – are less well detected by this method.

One of the first studies to showcase the potential of methods to analyse airborne DNA vacuumed air at a zoological park in Huntingdonshire (United Kingdom). It picked up DNA from 17 of the resident land species, including black and white lemurs, howler monkeys, sloths and tigers, as well as their food items and other mammals and birds.

This stimulated further research, including into the use of cheaper, passive methods of airDNA collection that rely on the settling of air onto inert biofilters. A recent study explored whether natural spiderwebs might provide a new way to capture traces of vertebrate DNA from the environment.

This work sparked excitement among researchers, who immediately saw the potential of spiderwebs to provide aerosol DNA alongside DNA derived from the spiders themselves and their recent prey.

We shared the general excitement of our colleagues but couldn’t help but wonder about the potential negative impacts of this methods’ widespread use on spiders. Spiders are already on the receiving end of bad press, but they have important roles in the ecosystem as nature’s pest and disease control agents. They eat about 800 million tonnes of insects annually across the globe.

Using natural webs is also less robust, as their size and shape, and how long and where they are deployed, are left to chance.

How do artificial webs perform?

In comparison to water eDNA methods, both types of spiderwebs in our research revealed a distinct signature of terrestrial communities. But they were also good biofilters for capturing fungi, possibly by trapping floating fungal spores.

The ecosystem picture drawn from both types of webs compared to water eDNA also shows these methods are likely complementary, capturing a more complete catalogue of species in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

This is great news: artificial spiderwebs are easy and cheap to construct and provide better control over location, frequency and duration of DNA collection – all at a reduced cost to nature.

Where to from here? Further refinements are on the way. Outstanding questions include how many artificial spiderwebs we need to sufficiently capture biodiversity, whether these webs will perform better or worse in windy or wet conditions, and whether other materials besides Halloween decorations could provide an even better artificial web.

As we continue to explore such questions, perhaps nature’s weavers will provide further inspiration that helps us fashion even better biomechanic solutions for measuring biodiversity.

Ang McGaughran has received funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand, from the MBIE Smart Ideas funding programme, and from Genomics Aotearoa.

Manpreet K Dhami receives funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (Smart Ideas, Endeavour, SSIF, Envirolink), the Royal Society of New Zealand (Marsden, Mana Tuanuku Research Leader Fellowship, Catalyst), National Science Challenge BioHeritage and Genomics Aotearoa.

90 years of Monopoly: how the ‘new craze’ morphed from socialist critique to capitalist dream

2025-10-30T23:49:23Z

Monopoly is the best-selling licensed board game of all time, popular since its 1935 release when “the new craze” swept the world.

It has remained a staple, with over 390,000 copies sold in Australia to date.

Its transformation from an economic critique to a capitalist icon highlights its historical evolution and adaptability.

A game with a message

Monopoly’s roots trace back to The Landlord’s Game (1903), created by Elizabeth Magie to critique monopolistic land ownership.

It featured two sets of rules – one emphasising wealth accumulation, the other wealth distribution. The aim was to demonstrate how different policy levers, taxing income versus taxing land, affect economic outcomes of players.

It was based on economist Henry George’s proposition for a “land value tax” or “single tax”. Under this regime, people would keep all they earned, with public funds raised from land ownership instead.

The board for Elizabeth Magie’s 1906 version of The Landlord’s Game. Wikimedia Commons/LandlordsGame.Info

The two sets of rules in the Landlord’s Game demonstrate how wealth is either concentrated in the hands of landlords (taxing income) or is more fairly distributed across society (taxing land).

In 1935, a man named Charles Darrow removed the game’s socialist critique (the version that taxed land), renamed it Monopoly and sold it to Parker Brothers. The game was now focused on the accumulation of real estate until one player remained, having bankrupted their fellows.

The game thrived during the Great Depression, offering an escapist fantasy of financial success.

In 1935, Charles Darrow reworked the game to become Monopoly. The Salem News Historic Photograph Collection, Salem State University Archives and Special Collections, CC BY

In 1935, Parker Brothers paid Magie US$500 (US$11,800 today) for the rights to her game, ensuring their ownership of Monopoly was unchallenged. As part of the deal, they released her original game, but it failed to gain traction with players.

Not everyone welcomed its capitalist themes – Fidel Castro famously ordered all Monopoly sets in Cuba destroyed in 1959

Playability and house rules

Philip Orbanes, former vice president of research at Parker Brothers, argued a good board game must have clear rules, social interaction and an element of luck. Monopoly ticks all three boxes.

Despite this, Monopoly is notorious for causing arguments. Hasbro (who bought out Parker Brothers in 1991, acquiring Monopoly in the process) found that nearly half of Monopoly games end in disputes, often over rule interpretations. Monopoly is the game most likely to be banned, or see a particular player banned, on game nights.

A group of sunbathers having a smoke and playing a game of monopoly at an open air pool, 1939. Fox Photos/Getty Images

Monopoly’s rules have been adjusted and manipulated as players have sought to overcome the inequities in the game. Another of Hasbro’s surveys found 68% of players admitting to not having read the rules in their entirety, and 49% said they had made up their own rules.

These “house rules” include things like cash bonuses on Free Parking or modifying auctions to make the game more engaging.

Identity and nostalgia

Monopoly’s use of real-world locations makes it adaptable to local markets.

The original version reflected Atlantic City’s socio-economic hierarchy. When Waddingtons released the English version in 1936 under license (the same version which would go on to be released in Australia in 1937), Atlantic City’s wealthy Boardwalk and working class Mediterranean Avenue became London’s Mayfair and Old Kent Road, respectively.

The game can also serve as a bridge to former geographies. The 1980s Yugoslav edition remains a link to the past for those who lived through that era, recording changing political geographies and cultural shifts.

More than 240 players compete for the British Monopoly title at Fenchurch street station, London, in 1975. WATFORD/Mirrorpix/Mirrorpix via Getty Images

Monopoly is a flagship brand for Hasbro, worth an estimated US$272m in 2018. Part of Monopoly’s success lies in its licensing strategy. The board layout is extremely flexible, allowing for localised adaptations to be made to suit different markets, without any substantial change to the game play.

There are believed to be over 3,400 different versions of Monopoly issued, from classic city street layouts to popular culture imaginings.

It is this aspect that attracts collectors; world record holder Neil Scanlon owns 4,379 sets of Monopoly (he is still searching for the Cronulla Sharks set).

Monopoly reflects the world’s economic systems, embodying both the dream of wealth and the realities of financial inequality.

It has been studied by economists and educators as a tool for understanding capitalism, wealth accumulation and market control.

The game originally meant to critique monopolistic practices became a celebration of them. Each player has the opportunity to accumulate vast wealth, reflecting the promise of capitalism: where anyone can enjoy riches as long as they work hard enough.

Magie’s message was leveraged by Federal MP Andrew Leigh in his 2023 critique of the growing concentration of business monopolies in Australia. Leigh noted how monopolies affected Australian families and how the Albanese government had “increased penalties for anti-competitive conduct, and banned unfair contract terms” with the aim of creating a fairer society.

Enduring popularity

In 2025, Hasbro introduced digital banking versions – though many players lament the feel of physical wads of cash.

The game continues to be a favourite, ranking as the top childhood game among Baby Boomers, Gen X and Millennials – and fourth for Gen Z. The sense of nostalgia was strong among all groups, not surprising as board games were found to be an integral part of family bonding.

Monopoly has evolved from an anti-capitalist critique into a commercial juggernaut. While it has faced criticism for erasing its socialist origins and its reliance on luck, its ability to reinvent itself has ensured its lasting appeal.

As both a cultural artefact and a competitive game, Monopoly remains firmly embedded in board game culture.

Lisa J. Hackett 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.

6 ways to give your dog a richer life, from ‘sniffaris’ to sensory gardens

2025-10-30T23:11:56Z

Brenda Timmermans/Pexels

While we are captivated by a vivid sunset and breathtaking views, dogs have their noses to the ground, reading the odour stories left behind by other dogs and animals. The pile of crinkling autumn leaves that gathers the smells of passers-by provides a snapshot of how dogs connect with their world – through scent.

But sniffing isn’t just a hobby for dogs. Studies have shown specific scents introduced to the environment can reduce dogs’ stress and boredom, increase relaxed behaviours and increase engagement with toys or their surroundings.

Research has shown dogs have scent preferences. The novelty of the scent also appears to be important.

So providing opportunities for dogs to sniff more of the environment and put their nose to use may be the ultimate way to enrich their wellbeing, no matter their age, breed, or size.

This is something professional dog trainers already know, as our recent study published in Applied Animal Behaviour Science highlights. Based on the study’s findings, here are six ways you can provide different types and varieties of scent enrichment for your dog. They are an easy, low-impact and low-cost way to provide mental stimulation and expand your dog’s world.

1. Scent work

Scent work classes have been growing in popularity. They involve pet dogs learning to find a hidden scent and signalling the location.

Engaging in scent work has shown to increase optimism in dogs and help build more focus compared to other sports such as those requiring agility. Trainers agree it is good for a dog’s overall wellbeing.

Pet dogs trained in scent work have contributed to dog-citizen science projects – sniffing out invasive pests, wildlife and helping advance lung cancer detection.

You can even teach your dog to locate your phone, wallet or keys with this training exercise.

2. Sniff-based walks

These are walks centred on letting a dog safely explore the world with their nose, with no social disturbances from other dogs or people. A kind of “sniffari”.

Allowing dogs to “read the local news” of their environment is low cost, easy to implement for all caregivers and commonly used by dog trainers. “Sniff spaces or parks” are rented spaces to book and may be better choices for some than dog parks.

Sniffaris are centred on letting a dog safely explore the world with their nose. Anna Roberts/Unsplash

3. Scent-enriched environment

Adding scents of animal or plant origin to a dog’s home environment can encourage exploration with their noses (without consuming anything). In turn, this can produce various behavioural benefits, such as increasing optimism in dogs and the amount of time they spend resting.

Animal scents may be straw bedding, sheep poo, rabbit urine, an old saddle, a brush used by another animal, feathers or animal hair safely introduced in a container or sack for investigation.

Plant scents such as food essence (for example, vanilla or coconut), dried thyme, lavender oil or fresh oregano diluted in water and sprayed or scattered on surfaces can help dogs relax and bark less.

4. Sensory gardens

These are outdoor areas planted with pet-friendly herbs, plants and flowers. These include rosemary, basil, thyme, catnip, lavender, valerian, parsley and mint.

Check in with your vet to ensure your choices are right for your dog.

Snuffle mats can be a great supervised indoor activity for dogs. Ayla Verschueren/Unsplash

5. Scatter search feeding

This is a kind of food treasure hunt where dogs search for scattered food on the ground, in the grass or leaves, or hidden across an area.

Dogs do need to learn to do this. You can help them do so by pointing treats out and using a word to encourage them a few times until they become proficient.

6. Scent engagement games

Food hidden in material mats (a “snuffle mat”) or activity mats with pockets and flaps can be a great supervised indoor activity.

Alternatively, recycle cardboard boxes by arranging them in different sized layers across a room, and hide treats or a favourite toy inside them for an exciting treasure hunt.

If you’re not already using scent-based activities – whether you’re a trainer or dog caregiver – it’s well worth trying them. They’re simple, engaging and hugely rewarding for dogs.

Jade Fountain consults for Animal Behaviour Matters. She receives funding from the Australian government through the Australian Government Research Training (RTP) Stipend.

Running ‘super shoes’ may make you faster – but at what cost?

2025-10-30T22:06:12Z

Once seen only on the feet of elite runners at the Olympics and other premier running events, the so-called “super shoe” has moved from racing podiums to pavements.

Today, you’re just about as likely to spot them at a Saturday Parkrun as you are on the world stage.

So what are they exactly, how do they work and do they potentially increase injury risk?

What are ‘super shoes’?

In 2016 at the Rio Oympics, Eliud Kipchoge – the only human to run a sub two-hour marathon – used the prototype of the Nike Vaporfly.

This shoe was lighter than normal running shoes and embedded with a rigid, curved plate and a new type of foam.

Many sportswear brands have since developed their own version of a super shoe, now heavily marketed to recreational runners chasing the tantalising promise of a personal best, albeit at a high purchase cost (often costing A$100 more than regular running sneakers).

But how different is the super shoe from a traditional sneaker?

The composition of a super shoe typically combines three key features:

a carbon-fibre plate to propel the foot forward
layers of specialised foam that compress and rebound more than traditional sneakers
a curved “rocker” design to encourage a more efficient transition into each stride.

This technology has sparked controversy, with critics and governing bodies questioning whether the technology blurs the line between athletic ability and unfair advantage.

Should recreational runners be using super shoes?

Super shoes were originally designed to maximise elite performance and have been shown to improve running economy by 2.7%, which can translate into faster race times. This finding was based on an independent review of ten super shoe studies – some of which were funded by shoe companies.

However, some of the key materials used in super shoes have limited durability, which may require users to buy replacements more often. Exactly how much more often is not currently known.

While super shoes are now marketed to recreational runners, research indicates the benefits are greatest for highly trained runners and when running at fast speeds.

However, performance benefits aren’t the only consideration.

Now, researchers are beginning to question whether the very features that are meant to boost performance may actually increase the risk of running-related injuries.

Will they increase injury risk?

Early reports of runners developing midfoot stress fractures after switching to super shoes have sparked safety concerns in the running community.

Although the exact mechanisms of these injuries aren’t yet clear, they likely relate to a mismatch between the loads that bones, muscles and tendons are used to and the altered loading caused by the new shoes.

Carbon fibre plates make super shoes stiffer and harder to bend. This restricts foot movement, which in turn increases loading in the midfoot region and in the long foot bones (metatarsals) – common sites of running-related bone injury.

Additionally, the thicker midsoles in super shoes may allow more downward movement of the midfoot bones, adding to the stress experienced at this location.

However, the opposite impact on bone loading occurs at the shin (tibia), where super shoes can reduce tibial load accumulation during prolonged running.

How can they be integrated into running training?

Experts typically recommend reserving super shoes for race days or key training sessions. More research is needed to understand their long-term effects.

As a result, any decision to use super shoes for training should be carefully considered and planned.

Independent research has found some runners feel super shoes are easier to run in, which may encourage more frequent and intense training.

But a sudden spike in weekly running could increase the risk of a training load-related injury — particularly given the increased foot bone loading associated with super shoes.

However if runners limit their super shoe use during training and give their bodies time to adapt to the altered loading patterns, faster speeds and greater distances, there could be advantages.

Early research results from recent international conferences reflect a mixed injury risk picture: a United States study found runners training for a half-marathon in super shoes were about half as likely to get injured compared to those in traditional shoes, while a Swedish study tracking runners for nine months found no difference in injury rates.

Neither of these research groups disclosed their funding sources in their published reports, so the involvement of shoe companies is unknown.

Tips for people considering super shoes

Although the evidence is still evolving, there are some practical steps runners can consider if they decide to use super shoes:

health vs performance: super shoes may assist your race day goals. However, they are expensive, may degrade more quickly than traditional running shoes, and are probably unnecessary if you are running solely for health benefits
slow, gradual introduction: if you need the performance boost from super shoes, then ensure you give your body time to adapt to them during training runs
they’re not for everyday use: the impacts of prolonged super shoe use are unknown. Use them selectively until further guidance is available
know your bone health: if you have a history of foot stress fractures, then be very hesitant to use super shoes given the potentially increased risk of midfoot stress fracture
careful monitoring: if you’re trying super shoes and feel discomfort, it could be a warning sign of injury problems. Switch back to shoes that don’t cause you any problems if you experience pain or discomfort, and seek medical advice.

Joel Fuller does not work for, consult, or own shares in any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. Joel has previously led research projects that have evaluated the effects of different running shoes (not super shoes) on running performance, biomechanics and physiology; some of those past projects received research funding from footwear companies who produce super shoes (ASICS and Nike) and/or involved the use of running shoes that were donated by shoe companies (ASICS) or purchased at a discounted rate from running shoe retail stores (Jogger’s World). Joel has previously received travel support from a footwear company (ASICS) to attend a national sports medicine conference. At no stage has Joel received personal payment from any footwear company.

Chloe Blacket does not work for, consult, or own shares in any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. Chloe is involved with a current university-based research project funded by a sporting company who produces super shoes (ASICS) to explore running motivation. This project is unrelated to super shoes. At no stage has Chloe received personal payment from any footwear company.

Eoin Doyle does not work for, consult, or own shares in any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. Eoin Doyle has contributed to a University-based research project funded by a sporting company who produces super shoes (Nike). This project was unrelated to super shoes. At no stage has Eoin received personal payment from any footwear company.

John Arnold does not work for, consult, or own shares in any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. John has conducted research partially funded by footwear company who produces super shoes (ASICS) to conduct research on soccer boots. He has also conducted research funded by RunDNA (a footwear retailer) to perform research on running gait analysis and methods to optimise footwear fitting, and from Sports Medicine Australia for research related to foot orthoses and plantar heel pain. At no stage has John received personal payment from any footwear company.

Friday essay: Jon Faine on why our social cohesion should not be taken for granted

2025-10-30T19:10:13Z

Social cohesion is in decline. This has become a common refrain, along with despair about a crisis in our democracy. Yet amid the platitudes and wishful thinking about reversing that trend, there is a glaring absence of strategy or urgency.

At different stages of our history, social cohesion has meant different things. It is an elastic term. Today, it is built on values of inclusion, harmony, respect, equality, fairness and, particularly, multiculturalism. But it has not always been thus.

There was a time not so long ago when maintaining the White Australia policy was claimed to be essential to maintain social cohesion. What was then widely accepted as Australia’s “natural” order was threatened by anyone with dark skin or Asian heritage.

Today it is the reverse: the threat to social cohesion comes from neo-Nazis targeting Asians, First Nations and other dark-skinned people. So let us not be oblivious to how value-laden the term is.

Australia has seen racism since Captain Cook stepped ashore. We would be naive to think it will not continue to show its ugly side.

When white settlers first arrived, whether in chains or not, hostility to Indigenous people was unexceptional: they were regarded as savages and dismissed as a dying race. When free settlers started to arrive, the English colonists made life tough for the Scots, who were fleeing the clearance of the Highlands by absentee landlords. Then the English and Scots together were unhappy about the arrival of large numbers of Irish – survivors of the potato famine.

Then they all banded together against Chinese gold miners. Then the same happened to every other wave of migrants or refugees – persecuted Lutherans, Jews from displaced persons camps after the Holocaust, then the Italians, Greeks, Turks, Vietnamese, Lebanese, and so on, through to today’s punching bag, people from Africa.

We cannot wish racism away. But neither should we shrug, accept it, and minimise the instances and impact of it

A healthy scepticism

While calling for urgency, and avoiding complacency, let us maintain a healthy scepticism about some of the wilder predictions of the imminent collapse of our political and social fabric.

Confident assertions of democratic disenchantment, of democracy being replaced in the wealthy West with some form of authoritarianism or dictatorship seem hysterical.

There is a bookshelf full of recent government reviews, departmental reports, commissions of inquiry, anxious submissions, newspaper opinion pieces and occasionally rabid radio and television commentary bemoaning a decline in social cohesion.

Covid and years of disruption have stressed our community economically, politically and socially. Globalisation and the uneven distribution of wealth, in particular inter-generational inequality, are stubborn challenges that governments struggle to solve.

The barbaric Hamas attacks on Israel two years ago, the resultant Gaza war, the appalling number of civilian casualties and displacement of the Palestinian people have triggered huge and persistent protests that have stress-tested communities here and around the world. May the fragile peace agreement be sustained.

These are not just economic and political challenges, but emotionally complex trials for many of us. They require deep understanding, and a willingness and capacity to balance competing interests and rights.

Sadly, nuance is often lost in this age of performative politics. Bumper-sticker slogans replace meaningful debate, resulting in rapidly growing polarisation.

We have had episodic polarisation before – the Vietnam War era in particular, and the division in 1951 when Robert Menzies tried to outlaw communism.

But Australia has been, and continues to be, remarkably resilient. We score highly on every measure of livability, accountability, democratic functionality and multiculturalism. Our social fabric, while far from perfect, ought to be recognised for what has been achieved. It should not be underappreciated.

Overdue maintenance

The fragile machinery of democracy needs some long overdue maintenance, some lubrication to keep the social compact moving. Social cohesion needs a makeover.

Opponents of multiculturalism gleefully pounce on any sign of stress or tension, any evidence at all of wrongdoing by “ethnics”, to claim that migration and multiculturalism are failed projects to be abandoned, consigned to history.

It is absurd to claim that multiculturalism as a policy is failing. Just look around any town or city in Australia today – any school, creative or cultural organisation, sporting code or contest or public or private sector workplace – and the reality of a remarkably cohesive Australia is on show.

But that narrative of negativity about the supposed failings of multiculturalism could become self-fulfilling. Some of the criticism is designed to trigger a loss of confidence. The more we wallow in pessimism, the more likely it will infect the public square.

The worst attacks on our social fabric have been shown to be orchestrated, contrived – deliberately staged – to unsettle and stress test our society. Russian intelligence interests have been proven to have interfered with free elections throughout the European Union, in former Soviet satellite states, their neighbours and even, notoriously, in the United States.

Iranian intelligence agencies hired petty criminals to commit the fire bombing of a synagogue in Melbourne and to also stage multiple antisemitic attacks in Sydney. The same happened in France, Canada and elsewhere.

Cyber-attacks traced to North Korea, China’s proxy, have targeted many nations and businesses, across the globe. Leading intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Australia caution that we are in an undeclared war.

Sir David Omand, former UK security and counter-terrorism chief, writing in The Economist warned that strengthening

social cohesion in the face of extremist violence is not only a noble aspiration but a security imperative. If communities feel unsafe in their own neighbourhoods, if children have to hide in synagogues or mosques in terror, if worshippers are murdered at prayer, the social contract is seen to fracture. The very possibility of living together in mutual respect is called into question.

These bad actors – corrupt autocrats and dictators – want to undermine the Western democratic project for several concurrent reasons. They aim to weaken the West economically, strategically and culturally. They want to preserve their own privilege and massive wealth, and they also want to suppress internal activism for democratic reform.

The democracy vandals amplify contrived troubles in the wealthy West to assure their own citizens agitating for democratic change that, in the West, we live in fear and chaos. I recommend Autocracy Inc: The Dictators Who Want to Run The World by Anne Applebaum.

Much of our democratic backsliding is thus not a coincidence. It is not home grown, nor is it evidence of widespread grassroots rebellion. It is manipulated and orchestrated.

Neo-Nazis marching down Melbourne streets in the early hours of the morning and then attacking a First Nations camp are undoubtedly getting some outside tutelage. A few fringe cosplay fascists have popped up from time to time for years, but their sudden visibility and growth suggests to me that they are getting external funding and support.

The fascists who organised last year’s riots in the UK were not working in isolation. The inquiry after the riots established many details. Police were attacked, buildings and vehicles were burned, graves desecrated, a hotel where asylum seekers were being housed was torched with people inside. Ugly mobs churned through multiple cities at the same time. 1,280 people were arrested and 796 were charged. Of the 94 rioters arrested in connection with the hotel riot, 80 had prior convictions and 20% were under 18, recruited and targeted through social media.

Their self-appointed leader, with the stage name “Tommy Robinson”, is a serial offender called Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. He has a rap sheet of violent assault, fraud, using a fake passport and contempt of court. Despite that, he is supported by Elon Musk, the richest person in the world.

Tommy Robinson and his supporters are wholesale peddlers of conspiracy theories on social media. They have exploited the dropping of guard rails by the tech barons – who did so at the behest of no less a figure than the president of the US, no stranger to inciting a riot himself.

We know that social media thrives on conflict and polarisation. Conspiracy theories and misinformation are weaponised to achieve political and commercial ends. Amplifying outrage is a tactic, a strategy, and it means that small numbers of supporters appear to be a bigger threat to our social cohesion than they actually are.

Decisions by social media platforms to reduce moderation have increased their capacity to promote the extremism of both the left and right. The extremists need each other – violence at one extreme justifies violence at the other.

Balance and fact-checking are no match for mis- and disinformation. It is an ancient adage in journalism that “a lie has gone around the world before the truth gets out of bed”. Online hate speech inciting racism is largely unregulated. Resolving how to do so and to make the AI revolution serve humanity, and not just the tech titans, is the battle that will define our times.

The platform operators, who have amassed the greatest fortunes in the history of capitalism, laughably say they cannot afford to monitor or regulate their own products to make them safe.

Imagine if Ford or General Motors said they can’t be expected to be responsible for making cars safe, but instead it is individual drivers who should be responsible for vehicle safety. Or if food suppliers said they had no role in preventing poisoning, instead it is up to consumers to be wary of what they buy and eat.

Unarguably, those who have been enriched beyond even their wildest dreams by the new tech simply must be forced to make their platforms safe.

Less talk, more action

But I am wandering from my topic. Having cautioned against all this doom and gloom, and having described a scenario that is almost dystopian, there is still cause for optimism. Why? Because social cohesion is kryptonite to bad actors. We are resilient and will continue to be so.

Adjust the frame to see it through an economic lens. A federal government inquiry in 2024, Strengthening Australian Democracy, described social cohesion as a national asset. So why do we spend so little effort – and money – in protecting it?

Capital needs trust – trust in the rule of law, democratic elections and domestic harmony. French economist Thomas Piketty – who writes books many of us buy but hardly anyone reads – has earned global recognition for explaining this, and also explaining how the strongest economies are the most equal, how democracy and social cohesion are bolstered by lower inequality.

We laud those who invest in economic or engineering infrastructure, or who punt billions on new technology, or an innovative business model. But we do not do nearly enough to protect what underpins it all – social cohesion.

Instead of more hand wringing, what should we do about it? Less talk, more action. Here are some fundamentals.

If you want respect, you also must give respect. If you expect someone to listen to you, you have to listen to them.

It is easy to hate someone if you never meet them. It is difficult to maintain prejudice against people once you break bread.

The best way to fight an idea is with better ideas, not censorship. The best way to win an argument is with a better argument, not to cancel someone.

It is as futile to merely dictate that “social cohesion must improve”, as it is to demand that people stop committing crimes, or lose weight. It is a fraud on the populace to present the challenge as being simple. It requires nuance, funding and, more than anything else, leadership, not platitudes and sound bites.

To restore the public square and the capacity to respectfully disagree – to steer people away from the extremes – it is vital to avoid hollowing out of the centre.

Some practical suggestions

Here are a few practical suggestions, achievable and sustainable.

Banish the use of “tolerance” from the lingo of multiculturalism. I don’t want anyone to say they tolerate me. It’s like saying, through gritted teeth, “I’ll hold my nose and somehow manage to put up with you” – a kind of backhander. More significantly, it betrays an attitude of cultural superiority: “My mob will tolerate you, on our terms.” Instead, can we be respectful and inclusive.

We also need to be honest that the politics of multiculturalism has often become a contest between ethnic power blocs over who gets a dollop of taxpayer money shovelled their way – often to buttress ethnic votes in marginal electorates. Social cohesion is not improved by cynical power brokers treating ethnicity as a branch-stacking weapon against their factional enemies and political opponents.

Next, stop fragmenting the battle against racism. In 2024, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese appointed both an antisemitism and an Islamophobia envoy. It backfired. Elevating those two hatreds above all others is counterproductive and increases division instead of bringing everyone closer together. Instead, simply give the existing bodies like the Australian Human Rights Commission the funds to better perform what is already their job – the urgent task of tackling entrenched racism.

April 2024 saw the release of a federal government Multiculturalism Framework Review, with 29 recommendations. It sank without trace, even though we have the most diverse parliament in our history. Almost nobody outside of the multicultural elite took any notice whatsoever. I suspect the government was quietly pleased.

What we need is a social cohesion strategy, adopted by national, state and local governments, working together to re-imagine what we can be. Such a strategy will invest in strengthening engagement, countering isolation and breaking down barriers to inter-communal activities wherever they are. It should be seamlessly interwoven into the fabric of our daily life, for city and rural communities, inner and outer suburbs, not just the already multicultural active.

Instead of talking about the need for greater cohesion, we need to do things that are more cohesive in their essence. This is no less important than a housing strategy, a “red tape” strategy, a health strategy, or any other area of civic life.

Research commissioned by the Australian Bicentennial Authority nearly 40 years ago found that of all the indicators measuring strength in a democracy, the strongest democracies globally also have the highest number of choirs. A choir is the very embodiment of cooperation between disparate individuals. If you do not work together, it sounds something like the Collingwood cheer squad.

I am not suggesting compulsory choir attendance, but it is instructive. Small grants can subsidise community music festivals, food festivals, grassroots sport, street parties, school events ranging from fetes to excursions. Governments should offer underwriting of insurance and other compliance costs that have become insurmountable barriers. State government insurers should underwrite the risks to save small community groups huge costs and bureaucracy.

Volunteers need tax concessions as incentives, to offset the actual cost of volunteering. Transport, uniforms, training are all barriers that lead to a decline in participation.

We must better use school and church infrastructure after hours as active community hubs, integrated with community houses and men’s sheds, among others. Tax exempt and government assisted private schools and religious institutions must open their gates to the wider community. We who contribute to their funding are shut out of their sometimes extravagant facilities. This is their social licence at work.

Even small and easy programs like first-aid training, English language classes for those newly arrived, homework clubs where retirees assist struggling students with their learning, RUOK days, new parent groups offering support at such a stressful time – so many good initiatives, more common in small country towns, have withered in our suburbs.

Tellingly, this is already happening overseas. In the US, grassroots community organisations are mobilising as a countermeasure to the crisis in their democracy.

A poll in 2021 found that only 20% of young Japanese agree that society can be changed by their own actions. Voter turnout for under 20s in the last election was 10% lower than the overall voter turnout. Similar disconnection was seen in the UK.

Polling on campuses in the US reveals a growing belief that it is ok to use violence to stop someone expressing an opinion you do not agree with. It is beyond polarisation when disagreement is equated with evil. When everything is performative, pushed to extremes, threats and then violence can be normalised.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel. Look at Irish citizen assemblies, and how citizens in Portugal, Finland and Taiwan are localising again, decentralising and innovating in the ways their political class engage with their citizens.

Local government, once a vital organ for community building, is now struggling with rate caps and cost blowouts. It is always easier for them to cut community programs, rather than chop direct service delivery of child care, meals for the elderly or disability services.

Progressives should also swallow hard and embrace patriotism. Not a jingoistic version, but an authentic pride in our contemporary national project. There is no contradiction between patriotism and diversity. We must deprive the ultra nationalist proto-fascists of their claim to a monopoly on a love of country.

Some of those most passionately protective of the modern project of contemporary Australia are the newly arrived. Anyone who has been to a citizenship ceremony will know how profoundly emotional a day it is. To let the ultra-nationalist racist right characterise the people we used to call “new Australians” as aliens is to surrender the terms of the argument. It denies the reality of daily life and entrenches a “them” and “us” duality that is an absolute fiction.

Forging a shared identity that celebrates diversity is the only reality for contemporary Australia. We are one, but we are many. This is not new, but progressives must lose the cringe, the embarrassment about patriotism.

In a Gallup Poll in 1958, just 4% of Americans approved of mixed-race marriages. The figure today is over 90%. Attitudes can change, but sometimes it takes longer than we want. We can improve our social cohesion, with strong leadership and a clear vision based on shared values.

Change does not just happen automatically; progress is not inevitable. It happens because we make it happen. We all have a part to play.

This is an edited version of a keynote speech given at the Scanlon Foundation Research Institute Social Cohesion Summit In October.

Jon Faine is a member of the Board of Museums Victoria which includes Melbourne Immigration Museum in its portfolio. Being a director of Museums Victoria is a voluntary position, appointed by the state government.

Sex with 1,000 men in 12 hours: why Bonnie Blue is neither a feminist nor a monster

2025-10-30T19:09:22Z

Stan

The documentary, 1,000 Men & Me: The Bonnie Blue Story, has made Tia Billinger – stage name Bonnie Blue – a household name.

Famous for her sexual stunts, including one in which she has sex with more than 1,000 men in 12 hours, Bonnie Blue fascinates us because we do not understand her.

Billinger claims to be an embodiment of feminism. She points out she is rich and independent, and says she has taken control of her sexualisation. Yet it is difficult to imagine how sleeping with 1,000 men in a day could lead someone to feel empowered rather than degraded.

Some have offered personality-based explanations for Billinger’s choices, saying she may simply be an opportunistic sociopath.

But explanations like these relegate her to the status of a social oddity, or a monster. And this discounts the social conditions that produce someone like Billinger – the same social conditions all women face.

The contradiction Bonnie Blue embodies reveals just how fraught a woman’s relationship to power and influence is. Women who seek power often encounter a double bind that leads them to use their power in a way that also curtails it.

Power through subservience

Power requires two ingredients. It involves autonomy and self-determination. It also requires being embedded in society so as to exert influence within it.

These two aspects of power work in tandem for men, and especially white men. But for women, and people with other marginalised identities, they often pull in opposite directions.

US feminist writer Andrea Dworkin described this situation in her 1978 book Right-wing Women: for women, power comes through subservience to male values.

For a woman, to be embedded in society is, by definition, to have her autonomy and self-determination restricted. As a result she is forced to choose: do what you want or have influence.

The reward for protecting men’s access to women

Billinger’s business model is striking. She makes enormous amounts of money by offering sex for free. The fact the sex itself is free enables her to turn around and sell a desirable commodity through subscription-based platforms such as Fansly – namely, the fantasy of female availability.

After her 1,000 men stunt, Billinger told her documentary film makers

I loved […] seeing how many men had wedding rings on. I just loved knowing I was doing something their wives should’ve done.

She tells men not to “feel guilty for doing something you deserved and you was, well, you was owed”. Despite appearances, then, Billinger is not autonomous at all. Her power is the result of subservience to male entitlement.

There have always been women who gain power by protecting men’s access to women. Consider, for example, US conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly (1924–2016). While Billinger is famous for her extreme sexual stunts, Schlafly could be considered the original tradwife.

Initially an expert in foreign policy, Schlafly was unable to gain political traction through her expertise, so she built a career opposing women’s liberation on behalf of housewives. She got the political power she wanted, but not in the field she really cared about.

Conservative activist Phyllis Schafly wearing a Stop ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) badge in front of the White House, Washington DC, in February 1977. Library of Congress

Womanliness as a masquerade

Both Schlafly’s and Billinger’s personas map squarely onto one side or the other of what psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud called the Madonna-whore complex, in which a misogynistic society categorises women according to the kind of service they offer men – either as a saintly mother figure or as a sexual object.

Each of these roles also deflects attention by attacking the opposite side of the dichotomy.

Billinger positions herself as a rival to men’s wives, claiming her critics simply want to turn her into a housewife. Schlafly positioned herself as a housewife opposing equal rights because she considered such rights to be bound up with sexual promiscuity.

In reality, each stance relies on the other. And we’re beginning to see this manifest in the emergence of tradwife Onlyfans content.

In 1929, psychoanalyst Joan Riviere wrote about a tendency in her female patients she called “womanliness as a masquerade”.

Riviere notes how women who exhibited traits socially coded as “masculine”, or who occupied positions historically reserved for men, attempted to hide this masculinity through a performance of femininity. She wrote:

women who wish for masculinity may put on a mask of womanliness to avert anxiety and the retribution feared from men.

To undertake a “masculine” pursuit of power, both Schlafly and Billinger uphold a particular ideal of femininity. And both women’s careers are logical – if misguided – responses to the messages women receive about where their value lies.

A never-ending tradeoff

Our systems punish women for wanting things such as power, money, or visibility, requiring them to turn against other women, give up their expertise, or make themselves infinitely available to men.

If women were allowed to pursue power without these sacrifices, it might curtail the harms other women face as a result of the masked pursuit of power.

Women should not have to choose between power, money and visibility on one hand, and community and liberation on the other. They should not have to choose between Madonna and the whore.

Yet as political gains continue to shrink around the world, many women are starting to feel this double-bind more forcefully. There may be more Bonnie Blues and Phyllis Schlaflys on the horizon.

Lexi Eikelboom 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.