Glyn Davis, Anthony Albanese’s hand-picked Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, will leave the post on June 16.
Albanese paid tribute to Davis for rebuilding the public service.
“One of the key priorities of our government’s first term was rebuilding the capacity of the Australian Public Service,” the PM said in a statement.
“This included rebuilding the confidence of people who worked in the APS, making sure they understood that the government valued their ideas, respected their hard work and recognised their vital role in our democracy.”
Albanese said Davis had “worked calmly and steadily to reassert the purpose of the public service”.
He described Davis as “a man of unique strengths: an intellectual who embraces the practical, an institutionalist who champions reform.
“To his enduring credit, he leaves a great national institution in far better shape than he found it, to the benefit of all Australians.”
Davis, who has written extensively on public policy, had a long career in academia before taking the PM&C post. He was vice-chancellor of the University of Melbourne, where he undertook major reform.
Earlier, he had served the Queensland Labor governments of Wayne Goss and Peter Beattie.
His wife, Margaret Gardner, is former vice-chancellor of Monash University, and presently is Governor of Victoria.
Among the Albanese government’s public service reforms has been stripping back the use of consultants, bringing more work in-house.
The public service became a frontline issue at the election with the opposition promising a big cut to its size.
Davis said on Friday that he planned to take “a break, some time to think and write, some more involvement in the arts, and a moment to reflect on how best to contribute”.
He remains a visiting professor in the Blavatnik School at Oxford and hopes to spend some time there. “And I will get involved in some research projects at Melbourne also.” But he was not leaving one role for another, he added.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew King, Associate Professor in Climate Science, ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather, The University of Melbourne
This year, for many Australians, it feels like summer never left. The sunny days and warm nights have continued well into autumn. Even now, in May, it’s still unusually warm.
Much of the southern half of the continent is experiencing both unseasonable warmth and dry conditions. This is linked to persistent high atmospheric pressure (called “blocking”) to the south and southeast of Australia.
While temperatures will fall across southern Australia as we approach the winter solstice, early indications are that this winter will be a warm one. Rainfall predictions are less certain.
The extra warmth we’ve experienced raises obvious questions about the influence of human-caused climate change. The warming signal is clear and it’s a sign of things to come.
A warm and dry autumn for many
March and April brought unseasonal heat to much of Australia.
March was widely hot, with temperatures several degrees above normal across much of the country. But April’s heat was largely restricted to the southeast.
Australia had its hottest March on record and the heat has continued, especially in Victoria and parts of New South Wales. Bureau of Meteorology
Victoria had its warmest April on record, and parts of the state experienced temperatures more than 3°C above normal across both March and April.
Temperatures normally fall quite quickly over the southeast of Australia during April and May as the days shorten and the continent’s interior cools. But this year, southern Australia was unusually warm at the start of May. Some locations experienced days with maximum temperatures more than 10°C above normal for the time of year.
Records were broken in Hobart and parts of Melbourne, which had their warmest May nights since observations began.
The start of May saw daytime maximum temperatures across much of Australia well above average for the time of year. Bureau of Meteorology
While Queensland and the New South Wales coast have had very wet spells, including downpours from Tropical Cyclone Alfred at the start of March, other parts of Australia have been quite dry.
The area between Adelaide and Melbourne has been exceptionally dry. A drought is unfolding in the region after a severe lack of rainfall, with deficits stretching back over the past year or so. Western Tasmania is also suffering from a severe lack of rainfall since the start of autumn, although welcome rain fell in the past week.
And it’s not just on land that unusual heat has been observed. The seas around Australia have been warmer than normal, causing severe coral bleaching to the west and east of the continent, harmful algal blooms and other ecosystem disruptions.
Warm seas likely triggered the microalgal bloom in coastal waters of South Australia. Anthony Rowland
Blocking highs largely to blame
A high pressure system has dominated over the south and southeast of Australia over the past few months.
High pressure in the Tasman Sea can sometimes get stuck there for a few days. This leads to what’s known as “blocking”, when the usual passage of weather systems moving from west to east is obstructed. This can lock in weather patterns for several days or even a week.
Repeated blocking occurred this autumn. As winds move anticlockwise around high pressure systems in the Southern Hemisphere, blocking highs in the Tasman Sea can bring moist, onshore winds to the New South Wales and Queensland coasts, increasing rainfall. But such high pressure systems also bring drier conditions for the interior of the southeast and much of Victoria and South Australia.
Often, these high pressure systems also bring northerly winds to Victoria, and this can cause warmer conditions across much of the state.
High pressure systems also tend to bring more clear and sunny conditions, which increases daytime temperatures in particular. Air in high pressure systems moves down towards the surface and this process causes warming, too.
Australia sits between the Pacific and Indian Oceans and is subject to their variability, so we often look there to help explain what’s happening with Australia’s climate. In autumn though, our climate influences, such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Indian Ocean Dipole, are less active and have weaker relationships with Australian climate than at other times of year. Neither of these climate influences is in a strong phase at the moment.
A warm winter on the cards
One big question is how long the heat will last. In parts of southeast Australia, including Melbourne, average temperatures drop quickly at this time of year as we approach the winter solstice.
However, the seasonal outlook from the Bureau of Meteorology points to a high likelihood of a relatively warm winter.
Australians rarely escape having a winter without any significant cold spells, but the long-range forecast suggests we should anticipate above-normal temperatures on average. Both daytime maximum temperatures and nighttime minimum temperatures are expected to be above average generally this winter.
Climate and water long-range forecast, issued 1 May 2025 (Bureau of Meteorology)
Global warming is here
The elephant in the room is climate change. Human-caused climate change is increasing autumn temperatures and the frequency of late season heat events. As greenhouse gas emissions continue at a record pace, expect continued warming and a greater chance of autumn heatwaves in future.
The effect of climate change on rainfall is less clear though. For the vast majority of Australia, there is high uncertainty as to whether autumn will become wetter or drier as the world warms.
Andrew King receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather and the National Environmental Science Program.
Newly elected Pope Leo XIV appears on the central loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican shortly after his election as pontiff, on May 8, 2025. AP Photo/Domenico Stinellis
When the 69-year-old Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost on May 8, 2025, appeared on the main balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica for the first time as Pope Leo XIV, he was cheered loudly by the huge crowd of pilgrims, tourists, local Catholics and other onlookers, who had waited hours for the first sign of white smoke and the official announcement.
As a specialist in Catholic history and ritual, I know how important this moment was for Catholics and others all over the world. A new pope brings with him a sense of excitement often mixed with uncertainty.
But the choice of the College of Cardinals came as a surprise to some. Prevost is the first pope from the United States, and, traditionally, the European-dominated College of Cardinals has had reservations about choosing a cardinal from the U.S. for fear of too much American influence in the church.
So, who is Prevost and what might have influenced the cardinals’ vote?
Early experiences
Born in Chicago, Illinois, Prevost joined a Catholic religious order at the age of 20: the Order of St. Augustine, called Augustinians, founded in the 13th century. Instead of withdrawing from the world in isolated monasteries, members of this order traveled as mendicants to aid the poor as well as serve as missionaries and teachers.
Prevost studied theology both in the U.S. and in Rome and, as a newly ordained priest, spent a year in Peru. After a short return to the U.S. as an official of the Augustinian order in Illinois, he returned to Peru as a seminary professor to teach canon law, the legal structure of the Catholic Church. He would stay in Peru for the next 10 years.
In 1999, he became the prior – that is, the head – of the local Augustinian province in Chicago, and was later elected prior of the worldwide Augustinian order. This gave him a truly global experience, since the Augustinians had some 50 communities spread across every continent.
In 2015, Pope Francis appointed him bishop for the diocese of Chiclayo in Peru. In 2019, Francis appointed him a member of several important Vatican dicasteries, or departments, where he became very familiar with the central church administration. Most importantly, he served as prefect – or chairman – on the Dicastery for Bishops.
Catholics hold a photo of newly elected Pope Leo XIV, in front of the Cathedral of Chiclayo, Peru, on May 8, 2025, where he served as bishop for several years. AP Photo/Manuel Medina
In fact, because of his lengthy pastoral experience in Peru and service at the Vatican, some commentators had noted before Prevost was chosen that, if the cardinals were to elect an American pope, it would be him. His service on the Dicastery for Bishops was considered especially important, since members play a key role in selecting new bishops.
Global church
During the 20th century, especially after the Second Vatican Council – a series of meetings of the world’s bishops to modernize the church, ending in 1965 – the popes began to name cardinals from other parts of the world that were previously considered to be on the periphery of the Catholic Church.
And this led to popes being chosen from outside of Italy for the first time in centuries. Pope St. John Paul II was Polish and the first non-Italian pope since the 16th century. Pope Benedict XVI was another non-Italian, born in Germany, who had served as a Vatican official. Pope Francis was born in South America to parents who were Italian-born immigrants to Argentina.
The College of Cardinals, which had few representatives from other continents until recently, is now much more international. Some 80% of the cardinal-electors were named by Francis, many from countries that had never before had a cardinal.
In reviewing his record, the cardinal-electors might have taken a number of factors into account. Prevost would be an effective administrator as head of the church, and was an expert in church canon law. He had decades of experience doing pastoral work in South America, as well as in North America. And as prior general of the entire Augustinian Order, he would likely have traveled widely to visit many of the communities he supervised.
Papacy under Leo
The moment when the new pope emerged on the Vatican balcony.
The new pope appeared on the Vatican balcony wearing the traditional papal garments: white cassock, short red cape, decorated red and gold stole, and golden cross hanging around his neck. Francis, on the other hand, had appeared dressed in the plain white cassock of a pope.
Certainly, he had not chosen the simplicity of Francis. Was this a sign that he would be more of a traditionalist?
His choice of a papal name, I believe, could indicate a different point of view. Pope Leo XIII wrote a groundbreaking encyclical in 1891, “Rerum Novarum,” subtitled “On Dignity and Labor.” In this he stressed the rights of workers to unionize and criticized the conditions in which they worked and lived. He also championed other rights the ordinary worker deserved from their bosses and from their government.
In his first remarks from the balcony, offering a glimpse into the direction of his papacy, Leo XIV stressed the role of Catholics and the church as peacemakers and bridge-builders, in dialogue with other religious traditions and cultures. His first words were “Peace be with you all,” describing this peace as “a disarmed peace, a disarming peace.” He further urged Catholics to act together “without fear … united with one another … to build bridges” through dialogue and outreach – to bring peace to the world.
He may not follow exactly in Francis’ footsteps, but he will likely continue walking in the same direction.
Joanne M. Pierce does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philip C. Almond, Emeritus Professor in the History of Religious Thought, The University of Queensland
Composite image by The Conversation. Images courtesy of TruthSocial/@realDonaldTrump and Wikimedia Commons
The US presidency and the papacy came together on May 3 when Donald Trump posted an AI-generated photograph of himself dressed as the pope to Truth Social. The image was then shared by the White House’s accounts.
Seated in an ornate (Mar-a-Lago-style) golden chair, he was wearing a white cassock and a bishop’s hat, with his right forefinger raised.
Trump has since told reporters he “had nothing to do with it […] somebody did it in fun”.
This image of “Pope Donald I” is of historical significance, for reasons of which, no doubt, the White House and Trump were blissfully unaware. It is the first ever image to combine the two most important understandings of the figure of the Antichrist in Western thought: on the one hand, that of the pope, and on the other, that of the authoritarian, despotic world emperor.
On April 22, the day after Pope Francis’ death, Trump declared “I’d like to be pope. That would be my number one choice”. On April 28, Trump told The Atlantic “I run the country and the world”.
So, both pope and world emperor.
The Imperial Antichrist
In the New Testament, the First Letter of John says, before Christ came again, the Antichrist will appear: the most conspicuous sign the end of the world was near. nb small tweak to wording here
The Antichrist would be the archetypal evil human being who would persecute the Christian faithful. He would be finally defeated by the forces of good. As Sir Isaac Newton suggested, “searching the Prophecies which [God] hath given us to know Antichrist by” is a Christian obligation.
The first life of the Antichrist was written by a Benedictine monk, Adso of Montier-en-der, around 1,100 years ago. According to Adso, the Antichrist would be a tyrannical evil king who would corrupt all those around him with gold and silver. He would be brought up in all forms of wickedness. Evil spirits would be his instructors and his constant companions.
The Antichrist, left, is depicted as a king, in this image from a 12th century manuscript. Wikimedia Commons
Seeking his own glory, as Adso put it, this king “will call himself Almighty God”.
The Antichrist was opposite to everything Christ-like. According to the Christian tradition, Christ was fully human yet absolutely “sin free”. The Antichrist too was fully human, but completely “sin full”. The Antichrist was not so much a supernatural being who became flesh, as a human being who became fully demonised.
Influenced by Christian stories of the Antichrist, Islam and Judaism constructed their own Antichrists – al-Dajjal, the Antichrist of the Muslims, and Armilus, the Antichrist of the Jews. Both al-Dajjal and Armilus are king-like messiahs.
Over the centuries, many world leaders have been labelled “the Antichrist” – the Roman emperors Nero and Domitian were Antichrist figures, and the French emperor Napoleon was named the Antichrist in his own time.
In the year 1190, King Richard I of England, on his way to the Holy Land, was informed by the Italian theologian Joachim of Fiore (c.1135–1202) the next pope would be the Antichrist.
In the history of the Antichrist, this was a momentous occasion. From this time on, the tyrannical Antichrist outside of the Church would be juxtaposed with the papal deceiver within it.
That the Catholic pope was the Antichrist was the common reading of the pope in the 16th-century Protestant Reformation.
Martin Luther (1483–1546), the founder of the Protestant revolution, declared the pope “is the true […] Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ”.
Just as all Christians would not worship the Devil as God, he went on to say, “so we cannot allow his apostle the pope or Antichrist, to govern as our head or lord”.
This 1877 painting depicts Martin Luther summoned by the Catholic Church in 1521, to renounce or reaffirm his views criticising Pope Leo X. Wikimedia Commons
As he was about to be burned by the Catholic Queen Mary for his Protestant beliefs, the Anglican bishop Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556) declared, “as for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and antichrist with all his false doctrine”.
Even in 1988, as Pope John Paul II addressed the European Parliament, the Northern Ireland hardline Protestant leader Ian Paisley roared, “Antichrist! I renounce you and all your cults and creeds” – to which, we are told, the pope gave a slight bemused smile.
Except among the most extreme of Protestant conservatives, the idea of the papal Antichrist no longer has any purchase. The papal Antichrist has vacated the Western stage for the imperial Antichrist.
The Antichrist and the end of the world
In the history of Christianity, the idea of the Antichrist was a key part of Christian expectations about the return of Christ and the end of the world.
In the final battle between the forces of good and evil, the Antichrist would be defeated by the forces of Christ. In short, the rise of the world emperor who was the Antichrist was a sign that the end of the world was at hand.
In the light of the Western history of “the Antichrist”, the image of the imperial and papal US president is a powerful sign that the global order – at least as we have known it for the last 80 years – may be at an end.
Philip C. Almond 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia
If you walk through your local pharmacy or supermarket you’re bound to come across probiotics and prebiotics.
They’re added to certain foods. They come as supplements you can drink or take as a pill. They also occur naturally in everyday foods.
You might have a vague idea that probiotics and prebiotics are healthy. Or perhaps you’ve heard they’re good for your “microbiome”.
But what actually is your microbiome? And what’s the difference between probiotics and prebiotics anyway?
First, some definitions
The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Health Organization, define probiotics as “live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit”. These microorganisms are the bacteria and yeasts in food such as yoghurt, sauerkraut and kombucha, and in supplements.
But prebiotics refer to the “food” probiotics need to survive and replicate.
Prebiotics are better known as dietary fibre. They include specific types of fibres called inulin-type fructans, galacto-oligosaccahrides, resistant starch and pectin. Prebiotics occur naturally in plant foods, are added to foods (such as bread and breakfast cereals) and come as supplements.
Dietary fibre remains undigested in your stomach and small intestine until it reaches the large intestine. There, microorganisms (probiotics) break down (or ferment) the fibre (prebiotics), converting it into metabolites or nutrients linked to better health.
How are they related to your microbiome?
Both probiotics and prebiotics are said to encourage a healthy microbiome. That’s a healthy community of different microorganisms that live in or on your body. This includes those in the mouth, gut, skin, respiratory system and the urogenital tract (which handles urine, and has reproductive functions).
Everyone’s microbiome is different and varies throughout your life. For instance, changing your diet, physical activity, hygiene, taking antibiotics or having an infection all affect your microbiome.
These factors can change the diversity of your microbiome, that is how many different types of microorganisms you have. These factors can also alter the ratio of healthy microorganisms to unhealthy ones.
Everyone’s microbiome is different and this community of microorganisms varies throughout your life. Elif Bayraktar/Shutterstock
When your microbiome is less diverse or when the number of unhealthy microorganisms outgrow the number of healthy ones, this is known as dysbiosis. This can lead to problems including diarrhoea or constipation, irritable bowel syndrome, bleeding gums, atopic dermatitis (eczema) or acne.
Probiotics and prebiotics are marketed as ways to support a healthy, diverse microbiome, and help to reduce the chance of dysbiosis.
As taking antibiotics can alter your microbiome, they’re also marketed as a way of improving its microbial diversity when taking antibiotics or afterwards.
Do probiotics work?
The microbiome plays a crucial role in our health. For instance, a healthy microbiome has been linked to reduced risk of cancers, cardiovascular (heart) diseases, allergy diseases and inflammatory bowel disease.
But how about taking probiotic supplements to boost your microbiome?
A review of clinical trials looked at probiotic supplements in healthy people. It found no increase in the diversity of their microbiome.
Another review of clinical trials looked at the impact of probiotic supplements while people were taking antibiotics. The diversity of their microbiome did not improve.
Another study not included in these two reviews found probiotics could make microbial diversity worse in the short term. It found probiotic supplements delayed restoring the microbiome after taking antibiotics.
Trying probiotics around the time you take antibiotics doesn’t seem to help your microbiome. one photo/Shutterstock
What about prebiotics?
There have been few studies on the impact of healthy people just taking prebiotic supplements. However, there are studies of people taking prebiotics with probiotics on particular aspects of health.
For instance, one large review looked at various neuropsychiatric outcomes, including dementia, Parkinson’s disease and mild cognitive impairment, when people took prebiotics and probiotics (together or separately). Another review looked at the effect of prebiotics, probiotics or synbiotics (supplements that contain both prebiotics and probiotics) on people with diabetes.
But their findings are not conclusive. So we need more research to routinely recommend these supplements. They are also no replacement for standard medication and a healthy, balanced diet.
So how do I keep my microbiome healthy?
You’re better off getting your probiotics from everyday fermented foods, such as sauerkraut and kimchi. Tatjana Baibakova/Shutterstock
Naturally occurring probiotics and prebiotics are in everyday foods.
Probiotics are found in fermented foods such as cheese, sauerkraut, yoghurt, miso, tempeh and kimchi.
Prebiotics are in the foods that contain fibre – all plant foods. It is important to have a variety of plant foods in your diet. This will ensure you get all the different types of fibre needed to keep your healthy bacteria alive, and to increase the diversity of your microbiome.
Eating foods rather than consuming supplements also means you get the extra nutrients in the food.
The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating recommends a diet rich in plant foods, and promotes eating fermented foods (in the form of cheese and yoghurt). This combination is ideal for maintaining a healthy microbiome.
Evangeline Mantzioris is affiliated with Alliance for Research in Nutrition, Exercise and Activity (ARENA) at the University of South Australia. Evangeline Mantzioris has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and has been appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council Dietary Guideline Expert Committee.
Labor’s extraordinary election result has triggered a power play that has exposed the uglier entrails of Labor factionalism.
Even before the new caucus met in Canberra on Friday, the Labor right had dumped two of its cabinet ministers: Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and Industry Minister Ed Husic. Dreyfus is from the Victorian right, Husic from the New South Wales right.
In Labor, factionalism can trump merit. Not always, of course, but undoubtedly more often than is desirable, and certainly in this case.
These dramatic demotions to the backbench have been driven by two factors.
The left has more numbers in the caucus after the election, meaning that to preserve factional balances, one minister from the right had to go.
And then Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles used his heft as chief of the Victorian right to protect the numbers of that group in the ministry, at the expense of the NSW right, and to secure a key promotion.
In sacrificing Dreyfus who, while from the right, isn’t a serious factional player, Marles has seen the elevation into the outer ministry of his numbers man Sam Rae (as well as another Victorian right-winger, Daniel Mulino).
Rae, little known publicly, has only been in parliament since 2022. He’s a former Victorian Labor state secretary and was a partner at PwC. Mulino, with a substantial background in economic policy, has served in both the Victorian and federal parliaments.
Some see the Marles move as, in part, looking to shore up his numbers for any future leadership race. While this might sound far-fetched, given Anthony Albanese’s huge win and declaration he’ll serve a full term, aspirants always have an eye on the future. The manoeuvre won’t be missed by another leadership aspirant, Treasurer Jim Chalmers, a Queenslander who is also from the right.
Given his enhanced authority, Albanese could have intervened to protect the two ministers – there was an attempt from within the NSW right to get him to do so for Husic – but has chosen to let the factional power play take its course. He said on Thursday, “we have a process and we’ll work it through”, adding that “no individual is greater than the collective, and that includes myself”.
In the fallout, with the loss of Dreyfus there will be no Jewish minister, which is unfortunate in light of the government’s strained relations with the Jewish community. Husic’s demotion takes the only Muslim out of cabinet, although the speculation is another Muslim, Anne Aly, will be elevated to cabinet.
Former prime minister Paul Keating was scathing of the demotions, denouncing the “appalling denial of Husic’s diligence and application in bringing the core and emerging technologies of the digital age to the centre of Australian public policy”.
Keating said Albanese’s non-intervention in relation to Husic “is, in effect, an endorsement of a representative of another state group – in this case, the Victorian right faction led by Richard Marles – a faction demonstrably devoid of creativity and capacity”.
Keating described the treatment of the two ministers as “a showing of poor judgement, unfairness and diminished respect for the contribution of others”.
It will take a while to see what ripples the factional power play brings. Husic, certainly, is feisty. He could become a strong voice on a Labor backbench that has been basically quiescent. He is already booked to appear on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday and its Q&A panel on Monday.
Now that the factions have had their say, the prime minister allocates jobs, with particular interest on what Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek receives.
On the other side of politics, it is not surprising there is widespread anger, ill feeling and recriminations, given the magnitude of the Liberals’ defeat. The contest for leadership between the party’s Deputy Leader Sussan Ley and Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor had already become willing before the bombshell defection of Senator Jacinta Price from the Nationals to the Liberals increased the angst exponentially.
The Nationals feel betrayed that their star performer has walked out on them. Her defection will complicate negotiations between the Liberals and the Nationals over their inter-party agreement.
The move, part of the attempt by Taylor, from the right, to boost his support, is further dividing the Liberal party. It is not yet clear whether Price will join a ticket with Taylor to run for deputy. In interviews on Thursday night and Friday morning she kept her options open, presumably to determine what numbers she would draw.
While having the Liberal deputy in the Senate would be inconvenient, it has precedent. Fred Chaney, then a senator, became deputy in Andrew Peacock’s coup against John Howard in 1989. It didn’t end well.
If Price did run, that might help Taylor with some Liberals currently uncertain of which leadership contender to support, because they would know she would be popular in their branches.
But for the moderates in the party, who want the Liberals to find a path back in traditional urban areas, the arrival of Price, with her hardline right views, sends all the wrong signals. The leafy city suburbs are populated with small-l voters and professional women, who would not see themselves in tune with Price’s views.
It there was a Taylor-Price leadership team that would be an unmistakable message – that the Liberals were tracking very significantly away from the mainstream in which most voters swim.
Price was the leading figure who helped sink the Voice referendum, but she has not yet proved herself on the broader range of issues. In the campaign, her reference to “make Australia great again” was used against the Coalition to claim it was “Trumpian”.
Explaining her move, Price says that she had actually always wanted to sit in the Liberal party room. She comes from the Northern Territory Country Liberal party, whose representatives sit with either the Liberals or the Nationals, according to a formula.
On her timing, Price said, “right now, amongst many of the conversations I have had with those leading up to making this decision, is that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures”.
Within the Liberals, Price, given her profile and her status as a poster-woman of the rightwing media, will potentially be hard to handle.
While Labor savours the taste of triumph, and the Coalition drinks the the bitter brew of defeat, a week on Dreyfus, Husic and the Nationals discover the limits of loyalty.
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.
The crisis springs from decades of government policy failures in many areas. Homelessness is linked to poverty, stigma, violence and poor health.
Labor has promised to:
build more affordable housing
reduce social housing waitlists
prioritise groups vulnerable to homelessness
invest A$1.2 billion in homelessness accommodation.
This is welcome, but it’s crucial people who have experienced homelessness are involved in the design of policy and services. They are the experts.
Our recent research involved speaking with 47 people with current or past experiences of homelessness in Victoria and South Australia. The study was co-designed and co-led by people who had experienced homelessness.
See us, hear us
Participants told us their perspectives aren’t valued. One said:
Homeless people [are] looked down upon. The individual is not considered. They fall on hard times for many reasons. They will judge you and they’ll categorise you.
Another said:
Do we have a voice? No, we don’t, because they don’t care […] they don’t listen.
Many wanted to influence policy and service design. One said:
I think it’s really important that people like us […] have a say in the way we move forward, and it’s not coming from people in really nice suits […] that don’t really have any experience.
Respect our expertise
People who’ve experienced homelessness can “identify things that someone without that lived experience may simply not have thought of in the first place”, one person told us.
They should be involved as staff and leaders in service design and provision. One person said:
I think if there were people that were around with lived experience that could somehow get in contact with people like me at that time and say, “Look, mate, you don’t have to go down this path, you don’t have to live this kind of life, there’s another way”.
One participant who’d experienced domestic violence said navigating all the different non-government agencies was complicated. Decisions were made without her input.
A failure to find this woman housing eventually led to her children being removed.
Respect needs to be at the centre of service provision. One participant described overhearing workers complaining about the smell of homeless people. Another said they’d value practical advice from people who’d experienced homelessness:
Having someone who’s actually been through that and can actually then describe what navigating systems means to someone coming in could be a really useful way to employ someone in homelessness services.
Valuing and paying for the expertise of people who have experienced homelessness is vital. One participant said:
I was on a panel with CEOs of homelessness organisations [and] was asked one hour before: “Would you like to be the lived experience voice?” So, was I paid the same? No. Was I given the same respect as everyone else? No. Was I given enough time to prepare? No. But did I deliver? Yes, I delivered. I showed up and I still was able to deliver. So, I think my expertise […] is just as valid as anybody else’s.
Another said:
You need to get as wide a lived experience as possible, otherwise it’s a bit pointless if they’re all 30-year-old white guys.
Incarceration creates homelessness […] they’re released into a void […] If that was me, I would definitely rather be in prison than be on the street.
Another said:
Most women who are in prison suffered from childhood sexual abuse, they’ve suffered domestic violence and suffered a lot of trauma […] but for some reason, that’s all forgotten for us when we’re released.
People with experience of homelessness are best placed to guide the design and delivery of services, and offer pragmatic solutions.
One participant told us:
When I came out [of hospital], one of the community service people said, “Oh, we can put you in a hotel for four nights.” And I said, “Actually, the best thing I need is four new tyres on my van.” And they said, “No, we can’t do that.” The tyres would be cheaper than the hotel. But they said, “No, we can’t.” I’ve always said solutions don’t have to be pretty, but they have to work.
People told us a one-size-fits-all, box-ticking approach won’t work because:
not everybody fits into those categories. Everybody [is] in different circumstances.
Another said:
You go to a service, they don’t care about your purpose. They don’t care about your goal. They care about: “Have I provided my service that I’m obligated to give?”
Many services aren’t working for homeless people. One participant said:
One of the reasons I stayed homeless is because I either had to kill my dog or give my dog up and I couldn’t do either because he was my saviour. So, I lived
in that car. At that time, I was freezing and gave whatever blankets I could to my dog. He got so sick […] I contacted another place [and] asked for a sleeping bag and a tent to be sent to me and it was sent to the service provider that never gave it to me.
Our research participants called for policy addressing poverty and for the perspectives of people who’d experienced homelessness to be:
embedded in housing and homelessness policy, service design and practice
recognised, valued and properly remunerated
involved in leading research.
The authors thank the people with experience with homelessness who led our research.
Robyn Martin’s research was funded by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, and was a collaboration between RMIT, UniSA, the Council for Homeless Persons and Seeds of Affinity.
Carole Zufferey’s research was funded by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, and was a collaboration between RMIT, UniSA, the Council for Homeless Persons and Seeds of Affinity.
Michele Jarldorn’s research was funded by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, and was a collaboration between RMIT, UniSA, the Council for Homeless Persons and Seeds of Affinity. Michele is a volunteer with Seeds of Affinity and is currently chair of their board. Seeds of Affinity does not receive any ongoing funding.
Have you ever felt an unexpected sense of calm while walking barefoot on grass? Or noticed your stress begin to fade as you stood ankle deep in the ocean? If so, you may have unknowingly “grounded” yourself to the earth.
Grounding, also known as earthing, is the practice of making direct physical contact with the Earth’s surface. Our ancestors embraced this trend without knowing it. But with the invention of indoor homes, footpaths, roads, and even shoes, we have become less physically connected with the earth.
Grounding has been suggested to have a number of benefits, such as improving mood, and reducing stress and pain. But overall, there’s limited conclusive evidence on the benefits of grounding.
Somewhat ironically, the concept of grounding in 2025 is heavily influenced by technology, rather than getting out into nature. Consumers are being hit with social media reels promoting a range of technologies that ground us, and improve our health.
Among the most common are promises of improved sleep with the use of a grounding sheet or mat. But is this just another TikTok trend, or could these products really help us get a better night’s sleep?
Bringing the outdoors in
The human body is conductive, which means it can exchange electricity with Earth and artificial sources, such as electronic devices or objects. (Sometimes, this exchange can result in an electric or static shock.)
Proponents of grounding claim the practice reconnects “the conductive human body to the Earth’s natural and subtle surface electric charge”.
They credit this process with physiological and psychological benefits (but again, the evidence is limited).
Grounding technologies can vary in type (for example, under-desk foot mats, mattress toppers and bed sheets) but all are designed to provide a path for electric charges to flow between your body and the earth.
The bottom prong you see in your three-prong wall socket is a “ground” or “earth” terminal. It provides a direct connection to earth via your building’s wiring, diverting excess or unsafe voltage into the ground. This protects you and your devices from potential electrical faults.
Grounding technology uses this terminal as a pathway for the proposed electrical exchange between you and earth, while in the comfort of your home.
Could grounding improve your sleep?
The research in this area is still emerging.
A 2025 study from Korea recruited 60 participants, gave half of them a grounding mat, and gave the other half a visually identical mat that didn’t have grounding technology. The researchers used a “double-blind” protocol, meaning neither the participants nor the researchers knew which participants were given grounding mats.
All participants wore sleep trackers and were asked to use their mat (that is, sit or lie on it) for six hours per day. The researchers found that after 31 days, participants in the grounding mat group slept longer on average (as measured by their sleep trackers) than those in the control group.
The researchers also used questionnaires to collect measures of insomnia, sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, and stress. After 31 days, participants in both groups improved on all measures.
There were no differences between the grounded and ungrounded groups for sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, and stress. And while grounded participants showed significantly lower insomnia severity after the intervention, this difference was also present at the start of the study. So it’s unclear if grounding had a tangible impact on sleep.
In another double-blind study, published in 2022, researchers in Taiwan examined the effectiveness of using grounding mats to improve sleep among patients with Alzheimer’s disease. The findings indicated that spending 30 minutes on a grounding mat five times per week resulted in improved sleep quality.
While previous research has suggested using grounding technologies may lead to improvements in mood, no differences were seen in measures of anxiety and depression in this study.
Grounding for gains?
Grounding technology has also been touted as having other benefits, such as reducing pain and inflammation.
A 2019 study found participants who slept on a grounding mat after intense exercise felt less sore and showed lower levels of inflammation in their blood compared to those who were ungrounded.
Grounding after a workout may help you feel better and recover faster, but it’s still unclear whether and how grounding affects long-term training results or fitness gains.
So should you cash in on your favourite influencer’s discount code and grab a grounding mat? At the risk of spouting a common cliche of cautious scientists, our answer is that we don’t know yet.
What we do know is the existing research, albeit emerging, has shown no evidence grounding technology can negatively affect your sleep or recovery after exercise. So if you love your grounding mat or grounding sheet, or want to see if grounding works for you, feel free to give it a go.
Keep in mind, grounding products can retail for anywhere from around A$30 to $300 or more.
On the other hand, grounding on the grass in the great outdoors is free. While there’s limited evidence that grounding outdoors can improve sleep, spending time in outdoor light may itself benefit sleep, regulate circadian rhythms, and improve mood.
Finally, while grounding could be an interesting strategy to try, if you’re experiencing ongoing problems with your sleep, or suspect you may have a sleep disorder, the first step should be reaching out to a medical professional, such as your GP.
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.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel Speed Thompson, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, University of Dayton
Newly elected Pope Leo XIV waves to pilgrims gathered in St. Peter’s Square shortly after his election on May 8, 2025.Vatican Media via AP
As crowds celebrated in St. Peter’s Square, a man in white and red stepped onto the balcony of the basilica, prompting cheers from the plaza.
It was American Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost: Pope Leo XIV, as he will now be known. On May 8, 2025 – the second day of the conclave following Pope Francis’ death – the College of Cardinals selected him to lead the Catholic Church.
In the days to come, people may pore over videos of those first few minutes of Leo’s papacy, analyzing everything from his vestments and multilingual speech to his choice of papal name. Appearing on the balcony of St. Peter’s is a pope’s first appearance – a tradition full of symbolism.
I am a scholar who studies Roman Catholic theology and history. I am particularly interested in how popes exercise authority and leadership today, including their use of symbols.
When Francis first appeared on that balcony in 2013, he used four aspects of the ritual to convey a message about his intentions for his papacy. Leo, too, adapted symbols of the ritual – and time will tell how much of his own intentions he showed.
Pilgrims at the Vatican react after the announcement of the newly elected Pope Leo XIV. AP Photo/Francisco Seco
What’s in a name?
Since the sixth century C.E., new bishops of Rome have often taken a new name. Jorge Mario Bergoglio opted for “Francis,” the first pope to do so.
It refers to Francis of Assisi, an Italian saint who lived at the turn of the 13th century who was renowned for his simplicity, poverty, concern for the Earth and desire to imitate Jesus. Over the next 12 years, these traits proved central to his papacy.
Prevost chose “Leo,” making him the 14th pope to bear that name.
Which Leo is the new pope referring to as his model? Probably more than one. One of the most significant Pope Leos, however, was the most recent. Leo XIII was pope from 1878-1903, and is particularly remembered for his writings on social justice, economics, politics and labor, which have grounded Catholic social teaching for more than 100 years.
On the balcony, Francis wore simple white papal garments instead of the more elaborate adornments worn by some of his predecessors. He wore his old, simple cross across his chest, rather than a new, more luxurious one.
Popes have worn white garments as a symbol of their office for centuries. But many of them also used symbols of monarchy, such as the triple papal tiara or crown. Pope Paul VI, whose papacy was from 1963-1978, was the last to wear the tiara and to have a coronation ceremony. The following year, he sold the crown and donated the proceeds to emphasize the church’s commitment to the poor.
Later popes have followed Paul’s example of avoiding royal symbolism, such as by no longer using a “sedia gestatoria,” the portable throne that traditionally carried the pope in formal processions. Francis took this trend even further and made simplicity of dress and lifestyle a hallmark of his time in office.
When he appeared on the balcony, Leo returned to the tradition of popes before Francis by wearing the “mozzetta,” a short cape, and the gold cross offered to a pope when he accepts the office – showing somewhat more continuity with his predecessors.
Bishop of Rome
When Francis first addressed the crowd in St. Peter’s, he described himself as the new bishop of Rome.
In Catholicism, the pope holds many titles representing the scope and duties of his office. For starters, he is not only the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church but “sovereign of the State of Vatican City.”
In terms of religious titles, some accentuate the pope’s authority. “Vicar of Christ,” for example, means he is Jesus’ representative on Earth. Others, such as “servus servorum Dei” – “servant of the servants of God” – emphasize his role as a support to other bishops and ministers of the church.
Francis certainly did not deny the traditional authority of the pope’s office. However, he chose to identify himself first as the local bishop of the diocese of Rome, emphasizing how even the pope was first part of a local community. In the official Vatican yearbook for 2020, Francis listed his only title as “Bishop of Rome” and listed the rest as “historic.”
Catholics from the parish of St. Joan Antida in Rome arrive to attend Pope Francis’ inaugural Mass at the Vatican on March 19, 2013. AP Photo/Domenico Stinellis
When the new Pope Leo addressed the crowd, he described himself as the “successor of Peter,” the first pope. Like Francis before him, he also referred to the pope’s role as “bishop of Rome,” quoting the early church theologian St. Augustine: “For you I am a bishop, with you I am a Christian.” This identifies him first as a fellow Christian – and in that sense, not just a leader above his flock.
‘Pray for me’
Francis asked the assembled crowd to pray for him before he offered his first papal blessing.
Traditionally, popes making their first appearance would offer a blessing to the people gathered in St. Peter’s Square. Francis took this ritual and reversed it. In harmony with his views on simplicity and his role as the bishop of Rome, he emphasized the mutual connection between him and the people. He downplayed the view of the pope as a hierarchical ruler above the people.
Leo concluded his address to the crowd with the traditional blessing in Latin, addressed “to the city and to the world.” He did not ask, as Francis did, that the crowd bless him first.
In some ways, it seems like Leo’s symbolic message was “I am not Francis,” emphasizing his continuity with previous popes. Yet in his address, he clearly praised and thanked Francis, and invoked his predecessor’s emphasis on “synodality”: a church where all Catholics walk together. He repeated Francis’s message that the Christian message should call to and include everyone.
Perhaps it is better to say that Leo’s first appearance on the balcony meant: “I am not Francis, but Francis’ vision will continue.”
This is an updated version of an article originally published on May 6, 2025. It was updated on May 8, 2025 to reflect Pope Leo XIV’s election.
Daniel Speed Thompson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When Robert Francis Prevost appeared on the loggia of St Peter’s Basilica as Pope Leo XIV, he set three precedents.
He is the first pope from North America, the first Augustinian to occupy the throne of Peter, and the first native English-speaker to do so since Adrian IV in the 12th century.
Pope Leo XIV greeted Rome and the world with a simple benediction: “peace be with all of you”.
In choosing a blessing that stressed concord – and in issuing it in Italian and Spanish – he signalled both pastoral directness and cultural breadth.
A Chicago childhood and academic rigour
Prevost was born in Chicago in 1955.
Raised in the working-class suburb of Dolton, he served as an altar boy and attended St Augustine Seminary High School. He studied a bachelor of science at Villanova University, and earned a doctoral degree in canon law at the Angelicum in Rome.
Prevost entered the Augustinian order in 1977, professed solemn vows in 1981 and was ordained in 1982.
For Augustinians, virtue lies not in poverty for its own sake, but in the radical sharing of goods: community precedes individual achievement.
There are three pillars: interiority, the practical love of neighbour, and a relentless search for truth. This framework would guide Prevost’s missionary work, and his call for unity and peace.
Chiclayo Cathedral, officially the Cathedral of Saint Mary in Chiclayo, Peru is the seat of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Chiclayo. BETO SANTILLAN/Shutterstock
Prevost has administered communities in more than 50 countries, but he first arrived as a missionary in northern Peru in 1985. Over the next decade he taught canon law, ran a seminary in Trujillo, judged marriage cases and led a fledgling parish on Lima’s urban fringe.
The experience sharpened his awareness of informal employment, extractive industries and migration – concerns that echo the Rerum novarum , an open letter issued by his namesake Leo XIII in 1891. They remain visible in Prevost’s social priorities today.
In 2015, he was appointed Bishop of Chiclayo, Peru, and, in 2023, prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, effectively placing him in charge of vetting episcopal appointments world-wide.
What’s in a name?
Created cardinal in September 2023 and elevated to the rank of cardinal-bishop of Albano in February 2025, Prevost entered the conclave with a reputation for quiet competence, linguistic dexterity (he speaks five languages fluently) and unspectacular holiness.
The electors turned to him on the fourth ballot. An hour later he greeted the city and the world as Pope Leo XIV, first in Italian then in Spanish: a bilingual gesture honouring his Italian American Chicago roots and his Peruvian citizenship.
Leo XIV’s choice of name is a programmatic signal. By invoking examples of Rome’s protector Leo the Great (pope from 440–61) and the great social teacher Leo XIII (1878–1903), the new Pontiff intimates he will draw upon their precedent.
Raphael’s The Meeting between Leo the Great and Attila, painted in 1514, depicts Leo, escorted by Saint Peter and Saint Paul, meeting with the Hun king outside Rome. Wikimedia Commons
His substantive focus will remain squarely on the challenges of 2025: translating Augustinian communal spirituality into governance, extending the social teaching inaugurated by Leo XIII, and mediating polarised factions.
The memory of his Leo predecessors functions as a compass rather than a map, orienting a pontificate whose horizon is the digital, migratory and climatic upheavals of the 21st century.
Pope Leo XIV will draw inspiration from his namesake, Leo XIII. Library of Congress
We can expect where Leo the Great entered dialogue, Leo XIV will offer diplomacy. Where Leo XIII defended trade-union rights and attacked exploitative capitalism, Leo XIV must address labour, climate disruption and forced displacement.
If Leo XIII gave Catholicism its first systematic response to industrial modernity, Leo XIV may be tasked with articulating an Augustinian vision for the digital Anthropocene: a view of humanity as a pilgrim community, bound by shared love rather than algorithmic preference-profiling.
The order’s stress on interior prayer rather than external activism complements Leo XIV’s preference for silent Eucharistic adoration over elaborate ceremony. The Augustinian tradition of learning aligns with his own scholarly instinct.
Consistent with Francis, Leo XIV has condemned abortion and euthanasia. He has criticised hard-line immigration policies in the United States. He holds the line only men can be deacons. In a 2012 address, he pointed to media normalisation of “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners”.
The combination marks him as a centrist prepared to defend doctrinal boundaries while pressing assertively on social justice, climate action and the governance transparency that Francis began but did not finish.
Challenges ahead
Leo XIV inherits a fragmented Church. Traditionalists fear doctrinal drift, while progressives want accelerated reform of governance, liturgy and the role of women.
His Augustinian commitment to shared discernment could provide a mediating structure. Meanwhile geopolitical crises demand renewed Holy See diplomacy and Vatican finances still run unsustainable deficits.
Ultimately, Leo XIV embodies a living dialogue between tradition and modernity.
Whether he succeeds will depend on his capacity to translate the Augustinian Order’s ancient ideal of one heart, one mind into structures that protect the vulnerable worker, the displaced migrant and the wounded planet.
Yet his formation, intellect and record of bridge-building suggest he understands the Church’s credibility now rests where it did in 1891 under Leo XIII: in that social charity and theological clarity are not rivals, but partners on the road to God.
Like Leo XIII, Leo XIV approaches the world not as an enemy to be refuted but as a moral terrain to be cultivated. His pontificate must confront the ecological, technological and migratory questions of our age.
His inaugural plea for peace hints at an integral vision in which social justice, ecological stewardship and human fraternity intersect.
Whether he can translate that vision into institutional reform and global moral leadership remains to be seen.
By invoking the heritage of Leo XIII, Leo XIV has set the compass of his papacy. It points toward a Church intellectually serious, socially committed and pastorally close: one speaking anew to workers in Amazon warehouses, migrants in detention camps, students in schools, refugees in the Sahel and young people navigating the gig economy.
If he succeeds, the name he chose will read as prophetic promise, linking 1891’s clarion call for justice with the uncharted demands of 2025 and beyond.
Darius von Guttner Sporzynski 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University
While the launch starts within the next week in the United States and Canada, it will launch in Australia later this year. The chatbot will only be available to people via Google’s Family Link accounts.
But this development comes with major risks. It also highlights how, even if children are banned from social media, parents will still have to play a game of whack-a-mole with new technologies as they try to keep their children safe.
A good way to address this would be to urgently implement a digital duty of care for big tech companies such as Google.
How will the Gemini AI chatbot work?
Google’s Family Link accounts allow parents to control access to content and apps, such as YouTube.
Chatbot access will be “on” by default, so parents need to actively turn the feature off to restrict access. Young children will be able to prompt the chatbot for text responses, or to create images, which are generated by the system.
Google acknowledges the system may “make mistakes”. So assessment of the quality and trustworthiness of content is needed. Chatbots can make up information (known as “hallucinating”), so if children use the chatbot for homework help, they need to check facts with reliable sources.
What kinds of information will the system provide?
Google and other search engines retrieve original materials for people to review. A student can read news articles, magazines and other sources when writing up an assignment.
Generative AI tools are not the same as search engines. AI tools look for patterns in source material and create new text responses (or images) based on the query – or “prompt” – a person provides. A child could ask the system to “draw a cat” and the system will scan for patterns in the data of what a cat looks like (such as whiskers, pointy ears, and a long tail) and generate an image that includes those cat-like details.
Understanding the differences between materials retrieved in a Google search and content generated by an AI tool will be challenging for young children. Studies show even adults can be deceived by AI tools. And even highly skilled professionals – such as lawyers – have reportedly been fooled into using fake content generated by ChatGPT and other chatbots.
However, these safeguards could create new problems. For example, if particular words (such as “breasts”) are restricted to protect children from accessing inappropriate sexual content, this could mistakenly also exclude children from accessing age-appropriate content about bodily changes during puberty.
Many children are also very tech-savvy, often with well-developed skills for navigating apps and getting around system controls. Parents cannot rely exclusively on inbuilt safeguards. They need to review generated content and help their children understand how the system works, and assess whether content is accurate.
Google says there will be safeguards to minimise the risk of harm for children using Gemini, but these could create new problems. Dragos Asaeftei/Shutterstock
What risks do AI chatbots pose to children?
The eSafety Commission has issued an online safety advisory on the potential risk of AI chatbots, including those designed to simulate personal relationships, particularly for young children.
The eSafety advisory explains AI companions can “share harmful content, distort reality and give advice that is dangerous”. The advisory highlights the risks for young children, in particular, who “are still developing the critical thinking and life skills needed to understand how they can be misguided or manipulated by computer programs, and what to do about it”.
My research team has recently examined a range of AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT, Replika, and Tessa. We found these systems mirror people’s interactions based on the many unwritten rules that govern social behaviour – or, what are known as “feeling rules”. These rules are what lead us to say “thank you” when someone holds the door open for us, or “I’m sorry!” when you bump into someone on the street.
By mimicking these and other social niceties, these systems are designed to gain our trust.
These human-like interactions will be confusing, and potentially risky, for young children. They may believe content can be trusted, even when the chatbot is responding with fake information. And, they may believe they are engaging with a real person, rather than a machine.
AI chatbots such as Gemini are designed to mimic human behaviour and gain our trust. Ground Picture
How can we protect kids from harm when using AI chatbots?
This rollout is happening at a crucial time in Australia, as children under 16 will be banned from holding social media accounts in December this year.
While some parents may believe this will keep their children safe from harm, generative AI chatbots show the risks of online engagement extend far beyond social media. Children – and parents – must be educated in how all types of digital tools can be used appropriately and safely.
As Gemini’s AI chatbot is not a social media tool, it will fall outside Australia’s ban.
This leaves Australian parents playing a game of whack-a-mole with new technologies as they try to keep their children safe. Parents must keep up with new tool developments and understand the potential risks their children face. They must also understand the limitations of the social media ban in protecting children from harm.
This highlights the urgent need to revisit Australia’s proposed digital duty of care legislation. While the European Union and United Kingdom launched digital duty of care legislation in 2023, Australia’s has been on hold since November 2024. This legislation would hold technology companies to account by legislating that they deal with harmful content, at source, to protect everyone.
Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and the Association for Information Science and Technology.
There is a well-known whakatauki (Māori proverb) that goes: “Ka mua, ka muri” – “walking backwards into the future”. It applies to many areas of life, but in education the idea of looking to the past to inform our way forward seems more relevant than ever.
New Zealand was once a world leader in reading. In the early 1970s, as leading literacy educationalist Warwick Elley reminds us, Kiwi teenagers performed best of all countries participating in the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Overall, New Zealand children are still above average. But while many children learn to read successfully, significant numbers do not. And concern about reading capability has led to a recent curriculum overhaul.
The reforms focus on raising reading standards and regular testing. But the lessons of the past suggest we performed better with less focus on raising test scores. In fact, it was a more flexible, balanced approach to English education that provided a strong foundation for literacy.
Some clues to why this was possible can be found in the 1953 Primary School Reading Syllabus from the old Department of Education. It was among the first of many research-based reading initiatives in the mid-20th century, along with Ready to Read books in the 1960s, and the Reading Recovery program developed by Marie Clay in the 1970s.
Given New Zealand was a conservative postwar society that was yet to grapple meaningfully with colonial history and Treaty rights, the document is surprisingly less rigid than one might expect.
In fact, it is largely compatible with contemporary ideas about teaching and learning. In some areas, the 1953 syllabus seems more progressive than the current curriculum, with clear views on inclusiveness and designing teaching to meet individual needs.
Ironically, many of today’s parents and grandparents – some of whom support a “back to basics” school system – were educated using this flexible and purpose-driven approach.
New Zealand in 1953
According to the New Zealand Official Yearbook for 1953, the country was enjoying postwar prosperity with 72% of its exports going to other Commonwealth countries.
England was still the “mother country” and the young Queen Elizabeth’s post-coronation visit – also in 1953 – fuelled intense royal fervour. Edmund Hillary conquered Everest, and a highly publicised air race from London to Christchurch helped popularise plane travel.
Society was far more egalitarian. In a population of just over two million, only 15 people received an unemployment benefit (there were a variety of other welfare payments such as war pensions).
At the same time, New Zealand did not view itself as bicultural in the way it does today. For many Pākehā, Māori culture was little more than a curiosity or a tourist attraction.
School was already compulsory from ages seven to 15, and roughly 17% of the population were enrolled in primary schools. These were the children taught to read according to the 1953 syllabus.
A brief A5-sized booklet of just 13 pages, it recognises reading as a central component of a rich and full life – and that it can be used for “useful, harmless or nefarious” purposes.
Competing with other temptations such as “the exploits of Superman and Mighty Mouse”, as well as cinema and radio, is one of its concerns. But its main aim is to “teach the child to read […] in ways that will encourage him (sic) to use his skill freely and naturally”.
Postwar prosperity and a royal tour too: schoolchildren wave Union Jack flags at the Duke of Edinburgh during in early 1954. Getty Images
Avoiding a standardised approach
The syllabus outlines ideal components of a classroom reading programme: reading to self (silently) and peers (aloud), listening to story and verse, participating in dramatisation, word study and study skills.
Word study should include learning about phonics. But the syllabus tempers this with the advice that “there can be no doubt that too early a preoccupation with phonics may serve to kill interest in reading”.
This might have been written today by those concerned that structured approaches to literacy will crowd out other important parts of early reading education.
The 1953 syllabus says reading material should encompass fiction (including local authors), non-fiction, plays and poetry. While competent reading by all is the goal, the syllabus also states: “A uniform standard of achievement […] is a mistaken aim.”
This recognition of variable individual capability is something critics say is missing from today’s curriculum. Expectations are set for each year at school, with teachers strongly encouraged to teach to the year level.
The fear is that some students will fall behind as their class moves on, while progress for others will be restricted if they are ahead of those expectations.
The 1953 syllabus cautions that the “results of standardised tests should be weighed against the teacher’s own observation […] and modified accordingly”.
Encouraging teacher autonomy
By comparison, the new English curriculum is long at 108 pages, complex and prescriptive. It includes a range of aims clustered under the headings “Understand”, “Know” and “Do”.
The first encompasses five big ideas learners are expected to develop during their schooling. The second covers the knowledge required in English to become literate. The third outlines the practical steps learners will take in the different phases of their schooling.
To be fair, the new curriculum aims to make all children feel good about reading. It encourages using different kinds of texts, focuses on assessment activities that build on one another, and supports teachers to adapt for student differences.
And, given its contemporary context, there is an awareness of the important role of culture and the unique place of Māori in New Zealand that is entirely missing in the 1953 document.
But the new curriculum also contains directives the 1953 syllabus warned teachers against – namely a preoccupation with teaching phonics, and teaching linked to prescriptive progress measurement and outcomes.
Although brief, the 1953 document is arguably broader in scope and requires teachers to have greater skills. A strength of the old syllabus is that it encouraged teacher professionalism, autonomy and judgement in deciding the best next steps for each learner.
Overall, the 2025 curriculum seems the more constrictive document. The 1953 syllabus presents a view of reading that prioritises the human experience – reading as an aesthetic experience as well as a practical skill.
This article is based on original work by Jayne Jackson, senior lecturer and educational researcher at Manukau Institute of Technology, with the help of AUT’s LitPlus research group.
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.
Imagine a young man whose voice has been worn down by years of feeling invisible. Plain, numb and bitter, the “incel” tries to explain the kind of hopelessness most of us would rather not confront:
I believed I was unlovable, so who the hell is gonna love me? I won’t get a good job, and if I don’t get a good job, I won’t be able to live the kind of life I want. I’ll be lonely and depressed, and what’s the point of living?
You start seeing life not as something to look forward to, but as something you just have to survive.
The pain it describes is far more common than we care to admit.
Today, the word “incel” conjures images of angry online forums, misogyny and even mass violence.
But it didn’t start that way. Incel began as a term for the ache of not being chosen – an ache that, for many young men, has become defining.
In the late 1990s, a Canadian woman known only as Alana created “Alana’s Involuntary Celibacy Project”, a support group for people of all genders struggling to form romantic or sexual relationships.
There was no ideology, just stories of heartbreak, confusion and the quiet sadness of feeling left behind.
She coined the term “invcel”, later shortened to incel. It was a label for isolation, not anger.
The term hardened: incel began to describe a threat.
Today, it refers to a loosely connected online subculture of young men who see themselves as romantically excluded, blame women or society for their condition, and often express their resentment through misogynistic language, fatalism and at times, violent rhetoric.
How did a word born in solidarity become shorthand for male radicalisation and resentment?
Incel evolution
By the mid-2000s, forums such as 4chan, Reddit and obscure message boards had begun to distort the term.
The digital architecture of these spaces didn’t just permit this shift, it accelerated it. Anonymous avatars, endless algorithms and upvote economies rewarded extremity.
Pain was no longer expressed, it was curated, memed and weaponised.
Incel communities developed their own jargon: “Chads” (attractive, socially successful men), “Stacys” (the women who desire them), and “blackpill theory” (a fatalistic belief that one’s romantic or sexual failure is biologically determined and irreversible).
This crude mythology was used to explain why some men supposedly get everything and others get nothing.
As these forums grew, many also became incubators for dehumanising language and open hostility towards women.
Some of the most active subreddits and boards were eventually banned for promoting violent content or glorifying attacks on women.
Law enforcement agencies in several countries have since begun monitoring incel spaces as potential sites of radicalisation.
While these online communities became more extreme, they also came to dominate the cultural narrative – distracting us from a quieter, more pervasive truth: most young men who feel unwanted or invisible aren’t in these online spaces at all.
They’re not angry or radicalised. They’re just trying to make sense of a life that feels increasingly empty – the very men the word incel was once meant to describe.
That emptiness is part of a growing epidemic of loneliness, particularly among young men.
As social ties fray and emotional isolation deepens, many find themselves without the friendships, intimacy or sense of belonging that once buffered against despair.
These young men are also struggling with the language to name what they feel.
Being single often makes these men feel irrelevant and worthless. Disconnected and ashamed, many go silent. Or they go online in search of community.
What can be done?
The first step is resisting the urge to caricature and dismiss.
Most of these young men are not ticking time bombs – they are simply struggling with disconnection. We need more places where that pain can be acknowledged without shame or fear of ridicule.
It starts with how we talk to, and about, young men. That means fostering emotional literacy in ways that feel authentic and supporting initiatives that build connection without moralising.
This can be done through mentorships and community groups that allow for real relationships to form.
Mental health services that reflect men’s lived realities – through tone, approach and practitioner experience – are more likely to break down the barriers that keep many men away.
Policy can help, too: civic infrastructure that fosters belonging – such as community sports clubs, trade apprenticeships and structured volunteering opportunities – play a critical role. These are the spaces where purpose grows roots and where men in particular often find meaning and community outside formal support systems.
Time for a change?
While the threat from radicalised men online remains, maybe it’s time to retire the word incel.
What began as a label for loneliness has become a painful slur for many men – a shortcut for contempt.
When we lose the language to describe the pain, we can lose the people too.
Farid Zaid 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Noel Morada, Visiting Professor, Nelson Mandela Centre, Chulalongkorn University; and Research Fellow, Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, Chulalongkorn University
It’s been two months since former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested and handed over to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to face potential prosecution for crimes against humanity.
Duterte’s arrest has angered his supporters and caused polarisation to worsen in the lead-up to important parliamentary elections on May 12.
The election could be a referendum on the current president, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., whose approval rating fell to 25% in March after Duterte’s arrest. It had been 42% a month earlier.
Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, meanwhile, has seen her approval rating increase to 59%, despite the fact she was impeached by the House of Representatives earlier this year for threatening to assassinate Marcos.
Some of Marcos’ former allies are now drifting towards Sara Duterte, potentially setting her up for a successful run for the presidency herself in 2028.
Family feuding
Marcos is not only dealing with the resentment of some segments of the public, he’s also facing a challenge from his own sister, Imee Marcos, a senator.
Imee Marcos conducted several hearings in the Senate to probe into the procedures followed by the national police and other government agencies in implementing Duterte’s arrest warrant, which had been issued through Interpol.
Right from the start, she denounced Duterte’s surrender to the ICC as a violation of the Philippine constitution and the country’s sovereignty. She asserted the court did not have jurisdiction over the Philippines after it withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019.
In a press conference on April 29, Imee Marcos announced a Senate committee is recommending the filing of criminal charges against the head of the Department of Justice and other officials who arrested and turned him over to the ICC. On May 7, the ombudsman asked these officials to respond to the Senate committee complaint within 10 days.
Imee Marcos has political motivations of her own for acting in this way. She is seeking another term herself and has been trailing in public opinion polls.
To make the political machinations even more complex, Sara Duterte has now endorsed Imee Marcos’ bid for re-election. Some of Duterte’s supporters, however, have been sceptical about Marcos’ motives in conducting the hearings.
Controlling the narrative
Though Duterte’s arrest has dominated the headlines in the Philippines, it’s unclear whether Marcos’ declining popularity as president is tied solely to this incident.
The outcome of the elections in the Philippines next week will no doubt have short- and medium-term implications for the country’s politics.
First, if all nine of the Senate candidates backed by the Marcos administration win, they would expand his bloc of supporters in the chamber. This bloc may then vote to convict Sara Duterte when her impeachment case moves to a Senate trial.
If she’s convicted, she would be banned from running for president in 2028. But it’s uncertain if two-thirds of senators would vote to convict – the threshold necessary for impeachment. Some pro-Marcos and independent senators may be wary of antagonising loyal Duterte supporters.
If Sara Duterte is acquitted, this would likely only boost her bid for the presidency.
The ICC’s pre-trial chamber will hold a hearing in September that will be watched closely by pro- and anti-Duterte forces in the Philippines. On May 8, the chamber rejected a petition filed by Duterte’s defence team to excuse two judges over alleged bias.
His loyal supporters will likely increase their attacks against the ICC, the victims of Duterte’s drugs war, and the Marcos administration through the use of fake news and disinformation as the trial progresses.
If Duterte is convicted by the court prior to the 2028 election, it will certainly be used as a campaign issue by both sides, too. And this will only further worsen polarisation in the Philippines.
Noel Morada 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.
From the enormous blue whale to the delicate monarch butterfly, animals of all shapes and sizes migrate across the globe. These migrations connect distant habitats, from the tropics to the poles. They are also crucial to both the health of species making these epic journeys, and the habitats where they live.
It is hard to visualise these epic, globe-spanning journeys and the habitats they connect. But an interactive map we developed, alongside an international team of scientists from the University of Queensland and Duke University and in partnership with the Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative, can help.
Known as Mico (Migratory Connectivity in the Ocean), this map is a valuable conservation tool that demonstrates just how connected our oceans are due to animal migration. It is freely available here, and has just been updated with our newly published research in Nature Communications. This research synthesises thousands of records of more than 100 species of birds, mammals, turtles and fish that connect almost 2,000 crucial habitats.
Humans have contemplated animal migrations for millennia. Representations of and theories about these journeys are observable in Stone Age rock art and the writings of Ancient Greek philosophers. Indigenous peoples and local communities have also long relied upon and understood the seasonal movements of culturally important species.
But for much of human history, identifying specific destinations of migratory species was an inexact science. This has started to change in recent decades, as scientists have developed and deployed animal-borne satellite tags which can record and transmit an animal’s location as it migrates.
These tags can be very expensive to deploy and collect data from. They also require enormous investments of time and expertise. But they are crucial if we are to understand where migratory species go when they’re outside the range of normal human observations.
The journeys of migratory species also span multiple jurisdictions. This means cooperation between countries is required to ensure they are protected.
For example, many albatross species receive significant conservation investment at their nesting islands within national jurisdictions. But they are at high risk of being incidentally caught and killed or injured in longline fisheries operating in international waters.
Synthesising more than 1,300 studies
For our new study, we reviewed the literature on the movements of marine migratory species from 1990 to 2017. We synthesised the start and end points of migrations reported in more than 1,300 individual studies. These studies covered 109 marine species.
This information was then aggregated to remove duplicate data and combine sites very near to each other (on a global scale) into one “metasite” to make it easier to display. Each data point is also linked to the study from which it comes. This means you can always find the work of the original team who tagged those animals.
In synthesising the studies in this manner, we created an interactive map and downloadable dataset estimating the measured migratory connections of the global ocean.
If you look up the green turtle map, for example, you can see just how much information there is for this highly-studied species. The red links show many tracked movements from breeding to foraging areas within each ocean basin.
Sperm whales, on the other hand, are globally distributed – you can toggle on the species distribution in the top menu. But we only have information about connectivity for animals in the Atlantic and east Pacific oceans. You can see these sites on the map, mostly in North America and in the Mediterranean.
Because researchers are yet to track animals in all parts of the globe, the map is missing some information about the migratory movements of key species in particular areas. We are planning updates as more information becomes available.
Sperm whales are globally distributed, but Mico currently only captures their connectivity in the Atlantic and east Pacific oceans. Migratory Connectivity in the Ocean/Mico
A tool for conservation
This summary of migratory information is important for improving global conservation.
Scientists have published many papers on migrations, both of single populations or species, and combining data about taxonomy from several different sources. But these can be difficult to keep up with for managers or policymakers who may not have time to engage with every single piece of emerging scientific literature.
Our information can help identify stakeholders when planning or managing a conservation project. Many of these stakeholders may be across an ocean basin or even in a different hemisphere.
The scientific synthesis we provide can help countries take more informed actions to achieve the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s target of conserving a “well-connected” 30% of terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine areas by 2030. This is particularly true in the high seas, as a mechanism to implement protected areas outside of national waters is developed under the soon-to-be-ratified High Seas Treaty.
Various seabirds, including the Amsterdam Albatross, are included in the new research. Sergey 402/Shutterstock
In addition to sharing the enormous scope of work that has been conducted on the migration of large ocean animals over the last decades, our work has already fed into policy processes.
For example, it has been used by seven United Nations conventions or organisations. We hope to formalise the role of our map as a node of the Convention on Migratory Species’ Atlas of Animal Migration at their next meeting in March 2026.
More broadly, we hope this work will support better international collaboration to conserve our incredible oceanic migrants for years to come.
Lily Bentley receives funding from a Queensland-Smithsonian Fellowship on understanding migratory connectivity of seabirds in the Great Barrier Reef. She has presented on the work discussed at policy fora including the Conference of Parties (COP) for the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on Migratory Species. She works on the Migratory Connectivity in the Ocean (MiCO; mico.eco) system, which has been previously supported by the German International Climate Initiative (IKI) and UNEP-WCMC.
Autumn-Lynn Harrison directs the Smithsonian’s National Zoo & Conservation Biology Institute’s Migratory Connectivity Project, supported by a gift to the Smithsonian by ConocoPhillips. She is also a Partner Investigator on an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant for understanding migratory connectivity in the ocean.
Daniel Dunn receives funding to support the development of the Migratory Connectivity in the Ocean (MICO) system from a grant to the Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative (GOBI) from the International Climate Initiative (IKI), UNEP-WCMC, and from an Australian Research Council Discovery Project grant. The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) supports the IKI on the basis of a decision adopted by the German Bundestag.
“Alberta is a place soaked in self-deception.” Those words began Alberta-based journalist Mark Lisac’s 2004 book aimed at shattering the myths that have unhelpfully animated too much of Alberta’s politics over the past few decades.
Current and former Alberta politicians are once again embracing and treating separatist grievances seriously. That means it’s time once again to highlight and challenge political misconceptions that have the potential to destroy Canada.
Notably missing from these grievances is the Keystone XL pipeline and the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Ottawa supported these projects aimed at transporting Alberta oilsands crude to foreign markets. The federal government even purchased the Trans Mountain project from Kinder Morgan in 2018 — not to kill it, but to build it.
As for Keystone XL, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney thanked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for supporting the project. This doesn’t fit the separatist narrative, so it’s largely ignored.
Has Ottawa facilitated or obstructed the spectacular post-1990 growth of oilsands production?
The record shows that, since the mid-1970s, Ottawa has facilitated and supported the oilsands sector. The federal government helped keep the Syncrude project alive in 1975 when it took a 15 per cent interest in Canada’s second oilsands operation.
Ironically, Ottawa’s enthusiasm for more, not less, petroleum from the oilsands also appeared in 1980 via the National Energy Program (NEP), the devil in Alberta’s conservative catechism. What most accounts of the NEP don’t mention is that Ottawa offered tax benefits to oilsands companies while stripping them from conventional oil producers.
Furthermore, the NEP’s “made-in-Canada” pricing effectively guaranteed Syncrude would receive the world price for its production. At $38 per barrel, Syncrude received more than double what conventional producers received. If the NEP was harsh on conventional oil producers, it helped create a golden future for the oil sands.
Again, these measures clearly contradict the myth of federal opposition to the oil industry.
Generous emissions caps
Ottawa’s policy favouritism towards the oilsands didn’t end there. It has consistently animated the federal government’s treatment of the oilsands in its climate change policies.
The federal Climate Change Plan for Canada (2002) treated oil and gas leniently. Its measures for large industrial emitters bore a striking resemblance to the climate change policy preferences of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Suncor and Syncrude, the two leading oilsands producers, estimated these federal proposals would add a pittance, between 20 and 30 cents, to their per barrel production costs.
Justin Trudeau’s response to Alberta’s 2015 oilsands emissions cap also underlined Ottawa’s favouritism, not hostility, to the dominant player in Canada’s oil patch.
Rachel Notley’s NDP government set this cap at 100 million tonnes of GHG per year, plus another 10 million tonnes allowed to new upgrading and co-generation facilities. This cap was a whopping 39 million tonnes or 55 per cent higher than what the oilsands emitted in 2014.
This generous cap contributed to a tremendous increase in oilsands production. Healthy profits became record profits in 2022. Ottawa embraced Alberta’s largesse, incorporating the province’s cap into its post-2015 climate policies.
Furthermore, Ottawa increased its leniency towards the oilsands by exempting new in-situ (non-mining) oilsands projects in Alberta from the federal Impact Assessment Act. This exemption applies until Alberta’s emissions cap is reached. Canada’s latest National Inventory Report on greenhouse gas emissions reported record oilsands GHG emissions of 89 million tonnes in 2023, still 11 million tonnes shy of the 100 million tonne threshold.
Weaponizing myths
Finally, we have today’s proposed national cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Alberta is apoplectic about the cap. But whether or not it’s intentional, Premier Danielle Smith’s outrage feeds into secessionist sentiment by seemingly misrepresenting the cap’s impact on oil and gas production.
Smith and her environment minister use the work of the Parliamentary Budgetary Officer (PBO) to nurture their “Ottawa hates oil” narrative. They claim the officer’s analysis of the cap’s economic impact showed it “will cut oil and gas production by five per cent, or more than 245,000 barrels per day.”
This is simply not true.
In fact, the PBO concluded that, with the cap, oilsands production “is projected to remain well above current levels” — 15 per cent higher than in 2022. The proposed federal emissions cap, like the Alberta NDP’s cap of a decade ago, is higher than current oilsands emissions levels. The PBO concluded the proposed ceiling for oilsands emissions would be six per cent higher than 2022 emissions.
Ottawa’s proposed cap, in fact, continues its decades-long support of the oilsands.
Myths are central to our being. When I tell my grandsons about the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, I hope to inspire curiosity, imagination and interest in their grandmother’s Irish heritage.
But in politics, fanciful stories can be dangerous. Some weaponize myths, using the fictions at their core to encourage followers to let falsehoods rule their behaviour. That seems to be playing out yet again in Alberta. We must demand better from the political class.
Ian Urquhart 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.
With Mother’s Day around the corner, you may be wondering what gift you’ll give mum – or any of the mums in your life. This year, why not skip the fancy dinner and offer one of the most precious gifts there is: quality time, in front of the TV.
When I asked seven experts what movies they’d recommend for Mother’s Day, I wasn’t expecting I, Tonya or Alien: Romulus – but their responses have made me realise just how multifaceted the experience of motherhood is, and how weirdly and wonderfully it can be reflected onscreen.
So here’s what to watch if you want to laugh, cry, or scream, in an ode to mothers everywhere.
I, Tonya (2017)
The first film from Margot Robbie’s production company LuckyChap Entertainment – which earned Robbie an Oscar nomination for best actress – is an ideal viewing choice for anyone wanting to support Aussie female talent.
Former American figure skater Tonya Harding became a household name in 1994, after her then-husband Jeff Gillooly orchestrated an assault on her primary rival, Nancy Kerrigan, in a bid to block Kerrigan from representing the United States at that year’s Winter Olympics.
I, Tonya presents the event, and those of Harding’s career leading up to it, from a more sympathetic perspective than usual. Although it is careful to open with the caveat that the story is derived from “irony-free, wildly contradictory, totally true interviews with Tonya Harding and Jeff Gillooly”, the film presents Harding’s life as one of abuse and cruelty at every turn.
The judges can’t stand her “unfeminine” power. Her husband only shows love through violence. And her heartless mother, LaVona (Alison Janney) is desperate to cash-in on the financial gains from her career success, while simultaneously resenting it.
Janney’s performance as LaVona won her the Academy Award for best supporting actress, a title thoroughly deserved as an ice-cold LaVona chainsmokes through barbed criticisms and physical threats. While I, Tonya may not be the most obvious choice for a film to watch on Mother’s Day, it certainly will make you appreciate yours.
– Jessica Gildersleeve
Stepmom (1998)
Stepmom, starring Julia Roberts and Susan Sarandon, is a family weepy for anyone who needs a cathartic cry. Directed by Chris Columbus, the comedy–drama follows the story of terminally ill woman Jackie Harrison (Sarandon) as she comes to grips with the fact her ex-husband’s new girlfriend Isabel (Roberts) will soon be her children’s stepmother.
The film, like others under Columbus’ direction, is a critique of domestic dysfunction (think Home Alone, Mrs Doubtfire, or Nine Months), and an exploration of the lengths characters will go in order to restore the ruptured (nuclear) family, whether literally or symbolically.
Despite its melodramatic machinery and predictable ending, Stepmom offers a nuanced portrayal of the struggles of children during separation or divorce. We see 12-year-old Anna and her little brother, Ben, an aspiring magician, caught in an emotional tug-of-war between their loyalty to their dying mother and their natural affection for their new stepmum.
In an honest moment, an anxious Ben asks his dad, “can you ever fall out of love with your kids?”
“No, that’s impossible,” Dad responds.
In an equally realistic thread, the sullen Anna begrudgingly turns to Isabel for advice on boys, clothes and makeup – their relationship soon resembling one of sisters rather than adversaries (controversially, Roberts’ character even takes it upon herself to explain the concept of “snowblowing” to the tween).
In 1998, Stepmom was ahead of its time – not in its representation of motherhood, but in its acknowledgement the nuclear family was, even back then, a thing of the past.
– Kate Cantrell
Double Jeopardy (1999)
Like most thrillers made in the 1990s, Double Jeopardy begins in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States: the epicentre for murder and mist.
Libby Parsons (Ashley Judd) is living the idyllic waterfront life with her husband Nick (Bruce Greenwood) and son Matty. After being convinced by Nick to go yachting, Libby wakes up on the boat (during what could best be described as a mist storm) to discover Nick is missing, and there is an endless path of blood from her hands to the yacht’s edge.
Libby is tried and convicted for Nick’s murder. While grieving her son in jail, she finds out her husband is actually alive and has framed her. Libby’s cellmate tells her about the “double jeopardy” rule: you can’t be tried for the same crime twice.
The montage of Libby preparing for revenge in jail signals an uptick in campy action. Upon her release, we’re introduced to parole officer Travis (Tommy Lee Jones). A game of cat and mouse ensues that is equal parts thrilling and ridiculous.
Ultimately, Libby must choose between vengeance and getting her son back. Will she follow the rules and wait, or will she put her relentless jail workouts to good use? Double Jeopardy is profoundly stupid and fun, with all the unexpected charm of a midday movie that pulls you in, despite not making much sense.
It’s just the kind of movie my mum and I have found ourselves glued to on a Saturday afternoon – cheerleaders for revenge.
– Kathleen Williams
Monster-in-Law (2005)
What lengths would you go to protect your son from marrying someone unsuitable? One of the first references to the roles of the mother-in-law can be traced back to Latin literature, and the comedic play Hecyra, by Roman playwright Terence, which was first successfully performed in 160 BC. The play’s comedic twist is that the mother-in-law is accused of hating her son’s wife.
The 2005 box office hit Monster-in-Law (2005) follows this trajectory and takes it to the extreme. Viola Fields (Jane Fonda) becomes manipulative and acts downright dirty to prevent her son, Kevin (Michael Vartan), from getting married to his fiancée Charlie (Jennifer Lopez) – who she thinks is not good enough for him.
This romantic comedy has the conventions of love, romance, a wedding, and overall impending chaos. It is about a mother trying to do what she thinks is best for her son, as well as the fragile links between romantic love, familial love and matriarchy.
In parts, the film transgresses into slapstick territory, as Kevin remains oblivious of Viola’s volatile antics towards Charlie. The tension between the two strong female leads hilariously spirals out of control in the lead-up to the wedding.
Monster-in-Law is a feel-good film that draws on the close bond between mother and child, making it good viewing for Mother’s Day.
– Panizza Allmark
The Wild Robot (2024)
There’s a cultural belief that once your baby is in your arms, you’ll immediately know how to look after them, or that you can draw on your own experience of being mothered, or find the right path in one of eleventy billion parenting books.
But even if you did have a good experience of being mothered (and many don’t), or you find some great books, parenthood remains a journey of uncertainty and trial and error.
When I took my young children to see The Wild Robot, I laughed and cried way more than them. Not just because the animation was so beautiful, or because the story was so moving, but because of the non-didactic moments that resonated so strongly with how we parents feel.
We often don’t know what we’re doing; we’re trying our best, and wishing it will be the right thing – playing out an internal war between wanting to protect our children and wanting them to forge their own path.
In The Wild Robot, Roz the robot (voiced by Lupita Nyong’o) is focused on helping her adopted gosling Brightbill (Kit Connor) learn how to fly – something she has no experience of. More importantly, Brightbill must fly on a migration flight with other birds, where she can’t join him.
The film mirrors the beautiful and horrifying knowledge parents carry: if we do our job, our children will become their own individuals who are able and willing to leave us. All we can hope is we’ve formed a bond that will make them want to return.
– Rebecca Beirne
My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)
Was your mother born overseas? It’s likely. Nearly half of all Australians have a parent born overseas. Or perhaps you married into a family where your “new mum” was born overseas?
Your mother-in-law counts on Mother’s Day. Don’t forget it. And if you married into a wonderfully loud Greek/Italian family as I did, then your mother-in-law is likely a hard worker who deserves to be entertained. So why not offer her, and all the mums in your life, a sweet, disarming rom-com about a clash of cultures and a life milestone all mums can get behind: a wedding. A Big Fat Greek Wedding, to be precise.
Written by and starring Nia Vardalos, this film tells the tale of Toula Portokalos, who, at the “advanced” age of 30, remains persistently unmarried in the early aughts Chicago. In Greek terms, this is already a tragedy. The title does a lot of heavy lifting in terms of what comes next.
The real charm of the film is the clash of cultures that anyone with any ethnic background will recognise.
My Big Fat Greek Wedding was a small film with huge global success. Will your mum care it was made with a budget of just US$5 million but grossed more than US$360 million worldwide, making it one of the most profitable films of all time, with a more than 6,150% return? Probably not.
But she’ll love John Corbett, that tall guy who was also in Sex in City (and he’s really good in this one). Just make sure you skip the sequels.
– Ruari Elkington
Alien: Romulus (2024)
Not everyone wants to watch saccharine romantic comedies on Mothers’ Day. If you can relate, dystopian horror film Alien: Romulus (2024) offers much darker pleasures.
Feminist scholars have long found the Alien franchise to be rife with symbolism and repressed fears about motherhood, birth and reproductive organs. Alien: Romulus goes further than the original 1979 film in making the theme of sexual violation explicit. As you might expect from Fede Álvarez, the director of Evil Dead (2013), there is plenty of body horror as human characters are assaulted and orally impregnated by Alien species.
The film also includes neo-Marxist messages about “the company” and its violation of workers’ bodies. Working mums may enjoy the dark humour of a futuristic corporation that literally sucks the life out of workers before politely thanking them for their service.
Leading action woman Rain Carradine (Cailee Spaeny) is more vulnerable and relatable than the iconic character Ripley of previous films. When Rain discovers her work contract has tipped over into slavery, she joins up with her ex-boyfriend Tyler (Archie Renaux) and his pregnant sister Kay (Isabela Merced) to hijack a space station.
They must then manage a coolly indifferent IT operating system called “MU/TH/UR” to control the ship. The fact Kay is pregnant does not bode well; her baby eventually bursts out as a hideous alien-human mutant which tries to eat her.
Alien Romulus is basically every unspeakable anxiety about pregnancy and motherhood realised through spectacular special effects. It’s also the franchise’s best film since the original.
– Susan Hopkins
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.
Workplace burnout – a state of emotional, physical, and mental exhaustion – and the COVID pandemic have sparked a rethink of the traditional 9-to-5 job.
It’s been estimated 30% of the Australian workforce is experiencing some degree of burnout, raising serious concerns about the possible impacts on mental health.
Is it possible – and if so, wise – to take addressing burnout into your own hands? Some responses to the problem, such as “micro-retirement”, have enjoyed recent popularity on social media.
But a small number of people take an even more radical approach – dumping the 9-to-5 path entirely for careers that prioritise meaning, enjoyment and personal growth. We sought to find out how this move played out for one group in particular – snowsports instructors.
Our research – published in the International Journal of Research in Marketing – covers a 10.5-year study of snowsports instructors who left their 9-to-5 jobs for a meaningful career on the slopes of Canada, Japan, the United States and New Zealand.
We looked at instructors’ journeys into the lifestyle, how they managed their new careers, and what led some to eventually return to the 9-to-5.
Chasing winter
We interviewed 13 snowsports instructors aged 25 to 40 (seven men, six women), collected image and video artefacts, followed social media accounts and surveyed snow school reports. Our lead researcher also participated in the lifestyle herself.
All our participants had at least a bachelor degree and previous steady careers in fields such as education or information technology.
During our decade-long field work, we found instructors earned just enough money to maintain this lifestyle, often travelling with their possessions in one or two bags.
Whistler Mountain, Canada: instructors get to live and work in places of great natural beauty. Kevin503/Shutterstock
Beyond the adrenaline and beauty of a life in the snow, we found people were first motivated to enter this career to escape the corporate world and ties of modern life. One participant, Lars, said:
If you just get a job, you get maybe 20 days off a year for the next 40 years, and once you stop, once you’ve got a job and a house and a mortgage and a kid […] you’re trapped.
A sense of accomplishment
At the centre of our research was the idea of building a career around the ancient Greek concept of “eudaimonia”. This term is sometimes translated to “happiness” in English, but its broader connotations mean it’s closer to “flourishing” and involves a sense of purpose and living a life of virtue.
That’s in contrast to the related concept of “hedonism” – which centres on the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake. Eudaimonia is meant to make us reflect on life’s purpose, potential and meaning.
As our participants mastered the sport and career, they moved from mere enjoyment or hedonism of being in the snow to finding meaning and purpose in their jobs.
They felt a sense of accomplishment and appreciation of snowsports as a sport and job requiring dedication, care and commitment.
Challenges along the way
However, with every career there are demands that shape how people manage work and purposeful pursuits. Instructors must bear financial costs such as buying their own equipment, paying for certifications and accommodation.
Eventually the lifestyle was not sustainable for some due to precarious working conditions and minimal wages. Relying on the weather to produce snow, unfair compensation and fixed-term contracts wore many down.
An unhappy participant confessed:
You think about money all day everyday […] working out the costs, staffing and lesson prices! Yet they (ski resort managers) tell me as an instructor that I shouldn’t think about my monetary work. Well, if it wasn’t about the money, you wouldn’t charge as much for lessons.
In the period we studied, six returned to a regular 9-to-5 job.
An alternative to meaningless jobs?
The late American anthropologist David Graeber coined the phrase “bullshit jobs” to describe jobs that comprise meaningless tasks that add no real value aside from providing a salary.
Our study offers a window into the lives of those who sought an alternative, trying to build something they love into the daily work they do to earn a living.
For many, despite challenges the ability to ride slopes daily remained more appealing than a desk job. One told us:
At university my first management lecturer said, ‘you could go on to be a CEO, earn $300,000 a year and have a month off every year to go skiing’, and I said, ‘or I could go skiing every day and still afford to eat and pay my rent’. It’s all I really need.
But things didn’t work out for all of them. The experience of those who left suggests choosing meaningful work can be difficult and can force people out if the surrounding organisational system is not supportive.
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.
Much of the old circular railway line in Paris, La Petite Ceinture, or Little Belt, has been turned into a public park. ldgfr photos, Shutterstock
Across Australian cities, leftover and overlooked green spaces are everywhere. Just think of all the land along stormwater drains, railway lines and vacant lots. While often dismissed as useless or unsightly, there’s a growing understanding of the value these spaces bring to cities.
My new research looks at how cities globally are rethinking overlooked green spaces. I identified three ways to unlock the value of these areas: leaving spaces intentionally unmanaged, supporting temporary or informal uses, or formalising them as parks or other public places. Each approach offers different benefits and challenges for cities trying to create greener, more liveable neighbourhoods.
Local councils are under increasing pressure to create more formal green space, with residents, at times, calling on councils to buy land for new parks. But let’s start with what’s already there.
1: Hands off: the case for doing less
In some cases, doing nothing can be surprisingly powerful.
When governments step back, communities and nature can step in, with potentially joyful, creative and ecologically rich results. In the Belgian capital of Brussels, for example, disused railway land, left unmanaged, has become a haven for biodiversity, offering valuable insights into how ecosystems can regenerate without human interference.
Closer to home, there are many examples of railway land being used informally as green space. One site, in the Melbourne suburb of Northcote, has become a makeshift trail used by walkers, dog owners and children on bikes. Though not officially a park, it functions like one, with its informal character fostering a sense of ownership and spontaneity among users. In the past few months, local residents have started planting native vegetation and putting up makeshift art installations, and even a swing.
But this hands-off approach has limitations. It works best where a strong sense of community, or ecological value, already exists. And while nature can bounce back in surprising ways, it often needs a helping hand.
Locals have embraced a small patch of land in a railway reserve near Dennis Station in Northcote, Melbourne. Hugh Stanford
2. Helping out: supporting informal or temporary uses
Where informal installations already exist – such as art installations or unauthorised plantings known as guerrilla gardens – councils can support and even help grow these initiatives.
Some councils may see local-led efforts as a liability, but these efforts represent an opportunity to bring life to underused land at minimal cost. By recognising and supporting such activities, including financially, councils can empower residents to shape their own neighbourhoods in meaningful ways. This can include expanding existing installations or establishing new installations on other underused sites.
There is also benefit in local councils creating their own temporary installations such as pop-up parks. This has been shown to be an effective way to activate underused space and trial initiatives before more permanent plans are developed.
Examples include the creation of a temporary park in Ballarat Street, Yarraville in 2012. Community support for the temporary park led to the construction of a permanent park in 2014.
Local councils can offer support to communities seeking to revitalise disused green space. Hugh Stanford
3. Stepping in: when formalising makes sense
There are times where formal intervention is warranted – for example, where land is contaminated or supports invasive weeds. In such cases, transforming a site into a fully developed park can deliver significant benefits. Land alongside a river, road or railway line, can be readily transformed into a long “linear park” with walking trails and bike paths.
In Paris, the conversion of a former industrial railway line into a linear park is a great example, attracting both locals and tourists.
Melbourne, too, has its own success in revitalising disused infrastructure. The Greening the Pipeline project in Melbourne’s west involves converting a disused sewer main into a vibrant linear park. These projects demonstrate the benefits that can be achieved from developing high-quality, permanent public green spaces from underused land.
But formalising public use of urban green space comes at a cost, financially and otherwise: a highly designed park can crowd out the quirky, unplanned character that makes many informal spaces feel special. That’s why it’s crucial to see formalising green space as one option among many, and to reserve it for sites where potential benefits justify the investment.
The Greening the Pipeline project in Melbourne’s west highlights what can be achieved. Hugh Stanford
A call to action
If you work in urban planning or local government, resist the urge to control and replace. Look at what’s already available. Sometimes the best thing you can do is observe, step back and support. Not all public spaces need a master plan.
If you’re a resident, get out there. Start small: plant something native, or set up a swing (where safe to do so). By engaging with the green spaces already around you, you might help create your own slice of urban paradise – no land purchase required.
Start small and set up a swing, where safe to do so. Hugh Stanford
Hugh Stanford 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 reading to your kids a bedtime ritual in your home? For many of us, it will be a visceral memory of our own childhoods. Or of the time raising now grown-up children.
Perhaps it involves a nightly progression through the Percy Jackson series or the next Captain Underpants book. Or maybe there’s a request to have Room on the Broom again (and again).
But for some households, reading aloud is not a regular activity. A recent UK report by publisher Harper Collins found many parents are not reading to their kids. Fewer than half (41%) of 0–4-year-olds are read to frequently. More than 20% of parents surveyed agreed reading is “more a subject to learn than a fun thing to do”.
The report also found some parents stop reading to their children once they can read by themselves. As the Guardian reported, some parents assume “it will make [their child] lazy and less likely to read independently”.
Here’s why it’s important to read to your children – even after they have learned to read.
What’s involved in reading skills?
Research on reading skills suggests there are two main types of skills involved in learning to read.
Constrained skills are skills that once we learn, we keep. For example, once we learn the alphabet we don’t have to keep learning it. It’s like riding a bike.
Unconstrained skills are skills we continue to learn throughout life. For example, vocabulary, reading fluency (how quickly and smoothly you read) and reading comprehension. Even as adults we continue to learn new word and language forms.
The books we read aloud at bedtime to young readers tend to be those they can’t read themselves.
So it introduces more complex ideas, words and sentence patterns. This is why reading aloud to your children is a parental superpower – you can continue to build where the school learning stops.
When you are reading to your child, they have your full attention, which also makes the time special.
What should you be reading?
Reading aloud doesn’t necessarily have to involve multiple chapters of a book. Research suggests what matters is that it’s something you are both interested in and enjoying.
You could read to your child on a device, or you could even tell a traditional tale without a book.
You could read poetry, news articles or magazine articles about a favourite football team or player – these can all build unconstrained literacy skills.
Even re-reading a beloved picture book from younger years can build fluency and focus on direct speech in text (especially when the reader does “funny” voices).
You can read non-fiction as well as fiction books, magazines and news articles. Kindel Media/Pexels, CC BY
How often should you read to your child?
Family life is busy and parents often have many commitments. So there are no rules, other than to make it fun. Don’t be put off by “how much you have to do” – a few minutes of engaged reading time together is better than none at all.
You could read to your child when you yourself are reading something and want to share it. If it’s too hard to read to your child every night, do it every weekend night or make another time during the week. Or ask a grandparent or older sibling to help.
And there is no set age to stop – if you like, keep reading to your kids until they leave home!
Robyn Cox 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.
Indigenous Australians are more than twice as likely as non-Indigenous Australians to suffer from disease, particularly chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and kidney disease.
The health disparities are worse in remote and very remote areas. The burden of diabetes in the remote Aboriginal population of the Northern Territory, where it affects more than one in four adults aged over 20, is among the highest in the world.
The Yolŋu (or Yolngu) people of Northeast Arnhem land, a large, remote area in the NT, maintain one of the oldest continuously living cultures in the world. They also represent one of the largest Indigenous groups in Australia.
Yet, people in these communities face the highest number of avoidable deaths in Australia, mostly from chronic disease. A diet of too much sugar, refined and processed food products, smoking and an unhealthy lifestyle contribute to this region’s health crisis.
Beginning in 2014, senior Yolŋu women in Galiwin’ku, one of the largest communities in Northeast Arnhem land, have been developing a unique diet and lifestyle change program called Hope for Health. The program has been running intermittently since then, and includes on-Country health retreats, individualised health coaching, and group classes and activities.
We recently evaluated this program. We found it offers significant benefits which could reduce chronic disease risk among the Yolŋu people.
Hope for Health participants and staff at a cooking workshop. Hope for Health
A holistic approach
Most Yolŋu live on Aboriginal land in remote communities of various sizes and hold a deep unbroken connection to their ancestral country.
Health and wellbeing is considered a holistic concept that connects physical, social, emotional, cultural, spiritual and ecological wellbeing at both an individual and community level.
The Hope for Health program is based on the values of Margikunhamirr (making known and sharing understanding) and Goŋ-ŋthanhamirr (supporting and walking alongside each other) to empower Yolŋu to gain control of their health.
Over four months, the program focuses on giving people the knowledge to make their own lifestyle changes and choices to improve health and prevent chronic disease.
It includes:
An on-Country health retreat: this is an immersive 12-day bush retreat focused on reconnecting with the Yolŋu tradition of living, eating, and healing from the land, and learning about the body and health.
In-community support and mentoring: over 14 weeks following the retreat, this part of the program is focused on overcoming barriers to introducing lifestyle changes. It includes group activities for identifying healthy food options at the shops, storing and cooking fresh produce, and yarning about healthy lifestyles.
Individual and home-based health coaching: this takes place during the retreat and afterwards in participants’ homes or places of their choosing. Health coaches explain blood test results to participants, offer education in their language and help with goal setting, such as reducing sugar consumption, smoking, or increasing exercise.
The Hope for Health program seeks to give people the knowledge they need to make their own lifestyle changes.
What we found
Together with colleagues at the Doherty Institute and other collaborators, we evaluated a Hope for Health program in the second half of 2022.
We assessed outcomes such as body weight and blood sugar levels among 55 adults before and after they took part in the program. All participants were overweight or obese at the beginning.
By the end of the program, 52% of participants reduced their HbA1c – a measure of blood sugar – by at least 0.3%. Some 33% of participants lost at least 3% of their body weight.
Changes such as these are called “clinically significant” because they’re big enough for doctors to see real health benefits such as reduced risk of chronic disease, including diabetes and heart disease.
Other outcomes we looked at improved too. Overall, participants had smaller waist circumferences at the end, lower body-mass index, better “good” cholesterol levels, were drinking less sugary drinks, and doing more daily exercise.
Why did it work?
Behavioural change is not necessarily easy to achieve in these communities, which have a very different language and culture from mainstream Australia.
Our study is the first in remote Aboriginal communities to comprehensively evaluate a lifestyle change program with such promising results.
The study design cannot prove the intervention directly caused the changes. That is, there may have been other factors which contributed to the outcomes.
A randomised controlled trial would have provided stronger proof the program led to the health improvements we observed, but these trials can be unsuitable in remote Indigenous communities. In this study, the community was concerned delaying the program for some people would harm their health. Also, many wanted their extended family to take part, making it difficult to select a representative control group which would be needed for this type of study.
Nonetheless, our results suggest support for culturally sensitive health initiatives such as Hope for Health is crucial for reducing the burden of chronic disease in remote Indigenous communities.
We believe Hope for Health worked because it was led by Yolŋu people and is built on Yolŋu knowledge, language and culture. Education provided to remote Aboriginal people such as the Yolŋu needs to be liya-lapmarnhamirr – that is, presented in a way that brings revelation and understanding.
Hasthi Dissanayake receives or has received funding from the Medical Research Future Fund, University of Melbourne, University of Sydney, and Australian government postgraduate and research grants.
Beverley-Ann Biggs receives research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund competitive grant schemes.
George Gurruwiwi 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.
When United States President William McKinley advocated high‑tariff protectionism in 1896, he argued squeezing foreign competitors behind a 50% wall of duties would make America richer and safer.
That logic framed US trade debates for a generation, but it was always an economic device – not a geopolitical lever.
In 2025, Donald Trump, now the 47th US president, slapped tariffs on most imported goods to the United States, specifically targeting Chinese imports.
Yet, despite the fact he idolises McKinley, Trump’s emerging grand strategy looks less like his customs schedule and more like Richard Nixon’s “madman” diplomacy of the early 1970s.
Trump is signalling that unpredictability, not price schedules, will coerce adversaries and reorder alliances.
An image of irrational resolve
McKinley’s 1890s tariffs nearly doubled average duties, shielding domestic manufacturers but doing little to shift the global balance of power.
The lesson from these tariffs was straightforward: protectionism may enrich some sectors, but it rarely bends rivals’ strategic choices.
Trump’s first term flirted with McKinley-inspired trade wars, industrial policy and “America First” rhetoric. His second term “strategic reset” moves onto darker, Nixonian ground.
Nixon and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, cultivated an image of irrational resolve. They hinted they might do “anything”, even use nuclear weapons, to force concessions in Vietnam and alarm the Soviet politburo.
Nixon’s White House chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, recalled the president demanding Moscow and Hanoi see him as a man “with his hand on the nuclear button”.
The gambit dovetailed with a bold diplomatic inversion. By opening to Mao Zedong’s China, Nixon sought to isolate the Soviet Union.
Trump’s ‘reverse Nixon’ efforts
Half a century later, Trump appears to be running the tape backward.
Rather than prying China from Russia, he is testing whether Moscow can be prised from Beijing.
In early April, he imposed a blanket 54% tariff on Chinese goods – yet exempted Russia, Cuba and North Korea from the harshest duties.
The White House has simultaneously floated selective sanctions relief for Moscow if Vladimir Putin shows “flexibility” on Ukraine.
Trump’s boosters call the manoeuvre a “reverse Nixon”: befriend the weaker adversary to hem in the stronger.
Al-Jazeera recently reported senior US officials and analysts believe deepening ties with Russia could splinter the Sino‑Russian axis that has unnerved US strategists for years.
But Foreign Affairs warns that even if Washington dangled lavish incentives, Putin would “play Washington and Beijing off each other” rather than choose sides.
Australia’s Strategic Policy Institute is blunter: the idea of splitting the pair is “a delusion”.
Nor is the madman pose guaranteed to intimidate. Scholars note Nixon’s bluff worked only when coupled with painstaking back‑channel diplomacy; the façade of irrationality still required a coherent end‑game.
Trump’s record of erratic statements on NATO, sudden tariff escalations and social media outbursts risks convincing adversaries that chaos is the message, not the method.
Success would require discipline
Yet, the strategic prize is real.
A durable Sino‑Russian alignment forces Washington to split resources across two theatres, complicates sanctions enforcement, and gives Beijing access to Russian hydrocarbons and military technologies.
Even a partial wedge – Moscow adopting neutrality in a potential Indo‑Pacific crisis, for instance – would lighten America’s load and disadvantage China.
Can Trump craft a credible offer? Tariff exemptions and the hint of sanctions relief are carrots; resumed arms‑control talks and guarantees of Russian equities in a post‑war Ukraine settlement could sweeten the pot.
The sticks are clear: escalating tariffs and technology bans on China, plus renewed US gas exports aimed at undercutting Sino‑Russian energy deals.
The fact CIA Director John Ratcliffe called China the “top national security threat” in his confirmation hearings earlier this year – relegating Russia to a lesser threat – underscores the hierarchy.
Still, success would require disciplined messaging and allied buy‑in, traits not often associated with madman theatrics.
If European and Indo‑Pacific partners suspect Washington will mortgage Ukraine’s security or trade their markets for a fleeting Moscow détente, unity will fray.
For Australia, the stakes are immense
For Canberra, the calculus is stark.
Australia’s primary challenge is a more assertive China, not a distant Russia.
If Trump could drive even a hairline crack between Moscow and Beijing, the Indo‑Pacific balance would tilt in favour of the US and its allies.
A Russia preoccupied with Europe or simply unwilling to share sensitive missile and space technologies would deprive China of critical enablers.
Conversely, a bungled “reverse Nixon” strategy could embolden both autocracies.
Should Putin benefit from US tariff exemptions and sanctions relief while deepening defence ties with Beijing — as recent drone and satellite deals suggest – Australia would face a sharper, more integrated adversarial bloc.
The lesson, for Australia, is to hedge: continue deepening AUKUS technology sharing, accelerate long‑range strike acquisition, and tighten diplomatic coordination with Japan, India and ASEAN states.
For Australia, perched on Asia’s faultline, the stakes are immense. A successful wedge would ease pressure on the “first‑island chain” – the chain of strategic islands that stretches from Japan through Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia – and give Canberra precious strategic depth.
A failed gambit risks confronting Australian forces with a tandem of nuclear‑armed revisionists (Russia and China) emboldened by US miscalculation.
Ian Langford 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.
In today’s fractured online landscape, it is harder than ever to identify harmful actors such as trolls and misinformation spreaders.
Often, efforts to spot malicious accounts focus on analysing what they say. However, our latest research suggests we should be paying more attention to what they do – and how they do it.
We have developed a way to identify potentially harmful online actors based solely on their behavioural patterns – the way they interact with others – rather than the content they share. We presented our results at the recent ACM Web Conference, and were awarded Best Paper.
Beyond looking at what people say
Traditional approaches to spotting problematic online behaviour typically rely on two methods. One is to examine content (what people are saying). The other is to analyse network connections (who follows whom).
These methods have limitations.
Users can circumvent content analysis. They may code their language carefully, or share misleading information without using obvious trigger words.
Network analysis falls short on platforms such as Reddit. Here, connections between users aren’t explicit. Communities are organised around topics rather than social relationships.
We wanted to find a way to identify harmful actors that couldn’t be easily gamed. We realised we could, focusing on behaviour – how people interact, rather than what they say.
Teaching AI to understand human behaviour online
Our approach uses a technique called inverse reinforcement learning. This is a method typically used to understand human decision-making in fields such as autonomous driving or game theory.
We adapted this technology to analyse how users behave on social media platforms.
Behavioural analysis could help the fight against the growing problem of online misinformation. Tero Vesalainen/Shutterstock
The system works by observing a user’s actions, such as creating new threads, posting comments and replying to others. From those actions it infers the underlying strategy or “policy” that drives their behaviour.
In our Reddit case study, we analysed 5.9 million interactions over six years. We identified five distinct behavioural personas, including one particularly notable group – “disagreers”.
Meet the ‘disagreers’
Perhaps our most striking result was finding an entire class of Reddit users whose primary purpose seems to be to disagree with others. These users specifically seek out opportunities to post contradictory comments, especially in response to disagreement, and then move on without waiting for replies.
The “disagreers” were most common in politically-focused subreddits (forums focused on particular topics) such as r/news, r/worldnews, and r/politics. Interestingly, they were much less common in the now-banned pro-Trump forum r/The_Donald despite its political focus.
This pattern reveals how behavioural analysis can uncover dynamics that content analysis might miss. In r/The_Donald, users tended to agree with each other while directing hostility toward outside targets. This dynamic may explain why traditional content moderation has struggled to address problems in such communities.
Soccer fans and gamers
Our research also revealed unexpected connections. Users discussing completely different topics sometimes displayed remarkably similar behavioural patterns.
We found striking similarities between users discussing soccer (on r/soccer) and e-sports (on r/leagueoflegends).
This similarity emerges from the fundamental nature of both communities. Soccer and e-sports fans engage in parallel ways: they passionately support specific teams, follow matches with intense interest, participate in heated discussions about strategies and player performances, celebrate victories, and dissect defeats.
Despite their differences, fans of soccer and the online multiplayer battle game League of Legends behave in very similar ways online. Vasyl Shulga/Shutterstock
Both communities foster strong tribal identities. Users defend their favoured teams while critiquing rivals.
Whether debating Premier League tactics or League of Legends champions, the underlying interaction patterns – the timing, sequence and emotional tone of responses – remain consistent across these topically distinct communities.
This challenges conventional wisdom about online polarisation. While echo chambers are often blamed for increasing division, our research suggests behavioural patterns can transcend topical boundaries. Users may be divided more by how they interact than what they discuss.
Beyond troll detection
The implications of this research extend well beyond academic interest. Platform moderators could use behavioural patterns to identify potentially problematic users before they’ve posted large volumes of harmful content.
Unlike content moderation, behavioural analysis does not depend on understanding language. It is hard to evade, since changing one’s behavioural patterns requires more effort than adjusting language.
The approach could also help design more effective strategies to counter misinformation. Rather than focusing solely on the content, we can design systems that encourage more constructive engagement patterns.
For social media users, this research offers a reminder that how we engage online – not just what we say – shapes our digital identity and influences others.
As online spaces continue to grapple with manipulation, harassment and polarisation, approaches that consider behavioural patterns alongside content analysis may offer more effective solutions for fostering healthier online communities.
Marian-Andrei Rizoiu receives funding from the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator, the Australian Department of Home Affairs, the Defence Innovation Network, and the National Science Centre, Poland.
Lanqin Yuan and Philipp Schneider 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.
In an ironic twist, it’s not liberals ushering in the decline of America in contemporary times. Burnham’s acolytes in Donald Trump’s administration are busy doing that work.
Influence on the American right
It is easy to recognize Burnham’s ideas in the arguments and actions of the Trump administration.
In both The Suicide of the West and his previous 1941 bestseller,The Managerial Revolution, Burnham argued that liberalism’s individualism weakened social bonds and national allegiance. At the same time, it promoted the rise of a new class of experts that eroded democracy and individual rights under the guise of acting for the common good.
This “new class” of highly educated, managerial elites had come to dominate virtually all aspects of life, from business and bureaucracy to commerce, culture and education.
Ruling through their claims to expertise, Burnham argued that these elites spread relativistic liberal values that undermined social cohesion and national confidence, sapping the West’s ability to define and defend its fundamental values.
Recently, however, Burnham’s provocative ideas have resurfaced as one of the most important intellectual lineages underpinning American radical conservatism and its attacks on “elite institutions.”
In his writings, and those of his followers such as Samuel Francis, a range of political and intellectual figures have found the ideological ammunition needed to launch their crusade against liberalism in order to save the West — or in the case of the U.S., to “Make America Great Again.”
There is considerable irony in this situation. Most obviously, Burnham was wrong about the self-inflicted death of the West. Contrary to his predictions, liberalism did not lead to the erosion of western global power.
Far from collapsing, the United States and its allies fought the Cold War to a victorious conclusion and by the turn of the 20th century emerged with a power and dominance that Burnham could scarcely have imagined. Liberalism was the reigning ideology. American and western commerce, culture, science and technology dominated the world.
Yet the greatest irony is that Burnham’s followers risk bringing about the very situation he sought to avoid – the decline of America and its dominant status.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the attack on elite universities, where no one should not be misled by charges of antisemitism.
In this broader campaign, leading illiberal zealots in the Trump administration are pursuing policies that will damage the foundations of American power far more than liberalism ever did.
Most obviously, the attacks on universities threaten U.S. technological leadership, since research universities remain an indispensable site of basic research, innovation and next-generation training — something especially vital at a time when the country’s leadership in these areas is challenged in ways unseen for nearly half a century.
At the same time, assaults on academic freedom threaten the considerable cultural power and prestige that, as Burnham was well aware, are vital areas of geopolitical struggle.
Finally, these policies undermine the American ability to attract the best and the brightest from around the world — a capacity that has long underpinned its dominance in science and innovation, and ultimately its global influence.
Diminished intellectual capital
One might be tempted to say: fine, if America no longer values its intellectual capital, other countries can reap the benefit by attracting the expertise it shuns. To some degree, this may be true.
But no western country or group of countries – such as the EU – possesses the institutional research capacity, network density and depth of funding found until now in the U.S.
At best, a more fragmented, diffuse and less impactful situation is likely to occur, with America weakened and the benefits gained by others unlikely to make up the balance. The West as a whole is likely to emerge weaker rather than stronger.
Geopolitical decline
Recognizing these negative outcomes does not require treating elite universities as paragons of virtue or viewing higher education as beyond reproach. Nor are today’s Burnhamites completely delusional. Increased inequality, economic dislocation and the death of local industries have followed in the footsteps of liberal globalization.
Cultural divides are significant, even if they are often polarized for political purposes. But addressing such issues demands serious engagement, not simplistic accusations of elite decadence and divisive political rhetoric. Crucially, it requires seeing elite (and other) universities as sources of global power as well as sites of education.
Materially and ideologically, Burnham’s contemporary followers are making sure that America will no longer be on the winning side of this struggle. Their efforts to “make America great again” misunderstand important parts of what made it great in the first place. The most likely outcome will be the decline, not the recovery, of America.
Michael Williams receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Rita Abrahamsen receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)
In the grab to reclaim power from the people, authoritarians and the oligarchs who support them recoil from criticism and dissent, demanding that all people support government positions regardless of the rationality of their claims.
The news media are a key pillar of democracy and a vigilant monitor of human rights. Often identified as the Fourth Estate, the press is tasked with keeping political power in check while informing people about events beyond their own experiences. This function makes it a prime target for authoritarian assault.
Both Poilievre and Trump have long attacked the integrity of journalists as they worked to undermine public trust in the media. They both denigrate reporters and limit media accessibility.
Public broadcasters like PBS, NPR and CBC/Radio-Canada provide vital links to news and life-saving information in times of crisis. They inform regions that no longer have access to local corporate news and they educate the public and strengthen its culture.
CBC/Radio-Canada, PBS and NPR are all governed by broadcasting acts within their respective nations. CBC/Radio-Canada’s editorial independence is protected by the federal Broadcasting Act. In the U.S., the federal Public Broadcasting Act assures PBS and NPR have “maximum freedom …from interference with, or control of, program content or other activities.”
These media outlets are publicly funded but their editorial independence is enshrined in law.
Tracking media coverage
My exploration of the framing practices of public broadcasters, mainstream corporate media and alternative news agencies in Canada and the U.S. lends support to the expressed independence of publicly funded broadcasters.
A third of these stories were produced by publicly funded news agencies. Findings suggest that while they consistently use polarizing conflict language to present debates to the public — just as corporate and alternative media outlets do — the majority of the publicly funded news accounts I examined adhered to the principles of fact-based reporting.
These principles include accuracy and objectivity in reporting as well as the inclusion of a balance of perspectives on a given event, and the maintenance of a non-partisan approach to coverage.
Only one story produced by a public broadcaster in the U.S. represented propaganda in its attempt to persuade the audience to agree with the biased argument presented within. It was an educational video debunking claims that critical race theory was being taught in schools.
None of the content produced by public broadcasters represented examples of movement journalism, which rejects objectivity in favour of activism to promote human rights and social change.
No draining on public coffers
While these findings cannot be extended to all content produced by public broadcasters, they do suggest these news agencies adhere to requirements of non-partisan coverage.
Given the lack of evidence supporting accusations of partisan bias and the minuscule savings that would come from defunding, something else must be driving the assault on public broadcasting.
Lorry-Ann Austin 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.
Attention now turns to what vision the first U.S. pope will bring.
Change is hard to bring about in the Catholic Church. During his pontificate, Francis often gestured toward change without actually changing church doctrines. He permitted discussion of ordaining married men in remote regions where populations were greatly underserved due to a lack of priests, but he did not actually allow it. On his own initiative, he set up a commission to study the possibility of ordaining women as deacons, but he did not follow it through.
However, he did allow priests to offer the Eucharist, the most important Catholic sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, to Catholics who had divorced and remarried without being granted an annulment.
Likewise, Francis did not change the official teaching that a sacramental marriage is between a man and a woman, but he did allow for the blessing of gay couples, in a manner that did appear to be a sanctioning of gay marriage.
To what degree will the new pope stand or not stand in continuity with Francis? As a scholar who has studied the writings and actions of the popes since the time of the Second Vatican Council, a series of meetings held to modernize the church from 1962 to 1965, I am aware that every pope comes with his own vision and his own agenda for leading the church.
Still, the popes who immediately preceded them set practical limits on what changes could be made. There were limitations on Francis as well; however, the new pope, I argue, will have more leeway because of the signals Francis sent.
The process of synodality
Francis initiated a process called “synodality,” a term that combines the Greek words for “journey” and “together.” Synodality involves gathering Catholics of various ranks and points of view to share their faith and pray with each other as they address challenges faced by the church today.
One of Francis’ favorite themes was inclusion. He carried forward the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the Holy Spirit – that is, the Spirit of God who inspired the prophets and is believed to be sent by Christ among Christians in a special way – is at work throughout the whole church; it includes not only the hierarchy but all of the church members. This belief constituted the core principle underlying synodality.
Pope Francis with the participants of the Synod of Bishops’ 16th General Assembly in the Paul VI Hall at the Vatican on Oct. 23, 2023. AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia
Francis launched a two-year global consultation process in October 2022, culminating in a synod in Rome in October 2024. Catholics all over the world offered their insights and opinions during this process. The synod discussed many issues, some of which were controversial, such as clerical sexual abuse, the need for oversight of bishops, the role of women in general and the ordination of women as deacons.
The final synod document did not offer conclusions concerning these topics but rather aimed more at promoting the transformation of the entire Catholic Church into a synodal church in which Catholics tackle together the many challenges of the modern world. Francis refrained from issuing his own document in response, in order that the synod’s statement could stand on its own.
The process of synodality in one sense places limits on bishops and the pope by emphasizing their need to listen closely to all church members before making decisions. In another sense, though, in the long run the process opens up the possibility for needed developments to take place when and if lay Catholics overwhelmingly testify that they believe the church should move in a certain direction.
Change is hard in the church
A pope, however, cannot simply reverse official positions that his immediate predecessors had been emphasizing. Practically speaking, there needs to be a papacy, or two, during which a pope will either remain silent on matters that call for change or at least limit himself to hints and signals on such issues.
In 1864, Pius IX condemned the proposition that “the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” It wasn’t until 1965 – some 100 years later – that the Second Vatican Council, in The Declaration on Religious Freedom, would affirm that “a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion. …”
A second major reason why popes may refrain from making top-down changes is that they may not want to operate like a dictator issuing executive orders in an authoritarian manner. Francis was accused by his critics of acting in this way with his positions on Eucharist for those remarried without a prior annulment and on blessings for gay couples. The major thrust of his papacy, however, with his emphasis on synodality, was actually in the opposite direction.
Notably, when the Amazon Synod – held in Rome in October 2019 – voted 128-41 to allow for married priests in the Brazilian Amazon region, Francis rejected it as not being the appropriate time for such a significant change.
Past doctrines
The belief that the pope should express the faith of the people and not simply his own personal opinions is not a new insight from Francis.
The doctrine of papal infallibility, declared at the First Vatican Council in 1870, held that the pope, under certain conditions, could express the faith of the church without error.
The limitations and qualifications of this power include that the pope be speaking not personally but in his official capacity as the head of the church; he must not be in heresy; he must be free of coercion and of sound mind; he must be addressing a matter of faith and morals; and he must consult relevant documents and other Catholics so that what he teaches represents not simply his own opinions but the faith of the church.
The Marian doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption offer examples of the importance of consultation. The Immaculate Conception, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854, is the teaching that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was herself preserved from original sin, a stain inherited from Adam that Catholics believe all other human beings are born with, from the moment of her conception. The Assumption, proclaimed by Pius XII in 1950, is the doctrine that Mary was taken body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life.
The documents in which these doctrines were proclaimed stressed that the bishops of the church had been consulted and that the faith of the lay people was being affirmed.
Unity, above all
One of the main duties of the pope is to protect the unity of the Catholic Church. On one hand, making many changes quickly can lead to schism, an actual split in the community.
In 2022, for example, the Global Methodist Church split from the United Methodist Church over same-sex marriage and the ordination of noncelibate gay bishops. There have also been various schisms within the Anglican communion in recent years. The Catholic Church faces similar challenges but so far has been able to avoid schisms by limiting the actual changes being made.
On the other hand, not making reasonable changes that acknowledge positive developments in the culture regarding issues such as the full inclusion of women or the dignity of gays and lesbians can result in the large-scale exit of members.
Pope Leo XIV, I argue, needs to be a spiritual leader, a person of vision, who can build upon the legacy of his immediate predecessors in such a way as to meet the challenges of the present moment. He already stated that he wants a synodal church that is “close to the people who suffer,” signaling a great deal about the direction he will take.
If the new pope is able to update church teachings on some hot-button issues, it will be precisely because Francis set the stage for him.
Dennis Doyle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Attention now turns to what vision the first U.S. pope will bring.
Change is hard to bring about in the Catholic Church. During his pontificate, Francis often gestured toward change without actually changing church doctrines. He permitted discussion of ordaining married men in remote regions where populations were greatly underserved due to a lack of priests, but he did not actually allow it. On his own initiative, he set up a commission to study the possibility of ordaining women as deacons, but he did not follow it through.
However, he did allow priests to offer the Eucharist, the most important Catholic sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, to Catholics who had divorced and remarried without being granted an annulment.
Likewise, Francis did not change the official teaching that a sacramental marriage is between a man and a woman, but he did allow for the blessing of gay couples, in a manner that did appear to be a sanctioning of gay marriage.
To what degree will the new pope stand or not stand in continuity with Francis? As a scholar who has studied the writings and actions of the popes since the time of the Second Vatican Council, a series of meetings held to modernize the church from 1962 to 1965, I am aware that every pope comes with his own vision and his own agenda for leading the church.
Still, the popes who immediately preceded them set practical limits on what changes could be made. There were limitations on Francis as well; however, the new pope, I argue, will have more leeway because of the signals Francis sent.
The process of synodality
Francis initiated a process called “synodality,” a term that combines the Greek words for “journey” and “together.” Synodality involves gathering Catholics of various ranks and points of view to share their faith and pray with each other as they address challenges faced by the church today.
One of Francis’ favorite themes was inclusion. He carried forward the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the Holy Spirit – that is, the Spirit of God who inspired the prophets and is believed to be sent by Christ among Christians in a special way – is at work throughout the whole church; it includes not only the hierarchy but all of the church members. This belief constituted the core principle underlying synodality.
Pope Francis with the participants of the Synod of Bishops’ 16th General Assembly in the Paul VI Hall at the Vatican on Oct. 23, 2023. AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia
Francis launched a two-year global consultation process in October 2022, culminating in a synod in Rome in October 2024. Catholics all over the world offered their insights and opinions during this process. The synod discussed many issues, some of which were controversial, such as clerical sexual abuse, the need for oversight of bishops, the role of women in general and the ordination of women as deacons.
The final synod document did not offer conclusions concerning these topics but rather aimed more at promoting the transformation of the entire Catholic Church into a synodal church in which Catholics tackle together the many challenges of the modern world. Francis refrained from issuing his own document in response, in order that the synod’s statement could stand on its own.
The process of synodality in one sense places limits on bishops and the pope by emphasizing their need to listen closely to all church members before making decisions. In another sense, though, in the long run the process opens up the possibility for needed developments to take place when and if lay Catholics overwhelmingly testify that they believe the church should move in a certain direction.
Change is hard in the church
A pope, however, cannot simply reverse official positions that his immediate predecessors had been emphasizing. Practically speaking, there needs to be a papacy, or two, during which a pope will either remain silent on matters that call for change or at least limit himself to hints and signals on such issues.
In 1864, Pius IX condemned the proposition that “the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” It wasn’t until 1965 – some 100 years later – that the Second Vatican Council, in The Declaration on Religious Freedom, would affirm that “a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion. …”
A second major reason why popes may refrain from making top-down changes is that they may not want to operate like a dictator issuing executive orders in an authoritarian manner. Francis was accused by his critics of acting in this way with his positions on Eucharist for those remarried without a prior annulment and on blessings for gay couples. The major thrust of his papacy, however, with his emphasis on synodality, was actually in the opposite direction.
Notably, when the Amazon Synod – held in Rome in October 2019 – voted 128-41 to allow for married priests in the Brazilian Amazon region, Francis rejected it as not being the appropriate time for such a significant change.
Past doctrines
The belief that the pope should express the faith of the people and not simply his own personal opinions is not a new insight from Francis.
The doctrine of papal infallibility, declared at the First Vatican Council in 1870, held that the pope, under certain conditions, could express the faith of the church without error.
The limitations and qualifications of this power include that the pope be speaking not personally but in his official capacity as the head of the church; he must not be in heresy; he must be free of coercion and of sound mind; he must be addressing a matter of faith and morals; and he must consult relevant documents and other Catholics so that what he teaches represents not simply his own opinions but the faith of the church.
The Marian doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption offer examples of the importance of consultation. The Immaculate Conception, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854, is the teaching that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was herself preserved from original sin, a stain inherited from Adam that Catholics believe all other human beings are born with, from the moment of her conception. The Assumption, proclaimed by Pius XII in 1950, is the doctrine that Mary was taken body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life.
The documents in which these doctrines were proclaimed stressed that the bishops of the church had been consulted and that the faith of the lay people was being affirmed.
Unity, above all
One of the main duties of the pope is to protect the unity of the Catholic Church. On one hand, making many changes quickly can lead to schism, an actual split in the community.
In 2022, for example, the Global Methodist Church split from the United Methodist Church over same-sex marriage and the ordination of noncelibate gay bishops. There have also been various schisms within the Anglican communion in recent years. The Catholic Church faces similar challenges but so far has been able to avoid schisms by limiting the actual changes being made.
On the other hand, not making reasonable changes that acknowledge positive developments in the culture regarding issues such as the full inclusion of women or the dignity of gays and lesbians can result in the large-scale exit of members.
Pope Leo XIV, I argue, needs to be a spiritual leader, a person of vision, who can build upon the legacy of his immediate predecessors in such a way as to meet the challenges of the present moment. He already stated that he wants a synodal church that is “close to the people who suffer,” signaling a great deal about the direction he will take.
If the new pope is able to update church teachings on some hot-button issues, it will be precisely because Francis set the stage for him.
Dennis Doyle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sylvia Lu, Faculty Fellow and Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan
The Take It Down bill, co-authored by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, easily passed both houses of Congress. President Trump is expected to sign it into law.Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
In a rare bipartisan move, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Take It Down Act by a vote of 409-2 on April 28, 2025. The bill is an effort to confront one of the internet’s most appalling abuses: the viral spread of nonconsensual sexual imagery, including AI-generated deepfake pornography and real photos shared as revenge porn.
Now awaiting President Trump’s expected signature, the bill offers victims a mechanism to force platforms to remove intimate content shared without their permission – and to hold those responsible for distributing it to account.
As a scholar focused on AI and digital harms, I see this bill as a critical milestone. Yet it leaves troubling gaps. Without stronger protections and a more robust legal framework, the law may end up offering a promise it cannot keep. Enforcement issues and privacy blind spots could leave victims just as vulnerable.
The Take It Down Act targets “non-consensual intimate visual depictions” – a legal term that encompasses what most people call revenge porn and deepfake porn. These are sexual images or videos, often digitally manipulated or entirely fabricated, circulated online without the depicted person’s consent.
The bill compels online platforms to build a user-friendly takedown process. When a victim submits a valid request, the platform must act within 48 hours. Failure to do so may trigger enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission, which can treat the violation as an unfair or deceptive act or practice. Criminal penalties also apply to those who publish the images: Offenders may be fined and face up to three years in prison if anyone under 18 is involved, and up to two years if the subject is an adult.
A growing problem
Deepfake porn is not just a niche problem. It is a metastasizing crisis. With increasingly powerful and accessible AI tools, anyone can fabricate a hyper-realistic sexual image in minutes. Public figures, ex-partners and especially minors have become regular targets. Women, disproportionately, are the ones harmed.
These attacks dismantle lives. Victims of nonconsensual intimate image abuse suffer harassment, online stalking, ruined job prospects, public shaming and emotional trauma. Some are driven off the internet. Others are haunted repeatedly by resurfacing content. Once online, these images replicate uncontrollably – they don’t simply disappear.
In that context, a swift and standardized takedown process can offer critical relief. The bill’s 48-hour window for response has the potential to reclaim a fragment of control for those whose dignity and privacy were invaded by a click. Despite its promise, unresolved legal and procedural gaps can hinder its effectiveness.
NBC News gives an overview of the Take It Down Act.
Blind spots and shortfalls
The bill targets only public-facing interactive platforms that primarily host user-generated content such as social media platforms. It may not reach the countless hidden private forums or encrypted peer-to-peer networks where such content often first appears. This creates a critical legal gap: When nonconsensual sexual images are shared on closed or anonymous platforms, victims may never even know – or know in time – that the content exists, much less have a chance to request its removal.
Even on platforms covered by the bill, implementation is likely to be challenging. Determining whether the online content depicts the person in question, lacks consent and affects the hard-to-define privacy interests requires careful judgment. This demands legal understanding, technical expertise and time. But platforms must reach that decision within 24 hours or less.
On the other hand, time is a luxury victims do not have. But even with the 48-hour removal window, the content can still spread widely before it is taken down. The bill does not include meaningful incentives for platforms to detect and remove such content proactively. And it provides no deterrent strong enough to discourage most malicious creators from generating these images in the first place.
This takedown mechanism can also be subject to abuse. Critics warn that the bill’s broad language and lack of safeguards could lead to overcensorship, potentially affecting journalistic and other legitimate content. As platforms may be flooded with a mix of real and malicious takedown requests – some filed in bad faith to suppress speech or art – they may resort to poorly designed and privacy-invasive automated monitoring filters that tend to issue blanket rejections or err on the side of removing content that falls outside the scope of the law.
Without clear standards, platforms may act improperly. How – and even whether – the FTC will hold platforms accountable under the act is another open question.
Burden on the victims
The bill also places the burden of action on victims, who must locate the content, complete the paperwork, explain that it was nonconsensual, and submit personal contact information – often while still reeling from the emotional toll.
Moreover, while the bill targets both AI-generated deepfakes and revenge porn involving real images, it fails to account for the complex realities victims face. Many are trapped in unequal relationships and may have “consented” under pressure, manipulation or fear to having intimate content about them posted online. Situations like this fall outside the bill’s legal framing. The bill bars consent obtained through overt threats and coercion, yet it overlooks more insidious forms of manipulation.
Even for those who do engage the takedown process, the risks remain. Victims must submit contact information and a statement explaining that the image was nonconsensual, without legal guarantees that this sensitive data will be protected. This exposure could invite new waves of harassment and exploitation.
Loopholes for offenders
The bill includes liability-evasive conditions and exceptions that could allow distributors to escape liability. If the content was shared with the subject’s consent, served a public concern, or was unintentional or caused no demonstrable harm, they may avoid consequences under the Take It Down Act. If offenders deny causing harm, victims face an uphill battle. Emotional distress, reputational damage and career setbacks are real, but they rarely come with clear documentation or a straightforward chain of cause and effect.
Equally concerning, the bill allows exceptions for publication of such content for legitimate medical, educational or scientific purposes. Though well-intentioned, this language creates a confusing and potentially dangerous loophole. It risks becoming a shield for exploitation masquerading as research or education.
Getting ahead of the problem
The notice and takedown mechanism is fundamentally reactive. It intervenes only after the damage has begun. But deepfake pornography is designed for rapid proliferation. By the time a takedown request is filed, the content may have already been saved, reposted or embedded across dozens of sites – some hosted overseas or buried in decentralized networks. The current bill provides a system that treats the symptoms while leaving the harms to spread.
In my research on algorithmic and AI harms, I have argued that legal responses should move beyond reactive actions. I have proposed a framework that anticipates harm before it occurs – not one that merely responds after the fact. That means incentivizing platforms to take proactive steps to protect the privacy, autonomy, equality and safety of users exposed to harms caused by AI-generated images and tools. It also means broadening accountability to cover more perpetrators and platforms, supported by stronger safeguards and enforcement systems.
The Take It Down Act is a meaningful first step. But to truly protect the vulnerable, I believe that lawmakers should build stronger systems – ones that prevent harm before it happens and treat victims’ privacy and dignity not as afterthoughts but as fundamental rights.
Sylvia Lu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.
Once again, India and Pakistan are locked in conflict over Kashmir. A diplomatic crisis that started with a terrorist attack that killed 26 tourists, all but one of them Indian, became a fortnight of cross-border skirmishes and pugilistic posturing from New Delhi and Islamabad. India responded on May 7 with Operation Sindoor, a series of airstrikes apparently aimed at what India said were terrorist training camps, in which at least 31 people were reportedly killed. Pakistan has vowed revenge and launched its own deadly attacks. And so an old emnity is rekindled.
India and Pakistan have been at loggerheads over Kashmir virtually since partition in 1947. Its mixed population, its geography and, importantly, its history as what was known as a “princely state”, virtually guaranteed it. Princely states, which were not administered by the British Raj were given the choice of joining either independent India or the newly created Pakistan. Kashmir, ruled over by the Hindu maharaja Hari Singh, eventually joined India.
Hari Singh reportedly did so with some misgivings. The state he ruled over had a majority population of Muslims. But when the first conflict broke out at the end of 1947, with an invasion by Pakistani tribesmen looking to take control of Kashmir, he called on India for assistance and signed a deal temporarily incorporating the state into India pending a plebiscite – which never took place.
The first India-Pakistan war ended in 1949 with a UN-mandated ceasefire. A border was drawn through the state giving India roughly two-thirds control over Jammu and Kashmir, with Pakistan controlling the other third. Both sides have claimed the whole territory ever since.
Violence has broken out periodically in the intervening decades, characterised since the 1980s by insurgencies, which India routinely accuses Pakistan of backing – an accusation which Pakistan routinely denies. Groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) have carried out terror attacks in both Kashmir and India, including LeT’s 2008 Mumbai massacre in which 166 people were killed.
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
Now the situation which the rest of the world has worried about for years, a conflict between two neighbouring nuclear armed powers, has begun to escalate with fears it might spiral out of control. Natasha Lindsteadt, an expert in international security, takes a look at the military – and nuclear– capabilities and policies of the two countries.
She writes that India has a far larger military (it’s ranked as one of the world’s top five military nations by Military Watch magazine, with Pakistan ranked ninth). The two countries have a roughly comparable nuclear arsenal. But while India has a “no first use” policy, Pakistan has never committed itself in this way, arguing it needs its nuclear arsenal to counter India’s larger conventional forces.
But even a small nuclear exchange between the two could kill more than 20 million people, writes Lindsteadt.
Part of the problem seems to be a complete lack of communications at the highest level. US president, Donald Trump, initially appeared reluctant to get involved, saying that he is “sure they’ll figure it out one way or the other … There’s great tension between Pakistan and India, but there always has been.” He is since reported to have offered to step in, an offer apparently politely rejected by New Delhi.
“What is needed now is robust, real-time crisis communication between the two nations,” write security experts Syed Ali Zia Jaffery of the University of Lahore and Nicholas Wheeler of the University of Birmingham. The problem is that there is no mechanism for that.
And as we know from the Cuban missile crisis, when the US and Soviet Union came very close to a nuclear exchange, it’s all too easy for mistakes to be made which could escalate a conflict between two nuclear powers into a conflagration.
After that crisis, the two leaders involved, John F. Kennedy and Nikita Krushchev, set up a communications link (which became known as the “hotline”) to enable direct communications. As Jaffery and Wheeler point out, this served to keep the rival powers from further dangerous confrontation (it even helped in bringing about arms treaties when Ronald Reagan was in the White House and Mikhail Gorbachev was in the Kremlin.
For a deeper dive into the crisis and the long history of conflict between India and Pakistan, here are five essential reads, carefully curated for you by my colleague Matt Williams, senior international editor at The Conversation in the US.
In the Middle East, meanwhile, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are planning to move in large numbers into Gaza with a plan to occupy the whole of the territory. The prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has described the move as a “forceful operation” which will destroy Hamas and rescue its remaining hostages. The remaining population of 2.1 million Palestinian civilians will be moved “to proect it”.
With more than 50,000 people dead in Gaza since the conflict began in October 2023, you have to say Israel’s attempts to protect civilians have been decidedly unsuccessful.
Leonie Fleischmann, senior lecturer in international politics at City St George’s, University of London, sees this as Israel’s next step towards clearing Gaza of Palestinians, something she says Netanyahu’s far-right enablers have been pushing for all along. But she also sees parallels with what is happening in the West Bank, where Israel is gradually annexing land occupied by Palestinians and mandated by the Oslo accords of the 1990s as part of a future Palestinian state.
The recent Louis Theroux documentary film showed the terrible circumstances under which Palestinians live on the West Bank, juxtaposing that with the determination of extreme Zionists to take over what they see as the land of their forefathers.
Fleischmann notes that this week, Israeli cabinet minister Bezalel Smotrich approved plans for construction on land in an area which, if given to settlers, would effectively cut the West Bank in two. This would, she says, “bury any remaining hope for a two-state solution”. Rather chillingly, Smotrich is quoted as saying: “This is how you kill the Palestinian state.”
Where would Palestinians go under Netanyahu’s plan? Well, if the Israeli prime minister shares Donald Trump’s vision of redeveloping Gaza as some sort of Middle Eastern “riviera”, they’d be dispersed into countries such as Egypt and Jordan.
This idea is a non-starter, writes Scott Lucas of University College Dublin. Lucas, a Middle East expert who has written regularly for us about Israel and Gaza and answered our questions about the situation. He says Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has definitively ruled out accepting a mass exodus of Palestinians via the Rafah crossing at Gaza’s southern end. And Jordan is equally unwilling to accept any more Palestinian refugees. Apart from anything else, it already has about 3 million.
As Lucas writes: “Any Arab government that takes in Gazans, even amid a humanitarian crisis, would be tacitly burying the idea of a Palestinian state. That would break a 77-year-old principle and resurrect the Nakba – the forced displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948.”
Israel is unlikely to get much international support for such a move either, Lucas adds. Donald Trump is preoccupied with other things and, even if he weren’t, the rest of the international community would hardly stand for what would probably be seen as an act of ethnic cleansing on a massive scale.
But what do ordinary Israelis think of their government’s plans for Gaza? For most Israelis the paramount factor is their security. So far the Netanyahu government’s actions in Gaza had enjoyed majority suppport for that reason and in the hope that somehow the conflict might lead to getting the remaining hostages home.
But the latest plan to take Gaza completely could scupper any hope of repatriating the hostages. And there are signs that many Israelis are getting tired of the constant crisis and conflict. There appears to be a growing appetite for peace.
Or so writes Yuval Katz of Loughborough University, who grew up in Israel but left eight years ago to pursue an academic career. He was recently home for the first time in two years and spent time contacting peace groups. Here is what he found.
The Ontario Coroner’s reports cover two aspects of medical assistance in dying (MAID): waiver of final consent, and same- or next-day provision of MAID.(Shutterstock)
The MAID Death Review Committee — of which I am a member — reviews cases of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) that are selected by the coroner’s MAID team for the common issues they raise. The review helps inform policy recommendations.
Some of the cases suggest a troubling prioritizing of ending patients’ lives with MAID rather than a precautionary approach. In my opinion, they reveal an urgent need for more rigorous legal and professional standards. Committee members’ starkly contrasting views on the ethics of some of the practices, which can be gleaned from the anonymous summaries of the committee’s discussions, are striking.
Most assisted dying laws or policies in other countries prohibit same-day provision of MAID and waiving of final consent. (Shutterstock)
Access over protection
The topics of the reports illustrate how Canada’s MAID law reform has prioritized access over protection. Most assisted dying laws or policies in other countries prohibit same-day provision of MAID and waiving of final consent. Many impose a reflection period to protect patients against rushed and desperate decision-making, for example following a devastating diagnosis.
Before 2021, Canada’s MAID law had a 10-day reflection period, which could be shortened by request. This was removed in the 2021 expansion of MAID, which also removed the safeguard of a reasonably foreseeable natural death.
The coroner’s report on waiver of final consent includes cases, and notes on case discussions, that demonstrate the fine line between flexible use of such waivers and circumventing the prohibition of advance request. In some cases, it appears that different guidance documents of the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers have been combined to facilitate MAID: guidance on waiver of final consent and on dementia.
In a journal publication, my co-authors and I warned that combining these guidance documents, which we consider to be obfuscating, could lead to advance requests for MAID even though they remain prohibited under the criminal code.
Case reports
Take the case of Mr. A. Distressed by short-term memory loss and a diagnosis of an onset of Alzheimer’s disease, he signed a waiver scheduling MAID 3.5 years later. Some, but not all, members of the committee opined that scheduling it so much in advance was incompatible with a track 1 approval, since it revealed that he was not approaching his death, not in an advanced state of irreversible decline of capability and could hardly be considered to suffer intolerably at the time of approval.
The MAID provider ended up not using the waiver for Mr. A’s consent for MAID. However, his MAID death remains problematic due to concerns about how the provider accepted he was able to provide final consent.
Less than a year after signing the waiver, he was hospitalized after a fall. He was deemed delirious, confused and had hallucinations. During “a period of cognitive improvement” the MAID provider deemed him capable of confirming final consent and provided MAID based on the original assessment.
Family pressures, such as caregiver burnout, need to be sufficiently investigated. (Shutterstock)
Informed consent concerns also arose in the case of 80-year-old Mrs. B, who told a first MAID assessor she preferred palliative care because of personal and religious values. When a palliative care physician noticed her husband’s “caregiver burnout,” he requested hospice care for Mrs. B, which was rejected.
Her husband then contacted a second MAID assessor, who approved her for MAID and who rejected the first assessor’s request to talk to Mrs. B. the next day. A third assessor confirmed the second assessor’s approval and Mrs. B received MAID the same day.
The case of Mr. C involved a man in his 70s, diagnosed with metastatic cancer, who requested a MAID assessment five days after admission into palliative care. But before he could be assessed, he experienced cognitive decline and “loss of ability to communicate.”
When the palliative care team told a MAID provider the next day that he had lost capacity to consent, the provider “vigorously roused Mr. C., who opened his eyes and mouthed ‘yes’” when asked if he wanted MAID. After withholding pain medication for 45 minutes, the provider considered him more “alert.” A second MAID assessor confirmed his eligibility after an online assessment, also accepting mouthing yes, and “nodding his head in presumed agreeance” as clear and capable informed consent, and he was euthanized.
These and some other cases described in the committee reports raise several concerns. They show how MAID has been provided in cases where assessors clearly disagree about the application of access criteria, with two seemingly limited assessments favouring MAID overriding others.
Some patients received MAID after capacity and informed consent procedures that appear problematic, in the case of Mr. C overriding a capacity assessment by a treating palliative care team. Family pressures, such as caregiver burnout, may also be insufficiently investigated, as in the case of Mrs. B.
And MAID appears to have been delivered in the case of Mr. C. when the patient appeared otherwise comfortable in palliative care and may not have had capacity to consent.
The reports also reveal that even patients specifically hospitalized for suicidal ideation and in need of mental health care are offered MAID, as earlier coroner reports already revealed. Some cases appear to stretch the contours of MAID law.
Starkly differing views
The committee discussions included in the report further suggest starkly different views among MAID Death Review Committee members, including on standards for assessing capacity for consent.
As discussed in a recent study I co-authored, most of Canada’s MAID practice is driven by a relatively small group of frequent providers. The study found that there are 1,837 MAID providers in Canada, but up to 336 of these are frequent providers who are likely responsible for the majority of annual MAID deaths. This adds to concerns about arguably overly flexible provision of MAID among these providers.
To date there have been no known cases of criminal or professional sanctions against a MAID provider. However, the Chief Coroner’s reports, as well as mediareports, indicate that this does not mean Canada’s MAID practice is exemplary, safe and compliant. When reading these cases, many likely wonder, as I do, what it will take for political, judicial and professional authorities to provide firmer guidance, investigate thoroughly and put a halt to problematic delivery of MAID.
The UN committee cited the earlier coroner reports. The two most recent reports, which the UN committee did not have yet at its disposal, clearly confirm the urgent need for a revisiting of our MAID law, and for refocusing on protection, not on further expansion.
Trudo Lemmens is a member of the Chief Coroner of Ontario MAID Death Review Committee. He has been an expert witness for the Federal Attorney General in the Truchon and Lamb cases. He has been an advisor to the Vulnerable Person Standard. His research is partly funded by a Scholl Chair in Health Law and Policy. He is co-editor of a McGill/Queens University Press book Unravelling MAID in Canada: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide as Medical Care.
.jpg){kind=link}
