Brown rice contains more arsenic than white rice, according to a recent study from the US. Understandably, that might sound alarming. After all, arsenic is a well-known toxin. But the levels found in brown rice are not a health risk. And brown rice, like other whole grains, is still an important part of a healthy diet.
To understand the issue, it helps to remember an old principle from toxicology: the dose makes the poison. In other words, harmful substances can be harmless – or even beneficial – at low enough doses.
Arsenic, while dangerous in high amounts, is naturally found in soil and water and can show up in many foods, including rice.
The new study makes this very clear: the amount of arsenic in brown rice is far below any level considered risky for human health. What matters is both how much is present and how often it is consumed.
For most people, the exposure from eating brown rice is minimal and not something to worry about.
Despite the study’s reassuring conclusion, some news outlets ran with scary headlines. Such as: Toxic metal linked to cancer, autism found in brown rice as scientists say it’s time to rethink healthy option. And: Think brown rice is healthier than white rice? Study finds high level of carcinogen in brown rice in the US.
Pesticides, preservatives, trace metals – all can sound scary out of context. But for most people, the health risks don’t come from what’s in our food in tiny amounts – they come from our everyday choices.
What we should be worried about
In countries like the UK, less than one in 1,000 people follow all aspects of national dietary guidelines. That means most people aren’t eating enough fruit, vegetables and whole grains – and that’s a much bigger problem.
In fact, poor diet is a bigger cause of illness and early death worldwide than smoking or alcohol. Two of the top dietary risk factors? Eating too much salt and not enough whole grains.
Cardiovascular disease, the world’s leading cause of death for decades, kills around 20 million people each year. During the COVID pandemic, it remained deadlier than the virus itself. One of the simplest ways to reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease is to eat more whole grains.
So while it’s true that brown rice has more arsenic than white rice, not eating brown rice (or other whole grains) may pose a greater health risk. (Other whole grains options to choose from include: oats, quinoa, barley and whole wheat pasta and bread.)
If you’re fortunate enough to have choices about what to eat, take a moment to reflect on how your habits align with national dietary guidelines. If you’re already eating well, great – keep it up. If not, start small: swap in a few whole grains and reduce your salt intake.
And if you’re still not convinced about brown rice, that’s OK. Choose another whole grain that works for you. Just don’t let a misunderstood detail about arsenic scare you away from one of the most positive foods choices you can make.
Iain Brownlee currently receives funding from the European Research Agency/Medical Research Council and the National Institute of National Institute of Health and Care Research. He has previously received funding from multiple government organisations in the UK, Singapore and Australia, as well as multiple industry funders including Nestlé/Cereal Partners Worldwide.
What if your work self didn’t know about your personal life, and your home self had no idea what you did for a living? In Apple TV’s Severance, that’s exactly the deal: a surgical procedure splits the memories of employees into “innies” (who only exist at work) and “outies” (who never recall what they do from nine to five).
On the surface, it sounds like an ideal solution to a growing cybersecurity problem of insider threats, such as leaks or sabotage by employees. After all, if an employee can’t remember what they accessed at work, how can they leak it, sabotage it, or sell it?
As someone who has researched insider threats for the last decade I can’t help but see Severance as a cautionary tale of what happens when we try to eliminate threats without understanding people.
The threat from within
Insider threats really hit prominence in the wake of high-profile incidents like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, who both leaked top secret government information. These threats are one of the most persistent challenges in security because unlike “traditional” hackers, insiders already have access to sensitive systems and information.
They might act maliciously, stealing trade secrets or exposing data, or accidentally, through phishing links or lost devices. Either way, the consequences can be more serious because of the unprecedented levels of access someone has while working within an organisation.
While we often think of the high-profile cases in the first instance, the reality of most insider incidents is far less dramatic. Think of the disgruntled employee who downloads a client database before leaving, or the well-meaning staff member who shares a sensitive file via the wrong link.
In fact, one of the most iconic examples of an insider threat in fiction is Jurassic Park. The entire catastrophe begins, not with a dinosaur, but with a software engineer, Dennis Nedry, who disables the park’s security in an attempt to steal trade secrets. It’s a reminder that even the most sophisticated systems can be undone by a single rogue employee.
Organisations try to manage this through access controls, behaviour monitoring and training. But people are unpredictable. Insider threats sit at the messy intersection of human behaviour, organisational culture and digital systems.
This is where Severance strikes a chord. What if you could eliminate the human risk altogether, by turning employees into separate, tightly compartmentalised selves? In the show, workers at the shadowy Lumon Corporation have no memory of their job outside the office and vice versa.
In a sense, it’s the ultimate form of “need to know.” An “innie” can’t tell anyone what they do because they don’t know anything beyond their desk. It’s a very elegant, although ethically problematic, solution for someone working in security. However, as the series unfolds, it becomes clear that the levels of control on offer through the process of severance come with a terrible cost.
The problem with control
The innies in Severance are trapped in an endless workday, unable to understand the meaning or value of their tasks. They form bonds, question authority and ultimately rebel. Ironically, it is the severed employees, the ones who are most closely controlled in the company, who become the greatest insider threat to Lumon.
This mirrors something we know from real organisations: excessive surveillance, control and secrecy often backfires. For instance, Amazon has faced repeated criticism over its use of tracking technologies to monitor warehouse workers’ movements and productivity, with reports suggesting this has contributed to high stress, burnout and even rule-breaking as workers try to “game” the system.
A 2022 study published in Harvard Business Review found that employees who feel overly monitored are significantly more likely to break rules or engage in counterproductive behaviour – undermining the very goals of workplace surveillance. If people feel undervalued or mistreated, they’re more likely to become disengaged or actively hostile. Security systems that ignore culture and trust are therefore often brittle.
What Severance gets right is that insider threats are emotional and ethical problems as much as technical ones. They stem from how people feel about their role, their autonomy and their identity within a system. This is something that we can’t simply patch within a piece of software.
Lessons from fiction
Thankfully, no company in the real world is proposing surgical memory separation, at least not yet. But in an age of algorithmic management, increasing surveillance, and growing concerns about privacy, Severance resonates. It forces us to ask just how far should we go in the name of security?
The answer isn’t to separate people from their work, but to build systems that are secure and respectful of the people within them; something increasingly backed by research.
That means better design, clearer boundaries and a workplace culture that values openness, not just compliance. For example, implementing clear expectations around work hours and communication norms can help prevent burnout and promote wellbeing.
Encouraging open communication channels, such as anonymous feedback systems, empowers employees to voice concerns without fear, fostering a culture of trust. Additionally, designing physical workspaces that promote collaboration, like open-plan areas and communal lounges, can enhance team cohesion and reflect organisational values.
If we follow the example set by Lumon and try to remove all risk then we lose something far more essential – the humanity at the centre of our systems and organisations. Ultimately, removing that human focus could be the most significant vulnerability of all.
Oli Buckley receives funding from Jason R.C. Nurse receives funding from The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and Responsible AI UK.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Freddie Daley, Research Associate, Centre for Global Political Economy, University of Sussex
corlaffra / shutterstock
The UK government is about to host a summit with the International Energy Agency (IEA) on the future of energy security. It does so as the world grapples with war, geopolitical realignments and trade barriers, against a backdrop of accelerating climate upheavals. One of the expected outcomes of this summit is a new, agreed definition of what constitutes energy security in the 21st century.
Common understandings of energy security have focused on making supplies reliable and affordable, with less attention paid to ensuring sources of energy are sustainable and less volatile over the medium- and long-term. This neglect compromises our collective security.
The IEA’s 31 member countries and 13 associates include most of the world’s most powerful states. Its influence means that this new definition of energy security will be used to inform government policies and investment decisions around the world. Given the cost of energy infrastructure, and the lengthy time it takes to build these projects, this definition is set to shape our future, economically and climatically.
But there is a very real risk that this definition will open the door to further investments into fossil fuel production under the guise of energy security.
International Energy Agency (IEA) member and ‘association member’ countries. IEA, CC BY-SA
After Russia invaded Ukraine, governments rushed to cut their reliance on Russian fossil fuels. This caused major disruptions as prices spiked and millions were pushed into energy poverty.
Europe alone spent an extra €517–€831 billion (£444–£713 billion) on energy in 2021 and 2022, even though some imports from Russia continued through so-called “shadow fleets”. Some argued that high fossil fuel prices only embolden leaders like Putin and help fund their conflicts.
Governments responded with “energy nativism”, as they sought to secure as much energy as possible for their citizens at whatever cost. This typically meant boosting renewables and bulk buying oil and gas. In the UK’s case, it also meant the previous government issuing hundreds of new licenses to drill for oil and gas to “increase energy security” – licenses the current government says it will honour).
Shipments of liquified natural gas (LNG) were also redirected from poorer countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh towards the highest bidders in Europe and Asia. This raises the question of who exactly is becoming more energy secure and at what cost.
Meanwhile, large fossil fuel exporters like Qatar, the US and Australia ramped up production. A US official even referred to its gas exports as “molecules of freedom”. Australia has exported so much natural gas it may have to buy its own gas back from Japan at market price.
The sheer volume of investment in new oil and gas infrastructure like offshore rigs or LNG terminals, combined with long build times, has locked in higher fossil fuel production and pushed emissions to record levels. This poses significant risks for both exporters and importers, especially as future demand is uncertain and energy markets remain volatile.
Fossil fuels remain dominant
More fundamentally, continued reliance on fossil fuels is making humanity less secure. The vast majority of emissions still come from burning coal, oil or gas. Preventing climate catastrophe therefore requires us to phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible – with wealthy nations leading the charge. In their place, we’ll have to generate energy from renewable sources that do not replicate the volatility of globally traded fossil fuels.
Yet despite some progressive policies, fossil fuels remain dominant across the global economy. Investment in oil and gas today is almost double the level it must fall below if the world is to reach net zero by 2050, according to the IEA’s own modelling.
The pursuit of energy security has boosted renewables, but adding additional clean energy isn’t enough – it must ultimately displace fossil fuels entirely. This will require a whole-economy shift. That means cutting production of fossil fuels while also reducing demand, stabilising prices and building out clean energy fast enough to support the electrification of transport, industry and heating.
But supply chains for batteries, solar panels and other key technologies are vulnerable. Delays and shortages could mean electricity prices spike, sparking social unrest. This is yet another risk of getting energy security wrong: if inflationary pressures drive the immiseration of the general public, governments and their energy plans will be short lived.
The definition of energy security that comes out of the IEA summit should reflect the fact we’re now in a world of constant crises. True energy security means charting a path towards a world that is more socially, economically and environmentally secure. This means developing a well-managed global plan to phase out fossil fuels.
Peter Newell receives research funding from UKRI for work on energy transitions.
Freddie Daley 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.
UK journalism has a class problem. This statement will not surprise most people familiar with UK newsrooms. What is astonishing, though, is the scarcity of empirical data that could help us better understand the extent to which class inequality affects journalists and their work.
For the first time, research by my colleagues and me an for the report UK Journalists in the 2020s uses a representative sample of UK journalists to measure their socioeconomic background. The vast majority of our respondents came from a privileged background, measured by their schooling and by the job held by their main household earner when they were a child.
Previous research on this issue was based on considerably more limited data. In July 2009, a report commissioned by the then Labour government found that journalism was one of two professions that had experienced the biggest decline in social mobility (the other being accountancy).
Research by the Sutton Trust established repeatedly (most recently in 2019), that leading news editors, broadcasters and newspaper columnists are about six to seven times more likely to be privately educated than the general population, a typical marker for privilege in Britain.
Some of the best data we have regarding UK journalists’ social class was collected by the National Council for the Training of Journalists, who since 2017 has regularly published reports on the diversity among UK journalists.
However, as the report’s author Mark Spilsbury concedes, the findings have a considerable margin of error. The report uses data from the UK Government Labour Force Survey, and only extrapolates its figures for the small fraction of journalists within that workforce.
Our report, for the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, draws on a survey that media researchers Neil Thurman, Sina Thäsler-Kordonouri and I conducted between September 27 and November 30 2023.
We used data from the 2021 Census for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland and from the Roxhill Media database to estimate the total number of UK journalists to be 68,279. Given how notoriously reluctant journalists are to respond to surveys, already swamped as they are with similar requests, we sent our questionnaire to 16,497 randomly selected participants.
We considered journalists to be those who worked for a media outlet with an identifiable focus on news, and who earned at least 50% of their income from journalism or worked at least 50% of their working week as a journalist. To be included in our survey, respondents also needed to work for a news outlet with a UK base and that was aimed, at least in part, at a UK audience.
After data cleaning, we retained a final sample of 1,130 respondents, a sufficient size to achieve a confidence level of at least 95% and a maximum error margin of 3%.
Our survey is part of the international Worlds of Journalism Study, which uses the same core questionnaire across 75 countries. The survey covers a wide range of topics, including journalists’ demographics, working conditions and their experience of safety and wellbeing.
For the UK study, we added two questions regarding journalists’ socioeconomic background. First, we asked what job the main earner in their households held when the respondents were 14 years old. Second, we asked about the school journalists attended: fee-paying private or state primary and secondary school, non-fee-paying selective secondary school (such as grammar school) or a school not in the UK.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
The question on parents’ occupation allowed respondents to write in the title of the relevant job. We coded the replies manually using the nine categories of the Office for National Statistics’ 2020 Standard Occupational Classification.
Seventy-one percent of journalists in our sample came from a privileged background, with the main earner in their childhood household holding a job within the three top categories of the classification. Only 12% of our respondents came from a working-class background (sales and customer service occupations; process, plant and machine operatives and elementary occupations).
We lack the data for an outright comparison with the general population. But the 2021 census gives an indication. It shows that 23.3% of the main earner in all households in England and Wales held a job in the highest AB social grade, about equivalent to the top three categories in our classification. Nearly double (43.9%) fell into the social grade C2 and DE, roughly equivalent with our bottom three categories.
Journalists’ privilege also shows in their schooling. Twenty-two percent of journalists in our sample attended a fee-paying secondary, and 13% attended a fee-paying primary school. Around 6% of the general pupil population in England attends private schools, and fewer in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Does privilege matter?
Our data does not suggest that a privileged upbringing makes it more likely for journalists to hold a top management position. Where it does make a difference, though, is whether they work for national media or outlets with international presence (like the Guardian or the Financial Times). Of those who do only 9% come from a working-class background, while 72% come from a privileged one (the rest come from the middle groups in our classification).
In contrast, 20% of journalists working for local and regional outlets (including regional arms of national outlets, such as BBC Wales) have a working-class background, and 57% grew up in a more privileged household.
Our survey also shows other areas of inequality. An interesting one is age. Both women and journalists from an ethnic minority background seem to drop out of the profession after the age of 50. Journalists with an Asian or Black background in particular remain underrepresented compared to the overall population, as they were in 2015.
Female journalists are also still less well paid, less likely to have a permanent contract or to hold a top management role than their male colleagues. They also more often report feeling stressed out. Their disadvantage against their male colleagues may well be a reason.
New survey data shows that of those who work for national media, 72% are from a privileged background. Zeynep Demir Aslim/Shutterstock
One reason for the privileged background of so many journalists will be that journalism has become a thoroughly academic profession. Nine out of ten journalists in our sample were university educated.
In an increasingly complex world, there may be good reasons for those who report on it to undergo an academic training. However, as some scholars have argued, trust in journalism not only depends on accurate and reliable reporting, but also on emotional and social factors that are essential for the relationship between journalists and audiences.
Given the lack of trust in news and rising news avoidance among UK audiences, the inequalities our report found should be of concern. If journalists are found to belong to a privileged elite they are less likely to be trusted by the general public. Reliable data on the inequalities that shape the journalism profession is a necessary start to tackle this problem.
Imke Henkel 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 Stephen Appiah Takyi, Senior Lecturer, Department of Planning, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)
Urban flooding is a major problem in the global south. In west and central Africa, more than 4 million people were affected by flooding in 2024. In Ghana, cities suffer damage from flooding every year.
Ghana’s president, John Dramani Mahama, has established a task force to find ways of improving flood resilience in the country. This is partly driven by an increase in flooding incidents in cities such as Accra and Kumasi in the last decade.
We are urban planning and sustainability scholars. In a recent paper we analysed whether flooding in Accra, Ghana’s capital, was caused by climate change or poor land use planning.
We conclude from our analysis that flooding is caused by poor and uncoordinated land use planning rather than climate change. We recommend that the physical planning department and other regulatory agencies are equipped to ensure the effective enforcement the relevant land use regulations.
Mixed push factors
The Accra metropolitan area is one of the 29 administrative units of Ghana’s Greater Accra region. It is the most populous region in Ghana, with over five million residents, according to the 2021 Housing and Population Census.
the nature and areas most prone to flooding in the study area
the frequency of flooding
land use planning and regulations and their influence on flooding.
About 40% of the people we interviewed attributed flooding to both weak enforcement of land use regulation and changes in rainfall patterns. Most of the households (52%) said floods in Accra were the result of weak enforcement of land use regulations, while 8% blamed changes in land use regulations.
We also analysed recorded data on flood incidence and rainfall. We found no correlation between increased rainfall and flooding. For example in 2017 there was a decrease in rainfall, but an increase in flooding.
This finding points to the fact that rainfall isn’t the only factor contributing to flooding in the city.
The agencies and city residents reported that between 2008 and 2018, they could see that more people were encroaching on the city’s wetlands by building homes and commercial infrastructure. This has changed the natural flow of water bodies. The Greater Accra Metropolitan and its environs has major wetlands such as Densu Delta, Sakumo Lagoon and Songor Lagoon.
Interview respondents noted that the siting of unauthorised buildings and the encroachment on buffer zones of water bodies in the city could have been averted. They blamed political interference in the enforcement of land use regulation. The government makes the situation worse in two ways, they said:
planning standards and regulations are neglected in the development process. The processes involved in acquiring development permits are cumbersome and expensive, so people go ahead and develop without permits.
regulatory institutions and authorities are ineffective. This is clear from the fact that planning happens chaotically. No attention is given to the ecological infrastructure that’s needed.
The way forward
We conclude that land use malpractices remain the dominant causes of flooding in Accra. They include:
poor disposal of solid waste, which eventually blocks drains and results in water overflow during heavy rains
building on wetlands as a result of non-compliance or non-enforcement of land use regulations.
There is an urgent need for Ghana’s cities to adopt best practices in waste management. These include recycling of plastic waste and composting for urban agriculture. An environmental excise tax was introduced in 2011 to fund plastic waste recycling and support waste management agencies.
The increasing encroachment on wetlands should be addressed through the strict enforcement of buffer regulations. Planning authorities and the judiciary can collaborate on this. The city must also encourage green infrastructure, like rain gardens, green roofs, permeable pavement, street trees and rain harvesting systems. Research has shown these to be environmentally sustainable and cost-effective approaches to managing storm water.
Another suggested approach is the introduction of the polluter pays principle in city management. This is a system where city residents who are involved in the pollution of the environment are made to pay for the cost of mitigating the impact. Residents who dispose of waste indiscriminately and encroach on wetlands would be made to pay for the cost of the environmental degradation. Cities such as Barcelona and Helsinki have applied this principle in the management of their industrial discharge and contaminated waste.
Finally, there should be incentives for city residents to promote environmental sustainability. For example, a deposit refund system has been introduced in several states in the US and Australia. In this system, consumers are made to pay a deposit after purchasing items that can be recycled, such as plastic bottles, and the deposit is reimbursed to the consumer after the return of the empty bottles to a retail store.
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.
Just as voting has begun in this year’s federal election, the Coalition has released its long-awaited defence policy platform. The main focus, as expected, is a boost in defence spending to 3% of Australia’s GDP within the next decade.
If elected, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says a Coalition government will spend A$21 billion over the next five years to bring defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. It would aim to reach 3% five years after that.
This sounds impressive, but as shadow Defence Minister Andrew Hastie notes, this isn’t a huge increase, given it’s over many years.
In dry fiscal planning terms, Labor’s defence spending plan would amount to 2.23% of GDP in budget year 2028–29, while the Coalition’s plan would be expected to reach around 2.4% by that time.
While the Coalition’s costings are yet to come, its plan is arguably affordable – if need be through deficit financing.
What’s in the Coalition plan?
The Coalition’s extra money would go to numerous capabilities:
purchasing 28 extra F-35 joint strike fighter jets from the United States
accelerating the infrastructure and shipyard building capacity in Western Australia (some in Hastie’s electorate) to support the AUKUS submarine plan
improving Australian Defence Force (ADF) recruitment and retention
and boosting “sustainment” (that is, maintenance of military equipment, weaponry and systems and personnel training).
Hastie is particularly enthusiastic about improving the Australian defence industrial base, which he says involves ramping up purchases of defence equipment from small and medium-size enterprises.
There is some logic to this. In the past few years, some spending on new acquisitions has been shifted to sustainment. This was necessary, as the long-term defence plan when Labor came to power in 2022 did not accurately estimate how much money would be needed for the new equipment then entering service.
This is not unusual. There is always optimism within the Department of Defence that new equipment will be cheaper to operate than it actually turns out to be.
Given significant money has already been moved to sustainment under Labor defence budgets over the past few years, it’s plausible we don’t actually need as much money for this as the Coalition asserts.
This might be fortunate as the F-35 purchase is likely to be considerably more than the $3 billion the Coalition touted last month, given inflation and issues with the program in the US.
Problems with the plan
The biggest problem with Dutton’s plan is the same one faced by both the Morrison and Albanese governments. Strong rhetoric is consistently at odds with slow progress on defence force modernisation. The Coalition policy continues this bipartisan tradition.
Hastie repeated several times at his news conference with Dutton in Perth that the country faces the “most dangerous strategic circumstances since the second world war”.
Yet, this sense of urgency is not reflected in the extra $21 billion in spending the Coalition is proposing. The F-35 fighter jets, the major centrepiece of the plan, are unlikely to be in service until the first half of the 2030s.
Similarly, the naval shipbuilding (which is necessary and already in train) also won’t begin to deliver greater capacity until well into the next decade.
The only high-priority item outlined by the Coalition appears to be accelerating spending on the infrastructure needed to base US and UK nuclear attack submarines in Western Australia from 2027.
Hastie said on Radio National Breakfast that a drive through the area where this infrastructure is being built would reveal few signs of any progress, particularly when it comes to housing.
This comment highlights a policy incoherence problem for both parties. Accelerating the construction of defence infrastructure will drag tradies away from building homes for other Australians – and contribute to construction cost increases.
This throws up another issue. The Coalition has criticised Labor for cutting or delaying defence equipment projects costing some $80 billion while in government, yet it has offered no plans to return these specific projects to the defence budget.
As Hastie observed, these cuts and delays were, in part, to land-force capabilities, such as the infantry fighting vehicle program. A shift to a more maritime focus and away from equipment better suited to wars in the Middle East is reasonable, given the stress both parties have placed on China’s naval buildup.
Little to feel inspired about
Interestingly, Hastie said on Radio National Breakfast that AUKUS is “a structural imposition” the current defence budget can’t meet.
This suggests that when the AUKUS deal was agreed to under former Prime Minster Scott Morrison, there was inadequate funding for the program and it is now consuming other defence acquisition plans.
Given this, the Coalition’s plans to grow defence spending to 3% of GDP in ten years may be prudent – and necessary – mainly to meet the looming AUKUS funding shortfalls. This again may be problem for both parties, given their strident support for AUKUS at seemingly any cost.
Hastie is keen to increase Australian self-reliance, in part, through building up the Australian defence industry.
However, the Coalition plan doesn’t offer many specifics on how Australian industry will benefit. Instead of buying yet more American-built F-35s, for instance, the Coalition could have given thought to buying the innovative Ghost Bat uncrewed air vehicles made in Queensland.
This shortcoming highlights the biggest disappointment with the Coalition plan. It is “steady as she goes” approach in a world of increasing volatility.
There really needs to be some fresh thinking on defence, particularly given the growing doubts about the Trump administration’s stance on its security alliances. Australia may need to be more self-reliant as Hastie claims, but this policy platform – as well as Labor’s – won’t achieve this possibility.
The reason the Coalition is emphasising the 3% of GDP figure is that there are no new ideas. A great opportunity for an imaginative recasting of Australian defence has been missed.
This piece is part of a series on the future of defence in Australia. Read the other stories here.
Peter Layton 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 – Africa – By Stephen Appiah Takyi, Senior Lecturer, Department of Planning, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)
Urban flooding is a major problem in the global south. In west and central Africa, more than 4 million people were affected by flooding in 2024. In Ghana, cities suffer damage from flooding every year.
Ghana’s president, John Dramani Mahama, has established a task force to find ways of improving flood resilience in the country. This is partly driven by an increase in flooding incidents in cities such as Accra and Kumasi in the last decade.
We are urban planning and sustainability scholars. In a recent paper we analysed whether flooding in Accra, Ghana’s capital, was caused by climate change or poor land use planning.
We conclude from our analysis that flooding is caused by poor and uncoordinated land use planning rather than climate change. We recommend that the physical planning department and other regulatory agencies are equipped to ensure the effective enforcement the relevant land use regulations.
Mixed push factors
The Accra metropolitan area is one of the 29 administrative units of Ghana’s Greater Accra region. It is the most populous region in Ghana, with over five million residents, according to the 2021 Housing and Population Census.
the nature and areas most prone to flooding in the study area
the frequency of flooding
land use planning and regulations and their influence on flooding.
About 40% of the people we interviewed attributed flooding to both weak enforcement of land use regulation and changes in rainfall patterns. Most of the households (52%) said floods in Accra were the result of weak enforcement of land use regulations, while 8% blamed changes in land use regulations.
We also analysed recorded data on flood incidence and rainfall. We found no correlation between increased rainfall and flooding. For example in 2017 there was a decrease in rainfall, but an increase in flooding.
This finding points to the fact that rainfall isn’t the only factor contributing to flooding in the city.
The agencies and city residents reported that between 2008 and 2018, they could see that more people were encroaching on the city’s wetlands by building homes and commercial infrastructure. This has changed the natural flow of water bodies. The Greater Accra Metropolitan and its environs has major wetlands such as Densu Delta, Sakumo Lagoon and Songor Lagoon.
Interview respondents noted that the siting of unauthorised buildings and the encroachment on buffer zones of water bodies in the city could have been averted. They blamed political interference in the enforcement of land use regulation. The government makes the situation worse in two ways, they said:
planning standards and regulations are neglected in the development process. The processes involved in acquiring development permits are cumbersome and expensive, so people go ahead and develop without permits.
regulatory institutions and authorities are ineffective. This is clear from the fact that planning happens chaotically. No attention is given to the ecological infrastructure that’s needed.
The way forward
We conclude that land use malpractices remain the dominant causes of flooding in Accra. They include:
poor disposal of solid waste, which eventually blocks drains and results in water overflow during heavy rains
building on wetlands as a result of non-compliance or non-enforcement of land use regulations.
There is an urgent need for Ghana’s cities to adopt best practices in waste management. These include recycling of plastic waste and composting for urban agriculture. An environmental excise tax was introduced in 2011 to fund plastic waste recycling and support waste management agencies.
The increasing encroachment on wetlands should be addressed through the strict enforcement of buffer regulations. Planning authorities and the judiciary can collaborate on this. The city must also encourage green infrastructure, like rain gardens, green roofs, permeable pavement, street trees and rain harvesting systems. Research has shown these to be environmentally sustainable and cost-effective approaches to managing storm water.
Another suggested approach is the introduction of the polluter pays principle in city management. This is a system where city residents who are involved in the pollution of the environment are made to pay for the cost of mitigating the impact. Residents who dispose of waste indiscriminately and encroach on wetlands would be made to pay for the cost of the environmental degradation. Cities such as Barcelona and Helsinki have applied this principle in the management of their industrial discharge and contaminated waste.
Finally, there should be incentives for city residents to promote environmental sustainability. For example, a deposit refund system has been introduced in several states in the US and Australia. In this system, consumers are made to pay a deposit after purchasing items that can be recycled, such as plastic bottles, and the deposit is reimbursed to the consumer after the return of the empty bottles to a retail store.
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 – Africa – By Sandy Africa, Director Research, MISTRA and Research Associate, Department of Political Sciences, University of Pretoria
Just over 30 years after South Africa’s first democratic elections, public opinion is divided over how to evaluate the post-apartheid, democratic state. Characterisations range from “failed or failing state”, to
“mafia state” to the more optimistic “developmental state” committed to addressing historical patterns of injustice through decisive state intervention.
The characterisations vary so widely because interpretations of the state are shaped not only by a complex empirical reality but also by competing theoretical and ideological perspectives. Some parts of the state appear dysfunctional, marked by failure, corruption, or capture. Others are viewed as evolving, contested, or in need of transformation. The perspective depends on the framework of analysis applied.
Theoretical approaches reinforce these divisions. Some emphasise state failure and breakdowns. Some highlight illicit networks and patronage. Others focus on whether the state is supported by strong institutions and leadership, has the necessary operational know-how, or operates within a clear ethical matrix.
These overlapping dimensions produce divergent conclusions. To some, the proverbial glass is half empty, while to others it is half full.
The book poses the question of whether South Africa’s future lies in hope or despair. Contributors cover a range of themes through the lens of a range of disciplines in the social sciences. The themes include financing of the state’s responsibilities, managing the energy transition, water provision, the political economy, foreign policy, the state of the security sector, traditional leadership, the role of civil society and the capacity of the public service.
Capacity, capability and ethics
In assessing the state’s performance, the book addresses three interdependent components: capacity, capability and ethics.
Capacity refers to the state’s institutional make-up (its tangible infrastructure).
Capability refers to the means at the society’s disposal to enable the state to deliver on its mandate. It includes the operational know-how, including how effectively the state uses its resources.
Ethics refers to the behaviours displayed by those entrusted with leadership and implementation responsibilities across the state.
A state with ample capacity and high capability but lacking in ethical grounding may misuse its resources. This leads to corruption and public disillusionment.
Conversely, strong ethical commitments without sufficient capacity or capability may result in well-intentioned but ineffective policies.
When ethics guide the accumulation of capacity as well as the effective, strategic use of those resources, the state is more likely to fulfil its public mandate and uphold constitutional values.
Historical evolution
The volume situates this framework within broader theoretical debates. It explains how past and present challenges (such as state capture or institutional decay) have emerged. It also charts a pathway for renewal.
The democratic South African state’s formal evolution has passed through four phases:
transition and transformation (1994-1999)
policy orientation and compromise (mid-1990s to early 2000s)
erosion and institutional decay (2008-2018)
attempts at recovery and renewal (2019-July 2024)
the government of national unity agenda (July 2024 to present).
In the immediate post-1994 era, the state transformed its capacity. It replaced apartheid-era structures with new bodies designed to uphold constitutional principles and reflect democratic values.
The guiding ethical operating system was strong. Ideals of dignity, equality, and inclusivity were central to the nation-building project. This set the stage for policies intended to redress historical injustices, even if practical know‐how was still maturing.
In the second phase of state-building (after the first five years of democracy) there was a shift from the initial promise of the Reconstruction and Development Programme towards a market-oriented approach. This policy change was an attempt to manage economic realities through market mechanisms. But some policy actors saw it as a betrayal of the poor and the working class.
During this period, the ethical underbelly began to show signs of strain. As pragmatic and market-driven ideas took precedence, some of the original ethical commitments were diluted. These included broad-based development and social justice. This contributed to compromises that would later affect public trust.
In the third phase from about 2009 onwards, the state’s institutional capacity suffered from high levels of mismanagement and poor oversight. The robustness of institutions was undermined by chronic neglect and corruption.
State capture and corruption impaired the state’s ability to use its capacity effectively. The result was policy failures. This made it more difficult to meet social and economic challenges.
The weakening of accountability allowed unethical practices to flourish. It also undermined the very ideas that had originally set the state on a path of inclusive development.
In the phases that followed reform efforts focused on rebuilding operational capacity. There were attempts to improve administrative efficiency and strategic planning, and build compacts for social change and redress.
Measures were introduced – albeit gradually – to reinforce accountability and transparency. The aim was to renew the social compact between the state and society around inclusive growth and accountability.
After the 2024 national and provincial government elections, the African National Congress (ANC) had to form a unity government in July 2024. Since then, there has been a renewed effort to strengthen the state’s capacity. The unity government’s agenda places some emphasis on improving operational efficiency and strategic planning.
Hope or despair?
Despite both domestic and international pressures, including a change in administration in the US, recent unity government efforts highlight that a positive turnaround is possible, though it is far from guaranteed.
The framework set out in the book suggests that building an effective, capable and developmental depends on:
bolstering institutional capacity
improving the effective use of resources
embedding strong ethical standards into all levels of state activity.
To some observers, the post-apartheid state was doomed to failure from the start, due to the negotiated settlement that brought it about. To others, the legitimacy of the state has been eroded by poor policy choices, and that’s why it now faces a polycrisis.
And to others, the state has been captured and repurposed by opportunistic and self-serving forces.
Understanding the state of the South African state is contested territory. And probably will be for a long time to come.
The upcoming book was the subject of a webinar hosted by the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection, MISTRA, earlier this year:
A YouTube recording of the webinar can be found here.
Sandy Africa is the Research Director of the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection and a Research Associate at the University of Pretoria. Together with Na’eem Jeenah and Musa Nxele, she is a co-editor of the forthcoming book.
Musa Nxele is the Academic Director of the Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance, University of Cape Town.
Na’eem Jeenah is a senior researcher at the Mapungubwe Insttitute for Strategic Reflection (MISTRA).
Snipers in helicopters have shot more than 700 koalas in the Budj Bim National Park in western Victoria in recent weeks. It’s believed to be the first time koalas have been culled in this way.
The cull became public on Good Friday after local wildlife carers were reportedly tipped off.
A fire burned about 20% of the park in mid-March. The government said the cull was urgent because koalas had been left starving or burned.
Wildlife groups have expressed serious concern about how individual koalas had been chosen for culling, because the animals are assessed from a distance. It’s not clear how shooting from a helicopter complies with the state government’s own animal welfare and response plans for wildlife in disasters.
The Victorian government must explain why it is undertaking aerial culling and why it did so without announcing it publicly. The incident points to ongoing failures in managing these iconic marsupials, which are already threatened in other states.
Hundreds of koalas were left starving or injured after bushfires in Budj Bim National Park a month ago. Vincent_Nguyen/Shutterstock
Why did this happen?
Koalas live in eucalypt forests in Australia’s eastern and southern states. The species faces a double threat from habitat destruction and bushfire risk. They are considered endangered in New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory.
Over time, this concentration becomes a problem. When the koalas are too abundant, they can strip leaves from their favourite gums, killing the trees. The koalas must then move or risk starvation.
If fire or drought make these habitat islands impossible to live in, koalas in dense concentrations often have nowhere to go.
In Budj Bim, Victoria’s Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and Parks Victoria have tackled koala overpopulation alongside Traditional Owners by moving koalas to new locations or sterilising them.
But Budj Bim is also surrounded by commercial blue gum plantations. Koalas spread out through the plantations to graze on the leaves. Their populations grow. But when the plantations are logged, some koalas have to return to the national park, where food may be in short supply.
Plantations of blue gums are located near Budj Bim. Animal welfare groups claim logging has driven koala overpopulation in the national park. Anna Carolina Negri/Shutterstock
Animal welfare groups say logging is one reason Budj Bim had so many koalas.
It’s hard to say definitively whether this is the case, because the state environment department hasn’t shared much information. But researchers have found habitat islands lead to overabundance by preventing the natural dispersal of individuals.
So why was the culling done? Department officials have described the program as “primarily” motivated by animal welfare. After the bushfire last month, koalas have been left starving or injured.
Why shooters in helicopters? Here, the justification given is that the national park is difficult to access due to rocky terrain and fire damage, ruling out other methods.
Euthanising wildlife has to be done carefully
Under Victoria’s plan for animal welfare during disasters, the environment department is responsible for examining and, where necessary, euthanising wildlife during an emergency.
For human intervention to be justified, euthanasia must be necessary on welfare grounds. Victoria’s response plan for fire-affected wildlife says culling is permitted when an animal’s health is “significantly” compromised, invasive treatment is required, or survival is unlikely.
For koalas, this could mean loss of digits or hands, burns to more than 15% of the body, pneumonia from smoke inhalation, or blindness or injuries requiring surgery. Euthanised females must also be promptly examined for young in their pouches.
The problem is that while aerial shooting can be accurate in some cases for larger animals, the method has questionable efficacy for smaller animals – especially in denser habitats.
It’s likely a number of koalas were seriously injured but not killed. But the shooters employed by the department were not able to thoroughly verify injuries or whether there were joeys in pouches, because they were in the air and reportedly 30 or more metres away from their targets.
While the department cited concerns about food resources as a reason for the cull, the state’s wildlife fire plan lays out another option: delivery of supplementary feed. Delivering fresh gum leaves could potentially have prevented starvation while the forest regenerates.
What should the government learn from this?
The state government should take steps to avoid tragic incidents like this from happening again.
Preserving remaining habitat across the state is a vital step, as is reconnecting isolated areas with habitat corridors. This would not only reduce the concentration of koalas in small pockets but increase viable refuges and give koalas safe paths to new food sources after a fire.
Future policies should be developed in consultation with Traditional Owners, who have detailed knowledge of species distributions and landscapes.
This latter report pointed to South Australia’s specialised emergency animal rescue and relief organisation – SAVEM – as an effective model. Under SA’s emergency management plan, the organisation is able to rapidly access burned areas after the fire has passed through.
Victoria’s dense communities of koalas would be well served by a similar organisation able to work alongside existing skilled firefighting services.
The goal would be to make it possible for rescuers to get to injured wildlife earlier and avoid any more mass aerial culls.
Liz Hicks has previously received a Commonwealth Research Training Program stipend. She is a member of the Australian Greens Victoria, although her views do not reflect a party position or party policy.
Dr Ashleigh Best previously received a Commonwealth Research Training Program scholarship, which supported some of the research in this article. She is an inactive member of the Animal Justice Party, and previously volunteered with Wildlife Victoria.
As New Zealanders clean up after ex-Cyclone Tam which left thousands without power and communities once again facing flooding, it’s tempting to seek immediate solutions.
However, after the cleanup and initial recovery, careful planning is essential.
Research shows that following disasters, communities often demand visible action that appears decisive. Yet, these reactions can create more problems than they solve.
When high-impact weather events drive long-term policy decisions, we risk implementing changes that seem protective but actually increase the risk of future disasters or misallocate limited resources.
What New Zealand needs isn’t knee-jerk actions but thoughtful planning that prepares communities before the next storms strike. Risk assessments paired with adaptive planning offer a path forward to build resilience step by step.
Planning ahead with multiple options
The good news is that many councils in New Zealand have begun this process and communities across the country are due to receive climate change risk assessments. These aren’t just technical documents showing hazard areas – they are tools that put power in the hands of communities.
When communities have access to good information about which neighbourhoods, roads and infrastructure face potential risks, they can prioritise investments in protection, modify building practices where needed and, in some cases, plan for different futures. This knowledge creates options rather than fear.
A risk assessment is merely the first step. Adaptation plans that translate knowledge into action are the next, but the Climate Change Commission recently confirmed there is a gap, concluding that:
New Zealand is not adapting to climate change fast enough.
For many New Zealanders already experiencing “rain anxiety” with each approaching storm, simply naming the danger without offering a path forward isn’t enough. This is where adaptive planning becomes essential.
Adaptive planning isn’t about abandoning coastal towns tomorrow or spending billions on sea walls today. It is about having a plan A, B and C ready if or when nature forces our hand. Rather than demanding immediate, potentially costly actions, adaptive planning provides a roadmap with multiple pathways that adjust as climate conditions evolve. This is how we best manage complex risk.
Think of it as setting up trip wires: when water reaches certain levels or storms hit certain frequencies, we already know our next move. This approach acknowledges the deep uncertainty of climate change while still providing communities with clarity about what happens next.
Importantly, it builds in community consultation at each decision point, ensuring solutions reflect local values and priorities.
Several communities are already considering plans that combine risk assessment with several adaptation options. Getty Images
Success stories
Several New Zealand communities are already demonstrating how this approach works. Christchurch recently approved an adaptation strategy for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour with clear pathways based on trigger points rather than fixed timelines.
In South Dunedin, where half of the city’s buildings currently face flood risks which are expected to worsen in coming decades, the city council has paired its risk assessment with seven potential adaptation futures, ranging from status quo to large-scale retreat. Rather than imposing solutions, they’re consulting residents about what they want for their neighbourhoods.
Similarly forward-thinking, Buller District Council has developed a master plan that includes potentially relocating parts of Westport in the future. It’s a bold strategy that acknowledges reality rather than clinging to false security.
Status quo feels safer than adaptation
These approaches aren’t without controversy. At recent public meetings in Buller, some residents voiced understandable concerns about property values and community disruption. These reactions reflect the very real emotional and financial stakes for people whose homes are affected.
Yet the alternative – continuing with the status quo – means flood victims are offered only the option to invest their insurance money wherever they like. This assumes insurance remains available, which is a misguided assumption as insurance retreat from climate-vulnerable properties accelerates.
However, while local councils are on the front lines of adaptation planning, they’re being asked to make transformational decisions without adequate central government support. A recent Parliamentary select committee report failed to clarify who should pay for adaptation measures, despite acknowledging significant risks.
Parliament continues to avoid the difficult questions, kicking the can further down the road while communities such as South Dunedin and Westport face immediate threats.
Local councils need more than vague guidelines. They need clear direction on funding responsibilities, legislative powers and technical support. Without this support, even the most detailed risk assessments become exercises in documenting vulnerability rather than building resilience.
Instead of demanding short-term fixes, residents should expect their councils to engage with these complex challenges. The best climate preparation isn’t about predicting exactly what will happen in 2100 or avoiding disaster. It is about building more resilient, cohesive communities that are prepared for whatever our changing climate brings.
Tom Logan is a Rutherford Discovery Fellow and the chief technical officer of Urban Intelligence. He receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and EU Horizons on risk assessment. He is affiliated with the International Society for Risk Analysis.
The death of Pope Francis this week marks the end of a historic papacy and the beginning of a significant transition for the Catholic Church. As the faithful around the world mourn his passing, attention now turns to the next phase: the election of a new pope.
This election will take place through a process known as the conclave. Typically held two to three weeks after a pope’s funeral, the conclave gathers the College of Cardinals in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel. Here, through prayer, reflection and secret ballots, they must reach a two-thirds majority to choose the next Bishop of Rome.
While, in theory, any baptised Catholic man can be elected, for the past seven centuries the role has gone to a cardinal. That said, the outcome can still be unpredictable – sometimes even surprising the electors themselves.
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio – who became Pope Francis – wasn’t among the front-runners in 2013. Nonetheless, after five rounds of voting, he emerged as the top candidate. Something similar could happen again.
This conclave will take place during a time of tension and change within the church. Francis sought to decentralise Vatican authority, emphasised caring for the poor and the planet, and tried to open dialogue on sensitive issues such as LGBTQIA+ inclusion and clerical abuse. The cardinals must now decide whether to continue in this direction, or steer towards a more traditional course.
There is historical precedent to consider. For centuries, Italians dominated the papacy. Of the 266 popes, 217 have been Italian.
However, this pattern has shifted in recent decades: Francis was from Argentina, John Paul II (1978–2005) from Poland, and Benedict XVI (2005–2013) from Germany.
The top papabili
As with any election, observers are speaking of their “favourites”. The term papabile, which in Italian means “pope-able”, or “capable of becoming pope”, is used to describe cardinals who are seen as serious contenders.
Among the leading papabili is Cardinal Pietro Parolin, aged 70, the current Secretary of State of Vatican City. Parolin has long been one of Francis’ closest collaborators and has led efforts to open dialogue with difficult regimes, including the Chinese Communist Party.
Parolin is seen as a centrist figure who could appeal to both reform-minded and more conservative cardinals. Yet some observers argue he lacks the charismatic and pastoral presence that helped define Francis’ papacy.
Another name to watch is Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. At 60, he is younger than many of his colleagues, but brings extensive experience in interfaith dialogue in the Middle East. His fluency in Hebrew and his long service in the Holy Land could prove appealing.
Then again, his relative youth may cause hesitation among those concerned about electing a pope who could serve for decades. As the papacy of John Paul II demonstrated, such long reigns can have a profound impact on the church.
Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines is also frequently mentioned. Now 67, Tagle is known for his deep commitment to social justice and the poor. He has spoken out against human rights abuses in his home country and has often echoed Francis’ pastoral tone. But some cardinals may worry that his outspoken political views could complicate the church’s diplomatic efforts.
Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, now 76, was a prominent figure during the last conclave. A strong voice on environmental and economic justice, he has served under both Benedict XVI and Francis.
Turkson has largely upheld the church’s traditional teachings on matters such as male-only priesthood, marriage between a man and a woman, and sexuality. He is also a strong advocate for transparency, and has spoken out against corruption and in defence of human rights.
Though less widely known among the public, Cardinal Mykola Bychok of Melbourne may also be considered. His election would be as surprising (and perhaps as symbolically powerful) as that of John Paul II in 1978. A Ukrainian-Australian pope, chosen during the ongoing war in Ukraine, would send a strong message about the church’s concern for suffering peoples and global peace.
Other names that may come up are Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Cardinal Jaime Spengler of Brazil – both of whom lead large and growing Catholic communities. Although news reports don’t always list them among the top contenders, their influence within their regions – and the need to recognise the church’s global demographic shifts – means their voices will matter.
On the more conservative side is American Cardinal Raymond Burke, who had been one of Francis’ most vocal critics. But his confrontational stance makes him an unlikely candidate.
More plausible would be Cardinal Péter Erdő of Hungary, aged 71. Erdő is a respected canon lawyer with a more traditional theological orientation. He was mentioned in 2013 and may reemerge as a promising candidate among conservative cardinals.
Cardinal Péter Erdő was ordained as a priest in 1975 and has a doctorate in theology. He will be a top pick among conservatives. Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
One tough act to follow
Although Francis appointed many of the cardinals who will vote in the conclave, that doesn’t mean all of them supported his agenda. Many come from communities with traditional values, and may be drawn to a candidate who emphasises older church teachings.
The conclave will also reflect broader questions of geography. The church’s growth has shifted away from Europe, to Asia, Africa and Latin America. A pope from one of these regions could symbolise this change, and speak more directly to the challenges faced by Catholic communities in the Global South.
Ultimately, predicting a conclave is impossible. Dynamics often change once the cardinals enter the Sistine Chapel and begin voting. Alliances shift, new names emerge, and consensus may form around someone who was barely discussed beforehand.
What is certain is that the next pope will shape the church’s future: doctrinally, diplomatically and pastorally. Whether he chooses to build on Francis’ legacy of reform, or move in a new direction, he will need to balance ancient traditions with the urgent realities of the modern world.
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 Siobhan O’Dean, Research Fellow, The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, University of Sydney
There’s no shortage of things to feel angry about these days. Whether it’s politics, social injustice, climate change or the cost-of-living crisis, the world can feel like a pressure cooker.
Research suggests nearly one-quarter of the world’s population feels angry on any given day. While anger is a normal human emotion, if it’s intense and poorly managed, it can quickly lead to aggression, and potentially cause harm.
So how should you manage feelings of anger to keep them in check? Our new research suggests mindfulness can be an effective tool for regulating anger and reducing aggression.
What is mindfulness?
Mindfulness is the ability to observe and focus on your thoughts, emotions and bodily sensations in the present moment with acceptance and without judgement.
Mindfulness has been practised for thousands of years, most notably in Buddhist traditions. But more recently it has been adapted into secular programs to support mental health and emotional regulation.
Mindfulness is taught in a variety of ways, including in-person classes, residential retreats and through digital apps. These programs typically involve guided meditations, and practices that help people become more aware of their thoughts, feelings and surroundings.
Neuroscience research also suggests mindfulness is associated with reduced activity in brain regions linked to emotional reactivity, and greater activity in those involved in self-regulation (the ability to manage our thoughts, emotions and behaviours).
In this way, mindfulness could foster emotional awareness essential for the effective regulation of emotions such as anger. And when people are less overwhelmed by anger, they may be better able to think clearly, reflect on what matters and take meaningful action, rather than reacting impulsively or shutting down.
Anger is a normal human emotion – but it can sometimes have destructive consequences. Inzmam Khan/Pexels
We reviewed the evidence
To better understand whether mindfulness actually helps with regulating anger and aggression, we conducted a meta-analysis. This is a study that combines the results of many previous studies to look at the overall evidence.
We analysed findings from 118 studies across different populations and countries, including both people who were naturally more mindful and people who were randomly assigned to take part in interventions aimed at increasing mindfulness.
People who were naturally more mindful were those who scored higher on questionnaires measuring traits such as present-moment awareness and non-judgmental thinking. We found these people tended to report less anger and behave less aggressively.
However, mindfulness isn’t just something you have or don’t have – it’s also a skill you can develop. And our results show the benefits of lower anger and aggression extend to people who learn mindfulness skills through practice or training.
We also wanted to know whether mindfulness might work better for certain people or in particular settings. Interestingly, our results suggest these benefits are broadly universal. Practising mindfulness was effective in reducing anger and aggression across different age groups, genders and contexts, including whether people were seeking treatment for mental health or general wellbeing, or not.
Some anger management strategies aren’t backed by science
To manage feelings of anger, many people turn to strategies that are not supported by evidence.
Research suggests “letting off steam” while thinking about your anger is not a healthy strategy and may intensify and prolong experiences of anger.
For example, in one experiment, research participants were asked to hit a punching bag while thinking of someone who made them angry. This so-called “cathartic release” made people angrier and more aggressive rather than less so.
Breaking things in rage rooms, while increasingly popular, is similarly not an evidence-based strategy for reducing anger and aggression.
On the other hand, our research shows there’s good evidence to support mindfulness as a tool to regulate anger.
Mindfulness may reduce anger and aggression by helping people become more aware of their emotional reactions without immediately acting on them. It can foster a non-judgmental and accepting stance toward difficult emotions such as anger, which may interrupt the cycle whereby anger leads to aggressive behaviour.
All that said, it’s important to keep in mind that mindfulness is not a magic bullet or a quick fix. Like any new skill, mindfulness can be challenging at first, takes time to master, and works best when practised regularly.
It’s also important to note mindfulness may not be suitable for everyone – particularly when used as a standalone approach for managing more complex mental health concerns. For ongoing emotional challenges it’s always a good idea to seek support from a qualified mental health professional.
However, if you’re looking to dial down the impact of daily frustrations, there are plenty of accessible ways to give mindfulness a go. You can get started with just a few minutes per day. Popular apps such as Smiling Mind and Headspace offer short, guided sessions that make it easy to explore mindfulness at your own pace — no prior experience needed.
While mindfulness may not solve the problems that make us angry, our research shows it could help improve how we experience and respond to them.
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.
Pundits and political scientists like to repeat that we live in an age of political polarisation. But if you sat through the second debate between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition leader Peter Dutton last Wednesday night, you’d be forgiven for asking what polarisation people are talking about.
While the two candidates may have different values, as Albanese said, the policies they propose and the view of society they have put forward in this campaign don’t differ so much.
Why so similar?
On housing supply, Dutton promises to help local councils solve development bottlenecks. The PM says his government is already starting to do the same thing.
To tackle the cost-of-living crisis, one wants to reduce the government’s cut of petrol prices. The other is having the government pay for part of our energy bills.
What about the future of a multicultural Australia? One party says they’ll cap international student numbers to lower immigration. The other is trying to do precisely the same. (Even though the policy may be irrelevant to near-future immigration and have little impact on housing costs.)
Surely, you might think, many Australians must have more progressive ideas than those Albanese is proposing. And surely many Australians would like more conservative policies than those Dutton is coming up with.
If that’s the case, you’re probably wondering: why are the two leaders focusing their campaigns on such similar platforms?
Lining up the voters
More than 70 years ago, the same questions motivated the work of economists Duncan Black and Anthony Downs. In fact, social scientists had been fascinated by these questions since the Marquis de Condorcet, a philosopher and mathematician, first attempted a mathematical analysis of majority voting at the time of the French Revolution.
Black and Downs both arrived at a striking conclusion: when two candidates compete to win a majority of votes, they will converge their electoral campaign on (roughly) identical policies, even when the voters at large have very differing policy preferences.
Their argument, sometimes referred to as the Median Voter Theorem, goes as follows.
Imagine we could line up all 18,098,797 Australian enrolled voters from the most progressive at the extreme left to the most conservative at the extreme right. Then, a choice of electoral platform by a candidate may be imagined as the candidate placing himself somewhere on this ideal line up of voters.
Now imagine Albanese were to propose a strongly progressive platform and Dutton were to opt for a strongly conservative one. Naturally, those voters “closer” to Albanese’s platform will probably put Labor ahead of the Coalition in their ballot. Similarly, those closer to Dutton will put the Coalition ahead.
Let us imagine that in this situation Albanese would secure a majority of seats. What could Dutton do to win? The answer is: move a bit to the left.
In doing so, Dutton would win over some voters who were previously closer to Albanese than to himself. Meanwhile, all the voters to the right of Dutton will remain closer to him than to Albanese. The net result would be simply a swing in favour of Dutton.
The problem of where to set up shop
In 1957, Downs realised that the problem of choosing where to place your platform to attract more voters has the the same mathematical form as the problem firms face when choosing where to place their outlets to attract more customers. Harold Hotelling, a mathematical statistician and economist, had studied the firms’ problem in 1929. So Downs could simply apply Hotelling’s mathematical tool to his new political problem.
Downs showed that, as Dutton and Albanese compete for voters, they will end up converging to the same platform. One that does not allow for a further move that can swing voters. This platform will be what social choice scholars call a Condorcet winner, meaning more than half of voters would choose it over any other platform.
In fact, there is only one such platform: the policy preferred by a voter who is more conservative than exactly half of the voters and more progressive than exactly half of the voters. The voter exactly in the middle of our idealised line-up. The median voter.
A centrist equilibrium
When Albanese and Dutton are both proposing the median voter’s preferred platform, they both have about the same chances of winning the election: 50%. However, neither can do anything to improve their chances.
In this situation, if Dutton were to move a little more right, he would simply lose to Albanese some of the voters just to the right of the median voter. If Albanese were to move a little more left, he would lose to Dutton some of the voters just left of the median voter.
They are in what game theorists call a Nash equilibrium: a situation where neither of them can gain by changing their strategy.
Not literal, but still illuminating
Downs’ result should not be taken literally.
Politicians may have inherent motivations to promote certain policies, beyond just winning votes. And sometimes political leaders can offer new views of society, changing how voters think about what a just and prosperous future should look like.
However, at least with leaders like Albanese and Dutton, and in the presence of a (mostly) two-party system like in Australia, Downs’ model shows us what the democratic electoral process tends towards: parties that compete to appeal to the most median centrist voters.
Gabriele Gratton is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT210100176, “Resilient Democracy for the 21st Century”) and his research is supported under the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (Project DP240103257, “The Economics of (Mis)Information in the Age of Social Media”).
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on April 23, 2025.
The ‘responsible gambling’ mantra does nothing to prevent harm. It probably makes things worse Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University Haelen Haagen/Shutterstock Recent royal commissions and inquiries into Crown and Star casino groups attracted much media attention. Most of this was focused on money laundering and other illegalities. The Victorian royal commission found widespread
This election, Gen Z and Millennials hold most of the voting power. How might they wield it? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Intifar Chowdhury, Lecturer in Government, Flinders University The centre of gravity of Australian politics has shifted. Millennials and Gen Z voters, now comprising 47% of the electorate, have taken over as the dominant voting bloc. But this generational shift isn’t just about numerical dominance. It’s also about
Only a third of Australians support increasing defence spending: new research Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Dunley, Senior Lecturer in History and Maritime Strategy, UNSW Sydney National security issues have been a constant feature of this federal election campaign. Both major parties have spruiked their national security credentials by promising additional defence spending. The Coalition has pledged to spend 3% of Australia’s
After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne In Canada, the governing centre-left Liberals had trailed the Conservatives by more than 20 points in January, but now lead by five points and are likely to
The Greens are hoping for another ‘greenslide’ election. What do the polls say? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Narelle Miragliotta, Associate Professor in Politics, Murdoch University Election talk is inevitably focused on Labor and the Coalition because they are the parties that customarily form government. But a minor party like the Greens is consequential, regardless of whether the election delivers a minority government. Certainly, the
Victory for US press freedom and workers – court grants injunction in VOA media case Asia Pacific Report The US District Court for the District of Columbia has granted a preliminary injunction in Widakuswara v Lake, affirming the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) was unlawfully shuttered by the Trump administration, Acting Director Victor Morales and Special Adviser Kari Lake. The decision enshrines that USAGM must fulfill its legally required
Scientists claim to have found evidence of alien life. But ‘biosignatures’ might hide more than they reveal Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Campbell Rider, PhD Candidate in Philosophy – Philosophy of Biology, University of Sydney Artist’s impression of the exoplanet K2-18b A. Smith/N. Madhusudhan (University of Cambridge) Whether or not we’re alone in the universe is one of the biggest questions in science. A recent study, led by astrophysicist Nikku
What would change your mind about climate change? We asked 5,000 Australians – here’s what they told us Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelly Kirkland, Research Fellow in Psychology, The University of Queensland LOOKSLIKEPHOTO/Shutterstock Australia just sweltered through one of its hottest summers on record, and heat has pushed well into autumn. Once-in-a-generation floods are now striking with alarming regularity. As disasters escalate, insurers are warning some properties may soon
Even experts disagree over whether social media is bad for kids. We examined why Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Knight, Associate Professor, Transdisciplinary School, University of Technology Sydney A low relief sculpture depicting Plato and Aristotle arguing adorning the external wall of Florence Cathedral. Krikkiat/Shutterstock Disagreement and uncertainty are common features of everyday life. They’re also common and expected features of scientific research. Despite this,
Australian women are wary of AI being used in breast cancer screening – new research Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Pearce, Associate Professor, Health Economics, University of Sydney Okrasiuk/Shutterstock Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly relevant in many aspects of society, including health care. For example, it’s already used for robotic surgery and to provide virtual mental health support. In recent years, scientists have developed AI
These 3 climate misinformation campaigns are operating during the election run-up. Here’s how to spot them Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alfie Chadwick, PhD Candidate, Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub, Monash University Australia’s climate and energy wars are at the forefront of the federal election campaign as the major parties outline vastly different plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle soaring power prices. Meanwhile, misinformation about
Port of Darwin’s struggling Chinese leaseholder may welcome an Australian buy-out Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colin Hawes, Associate professor of law, University of Technology Sydney Slow Walker/Shutterstock Far from causing trade frictions, an Australian buyout of the Port of Darwin lease may provide a lifeline for its struggling Chinese parent company Landbridge Group. Both Labor and the Coalition have proposed such a
When rock music met ancient archeology: the enduring power of Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Barker, Head, Public Engagement, Chau Chak Wing Museum, University of Sydney Sony Music The 1972 concert film Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii, back in cinemas this week, remains one of the most unique concert documentaries ever recorded by a rock band. The movie captured the band
Gambling in Australia: how bad is the problem, who gets harmed most and where may we be heading? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Russell, Principal Research Fellow, CQUniversity Australia Mick Tsikas/AAP, Joel Carret/AAP, Darren England/AAP, Ihor Koptilin/Shutterstock, The Conversation, CC BY Gambling prevalence studies provide a snapshot of gambling behaviour, problems and harm in our communities. They are typically conducted about every five years. In some Australian states and
Lest we forget? Aside from Anzac Day, NZ has been slow to remember its military veterans Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato Fiona Goodall/Getty Images Following some very public protests, including Victoria Cross recipient Willie Apiata handing back his medal, the government’s announcement of an expanded official definition of the term “veteran” brings some good news for former military personnel ahead
Dutton promises Coalition would increase defence spending to 3% of GDP ‘within a decade’ Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Opposition Leader Peter Dutton will promise a Coalition government would boost Australia’s spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP within five years and 3% within a decade. Launching the Coalition’s long-awaited defence policy on Wednesday in Western Australia, Dutton will
Leaders trade barbs and well-worn lines in unspectacular third election debate Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Black, Visitor, School of History, Australian National University Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton have met for the third leaders’ debate of this election campaign, this time on the Nine network. And while the debate traversed much of the same ground as the first two, the quick-fire
Election Diary: Dutton in third debate gives Labor ammunition for its scare about cuts Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra In the leaders’ third head-to-head encounter, on Nine on Tuesday, Peter Dutton’s bluntness when pressed on cuts has given more ammunition to Labor’s scare campaign about what a Coalition government might do. “When John Howard came into power, there was
To truly understand Pope Francis’ theology – and impact – you need to look to his life in Buenos Aires Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fernanda Peñaloza, Senior Lecturer in Latin American Studies, University of Sydney Pope Francis’ journey from the streets of Flores, a neighbourhood in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to the Vatican, is a remarkable tale. Born in 1936, Jorge Bergoglio was raised in a middle-class family of Italian Catholic immigrants.
Bougainville takes the initiative in mediation over independence By Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist In recent weeks, Bougainville has taken the initiative, boldly stating that it expects to be independent by 1 September 2027. It also expects the PNG Parliament to quickly ratify the 2019 referendum, in which an overwhelming majority of Bougainvilleans supported independence. In a third move, it established a
The death of Pope Francis this week marks the end of a historic papacy and the beginning of a significant transition for the Catholic Church. As the faithful around the world mourn his passing, attention now turns to the next phase: the election of a new pope.
This election will take place through a process known as the conclave. Typically held two to three weeks after a pope’s funeral, the conclave gathers the College of Cardinals in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel. Here, through prayer, reflection and secret ballots, they must reach a two-thirds majority to choose the next Bishop of Rome.
While, in theory, any baptised Catholic man can be elected, for the past seven centuries the role has gone to a cardinal. That said, the outcome can still be unpredictable – sometimes even surprising the electors themselves.
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio – who became Pope Francis – wasn’t among the front-runners in 2013. Nonetheless, after five rounds of voting, he emerged as the top candidate. Something similar could happen again.
This conclave will take place during a time of tension and change within the church. Francis sought to decentralise Vatican authority, emphasised caring for the poor and the planet, and tried to open dialogue on sensitive issues such as LGBTQIA+ inclusion and clerical abuse. The cardinals must now decide whether to continue in this direction, or steer towards a more traditional course.
There is historical precedent to consider. For centuries, Italians dominated the papacy. Of the 266 popes, 217 have been Italian.
However, this pattern has shifted in recent decades: Francis was from Argentina, John Paul II (1978–2005) from Poland, and Benedict XVI (2005–2013) from Germany.
The top papabili
As with any election, observers are speaking of their “favourites”. The term papabile, which in Italian means “pope-able”, or “capable of becoming pope”, is used to describe cardinals who are seen as serious contenders.
Among the leading papabili is Cardinal Pietro Parolin, aged 70, the current Secretary of State of Vatican City. Parolin has long been one of Francis’ closest collaborators and has led efforts to open dialogue with difficult regimes, including the Chinese Communist Party.
Parolin is seen as a centrist figure who could appeal to both reform-minded and more conservative cardinals. Yet some observers argue he lacks the charismatic and pastoral presence that helped define Francis’ papacy.
Another name to watch is Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. At 60, he is younger than many of his colleagues, but brings extensive experience in interfaith dialogue in the Middle East. His fluency in Hebrew and his long service in the Holy Land could prove appealing.
Then again, his relative youth may cause hesitation among those concerned about electing a pope who could serve for decades. As the papacy of John Paul II demonstrated, such long reigns can have a profound impact on the church.
Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines is also frequently mentioned. Now 67, Tagle is known for his deep commitment to social justice and the poor. He has spoken out against human rights abuses in his home country and has often echoed Francis’ pastoral tone. But some cardinals may worry that his outspoken political views could complicate the church’s diplomatic efforts.
Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, now 76, was a prominent figure during the last conclave. A strong voice on environmental and economic justice, he has served under both Benedict XVI and Francis.
Turkson has largely upheld the church’s traditional teachings on matters such as male-only priesthood, marriage between a man and a woman, and sexuality. He is also a strong advocate for transparency, and has spoken out against corruption and in defence of human rights.
Though less widely known among the public, Cardinal Mykola Bychok of Melbourne may also be considered. His election would be as surprising (and perhaps as symbolically powerful) as that of John Paul II in 1978. A Ukrainian-Australian pope, chosen during the ongoing war in Ukraine, would send a strong message about the church’s concern for suffering peoples and global peace.
Other names that may come up are Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Cardinal Jaime Spengler of Brazil – both of whom lead large and growing Catholic communities. Although news reports don’t always list them among the top contenders, their influence within their regions – and the need to recognise the church’s global demographic shifts – means their voices will matter.
On the more conservative side is American Cardinal Raymond Burke, who had been one of Francis’ most vocal critics. But his confrontational stance makes him an unlikely candidate.
More plausible would be Cardinal Péter Erdő of Hungary, aged 71. Erdő is a respected canon lawyer with a more traditional theological orientation. He was mentioned in 2013 and may reemerge as a promising candidate among conservative cardinals.
Cardinal Péter Erdő was ordained as a priest in 1975 and has a doctorate in theology. He will be a top pick among conservatives. Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
One tough act to follow
Although Francis appointed many of the cardinals who will vote in the conclave, that doesn’t mean all of them supported his agenda. Many come from communities with traditional values, and may be drawn to a candidate who emphasises older church teachings.
The conclave will also reflect broader questions of geography. The church’s growth has shifted away from Europe, to Asia, Africa and Latin America. A pope from one of these regions could symbolise this change, and speak more directly to the challenges faced by Catholic communities in the Global South.
Ultimately, predicting a conclave is impossible. Dynamics often change once the cardinals enter the Sistine Chapel and begin voting. Alliances shift, new names emerge, and consensus may form around someone who was barely discussed beforehand.
What is certain is that the next pope will shape the church’s future: doctrinally, diplomatically and pastorally. Whether he chooses to build on Francis’ legacy of reform, or move in a new direction, he will need to balance ancient traditions with the urgent realities of the modern world.
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.
Election talk is inevitably focused on Labor and the Coalition because they are the parties that customarily form government.
But a minor party like the Greens is consequential, regardless of whether the election delivers a minority government. Certainly, the level of anti-Greens campaigning by third party groups, like Better Australia, suggests as much.
The Greens’ have declared that their electoral aim is to “Keep Dutton out and get Labor to act”. They know this would be best achieved in a minority government, where the crossbench would be powerful players.
But can the Greens build on their historic 2022 election result, which delivered four lower house seats and the balance of power in the Senate?
State of play
An aggregation of the main polls estimates the Greens’ nationwide primary vote has ticked up since 2022, now ranging from 12.4% to 14.1%.
They are expected to retain all six Senate seats up for election. When combined with their five other Senate seats, the party will be critical in the next parliament to the fate of legislation in the red chamber.
In the contest for the House, the Greens are defending a record four seats: Melbourne, Brisbane, Griffith and Ryan. Melbourne is held by party leader Adam Bandt, on a comfortable 8.5% margin. It is as safe as it gets for the Greens.
The balance of the party’s seats are all Brisbane-based, starting with Ryan, which is held by just 2.6% if the two-party preferred vote. Despite the slender margin, Ryan has better prospects than the neighbouring seat of Brisbane, which it holds by 3.6%. This is based on the party’s 2022 swing of almost 10%, which placed them second in Ryan on primary votes.
In contrast, the Greens finished in third position on primary votes in Brisbane on the back of a respectable, but much more modest swing of just under 5%. The electoral dynamics are also complicated because the seat is a genuine three-cornered contest.
On the other hand, Griffith is now classed as a safe seat for the Greens. The party attained the highest number of primary votes (34.6%) on the back of a 10.94% swing three years ago. The Greens should be able to defend Griffith.
Target seats
The Greens have declared five additional electorates as “priority target seats” – two in Victoria and one in each of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia.
Wills is the first of two Melbourne-based seats earmarked by the Greens. The party is betting on a redistribution in the Labor held seat, which independent analyst The Poll Bludger estimates will reduce the ALP’s primary vote by 2.6% and increase the Greens’ vote by 5%. The Greens are also fielding a high profile candidate, former state MP Samantha Ratnam.
In the case of Macnamara, the Greens finished in second position behind Labor in 2022. At the point of the Greens’ exclusion in the count they were on 32.84%, just marginally behind Labor on 33.48%
While the Greens’ prospects might be helped by a weakened Victorian Labor brand, victory could still prove elusive. In the case of Macnamara, the electorate takes in parts of the state seat of Prahran, which the party lost in a byelection in February. The by-election was precipitated by the resignation of the state Greens MP owing to allegations of inappropriate conduct with an intern.
Moreover, Liberal how-to-vote cards in both Wills and Macnamara are preferencing Labor over the Greens, which may be enough to push Labor over the line in both seats.
Chances elsewhere
The NSW seat of Richmond is a marginal Labor electorate that was once held by the Nationals. The Greens are calculating the seat is winnable based on their strong primary vote in 2022 and candidate continuity.
Richmond boasts one of the highest levels of rental stress in the nation, making it a perfect setting for Greens campaigning on housing affordability issues. Polling shows the Greens vote is up by 3% in NSW. If it’s accurate, and translates to Richmond, then the seat is potentially winnable.
Sturt in South Australia is the Liberal Party’s second most marginal seat (0.5%). However, the likelihood of a Greens victory is slim. At the 2022 election the Greens attracted only 16.39% of the primary vote, well behind both Labor and the Liberals.
The party’s final target seat is Perth, held by Labor on a very safe 14.4%, two party preferred. The seat’s demography explains why it’s a Greens priority. Perth is a relatively affluent inner metropolitan seat, with a high percentage of people who finished school, and a constituency that skews young.
But Perth is unlikely to turn to the Greens. In 2022 they finished in third position on primary votes (22.16%), well behind Labor (39.25%). The party’s Perth campaign may have also been damaged by plans, since abandoned, to hold a fundraising event on ANZAC Day.
Numbers game
Based only on the seats examined, the Greens will likely retain at least Melbourne and Griffith in the lower house, along with the 6 senate seats it is defending.
A more optimistic reading of the polling would also include Ryan, Brisbane and Wills. A best case scenario would also add Richmond and Macnamara to that list.
And then, of course, there are the unexpected victories that many of us simply don’t see coming. This is because party support and voter swings are never uniform at the seat level. There will be electorates that under-perform for all parties. And that includes the Greens.
Narelle Miragliotta 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 Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
In Canada, the governing centre-left Liberals had trailed the Conservatives by more than 20 points in January, but now lead by five points and are likely to win a majority of seats at next Monday’s election. Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump’s ratings in US national polls have dropped to a -5 net approval.
The Canadian election will be held next Monday, with the large majority of polls closing at 11:30am AEST Tuesday. The 343 MPs are elected by first past the post, with 172 seats needed for a majority.
The Liberals had looked doomed to a massive loss for a long time. In early January, the CBC Poll Tracker had given the Conservatives 44% of the vote, the Liberals 20%, the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) 19%, the separatist left-wing Quebec Bloc (BQ) 9%, the Greens 4% and the far-right People’s 2%. With these vote shares, the Conservatives would have won a landslide with well over 200 seats.
At the September 2021 election, the Liberals won 160 of the then 338 seats on 32.6% of votes, the Conservatives 119 seats on 33.7%, the BQ 32 seats on 7.6%, the NDP 25 seats on 17.8%, the Greens two seats on 2.3% and the People’s zero seats on 4.9%. he Liberals were short of the 170 seats needed for a majority.
The Liberal vote was more efficiently distributed than the Conservative vote owing to the Conservatives winning safe rural seats by huge margins. The BQ benefited from vote concentration, with all its national vote coming in Quebec, where it won 32.1%.
On January 6, Justin Trudeau, who had been Liberal leader and PM since winning the October 2015 election, announced he would resign these positions once a new Liberal leader was elected. Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, was overwhelmingly elected Liberal leader on March 9 and replaced Trudeau as PM on March 14.
With the Liberals short of a parliamentary majority, parliament was prorogued for the Liberal leadership election and was due to resume on March 24. Carney is not yet an MP (he will contest Nepean at the election). Possibly owing to these factors, Carney called the election on March 23.
In Tuesday’s update to the CBC Poll Tracker, the Liberals had 43.1% of the vote, the Conservatives 38.4%, the NDP 8.3%, the BQ 5.8% (25.4% in Quebec), the Greens 2.2% and the People’s 1.4%. The Liberals have surged from 24 points behind in early January to their current 4.7-point lead.
Seat point estimates were 191 Liberals (over the 172 needed for a majority), 123 Conservatives, 23 BQ, five NDP and one Green. The tracker gives the Liberals an 80% chance to win a majority of seats and a 15% chance to win the most seats but not a majority.
The Liberal lead over the Conservatives peaked on April 8, when they led by 7.1 points. There has been slight movement back to the Conservatives since, with the French and English leaders’ debates last Wednesday and Thursday possibly assisting the Conservatives.
But the Liberals still lead by nearly five points in the polls five days before the election. With the Liberals’ vote more efficiently distributed, they are the clear favourites to win an election they looked certain to lose by a landslide margin in January.
Carney’s replacement of Trudeau has benefited the Liberals, but I believe the most important reason for the Liberals’ poll surge is Trump. Trump’s tariffs against Canada and his talk of making Canada the 51st US state have greatly alienated Canadians and made it more difficult for the more pro-Trump Conservatives.
In an early April YouGov Canadian poll, by 64–25, respondents said the US was unfriendly or an enemy rather than friendly or an ally (50–33 in February). By 84–11, they did not want Canada to become part of the US. If Canadians had been able to vote in the 2024 US presidential election, Kamala Harris would have defeated Donald Trump by 57–18 in this poll.
Trump’s US ratings have fallen well below net zero
In Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls, Trump currently has a net approval of -5.4, with 50.8% disapproving and 45.4% approving. At the start of his term, Trump’s net approval was +12, but went negative in mid-March. His ratings fell to their current level soon after Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2.
Silver has presidential approval poll data for previous presidents since Harry Truman (president from 1945–53). Trump’s current net approval is worse than for any other president at this point in their tenure except for Trump’s first term (2017–2021).
Silver also has a net favourability aggregate for Elon Musk that currently gives Musk a net favourable rating of -13.6 (53.0% unfavourable, 39.3% favourable). Musk’s ratings began to drop from about net zero before Trump’s second term commenced on January 20.
G. Elliott Morris used to manage the US poll aggregate site FiveThirtyEight before it was axed. He wrote last Friday that Trump’s net approval on the economy (at -5.8) is worse than at any point in his first term. During his first term, Trump’s net approval on the economy was mostly positive, helping to support his overall ratings.
Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Even the Greens have got in on the act, pledging to “decouple” Australia from the US military.
Against this backdrop, of course, is the omnipresent figure of US President Donald Trump, with questions about the reliability of the US as an ally and the impact his policy decisions will have on Australian security. The possible deployment of Russian aircraft to Indonesia and the Chinese warships sailing around Australia have made these issues even more salient.
But what do Australians actually know about defence issues, and what are they comfortable spending on it?
According to our major new survey of 1,500 Australian adults, only a third of respondents thought the defence budget should be increased.
The survey was conducted from late February to early March as part of our work at the War Studies Research Group to measure public attitudes towards the Australian Defence Force (ADF).
Australians know little about the ADF’s role
More than two-thirds of our respondents said they had a positive opinion of the ADF, and only 8% held a negative opinion. There were significant differences by political affiliation, with 76% of those expecting to vote for the Liberal Party having positive views compared to 72% of Labor supporters. By contrast, only 53% of Greens supporters felt the same way.
However, when asked how much they actually knew about the ADF and its activities, only a quarter of respondents felt well-informed.
One reason for this is that only 22% of respondents served in the ADF themselves, or had an immediate family member who had. Similarly, only 35% of respondents knew a veteran.
But even public knowledge on issues that have received considerable media attention was limited.
Successive governments have emphasised the rapidly deteriorating strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific region. This has led to much debate over whether Australia should increase its defence spending – and by how much.
In this election, both sides have committed more resources to upgrade and expand Australia’s military capabilities.
However, despite efforts to turn defence spending into a major issue at this election (especially on the right of politics), it is far from clear this has cut through with the wider population.
Our survey reveals public support for a larger ADF is split. Just over half of respondents thought the ADF was appropriately sized, while 41% considered it too small and 7% thought it too large.
Notably, when asked whether they thought more money should be spent on defence, the support for growth shrinks further.
Liberal supporters were the most likely to favour increasing the defence budget. But only 44% of them did, suggesting a majority felt that current spending on the ADF was either appropriate or too large.
Only 28% of Labor voters supported an increase in the defence budget. And among Greens voters, those supporting cuts to the defence budget outnumbered those in favour of expansion.
Ever since the US presidential election in November, many Australians have also questioned the US alliance and the AUKUS agreement, specifically. Recent actions by Trump – most notably his public statements on the Ukraine war – have only reinforced these doubts.
Given the tone of the public debate, we expected to see lower levels of support in our survey for the US alliance as the bedrock of Australian security.
However, respondents strongly favoured (75%) the ADF continuing to prioritise working closely with allies and partners, especially the US. Only 2% opposed it. Notably, there was very little variation based on political allegiance.
However, the idea of deploying the ADF to support our allies and partners overseas, including in the event of a conflict, saw greater division among respondents.
Two-thirds favoured deploying troops to support our allies overall. Liberal voters largely supported this proposition (75%), while 64% of Labor supporters backed it. Only about half of Greens voters felt the same way.
Respondents were also asked whether Australia should focus primarily on the defence of our territory rather than supporting our allies and partners in maintaining wider regional security. Just under half (46%) of respondents agreed with this idea, while 38% expressed neutral opinions and only 17% opposed it.
Overall, the results of this survey suggest that while the Australian public generally holds the ADF in high regard, they don’t know very much about it, nor do they consider additional funding for defence and security to be a real priority.
Successive governments, intelligence agencies and military analysts have long warned of the growing threats to Australia’s national security. Our survey suggests, however, that this messaging is either not cutting through – or that other concerns, such as housing or cost-of-living pressures, are taking priority.
Either way, it does not look like this issue will be decisive in the coming election.
This piece is part of a series on the future of defence in Australia. Read the other stories here.
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.
The centre of gravity of Australian politics has shifted. Millennials and Gen Z voters, now comprising 47% of the electorate, have taken over as the dominant voting bloc.
But this generational shift isn’t just about numerical dominance. It’s also about political unpredictability.
While the youth have progressive leanings, they aren’t neatly aligned with Labor. The Greens are gaining ground and there are signs of a subset of younger men drifting right.
This makes them both a decisive and volatile force. So how might they vote?
The climbing Greens vote
According to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), youth enrolment (18–24-year-olds) at the end of March 2025 stood at 90.4%. This surpasses the national youth enrolment rate target of 87%.
Further analysis of enrolment data shows electorates with the highest proportion of voters under 30 saw unprecedented support for the Greens in 2022, with the party topping the vote share in four of the youngest seats.
Elsewhere, electorates with a high youth vote became battlegrounds, with Labor facing its fiercest competition not from the Liberals, but from the Greens.
Take Canberra, for example. A historically safe Labor seat was a comfortable Labor retain, but Greens’ primary vote reached nearly 25%, pushing the Liberals out of the two party-preferred calculations entirely.
This year, the main contest for the youth vote will likely be between Labor and the Greens.
Capturing young hearts and minds
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese knows how important these voters are. In a bid to retain the youth vote, he is already sweetening the deal for them, dangling higher education reforms like election cookies.
If re-elected, Labor promises a 20% cut to student loan debt by June 1. The government also plans a higher income threshold before repayments begin, and an expansion of fee-free TAFE places to 100,000 per year from 2027.
This underscores the significance of youth issues in shaping their political behaviour. Young Australians are issue-based voters, with housing affordability, employment, and climate change topping their concerns, according to the 2024 Australian Youth Barometer.
They’re acutely aware of intergenerational inequality. They’re paying more tax than their parents did, while facing skyrocketing housing, education, and living costs. Financial anxiety runs deep, with 62% believing they’ll be worse off than their parents.
Yet, they see lack of sincere government action to address their struggles.
Not doing enough
Take housing affordability – a red-hot issue in the past three years. A bitter parliamentary standoff last year saw Labor and the Greens locked in negotiations over housing policy.
The Greens criticised the government’s Build to Rent and Help to Buy schemes, calling for tougher reforms. They wanted rent caps, the winding back negative gearing and phasing out $176 billion in tax breaks for property investors.
Such parliamentary gridlocks are unsavoury to voters, but the rent cap debate could have given the Greens an edge among young people, most of whom are renters.
Youth trust in the Albanese government has slipped since 2022, according to the first wave of the ANU 2025 Election Monitoring Survey. Perceptions of politicking over important issues like housing could be part of the reason why.
Divided by gender
Another fault line in the youth vote is the gender divide.
There are signs of a right-wing shift among young men, much like in Donald Trump’s America. According to The Australian Financial Review/Freshwater Strategy poll in November 2024, 37% of men aged 18–34 back opposition leader Dutton, compared to just 27% of women.
Pollsters point to young, non-university educated voters in the outer suburbs and regions as potential disruptors. They’re volatile, disillusioned and more likely to vote against a system they feel has failed them.
This trend is harder to spot in aggregate data, likely due to compulsory voting, but studies suggest a subset of men with economic grievances – particularly blue-collar workers – are drawn to anti-government rhetoric and the discourse of white male victimhood.
Many express nostalgia for traditional masculinity and feel alienated by progressive social shifts. Such a perception leads to a “backlash” against these changes.
This resentment plays out well online. Trump, for example, has mobilised young men by mastering direct communication through digital media and podcasts, and Dutton seems to be taking notes.
So a lot hinges on the online battleground. It’s about reaching all types of young voters with relatable, political messaging.
The days of one-size-fits-all political advertising are over. Younger voters consume media differently, making political messaging more about influencers than traditional advertising.
Major parties need to step up their game in digital-first platforms, moving beyond mere presence on social media to crafting compelling, digital-first content.
Grassroots and community-driven campaigning, both online and on the ground, can bridge the disconnect. The Greens’ success in Brisbane proved this, with young, personable candidates engaging directly.
Meanwhile, the establishment parties are lacking young, relatable leaders who can tell stories that resonate.
Intifar Chowdhury 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.
Recent royal commissions and inquiries into Crown and Star casino groups attracted much media attention. Most of this was focused on money laundering and other illegalities.
The Victorian royal commission found widespread evidence that Crown also took advantage of vulnerable people.
The regulatory framework that in large part allows this to occur is known as “responsible gambling”.
This is supposed to protect people from experiencing gambling harm. Crown and Star, like other gambling venues, are required to adopt such codes.
Royal Commissioner Ray Finkelstein, overseeing the Victorian Crown inquiry, was scathing in his assessment of Crown’s implementation:
Crown Melbourne had for years held itself out as having a world’s best approach to problem gambling. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Unfortunately, Finkelstein’ comments about Crown could readily be made about most other gambling operators.
How it all began
The responsible gambling framework was developed by gambling operators as a way of deflecting attention from the serious harm of gambling.
The document that arguably consolidated this was prepared in 2004 by a group of gambling researchers gathered, naturally, in Reno, Nevada (close to Las Vegas, the spiritual home of gambling excesses).
This document argued the choice to gamble should be left to people and no external organisation should interfere with this.
Now, responsible gambling is cemented in law, regulation, and practice. It is the overwhelming frame for gambling operators, governments and regulators to conceal gambling’s downside.
Stacking the odds
Responsible gambling depicts gambling harm as an issue for a small minority of people: so-called problem gamblers.
So from this perspective, any issues with gambling are issues with people.
But little if any attention is devoted to the environment in which gambling is available. Often, even less is devoted to examining the nature of gambling products.
Codes of conduct, for example, argue it is possible to intervene at a venue when a gambler shows signs of distress, or has a gambling disorder. While this is theoretically possible, the problem is to do so would rob venue operators of their most lucrative customers.
Another major element is self-exclusion: an opportunity for people (or in some states their relatives) to ban themselves from gambling at particular venues.
This is, again, fine in theory. But it has generally been poorly enforced at “bricks and mortar” venues.
There are two fundamental issues with this approach:
those who self-exclude are very much in the minority of those with gambling problems
self-exclusion is generally undertaken only by those who are at rock-bottom. It is not a preventive approach.
The other major intervention in the responsible gambling coda is treatment.
Gambling treatment services are available and free via Gamblers Help but fewer than 10% of those who might benefit from treatment actually seek it.
Unfortunately, attrition rates for counselling are high, so both the lack of help-seeking and the attrition rates when help is sought are at least partially attributable to another side effect of the responsible gambling mantra: shame and stigma, which are commonly reported by those struggling with gambling disorders.
The blame game
Responsible gambling effectively blames people for getting into trouble.
It argues problem gamblers are far outnumbered by “responsible gamblers”, and deflects attention away from the highly addictive nature of many gambling products.
It largely absolves operators of responsibility, while maintaining their revenues and stigmatising those who bear the consequences.
As it does all this, it also provides a smokescreen of concern, a suggestion that gambling operators and governments care about gambling harm.
Ideas for the future
The best way to curb gambling harm is to view it as a public health problem.
Public health is generally focused on prevention (think vaccines and clean water). At this stage, the most likely effective preventive intervention is what is known as pre-commitment, which uses technology to allow people to determine the amount of money they want to gamble.
High-intensity gambling products rely on people becoming highly immersed in the product. Gamblers call this “the zone” – which limits or negates a person’s ability to make rational decisions.
But pre-commitment systems allow this choice to be made outside of “the zone”.
Pre-commitment and cashless systems are now required for casinos in NSW and Victoria, and shortly in Queensland, as recommended by the Crown and Star inquiries.
These are welcome steps but much more is needed.
A long overdue change
Responsible gambling has allowed gambling operators to self-regulate and blame people for harmful gambling practices.
It has made gambling businesses – casinos, wagering companies, pokie pubs and clubs – extraordinary profitable. But this has come at considerable cost to hundreds of thousands of Australians, and their families and friends.
Ditching the responsible gambling mantra is long overdue. Along with effective interventions to prevent harm, doing so will dramatically reduce the damage that gambling does.
Charles Livingstone has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the (former) Victorian Gambling Research Panel, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Institute, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Finnish Alcohol Research Foundation, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, the Turkish Red Crescent Society, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He was a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government’s Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Lancet Public Health Commission into gambling, and of the World Health Organisation expert group on gambling and gambling harm. He made a submission to and appeared before the HoR Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm.
The US District Court for the District of Columbia has granted a preliminary injunction in Widakuswara v Lake, affirming the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) was unlawfully shuttered by the Trump administration, Acting Director Victor Morales and Special Adviser Kari Lake.
The decision enshrines that USAGM must fulfill its legally required functions and protects the editorial independence of Voice of America (VOA) journalists and other federal media professionals within the agency and newsrooms that receive grants from the agency, such as Radio Free Asia and others with implications for independent media in the Asia-Pacific region.
Journalists, federal workers, and unions celebrate this important step in defending this critical agency, First Amendment rights, resisting unlawful political interference in public broadcasting, and ensuring USAGM workers can continue to fulfill their congressionally mandated function, reports the News Guild-CWA press union.
“Today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law, for press freedom and journalistic integrity, and for democracy worldwide,” said the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) national president Everett Kelley.
“The Trump administration’s illegal attempt to shutter Voice of America and other outlets under the US Agency for Global Media was a transparent effort to silence the voices of patriotic journalists and professionals who have dedicated their careers to spreading the truth and fighting propaganda from lawless authoritarian regimes.
“This preliminary injunction will allow these employees to get back to work as we continue the fight to preserve their jobs and critical mission.”
President Lee Saunders of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees AFSCME), the largest trade union of public employees in the United States, said: “Today’s ruling is a major win for AFSCME members and Voice of America workers who have dedicated their careers to reporting the truth and spreading freedom to millions across the world.
Judge’s message clear “The judge’s message is clear — this administration has no right to unilaterally dismantle essential agencies simply because they do not agree with their purpose.
“We celebrate this decision and will continue to work with our partners to ensure that the Voice of America is restored.”
“Journalists hold power to account and that includes the Trump administration,” said NewsGuild-CWA president Jon Schleuss. “This injunction orders the administration to reverse course and restore the Congressionally-mandated news broadcasts of Radio Free Asia, Voice of America and other newsrooms broadcasting to people who hope for freedom in countries where that is denied.”
“We are gratified by today’s ruling. This is another step in the process to restore VOA to full operation.” said government accountability project senior counsel David Seide.
“VOA is more than just an iconic brand with deep roots in American and global history; it is a vital, living force that provides truth and hope to those living under oppressive regimes.” Image: Getty/The Conversation
“Today’s ruling marks a significant victory for press freedom and for the dedicated women and men who bring it to life — our clients, the journalists, executives, and staff of Voice of America,” said Andrew G. Celli, Jr., founding partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP and counsel for the plaintiffs.
“VOA is more than just an iconic brand with deep roots in American and global history; it is a vital, living force that provides truth and hope to those living under oppressive regimes.
“We are thrilled that its voice — a voice for the voiceless — will once again be heard loud and clear around the world.
Powerful affirmation of rule of law “This decision is a powerful affirmation of the rule of law and the vital role that independent journalism plays in our democracy. The court’s action protects independent journalism and federal media professionals at Voice of America as we continue this case, and reaffirms that no administration can silence the truth without accountability,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, co-counsel for the plaintiffs.
“We are proud to be with workers, unions and journalists in resisting political interference against independent journalism and will continue to fight for transparency and our democratic values.”
“Today’s decision is another necessary step in restoring the rule of law and correcting the injustices faced by the workers, reporters, and listeners of Voice of America and US Agency for Global Media,” said former Ambassador Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of the State Democracy Defenders Fund.
“By granting this preliminary injunction, the court has reaffirmed the legal protections afforded to these civil servants and halted an attempt to undermine a free and independent press. We are proud to represent this resilient coalition and support the cause of a free and fair press.”
“This decision is a powerful affirmation of the role that independent journalism plays in advancing democracy and countering disinformation. From Voice of America to Radio Free Asia and across the US Agency for Global Media, these networks are essential tools of American soft power — trusted sources of truth in places where it is often scarce,” said Tom Yazdgerdi, president of the American Foreign Service Association.
“By upholding editorial independence, the court has protected the credibility of USAGM journalists and the global mission they serve.”
A critical victory “We’re very pleased that Judge Lamberth has recognised that the Trump administration acted improperly in shuttering Voice of America,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders (RSF) USA.
“The USAGM must act immediately to implement this ruling and put over 1300 VOA employees back to work to deliver reliable information to their audience of millions around the world.”
While only the beginning of what may be a long, hard-fought battle, the court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction marks a critical victory — not just for VOA journalists, but also for federal workers and the unions that represent them.
It affirms that the rule of law still protects those who speak truth to power.
Artist’s impression of the exoplanet K2-18bA. Smith/N. Madhusudhan (University of Cambridge)
Whether or not we’re alone in the universe is one of the biggest questions in science.
A recent study, led by astrophysicist Nikku Madhusudhan at the University of Cambridge, suggests the answer might be no. Based on observations from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, the study points to alien life on K2-18b, a distant exoplanet 124 light years from Earth.
The researchers found strong evidence of a chemical called dimethyl sulfide (DMS) in the planet’s atmosphere. On Earth, DMS is produced only by living organisms, so it appears to be a compelling sign of life, or “biosignature”.
While the new findings have made headlines, a look at the history of astrobiology shows similar discoveries have been inconclusive in the past. The issue is partly theoretical: scientists and philosophers still have no agreed-upon definition of exactly what life is.
A closer look
Unlike the older Hubble telescope, which orbited Earth, NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope is placed in orbit around the Sun. This gives it a better view of objects in deep space.
When distant exoplanets pass in front of their host star, astronomers can deduce what chemicals are in their atmospheres from the tell-tale wavelengths they leave in the detected light. Since the precision of these readings can vary, scientists estimate a margin of error for their results, to rule out random chance. The recent study of K2-18b found only a 0.3% probability that the readings were a fluke, leaving researchers confident in their detection of DMS.
On Earth, DMS is only produced by life, mostly aquatic phytoplankton. This makes it a persuasive biosignature.
The findings line up with what scientists already conjecture about K2-18b. Considered a “Hycean” world (a portmanteau of “hydrogen” and “ocean”), K2-18b is thought to feature a hydrogen-rich atmosphere and a surface covered with liquid water. These conditions are favourable to life.
So does this mean K2-18b’s oceans are crawling with extraterrestrial microbes?
Some experts are less certain. Speaking to the New York Times, planetary scientist Christopher Glein expressed doubt that the study represents a “smoking gun”. And past experiences teach us that in astrobiology, inconclusive findings are the norm.
Life as we don’t know it
Astrobiology has its origins in efforts to explain how life began on our own planet.
In the early 1950s, the Miller-Urey experiment showed that an electrical current could produce organic compounds from a best-guess reconstruction of the chemistry in Earth’s earliest oceans – sometimes called the “primordial soup”.
Although it gave no real indication of how life in fact first evolved, the experiment left astrobiology with a framework for investigating the chemistry of alien worlds.
In 1975, the first Mars landers – Viking 1 and 2 – conducted experiments with collected samples of Martian soil. In one experiment, nutrients added to soil samples appeared to produce carbon dioxide, suggesting microbes were digesting the nutrients.
Initial excitement quickly dissipated, as other tests failed to pick up organic compounds in the soil. And later studies identified plausible non-biological explanations for the carbon dioxide. One explanation points to a mineral abundant on Mars called perchlorate. Interactions between perchlorate and cosmic rays may have led to chemical reactions similar to those observed by the Viking tests.
Concerns the landers’ instruments had been contaminated on Earth also introduced uncertainty.
In 1996, a NASA team announced a Martian meteorite discovered in Antarctica bore signs of past alien life. Specimen ALH84001 showed evidence of organic hydrocarbons, as well as magnetite crystals arranged in a distinctive pattern only produced biologically on Earth.
More suggestive were the small, round structures in the rock resembling fossilised bacteria. Again, closer analysis led to disappointment. Non-biological explanations were found for the magnetite grains and hydrocarbons, while the fossil bacteria were deemed too small to plausibly support life.
The most recent comparable discovery – claims of phosphine gas on Venus in 2020 – is also still controversial. Phosphine is considered a biosignature, since on Earth it’s produced by bacterial life in low-oxygen environments, particularly in the digestive tracts of animals. Some astronomers claim the detected phosphine signal is too weak, or attributable to inorganically produced sulfur compounds.
Each time biosignatures are found, biologists confront the ambiguous distinction between life and non-life, and the difficulty of extrapolating characteristics of life on Earth to alien environments.
Carol Cleland, a leading philosopher of science, has called this the problem of finding “life as we don’t know it”.
On Earth, dimethyl sulfide is only produced by life, mostly aquatic phytoplankton (pictured here in the Barents Sea). BEST-BACKGROUNDS/Shutterstock
Moving beyond chemistry
We still know very little about how life first emerged on Earth. This makes it hard to know what to expect from the primitive lifeforms that might exist on Mars or K2-18b.
It’s uncertain whether such lifeforms would resemble Earth life at all. Alien life might manifest in surprising and unrecognisable ways: while life on Earth is carbon-based, cellular, and reliant on self-replicating molecules such as DNA, an alien lifeform might fulfil the same functions with totally unfamiliar materials and structures.
Our knowledge of the environmental conditions on K2-18b is also limited, so it’s hard to imagine the adaptations a Hycean organism might need to survive there.
Chemical biosignatures derived from life on Earth, it seems, might be a misleading guide.
Philosophers of biology argue that a general definition of life will need to go beyond chemistry. According to one view, life is defined by its organisation, not the list of chemicals making it up: living things embody a kind of self-organisation able to autonomously produce its own parts, sustain a metabolism, and maintain a boundary or membrane separating inside from outside.
Some philosophers of science claim such a definition is too imprecise. In my own research, I’ve argued that this kind of generality is a strength: it helps keep our theories flexible, and applicable to new contexts.
K2-18b may be a promising candidate for identifying extraterrestrial life. But excitement about biosignatures such as DMS disguises deeper, theoretical problems that also need to be resolved.
Novel lifeforms in distant, unfamiliar environments might not be detectable in the ways we expect. Philosophers and scientists will have to work together on non-reductive descriptions of living processes, so that when we do stumble across alien life, we don’t miss it.
Campbell Rider is the recipient of an Australian government RTP scholarship for his doctoral studies.
Australia just sweltered through one of its hottest summers on record, and heat has pushed well into autumn. Once-in-a-generation floods are now striking with alarming regularity. As disasters escalate, insurers are warning some properties may soon be uninsurable. Yet, despite these escalating disasters — and a federal election looming — conversation around climate change remains deeply polarising.
But are people’s minds really made up? Or are they still open to change?
In research out today, we asked more than 5,000 Australians a simple question: what would change your mind about climate change? Their answers reveal both a warning and an opportunity.
On climate, Australians fall into six groups
Almost two thirds (64%) of Australians are concerned about the impact of climate change, according to a recent survey.
But drill deeper, and we quickly find Australians hold quite different views on climate. In fact, research in 2022 showed Australians can be sorted into six distinct groups based on how concerned and engaged they are with the issue.
At one end was the Alarmed group – highly concerned people who are convinced of the science, and already taking action (25% of Australians). At the other end was the Dismissive group (7%) – strongly sceptical people who often view climate change as exaggerated or even a hoax. In between were the Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged and Doubtful – groups who varied in belief, awareness and willingness to engage.
In our nationally representative survey, we asked every participant what might change their opinion about climate change? We then looked at how the answers differed between the six groups.
For those already convinced climate change is real and human-caused, we wanted to know what might make them doubt it. For sceptical participants, we wanted to know what might persuade them otherwise. In short, we weren’t testing who was “right” or “wrong” – we were mapping how flexible their opinions were.
Our views aren’t set in stone
People at both extremes – Alarmed and Dismissive – were the most likely to say “nothing” would change their minds. Nearly half the Dismissive respondents flat-out rejected the premise. But these two groups together make up just one in three Australians.
What about everyone in the middle ground? The rest – the Concerned (28%), Cautious (23%), Disengaged (3%) and Doubtful (14%) – showed much more openness. They matter most, because they’re the majority — and they’re still listening.
People with dismissive views of climate science are a small minority. jon lyall/Shutterstock
What information would change minds?
What would it take for people to be convinced? We identified four major themes: evidence and information, trusted sources, action being undertaken, and nothing.
The most common response was a desire for better evidence and information. But not just any facts would do. Participants said they wanted clear, plain-English explanations rather than jargon. They wanted statistics they could trust, and science that didn’t feel politicised or agenda-driven. Some said they’d be more convinced if they saw the impacts with their own eyes.
Crucially, many in the Doubtful and Cautious groups didn’t outright reject climate change – they just didn’t feel confident enough to judge the evidence.
The trust gap
Many respondents didn’t know who to believe on climate change. Scientists and independent experts were the most commonly mentioned trusted sources – but trust in these sources wasn’t universal.
Some Australians, especially in the more sceptical segments, expressed deep distrust toward the media, governments and the scientific community. Others said they’d be more receptive if information came from unbiased or apolitical sources. For some respondents, family, friends and everyday people were seen as more credible than institutions.
In an age of widespread misinformation, this matters. If we want to build support for climate action, we need the right messengers as much as the right message.
What about action?
Many respondents said their views could shift if they saw real, meaningful action – especially from governments and big business. Some wanted proof that Australia is taking climate change seriously. Others said action would offer hope or reduce their anxiety.
Even some sceptical respondents said coordinated, global action might persuade them – though they were often cynical about Australia’s impact compared to larger emitters. Others called for a more respectful, depoliticised conversation around climate.
In other words, for many Australians, it’s not just what evidence and information is presented about climate change. It’s also how it’s said, who says it, and why it’s being said.
Of course, the responses we gathered reflect what people say would change their minds. That’s not necessarily what would actually change their minds.
As climate change intensifies, so does misinformation — especially online, where artificial intelligence and social media accelerate its spread.
Misinformation has a corrosive effect. Spreading doubt, lies and uncertainty can erode public support for climate action.
If we don’t understand what Australians actually need to hear about climate change – and who they need to hear it from – we risk losing ground to confusion and doubt.
After years of growth from 2012 to 2019, Australian backing for climate action is fluctuating and even dropping, according to Lowy Institute polling.
Climate change may not be the headline issue in this federal election campaign. But it’s on the ballot nonetheless, embedded in debates over how to power Australia, jobs and the cost of living. If we want public support for meaningful climate action, we can’t just shout louder. We have to speak smarter.
Kelly Kirkland receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).
Samantha Stanley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).
Abby Robinson, Amy S G Lee, and Zoe Leviston 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.
Australia’s climate and energy wars are at the forefront of the federal election campaign as the major parties outline vastly different plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle soaring power prices.
Meanwhile, misinformation about climate change has permeated public debate during the campaign, feeding false and misleading claims about renewable energy, gas and global warming.
This is a dangerous situation. In Australia and globally, rampant misinformation has for decades slowed climate action – creating doubt, hindering decision-making and undermining public support for solutions.
Here, we explain the history of climate misinformation in Australia and identify three prominent campaigns operating now. We also outline how Australians can protect themselves from misinformation as they head to the polls.
Misinformation vs disinformation
Misinformation is defined as false information spread unintentionally. It is distinct from disinformation, which is deliberately created to mislead.
However, proving intent to mislead can be challenging. So, the term misinformation is often used as a general term to describe misleading content, while the term disinformation is reserved for cases where intent is proven.
Disinformation is typically part of a coordinated
campaign to influence public opinion. Such campaigns can be run by corporate interests, political groups, lobbying organisations or individuals.
Once released, these false narratives may be picked up by others, who pass them on and create misinformation.
Climate change misinformation in Australia
In the 1980s and 1990s, Australia’s emissions-reduction targets were among the most ambitious in the world.
Despite this, Australia’s resource industry began a concerted media campaign to oppose any binding emissions-reduction actions, claiming it would ruin the economy by making Australian businesses uncompetitive.
These narratives were further exacerbated by false balance in media coverage, whereby news outlets, in an effort to appear neutral, often placed climate scientists alongside contrarians, giving the impression that the science was still unclear.
Together, this created an environment in Australia where climate action was seen as either too economically damaging or simply unnecessary.
What’s happening in the federal election campaign?
Climate misinformation has been circulating in the following forms during this federal election campaign.
1. Trumpet of Patriots
Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots party ran an advertisement that claimed to expose “ the truth about climate change”. It featured a clip from a 2004 documentary, in which a scientist discusses data suggesting temperatures in Greenland were not rising. The scientist in the clip has since said his comments are now outdated.
The type of misinformation is cherry-picking – presenting one scientific measurement at odds with the overwhelming scientific consensus.
Google removed the ad after it was flagged as misleading, but only after it received 1.9 million views.
2. Responsible Future Illawarra
The Responsible Future campaign opposes wind turbines on various grounds, including cost, foreign ownership, power prices, effects on views and fishing, and potential ecological damage.
However, a general lack of research into offshore wind and marine life has created uncertainty that groups such as Responsible Future Illawarra can exploit.
It has cited statements by Sea Shepherd Australia to argue offshore wind farms damage marine life – however Sea Shepherd said its comments were misrepresented.
The group also appears to have deliberately spread disinformation. This includes citing a purported research paper saying offshore wind turbines would kill up to 400 whales per year, when the paper does not exist.
3. Australians for Natural Gas
Australians for Natural Gas is a pro-gas group set up by the head of a gas company, which presents itself as a grassroots organisation. Its advertising campaign promotes natural gas as a necessary part of Australia’s fuel mix, and stresses its contribution to jobs and the economy.
The ad campaign implicitly suggests climate action – in this case, a shift to renewable energy – is harmful to the economy, livelihoods and energy security. According to Meta’s Ad Library, these adds have already been seen more than 1.1 million times.
Gas is needed in Australia’s current energy mix. But analysis shows it could be phased out almost entirely if renewable energy and storage was sufficiently increased and business and home electrification continues to rise.
And of course, failing to tackle climate change will cause substantial harm across Australia’s economy.
How to identify misinformation
As the federal election approaches, climate misinformation and disinformation is likely to proliferate further. So how do we distinguish fact from fiction?
Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly relevant in many aspects of society, including health care. For example, it’s already used for robotic surgery and to provide virtual mental health support.
At the same time, evidence for the accuracy of AI in breast cancer screening is still emerging. And we need to ensure the benefits would outweigh the risks, such as overdiagnosis. This is where small cancers are detected that wouldn’t cause harm, resulting in unnecessary treatment.
In a new study, my colleagues and I wanted to understand how Australian women – who would be affected if AI were to be introduced into breast screening in the future – feel about the technology.
AI and breast cancer screening
Breast cancer screening programs reduce the number of women who die from breast cancer by finding cancer early.
In Australia, as in many countries around the world, two specially trained health professionals, usually radiologists, review each screening mammogram for signs of cancer. If the two radiologists disagree, a third is consulted.
This double reading approach improves cancer detection rates without recalling too many women for further testing unnecessarily. However, it’s resource intensive. And there’s currently a shortage of radiologists worldwide.
AI has been investigated to support radiologists, replace a radiologist, or as a triage tool to identify the mammograms at highest risk so these can be reviewed by a radiologist. However, there’s no consensus yet as to how to best implement AI in breast cancer screening.
The success of cancer screening programs depends on high rates of participation. While people are generally receptive to AI, in previous research, many have reported being unwilling to trust AI with their health care.
There are concerns introducing AI into breast cancer screening programs could jeopardise screening participation rates if people do not trust AI.
We asked 802 women if and how they thought AI should be implemented in breast cancer screening. Our sample was generally representative of the population of women in Australia eligible for screening.
We measured how their preferences were influenced by factors such as:
how the AI was used (whether it supplemented radiologists, replaced one or both radiologists, or was used for triage)
how accurate the AI algorithm was
who owned the AI algorithm (for example, the Australian government department of health, an Australian company or an international company)
how representative the algorithm was of the Australian population (for example, the algorithm may not work as well for people from some ethnic groups)
how privacy was managed
how long patients had to wait for the results of their mammogram.
We used the responses to assess which factors were most important and how the introduction of AI might influence participation in breast cancer screening.
Before the survey, we provided participants with information about AI and how it could be used in breast cancer screening. The information we provided may have changed participants’ beliefs and preferences around the use of AI in this context relative to the general population. This could be a limitation of our study.
What we found
Overall, we saw mixed reactions to the introduction of AI into breast cancer screening. Some 40% of respondents were open to using AI, on the condition it was more accurate than human radiologists. In contrast, 42% were strongly opposed to using AI, while 18% had reservations.
In general, participants wanted AI to be accurate, Australian-owned, representative of Australian women, and faster than human radiologists before implementation.
Notably, up to 22% of respondents reported they might be less likely to participate in breast cancer screening if AI was implemented in a way that made them uncomfortable.
It’s possible attitudes to AI may differ in contexts with different social values or existing screening practices to Australia. But our findings were broadly consistent with what we see in other countries.
AI holds promise for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of breast cancer screening in the future.
That said, these benefits may be offset if screening participation goes down. This is particularly concerning in Australia, where participation rates in BreastScreen are already relatively low (less than 50%).
Implementing AI without addressing community concerns around the accuracy, ownership, privacy and implementation model could undermine trust in breast cancer screening programs.
Policymakers should carefully consider community concerns about the implementation of AI technology in health care before proceeding. And breast cancer screening participants will need reliable information to understand the risks and benefits of AI in screening services.
If this is not done properly, and screening participation falls lower as a result, this could lead to more breast cancers being diagnosed later and therefore being harder to treat.
Alison Pearce received funding from Sydney Cancer Institute for this project.
To help, we recently developed a tool to help people navigate uncertainty and disagreement.
To illustrate its usefulness, we applied it to a recent topic which has attracted much disagreement (including among experts): whether social media is harmful for kids, and whether they should be banned from it.
A structured way to understand disagreement
We research how people navigate disagreement and uncertainty. The tool we developed is a framework of disagreements. It provides a structured way to understand expert disagreement, to assess evidence and navigate the issues for decision making.
It identifies ten types of disagreement, and groups them into three categories:
Informant-related (who is making the claim?)
Information-related (what evidence is available and what is it about?)
Uncertainty-related (how does the evidence help us understand the issue?)
The framework for disagreements identifies ten types of disagreement, and groups them into three categories. Kristine Deroover/Simon Knight/Paul Burke/Tamara Bucher, CC BY-NC-ND
Mapping different viewpoints
The social and policy debate about the impacts of social media is rapidly evolving. This can present a challenge, as we try to apply evidence created through research to the messy realities of policy and decision making.
As a proxy for what experts think, we reviewed articles in The Conversation that mention words relating to the social media ban and expert disagreement. This approach excludes articles published elsewhere. It also only focuses on explicit discussion of disagreement.
However, The Conversation provides a useful source because articles are written by researchers, for a broad audience, allowing us to focus on clearly explained areas of acknowledged disagreement among researchers.
We then analysed a set of articles by annotating quotes and text fragments that reflect different arguments and causes of disagreement.
Importantly, we did not assess the quality of the arguments or evidence, as we assume the authors are qualified in their respective fields. Instead, we focused on the disagreements they highlighted, using the framework to map out differing viewpoints.
Young people under 16 will soon be banned from some social media in Australia. Kaspars Grinvalds
What did we find?
Applying our framework to this example revealed only a small amount of disagreement is informant-related.
Most of the disagreement is information-related. More specifically, it stems from input and outcome ambiguity. That is, in claims such as “X causes Y”, how we define “X” and “Y”.
For example, there is disagreement about the groups for whom social media may present particular risks and benefits and what those risks and benefits are. There is also disagreement about what exactly constitutes “social media use” and its particular technologies or features.
Harms discussed often refer to mental wellbeing, including loneliness, anxiety, depression and envy. But harms also refer to undesirable attitudes such as polarisation and behaviours such as cyberbullying and offline violence. Similarly, benefits are sometimes, but not always, considered.
The ban itself presents a further ambiguity, with discussion regarding what a “ban” would involve, its feasibility, and possible efficacy as compared to other policy options.
Two other information-related causes of disagreement involve data availability and the type of evidence. Researchers often lack full access to data from social media companies, and recruiting teens for large-scale studies is challenging. Additionally, there is a shortage of causal evidence, as well as long-term, high-quality research on the topic.
This information-related issue can combine with issues related to the uncertainty and complexity of science and real-world problems. This is the third category in our framework.
First, while a contribution may be from an expert, there may be questions about the pertinence of their background expertise to the debate. Complex issues such as a social media ban also require human judgement in weighing, integrating, and interpreting evidence.
Second, research on reducing social media use often yields varied results, which could stem from inherent uncertainty or the constantly evolving social media landscape, making it difficult to compare findings and establish firm conclusions (tentative knowledge).
Researchers often lack full access to data from social media companies, which can make it difficult to conduct comprehensive studies. UVL/Shutterstock
Why is this important?
Discussion regarding the social media ban is complex, with a range of issues at play.
By mapping out some of these issues, we hope to help people understand more about them and their implications.
Our taxonomy of disagreements provides a structured way to understand different views, assess evidence, and make more informed decisions. It also supports clearer communication about disagreements as researchers navigate communicating in complex debates.
We hope this helps people to integrate claims made across different sources. We also hope it helps people hone in on the source of disagreements to support better discourse across contexts – and ultimately better decision making.
Simon Knight receives funding from the Australian government through the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Early Career Award (DECRA) Fellowship (DE230100065), and Discovery Project (DP240100602). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian government or Australian Research Council. He also receives funding from the James Martin Institute Policy Challenge Grant scheme.
Kristine Deroover received funding from the Australian Research Training Program for her PhD at the University of Technology Sydney, during which the work referenced in this article was conducted.
Her death became a powerful symbol of the government’s patriarchal control over women’s bodies, and ignited protests that exposed the regime’s use of sexual violence as a weapon of repression.
Testimonies from survivors, shared despite stigma and fear, revealed harrowing abuses: women protesters were beaten, sexually assaulted, raped (including gang rape and rape with objects), stripped naked and tortured during their arrests, transfers and detention in both official and unofficial sites, and throughout interrogations.
These were not isolated acts but calculated techniques to punish dissent and instil terror.
An Iranian woman protests the death of Mahsa Amini, who died after being detained by the morality police in Tehran in September 2022. This photo was taken by an individual not employed by the Associated Press and obtained by the AP outside Iran. (AP Photo/Middle East Images)
“My friends and I removed our veils in public and we were chanting. The thought never crossed my mind that the security forces would arrest us… From the moment we were arrested, they beat us violently… They told us ‘There is no God here. We are your God.’”
She was later subjected to a violent gang rape.
The Iranian government apparently views women’s bodies as territories to be marked, disciplined and punished. Its patriarchal ideology reduces women to bearers of family honour and religious purity, legitimizing state control over their appearance, behaviour and movement.
As French materialist feminist Colette Guillaumin theorized with the concept of “sexage”, patriarchal systems reduce women to “natural objects” — beings whose bodies, time and sexuality are appropriated and controlled. Nicole-Claude Mathieu further underlined how this appropriation operates across diverse contexts of domination.
In Iran, these insights help explain how the state instrumentalizes women’s bodies as symbols of ideological domination and as resources to be regulated and exploited. Forcibly veiling or unveiling women, as Guillaumin argued, signifies public ownership over their bodies, transforming their visibility and autonomy into objects of state control.
The politics of sexual violence
The Iranian state seemingly perceives unveiled women not merely as disobedient citizens but as bodies that have escaped control and refused their assigned status of possession.
For this transgression, punishment seeks to annihilate them: through humiliation, torture and rape. Media reports have indicate that security forces have deliberately targeted female protesters’ eyes and genitals, further exemplifying how women are reduced to mere sexual and reproductive objects.
This targeted violence exposes how, in the eyes of the authorities, women’s identities are crudely reduced to their faces and genitals, symbols of their visibility and sexuality.
Far from isolated acts, rapes and sexual violence committed by Iranian state forces during the “Woman, Life, Freedom” uprising embody what feminist scholar Catharine MacKinnon defines as a “system of sexual terrorism”, where sexual violence is neither private nor incidental but a methodical instrument of political domination.
Rape allows the authorities to discipline women who have dissented, to humiliate them and to reassert control over those who dared reclaim their bodies and voices.
Stigma, silence and legal abandonment
But sexual violence never ends with the act itself. Its aftermath carves deep and lasting scars in survivors’ lives.
In Iran, rape survivors endure not only trauma but also social exclusion, stigma and judicial abandonment. The Iranian legal system, which narrowly defines rape under “zina” (fornication), often punishes the victim if she cannot produce four male witnesses. This often silences survivors.
“I will never be the same person again… But I hope that my testimony will result in justice, and not just for me … so maybe we can prevent similar bitter events from happening again in the future.”
The Iranian government’s obsession with controlling women extends beyond their bodies to systems of surveillance. In 2025, Tehran authorities have deployed 15,000 new AI-powered surveillance cameras, alongside drones and facial recognition technologies, explicitly to enforce compulsory hijab laws.
In Iran, veiling is not only religious but profoundly political, a public sign of submission to patriarchal rule.
Meanwhile, executions in Iran have surged to alarming levels, with at least 972 people executed in 2024 alone, the highest in eight years. Among those targeted are women activists, particularly from ethnic minority groups, facing death sentences for their resistance.
Their cases, alongside Iran’s skyrocketing execution rate, expose a terrifying pattern of state femicide: the execution of women who dare to fight for gender justice and human rights.
Global responsibility
These are not domestic Iranian matters — they are crimes against humanity.
As MacKinnon reminds us, sexual violence is not private, it is a political weapon and a civil rights violation. The world must act by imposing targeted sanctions on perpetrators, offering asylum to survivors and supporting Iranian feminist movements demanding justice.
To let these crimes go unanswered is to surrender women’s bodies to impunity. Iranian women have shown extraordinary courage. The global response must match their bravery with action.
Mina Fakhravar 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 1972 concert film Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii, back in cinemas this week, remains one of the most unique concert documentaries ever recorded by a rock band.
The movie captured the band on the brink of international stardom, released seven months before their breakout album Dark Side of the Moon, which would go on to sell 50 million copies and spend 778 weeks on the Billboard charts.
The film was the first time a rock concert took place in the ruins of an archaeological site. This intermingling of art and archaeology would change the way many thought of Pompeii.
Constructed around 70 BCE, it was one of the first permanent constructed amphitheatres in Italy, designed to hold up to 20,000 spectators.
From graffiti and advertisements, we know it was used in antiquity for gladiatorial fights and displays and hunts of wild beasts and athletic contests.
Famously we are told by Roman historian Tactius in 59 CE a deadly brawl occurred between Pompeiians and residents of the nearby town of Nuceria during games, resulting in a ten-year ban on gladiatorial contests at the venue. The amphitheatre was destroyed by the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE.
There is a long tradition of authors, artists, filmmakers and designers taking inspiration from the site and its destruction. A 13-year-old Mozart’s visit to the Temple of Isis at the site inspired The Magic Flute in 1791.
In the rock music era, Pompeii has inspired numerous artists, especially around themes of death and longing. Cities in Dust (1985) by Siouxsie and the Banshees was perhaps the most famous until Bastille’s 2013 hit Pompeii. In The Decemberists’ Cocoon (2002), the destruction of Pompeii acts as a metaphor for the guilt and loss in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
Since 2016, the amphitheatre has hosted concerts – with audiences this time. Appropriately, one of the first was a performance by Pink Floyd’s guitarist David Gilmour. His show over two nights in July 2016 took place 45 years after first playing at the site.
But how did Pink Floyd come to play at Pompeii in 1972?
Rethinking rock concert movies
It was the peak era of rock concert documentaries. Woodstock (1970) and The Rolling Stone’s Gimme Shelter (1970), and other documentaries of the era, placed the cameras in the audience, giving the cinema-goer the same perspective as the concert audience.
As a concept, it was getting stale.
Filmmaker Adrian Maben had been interested in combining art with Pink Floyd’s music. He initially pitched a film of the band’s music over montages of paintings by artists such as Rene Magritte. The band rejected the idea.
Maben returned to them after a holiday in Naples, realising the ambience of Pompeii suited the band’s music. A performance without an audience provided the antithesis of the era’s concert films.
Roger Waters during the film Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii. Sony Music
The performance would become iconic, particularly the scenes of Roger Waters banging a large gong on the upper wall of the amphitheatre, and the cameras panning past the band’s black road case to reveal the band in the ancient arena.
It was as far away from Woodstock as possible.
The performance was filmed over six days in October 1971 in the ancient amphitheatre, with the band playing three songs in the ancient venue: Echoes, A Saucerful of Secrets, and One of These Days.
Ancient history professor Ugo Carputi of the University of Naples, a Pink Floyd fan, had persuaded authorities to allow the band to film and to close the site for the duration of filming. Besides the film crew, the band’s road crew – and a few children who snuck in to watch – the venue was closed to the public.
In addition to the performance, the four band members were filmed walking over the volcanic mud around Boscoreale, and their performances in the film both were interspersed with images of antiquities from Pompeii.
The movie itself was fleshed out with studio performances in a Paris TV studio and rehearsals at Abbey Road Studios.
Marrying art and music
Famously the Pink Floyd film blends images of antiquities from the Naples Archaeological Museum with the band’s performances.
Roman frescoes and mosaics are highlighted during particular songs. Profiles of bronze statues meld with the faces of band members, linking past and present.
Later scenes have the band backdropped by images of frescoes from the famed Villa of the Mysteries and of the plaster casts of eruption victims.
The band’s musical themes of death and mystery link with ancient imagery, and it would have been the first time many audience members had seen these masterpieces of Roman art.
Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii marked a brave experiment in rock concert movies.
Watching it more than 50 years later, it is a timepiece of early 70s rock and a remarkable document of a band on the brink of fame.
Because of their progressive rock sound, sonic experimentation and philosophical lyrics, it was often said by Pink Floyd’s fans that they were “the first band in space”. They even eventually had a cassette of their music played in space.
But many are not aware of their earlier roots in the dust of ancient Pompeii. The re-release of the film gives an opportunity to enjoy the site’s unlikely role in music history.
Pink Floyd at Pompeii – MCMLXXII is in cinemas from Thursday.
Craig Barker 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.
Far from causing trade frictions, an Australian buyout of the Port of Darwin lease may provide a lifeline for its struggling Chinese parent company Landbridge Group.
Both Labor and the Coalition have proposed such a buyout based on national security grounds.
But neither party has placed a dollar amount on a potential buyout, preferring to seek out private investors first. Any enforced acquisition would need to provide fair market value compensation to Landbridge.
The previous Northern Territory government leased the port to Landbridge for 99 years in 2015. The A$506 million contract was supported by the then Turnbull government.
Finding a buyer
This could put Australian taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. Private investors might baulk at taking on a port lease that has consistently lost money for many years.
It is not clear why the national security situation has changed. The latest government inquiry found there were no security risks requiring Landbridge to divest their lease.
The more pressing risk threatening the port is a financial one.
Troubled times
If Landbridge Group, which holds the lease through its Australian subsidiary, declares insolvency, it will no longer be able to sustain the port’s operations. And the terminal could not support itself.
Several hundred employees would lose their jobs, and serious disruptions to trade and cruise ship tourism would follow.
The Australian media reported last November that the Port of Darwin racked up losses of $34 million in the 2023–24 financial year. Yet this figure is overshadowed by the financial liabilities Landbridge has in China.
Where the problems started
The problems started with Landbridge Group’s ambitious expansion between 2014 and 2017.
In that time it shelled out almost $5 billion on international and Chinese assets. Purchases included Australian gas producer WestSide Corporation Ltd, ($180 million in 2014); the Port of Darwin lease ($506 million in 2015); and another port in Panama ($1.2 billion in 2016). Landbridge reportedly planned to plough a further $1.5 billion into that port.
In China, the Landbridge Group also signed a partnership deal with Beijing Gas Co in 2019 to construct a huge liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal at its main port site in Rizhao City, Shandong Province. The planned co-investment was worth $1.4 billion.
Rushing to invest
This was a heady time for Chinese private firms to invest overseas. Their often charismatic founders took advantage of the central government’s devolution of approval powers to the provinces and dressed up their pet investment projects as Belt and Road initiatives.
Much of this breakneck expansion was funded by high-interest bonds issued on the Chinese commercial interbank debt markets or so-called shadow banking.
Most private Chinese firms did not have easy access to the generous bank loans available to state-owned enterprises.
Landbridge, a private firm controlled by Shandong entrepreneur Ye Cheng and his sister Ye Fang, was no exception. They borrowed heavily to fund their acquisitions.
Mounting debt
Unfortunately, Landbridge’s income from its Chinese and international operations has not kept pace with its debt obligations. As early as 2017, the group was already struggling to pay debts.
By 2021, Landbridge had been sued by at least 14 major financial or trade creditors. Outstanding judgment debts were issued by the Shanghai People’s Court amounting to about $600 million.
Since then, all of the group’s main assets have been frozen in lieu of payment. Unpaid debts and interest amounting to more than $1 billion have been passed on to state asset management companies to collect or sell off at knockdown prices, an indication the group is effectively insolvent.
Time to restructure
In early 2025, a restructuring committee was formed by the local government in Rizhao City, where Landbridge is headquartered. Its job is to find a way to keep the company’s Rizhao Port operating and avoid losing thousands of local jobs.
As recently as 2021, Ye Cheng was still ranked among the top 300 richest entrepreneurs in China, with an estimated net worth of more than $3 billion.
He is currently on the hook for his company’s debts after mortgaging all his business assets and giving personal guarantees to major creditors. He has also been fined by China’s corporate regulator for failing to lodge any annual financial reports for Landbridge Group since 2021.
Landbridge’s plans to develop its Panama port were cut short and its lease there was terminated in 2021 due to financial shortfalls.
Ye’s next move?
Ye Cheng may be unwilling to sell off his remaining overseas assets as this would be an admission of defeat. Yet an enforced buyout of the Darwin Port lease arranged by Australia may provide his businesses with a temporary financial lifeline in China.
It would also absolve Landbridge of its previously announced commitments to invest about $35 million in expanding Darwin Port’s infrastructure.
Far from causing trade frictions between Australia and China, such an enforced buyout – or more accurately, a bail-out – should be privately welcomed by both Landbridge and the Chinese government.
Colin Hawes is a research associate at the Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney.
Mick Tsikas/AAP, Joel Carret/AAP, Darren England/AAP, Ihor Koptilin/Shutterstock, The Conversation, CC BY
Gambling prevalence studies provide a snapshot of gambling behaviour, problems and harm in our communities. They are typically conducted about every five years.
In some Australian states and territories, four or five have been conducted over the past 20 or so years. These have provided a snapshot into how gambling has changed – and how it has not.
So, how has gambling in Australia changed in the past two decades or so, and where may we be heading?
The intensification of gambling
In 1997-98, the Productivity Commission found about 82% of Australians had gambled in the previous 12 months.
Almost all further prevalence studies show the proportion of adults gambling has declined substantially over time.
The 2024 NSW prevalence survey, for example, found 54% reported gambling in the previous 12 months, down from 69% in 2006.
While fewer people are gambling, the proportion of people experiencing problems has not changed much, nor has gambling turnover.
In some states, gambling turnover has increased, even when you take inflation into account.
So while a smaller proportion of people are gambling, those who do gamble are doing so more frequently, and spend more money – a phenomenon we have described as the “intensification” of the industry.
As figures from the Grattan Institute show, the vast majority of gambling spend comes from a very small proportion of people who gamble.
What’s the problem?
Typically, the focus in gambling studies has been on “problem gamblers”, a term we now avoid because it can be stigmatising.
This refers to those experiencing severe problems due to their gambling, which is typically about 1% of the adult population, and around 2% of people who gamble.
This doesn’t sound like much, until you remember 1% of adults in Australia is more than 200,000 people. That’s a lot of people struggling with severe problems.
Based on recent prevalence surveys in Australia, these gamblers spend about 60 times as much as people who do not experience problems.
However, that’s just the most severe cases.
How gambling harms people
When most people think of gambling harm, they think about financial harm. But gambling can cause problems with relationships, work and study, emotional and psychological harm, and even cause health issues.
Some degree of gambling harm is experienced by around 10-15% of people who gamble.
Some groups are overrepresented: young men typically experience very high levels of harm compared to others. Other overrepresented groups are:
those who have not completed tertiary education
people who speak a language other than English
people who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
Harm isn’t just experienced by people who gamble, though – it impacts the people around them.
While young men are more likely to experience harm from their own gambling, women, particularly young women, are most likely to experience harm from someone else’s gambling.
When we take all of these sources of harm into account, we get a much better picture of gambling harm in our community: around 15-20% of all adults (not all gamblers) experience harm.
That’s very different to the figure of 1% we’ve focused on in the past.
We’re still missing some accounting, though: we don’t know how much harm is experienced by people under 18, for example, because prevalence studies typically only include adults.
Sports betting and race betting together account for about another 19-20% of harm.
Between them, pokies, casino games and sports and race betting account for about 90% of harm to Australian gamblers.
Availability is an issue
This widespread availability of pokies is the biggest single driver behind gambling harm in Australia.
In other countries, pokies are limited to venues that are specifically used for gambling, like casinos or betting shops.
We have pokies in a huge number of our pubs and clubs, except in Western Australia.
A couple of years ago, we used national prevalence data to compare gambling problems in WA to the rest of the country.
A higher percentage of adults in WA gamble, but mostly on the lotteries which are typically not associated with much harm.
Gambling on pokies is far less prevalent in WA because they’re only available in one casino. Gambling problems and harm are about one-third lower in WA, and our analysis shows this can be attributed to the limited access to pokies.
This also tells us something important. If pokies are not available, people will typically not substitute them with other harmful forms. It points to the role of the availability of dangerous gambling products in gambling harm, rather than personal characteristics.
Online gambling has also become a lot more available. Most of us now have a mobile phone almost surgically implanted onto our hand, making online gambling more accessible than ever. Not surprisingly, online gambling continues to increase.
Voluntary limits have been trialled to help people keep their gambling under control, but have had virtually no uptake.
For example, the recent NSW Digital Gaming Wallet trial was conducted in 14 venues. Only 32 people were active users, and 14 of these were deemed genuine users. Another study found only 0.01% of all money put through machines in Victoria used the voluntary YourPlay scheme.
The problem with voluntary limits is, no one volunteers.
Mandatory limits though are almost certainly necessary, just like we have mandatory limits for how fast you can drive, or how much you can drink before the bartender puts you in a taxi.
There will almost certainly be push back against this, just like the introduction of mandatory seatbelts in the 1970s, or the introduction of random breath testing.
Now, we accept them as important public health measures.
History tells us the same will happen with mandatory gambling limits, even if we’re a bit uncomfortable about it at first.
Alex Russell received funding from the Star Entertainment Group from 2014-2016 to conduct research examining gambling behaviour and problems amongst casino staff, and to provide recommendations to minimise risks associated with occupational exposure to gambling. He no longer accepts industry funding, or works on industry-funded projects.
Matthew Browne receives funding from New Zealand and Australian State and Federal Government Authorities. Most recently, the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General, New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.
Matthew Rockloff has receives funding from New Zealand and Australian State and Federal Government Authorities. Most recently, the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General, the NSW Office of Responsible Gambling, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the Government of South Australia, Gambling Research Australia, and the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission.
