Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Fosbraey, Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester
Having collaborated with the likes of (deep breath) John Lennon, Aretha Franklin, George Michael, Rod Stewart, Little Richard, Luciano Pavarotti, Eminem and Leonard Cohen, it’s fair to say that Elton John likes to work with other artists.
The news, then, that he has embarked on another joint musical project, this time with Grammy-winning American superstar Brandi Carlile, won’t have raised many eyebrows. It may not even be too much of a shock that their album Who Believes in Angels?, released April 4, just reached the top spot on the UK album charts.
Who Believes In Angels? by Elton John and Brandi Carlile.
John’s penchant for collaborating isn’t unusual, of course. Solo artists frequently pool their resources with others. Producers bring in guest vocalists. Bands unite to create “supergroups”, and swarms of celebrities crowd into a studio for the latest charity or novelty song. Collaborations have been a staple of recorded music since (and probably before) Louis Armstrong and Bessie Smith committed St. Louis Blues to wax a century ago.
Artists like David Bowie have used collaboration as an opportunity to challenge themselves across different genres. In his case, this has led to a catalogue of diverse – and sometimes baffling – linkups ranging from Bing Crosby (“I just knew my mother liked him,” said Bowie) to Trent Reznor.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Other artists use collaboration to stay current in an ever-evolving musical landscape. Take Paul McCartney teaming up with Michael Jackson in the 1980s then Kayne West in the 2010s. Or The Beach Boys’ ill-advised foray into hip hop with The Fat Boys. Or Madonna recording with insert name of current flavour-of-the-month artist.
Some even specialise in collaborations, such as rapper Nicki Minaj, who has been a featured artist on more singles than she’s been the lead (84 v 52 if you’re interested). Or DJ Khaled, whose 24 hits on the Billboard Hot 100 have all been collaborations.
And collaborations are only becoming more common. According to the Official Charts company, since 2020 almost half of the 100 biggest tracks have been collaborations, which is more than double the amount we saw at the end of the noughties.
Better off alone?
There’s good reason why more and more artists are getting together to record.
A 2023 research paper found that collaborations not only received more than twice the number of plays per week on average compared to solo efforts, but also significantly increased the number of plays an artist received in the future.
Although such songs may increase commercial success, however, and a well-timed, well-placed collaboration can be enough to revive even the most waning of careers, they come with risks, too. They may sound artificial and inauthentic; feel like soulless and corporate attempts by record labels to cash in; or, in the case of Ed Sheeran (according to Guardian music critic Issy Sampson) give the impression of tricking the public into thinking you’re cool by getting some famous mates on your songs.
To avoid such pitfalls, cultural sociologist Jo Haynes prescribes competency, creativity, financial recompense, passion, respect and sincerity as the main ingredients of successful musical collaboration.
In the case of Elton John and Brandi Carlile, although we may only speculate on the financial recompense, evidence suggests the other elements were abundant during the album’s creation. And this may be what has so rejuvenated John.
“It was a connection,” John says, emotionally and musically. Pop music collaborations may come along as frequently as trains on the Victoria Line at rush-hour, but true artistic connection is a rare and precious commodity indeed.
Glenn Fosbraey 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.
“Wherever Palestinians have control is barbaric.” These were the words from New Zealand’s Chief Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow.
During a meeting with Philippa Yasbek from Jewish Voices for Peace, Dr Rainbow allegedly told her that information from the NZ Security Intelligence Services (NZSIS) threat assessment asserted that Muslims were the biggest threat to the Jewish community. More so than white supremacists.
But the NZSIS has not identified Muslims as the greatest threat to national security.
In the 2023 threat environment report, NZSIS stated that it: “Does not single out any community as a threat to our country, and to do so would be a misinterpretation of the analysis.
“White Identity-Motivated Violent Extremism (W-IMVE) continues to be the dominant IMVE ideology in New Zealand. Young people becoming involved in W-IMVE is a growing trend.”
Religiously motivated violent extremism (RMVE) did not come from the Muslim community, as Dr Rainbow has also misrepresented.
The more recent 2024 NZSIS report stated: “White identity-motivated violent extremism (W-IMVE) remains the dominant IMVE ideology in New Zealand. Terrorist attack-related material and propaganda, including the Christchurch terrorist’s manifesto and livestream footage, continue to be shared among IMVE adherents in New Zealand and abroad.”
To implicate Muslims as being the greatest threat may highlight Dr Rainbow’s own biases, racist beliefs, and political agenda. These false narratives, that have recently been strongly pushed by the US and Israel, undermine social cohesion and lead to a rise in Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism.
It is also deeply troubling that he has framed Muslim and Arab communities as potential sources of violent extremism while failing to acknowledge the very real and documented threats they have faced in Aotearoa.
The Christchurch Mosque attacks — the most horrific act of mass violence in New Zealand’s modern history — were perpetrated not by Muslims, but against them, by an individual radicalised by white supremacist ideology.
Chief Human Rights Commissioner Dr Stephen Rainbow . . . “It is also deeply troubling that he has framed Muslim and Arab communities as potential sources of violent extremism while failing to acknowledge the very real and documented threats they have faced in Aotearoa.” Image: HRC
Since that tragedy, there have been multiple threats made against mosques, Arab New Zealanders, and Palestinian communities, many of which have received insufficient public attention or institutional response.
For a Human Rights Commissioner to overlook this context and effectively invert the victim-aggressor dynamic is not only factually inaccurate, but it also risks reinforcing harmful stereotypes and undermining the safety and dignity of communities who are already vulnerable.
Such narratives are inconsistent with the Human Rights Commission’s mandate to protect all people in New Zealand from discrimination and hate.
The dehumanisation of Muslims and Palestinians As part of Israel’s propaganda, anti-Muslim and Palestinian tropes are used to justify violence against Palestinians by framing us as barbaric, aggressive, and as a threat. We are dehumanised in order to normalise the harm they inflict on our communities which includes genocide, land theft, ethnic cleansing, apartheid policies, dispossession, and occupation.
In October 2023, Dan Gillerman, a former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, described Palestinians as “horrible, inhuman animals” and was perplexed with the growing global concern for us.
That same month Yoav Gallant, then Israeli Defence Minister, referred to Palestinians as “human animals” when he announced Israel’s illegal and horrific siege on Gaza that included blocking water, food, medicine, and shelter to an entire population, the majority of which are children.
In making his own remarks about the Muslim community being a “threat” in New Zealand as a collective group, and labelling Palestinians being “barbaric”, Dr Stephen Rainbow has shattered the credibility of the Human Rights Commission. He has made it very clear that he is not impartial nor is he representing and protecting all communities.
Instead, Dr Rainbow is exacerbating divisions within society. This is a worrying trend that we are witnessing around the world; the de-humanising of groups to serve political agendas, retain power, or seek public support for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Dr Rainbow’s appointment also points a spotlight onto this government’s commitment to neutrality and inclusiveness in its human rights policies. Allowing a high-ranking official to make discriminatory remarks undermines New Zealand’s commitment to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
A high-ranking official should not be allowed to engage in Islamic and Palestinian racist rhetoric without consequence. The public should be questioning the morals, principles, and inclusivity of those currently in power. Our trust is being eroded.
Dr Stephen Rainbow’s comments can also be seen as a breach of human rights principles, as he is supposed to uphold equality and non-discrimination. Yet his beliefs seem to be peppered with racism, often falsely based on religion, ethnicity, and race.
Foreign influence in New Zealand This incident also shines accountability and concerns for foreign influence and propaganda seeping into New Zealand. The Israel Institute of New Zealand (IINZ) has published articles that some perceive as dehumanising toward Palestinians.
“The Left has found a new underdog to replace the Jews — the Palestinians — in spite of the fact that the treatment of gay people, women, and political opponents wherever Palestinians have control is barbaric.”
By publicising these comments, The Israel Institute of New Zealand signalled its support of these offensive and racist serotypes. Such statements risk reinforcing a narrative that portrays Palestinians as inherently violent, uncivilised, and unworthy of basic rights and dignity.
This kind of rhetoric contributes to what many describe as anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism, and it warrants public scrutiny, especially when shared by organisations involved in shaping public discourse.
Importantly, the NZSIS 2024 threat report stated that “Inflammatory and violent language online can target anyone, although most appears directed towards those from already marginalised minority communities, or those affected by globally significant conflicts or events, such as the Israel-Gaza conflict.”
Other statements and reposts published online by the IINZ on their X account include:
“Muslims are getting killed, is Israel involved? No. How many casualties? Under 100,00, who cares? Why is this even on the news? Over 100,000. Oh, that’s too bad, what’s for dinner?” (12 February 2024)
“Fact. Gaza isn’t ‘ancestral Palestinian land’. We’ve been here long before them, and we’ll still be here long after the latest propaganda campaign.” (12 February 2024)
Palestinian society was also described as being “a violent, terror-supporting, Jew-hating society with genocidal aspirations.” (16 February 2025)
The “estimate of Hamas casualties, the civilian-to-combat death ratio could be as low as 1:1. This could be historically low for urban warfare.” (21 February 2025)
“There has never been a country called Palestine.” (25 February 2025)
Even showing a picture of Gaza before Israel’s bombing campaign with a caption saying, “Open air prison”. Next to it a picture of a completely destroyed Gaza with a caption that says “Victory.” (23 February 2025)
“Palestinian society in Gaza is in my eyes little more than a death loving cult of murderers and criminals of the lowest kind.” (28 February 2025)
Anti-Palestinian bias and racism Portraying Muslims and Palestinians as a threat and extremist reflects both Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian bias and potential racism. These statements risk dehumanising Palestinians and are typical of the settler colonial narrative used to erase indigenous populations by denying our history, identity and legal claim.
The IINZ has published content that many see as mocking the deaths of Palestinian Muslims and Christians, which is not only ethically questionable but can be seen as a complete lack of empathy.
And posting the horrific images of a completely destroyed Gaza, appears to revel in the suffering of others and contradicts basic ethical norms, such as decency and compassion.
There also appears to be a common theme among pro-Israeli organisations, not just the IINZ, that cast negative connotations on our national symbols including our Palestinian flag and keffiyeh.
In an article on the IINZ webpage, titled “A justified war”, they write “chorus of protesters wearing keffiyehs, waving their Palestinian and terrorist flags, and shouting about Israel’s alleged war crimes.”
It seemingly places the Palestinian flag — an internationally recognised national symbol– alongside so-called “terrorist flags,” suggesting an equivalence between Palestinian identity and terrorism. Many view this language as dehumanising and inflammatory, erasing the legitimate national and cultural characteristics of Palestinians and feeding into harmful stereotypes.
The Palestinian flag represents a people, their identity, and national aspirations.
There is nothing wrong with our keffiyeh, it is part of our national dress. The negative connotations of Palestinian cultural symbols have to stop, including vilifying other MPs or supporters who wear it in solidarity.
This is happening all too often in New Zealand and must be called out and addressed. Our keffiyeh is not just a scarf — it is a symbol of our Palestinian identity, our resistance, and our rich, historic and deeply rooted cultural heritage.
Pro-Israeli groups attack it because they aim to delegitimise Palestinian identity and resistance by associating it with violence, terrorism, or extremism.
In 2024, ISESCO and UNESCO both recognised the keffiyeh as an essential part of their Intangible Cultural Heritage lists as a way of safeguarding Palestinian cultural heritage and reinforcing its historical and symbolic importance.
As a safeguarded cultural artifact, much like indigenous dress and other traditional attire, attempts to ban or demonize it are acts of cultural erasure and need to be called out as such and dealt with accordingly.
In the same IINZ article titled “A Justified War”, the authors present arguments that appear to defend Israel’s military actions in Gaza, including the targeting of civilians.
Many within the community (most of us have been affected), including survivors and those with direct ties to the region, have found the article deeply distressing and feel that it lacks compassion for the victims of the ongoing violence, and the framing and tone of the piece have raised serious ethical concerns, especially as some statements are factually incorrect.
The New Zealand Palestinian communities affected by this unimaginable genocide are suffering. Our family members are being killed and are at threat daily from Israel’s aggression and illegal war.
Unfortunately, much rhetoric from this organisation aligns with Israeli state narratives and includes statements that some view as racist or immoral, warranting further scrutiny from the government.
There is growing public concern over the association of Human Rights Commissioner Dr Stephen Rainbow with the IINZ, which promotes itself as a research and advocacy body.
A Human Rights Commissioner requires neutrality and a commitment to protecting all communities from discrimination; aligning with Israel and publishing harmful rhetoric may lead to bias in policy decisions and discrimination.
It is also important to remember that we are not a monolithic group. Christian Palestinians exist (I am one) as well as Muslim and historically Jewish Palestinians. Christian communities have lived in Palestine for two thousand years.
This is also not a religious conflict, as many pro-Israeli groups wish the world to believe, and it is not complex. It is one of colonialism, dispossession, and human rights. A history that New Zealand is all too familiar with.
“A Human Rights Commissioner requires neutrality and a commitment to protecting all communities from discrimination; aligning with Israel and publishing harmful rhetoric may lead to bias in policy decisions and discrimination.” Image: HRC screenshot APR
The need for accountability Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s inaction and disrespectful response, claiming that a staunchly pro-Israeli supporter can be impartial and will be “very careful” from now on, hints that he may also support some forms of racism, in this case against Muslims and Palestinians.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith . . . “There needs to be accountability for Goldsmith. Why has he not removed Dr Rainbow from office and acted appropriately?” Image: NZ Parliament
You cannot address only some groups who are discriminated against but then ignore others, or accept excuses for racist, intolerable actions or statements. This is not justice.
This is the application of selective principles, enforced and underpinned by political agendas, foreign influence, and racism. Does Goldsmith understand that justice is as much about human rights, fairness and accountability as it is about laws?
Without accountability, there is no justice at all, or perhaps he too is confused or uncertain about his role, as much as Dr Rainbow seems oblivious to his?
There needs to be accountability for Goldsmith. Why has he not removed Dr Rainbow from office and acted appropriately? If Dr Rainbow had said that Jews were the biggest threat to Muslims or that Israelis were the biggest threat to Palestinians, would this government and Goldsmith have sat back and said, “he didn’t mean it, it was a mistake, and he has apologised”?
Questions New Zealanders should be asking are, what kind of Human Rights Commissioner speaks of entire peoples this way? What kind of minister, like Paul Goldsmith, looks at that and does very little?
What kind of Government claims to champion justice, while turning a blind eye to genocide? This is betraying the very idea of human rights itself.
Although we are a small country here in New Zealand, we have remained strong by upholding and standing by our principles. We said no to apartheid in South Africa. We said no to nuclear weapons in the Pacific. We said no to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
And we must now say no to dehumanisation — anywhere. Are we a nation that upholds justice or do we sit on the sidelines while the darkest times in modern history envelopes us all?
The attacks against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims must stop. We have already faced horrific acts of violence against us here in New Zealand and currently in Palestine. We need support and humanity, not dehumanisation, demonisation and cruelty. This is not what New Zealand is about, we must do better together.
There needs to be a formal enquiry and policy review to see if structural biases exist in New Zealand’s Human Rights institutions. This should also be done across some government bodies, including the Ministry of Education and Immigration NZ, to determine if there has been discrimination or inequality in the handling of humanitarian visas and how the Education Ministry has handled the complaints of anti-Palestinian discrimination at schools.
Communities have particular concern at how the curriculum in many schools deals with the creation of the state of Israel but is silent on Palestinian history.
Public figures should be held to a higher standard, with consequences for spreading racially charged rhetoric.
The Human Rights Commission needs to rebuild trust in our multicultural New Zealand society. The only way this can be done is through fair and just measures that include enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, true inclusivity and action when there is an absence of these.
We are living in a moment where silence is complicity. Where apathy is betrayal.
This is a test of whether New Zealand, Minister Goldsmith and this government truly uphold human rights for all, or only for some.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Erin Baker, Distinguished Professor of Industrial Engineering and Faculty Director of The Energy Transition Institute, UMass Amherst
A turbine from the Roth Rock wind farm spins on the spine of Backbone Mountain behind the Mettiki Coal processing plant in Oakland, Md.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The Trump administration is working to lift regulations on coal-fired power plants in the hopes of making its energy less expensive. But while cost is one important aspect, utilities have a lot more to consider when they choose their power sources.
Different technologies play different roles in the power system. Some sources, like nuclear energy, are reliable but inflexible. Other sources, like oil, are flexible but expensive and polluting.
How utilities choose which power source to invest in depends in large part on two key aspects: price and reliability.
Power prices
One way to compare power sources is by their levelized cost of electricity. This shows how much it costs to produce one unit of electricity on average over the life of the generator.
Coal is one of the more expensive technologies for utilities today, making it less competitive compared with solar, wind and natural gas, by Lazard’s calculations. Only nuclear, offshore wind and “peaker” plants, which are used only during periods of high electricity demand, are more expensive.
Land-based wind and solar power have the lowest estimated costs, far below what consumers are paying for electricity today. The National Renewable Energy Lab has found similar levelized costs for renewable energy, though its estimates for nuclear are lower than Lazard’s.
Upfront costs are also important and can make the difference for whether new power projects can be built, as the East Coast has seen lately.
But cost is not the whole story. Utilities must balance a number of criteria when investing in power sources.
Most important is matching supply and demand at every moment of the day. Due to the technical characteristics of electricity and how it flows, if the supply of electricity is even a little bit lower than the demand, that can trigger a blackout. This means power companies and consumers need generation that can ramp down when demand is low and ramp up when demand is high.
Since wind and solar generation depend on the wind blowing and the sun shining, these sources must be combined with other types of generation or with storage, such as batteries, to ensure the power grid has exactly as much power as it needs at all times.
Combining renewable energy and battery storage or both wind and solar can smooth out power supply dips and spikes. The Pine Tree Wind Farm and Solar Power Plant in the Tehachapi Mountains north of Los Angeles do both. Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
Nuclear and coal are predictable and run reliably, but they are inflexible – they take time to ramp up and down, and doing so is expensive. Steam turbines are simply not built for flexibility. The multiple days it took to shut down Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant after an earthquake and tsunami damaged its backup power sources in 2011 illustrated the challenges and safety issues related to ramping down nuclear plants.
That means coal and nuclear aren’t as helpful on those hot summer days when utilities need a quick power increase to keep air conditioners running. These peaks may only happen a few days a year, but keeping the power on is crucial for human health and the economy.
In today’s energy system, the most flexible generation sources are natural gas and hydro. They can quickly adjust to meet changing electricity demand without the safety and cost concerns of coal and nuclear. Hydro can ramp in minutes but can only be built where large dams are feasible. The most cost-effective natural gas technology can ramp up within hours.
The big picture, by power source
Over the past two decades, natural gas use has risen quickly to overtake coal as the most common fuel for generating electricity in the U.S. The boom was largely driven by the growing use of fracking technology, which allowed producers to extract gas from rock and lowered the price.
But natural gas has its challenges. Natural gas requires pipelines to carry it across the country, leading to disruptive construction. As Texas saw during its February 2021 blackouts, natural gas equipment can also fail in extreme cold. And like coal, natural gas is a fossil fuel that releases greenhouse gases during combustion, so it is also helping to cause climate change and contributes to air pollution that can harm human health.
Nuclear power has been gaining interest recently since it does not contribute to climate change or local air pollution. It also provides a steady baseload of power, which is useful for computing centers as their demand does not fluctuate as much as households.
Of course, nuclear has ongoing challenges around the storage of radioactive waste and security concerns, and construction of large nuclear plants takes many years.
Solar and wind have grown rapidly in recent years due to their falling costs and environmental benefits. According to Lazard, the cost of solar combined with batteries, which would be as flexible as hydropower, is well below the cost of coal with its limited flexibility.
However, wind and solar tend to take up a lot of space, which has led to challenges in local approvals for new sites and transmission lines. In addition, the sheer number of new projects is overwhelming power system operators’ ability to evaluate them, leading to increasing wait times for new generation to come online.
What’s ahead?
Utilities have another consideration: Federal, state and local governments can also influence and sometimes limit utilities’ choices. Tariffs, for example, can increase the cost of critical components for new construction. Permitting and regulations can slow down development. Subsidies can artificially lower costs.
In our view, policies that are done right can help utilities move toward more reliable and cost-effective choices which are also cleaner. Done wrong, they can be costly to the economy and the environment.
Erin Baker receives funding from NSF, DOE, and Sloan Foundation
Paola Pimentel Furlanetto receives funding from NSF and Sloan Foundation
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Dennis W. Jansen, Professor of Economics and Director of the Private Enterprise Research Center, Texas A&M University
The retirement and disability program has been running a cash-flow deficit since 2010. The $2.7 trillion held in its two trust funds may seem immense, but those reserves are diminishing as the number of Americans getting benefits grows. Social Security’s trustees, a group that includes the secretaries of the departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services, as well as the Social Security commissioner, projected in 2024 that both of its trust funds would be completely drained by 2035.
Under current law, when that trust fund is empty, Social Security can pay benefits only from dedicated tax revenues, which would, by that point, cover only about 79% of promised benefits. Another way to say this is that when that trust fund is depleted, the people who rely on Social Security for some or the bulk of their income would see a sudden 21% cut in their monthly checks in 2036.
As an economist who studies the Social Security system, I am alarmed that Democratic and Republican administrations alike have failed for more than three decades to take the actions necessary to keep its funding on track, either by raising taxes or cutting benefits. Instead, Congress has only made the program’s funding outlook worse. And now, the Trump administration is reducing the program’s staff, sending confusing signals about changes it intends to make, and undercutting the quality of service for the people who are eligible for these benefits.
But I do believe there are strategies that could help.
Taking steps backward
This gloomy outlook was clear to experts at least 32 years ago. In 1993, the Social Security trustees projected that the assets of the systems’ trust funds would be depleted in 2036.
Rather than resolve this now more imminent problem, Congress passed a law in December 2024 that could accelerate the crisis.
Called the Social Security Fairness Act, President Joe Biden signed it into law in early January. This measure ended the government’s prior practice of paying reduced Social Security benefits to retired teachers, firefighters and others who had pensions from their years of public service and who had not paid Social Security tax on much of their income. Now, these retirees will get full Social Security benefits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this change will cause the trust fund to be depleted six months earlier than previously expected.
The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model finds that should this new exemption take effect, it could make the trust fund run out of money two years earlier than the model currently predicts, hastening the day the Social Security program is forced to cut benefits.
In addition, Social Security already had record-sized backlogs of what it calls “pending actions,” according to a report from its own inspector general in August 2024.
And yet, despite this need to process paperwork faster, the agency is now less able to carry out its mission due to staffing cuts attributed to billionaire and Trump adviser Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
Principles for successful reform
Social Security is funded by a payroll tax of 12.4% on wages, which is split equally between workers and employers. Self-employed people pay the entire 12.4%. This payroll tax only applies to earnings up to $176,100 for 2025. The government increases this cap annually based on wage increases and inflation.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan nonprofit that focuses on fiscal policy, provides an online interactive tool to help people see for themselves what specific measures might do to shore up Social Security. Examples include increasing the retirement age by one month every two years and increasing the cap on income subject to the payroll tax that funds Social Security so it covers more of the highest-earners’ income.
Three main principles characterize the approaches supported by the policy analysts and researchers who have considered which reforms to Social Security might strengthen its finances and long-term continuing viability:
The program should be self-funded in the long run so that its annual revenues match its annual expenses.
The reform burden should be shared across generations. Current retirees can share the burden through a reduction in the cost-of-living adjustment. Today’s workers can share the burden through an increase in the cap on income subjected to Social Security taxes. Gradually increasing the retirement age to keep pace with anticipated longevity gains would also be borne by current workers and young Americans who haven’t gotten their first job yet.
The government should make sure that Social Security benefits will be adequate for lower-income retirees for years to come. That means reforms that slow the benefit growth of future retirees would be designed to affect only payments to higher-income retirees.
The last time the government made big changes to Social Security was in 1983, during the Reagan administration.
Back then, the government enacted reforms that slowly reduced benefits over time. These changes included raising the full retirement age, a change that is still being phased in. Because of those changes, workers born in 1960 or later cannot retire with full benefits until age 67 – two years later than the original retirement age.
The 1983 reforms also gradually increased the Social Security payroll tax rate from 10.4% to 12.4% by 1990, and for the first time levied federal income taxes on higher-income retirees’ benefits. Workers bore the burden of the payroll tax increases, and higher-income retirees bore the burden of the tax on benefits.
Those changes bolstered the program’s finances. One of those measures could potentially end if Trump manages to end the taxation of retirees’ Social Security benefits.
Today, about half of the Americans getting Social Security benefits pay some federal income taxes on that income, contributing revenue that helps finance the program as a whole. Taxpayers with annual income of at least $205,000 pay income tax that claws back about 20% of their benefits. That percentage is smaller for taxpayers with lower incomes. Individuals who get Social Security benefits and have incomes of less than $25,000 and couples making no more than $32,000 pay no income taxes on their Social Security benefits at all.
The most recent bipartisan effort to preserve the system’s solvency was in 2001. The Commission to Strengthen Social Security, during the George W. Bush administration, tried – and failed – to get Congress to enact reforms to shore up the program’s finances.
More than 20 years later, Americans and their elected representatives still seem unwilling to have a serious debate on these issues.
I believe waiting any longer is unwise.
Any solutions that might be introduced gradually today will no longer be viable in 2035 if the trust fund has been completely hollowed out. That would leave millions of older adults with lower incomes than they were counting on, plunging many of them into poverty.
Dennis W. Jansen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Retirement savings are crucial to the financial well-being of millions of especially older people in the U.S., so the concern is understandable.
But just how worried should people be by market fluctuations? And just how big a hit do 401(k)s take when markets fall? The Conversation turned to Western Governors University’s Ronald Premuroso, an expert in this area, for answers.
The employee is eligible at any age to contribute to a 401(k) plan and has the option to pay into these plans throughout their employment. Many employers match some or all of an employee’s contributions, making the plan even more attractive.
What about withdrawals?
Under Internal Revenue Service rules, someone with a 401(k) is required to start making monetary withdrawals from their plan when they reach age 73. Some people start withdrawing at an earlier age.
Someone with a 401(k) can withdraw funds from the plan early, and at any time. But the money amounts withdrawn will typically be deemed taxable income. In addition, those age 59 and a half and under will likely face a 10% penalty on the withdrawal, unless the employer’s plan allows for hardship distributions, early withdrawals or loans from your plan account.
All withdrawals starting at age 73, which tax professionals call “RMDs,” are then taxable in retirement – presumably at a lower tax rate than the employee was subject to while employed and working. So these withdrawals starting at age 73 can be a very tax-efficient way of financial planning, including personal income tax planning, for later in life, especially in one’s retirement years.
Again, it’s important to get help from a tax professional to make sure you meet the IRS’ RMD dollar withdrawal requirements once you start withdrawing.
In calendar-year 2025, the most that an employee can contribute to a tax-deferred 401(k) plan annually is US$23,500, including the employer’s match. “Super catch-up contributions are allowed for employees over the age of 50 to their employer’s 401(k) plan each year indexed to inflation. In 2025, super catch-up contributions allow individuals age 50 and older to contribute an additional $7,500 beyond the standard limit, bringing their total annual contribution to $31,000. For those turning age 60, 61, 62 or 63 in 2025, the SECURE Act 2.0 allows a higher catch-up contribution limit of $11,250, resulting in a total allowable contribution of $34,750 in 2025.
When and why did 401(k)s become popular?
Before 1978, retirement savings options were limited.
In 1935, Congress created the Social Security Retirement Plan. This was followed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which created individual retirement accounts, or IRAs, as a way for employees to save tax-deferred money for their retirement.
401(k) plans became popular with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1978 by Congress.
Congress saw 401(k) plans at that time as an alternative way to supplement Social Security benefits that all eligible Americans are entitled to receive upon retirement. In 1981, the IRS issued new rules and regulations allowing employees to fund their 401(k)s through payroll deductions. This significantly increased the number of employees contributing to their employers’ 401(k) plans.
As of September 2024, Americans held $8.9 trillion in 401(k) plans, according to the Investment Company Institute. A study published by the Pension Rights Center toward the end of 2023 using data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics concluded that 56% of all workers – including private sector and state and local government workers – participate in a workplace retirement plan. That equates to 145 million full- and part-time workers.
How are 401(k) plans affected by market rises and falls?
Contributions to a 401(k) are typically invested in a variety of financial instruments, including in the stock market.
Most 401(k) plans offer investment options with varying levels of risk, allowing employees to choose based on their personal comfort levels and financial goals.
Employers typically outsource the management of these 401(k) plans to third parties. Some of the largest companies managing 401(k) funds on behalf of employers and employees include Fidelity Investments, T. Rowe Price and Charles Schwab, to name just a few.
Because many of these investments are tied to the stock market, 401(k) balances can rise or fall with market fluctuations.
Should I be worried about the stock market tanking my 401(k)?
It depends – on when you started making contributions, when you plan to retire and when you expect to start making withdrawals.
Employees with 401(k) accounts should only be worried about falling stocks if they need the money right now – either for retirement living expenses or for other emergency reasons. If you don’t need to take money out soon, there’s usually no reason to panic. History has shown that markets can rebound quickly; short-term drops often don’t signal long-term trends.
So even if you are a baby boomer heading for retirement and your 401(k) has taken a hit in recent weeks, don’t panic. Bear in mind the truism that stock markets can always go down as well as up.
History suggests that in the long run, depending upon your plans and timing for retirement, working together with a trusted financial adviser strategically with regard to your 401(k) retirement savings is a good approach, especially during periods like we have seen in recent weeks in the stock market.
This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute financial advice. Consult with a qualified financial adviser before making financial decisions.
Ronald Premuroso does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The 94 nuclear reactors currently operating at 54 power plants continue to generate more radioactive waste. Public and commercial interest in nuclear power is rising because of concerns regarding emissions from fossil fuel power plants and the possibility of new applications for smaller-scale nuclear plants to power data centers and manufacturing. This renewed interest gives new urgency to the effort to find a place to put the waste.
In March 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments related to the effort to find a temporary storage location for the nation’s nuclear waste – a ruling is expected by late June. No matter the outcome, the decades-long struggle to find a permanent place to dispose of nuclear waste will probably continue for many years to come.
I am a scholar who specializes in corrosion; one focus of my work has been containing nuclear waste during temporary storage and permanent disposal. There are generally two forms of significantly radioactive waste in the U.S.: waste from making nuclear weapons during the Cold War, and waste from generating electricity at nuclear power plants. There are also small amounts of other radioactive waste, such as that associated with medical treatments.
Nuclear waste is stored in underground containers at the Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls. AP Photo/Keith Ridler
Waste from weapons manufacturing
Remnants of the chemical processing of radioactive material needed to manufacture nuclear weapons, often called “defense waste,” will eventually be melted along with glass, with the resulting material poured into stainless steel containers. These canisters are 10 feet tall and 2 feet in diameter, weighing approximately 5,000 pounds when filled.
For now, though, most of it is stored in underground steel tanks, primarily at Hanford, Washington, and Savannah River, South Carolina, key sites in U.S. nuclear weapons development. At Savannah River, some of the waste has already been processed with glass, but much of it remains untreated.
At both of those locations, some of the radioactive waste has already leaked into the soilbeneath the tanks, though officials have said there is no danger to human health. Most of the current efforts to contain the waste focus on protecting the tanks from corrosion and cracking to prevent further leakage.
A look inside a cooling pool for spent nuclear fuel rods.
Waste from electricity generation
The vast majority of nuclear waste in the U.S. is spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants.
Before it is used, nuclear fuel exists as uranium oxide pellets that are sealed within zirconium tubes, which are themselves bundled together. These bundles of fuel rods are about 12 to 16 feet long and about 5 to 8 inches in diameter. In a nuclear reactor, the fission reactions fueled by the uranium in those rods emit heat that is used to create hot water or steam to drive turbines and generate electricity.
After about five years, the fuel bundles are removed, dried and sealed in welded stainless steel canisters. These canisters are still radioactive and thermally hot, so they are stored outdoors in concrete vaults that sit on concrete pads, also on the power plant’s property. These vaults have vents to ensure air flows past the canisters to continue cooling them.
Even reactors that have been decommissioned and demolished still have concrete vaults storing radioactive waste, which must be secured and maintained by the power company that owned the nuclear plant.
Salt spray from the ocean can corrode waste containers at nearby nuclear waste storage sites, like this one at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California. Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
The threat of water
One threat to these storage methods is corrosion.
Because they need water to both transfer nuclear energy into electricity and to cool the reactor, nuclear power plants are always located alongside sources of water.
In the U.S., nine are within two miles of the ocean, which poses a particular threat to the waste containers. As waves break on the coastline, saltwater is sprayed into the air as particles. When those salt and water particles settle on metal surfaces, they can cause corrosion, which is why it’s common to see heavily corroded structures near the ocean.
At nuclear waste storage locations near the ocean, that salt spray can settle on the steel canisters. Generally, stainless steel is resistant to corrosion, which you can see in the shiny pots and pans in many Americans’ kitchens. But in certain circumstances, localized pits and cracks can form on stainless steel surfaces.
In recent years, the U.S. Department of Energy has funded research, including my own, into the potential dangers of this type of corrosion. The general findings are that stainless steel canisters could pit or crack when stored near a seashore. But a radioactive leak would require not only corrosion of the container but also of the zirconium rods and of the fuel inside them. So it is unlikely that this type of corrosion would result in the release of radioactivity.
Not only must a long-term site be geologically suitable to store nuclear waste for thousands of years, but it must also be politically palatable to the American people. In addition, there will be many challenges associated with transporting the waste, in its containers, by road or rail, from reactors across the country to wherever that permanent site ultimately is.
Perhaps there will be a temporary site whose location passes muster with the Supreme Court. But in the meantime, the waste will stay where it is.
Imagine nearly every seat in Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center − over 20,000 seats − are empty. That’s the scale of Pennsylvania’s projected shortfall of registered nurses by 2026, according to the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania’s nursing shortage is the result of long-standing issues in education, workforce retention and health care delivery.
Education bottlenecks: Nursing schools in Pennsylvania and nationwide turn away thousands of qualified applicants each year due to faculty shortages, limited classroom space and scarce clinical placements. More than 65,000 qualified applications were turned away from U.S. nursing programs in 2023 alone, according to a report from the American Association of Colleges of Nursing.
A key issue is the lack of preceptors. Preceptors are experienced nurses who teach students in real-world settings. A shortage of preceptors directly limits how many students can complete their education.
Uneven distribution: While Pennsylvania may have a sufficient number of licensed nurses on paper, those nurses don’t all still work in the profession. And among those that do, they are not evenly spread across roles or locations. Rural hospitals, long-term care centers, behavioral health settings and maternal-child health units are experiencing acute shortages.
Many cite stress as their reason for leaving the profession. New graduates often leave within their first two years, feeling unprepared for the emotional and operational realities of practice.
In Pennsylvania, the shortage has created a feedback loop. Understaffing increases pressure on those who remain. A 2023 National Council of State Boards of Nursing survey found that 41% of nurses under age 35 reported feeling emotionally drained.
This turnover erodes institutional knowledge, increases costs for onboarding and overtime, and limits the capacity to mentor incoming staff.
What’s being done
To help address the problem, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro in March 2025 proposed a US$5 million Nurse Shortage Assistance Program. If approved by the General Assembly, the program would cover tuition costs for nursing students who commit to working in Pennsylvania hospitals for three years after graduation.
HB 390 is also currently under review in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. It aims to establish a $1,000 tax deduction for licensed nurses who serve as clinical preceptors.
To meet the growing demand for nurses, Pennsylvania hospitals are partnering with colleges and universities to expand clinical training capacity, streamline pathways into nursing and develop innovative education models such as hybrid and accelerated programs.
Hospitals statewide are also offering substantial sign-on bonuses, loan forgiveness programs, housing stipends and flexible scheduling to attract nurses.
They are also increasingly using virtual nursing, telehealth services and AI-driven administrative tools to reduce nurses’ workloads, enhance patient interactions and address staffing gaps.
Continuing Title VIII Nursing Workforce Development Programs are another solution. These federal grants, reauthorized under the March 2020 CARES Act, help fund nursing pathways and the availability of high-quality nursing care for patients nationwide.
Research consistently demonstrates that care provided by nurses who have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher directly leads to better patient outcomes, improved safety and overall health. A commitment to shoring up the nurse pipeline in Pennsylvania is a commitment to improving the well-being of individuals and communities across the state.
Board Member for the American Association of Colleges of Nursing. The views, analyses, and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or positions of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing.
Kymberlee Montgomery does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When the Trump administration announced in February 2025 that it was cutting 10% of staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it seemed that a small but storied program within it called the Epidemic Intelligence Service – also known as the CDC’s disease detectives – would also be cut. A few days later, the program was reinstated. And in March, Epidemic Intelligence Service officers traveled to Texas to support the state’s public health officials in fighting the ongoing measles epidemic.
The Epidemic Intelligence Service is a dynamic crisis response team. Just as firefighters rush into burning buildings to save lives, this team’s specialists mobilize both domestically and internationally to help curb disease outbreaks. But first and foremost, it is a training program that has produced some of the most highly trained and regarded public health experts in the country who have gone on to work at local and state public health offices, academic departments and international health organizations.
We are public health experts – one an experienced professor who served in the Epidemic Intelligence Service from 1994-1996, and the other an early career trainee who was accepted to its incoming class of 2025-2027. Although it’s not clear how the administration will enact its new vision for the CDC, we hope a continued urgency to identify and fight infectious disease threats – the essence of the Epidemic Intelligence Service – remains a national priority.
A program rooted in national security
The Epidemic Intelligence Service is a two-year fellowship open to physicians, scientists and other health professionals. The program accepts 50 to 80 people each year.
Students participate in an Epidemic Intelligence Service officer training course in July 1955. Dr. Alex Langmuir, CDC
The Epidemic Intelligence Service was founded in 1951, just five years after the launch of the CDC, in response to Cold War-era concerns about biological warfare. Alexander Langmuir, its founder, was the CDC’s chief epidemiologist and has often been called the father of shoe-leather epidemiology – on-the-ground, out-of-the-office disease investigation through extensive field work and engagement with affected populations.
In a report announcing the unit’s establishment, Langmuir and a colleague wrote that one of the “problems that would emerge in the event of biological warfare attacks” was “the dearth of trained epidemiologists.” They recognized the urgent need for a specialized team capable of rapidly identifying and responding to potential bioterrorism threats.
The new division soon evolved to address a wide range of civilian public health threats. In 1955, as one of its first major actions, the program’s officers were tasked with investigating an outbreak of polio in children that started just as the first mass vaccination campaign against the disease launched. Within weeks, Epidemic Intelligence Service officers helped trace the outbreak to a few batches of a vaccine manufactured by a California company called Cutter Laboratories in which the virus had not been properly killed. The incident led to increased safety regulations in vaccine production and boosted public confidence, paving the way to eliminating polio from the U.S. in the ensuing decades.
And in 1981, a tip from an Epidemic Intelligence Service officer serving in the Los Angeles County Health Department led to the first description of a new disease that would become the global epidemic of HIV-AIDS. The program’s officers went on to help lead foundational studies on prevalence, prevention and treatment of AIDS around the world.
Beyond vaccines and immunization
Even from its earliest days, vaccine-preventable and infectious diseases were far from the Epidemic Intelligence Service’s only focus. During the program’s first 15 years, its officers were involved in a wide swath of epidemiological investigations in areas including lead paint exposure, a cancer cluster’s connection to birth defects, family planning practices and famine relief.
These activities established the group’s priorities of addressing chronic diseases and population health – goals that have also driven its involvement in disaster response efforts, including hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria and Katrina, as well as the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
The Epidemic Intelligence Service has also played a key role in keeping the nation’s food supply safe. It investigates major outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, helping to identify which foods are implicated so that contaminated products are removed from shelves and disseminating investigation findings that inform food safety policy. For example, officers investigated a 1993 outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 linked to undercooked hamburgers at several Jack in the Box restaurants. The outbreak sickened more than 700 people and resulted in the deaths of four children. It also led to major food safety reforms including expanded meat and poultry inspection nationwide.
The CDC’s “disease detectives” train at sites across the U.S. and abroad.
A legacy of impact
The importance of an expert, nimble team of disease detectives has only increased. Over the past few years, Epidemic Intelligence Service officers have responded to countless public health threats.
Perhaps the Epidemic Intelligence Service’s most significant legacy has been in building a worldwide network of deep epidemiological expertise. To date, the program has trained more than 4,000 disease detectives, and its officers have collectively conducted thousands of outbreak investigations.
All of these activities, at home and abroad, have shaped health policy in crucial ways that in turn protect people’s health. It is increasingly clear that disease outbreaks will continue to occur in the U.S. and abroad. In our view, the Epidemic Intelligence Service’s history provides rich evidence of its value.
I am currently a member of the EIS Alumni Association Executive Committee.
Casey Luc does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rose Cuison-Villazor, Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Social Justice Scholar, Rutgers University – Newark
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers restrain a detained person on Jan. 27, 2025, in Silver Spring, Md.Associated Press
News reports of noncitizens unexpectedly being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, have dominated headlines in recent weeks. Those being detained include noncitizens who hold lawful permanent residency status.
One story concerns the March 8, 2025, arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and recent Columbia University graduate, who was initially detained in New Jersey and transported to Louisiana. He remains there while he challenges his detention and the immigration judge’s April 11 decision that he can be deported
And on March 25, ICE agents arrested Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish national and doctoral student at Tufts University, while she was walking on the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts. She is currently detained in Louisiana.
ICE agents have also detained and removed, among other people, hundreds of Venezuelan noncitizens to El Salvador since March, resulting in high-profile legal cases that are making their way through the court system. And the U.S. has revoked the visas of at least 300 foreign students this year.
At the most basic level, ICE has broad, sweeping powers to question, arrest, detain and process the deportation any noncitizen. But ICE is still bound by certain constitutional and other legal restrictions, including noncitizens’ rights to make their case in court to remain in the U.S.
ICE’s operating budget from Oct. 1, 2024 through Sept. 30, 2025 is approximately US$8 billion, a relatively small portion of Homeland Security’s $107.9 billion total budget for that same time period.
With more than 20,000 immigration enforcement officers stationed across the country, ICE’s day-to-day work is divided into three main areas – homeland security investigations, enforcement and removal operations, and legal representation for the government in an immigration court.
The branch focused on homeland security investigations probes transnational crime and terrorism-related activities. ICE’s second area of work focuses on apprehending and removing noncitizens who are in violation of immigration laws. Finally, staff at the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor represent the government in immigration hearings, particularly what is called removal proceedings, or deportation.
This act outlines the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration and provides immigration agencies, including those established at a later date, like ICE, broad powers to enforce these restrictions. One key part of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows ICE officers to interrogate any individual they believe to be a noncitizen regarding their right “to be or remain” in the U.S.
The Immigration and Nationality Act also says that any noncitizen can be deported for engaging in activities that the secretary of state believes “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
Rubio used the same provision to claim that Khalil’s involvement in protests at Columbia University had negative U.S. foreign policy consequences.
Detain and arrest
ICE officers have broad power to arrest noncitizens in the U.S.
With a warrant, they may arrest noncitizens who are in the country without legal permission, including foreign students whose visas are revoked. These warrants are administrative warrants signed by an immigration enforcement supervisor – not a judge.
ICE officers have long been able to carry out these arrests in plain clothes – although using face coverings, as ICE officers who arrested Ozturk and Khalil did, is a new and, I think, startling development.
Still, ICE’s powers to interrogate, arrest and detain noncitizens are not absolute.
For one, immigration law requires noncitizens to be notified in writing that they are being processed for a removal proceeding, so they can appear before an immigration judge and have the opportunity to challenge the government’s claim that they should be deported.
Noncitizens have the right to legal representation – albeit not paid for by the U.S. government – in an immigration court. Ultimately, an immigration judge, and not ICE, determines if a noncitizen should be deported.
People take part in a protest on March 27, 2025, in Newark, N.J., against the arrest and threatened deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident. Kena Betancur/VIEWpress/Corbis via Getty Images
The Constitutional limits on ICE
Crucially, ICE is bound by various constitutional provisions that protect individual rights, including the rights of noncitizens who are living in the U.S. without legal authorization.
Three particular constitutional amendments impose different checks on ICE’s power.
The First Amendment, for example, protects individuals’ rights to free speech, assembly and religion. Consequently, ICE cannot target individuals – even if they are noncitizens living in the U.S. without legal permission – for simply participating in peaceful protests or writing something for the public. Rubio has said that he revoked Ozturk’s visa not because of her writing, but because she participated in “activities that are counter to our foreign … policy.” He also relied on this provision to support the deportation of Khalil.
But Ozturk and Khalil’s lawyers contend that their activities were protected speech. Ultimately, a federal district judge has the power to determine whether ICE targeted them for exercising their First Amendment rights.
The Fourth Amendment safeguards the right of individuals “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” ICE must first obtain a search warrant, signed by a judge, before entering a person’s home or private areas of a workplace.
The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures also applies in public spaces. So, law enforcement officers must have reasonable suspicion to stop a person – or have probable cause to not have a warrant when they arrest a person they believe is guilty of a crime or in violation of a law and likely to escape. The Immigration and Nationality Act also requires ICE officers to have an arrest warrant unless they have reason to believe that the noncitizen may flee before they get a warrant.
It is not clear whether ICE officers presented Khalil and Ozturk with arrest warrants before they were detained outside their home and on the street, respectively.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right of all individuals against self-incrimination. This means that people detained by ICE have the right to remain silent during interrogations.
It also means that before noncitizens can be deported, they must have the opportunity to go before an immigration judge to challenge the government’s plan to remove them, or may file a case before a federal judge to challenge their detention and deportation.
ICE’s power is not absolute
Even with an annual budget of approximately $8 billion, ICE does not have the capacity to pursue all immigration law violations.
In this context, recent Trump administration initiatives could significantly increase ICE’s reach. For example, an April 2025 memorandum of understanding between the Internal Revenue Service and DHS allows the IRS to share tax information of immigrants living in the U.S. without legal authorization. This could help ICE more easily identify, locate and arrest noncitizens living in the U.S. illegally.
Despite its considerable power, ICE’s authority is not without checks and balances.
But as a longtime scholar of immigration law, I believe ICE officers’ recent actions raise serious concerns that it is exceeding the bounds of its legal authority and the constitutional limits that are intended to protect individual rights.
Rose Cuison-Villazor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul M. Collins Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst
Jeff Sralla, left, and his partner of 28 years, Gerald Gafford, wed in 2015 in Texas.AP Photo/Eric Gay
Same-sex marriage, which the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 legalized nationwide in the case known as Obergefell v. Hodges, is facing resurgent hostility.
In the decade since the court’s decision, public support for same-sex marriage has increased. Currently, about 70% ofAmericans approve of legally recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples, a 10-percentage-point bump from 2015.
Despite this, Republican lawmakers in five states have recently introduced symbolic bills calling on the Supreme Court to overturn its ruling in Obergefell.
And Republican lawmakers in two states have proposed legislation that creates a new category of marriage, called “covenant marriage,” that is reserved for one man and one woman.
As a professor of legal studies, I believe such attacks on same-sex marriage represent a serious threat to the institution.
And others share my concern.
A 2024 poll of married same-sex couples found that 54% of respondents are worried that the Supreme Court might overturn Obergefell, with only 17% saying they did not anticipate such a challenge.
Recognizing this fear, Democratic legislators in Michigan have called for the state to pass a ballot initiative to protect same-sex marriage. The initiative would repeal a part of the state constitution that banned same-sex marriage, but which was invalidated by the subsequent Obergefell decision. If Obergefell were overturned, that ban in the Michigan constitution would go into effect again.
And a law firm in Missouri is helping LGBTQ+ couples establish medical power of attorney plans in the event Obergefell is reversed.
Here’s what’s known about the current attacks on same-sex marriage.
Plaintiff James Obergefell of Ohio, center, wipes his eyes after exiting the Supreme Court in Washington on April 28, 2015, following arguments before the court over the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. AP Photo/Cliff Owen
What happens if anti-Obergefell state legislation passes?
Currently, two types of legislation have been introduced by Republican state lawmakers.
This legislation is symbolic, since state legislatures do not have control over what the Supreme Court does. And even if it passes, the legislation does not directly threaten the legality of same-sex marriage in those states because it does not address those states’ marriage laws.
But if it becomes law, this legislation sends a clear signal that, should Obergefell be overturned, these states could quickly enact legislation banning same-sex marriage. For a state such as Michigan, whose constitutional language defining marriage as between one man and one woman is still on the books, the status quo would revert immediately to outlawing same-sex marriage – it wouldn’t require any legislative vote.
Second, lawmakers in Missouri and Tennessee have introduced legislation that would create a new category of marriage that would be available only to opposite-sex couples. So-called “covenant marriage” would require that the couples who choose this kind of marriage undergo counseling prior to getting married and creates significant obstacles to getting divorced, except under very specific circumstances, such as spousal abuse.
Tennessee’s sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Gino Bulso, a Republican, was quoted on Knoxnews.com as saying his legislation “seeks to challenge the U.S. Supreme Court’s egregiously wrong 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.” According to Bulso, “The bill is not ‘anti’ anything or any person. It simply recognizes the natural order of things.”
Since this version of covenant marriage excludes same-sex couples, they would be denied access to covenant marriages, although they would still have access to more traditional forms of marriage.
Timing of attacks
Efforts by state Republican lawmakers to revisit same-sex marriage bans are part of a broaderassault on LGBTQ+ rights taking place in the U.S.
The timing of these efforts is primarily driven by two factors: Donald Trump’s second term as president and the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned the constitutional guarantee of the right to an abortion.
But the Biden administration reversedmost of these policies.
In his second term, Trump has upped his hostility to the LGBTQ+ community, following an election campaign in which he madetransgender rights a wedge issue. This includes canceling more than US$125 million in federal grants related to LGBTQ+ health programs and stopping the enforcement of the Equal Access Rule, a federal policy that ensured access to federal housing programs regardless of gender identity.
The Supreme Court’s decision to overrule Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson is the other key factor motivating the timing of attacks on same-sex marriage.
Legislators in the Tennessee statehouse, seen here, introduced legislation that would create a new category of marriage that would be available only to opposite-sex couples. AP Photo/George Walker IV
In Dobbs, the court’s conservative majority indicated its willingness to revisit – and overrule – precedents that it disagreed with, even if those precedents were supported by a large majority of the public, as was the case for Roe.
In addition, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in Dobbs in which he argued that the Supreme Court should apply the logic used to overrule Roe to reconsider other decisions, including Obergefell. Although Thomas’ concurring opinion does not have the force of law, it nonetheless sent what some court observers say is a clear message to opponents of same-sex marriage that at least one justice has an appetite for reconsidering Obergefell.
Reaffirm or overrule?
Should the Supreme Court agree to hear a challenge to Obergefell, one of two main outcomes is likely.
First, the court could reaffirm Obergefell. This would probably put an end to most Republican attacks on same-sex marriage and would maintain the status quo by prohibiting states from outlawing same-sex marriage.
It would also serve to make the Supreme Court appear moderate, which may enhance its near historicallylow public approval ratings.
Second, the court could overrule Obergefell. If a majority of justices did so, I believe they would almost certainly use the same logic employed to overturn Roe v. Wade. That is, the court’s conservative majority could argue that the Constitution does not recognize marriage as a fundamental right, and therefore it is up to the states to regulate and define marriage, including prohibiting same-sex couples from obtaining marriage licenses.
Under the Respect for Marriage Act, however, signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022, states outlawing same-sex marriage would have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, as would the federal government.
The bottom line is that Trump’s second term and the Supreme Court’s conservativeactivism have lit a fire in some Republican lawmakers, who are targeting same-sex marriage as part of a broader attack on LGBTQ+ rights.
If successful, these efforts would be a dramatic blow to the progress made toward LGBTQ+ equality over the past two decades.
Paul M. Collins Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Are twins allergic to the same things? – Ella, age 7, Philadelphia
Allergies, whether spring sneezes due to pollen or trouble breathing triggered by a certain food, are caused by a combination of someone’s genes and the environment they live in.
The more things two people share, the higher their chances of being allergic to the same things. Twins are more likely to share allergies because of everything they have in common, but the story doesn’t end there.
I’m an allergist and immunologist, and part of my job is treating patients who have environmental, food or drug allergies. Allergies are really complex, and a lot of factors play a role in who gets them and who doesn’t.
What is an allergy?
Your immune system makes defense proteins called antibodies. Their job is to keep watch and attack any invading germs or other dangerous substances that get inside your body before they can make you sick.
An allergy happens when your body mistakes some usually harmless substance for a harmful intruder. These trigger molecules are called allergens.
Y-shaped antibodies are meant to grab onto any harmful germs, but sometimes they make a mistake and grab something that isn’t actually a threat: an allergen. ttsz/iStock via Getty Images Plus
The antibodies stick like suction cups to the allergens, setting off an immune system reaction. That process leads to common allergy symptoms: sneezing, a runny or stuffy nose, itchy, watery eyes, a cough. These symptoms can be annoying but minor.
Allergies can also cause a life-threatening reaction called anaphylaxis that requires immediate medical attention. For example, if someone ate a food they were allergic to, and then had throat swelling and a rash, that would be considered anaphylaxis.
The traditional treatment for anaphylaxis is a shot of the hormone epinephrine into the leg muscle. Allergy sufferers can also carry an auto-injector to give themselves an emergency shot in case of a life-threatening case of anaphylaxis. An epinephrine nasal spray is now available, too, which also works very quickly.
A person can be allergic to things outdoors, like grass or tree pollen and bee stings, or indoors, like pets and tiny bugs called dust mites that hang out in carpets and mattresses.
A person can also be allergic to foods. Food allergies affect 4% to 5% of the population. The most common are to cow’s milk, eggs, wheat, soy, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, shellfish and sesame. Sometimes people grow out of allergies, and sometimes they are lifelong.
Who gets allergies?
Each antibody has a specific target, which is why some people may only be allergic to one thing.
The antibodies responsible for allergies also take care of cleaning up any parasites that your body encounters. Thanks to modern medicine, people in the United States rarely deal with parasites. Those antibodies are still ready to fight, though, and sometimes they misfire at silly things, like pollen or food.
Kids are less likely to develop food allergies if they try foods early in life rather than waiting until they are older. Sometimes a certain job can contribute to an adult developing environmental allergies. For example, hairdressers, bakers and car mechanics can develop allergies due to chemicals they work with.
Genetics can also play a huge role in why some people develop allergies. If a mom or dad has environmental or food allergies, their child is more likely to have allergies. Specifically for peanut allergies, if your parent or sibling is allergic to peanuts, you are seven times more likely to be allergic to peanuts!
Back to the idea of twins: Yes, they can be allergic to the same things, but not always.
Researchers in Australia found that 60% to 70% of twins in one study both had environmental allergies, and identical twins were more likely to share allergies than fraternal (nonidentical) twins. Identical twins share 100% of their genes, while fraternal twins only share about 50% of their genes, the same as any pair of siblings.
A lot more research has been done on the genetics of food allergies. One peanut allergy study found that identical twins were more likely to both be allergic to peanuts than fraternal twins were.
So, twins can be allergic to the same things, and it’s more likely that they will be, based on their shared genetics and growing up together. But twins aren’t automatically allergic to the exact same things.
Imagine if two twins are separated at birth and raised in different homes: one on a farm with pets and one in the inner city. What if one’s parents smoke, and the others don’t? What if one lives with a lot of siblings and the other is an only child? They certainly could develop different allergies, or maybe not develop allergies at all.
Scientists like me are continuing to research allergies, and we hope to have more answers in the future.
Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.
And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.
Breanne Hayes Haney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
To live together in social communities, people create and maintain expectations about what is normal and what is not. Sometimes things can fall outside the range of normal and people are OK with it. You might have a neighbor who likes to wear Revolutionary War-era costumes on their evening walks around the neighborhood. Their behavior seems weird to you, but you consider it an instance of everyone’s freedom to express themselves.
But other times something seems not only abnormal but also unacceptable. In this case, people take active steps to squelch what feels unfair, inappropriate, bad or deviant. Things that people think are morally abnormal – aberrant behavior, transgressions, violations of their most sacred values – are viewed as highly threatening and necessary to shut down, with force if necessary. Most people would find a neighbor who purposefully starves and tortures their dogs morally repugnant. That neighbor would need to be stopped and would deserve to be punished.
A decade of researchin my psychology lab and others’ demonstrates that people struggle to express tolerance for different moral values – for instance, about sexual orientation, helping the poor, being a stay-at-home mother and so on.
In study after study, people are less willing to help, share with, date, be roommates with and even work for people who have different moral values. Even children and adolescents express more willingness to shun and punish moral transgressors than people who do something personally obnoxious or offensive but not immoral.
When asked to talk with a stranger who they know disagrees with them, people will turn their bodies away more and move farther away when the disagreement involves a moral rather than personal disagreement. And they are more willing to condone using violence against someone who doesn’t share their morals.
In other words, when it is clear that people you see as your peers – members of your community – disagree with each other, you recognize the need for continued respectful discussion. It automatically tones down the natural tendency toward intolerance for moral views that differ from your own.
Splintering off into polarized groups
While perceived disagreement within a community appears to function as a corrective to intolerance, the opposite is also true: Consensus is a powerful trigger of intolerance. When most of the community agrees that something is morally bad, then those who disagree are viewed as outliers and labeled as “deviant.” Intolerance becomes not only justified but is seen as necessary.
But how is consensus reached? In diverse, democratic societies like ours − where people are allowed to form their own opinions − there are two ways this might happen.
The democratic ideal is that over time, through shared discussion and reflection, people eventually come to an agreement or compromise. Once a sense of consensus – or close enough – has been reached, group members can be confident that those who continue to disagree can be safely ignored or no longer tolerated.
More often, though, consensus is achieved when the disagreement becomes strong enough to fracture communities into multiple, smaller “issue-position” groups. Here’s an example.
Consider a controversial issue, such as abortion. Two people may agree that terminating a pregnancy is something that causes harm but also falls within women’s reproductive autonomy. Yet, at the same time, they may disagree – one prioritizes discouraging abortions whenever possible, while the other prioritizes the freedom to make that choice.
Over time, the two people encounter others whose views are more extreme. Because the two resonate more with different sides of the issue, they find themselves pulled in opposite directions, eventually becoming more at odds with each other.
At the community level, when more extreme views grow strong enough and gain enough traction with enough people, it activates new group identities. Where once there was a community of people who disagreed with one another about abortion, there are now two smaller, distinct and separate communities of pro-lifers and pro-choicers.
What is problematic is that issue-position groups, by definition, create consensus, signaling to their members that they, and not the other group, have got things right.
One prominent example in the United States is that people are more likely than they were in the past to experience politics as not just about disagreement on various political values and approaches to governance but as opposing groups. Being liberal or conservative is an identity that puts one group in opposition to the other. And only one side can be “right” and “moral.”
At least in these group-identity-fueled contexts, people can lose sight of the fact that they are all Americans, even going so far as to assert that their smaller group represents the only “true” or “real” Americans.
The proliferation of issue-position groups is made easier by the ability to quickly find and connect with people who share your views via the internet and social media. Many Americans don’t actively participate in civic life within the larger groups they’re a part of, such as their neighborhood or city, where they would naturally encounter a diversity of opinions. People have less practice sharing their views and making room for those who disagree.
In contrast, it’s easy, especially online, to find like-minded communities to join and feel validated. This is made even easier by the algorithms employed by search engines and social media apps that prioritize showing content that reflects and reinforces your beliefs, values, activities and practices and shields you from those who are different – unless presenting them as things to disparage and hate.
This process can accelerate movement toward extreme issue-position groups and identities. As online algorithms begin taking people down different paths, the likelihood that they will find themselves ultimately with more extreme attitudes becomes more probable and more rapidly accomplished.
Reengaging with your broader communities
How can people combat this dangerous trend?
For one, you can get off social media and back into your communities, welcoming opportunities to interact with the complex diversity they contain. And even when online, you can take intentional steps to “burst” the alogrithms, actively finding ways to connect with people who are not like you and ideas with which you may not agree.
Most importantly, you can always take a step back from the impulse toward intolerance and humbly remember our shared humanity. Even looking into another’s eyes without words can activate compassion and remind you that we are all ultimately members of the same global community.
Jen Cole Wright is affiliated with the Charleston Climate Coalition, a 501c3 that advocates for a livable climate in the Lowcountry.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Aidan Kierans, Ph.D. Student in Computer Science and Engineering, University of Connecticut
Self-driving cars are only one example where it’s tricky but critical to align AI and human goals.AP Photo/Michael Liedtke
Ideally, artificial intelligence agents aim to help humans, but what does that mean when humans want conflicting things? My colleagues and I have come up with a way to measure the alignment of the goals of a group of humans and AI agents.
The alignment problem – making sure that AI systems act according to human values – has become more urgent as AI capabilities grow exponentially. But aligning AI to humanity seems impossible in the real world because everyone has their own priorities. For example, a pedestrian might want a self-driving car to slam on the brakes if an accident seems likely, but a passenger in the car might prefer to swerve.
By looking at examples like this, we developed a score for misalignment based on three key factors: the humans and AI agents involved, their specific goals for different issues, and how important each issue is to them. Our model of misalignment is based on a simple insight: A group of humans and AI agents are most aligned when the group’s goals are most compatible.
In simulations, we found that misalignment peaks when goals are evenly distributed among agents. This makes sense – if everyone wants something different, conflict is highest. When most agents share the same goal, misalignment drops.
Why it matters
Most AI safety research treats alignment as an all-or-nothing property. Our framework shows it’s more complex. The same AI can be aligned with humans in one context but misaligned in another.
This matters because it helps AI developers be more precise about what they mean by aligned AI. Instead of vague goals, such as align with human values, researchers and developers can talk about specific contexts and roles for AI more clearly. For example, an AI recommender system – those “you might like” product suggestions – that entices someone to make an unnecessary purchase could be aligned with the retailer’s goal of increasing sales but misaligned with the customer’s goal of living within his means.
Recommender systems use sophisticated AI technologies to influence consumers, making it all the more important that they aren’t out of alignment with human values.
For everyone, having a clear understanding of the problem makes people better able to help solve it.
What other research is happening
To measure alignment, our research assumes we can compare what humans want with what AI wants. Human value data can be collected through surveys, and the field of social choice offers useful tools to interpret it for AI alignment. Unfortunately, learning the goals of AI agents is much harder.
Today’s smartest AI systems are large language models, and their black box nature makes it hard to learn the goals of the AI agents such as ChatGPT that they power. Interpretability research might help by revealing the models’ inner “thoughts”, or researchers could design AI that thinks transparently to begin with. But for now, it’s impossible to know whether an AI system is truly aligned.
Moving forward, we hope that developers will implement practical tools to measure and improve alignment across diverse human populations.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
Aidan Kierans has participated as an independent contractor in the OpenAI Red Teaming Network. His research described in this article was supported in part by the NSF Program on Fairness in AI in collaboration with Amazon. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or Amazon. Kierans has also received research funding from the Future of Life Institute.
A leaked “working paper” on New Caledonia’s future political status is causing concern on the local stage and has prompted a “clarification” from the French government’s Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls.
Details of the document, which was supposed to remain confidential, have been widely circulated online over the past few days.
Valls said earlier the confidentiality of the document was supposed to ensure expected results of ongoing talks would not be jeopardised.
However, following the leak, Valls said in a release on Friday that, for the time being, it was nothing more than a “working paper”.
The document results from earlier rounds of talks when Valls was in Nouméa during his previous trips in February and March 2025.
Valls is due to return to New Caledonia on April 29 for another round of talks and possibly “negotiations” and more political talks are ongoing behind closed doors.
French Minister of Overseas Manuel Valls (front left) greets the New Caledonian territorial President Alcide Ponga (right) as Senator Georges Naturel looks on during his arrival for a military honours ceremony in Nouméa in February. Image: AFP/RNZ Pacific
He has denied that it can be regarded as a “unilateral proposal” from Paris.
The latest roundtable session was on Friday, April 11, held remotely via a video conference between Valls in Paris and all political stakeholders (both pro-France and pro-independence parties) in Nouméa.
All tendencies across the political spectrum have reaffirmed their strong and sometimes “non-negotiable” respective stances.
Parties opposed to independence, who regard New Caledonia as being part of France, have consistently maintained that the results of the latest three referendums on self-determination — held in 2018, 2020 and 2021 — should be respected. They reject the notion of independence.
The last referendum in December 2021 was, however, largely boycotted by the pro-independence movement and indigenous Kanak voters.
On the pro-independence side, the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS, dominated by the Union Calédonienne) is announcing a “convention” on April 26 — just three days before Valls’s return — to decide on whether it should now fully engage in negotiations proper.
In a news conference last week, the FLNKS was critical of the French-suggested approach, saying it would only commit if they “see the benefits” and that the document was “patronising”.
Two other pro-independence parties — the PALIKA (Kanak Liberation Party) and the UPM (Union Progressiste en Mélanésie) — have distanced themselves from the FLNKS, which they see as too radical under Union Calédonienne’s influence and dominance) and hold a more moderate view.
PALIKA held a general meeting late last week to reaffirm that, while they too were regarding the path to sovereignty as their paramount goal, they were already committed to participating in future “negotiations” since “all topics have been taken into account” (in the working document).
They are favour an “independence association” pathway.
Carefully chosen words In his release on Friday, Valls said the main pillars of future negotiations were articulated around the themes of:
“democracy and the rule of law”, a “decolonisation process”, the right to self-determination, a future “fundamental law” that would seal New Caledonia’s future status (and would then, if locally approved, be ratified by French Parliament and later included in the French Constitution);
the powers of New Caledonia’s three provinces (including on tax and revenue collection matters); and
a future New Caledonia citizenship (and its conditions of eligibility) with the associated definition of who meets the requirements to vote at local elections.
Citizenship On acquiring New Caledonia citizenship, a consensus seems to emerge on the minimum time of residence: it would be “10 to 15” years with other criteria such as an “exam” to ascertain the candidate’s knowledge and respect of cultural “values and specificities”.
Every person born in New Caledonia, children and spouses of qualified citizens, would also automatically qualify for New Caledonia’s citizenship.
Power-sharing On power-sharing, the draft also touches on the “sovereign” powers (international relations, defence, law and order, justice, currency) which would remain within the French realm, but in a stronger association for New Caledonia.
All other powers, regarded as “non-sovereign”, would remain under direct control of New Caledonia as they have already been transferred, gradually, to New Caledonia, over the past 27 years, under the Nouméa Accord.
New Caledonia would also be consulted on all negotiations related to the Pacific islands region and would get representation at European Union level.
Local diplomats would also be trained under France’s Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs.
Under the Nouméa Accord, the training process was already initiated more than 10 years ago with New Caledonian representatives appointed and hosted at French embassies in the region — Fiji, New Zealand, Australia.
A local “strategic committee” would also be set up on defence matters.
However, despite long-time FLNKS demands, this would not allow for a seat at the United Nations.
In terms of currency, the present French Pacific Francs (CFP, XPF) would be abolished for a new currency that would remain pegged to the Euro, provided France’s other two Pacific territories (French Polynesia, Wallis-and-Futuna — which are also using the CFP) agree.
Reinforced provincial powers A new proposal, in terms of reinforced provincial powers, would be to grant each of New Caledonia’s three provinces (North, South and Loyalty Islands) the capacity — currently held by New Caledonia’s government — to generate and collect its own taxes.
Each province would then re-distribute their collected tax revenues to the central government and municipalities.
This is also reported to be a sensitive point during the talks, since about 80 percent of New Caledonia’s wealth is located in the Southern Province, which also generates more than 90 percent of all of New Caledonia’s tax revenues.
This is perceived as a concession to pro-France parties, which are calling for an “internal federation” model for New Caledonia, a prospect strongly opposed by pro-independence parties who are denouncing what they liken to some kind of “partition” for the French Pacific dependency.
In the currently discussed project, the representation at the Congress (Parliament) of New Caledonia would be revised among the three provinces to better reflect their respective weight according to demographic changes.
The representation would be re-assessed and possibly modified after each population census.
Under the proposed text, New Caledonia’s government would remain based on the notion of “collegiality”.
Future referendum — no more just ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to independence The current working paper, on the right to self-determination, suggests that any future referendum on self-determination no longer has a specified deadline, but should take place after a “stabilisation and reconstruction” phase.
It would no longer ask the binary question of “yes” or “no” to independence and full sovereignty, but rather seek the approval of a “comprehensive project”.
To activate a referendum, the approval of at least three fifths of New Caledonia’s 54-seat Congress would be needed.
The Congress’s current makeup, almost equally split in two between pro-France and pro-independence parties, this 3/5th threshold could only be found if there is a consensual vote beyond party lines.
Some of the FLNKS’s earlier demands, like having its president Christian Téin (elected in absentia in August 2024 ) part of the talks, now seem to have been dropped.
Téin was arrested in June 2024 for alleged involvement in the May 2024 insurrectional riots that caused 14 dead (including two French gendarmes), hundreds of injured, thousands of jobless and the destruction of several hundred businesses for a total estimated damage of 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4.3 billion).
Four days after his arrest, Téin was transferred from New Caledonia to mainland France.
Although he is still remanded in custody pending his trial (for alleged involvement in organised criminal-related acts), his case was recently transferred from the jurisdiction of judges in Nouméa to mainland France magistrates.
Union Calédonienne president and pro-independence front man Emmanuel Tjibaou told public broadcaster NC la 1ère yesterday he was in regular contact with Téin from his jail in Mulhouse (northeastern France).
Another recent development that could also be perceived as a concession to the FLNKS is that last week, France announced the replacement of French High commissioner Louis Le Franc, France’s representative and man in charge in Nouméa during last year’s riots.
‘We are facing a decisive moment’, says Valls Valls said he remained hopeful that despite “all positions remaining at present still far from each other . . . evolutions are still possible”.
“I reaffirm the (French) State’s full commitment to pursue this approach, in the spirit of the Matignon and Nouméa Accords (signed respectively in 1988 and 1998) to build together a united, appeased and prosperous New Caledonia,” Valls concluded.
“We are facing a decisive moment for the future of New Caledonia, which is confronted with a particularly grave economic and social situation. Civil peace remains fragile.”
The much sought-after agreement, which has been at the centre of political talks since they resumed in early 2025 after a three-year hiatus, is supposed to replace the Nouméa Accord from 1998.
The 1998 pact, which outlines the notion of gradual transfer of sovereign powers from France to new Caledonia, but also the notion of “common destiny”, stipulates that after three referendums on self-determination resulting in a majority of “no”, then the political partners are to meet and “discuss the situation thus created”.
Determination, anxiety and hope On all sides of the political landscape, ahead of any outcome for the crucial talks, the current atmosphere is a mix of determination, anxiety and hope, with a touch of disillusionment.
The pro-independence movement’s Emmanuel Tjibaou has to manage a sometimes radical base.
He told NC la 1ère that the main objective remained “the path to sovereignty”.
Within the pro-France camp, there is also defiance towards Vall’s approach and expected results.
Among their ranks, one lingering angst, founded or not, is to see an agreement being concluded that would not respond to their expectations of New Caledonia remaining part of France.
This worst-case scenario, in their view, would bring back sad memories of Algeria’s pre-independence process decades ago.
On 4 June 1958, in the midst of its war against Algeria’s National Liberation Front (FLN), French President General De Gaulle, while on a visit to Algiers, shouted a resounding “Je vous ai compris!” (“I have understood you”) to a crowd of cheering pro-France and French Algerians who were convinced at the time that their voice had been heard in favour of French Algeria.
On 19 March 1962, after years of a bloody war, the Evian Accords were signed, paving the way for Algeria’s independence on July 3.
“I had to take precautions, I had to proceed progressively and this is how we made it”, De Gaulle explained to the French daily Le Monde in 1966.
In the meantime, in an atmosphere of fear and violence, an estimated 700,000 French citizens from Algeria were “repatriated” by boat to mainland France.
As an alternative posed to French nationals at the time, FLN’s slogan was “la valise ou le cercueil” (“the suitcase or the coffin”).
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
For some people, protests don’t seem like rational and responsible forms of political participation in a democratic system. According to the latest World Values Survey (2017-2022), 28.6 per cent of Canadians and 27.7 per cent of Americans said they’d would never, under any circumstances, attend a peaceful demonstration.
Yet citizens often lack opportunities to influence government decisions outside of voting during elections, leaving them feeling powerless about the direction of their elected government.
Some argue that citizens should email, call or write letters to political leaders, but these individualistic activities are easily ignored because they occur behind closed doors. The visibility of protests, combined with a large turnout, helps raise awareness of issues among other citizens and political leaders.
Protests serve a critical function in a democratic system — they offer a collective and visible method for citizens to express their political views. These events can attract millions of people — many more than the number of respondents to public opinion polls or attendees at government public consultation events.
Perceptions of effectiveness
When deciding whether to participate in a march or demonstration, anger, grievances and discontent are important, but these sentiments alone are insufficient to motivate people to act.
Instead, citizens must interpret their experiences as unjust or unfair to feel compelled to participate in a protest. Likewise, people must believe that the protest will be effective in influencing political leaders.
Across the four countries, the averages were similar, based on the five-point scale ranging from “not at all” to “a great deal.” And those who believed that protests were effective were far more likely to report having participated in a march or demonstration in the past 12 months compared to those who did not view protests as effective.
Who protests and why?
The decision to take part in a protest involves weighing a variety of factors that may encourage or discourage participation, as well as views about the effectiveness of public protests.
People will often join if they’re asked to, and whether they’re asked to depends on their ties to others who are also interested in attending, or if they’re a member of an organization that encourages its members to attend.
This social network effect is as important, if not more important, than simply being angry or frustrated.
People who identify as left-wing are more likely to participate in marches and demonstrations. Historically, this has been true in the United States, but in contemporary research, individuals on both the right and the left sides of the political continuum participate in protest.
Rather than focusing on left vs. right, research should pay attention to political interest. Are people paying attention to current events or what’s going on in government? Political interest precedes the development of ideological views.
Furthermore, people can only form their views about the effectiveness of protest once they start paying attention to politics.
To truly understand who participates and who does not in public protests, we need to consider social connections, views about the effectiveness of protest and people’s interest in politics.
Shelley Boulianne received funding for the administration of the survey from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Clothing can kill. So, too, can the absence of personal protective equipment. For decades, the medical establishment has understood the role of fabric in both spreading contagion and guarding against its transmission — but never with greater urgency than 80 years ago.
On April 15 1945, British troops liberated Bergen-Belsen concentration camp near Celle in northern Germany. Shocking scenes awaited behind the barbed wire.
On entry, British personnel found an epidemic of typhus decimating the camp’s surviving population. Thousands of unburied corpses, appallingly overcrowded huts, the absence of running water and chronic emaciation contributed to the rapid spread of this louse-borne disease. So too did unwashed garments into which lice burrowed and deposited their contaminated faeces.
For warmth, some camp inmates removed clothing from corpses, heedless of the danger of contagion. Others feared infection so acutely that they went unclothed rather than risk contamination. Anne Frank died, just weeks before the camp’s liberation, in a state of naked terror.
For military and medical personnel, burying bodies and burning garments was imperative, along with triaging survivors and moving the fittest from the camp’s corpse-strewn huts to a hastily established hospital area. To transform a site of mass death into a place of recovery wasn’t easy. Staff lacked supplies of every sort, substituting newspaper for mackintosh sheeting and commandeering dog bowls for use as bedpans.
Protective clothing was also in desperately short supply. There, too, improvisation was the order of the day. Around 100 British medical students drafted into action at Belsen sported a motley assemblage of British military and appropriated German Wehrmacht apparel. They, like everyone else in the camp, were liberally sprayed with DDT. This pesticide was later proven to be carcinogenic.
Female British Red Cross workers modified their uniforms, ditching regulation skirts. “I always go about in slacks and battle dress, trousers being a greater protection against the louse!” Margaret Ward wrote home to her mother with forced bravado.
Meanwhile, members of the Royal Army Medical Corps, better provisioned than anyone else at Belsen, wore “typhus suits” as they stretchered patients from the huts to the hospital. These outfits – complete with drawstring hoods, gauntlets and gaiters, but no masks – helped keep contagion at bay, though their alien appearance terrified some patients.
British authorities “solved” their protective equipment crisis at Belsen by compelling captured German SS personnel to undertake the most dangerous work. Sometimes, prisoners were given rubberised capes. But more often, as numerous photographs taken by British military photographers attest, German prisoners handled corpses without any protection at all.
Dressed in their SS uniforms, German men and women set to work (under armed guard) removing piles of contaminated clothing and dead bodies from the huts. With uncovered mouths and bare hands, they carried corpses to mass graves.
In April and May 1945, anti-Nazi feelings ran understandably high among allied personnel, particularly those who just participated in the camps’ liberation. Few found anything ethically wrong with the decision to expose German prisoners to a high risk of infection.
War crimes trials, with the prospect of execution for defendants found guilty, awaited SS prisoners. Forcing German camp personnel to confront the deadly consequences of their actions – in the most visceral way possible – struck most uniformed Britons as an entirely warranted form of retribution. A moral corrective for SS prisoners was also a medical expedient made necessary by the camp’s dire shortage of protective equipment.
The brunt was borne by the captured enemies. Reuters reported on June 28 1945 that 20 SS guards had “died of typhus before their trials by the war crimes court could be held”, adding that it was “believed that they caught the disease when they were forced to bury the bodies of some of the prisoners”.
Meanwhile, Belsen’s survivors urgently required garments and footwear. Retributive justice played a role here too. British military personnel ordered German civilians in the environs of the camp to surrender clothing, shoes and bedding for use by survivors. Here was postwar redress at its most literal. People stripped of so much by the Third Reich would begin life anew in apparel removed from Germans.
Susan L. Carruthers 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.
Last week, I travelled to the historic city of Perugia in Umbria, Italy. With clear blue skies, wisteria hanging over ancient Roman walls, plenty of gelato and beautiful vistas from the hilltop, the setting was pretty special. More inspiring though, were the people I spoke to during my visit. Perugia is the home of the annual international journalism festival, a meeting of media movers and shakers from all over the globe. These are my five biggest takeaways.
1. In-person connections are irreplaceable
Yes, I see the irony of flying to talk about climate journalism, but sometimes face-to-face connections, impromptu chats and dinner table discussions are just impossible to replicate on a video call. I caught up with journalists from my Oxford Climate Journalism Network cohort. Run by the Reuters Institute, this six-month programme is proving invaluable, not only for seminars from guest speakers at the top of their game, but for the collaborations that are developing within the network. Learning from my peers working in Austria, Brazil, Canada and way beyond has opened my eyes so much to the diversity of challenges we all face – and the creative possibilities.
Kevin Burden (European media leaders fellowship project manager), Nina Fasciaux (director of Solutions Journalism Network) and Anna Turns. Kevin Burden, CC BY-NC-ND
During my discussions with colleagues from my European media leaders climate solutions fellowship visiting from France, Italy and the Czech Republic, I listened to the lightbulb moments others have had and reflected on my own progress – internally, in terms of what leadership means to me and how I can effect meaningful change, plus externally, in terms of supporting my own team and encouraging more collaboration within this organisation.
By sharing joys and worries over a margarita pizza or scoop of nocciola (hazelnut icecream – my favourite), I was struck that authenticity is the most important attribute. All else follows and every single one of those real, honest and open in-person connections deepens my appreciation for that.
2. Environmental journalism is thriving
So many early career journalists approached me, keen to chat and wanting to know more about how to immerse themselves in this specialism. When I first started out as a biology graduate, I worked in wildlife TV production and magazine journalism. Back then, environment coverage tended to be an outlier, an afterthought at best. Climate journalists were few and far between; willing mentors were difficult to find.
Anna Turns chatted to lots of environmental journalists after her conference event. Monica Rizza #IJF25, CC BY-NC-ND
That landscape has shifted so much over the past 20 years and I’m proud that this part of our industry is growing, and becoming richer for it. Now, people want to cover climate stories in so many creative formats and that’s invigorating.
3. Science doesn’t have to stay in silos
With growing misinformation, (both inadvertent misinterpretation and deliberate miscommunication) online, combined with widespread disengagement from mainstream news sources, social media has a big role to play in how we engage with climate, or not.
I hosted an event with Adam Levy about how to make climate science shine on social media. With a PhD in atmospheric physics from the University of Oxford, Levy now works as a science journalist and broadcaster, while producing jargon-free videos that make complex climate issues relatable and succinct.
Anna Turns interviewed Adam Levy at the International Journalism Festival. Monica Rizza #IJF25, CC BY-NC-ND
Climate communication is definitely not just about imparting facts. There’s space for nuance, even humour. We chatted about bridging the gap between science and storytelling, how to apply a rigorous journalistic approach to all forms of content and how integrity must be the top priority. That all builds precious trust and creates connection.
4. Time is ticking
The next UN climate summit (Cop30) is coming and we’re getting ready. One of my favourite sessions was a talk by Daniel Nardin, another solutions journalist member of the Oxford Climate Journalism Network. He lives in Belem, the Brazilian city that will be hosting Cop30 in November, where negotiators will continue to debate how best to tackle and adapt to climate change. But those strategies, frameworks and commitments can seem dry, dense and hard to digest.
Nardin’s publication, Amazonia Vox, platforms the voices of the people living in the Amazon, in forested, deforested and urban areas. He explained that the environmental, social and political issues in the Amazon are complex and full of nuance, which is why he makes local voices central to the narrative.
None of this is rocket science. But Nardin is proactively cracking on with it, because there isn’t time to wait.
Mark Hertsgard from Covering Climate Now (far left) talks about how newsrooms can make climate training effective. Alexa Cano #IJF25, CC BY-NC-ND
5. Newsroom culture is transforming
The Conversation is already highly respected. So many expert communicators, academics and readers told me how much they love what we do and what we stand for. Tackling misinformation in engaging ways is what we do best. Connecting you, our audience and community, with the most accurate and evidence-based knowledge is our purpose. We’re already bridging the gap between research and the real world. But there’s still scope to evolve and embrace change.
Looking ahead, The Conversation can help shift the way climate stories can be told. The climate crisis has gone way beyond being an environmental issue. It’s linked to all aspects of our lives, from health and education to business and democracy, as well as conflicts and culture. Newsrooms don’t have to function like they have done for decades. By being curious, we can experiment, find out what works and reinvent the norm.
At the New York Times, the climate team is physically in the centre of the office. At the French newswire Agence France-Presse, job titles such as “future of the planet, global editor” reflect big ambitions to integrate climate into everything. At CBC, the Canadian public broadcaster, the science and climate unit has made climate literacy training a top priority for all staff – not because it’s worthy, but because future proofing makes business sense.
As the executive director of Covering Climate Now, a media community based in the US, Mark Hertsgard said: “Every journalist in the 21st century will need to be a climate journalist.”
Now, my job is to turn Perugia’s inspiration into action. Watch this space.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Political leaders’ kids are routinely put on display to share the glory or the pain of election night. Earlier, they’re often at campaign launches to “humanise” the candidates.
Peter Dutton pulled out all stops with the family for his Sunday launch. Tom, Harry and Rebecca were not just there in person, but “virtually” too, with a video showing dad hearing messages from the family.
Rebecca went to “the potato head thing”, saying it was “all a bit of a joke to us. We still often call you Mr Potato head.” Dutton replied that “I’m pretty relaxed. I can give back as good as I get.” Hearing Harry on the video, he judged his son “sounded a bit croaky […] He might have been out late last night.”
And so it went. All nice and safe, in a campaign sense. But Dutton should have left it at that.
Instead, on Monday Harry, who is an apprentice carpenter, joined his father on the campaign trail, to help him sell the message about the unaffordability of housing.
Harry, it turns out, is an aspiring house buyer, which is not surprising. After all, his dad bought his first house at age 19, and is proud of the fact, often mentioning it in soft interviews.
Harry told reporters, “I am saving up for a house and so is my sister, Beck, and a lot of my mates, but as you probably heard, it’s almost impossible to get in – in the current state,” Harry said.
“So I mean we’re saving like mad, but it doesn’t look like we’ll get there in the near future. But we’d love that to change.”
One has to wonder about the judgement of the Liberal strategists. Dutton has owned a lot of property over the years, and is well off. Did no one anticipate that the obvious questioning from the hungry media would be: won’t the bank of mum and dad help Harry and Rebecca?
Of course it came.
One questioner asked, “Are you planning to act as the bank of mum and dad like so many Australian families are having to do?” Dutton answered generally – that he didn’t want a situation where these were the only kids that could buy houses.
Then later came the explicit question: “You brought your own son Harry out here. He spoke about how hard it is to save for a deposit. So in that case, you’re doing pretty well yourself – why won’t you support him a bit and give him a bit of help with getting his house?”
Dutton did not address that sticky one, saying rather that he hadn’t finished answering the previous question.
Politicians perennially complain about how hard the political life is for their families.
Indeed. Sometimes it’s best to leave the kids at home.
Albanese dodges question about Plibersek’s future portfolio
This is the second campaign in a row that’s put a spotlight on the strained relationship between Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek.
In 2022 observers asked “where’s Tanya?” when Plibersek, one of Labor’s most popular retail politicians, seemed to have a low profile. Plibersek produced evidence of her intense round of campaigning, but it was still clear she was being underused.
Albanese and Plibersek are rivals in the left from way back. After the 2022 win, instead of appointing her education minister, as she’d expected, the new PM put her into environment, where she’s had to rule on fossil fuel projects and other matters especially tricky for someone from the left. Late last year, Albanese intervened when Plibersek thought she was headed to a deal on the Nature Positive legislation, declaring the Senate numbers were not there. More compelling with him was pressure from Western Australian Premier Roger Cook, who was facing an election.
On Monday Plibersek found herself having to explain an uncomfortable moment that had caught media attention at Sunday’s Labor launch.
At these gatherings a great deal of kissing and hugging goes on, even among politicians who don’t like each other much. So Plibersek was about to hug Albanese, but he grabbed her hands instead.
/
Asked on Monday Morning TV about what was described as an “awkward moment”, Plibersek explained it away, even more awkwardly. “Do you know what, I reckon we should still all be elbow bumping, because during an election campaign, the last thing you want is to catch a cold from someone. So that’s on me. I should have done the elbow bump, I reckon.”
Albanese was quizzed later about whether he’d keep Plibersek in the environment portfolio in a second-term government.
He said Plibetsek was doing a “fantastic job” and insisted she had been “a friend of mine for a long period of time”.
He didn’t comment himself on her future job, if the government is returned. Not surprising, at one level. As he says, he doesn’t want to get ahead of himself. And later in the day he wouldn’t say whether Julie Collins would again be fisheries minister.
But, given it was Plibersek, his non-answer added to the awkwardness. On the other hand, you’d think Plibersek would probably want out of the environment portfolio, provided that didn’t mean another less-than-ideal post.
A third debate coming
Albanese and Dutton have agreed to a third debate – on Channel 7 on April 27. The second debate, hosted by the ABC, is on Wednesday.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
With Big Girls Don’t Cry, Gumbaynggirr/Wiradjuri playwright Dalara Williams proves herself to be a formidable talent.
Cheryl (Williams), Queenie (Megan Wilding) and Lulu (Stephanie Somerville) are three best friends who share a house together in 1960s Redfern, the heart of “Blak Sydney”, after moving from the bush to the city.
The trio swap outfits, go out dancing, socialise and talk about boys while navigating low-paying jobs, curfews and police brutality. Directed by Ian Michael, Big Girls Don’t Cry sits against a backdrop of political moments from service in the Vietnam War, to the 1965 Freedom Rides, the 1966 Wave Hill Walk Off and the 1967 Referendum.
The girls prepare for the 1966 Aboriginal Debutante Ball. Stephen Wilson Barker/Belvoir
The ball represents more than just a social event: it is a symbol of pride, resilience and cultural celebration. It serves as a powerful reminder of the community’s strength and unity, showcasing their determination to preserve and honour their heritage amid adversity.
Meticulous attention to detail in the set (Stephen Curtis) and costume design (Emma White) transports us back to this pivotal moment in history, making it feel both authentic and immersive.
Each character’s wardrobe reflects their personality. Debutante dresses and accessories add depth to the characters and their stories, making the visual elements not only historically accurate but also emotionally resonant.
Genuine and moving
Williams’ darker and more confronting scenes are expertly juxtaposed with love stories and hilarious laugh-out-loud moments, particularly from the exceptional Wilding, who wholeheartedly embodies her fierce and outspoken character Queenie.
Williams captivates with her nuanced portrayal of Cheryl, balancing strength and vulnerability. Somerville adds a layer of tenderness and hope as Lulu. The chemistry between these three actors is undeniable. Their friendship is genuine and moving.
Guy Simon’s portrayal of Cheryl’s brother Ernest is a true highlight. While Cheryl strives to keep him out of trouble for his outspoken views, Ernest’s passion for justice and equality is inspiring.
Guy Simon and Megan Wilding are stand-outs among an exceptional cast. Stephen Wilson Barker/Belvoir
Ernest’s relationship with Milo (Nic English) highlights the solidarity and camaraderie among activists of the time.
Cheryl’s boyfriend Michael (Mathew Cooper), though physically absent from the group for much of the play, is a constant presence in Cheryl’s thoughts. His letters from Vietnam add a poignant layer to the narrative.
Officer Robinson (Bryn Chapman Parish) is a chilling reminder of the systemic racism and oppression faced by the Indigenous community. His menacing presence serves as a stark contrast to the warmth and joy shared by the main characters, highlighting the harsh realities of this era.
By the end of the play, I felt involved in the lives of these characters, and as though I knew them – a credit to Williams’ writing and the phenomenal portrayal by each of the seven cast members.
Continuing the fight
The program includes a beautiful and personal reflection by Williams where she describes her family legacy as a major source of inspiration for the play.
The various interwoven love stories are some of the most heart-wrenching, comical and sweetest moments of the play. But to solely describe it as a romantic comedy is to devalue the power of this work.
Williams describes how she is from a long line of staunch Blak advocates who have continued to fight for sovereignty. This play is just the latest in her family’s long lineage of demonstrating resilience and survival.
This play is just the latest in Williams’ long lineage of demonstrating resilience and survival. Stephen Wilson Barker/Belvoir
Williams does not shy away from the reality of being Aboriginal in 1960s Redfern and handles moments with sophistication and grit. Scenes of police brutality and overt racial discrimination are portrayed with a raw honesty that is both confronting and enlightening.
Big Girls Don’t Cry should be essential viewing as part of ongoing education efforts to truly highlight the reality of life at this time – many such struggles which continue today.
The play is a powerful and moving tribute to the strength and resilience of Indigenous women. It is a celebration of their lives, their struggles, and their triumphs.
Williams has crafted a play that is not only entertaining but also deeply meaningful, shedding light on a crucial period in Australian history: a must-see for anyone interested in understanding the complexities of the past and the ongoing fight for justice and equality.
While much has changed since 1966, the spirit of resistance and the quest for a better future remain as vital as ever.
Big Girls Don’t Cry is at Belvoir Theatre, Sydney, until April 27.
Laura Case 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 Karin Hammarberg, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Global and Women’s Health, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University
The news of a woman unknowingly giving birth to another patient’s baby after an embryo mix-up at a Brisbane IVF lab has made headlines in Australia and around the world. The distress this incident will have caused to everyone involved is undoubtedly significant.
A report released by Monash IVF, the company which operates the Brisbane clinic, states it “adheres to strict laboratory safety measures (including multi-step identification processes) to safeguard and protect the embryos in its care”.
It also says the company’s own initial investigation concluded the incident was “the result of human error”.
An independent investigation will follow which presumably will shed light on how human error could occur when multi-step identification processes are in place.
On a broader level, this incident raises questions about how common IVF errors are and to what extent they’re preventable.
The booming IVF industry
Because people have children later in life than they used to, some struggle to conceive and turn to assisted reproductive technologies. These include in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) which both involve handling of sperm and eggs (gametes) in the laboratory to form embryos. If there’s more than one embryo available after a treatment cycle, they can be frozen and stored for later use.
In Australia, the IVF industry is more regulated than in many other parts of the world.
To operate, clinics must be licensed by the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee and adhere to its code of practice.
In relation to storage and accurate identification of embryos, the code states clinics must provide evidence of the implementation and review of:
Policies and procedures to identify when, how and by whom the identification, matching, and verification are recorded for gametes, embryos and patients at all stages of the treatment process including digital and manual record-keeping.
The code further states clinics must report serious adverse events to the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee. The list of what’s considered a serious adverse event includes any incident that “arises from a gamete or embryo identification mix up”.
Clinics must also adhere to the National Health and Medical Research Council’s ethical guidelines on the use of reproductive technology in clinical practice and research.
Thousands of pregnancies in Australia each year are conceived using assisted reproductive technologies. Lee Charlie/Shutterstock
In the United Kingdom, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority regulates the IVF industry and requires clinics to report adverse incidents. These are reported as grade A, B or C, where A is the most serious and involves
“severe harm to one person, or major harm to many”. Data on adverse incidents is reported in a publicly available annual report.
In the United States, however, the IVF industry is largely unregulated, and clinics don’t have to report adverse incidents. However, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine states clinics should have rigorous procedures to prevent the loss, damage, or misdirection of gametes and embryos and have an ethical obligation to disclose errors to all impacted patients.
How common are IVF errors?
There’s no global data on IVF errors so it’s not possible to know how common they are. But we learn about some of the more serious incidents when they’re reported in the media.
While the recent embryo mix-up is the first known incident of this nature in Australia’s 40-year IVF history, we have seen reports of other errors in Australian clinics. These include the alleged use of the wrong donor sperm, embryos being destroyed due to contamination, and inaccurate genetic testing which resulted in the destruction of potentially viable embryos.
In the UK, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s most recent report states there was one Grade A incident in 2023–24. This was the first Grade A incident reported since 2019–20 when there were two.
In the US, some notable errors include storage tank malfunctions in two clinics which destroyed thousands of eggs and embryos.
Lawsuits have also been filed for embryo mix-ups. In a 2023 case, a woman from Georgia delivered a Black baby even though she and her sperm donor are both white. The biological parents subsequently demanded custody of the child. Despite wanting to raise him the woman who had given birth gave up the five-month-old boy to avoid a legal fight she couldn’t win, she said.
There’s no global data on IVF errors, so we don’t know how common they are. SeventyFour/Shutterstock
Are IVF errors preventable?
Despite Australia’s stringent regulation and oversight of the IVF industry, an incident with far-reaching psychological and potentially legal consequences has occurred.
Until the independent investigation reveals how “human error” caused this mix-up, it’s not possible to say what additional measures Monash IVF should take to ensure this never happens again.
An IVF laboratory is a high-pressure environment, and any investigation should look at whether staffing levels are adequate. Staff training is also relevant, and it’s essential all junior lab staff have adequate supervision.
Finally, perhaps Australia should adopt the UK’s model and make data about adverse events reported to the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee available to the public in an annual report. To reassure the public, this report could include what measures clinics take to avoid the errors happening again.
Karin Hammarberg is affiliated with Monash University, which is not connected with Monash IVF and the incident mentioned in the article.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on April 14, 2025.
Curious Kids: If you scoop a bucket of water out of the ocean, does it get lower? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dylan Irvine, Outstanding Future Researcher – Northern Water Futures, Charles Darwin University Lizzie Lamont/Shutterstock If you scoop a bucket of water out of the ocean, does it get lower? –Ellis, 6 and a half, Hobart This is a great question Ellis! The short answer is yes, but
The Family Court could better protect Indigenous women and children, but there are barriers in the way Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heather Douglas, Professor of Law and Deputy Director of the Centre of Excellence for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (CEVAW), The University of Melbourne Shutterstock The family law system is crucial for protecting women and children nationwide. With its combination of judicial oversight, counselling and alternative
Top unis have imposed new restrictions on campus protests. What does this mean for students, staff and democracy? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joo-Cheong Tham, Professor, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne A wave of restrictions on protesting has been rippling through Australia’s top universities. Over the past year, all of Australia’s eight top research universities (the Group of Eight) have individually increased restrictions on campus protests. The changes
Think your specialist is expensive? Look at what others are paying Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yuting Zhang, Professor of Health Economics, The University of Melbourne PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock Seeing a medical specialist can leave you with significant out-of-pocket costs. Yet political parties have not adequately addressed this in their pre-election bids. Labor has promised A$7 million to expand the government’s Medical
Most bike lanes in inner Melbourne have less than 40% tree cover – that’ll get worse, new maps show Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Judy Bush, Senior DECRA Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne Unshaded cycling paths mean heat exposure on hot days, particularly for the afternoon commute. Judy Bush, CC BY Walking and cycling is good for people and the planet. But hot sunny days can make footpaths, bike lanes
Strongmen, Daggy Dads and State Daddies: how different styles of political masculinity play into Australian elections Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Blair Williams, Lecturer in Australian Politics, Monash University Australian politics has historically been a male domain with an overwhelmingly masculine culture. Manhood and a certain kind of masculinity are still considered integral to a leader’s political legitimacy. Yet leadership masculinity changes along party lines. We are now
Post-election tax reform is the key to reversing Australia’s growing wealth divide Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Hodgson, Professor, Curtin Law School and Curtin Business School, Curtin University Federal elections always offer the opportunity for a reset. Whoever wins the May 3 election should consider a much needed revamp of the tax system, which is no longer fit for purpose. The biggest challenge
Productivity reform has been put in the too-hard basket for years. Here’s why leaders leave it alone Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lachlan Vass, Fellow, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University National licensing of electricians has been one of the few productivity reforms of recent years. Shutterstock The federal election leaders’ and treasurers’ debates last week covered many topics: from Trump’s tariffs
Newspoll steady but Albanese’s ratings jump; swing to Labor in marginal seats 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 A national Newspoll, conducted April 7–10 from a sample of 1,271, gave Labor a 52–48 lead, unchanged since the March 31 to April 4 Newspoll. Primary votes
Fresh details emerge on Australia’s new climate migration visa for Tuvalu residents ANALYSIS: By Jane McAdam, UNSW Sydney The details of a new visa enabling Tuvaluan citizens to permanently migrate to Australia were released this week. The visa was created as part of a bilateral treaty Australia and Tuvalu signed in late 2023, which aims to protect the two countries’ shared interests in security, prosperity and stability,
Labor and Coalition support for new home buyers welcome but other Australians also struggling with housing affordability Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Cull, Associate Professor, Western Sydney University doublelee/Shutterstock There is no denying housing reform is urgently needed in Australia to make housing more affordable and accessible to everyday Australians. Both major parties have now announced the incentives they are offering to help first-home buyers. While both Labor
Voters have a clear choice. Labor’s long term and equitable tax reform or the Coalition’s big but one-off tax cuts Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University Tang Yan Song The election campaign has erupted into a economic battleground as Labor and the Coalition unveiled major new tax policies at their campaign launches. Each policy package is aimed at addressing the mounting cost-of-living pressures facing millions of
Accra is a tough city to walk in: how city planners can fix the problem Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Seth Asare Okyere, Visiting lecturer, University of Pittsburg and Adjunct Associate Professor, Osaka University, University of Pittsburgh Humans are walking beings. Walking is intrinsically linked to our physical development from childhood and enables our connections with people and places. We can say it is essential to our
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heather Douglas, Professor of Law and Deputy Director of the Centre of Excellence for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (CEVAW), The University of Melbourne
The family law system is crucial for protecting women and children nationwide. With its combination of judicial oversight, counselling and alternative dispute resolution, the family court can offer meaningful support to parents in complex situations. But First Nations families may be missing out.
We partnered with Women’s Legal Services Australia to prepare a new review. The review highlights that First Nations women may face barriers to accessing the family law system, especially when they have experienced family violence.
Our research
Family law courts in Australia handle matters such as where children live and who has contact with them. They also deal with finance and property disputes within families, and family violence.
In our research, we reviewed the existing literature and family court cases to see how First Nations people have interacted with the family law system.
While 7% of family court final order applications in 2023–2024 included a First Nations litigant, we suggest the family law system may be underutilised by Indigenous women. There are several factors that point to this.
One is the rate of out-of-home care. First Nations children make up 44.5% of children in out-of-home care nationally. Engaging with the family law system may reduce these rates.
Another is the prevalence of Indigenous families with a single parent. Nearly 45% of First Nations children under 15-years-old live in single-parent households.
People in these households may need to negotiate safe contact arrangements for their children with other family members. The family law system can play an important role for these families.
And we know family violence is present in 83% of parenting proceedings in the family courts. First Nations women are at a higher risk of family violence than non-First Nations women, often perpetrated by a non-First Nations partner. The family law system must take account of family violence when making orders.
It therefore may be reasonable to expect a higher proportion of First Nations people to use the family law system. So what’s stopping them?
First Nations women may fear the family law system because of negative experiences with these other processes, including genuine fears about child removal.
Research shows parts of the legal system often fail First Nations women who have experienced family violence.
The family law system relies on people making their own application to enter the system. Prior bad experiences of other legal systems are likely to affect people’s willingness to use family law.
Family law is different from other parts of the legal system. In criminal law and family violence protection orders, for instance, the state brings First Nations people into the legal system. This happens through police charging people, or police applying for family violence protection orders on behalf of a victim-survivor.
We know in some civil law processes where the person must make the application, like debt recovery, First Nations people are less likely than non-First Nations people to report or make an application.
Structural issues
Child protection matters often overlap with family law matters. The law has changed to require child protection authorities to share information when the family courts request it.
Agencies that support First Nations women are also required to report particular concerns to child protection authorities. These factors may contribute to First Nations women being reluctant to apply to the family law system for fear their children will be removed.
In some research, interview participants referred to an “erosion of trust and disengagement of victims” from services as a result of mandatory reporting.
Systemic racism, biases and discrimination identified in other legal systems may also affect First Nations women’s experiences in family law. This may lead them to disengage, or not engage the next time they have concerns about their children’s safety.
When First Nations women who have experienced family violence do engage with the family law system, this is sometimes because their non-First Nations partner makes an application. When this happens, research suggests the family law system may give more weight to the non-First Nations party’s version of events.
Improving the system
The family law system is making efforts to improve access for First Nations people.
There is now a requirement for family courts to consider how parenting arrangements will help Aboriginal children to remain in contact with culture, community, family, language and Country.
Indigenous Lists also exist in specific courts where cases involving First Nations parties are heard on a particular day and specialised support is available.
We need to find out more about how effective these measures are and what else needs to change so the family law system can best support First Nations women.
We also need to know more about how to support First Nations women in the family courts when the other party is a non-First Nations person. For most couples across Australia that include an Indigenous person, the other person is non-First Nations.
The family law system holds real potential to be a proactive and protective pathway for more First Nations women concerned about their own safety and their children’s safety. Our continuing research hopes to show how this potential may be realised.
13YARN is a free and confidential 24/7 national crisis support line for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are feeling overwhelmed or having difficulty coping. Call 13 92 76.
Heather Douglas receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Kyllie Cripps receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a number of projects she is involved with.
Samantha O’Donnell receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Samantha O’Donnell also volunteers for the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre.
If you scoop a bucket of water out of the ocean, does it get lower?
–Ellis, 6 and a half, Hobart
This is a great question Ellis! The short answer is yes, but the change in water level will be extremely tiny. You can actually test this idea at home.
For starters, you’ll need a glass of water and a teaspoon. Fill the glass almost to the top, and take note of the water level. Now, carefully remove a teaspoon of water. Can you see the difference in the water level? Maybe you can, but maybe not.
You could repeat this experiment in the kitchen sink, or a bathtub if you have one. The key point is that the water level does drop, but only by a very small amount. If you scoop a teaspoon of water out of the bathtub, you probably won’t see the difference with the naked eye.
Millions of buckets
So, let’s return to the ocean. It’s truly huge, especially compared to a bucket.
Let’s say that you have a bucket that fits ten litres. Using the information here, there are about 137 million, million, million buckets of water in the ocean (that is, all of Earth’s oceans combined).
I crunched the numbers. If you took a bucket of water from the ocean, the water level would drop by around 0.0000000000277 millimetre. You can see how small a millimetre is on your school ruler. We don’t have anything on Earth that can measure anything this small. For example, this is way, way, way smaller than even a single atom.
So, the more detailed answer to your question is: yes, the water level gets lower, but by such a small amount that we can’t even measure it.
But wait, there’s more
Earth is a really interesting place. When you take your bucket of water, all that water is moving through something called the water cycle.
However, most of the evaporated water rains back down directly onto the ocean, or onto the ground, with that water making its way to rivers that eventually flow to the ocean. There is also a lot of water stored underground, and some of it makes its way to the ocean, as well.
So, if you poured your bucket of water onto the ground, eventually it would end up back in the ocean via the water cycle!
A few fun facts
There’s a lot to know about water. Some more fun facts (and big numbers):
There are 1,500,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water (H₂O) in a single drop of water. That’s 1.5 million, million, million.
The oldest water in the world is estimated to have fallen as rain more than 1.6 billion years ago.
Most (about 98%) of the world’s fresh, liquid water is underground – that’s why it’s called groundwater.
Dylan Irvine receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Cooperative Research Centre program, the National Water Grid Authority and the Ian Potter Foundation. This article is independent of these funded research activities.
A wave of restrictions on protesting has been rippling through Australia’s top universities.
Over the past year, all of Australia’s eight top research universities (the Group of Eight) have individually increased restrictions on campus protests.
In the 1960s and ‘70s, they were a breeding ground for social protest, including rallies against apartheid and the Vietnam War, and in favour of women’s rights. In more recent years, students have protested on key social, political and environmental issues, from university fees to the invasion of Iraq and climate action.
The changes across the Group of Eight mean students announcing a rally for climate action in class now risk disciplinary action at some universities. Sit-ins calling on universities to divest from weapon companies are no longer permitted at others. At some campuses, union members going to stop-work meetings to protest staff cuts could be engaging in employee misconduct.
The legal basis of the restrictions
Australian universities are typically set up under state legislation and through this have broad powers to regulate campus protests.
Universities in South Australia and Victoria also have powers under state legislation to make university statutes and regulations.
The protest restrictions have relied on a mix of these powers.
Could these changes be challenged?
But these restrictions are also subject to enterprise agreements made under the federal Fair Work Act which protect academic and intellectual freedom. For example, the University of Sydney’s enterprise agreement entitles staff to:
express opinions about the operation of the university and higher education policy in general
express unpopular or controversial views, provided that in doing so staff must not engage in harassment, vilification or intimidation.
This means both the Fair Work Act and Constitution may provide grounds for a legal challenge to many of these new restrictions. The High Court has previously ruled restrictions on protest must be proportionate and necessary for preventing harm and damage.
The protest restrictions also implicate various human rights. Under international law, which Australia has ratified, staff and students have freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly. As workers, staff have freedom of association through trade unions, including the right to organise.
Many of these measures would seem to restrict activities where there is no or little threat to safety. In some cases, there are arguably excessive and disproportionate means to ensure safety.
What will happen now?
Some university students, staff and unions have opposed these protest restrictions.
Given the doubts over their legality, court challenges may be on the horizon. It is also possible some groups will actively test these restrictions.
But we may see a chilling effect on university activism and protests, when individuals would otherwise speak their minds on campus. Some staff may be worried they will lose their jobs. Students may be also worried about academic penalties or expulsion and the impact on their future careers.
This undermines universities as a place where people talk, debate and test ideas as a key part of the learning and research process – and a vital component of our democracy.
Joo-Cheong Tham has been an employee of the University of Melbourne for more than two decades. During this time, he has participated in campus protests at the university that would now be banned by the university’s protest restrictions.
He is the Victorian Division Assistant Secretary (Academic Staff) of the National Tertiary Education Union; a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia; a Director of the Centre for Public Integrity; and an Expert Network Member of Climate Integrity.
Joo-Cheong has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, European Trade Union Institute, International IDEA, the New South Wales Electoral Commission, the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Victorian Electoral Commission.
Unshaded cycling paths mean heat exposure on hot days, particularly for the afternoon commute.Judy Bush, CC BY
Walking and cycling is good for people and the planet. But hot sunny days can make footpaths, bike lanes and city streets unbearable. Climate change will only make matters worse.
So city planners and decision-makers need to provide adequate shade for walking, cycling and other forms of active transport – including from good tree canopy cover.
Unfortunately, our recent research reveals Melbourne’s transport strategy and its separate strategy to increase canopy cover from 22% to 40% by 2040 aren’t currently working together.
Our research found most bicycle lanes in inner Melbourne today have less than 40% canopy cover. And as the maps below show, future bicycle lanes will have even less. There’s plenty of room for improvement.
Searching for shady lanes
We used the City of Melbourne as a case study to explore bikeability, tree cover and health.
The city council area covers 37 square kilometres, taking in suburbs from leafy Parkville to industrial Fishermans Bend.
When we mapped tree canopy cover against the active transport network, we found most bicycle lanes have less than 40% canopy cover. Some cycling corridors – such as along Royal Parade and parts of St Kilda Road – stand out with relatively high canopy cover. But they are few and far between.
Existing bike lanes
Most bicycle lanes in the City of Melbourne have less than 40% tree cover. Crystal Tang
And it’s about to get worse.
Bicycle lanes proposed for construction have lower overall tree canopy coverage than existing lanes, particularly in urban renewal areas in post-industrial precincts such as Fishermans Bend and Docklands.
Along Royal Parade and St Kilda Road corridors, additional bicycle lanes are proposed next to existing lanes. However, in current conditions, the proposed new bicycle lanes have lower canopy coverage than existing bicycle lanes along the same corridor.
Proposed bike lanes
Proposed future bicycle lanes have even less tree cover than existing bike lanes. Crystal Tang
The city’s strategies don’t match up
We also examined the city’s transport and urban forest strategies. The latter includes the council’s ambitious goal to increase canopy cover to 40% by 2040.
We found both the transport and urban forest policies recognise that they can contribute to the health and wellbeing of city residents, workers and visitors. They also acknowledge the health risks associated with lack of physical activity, such as heart disease, lung disease and diabetes. But there are key gaps.
The transport strategy broadly refers to climate change, but does not mention urban heat.
In contrast, addressing urban heat is one of the main stated aims of the urban forest strategy. But there’s only a passing reference to encouraging outdoor activity and exercise.
There are signs though that this may be changing – in 2022, Melbourne has joined a handful of other cities worldwide in appointing chief heat officers to focus planning and action for cooler cities.
Planning for more trees
Trees need sufficient space for healthy growth. This includes space below ground for a strong and stable root system as well as room to grow up and spread out.
For street trees, extra care must be taken to facilitate this growth. The locations of other infrastructure, both above- and below-ground, need to be taken into account.
Smaller trees may be more appropriate in some urban areas, particularly where overhead powerlines require clearance, but obviously these trees will provide less canopy. Likewise, healthy tree root development can be disrupted by underground services, unless high quality soil and sufficient space is allocated.
To ensure trees are still thriving in 50 or even 100 years time, planners also need to select species that can withstand hotter and drier conditions.
Reducing the amount of heat roads and other hard surfaces absorb eases what’s known as the urban heat island effect, in which cities experience warmer temperatures than green spaces.
Climate change is increasing the frequency and duration of heatwaves. This adds to the pressure on Australia’s health services, including ambulances and emergency departments. If current rates of climate change continue, Victorians are likely to experience twice the annual number of very hot days by the 2050s, compared with 1985-2005.
All of this means walking or riding in the absence of shade can expose people to heat-related illness and even premature death.
Canopy trees create cooler cycling conditions. Judy Bush
Better planning for liveable cities
Our research shows planning policies must work together more effectively for liveable cities. This is particularly important when it comes to building new infrastructure such as roads, bicycle lanes and footpaths.
Proactively planning for more trees in these spaces can promote healthy tree growth, with benefits for human health in cooler cities.
And while we can plant trees next to bike lanes for future shade, the need to protect cyclists from heat now means we should locate bike lanes along existing shaded streets.
City planners and decision-makers need to ensure the places we live, work and play are designed to promote active transport. That means ensuring transport routes align with our urban forest.
Acknowledgements: thanks to Bachelor of Design, Urban Planning (Honours) student Crystal Tang who carried out the research that underpins this article.
Judy Bush is the recipient of a Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (2024-27) from the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the Planning Institute of Australia and the Ecological Society of Australia.
Crystal Tang undertook the data collection and analysis as part of her B.Des (Hons), supervised by Judy.
Seeing a medical specialist can leave you with significant out-of-pocket costs. Yet political parties have not adequately addressed this in their pre-election bids.
During a cost-of-living crisis, this is a major omission.
Specialists’ fees are high, vary across specialties and across geographical regions.
That’s what we found when we used actual Medicare data to map costs across Australia to see a specialist doctor.
What we did and what we found
We used data from the national 2023 Medicare Benefits Schedule (or MBS) accessed from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We calculated mean (average) fees charged by doctors in 17 specialties for initial face-to-face appointments after a GP referral.
Under MBS billing rules, different specialties use different item numbers (104 or 110) for an initial consultation. These attracted a different Medicare schedule fee ($91.80 and $161.90, respectively, as of January 2023). These schedule fees are what Medicare considers a fair price for doctors to charge.
Most patients pay the gap between 85% of the Medicare schedule fee and the specialist’s fee. This is their out-of-pocket cost. But that percentage can differ, depending on the circumstances. So not all patients have the same out-of-pocket costs for the same consultation.
We only looked at fees charged by private specialists at private clinics. We didn’t include free specialist care in public clinics. Nor did we look at GP fees.
We then looked at how specialists’ fees varied by patients’ geographical location to create some maps.
Use the map below to search for mean specialists’ fees and mean out-of-pocket costs for cardiology, rheumatology, neurology, and oral and maxillofacial surgery.
Specialist fees varied substantially. On average, rheumatology had the highest fees, followed by neurology and immunology. Oral and maxillofacial surgery had the lowest fees, followed by general surgery.
Some specialties used the item number that attracted the $91.80 Medicare schedule fee. But almost all these specialists (except for general surgery) charged more than twice this amount (an average $183.60) in at least 80% of geographical areas.
Other specialties used the item number that attracted the $161.90 Medicare schedule fee. This included rheumatologists, which charged an average of over $323.80 (twice the schedule fee) in 17.6% of geographical areas. Neurologists charged the same amount in 19.2% of geographical areas.
Which parts of the country had the highest fees?
Certain states and territories consistently had higher fees for some specialties. For example:
cardiology was most expensive in Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory and Queensland
orthopaedics was most expensive in ACT, New South Wales and Queensland
obstetrics was most expensive in ACT, WA and NSW.
High fees matter
Higher specialists’ fees directly translate to patients’ higher out-of-pocket costs. That’s because Medicare rebates are fixed, and private health insurance does not cover out-of-hospital consultations.
If patients avoid their initial consultation due to cost, their health can worsen over time, potentially leading to more expensive treatments later.
Higher specialists’ fees and the barrier to care could also entrench inequalities. That’s because people in lower socioeconomic groups already tend to have worse health.
What can I do?
You can use our maps to look at what specialists charge near you. Although the maps use 2023 data and look at average fees and out-of-pocket costs, you can get a general idea. Then you can call specialists’ offices and the receptionist will tell you how much the doctor charges for an initial appointment.
If there are several referral options, comparing fees will help you make an informed decision about your health care, alongside wait times, geographical location, quality of care and other factors. You can discuss these issues with your GP so they can refer you to the best available specialist for your circumstances.
What else can we do?
1. Make fees transparent
Patients often do not know how much a specialist consultation costs until they arrive at the doctor’s office. GPs typically do not refer to specialists based on their fees and often don’t know them anyway.
The government’s Medical Costs Finder website relies on doctors voluntarily reporting their fees. But only a few report them.
If re-elected, the Labor government says it will upgrade the website to display the average fee charged by every eligible specialist (other than GPs) using Medicare data, without asking doctors to spend time inputting their fees.
This is a welcome move. But the government should also mandate disclosure of fees on the website, which would be more up-to-date than looking back through past Medicare data.
2. Doctors need more advice, and can help
Specialists in Australia can charge what they like, and as we’ve found, sometimes way above the Medicare schedule fee.
But professional medical colleges can provide guides on how to set “reasonable” fees. They can also develop codes of conduct about fee practices, and counsel members who consistently charge high fees.
Once specialists’ fees are more transparent, GPs can inform patients about fee variations and options for more affordable care.
3. We need more public clinics
Government could also open more public clinics that offer free specialist care for those who cannot afford large gap fees in private clinics. This type of investment may be warranted in some low-socioeconomic areas if we’re aiming for all Australians to receive the specialist care they need.
Yuting Zhang has received funding from the Australian Research Council (future fellowship project ID FT200100630), Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Victorian Department of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council and Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network. In the past, Professor Zhang has received funding from several US institutes including the US National Institutes of Health, Commonwealth fund, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She has not received funding from for-profit industry including the private health insurance industry.
Chenhao Liang 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.
Federal elections always offer the opportunity for a reset. Whoever wins the May 3 election should consider a much needed revamp of the tax system, which is no longer fit for purpose.
The biggest challenge that should be addressed through tax reform is the level of inequality in Australian society.
The five-yearly Intergenerational Reports lay bare the intergenerational squeeze. The future burden of supporting the ageing population will increasingly fall on younger Australians who generally don’t enjoy the same financial wellbeing of previous generations.
But there is also rising inequality within generations. Not all younger Australians can rely on inherited wealth, including the bank of mum and dad. And superannuation balances at retirement vary wildly, given they are tied to work history.
Proper systemic tax reform would play a crucial role building a fairer society.
Reform freeze
But to define what is meant by tax reform, we need to think about some of the big picture concerns that affect our economy.
Arguably we have not successfully pursued a tax reform agenda since the introduction of the GST in 2000. Various governments have changed the tax rates, but that doesn’t constitute genuine reform.
The Henry Review, commissioned by the Rudd government, set out the long-term horizon for reform – including resource taxes and road user charges for the transition to a net-zero economy. However, the Henry blueprint has not been adopted by any succeeding government.
Politicians like to boast of “reform agendas”. Despite the political rhetoric, the tax system has not yet adapted to the 21st century.
Wealth inequality
The biggest gap in our tax base relates to the concessional taxation of wealth and assets, which is an area ripe for reform.
According to the Treasury, the top six revenue losers all relate to superannuation, capital gains and negative gearing. In 2024–25, the estimated revenue foregone for these concessions are:
$29 billion for the concessional taxation of employer superannuation contributions
$27 billion for the main residence Capital Gains Tax exemption (discount component)
$26 billion for rental deductions (this is partly offset by rental income)
$24.5 billion for main residence Capital Gains Tax exemption
$22.73 billion for CGT discount for individuals and trusts
$22.2 billion for the concessional taxation of superannuation earnings
The distributional analysis for superannuation and the Capital Gains Tax discount shows the greatest benefit goes to older taxpayers in the higher earnings brackets. So wealth inequality is perpetuated.
Addressing these overgenerous concessions to broaden the tax base should be the starting point for any meaningful reform in this country.
Taking another look at death duties, which were abolished from the late 1970s, should also be considered.
Death duties were applied to assets transferred to beneficiaries on death. If they were reimposed with a starting threshold set at an appropriate level, they would limit the intergenerational transfer of wealth, which is generating much of the inequity.
Wealth creation tools
The Capital Gains Tax discount was introduced following the 1999 Ralph Review to direct productive capital into Australian businesses.
The 50% discount sparked the boom in residential investment, which combined with negative gearing, has supercharged the inefficiencies in our housing market.
Superannuation is another wealth-creation tool. Again, the design of superannuation, whereby tax was paid at 15% on the three stages of contributions – investment, earnings and withdrawal – was subverted in search of simplicity in 2007 when the Howard government exempted superannuation withdrawals from tax.
Case study
By comparison, the age pension is taxable, if the recipient earns other income. So too are earnings from work allowed under Centrelink rules. This not only allows estate planning advantages, but creates an unfair outcome for retirees who have not had the opportunity to accumulate substantial balances.
Consider the cases of “Jean” and “Kim”, who are both single homeowners aged 68.
Jean has no financial assets and receives the full pension of $1,194 per fortnight plus $512 per fortnight from part-time work. She has a taxable income of $43,816 per annum and, after tax offsets, pays $2,595 in tax including $209.70 medicare levy.
Kim has a superannuation balance of $880,000 and draws a super pension of $44,000. Kim is not eligible for the pension, but pays no tax and no medicare levy.
Is our tax system really delivering a fair go for all Australians?
Tax relief is not reform
Ahead of election day, both the government and opposition are promising tax handouts. Labor is offering top-up tax cuts starting July 1 2026. The coalition says it will temporarily halve the fuel excise.
But meaningful reform will not be achieved by politicians trading off various interest groups to win votes.
Nor do we need yet another review: many of the solutions to Australia’s tax problem were identified by the Henry Review 15 years ago.
And we must avoid cherry-picking incentives that lead to perverse outcomes. For example, cutting fuel excise will slow down the transition to a net zero economy.
Consensus needed
Whoever forms government after the election could build a coalition of business and community sector leaders to seek consensus and pursue holistic reform. The focus must be on addressing the inequality that is emerging as a challenge to the economy and our way of life.
As Ken Henry recently stated, successive governments have fuelled inequality by failing to do three things
one, manage financial risks arising from the erosion of the tax base; two, maintain the integrity of the tax system; and three, have regard to intergenerational equity.
Without significant tax reform, Australia’s wealth divide will continue to deepen with young people and future generations left to suffer the brunt.
This is the sixth article in our special series, Australia’s Policy Challenges. You can read the other articles here
Helen Hodgson has received funding from the ARC, AHURI and CPA Australia. Helen is the Chair of the Social Policy Committee and a Director of the National Foundation for Australian Women (NFAW). Helen was a Member of the WA Legislative Council in WA from 1997 to 2001, elected as an Australian Democrat. She is not a current member of any political party. She is a Registered Tax Agent and a member of the SMSF Association, CPA Australia and The Tax Institute. Helen has superannuation with Unisuper and jointly owns positively geared rental properties.
Australian politics has historically been a male domain with an overwhelmingly masculine culture. Manhood and a certain kind of masculinity are still considered integral to a leader’s political legitimacy.
Yet leadership masculinity changes along party lines. We are now halfway through the election campaign and can already see differences in the masculine performances of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.
State Daddy versus Strongman Tough Cop
In a recent open-access study, I identified the emergence of two Australian political masculinities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
First, the traditional “Daggy Dad” of former Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison, centred around the nuclear family and paternalistic protection.
Second, the “State Daddy”, embodied by Labor leaders such as Albanese, who perform a more compassionate masculinity focused on social provision. In the 2022 election, Albanese effectively used his caring masculinity against Morrison’s faltering protective paternalism, highlighting many of Morrison’s weaknesses and especially his unpopularity with women.
The 2025 election is shaping up to be another “gender election”, this time between the State Daddy and the Strongman Tough Cop.
Albanese and Dutton’s adoption of certain masculine identities reveals not only how they want to be perceived but also how they envision the electorate, the nation, and its defining values.
Dutton is a “tough-nut” conservative who portrays himself as a “strongman” protector. His leadership masculinity combines that of several other Liberal leaders, notably John Howard. But his conservatism is more reactionary, focusing less on economics and more on stoking culture wars.
Like Tony Abbott, he is a pugilistic opposition leader who promises to keep Australians safe while reinforcing fear and uncertainty. Following Morrison’s lead, Dutton also targets outer-suburban electorates that traditionally vote Labor.
His plan is to tap into voters’ anxiety and offer his “strongman” masculinity as its antidote. Since becoming leader, Dutton has frequently attempted to emasculate Albanese, labelling him “weak”, “woke”, and too preoccupied with “elite” issues, such as the Voice Referendum, to tackle the cost-of-living crisis.
Dutton positions himself as the traditional masculine protector of the nation. The mobilisation of fear of a threat, real or imagined, is core to this identity. Dutton vows to protect Australians by being tough on crime, immigration and “wokeness”.
Yet his strongman persona and conservative policies do not resonate with women, who fear he will follow Trump’s lead on gutting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives or cuts to the public service and rights to work from home.
The strongman protective persona is aimed at men in the outer suburbs, especially those at risk of voting Labor.
In contrast, Albanese’s State Daddy masculinity targets women over men and seeks to inspire hope, care, and a collective response. The focus is on issues of equality, embodying a caring masculinity to rival traditional conservative masculine identities.
Physical attractiveness is integral to the State Daddy image. For example, before the 2022 election, Albanese underwent what is colloquially termed a “glow up”.
Seeking to appeal to the female gaze, he gave an “at home” interview for The Australian Women’s Weekly. These images are a useful tool for State Daddies for two reasons. First, to physically differentiate them from the dishevelled look preferred by conservative political leaders, such as Morrison, Boris Johnson or Donald Trump. Second, to visually signal their commitment to women voters.
Both the Daggy Dad and Strongman Tough Cop often fall short. They claim to provide financial and physical protection to citizens, but only in exchange for subordination to their masculine authority. These limitations are often exposed when it’s necessary to protect citizens during crises such as, in Morrison’s case, bushfires, flood or plague. This protector masculinity fundamentally fails to recognise citizens’ needs and exposes the empty rhetoric at the core of protectionism.
Who can we see at the 2025 election?
Albanese is a far less popular leader than he was in 2022, for many reasons. However, the ALP are again campaigning on boosting the care economy, with major commitments to health care, aged care, and childcare. These are primarily women-dominated industries that Dutton, like Morrison before him, has repeatedly failed to support and engage.
In contrast, Dutton was forced into an embarrassing back-down on a promise to end work-from-home arrangements for public servants, 57% of whom are women.
Distracting from the Coalition’s long-standing “women problem”— which in part cost them the 2022 election — Dutton has been implying that Albanese’s “wokeness” has left men behind.
Taking a page from the Trump playbook, Dutton has appeared on podcasts targeting mainly male audiences. On one appearance, he made a pitch to young male voters, noting: “Young males feel disenfranchised [and] ostracised”. He sympathised with the “anti-woke revolution” and argued that young men are “fed up” with “woke” practices.
Albanese, meanwhile, has appeared on podcasts targeting mainly women audiences, including Abbie Chatfield’s “It’s A Lot” or Cheek Media’s podcast. He spoke about Labor’s policies supporting women’s health in areas including endometriosis care, contraceptives and menopause.
It’s clear that both leaders are targeting very different parts of the voter bloc, in policy platforms and social media strategies.
Blair Williams 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 Lachlan Vass, Fellow, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
National licensing of electricians has been one of the few productivity reforms of recent years.Shutterstock
The federal election leaders’ and treasurers’ debates last week covered many topics: from Trump’s tariffs to the cost of living, energy supply and excise tax.
But one of the most consequential things for Australia’s future prosperity was not mentioned – what either a Labor or Coalition government plans to do to kick-start productivity growth.
It’s usually at this point – seeing the word “productivity” – that people switch off. So bear with me a minute.
Productivity is a much-maligned term, often thought to mean people working harder or longer. But that’s not what it means.
Being more productive means getting more for the same amount of work – working smarter, not longer. For example, in 1901 it took 18 minutes of an average worker’s time to be able to afford a loaf of bread.
Thanks to improvements in efficiency (think using a dough hook rather than hand-kneading) and rising wages, today it takes around four minutes of work to afford a loaf.
Why it matters to you
Productivity growth matters. Increasing output and decreasing prices is the main driver of increasing real incomes in the long term. It means you’re able to purchase more (or better quality) goods and services as their relative costs go down and incomes increase.
But Australia’s productivity growth is languishing. Reserve Bank analysis highlights that labour productivity grew only 0.2% per year over the six years to June 2024. The escalating global tariff war, and associated uncertainty, will threaten this further.
Poor productivity growth also has significant implications for the federal budget. The budget papers showed that a forecast return to a balanced budget in a decade’s time is premised on a productivity growth assumption of 1.2% per year – which is optimistic.
Recent analysis from the e61 Institute shows even a slightly more realistic assumption of 1% would increase the budget deficit by 0.4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and push out the return to budget balance.
What about all the inquiries?
So what can we do about it? Fortunately, the Productivity Commission has delivered several reports that deep dive into the problems and potential solutions.
The most recent report, Advancing Prosperity, was delivered to the government in 2023. It provided 29 reform directions and 71 individual recommendations, across over 1,000 pages of analysis.
While a small number of these have been picked up by governments, such as reforms to the temporary skilled migration system, the vast majority remain on the shelf.
These are steps in the right direction, but relatively small ones. We need policies to tilt our economy towards being more flexible and adaptable, allowing us to take advantage of whatever the next world-changing idea or technology is.
Lots of talk, not much action
So why have we seen so little action on productivity reforms, and why is neither side of politics talking about our productivity problem?
There are a few likely reasons.
Firstly, as economists often like to remind people, incentives matter. Politicians are no different to the rest of us in that they respond to the incentives they face. And often productivity-enhancing reforms come with short-term costs (political, economic or social), while the benefits don’t tend to materialise until the longer term.
With politicians (understandably) focused on re-election every three years, the prospect of incurring a clear short-term cost for a longer-term benefit isn’t always a tempting one.
Secondly, the impact of productivity-enhancing reforms tend to be more uncertain than other policies.
For example, if we increase the level of JobSeeker payments, we can be fairly certain that those on JobSeeker will be able to consume more. While we may be confident about the direction of the impact of productivity reforms – such as improving the ability of the workers to find the firms that they best match with – it is harder to be certain about the size of this impact.
This makes it more difficult to concretely claim an individual policy reform will have benefits that clearly and significantly outweigh the costs.
No silver bullet on reform
Finally, when it comes to productivity-enhancing reform, there is no single silver bullet. Modern productivity reform requires a collection of policies enacted together, which may be politically more difficult due to the larger number of potentially negatively affected groups.
So what can we do to fix this? As constituents if you’re door-knocked or approached by politicians in the election campaign over the coming weeks, then make sure to ask them what their plans for reviving productivity growth are.
Longer term, it is incumbent upon researchers and policymakers to create the burning platform for why productivity-improving change is needed, and what this means.
There are many issues Australia faces, and politicians and citizens have limited bandwidth. We should work to better highlight and communicate the benefits and trade-offs, rather than bemoan the lack of action from politicians simply responding to incentives.
The author thanks Aaron Wong, senior economist at the e61 Institute, for their contribution to this article.
Lachlan Vass is affiliated with the e61 Institute.
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
A national Newspoll, conducted April 7–10 from a sample of 1,271, gave Labor a 52–48 lead, unchanged since the March 31 to April 4 Newspoll. Primary votes were 35% Coalition (down one), 33% Labor (steady), 12% Greens (steady), 8% One Nation (up one) and 12% for all Others (steady).
Anthony Albanese’s net approval jumped seven points to -4, his best net approval since May 2024. Peter Dutton’s net approval dropped two points to -19, his worst since September 2023. Albanese led Dutton as better PM by 49–38 (48–40 previously).
Leaders’ ratings changes may imply that future Newspolls will be better for Labor on voting intentions, but this doesn’t always happen. Here is the graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll this term. The plus signs are data points and a trend line has been fitted. Albanese’s ratings have surged from a low of -21 net approval in mid-February.
This Newspoll is the only new national poll since Friday’s article, but a Redbridge poll of marginal seats had a 1.5-point swing to Labor since the 2022 election, implying that Labor is gaining seats. Here is the national poll graph.
I believe Donald Trump is most responsible for Labor’s surge in the polls to a clear lead and a probable majority government (they won a majority in 2022 on the same primary vote Newspoll gives them). Albanese’s ratings have probably lifted owing to a favourable comparison between Albanese and Trump.
Coalition senator Jacinta Price’s use of “Make Australia Great Again” on Saturday, an echo of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan, will damage efforts by the Coalition to distance itself from Trump.
Asked what type of government they wanted after the election in Newspoll, 32% wanted a Labor majority, 32% a Coalition majority, 21% a Labor minority government and 15% a Coalition minority government. This means 64% wanted a Labor or Coalition majority, while 36% wanted a minority government. The overall 53–47 split for a Labor government nearly matches the 52–48 two-party estimate.
Redbridge marginal seats poll has swing to Labor
A poll of 20 marginal seats by Redbridge and Accent Research for the News Corp tabloids was conducted April 4–9 from a sample of 1,003. It gave Labor a 52.5–47.5 lead, a three-point gain for Labor since the late February marginal seats poll. Primary votes were 36% Coalition (down five), 35% Labor (up one), 12% Greens (steady) and 17% for all Others (up four).
The overall 2022 vote in these 20 seats was 51–49 to Labor, so this poll implies a 1.5-point swing to Labor from the 2022 election. If applied to the national 2022 result of 52.1–47.9 to Labor, Labor would lead by about 53.5–46.5.
Albanese’s net favourability improved three points since late February to -8, while Dutton’s was down five points to -16. Dutton led Albanese by 27–23 on best to manage the relationship with the US and Trump (31–22 previously). But if people really thought Dutton would be able to prevent Trump’s tariff chaos, voting intentions would not have shifted towards Labor.
On whether the US is a reliable partner and friend for Australia, 61% said it had been a reliable partner and friend, but less so now than it was, 18% said the US is still a reliable partner and friend, and 12% said it was never a reliable partner or friend.
Dutton may be trailing in Dickson, and other seat polls
Dutton won the Queensland seat of Dickson by 51.7–48.3 against Labor in 2022. The Poll Bludger reported Saturday that a uComms poll of Dickson for the Queensland Conservation Council, conducted April 9–10 from a sample of 854, gave Labor a 52–48 lead over Dutton.
In other Dickson seat polls, the Coalition said their own polling by Freshwater gave Dutton a 57–43 lead, a uComms poll for Climate 200 gave Labor a 51.7–48.3 lead and Labor’s polling had it tied 50–50. Seat polls are unreliable.
In the Western Australian Liberal-held seat of Forrest, a poll for Climate 200 gave a teal candidate a 51–49 lead over the Liberals. In the Tasmanian Labor-held seat of Lyons (50.9–49.1 to Labor in 2022), a uComms poll for the Australian Forest Products Association gave Labor a 50.9–49.1 lead over the Liberals.
In other seat-specific news, in the Victorian seat of Macnamara, Labor incumbent Josh Burns won’t recommend preferences on how to vote material between the Liberals and Greens. Previously Labor has recommended preferences to the Greens. It will be more difficult for the Greens to win Macnamara if the final two candidates are the Liberals and Greens.
Candidate nominations declared
Candidate nominations were declared on Friday. The Poll Bludger said there were 1,126 total candidates for the 150 House of Representatives seats, an average of 7.5 candidates per seat. That’s down from 1,203 total candidates in 2022, an average of 8.0 per seat.
Labor, the Greens and the Coalition will contest all 150 seats, One Nation 147 (all except the three ACT seats), Trumpet of Patriots 100 (down from contesting all seats under UAP in 2022), Family First 92, Libertarians 46 and Legalise Cannabis 42. There are a total of 132 independent candidates, up from 98 in 2022.
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.
