Humans evolved in an atmosphere containing roughly 200–300 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO₂). Today, that figure sits above 420 ppm, higher than at any point in the history of our species.

We know this extra CO₂ is contributing to climate change, but could it also be changing the chemistry of our bodies?

In our recently published research we looked at two decades of information from one of the biggest health datasets in the world to start answering this question. We found some concerning trends.

What we found

We analysed blood chemistry data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which collected samples from about 7,000 Americans every two years between 1999 and 2020. We looked at three markers: CO₂, calcium and phosphorus.

CO₂ is mainly carried in blood in the form of bicarbonate (HCO₃⁻).

When CO₂ enters the blood, it is converted to bicarbonate. This process largely occurs inside red blood cells, and also produces hydrogen ions.

During short-term exposure to increased CO₂, this can make blood more acidic, and result in a modest increase in bicarbonate levels in the blood (to reduce acidity).

If the exposure continues for a long time the kidneys reduce the amount of bicarbonate lost in urine and also produce more bicarbonate. This has the net effect of higher bicarbonate levels in the blood, to counteract the persistent acidity.

Levels of calcium and phosphorus in the blood may also be affected, as they too play a role in regulating acidity in the blood. These processes are completely normal.

Over the 21 years from 1999 to 2020, we found that average blood bicarbonate levels rose by about 7%. Over the same period, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations rose by a similar proportion.

Meanwhile, blood calcium levels dropped by about 2% and phosphorus by around 7%.

If these trends continue, blood bicarbonate levels may exceed healthy levels in around 50 years. Calcium and phosphorus levels may fall below healthy levels, too, by the end of the century.

Our hypothesis is that rising CO₂ exposure could be contributing to these trends.

What’s causing the changes?

It’s important to be clear about what this study does and doesn’t show. It identifies population-level trends in blood chemistry that parallel rising atmospheric CO₂.

But correlation is not causation. The study does not adjust for factors such as diet, kidney function, diuretic use or obesity, which can influence the measurements and should be considered in future analyses.

There are other plausible contributors. One important consideration is indoor air.

Participants in the NHANES study likely spend most of their time indoors, where CO₂ concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm in poorly ventilated spaces. Other studies show time spent indoors has increased over the past two decades.

The NHANES dataset doesn’t capture this parameter, so we can’t directly assess this contribution. However, if more time indoors is contributing, it means total CO₂ exposure is rising even faster than atmospheric trends suggest. This arguably reinforces rather than alleviates the concern.

Other factors, such as shifting dietary patterns, changing rates of obesity, differences in physical activity and even variations in sample collection or processing across survey cycles, could also be important.

Can our bodies cope?

Some critics have argued that, based on what we know about how our bodies manage blood chemistry, we should have no trouble compensating for future increases in atmospheric CO₂, even under worst-case climate scenarios. For example, the lungs can increase ventilation and the kidneys can adjust to produce more bicarbonate.

For most healthy individuals, small long-term increases in outdoor CO₂ are not expected to meaningfully change the levels of bicarbonate, calcium or phosphorus in the blood.

This makes the population-level trends we observed puzzling. They could reflect a confounding rather than a direct CO₂ effect, but they do highlight how little data we have on long-term, real-world exposure.

A lack of long-term data

The argument that we can cope easily with higher CO₂ is based on short-term responses. Whether the same reasoning applies when CO₂ levels are higher across a person’s entire life remains largely untested.

There is, however, a growing body of evidence across many species which shows that even modest, environmentally relevant increases in CO₂ can produce subtle but measurable physiological effects.

In humans, short-term exposure at concentrations commonly found indoors (1,000–2,500 ppm) has been linked to reduced cognitive performance and changes in brain activity, though the mechanisms aren’t fully understood.

These new findings highlight a gap in evidence about long-term, real-world CO₂ exposure and human physiology. Unfortunately, there simply aren’t any studies assessing the physiological effects of breathing slightly elevated CO₂ over a lifetime.

This is particularly important for children, who will experience the longest cumulative exposure. And that’s why it’s vital to investigate this area further.

What this means

Our findings are not suggesting people will become suddenly unwell when atmospheric CO₂ reaches a certain level. What the data show is a signal that warrants attention.

If rising atmospheric CO₂ is contributing to gradual shifts in blood chemistry at a population level, then the composition of the atmosphere should be monitored alongside traditional climate indicators as a potential factor in long-term public health.

Reducing CO₂ emissions remains crucial for limiting global warming. Our findings suggest it may also be important for safeguarding aspects of human health that we’re only just beginning to understand.

Alexander Larcombe, Associate Professor and Head of Respiratory Environmental Health, The Kids Research Institute Australia; Curtin University and Philip Bierwirth, Emeritus Research Associate, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Every pregnant woman wants to deliver a healthy baby. During labour and birth, women also want to feel listened to and respected, and to come out of the experience physically and emotionally well.

But around 28% of Australian women describe their most recent birth as traumatic.

Birth trauma can include fear for their life or their baby’s life, a loss of control, damage to the perineum or pelvic floor, disrespectful care, or mistreatment from health care providers.

Our new research paper examined birth outcomes and both physical and psychological experiences of women and babies who experienced five different types (or models) of care in Australia during the COVID pandemic.

We found that seeing the same midwife or team of midwives was associated with lower rates of intervention and birth trauma, compared with standard care.

And for some women, private obstetric care also led to lower rates of birth trauma than standard care in the public system. Let’s take a look.

Five main models of care

Most Australian women receive standard public care or GP shared care.

In standard public care, women see rotating hospital staff (midwives, obstetricians and at times, trainees) throughout pregnancy and often give birth with a midwife or doctor they’ve never met.

GP shared care is when there is an arrangement between a GP and hospital. Women see their GP most during pregnancy and hospital staff for some antenatal appointments. The GP doesn’t usually attend the birth, except in some rural, remote regions.

In continuity of care models, one or a small number of midwives and obstetricians deliver the majority of the care before, during and after birth. This includes continuity of:

• midwifery care in the public system
• private obstetric care
• private midwifery care.

When given a choice, women favour continuity of care models.

What our study found

Our study looked at the experiences of 3,682 Australian women who gave birth in 2020 and 2021.

Compared to women who had standard care, we found that those who had continuity of midwifery care (through the public system or a private midwife) were:

• less likely to be induced or have an oxytocin drip to speed up labour
• much more likely to have a vaginal birth
• more likely to have the midwife visit them at home after the birth
• less likely to have a caesarean section
• less likely to have their baby admitted to special or neonatal intensive care or receive formula in hospital when they had chosen to breastfeed
• half as likely to describe their birth as traumatic.

These differences were seen even after adjusting for differences in the groups that could affect outcomes, such as women’s age, medical risk, education, employment status, country of birth, income and mental health.

These findings line up with decades of evidence. A 2024 Cochrane review of 17 randomised controlled trials found midwifery continuity of care models reduce some birth interventions, including caesarean section, forceps and vacuum birth, and episiotomy (surgical cut to the perineum).

Our study also found that while women who had private obstetric care had higher rates of birth intervention, they had lower rates of birth trauma when compared to standard care. There was no difference in outcomes for the baby, such as admission to special care or neonatal intensive care.

This suggests when women’s choices align with their care provider’s philosophy, outcomes are better – even if intervention levels are higher. Some women seek, or are not concerned about, increased obstetric intervention. Continuity itself, regardless of who the lead health care professional is, reduces birth trauma.

What are the study’s limitations?

As with any study there are limitations. This study relied on women reporting their labour and birth outcomes, so there could be difficulties with recall that affected reporting of some health risks and other important information.

A high proportion of women responding (86%) were born in Australia and spoke English at home (92%) and only 2% were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, meaning the diversity of the Australian population is not represented.

We did not examine stillbirth or neonatal deaths as all the women responding to the survey had a live baby. So people still could have had those experiences but they weren’t captured in our data.

Why does continuity of care make a difference?

Continuity gives women a stable, familiar guide who knows their story, understands their concerns and advocates for them when the system is under strain.

It also allows for the kind of personalised care women consistently say they want and which midwives wish they could deliver more often.

Nearly half of all models of care (49%) have a midwife as the designated carer, with 16% having midwifery continuity of care throughout the maternity period.

However, midwifery continuity of care models are more common in urban centres and can be harder to access in rural and remote areas. Even in urban centres, not everyone who wants to access them can. The popularity of these programs means they fill up fast and many women miss out if they don’t book in when they are first pregnant.

Private obstetric and private midwifery models of care come with out of pocket costs and are not available everywhere. There are few private midwives and many struggle to get admitting rights into hospitals like doctors have.

The recent New South Wales Birth Trauma Inquiry recommended expanding continuity of care models to help reduce the high rates of birth trauma in Australia. Our study shows that this could make a significant difference.

Hannah Dahlen, Professor of Midwifery, Associate Dean Research and HDR, Midwifery Discipline Leader, Western Sydney University; Hazel Keedle, Associate Professor of Midwifery, Western Sydney University, and Kingsley Emwinyore Agho, Professor of Biostatistics and Global Health, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Over the past two years, viral clips, news headlines and TV series such as Adolescence have ensured much of the public has encountered the “manosphere” – an online ecosystem that repackages misogyny, anti-feminism and male grievance as self-improvement and hustle.

Journalist Louis Theroux is further lifting the lid on this dangerous ideology with his new Netflix documentary, Inside the Manosphere, in which he showcases the individuals driving this culture.

In his measured and sometimes risky style, Theroux traces not only the rhetoric of “high-value men”, but also the livestream formats and business models that sustain this world. The result is both illuminating and unsettling.

An insidious ideology

What emerges in Theroux’s exposé is not just provocation, but a clear misogynistic worldview. Across interviews and through influencers’ own content, we see the defence of a regressive gender hierarchy – and attempts to restore it.

Women are described as having innate value through their beauty and sexuality, yet dismissed as less rational and emotionally stable. Monogamy is framed as binding for women, but optional for men. Gender equality is blamed for cultural decline.

At times the language is openly authoritarian. Infamous influencer Myron Gaines describes himself to Theroux as a “dictator” in his romantic relationship. He casts intimacy as something he permits, and domestic care as something owed to men.

But Gaines also rejects that he is a misogynist; he claims he loves women, but that women don’t know what they want, and must be led.

The hypocrisy is striking. Several manosphere figures such as Harrison Sullivan publicly deride women who use platforms such as OnlyFans, while claiming to privately profit from managing their accounts.

Misogyny as a business model

Theroux also shows how the audiences of these influencers form.

In one early scene, young boys who look to be around tween age (with blurred faces) repeat lines about hating women and gay people with unsettling ease. Later, young adult men speak of having “no value” unless they accumulate wealth, status and dominance. Working a nine-to-five job is framed as submission to the “matrix” and the “hustle” as freedom.

The complaint that stable work no longer guarantees security will resonate with many. But in the manosphere, economic strain becomes personal failure: if you are struggling, you have not worked hard enough. This is not just ideology. It is a business model.

Subscription “academies”, private groups and coaching schemes convert insecurity into income. In one example from the documentary, we see American influencer Justin Waller promoting The Real World – an online university run by his close friend and business partner Andrew Tate (who is currently facing charges of rape and human trafficking in multiple countries).

Young men and boys are told they are deficient unless wealthy, muscular and emotionally invulnerable, and then charged for access to the mindset said to fix them. The hierarchy that elevates dominant men and denigrates women simultaneously and exploitatively monetises the boys beneath it.

The worldview is not confined to provocation. In one segment, Waller’s partner Kristen explains that she feels fulfilled staying in her “lane”, and caring for the children and home, while he occupies his role as provider and leader.

She speaks warmly of their respective “masculine and feminine energies”, presenting inequality not as constraint but as comfort – despite viewers learning she has no legal right to his wealth as they are not legally married.

Breeding ground for conspiracies

Running alongside the hustle narrative is a thread of conspiracy theorising. The “matrix” is invoked as a metaphor for societal and institutional systems said to keep men compliant and blind to alternative paths to power.

From there it darkens into talk of shadowy elites engineering cultural decline, including “moral” decline and the erosion of men’s place in the world (which they bizarrely link to the growth of pedophilia).

The “manfluencers”, notably Sullivan and Gaines, suggest recent political developments – such as the rise of President Trump – vindicate their worldview.

Theroux’s instinct is to return to the manfluencers’ own accounts of absent fathers and unstable upbringings. That humanising impulse tilts the story toward sympathy and, problematically, to trauma as a key explanation.

But misogyny does not require trauma to flourish, nor are most boys who experience hardship drawn into sexist worldviews. These ideas are ideological and structural, with long-standing gender hierarchies repackaged and broadcast at scale.

The real-life consequences

Inside the Manosphere does acknowledge harms to women, but doesn’t dwell on it very long.

One segment on schools uses news clips from English-speaking countries to signal the spread of misogynistic language among boys. But the documentary could have done more to highlight these significant manosphere-inspired flow-on effects.

Research I conducted with Stephanie Wescott and colleagues extensively documents how manosphere narratives have permeated schools internationally. This has resulted in higher levels of harassment and gender-based violence by some boys against girl peers and women teachers, eroding women’s workplace safety and girls’ participation.

Theroux is right to suggest we are all, in some sense, now living inside the manosphere. Understanding what drives the men at its centre matters – as does focusing on the real-world harms they cause.

Louis Theroux: Inside the Manosphere is on Netlix from today.

Steven Roberts, Professor of Sociology, School of Social Sciences, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A theory about male “sexual market value” that began in online manosphere forums is now appearing in the TikTok feeds of Australian teenagers — repackaged as AI-powered “looksmaxxing” apps.

The idea is closely tied to the incel (“involuntary celibate”) subculture. These are loose online communities of mostly young men who believe they are unable to form romantic or sexual relationships with women.

Within these spaces, users often rank men according to physical attractiveness and argue that dating success is largely determined by genetics. This worldview is sometimes called “the blackpill”.

Our research suggests that, by scoring faces and suggesting ways people can “optimise” their appearance, looksmaxxing tools are quietly mainstreaming a toxic view of masculinity and monetising insecurities.

Looksmaxxing is mainstreaming misogynistic incel ideology

Looksmaxxing describes an extreme physical optimisation of a person’s appearance, usually within a numerical rating system known as the PSL-scale.

Our TikTok network analysis reveals a dominant subculture around this concept, with so called “blackpill edits” at its heart. These usually show a conventionally less attractive person who is “mogged” (physically dominated based on looks) by a contrast with a person deemed attractive in the looksmaxxing community.

Such edits generate massive reach. One looksmaxxing influencer garnered more than 100 million views in 2025 alone.

Besides blackpill edits, the community also shares tutorial videos purportedly helping to improve one’s appearance. These include such dubious tips as recommending “mewing” (adjusting tongue posture) for a stronger jawline.

The looksmaxxing app economy

Within this ecosystem, we identified more than a dozen smartphone apps that promise to help users on their looksmaxxing journey. Essentially, all these apps offer the same service.

A user uploads a recent selfie, which an artificial intelligence (AI) model scans for arcane metrics such as “gonial angle”, “maxilla ratio” and “mentolabial angle”.

The user is then provided with an attractiveness score, and an associated rank on the PSL scale. Then, users receive a supposedly personalised assessment of their “potential”. The apps also offer generic fitness and dietary advice, but also recommendations of more niche practices such as mewing.

Monetising insecurity

Most apps hide their core features behind weekly subscriptions, usually priced around A$6. To attract paying customers, these apps are advertised in video descriptions (“Make your own reality @UmaxApp”), as well as in blackpill edits, for example by flashing rating screenshots between video clips.

Quantification, gamification and reframing

These apps are an active vector for mainstreaming an appealing version of formerly niche incel beliefs. While the focus on self-improvement seems to contradict the extreme fatalism present in dedicated incel forums, the apps act as a gateway, making harmful assumptions accessible through three key mechanisms.

First is quantification.

Incels believe every person has a “sexual market value”, usually expressed on a scale from one to ten. Looksmaxxing apps use the PSL-scale (running from one to eight), but the concept is identical: a user’s face is assigned numerical scores based on obscure calculations, reducing human worth to an AI assessment.

Second is gamification.

Scores are tied to specific ranks that often reflect key incel language, such as “low-tier normie” or “chadlite”. Much like a video game, the apps promise users the ability to “ascend” to a higher rank.

Unlike passively reading incel ideology in a web forum, these apps allow users to directly engage with the ideology by having their own faces assessed.

The third mechanism is reframing.

A key part of the success of these apps is that they provide a “recipe for ascension” instead of the traditional stream of blackpill fatalism. This makes these apps attractive to young men struggling with confidence. It’s worth noting, however, that alongside ordinary celebrities looksmaxxing ads sometimes include AI-generated versions of rich, famous sex abusers such as Jeffrey Epstein and Sean Coombs (better known as Diddy).

However, besides the reframing, the underlying assumptions are still rooted within incel ideology: a person’s ascension potential is limited and dictated by biology.

To illustrate, we observed young boys posting their selfies in the comment section of app advertisments, asking for others to rate them. In exchange, they were sometimes asked to “ropemax” – an incel term for committing suicide – if deemed incapable of ascension.

Looksmaxxing apps as a potential funnel to violence

Beyond the reframing, the foundation of looksmaxxing in underlying violent incel ideology can become quite explicit.

In a recent TikTok interaction we documented, a looksmaxxing influencer with hundreds of thousands of followers responded via video format to a user comment. The user’s profile picture was a photo of Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator of the 2014 Isla Vista killings, and a celebrated “saint” within the incel community. A subsequent comment pointing out this dark connection received more than 20,000 likes.

The particular danger at hand is that looksmaxxing apps, through the mainstreaming mechanisms described above, actively target vulnerable individuals struggling with self-confidence, drawing them into a harmful and potentially violent ideology.

Looksmaxxing apps might seem like an easy cash grab fuelled by young boys going through puberty. But as long as they remain openly accessible in app stores, using viral TikTok edits to reach a massive audience, they can function as a potential radicalisation pipeline into extremist incel worldviews.

Marten Risius, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland; Christopher David, Research Associate in Online Extremism, Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences, and Daline Ostermaier, Research assistant, Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australia regularly makes global headlines for its strict biosecurity rules for international travellers.

Failing to declare food, animal products and plant material – from an apple, to forgotten McMuffins or plant cuttings – can result in fines of up to A$6,600, potential prosecution and cancellations of visitor visas.

There are good reasons for those rules: Australia has managed to keep its environment and agriculture free of many invasive pests and diseases. Yet the volume of goods coming into Australia makes it hard to catch everything, especially biosecurity threats coming in on ships.

And that’s a problem – because if tonnes of illegal tobacco keep getting past our border security, undetected, we risk increased exposure to invasive pests that could cost our farmers billions.

Why tobacco is a biosecurity risk

The social and economic problems caused by Australia’s illegal tobacco trade have been widely reported, including ongoing firebombings, shootings and intimidation targeting tobacco retailers across several states.

But while the scale of the booming illicit trade is well known, its biosecurity risks have received little public attention. This is a significant omission.

Around 575 tonnes of illegal tobacco products – cigarettes, loose leaf tobacco and vapes – were produced in Australia in 2024-25, according to official estimates.

But far more – an estimated 3,312 to 5,397 tonnes in the same year – was imported. It arrives mainly on ships coming in via China, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.

About 2,244 tonnes of that was seized in 2024-25. So thousands of tonnes more have been getting in undetected.

Illicit tobacco is a dried plant product and a biosecurity risk in its own right. The Australian government also lists tobacco as a potential carrier of many pests that pose significant threats to our agriculture and environment.

Khapra beetle: a high-impact hitchhiker

One such pest is the khapra beetle, a known hitchhiker on ships.

This tiny insect, just 1.6–3mm long, infests grain and other dry organic material, rendering it unfit for human or animal consumption. It’s the number one biosecurity threat to Australia’s $26 billion grain industry.

An incursion of khapra beetle would result in loss of access to key overseas markets, estimated at more than $15 billion over 20 years. Prevention is critical.

Native to India, khapra beetles have spread around the world in a wide variety of products, from food (such as rice) and other products (such as a box of children’s nappy pants in Australia last year), to packaging and machinery.

The larvae are exceptionally resilient and can hibernate in sea containers for years.

Khapra beetle has been detected numerous times at our border, with a marked increase in 2020. Those extra detections came after the federal government introduced emergency measures to address the growing risk of khapra beetles arriving in sea containers.

One notable detection was in 2007, when a couple who had migrated from the United Kingdom found khapra beetles in belongings that had spent six weeks at sea.

The woman discovered beetles inside a mug and, worse, larvae in her wrapped wedding dress. It turned out many other belongings were infested. The entire two-storey house was shrink-wrapped in plastic and fumigated.

Importantly, it was a successful eradication, and the grain industry was protected.

How illegal tobacco raises the risks of invasive pests

Any trade that’s illegal is more likely to use sea containers that are not cleaned, fumigated or adequately documented.

Added to this, tobacco is often sourced from high-risk regions with fake declarations.

In addition to khapra beetles, other pests could be introduced from imported tobacco.

One example is insecticide-resistant tobacco beetles. These beetles are common in Australian grain storages as well as households. However, the introduction of resistant strains could make it more difficult to control in museums, galleries and libraries – where they can cause severe damage to preserved animal specimens or book-bindings – as well as in household pantries.

Citizen scientists have reported the presence of tobacco beetles more than 200 times using the free MyPestGuide Reporter photo app. This tool was developed by Dr Darryl Hardie and one of us (Rob Emery) to make it easier for the public to report pests they find in various household commodities, including in their tobacco.

Community vigilance, combined with strong border controls, remain essential for protecting Australia from the biosecurity consequences of illicit imports.

Why we need to boost detection at our ports

Public debate about curbing illegal tobacco sales has largely focused on state government enforcement efforts. However, the first, most effective line of defence is at the border.

The relatively low interception rate for a bulky and easily recognisable commodity such as tobacco raises broader questions about our ability to detect less visible threats – like tiny beetles – that may carry even greater biosecurity risks.

Investment in maintaining and strengthening Australia’s border biosecurity must remain a national priority. Detection of illicit tobacco arriving at our ports urgently needs to improve.

Failure to implement effective biosecurity controls across all Australian ports exposes our environment and our farmers to risks worth billions of dollars.

Thanks to Dr Darryl Hardie for his contribution to this article.

Simon McKirdy, Professor of Biosecurity and Deputy Vice Chancellor of Global Engagement, Murdoch University; Lotti Tajouri, Associate Professor, Genomics and Molecular Biology, Biomedical Sciences, Bond University; Murdoch University, and Rob Emery, Associate Professor, Centre for Biosecurity and One Health, Murdoch University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Nationals leader David Littleproud has unexpectedly quit his post, declaring he is “buggered” and “out on my feet”.

His announcement came as a shock to colleagues and follows a period of extreme turbulence for his party and the Coalition, which split twice during this term.

Littleproud has been a controversial and, in terms of Coalition relations, provocative, leader. Although the Nationals held their lower house seats at the election, since then two of their high profile MPs have defected. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price went to the Liberals immediately after the election, and former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce jumped to One Nation.

A dramatic surge in the support for One Nation in recent months has put Littleproud under intense pressure to try to combat that party’s increasing attraction to many voters who formerly supported the Nationals.

Littleproud had a bad relationship with former Liberal leader Sussan Ley and triggered both fractures between the two parties.

He has been much closer to the new Liberal leader, Angus Taylor, under whom relations between the parties have so far been smooth.

The Nationals will meet at 10am Wednesday to replace Littleproud. They need to do so quickly, as they have a candidate running in the May 9 byelection in Ley’s former seat of Farrer. On early indications, the Nationals have almost no chance of winning the seat, which former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer held for them before Ley.

Nationals senator Ross Cadell told Sky News the leadership contenders could be deputy leader Kevin Hogan, former leader Michael McCormack, who served as deputy prime minister, outspoken backbencher Matt Canavan and Senate leader Bridget McKenzie. Littleproud did not endorse a successor.

Later Hogan said in a statement: “After being approached by a number of my colleagues, I have formally put my hand up for the Leadership position.”

Canavan said he would run. “I believe I have the best chance to help win the battle for an Australia first plan that can deliver a better life for all Australians.”

Sources confirmed McKenzie was likely to stand.

Littleproud, who did not announce his plan at the Nationals’ regular party meeting on Tuesday, held a news conference after question time with his wife Amelia at his side.

He said he would stay on in his regional Queensland seat of Maranoa, including re-contesting it at the next election. He left open the possibility of serving on the shadow frontbench.

Despite internal and external criticism of his performance, Littleproud’s leadership position did not appear to be under any threat. One of his techniques for retaining support was to take every decision, however small, to the party room.

At his news conference, he defended his record saying, “I am proud of us recapturing our identity, for who we are and what we stand for. For that 30% of Australians who live outside a capital city.”

He said he had done this with the Voice (when the Nationals preempted the Liberals with their opposition) and on other policy areas, including net zero. “It’s not probably since John McEwen has the National Party leader had to stand up and show the courage of their character and […] stand for what their party room wants them to stand for. So I’m proud but I’m tired.”

“It is time for me to feel normal again, it has been a pretty rough road since the election.”

Littleproud was highly critical when asked about working with Ley. He said it was a mistake after the election to “wipe all our policies because all we did was leave a vacuum for someone to walk into.

"I stood and fought for those four policies that meant so much for our party room. […] I wasn’t going to let them go.

"And then [after the Nationals defied shadow cabinet solidarity] I was not going to stand by while my mates got punted for not doing anything wrong.

"Where I come from, if one of your mob gets knocked over and it is not for the right reason, you come swinging back. That is how we operate. The culture of National Party has always been like that. I am proud of that.”

Littleproud said to go on as leader “would be the wrong thing for me to do. I love the National Party. I grew up in it, I’ll bleed, to the day I die, green and gold, I love it, and it’d be wrong for me to say that I’m the right person to continue to lead. That’s tough for me to say, [that] I think someone better can do it, because I don’t have the energy. I’m out of my feet. I’m done.”

Barnaby Joyce, who said Littleproud’s ostracising of him was one reason for defecting, blasted Littleproud. He told The Australian: “Mr Littleproud has to accept responsibility for the existential crisis he left the National Party in.

"When I heard he said he was proud of what he achieved and compared himself to Black Jack [John] McEwen, I didn’t know whether that was pathos or AI interfering with my news.

"We had senior people leave such as David Gillespie, Keith Pitt, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. We had a [Senate] seat that was lost, which was Perin Davey. Two people who basically walked out in myself and Andrew Gee, and Jacinta.”

Taylor described Littleproud as a “committed Coalitionist”.

Nationals federal president Andrew Fraser said: “I congratulate David on his personal strength and conviction that saw The Nationals lead the debate on the Voice and on the development and adoption of an energy and climate policy that will meet our future energy needs and allow Australian businesses to thrive.

"We are not a faction of the Liberal Party; we have a partnership, and David’s leadership never let them forget it.”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The war in Iran has once again exposed how vulnerable the world’s energy markets are to geopolitical disruption. In wild swings, benchmark crude oil prices spiked as high as US$120 per barrel, roughly 50% higher than before the conflict, before sliding below $100.

Energy price surges hit households quickly. Higher petrol prices raise transport costs and push up everyday prices. This is the second major energy price spike in the past five years due to war.

The federal government faces a familiar question: what policy tools should it use to respond to sudden global oil price shocks and rising living costs?

For Australia, the answer is more complex because of its unique position in global energy markets. But right now, there is a strong case for taxing windfall gas profits to help households – as long as we get the policy right.

Australia’s unique position in energy markets

Australia imports most of its crude oil and refined petroleum products. Like many other oil-importing countries, it is exposed to the adverse effects of higher oil prices on transport costs, consumer prices and business costs.

But at the same time, Australia is also one of the world’s largest exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Gas prices have surged about 50% in Asia and Europe since the start of the conflict, while prices for LNG export contracts typically lag by three to six months.

This means the same global energy shock that raises Australian households’ energy bills also generates very high profits for gas exporters such as Woodside, Chevron, Shell, Inpex and Santos.

However, Australia’s gas industry is largely foreign owned. This means a large share of the additional profits generated by higher energy prices flows overseas, rather than directly benefiting Australian households.

This raises an important policy question: should part of these windfall gains be captured to help households cope with higher energy costs? And how would this compare with cutting fuel taxes?

In our research, we modelled the impact of a global oil supply shock on Australia and compared two fiscal tools:

1. a fuel excise cut, similar to the one implemented in 2022, and

2. a temporary levy on supernormal profits in the energy sector.

Here are our findings.

The high cost of a fuel tax cut

Cutting the fuel excise can make petrol cheaper in the short term and cushion the shock. But it comes at a significant cost to the federal budget.

The federal government halved the fuel excise for six months during the last energy crisis after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.

The policy helped reduce petrol prices – but cost the budget about A$5.6 billion in lost revenue, weakening the government’s fiscal position.

And this does not address rising gas prices. Domestic businesses and households compete with overseas buyers for Australian gas, pushing energy bills higher.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said last week the government is unlikely to repeat the fuel excise cut, saying it is “not something we’ve been considering”. Instead, he pointed to other cost-of-living measures and petrol price monitoring.

If fuel tax cuts are off the table, what other policy tools are available?

Why taxing windfall gains may work better

Our modelling suggests a temporary levy on windfall profits in the energy sector may work better.

When global energy prices surge, gas exporters can earn unusually large profits. Economists often call these “windfall gains” or “scarcity rents”. These profits arise not because companies become more productive or innovative, but from global energy price shocks.

Because much of Australia’s gas industry is foreign-owned, a significant share of these gains flows overseas. A temporary levy on windfall profits during energy shocks could capture part of these gains and redirect them to support households facing higher energy costs, without weakening the federal budget.

Global gas prices have also surged as supply from the Middle East was disrupted.

Australian gas mainly sells to Asian markets. LNG exporters benefit both from higher global LNG prices, and from rising oil-linked LNG contract prices.

This strengthens the economic case for a temporary windfall tax when Australian households face rising energy bills and cost-of-living pressures.

Designing a tax that works

Australia’s dual role as both an energy importer and exporter matters for policy design.

In our study, the energy profit levy is temporary and well defined. In practice, firms may worry that a “temporary” tax could become a precedent for repeated new taxes whenever prices rise.

This concern doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t act, but it does mean the design of the policy matters. A poorly designed tax could create uncertainty and discourage investment.

If investors feel the government will only tax the “unexpected” highs without offering support during the “unexpected” lows, they may be less likely to fund future projects. A serious policy proposal would require three features:

• Well-defined triggers: Clear rules for when the tax applies.

• Sunset clauses: A legal “expiry date” so the tax ends when the crisis does.

• A fair tax base: Applying only to windfall profits generated by global price shocks.

A carefully designed temporary levy on windfall energy profits is therefore worth exploring to help protect Australian households from global energy shocks.

Locky Xianglong Liu, Research fellow, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University; James Giesecke, Professor, Centre of Policy Studies and the Impact Project, Victoria University, and Jason Nassios, Deputy Director and Associate Professor, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Last week, the Iranian soccer team refused to sing the national anthem before their Asian Women’s Cup opener on the Gold Coast.

It was a silent protest in solidarity with thousands killed in deadly crackdowns in Iran.

But some of these athletes could be facing the death penalty should they return home, after being labelled “war traitors” on Iranian state television.

Late on Monday, news broke that five players have been granted asylum in Australia and are now safe with police.

So how did it get to this and what may happen next? And what about the rest of the team?

‘Wartime traitors’

Sport, and soccer in particular, carries enormous political weight in Iran.

Athletes are symbols of the nation’s endurance. Their victories are political capital while their silence is viewed as a threat.

It’s perhaps no surprise, then, the players’ refusal to sing the national anthem sparked fury with regime hardliners, days after US-Israel strikes on the country.

Radical conservative television presenter Mohammad Reza Shahbazi, who is considered a mouthpiece for the Iranian government, characterised the women’s team as “wartime traitors” for not singing the anthem, and called for reprisals.

The team subsequently sang and saluted the anthem at their next two matches, but the pressure on them did not abate.

If some members of the team return home, they may be charged for a crime that attracts the death penalty in wartime.

For those who stay in Australia, it’s likely their families’ safety will be threatened.

On Sunday, after Iran’s third and final match of the tournament, supporters protested around the team’s bus leaving the stadium, expressing their fear for the team’s safety.

Supporters surrounding the bus reported noticing at least one player making the hand gesture signalling for help (SOS) from the bus window.

Visas granted

As the situation escalated on Monday, US President Donald Trump implored Australia to give the athletes asylum.

He initially claimed the athletes were being forced to leave Australia, but later posted “he’s on it!” after discussing the issue with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

On Tuesday morning, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke confirmed five Iranian athletes have been granted humanitarian visas to stay in Australia after escaping the squad’s security detail.

Burke said the the Australian government was keeping the door open for other athletes to claim asylum:

Last night, I was able to tell five members of the Iranian women’s soccer team that they are welcome to stay in Australia, that they are safe here, and they should feel at home here. Not everyone on the team will make a decision to take up the opportunity that Australia would offer them. What matters here is that they have the best agency they can over those decisions. So we’re making sure that the opportunity to seek assistance is there.

Two more questions

The dramatic events have sparked two serious questions.

First, what could the football organisations involved – the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), the Asian Football Confederation (AFC), and Football Australia – have done to be more prepared?

All have policies that promote and protect human rights. A human rights assessment is also done as part of the host nation bid process.

FIFA has a human rights framework to which bidding host nations must adhere, focused on protecting players and their entourage from discrimination and other human rights abuses.

This framework is also reflected in the AFC statutes for its members, including Football Australia.

Football Australia, as Asian Cup host, states in its constitution that it:

strive(s) to promote the protection of human rights in accordance with FIFA’s human rights policies and commitments.

Beau Busch, Asia/Oceania president of world soccer’s professional players’ association, FIFPRO, said the refusal to sing the anthem had been anticipated.

Busch said he had written to FIFA, the AFC and the tournament organisers on February 11 to express concern for the players’ welfare and offering to work proactively to protect their human rights, but did not receive a reply.

This lack of preparedness meant the Iranian athletes were forced into a last-minute, life-or-death decision under immense pressure.

A second question revolves around the Iranian team’s security detail, which includes people linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

While in Australia, the players have been extremely restricted both inside their hotel and at press conferences by their minders – unable to speak with friends or move freely.

Australia officially listed the IRGC as a state sponsor of terrorism in November 2025.

The IRGC has a strong influence over the Iranian Football Federation, including through its president, Mehdi Taj, who is one of five vice-presidents of the AFC.

But how were these security personnel allowed into the country?

Julian Leeser, Shadow Minister for Education, said anyone associated with the IRGC should be detained.

Lessons for the future

So what lessons can be learned to reduce the chances of this gut-wrenching situation happening again?

A similar situation may emerge in June at the men’s FIFA Men’s World Cup in the United States, Canada and Mexico, for which Iran has qualified.

The president of Iran’s soccer federation has stated he “does not know” if the team will compete, as the US government has not confirmed who from the security team will receive visas to enter the country. The current visa rules in the US places a full restriction on Iranian nationals entry with exceptions subject to case-by-case waivers.

If they do play, FIFA and the World Cup’s local organising committees must be prepared for similar scenes.

Of course, sports organisations aren’t the United Nations. But if these powerful organisations are more proactive and prepared – with clear safeguards and secure access to support – it should help minimise the drama that has affected, not just the athletes and their coach, but their friends and families abroad.

Catherine Ordway, Visiting Scholar, UNSW Sydney and Leila Khanjaninejad, Lecturer, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is off to another Middle Eastern war, which is likely a surprise to many given how contentious the country’s involvement in the Iraq war was.

The Albanese government has decided to send a RAAF E-7A Wedgetail surveillance aircraft to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), along with 85 personnel and a supply of air-to-air missiles capable of shooting down drones.

Wedgetail aircraft have been sent on similar operations before, not just to the Middle East but most recently to Europe as part of the NATO mission to help Ukraine.

Australia recently agreed to an economic strategic partnership with the UAE, but this military deployment appears to be part of a defence cooperation agreement that dates back to 2007.

So, does this mean Australia is now entering the war by sending military assets, including personnel, to the region?

Defensive role

The deployment, while doubtless agreeable to the Trump administration, is not intended to be part of the Israeli–US air offensive against Iran.

Rather, the E-7A Wedgetail will help the UAE defend itself after some ground-based, long-range air surveillance radar systems were damaged in attacks from Iran. The gap in surveillance coverage will be partly filled by the RAAF aircraft.

The aircraft is fitted with a high-performance air surveillance radar system and will be able to provide early warning of approaching air attacks, most likely from Iran’s Shahed drones.

The aircraft will do this by providing digital tracking data of incoming hostile aircraft and drones to the UAE’s surface-to-air missile systems and fighter aircraft, so they can respond.

The UAE has a very sophisticated air defence system that so far has intercepted over 1,000 Iranian ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones.

This extraordinarily large number of interceptions means its large stockpile of interceptor missiles is gradually being depleted. As a result, Australia is also transferring some of its AIM-120 advanced medium-range, air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM) to the UAE to help it intercept drones.

Australia placed a replenishment order to the United States for more of these missiles last year. The missiles now going to the UAE are probably older versions that have been in Australia’s stock for many years.

South Korea is rushing Cheongung-II interceptors to the UAE to help it defend against ballistic missiles, as well.

A history of air support in the region

The E-7A Wedgetail aircraft will presumably be deployed to the Al Minad airbase, some 40 kilometres south of Dubai. The Australian Defence Force has operated there since 2003. It maintains a small permanent presence at the base to support ADF operations across the Middle East.

Last week, the Albanese government announced it was deploying a C-17 large transport aircraft and a KC-30A air-to-air refuelling aircraft to the region. These planes are now assumed to be at Al Minad, too.

The RAAF previously deployed E-7A Wedgetail aircraft to the region from 2014–20 to support the US-led military operations against Islamic State in Iraq. The RAAF personnel going there now, therefore, will be quite experienced in operations in the region and the dangers involved.

The Al Minad airbase has already been hit by Iranian missiles and drones, but these had little effect.

Nevertheless, there is still a risk the E-7A Wedgetail could be damaged while parked at the air base.

Possible issues that could arise

This deployment does not mean Australia is entering a combat role in the war. It will instead have an enabling role – bolstering the UAE’s air defence.

Even though the E-7A Wedgetail has a clearly defensive purpose, the deployment could still be seen from the Iranian perspective as support for the US-Israeli air offensive.

In an indirect way, it could help the US. The RAAF deployment will reduce the need for the US to help defend the UAE, potentially freeing up US forces to strengthen its attacks on Iran. The Australian government’s messaging appears aimed at trying to avoid people drawing this conclusion.

More worryingly, Australia could potentially become enmeshed in other operations now that it has assets there.

For example, Iran has effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz to shipping traffic, disrupting the flow of oil and gas to the world.

If the US Navy takes military action to forcibly open the strait, it is possible Australia could be called on to support this, initially using the E-7A Wedgetail already in place.

French President Emmanuel Macron has said his country and its European allies are preparing a “purely defensive” mission to escort ships through the strait once the “most intense phase” of the war ends.

Australia could be asked to join this effort, as well, putting its aircraft at risk of attack from Iran. Given Australia’s oil supplies and fuel costs are greatly impacted by the closure of the strait, the government would find it difficult to say no.

The deployment of the E-7A Wedgetail may then be an early warning that Australian military involvement in the Middle East is about to escalate as it did with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and against Islamic State.

Like the Persian Gulf nations, Australia could become trapped and dependent on decisions that will be “mutually” taken by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Peter Layton, Visiting Fellow, Strategic Studies, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.