The Albanese government has promised to undertake “once-in-a-generation” reforms of the government’s employment services system, which could affect the roughly one million Australians who access unemployment payments including JobSeeker.

Announcing the changes at the National Press Club on Wednesday, Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Amanda Rishworth said the current system was “ill-equipped to respond” to unemployed people’s needs and is:

letting too many people in the caseload fall through the cracks, and failing to support them into a job.

The goal of the changes is to move from a “one-size-fits-all” approach of helping people find work, to giving different levels of support depending on what people need. However, there’s no clear start date for these changes yet.

The government’s plan to make improvements to a punitive system is welcome. Yet only three years ago, it was talking about even more ambitious changes.

Here’s what’s just been promised – and where the government still has the opportunity to do more.

What’s going to change?

The federal government says it will overhaul the current “one‑size‑fits‑all” system of Workforce Australia. This government service helps people find and keep secure work and manages the “mutual obligation” requirements for receiving certain payments.

For example, an individual receiving JobSeeker payments may have to apply for a certain number of jobs, take part in training and attend job interviews.

Under the proposed new system, job seekers will be sorted into three groups, known as “service streams”. These will offer different levels of support based on differing needs, with different mutual obligations.

Service stream one will be designed for people who are seen as ready to work and just need help to find a job. This would offer an improved digital service with individualised online tools and brief contact-centre support. The government says it will invest A$205 million in building this new service.

Service stream two will be for people who need more active help. That could mean coaching, confidence building, more direct support from a provider and goals tied more clearly to actual jobs in local labour markets.

Service stream three is for long-term unemployed people, or those with complex needs, who have been poorly served by the current system. This could include people who may need longer-term help, work experience, social enterprise or volunteering opportunities. A total of $52 million of funding has been earmarked in the budget for rolling out, testing and refining this more intensive service.

The government also announced it would put $27 million towards developing a revised assessment process, alongside the introduction of tailored employment goal plans in place of standardised job plans.

How we got here

This week’s announcement marks the long-anticipated outcome of consultations that began more than three years ago, with a parliamentary review of Workforce Australia led by Labor MP Julian Hill.

Workforce Australia was introduced in 2022 and designed by the Morrison government to replace the earlier jobactive service system. The 2023 Hill review argued there were many problems with the new system.

These included an “excessive” focus on mutual obligations, often forcing job seekers to perform unnecessary tasks, or apply for jobs they weren’t qualified for.

Others included the alienation of employers, such as by not pairing suitable candidates with jobs available, as well as a high turnover of employment service providers due to a “Hunger Games style contracting model”.

The review’s final report made 75 recommendations to comprehensively rebuild the system.

Problems yet to be addressed

The federal government formally responded to the review in 2024, saying it agreed reform was necessary. But it also said given such a complex system this “will take time to get right”.

This week’s announcement still leaves many of the Hill review’s recommendations unaddressed.

The single biggest gap between what the Hill review found was needed just three years ago, versus what’s been done now, is on mutual obligations.

Under the new system, mutual obligations will be different for each stream.

For those closest to work in stream one, there’ll be a simpler focus on job searches and other vocational activities. For stream two, a flexible focus on training and other support, connected to a participant’s employment goals. And obligations in stream three will focus on “meaningful engagement and building someone’s readiness to work”.

The Hill review did not recommend the complete abolition of mutual obligations, rather a move to a “shared accountability” framework. This would include giving frontline workers more discretion to “educate and counsel” people when they failed to meet their obligations a limited number of times, rather than automatically withhold payments.

The language of “meaningful engagement” is better than blunt punishment. But it still makes little sense to threaten the income of people already living below the poverty line to make them engage with services when they are already desperate for work.

Other recommendations that haven’t yet been acted on include:

• creating a new public entity, called Employment Services Australia, to help run employment services
• establishing a network of regional hubs
• establishing an independent Employment Services Quality Commission.

Further changes possible

The government says there will be further consultation to further shape some of the design elements of the new service.

The main takeaway is these proposed reforms do not live up to the aspirations of the Albanese government’s own Hill review.

The government has tried to sell this as “once-in-a-generation” reform. For that to be true, there’s still much work to be done.

Sonia Martin, Senior Lecturer in Social Work and Social Policy, Australian Catholic University

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

Today, construction is set to begin on Brisbane’s controversial Olympic stadium in Victoria Park.

The work comes almost five years after Queensland’s capital was awarded the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic games.

The decision to construct a new stadium in Victoria Park has angered many, including First Nations groups, who launched legal bids and staged protests to halt the development.

However, on Sunday night the park was closed to the public as the Queensland government prepares to begin construction.

But why is the site so special to First Nations groups, and could there have been a fairer course of action?

Why the controversy?

In March 2025, Queensland Premier David Crisafulli announced Victoria Park would be the site for the main venues of the Brisbane games.

Ongoing debate escalated when, in June 2025, the Queensland government passed legislation to exempt Olympic venues from major planning and environmental laws.

This effectively bypassed the park’s heritage listing.

By August that year, a First Nations group launched a legal bid to halt the development. Six more heritage applications followed.

On April 5 this year, another First Nations group established a tent embassy in the park. It ran daily for months while diverse Indigenous cultural activities, tours, and talks were held in the park.

A large gathering and protest was held at the weekend before the government closed the site to the public. Several people were arrested.

What is the significance of Victoria Park?

Victoria Park is a large, state heritage-listed green space, meaning it’s protected under Queensland state heritage legislation.

As co-author Gaja (Aunty) Kerry Charlton expressed on behalf of the Elders of the Yagara Magandjin Aboriginal Corporation, there are strong Indigenous family connections with Victoria Park (which is also known variously as “York’s Hollow”, Barambin – “Windy Place” and Wallan – “Bream”):

Pre-colonial Victoria Park housed vibrant communities who hosted large gatherings like boras, ceremonies, seasonal festivals, celebrations, funerals, sporting tournaments and inter-tribal diplomatic procedures and Lore-Law. This site holds significant cultural heritage for us from then to now and for millennia.

The site was twice (in 1846 and 1849) burnt to the ground during skirmishes with police and soldiers. It continued to be used by Aboriginal groups well into the 1890s and again from the 1930s to 1960. There are Elders alive today who lived there.

Apart from Musgrave Park, it is probably the most significant Indigenous site in Brisbane. It was certainly Brisbane’s largest and most important First Nations camp and corroboree ground.

This was acknowledged in Victoria Park’s recently completed master plan:

for thousands of years, this area has been a central gathering point for groups with different knowledge systems and languages.

The park also comprises inner Brisbane’s last remaining sizeable green space, and it is one of the few inner Brisbane parks to retain some vestige of natural vegetation. Its springs are the only original, still functioning aquifer in the Brisbane region.

In 2024, Brisbane City Council claimed its commitment to “metamorphosing Victoria Park/Barrambin into a natural haven” – restoring the natural landscape, increasing the tree canopy and revitalising the wetlands and waterholes.

Heritage concerns add fuel to the fire

So, what would overriding all this heritage mean? It means setting aside heritage requirements to fast-track development.

The state government’s Olympic delivery plan promised to “integrate” the games within Victoria Park’s master plan.

It remains unclear how this could be possible alongside the objective of “transforming” the park into Queensland’s “biggest” sporting venue.

Adding gigantic stadiums, overpasses, associated infrastructure and increased traffic within an already busy intersection between three major schools, a hospital, the Brisbane Exhibition Grounds and a university, will likely erase most of the park.

Nevertheless, the revised master plan insists two-thirds of greenspace will somehow be retained.

Communities and conversations are crucial

Most Australian cities have a large central park. Victoria Park was Brisbane’s last remaining chance to retain a large park as an integral part of its CBD.

The original vision (and Master Plan) for Victoria Park was that it would become Brisbane’s cultural and environmental “breathing space”. Victoria Park’s traditional custodians were central to this.

As Gaja Kerry Charlton notes:

We, the YMAC Elders, support this submission for all of Victoria Park to be heritage listed to protect it as part of our Yagara cultural heritage and for the wider community to ensure such parklands remain for everyone to enjoy.

The Brisbane 2032 mantra claims it will promote “not just our sporting champions, but equality and inclusion for all.”

Brisbane 2032 should be an opportunity for growth, and in ways that might not be expected: learning how to do development differently.

Hopefully in making the games, we can truly preserve the cultural landscape Brisbane was built upon, instead of again building over our rich Indigenous heritage.

The key to this is to bring the communities back into conversation and be willing to hear their voices and innovate into contemporary planning and design processes.

Ray Kerkhove, Research Fellow, Associate Professor (Adjunct), School of Social Sciences (Archaeology), The University of Queensland; Gaja Kerry Charlton, First Nations author and local traditional owner, Indigenous Knowledge, and Kelly Greenop, Associate Professor in Architecture, The University of Queensland

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

Birth rates have been declining worldwide since the peak of the post-second world war baby boom. Birth rates have now reached below replacement in most of the world, including Australia. Put simply, populations on average aren’t replacing themselves.

Everyone from Elon Musk to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, to the pope have opinions on declining total fertility (or birth) rates – the average number of births per woman.

Overpopulation has dominated popular discourse since the 1960s. While fears of overpopulation remain, especially tied to immigration, concerns have shifted to depopulation and the related economic and national security issues.

Overpopulation fears to depopulation woes

In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich warned the 1970s would bring “people, people, people, people” and an overpopulation “cancer” resulting in famine and war. Human extinction was imminent, we were warned.

Overpopulation-associated human extinction has not come to be.

The global total fertility rate has more than halved since 1950. Average birth rates for OECD countries now sit at 1.46 births per woman, well below the 2.1 required for generational replacement.

World population decline is projected by the mid-2080s. China is now in its fourth year of population decline. South Korea has been declining since 2019 with its near-global record low birth rates. Germany has seen deaths outnumber births since 1972. Japan, Greece, Italy, Cuba and Thailand are also among those in the depopulation club.

Without immigration, the United Kingdom would also see population decline, with deaths outnumbering births. Australia is about a generation away from the same fate. Immigration controls have seen depopulation in Canada.

Birth rates a solution to the ageing ‘problem’

Enormous advancements since the 1950s, mostly in health and medical technologies like immunisation, mean humans are living longer. We’re also having fewer children, and as a result populations are ageing.

An ageing population is a mark of success and human ingenuity, but economic systems tend to view ageing societies as problematic.

Workers and working-aged people are essential to maintain a healthy economy. Individual income taxpayers are the top source of federal government revenue in Australia. Too few people of working age replacing those retiring can seriously undermine economic wellbeing, forcing governments to do more service provision with less financial resources.

Below-replacement fertility and its implications for government bottom lines have resulted in Australian politicians calling on Australians to have more babies. “Have one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country”, treasurer Peter Costello famously said in 2004.

In 2020, former prime minister Tony Abbott suggested the wrong kind of women were having children, calling on “middle class” women to have more. Talking the budget, treasurer Jim Chalmers in 2024 said it would be “better if birth rates were higher”.

Human catastrophe of low birth rates

People are increasingly saying the choice to have children is constrained by external factors. Worldwide, around one-in-five surveyed by the United Nations said fears about the future would or has resulted in them having fewer children than they wanted.

Housing affordability, economic stability, gender inequality and climate change present insurmountable barriers for having a much-wanted family.

The lack of choice to have children in below-replacement regions, I’d argue is indeed a human catastrophe. How is it that we’ve allowed society to become so hostile that children are out of the question for so many who want them?

The intergenerational bargain is well and truly corrupted.

We are confronted with the tough question of who will care for us with the children gone.

Can a human catastrophe be avoided?

The burden of having a family falls on working-aged people, especially women.

A baby bonus or one-off payment is unlikely to change people’s minds and increase the total fertility rate; such payments merely change timing. Instead, increasing total fertility rates requires a comprehensive suite of measures from a policy perspective.

Tackling the big four big domains of housing, the economy, gender and climate encompass issues such as

• secure, affordable and appropriate housing
• employment and income security
• accessible childcare
• social and workplace gender equality
• climate change action.

People of childbearing age aren’t being hedonistic when making family and fertility decisions. They’re not thinking about themselves, they’re actually thinking about the future world and weighing what that might look like for prospective children.

Loss of hope among people of childbearing age, including fears of being left behind, contribute to overall concerns about an insecure future.

Not only is the human catastrophe of low births rates reflecting more widespread concerns, such as insecurity, it could also be undermining social cohesion.

Rather than an exploding bomb of overpopulation, the world faces an economic and social implosion due to lacking substantive supports necessary to help raise much-wanted children.

Surely it’s beyond time we ask people what they actually need – and give it to them.

Liz Allen, Demographer, POLIS Centre for Social Policy Research, Australian National University

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

A pair of stars spiralling around each other. That’s the origin of a new source of repeating radio bursts we’ve detected, called ASKAP J1745.

In recent years, astronomers have been puzzling over mysterious bursts of radio signals, known as long-period transients because of how slowly they repeat. They were first discovered by chance with telescopes scanning large chunks of the sky.

To date, astronomers have only found a dozen of these weird sources, and we’re still trying to understand exactly what they are.

In a new study published today in Nature Astronomy, we describe a first-of-its-kind detection – both radio and X-ray bursts repeating with each orbit.

ASKAP J1745 is exciting because we’ve figured out what it is, unlike 10 of the 12 known long-period transients. Even better, we were able to detect it with a bunch of different telescopes that observe all different kinds of light.

Bearing the same message in three forms of writing, the famous Rosetta stone once helped scholars decipher ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. Similarly, this extra information we found about ASKAP J1745 will help astronomers better understand the mystery of all long-period transients.

What do long-period radio transients look like?

Long-period transients are things in space that produce bright, repeating bursts of light at radio wavelengths. Little is known about the origins of most long-period transients. In addition, many have been discovered close to the dusty region in the middle of our galaxy, so it can be hard to see them with visible-light telescopes.

Even with just a dozen of these strange sources discovered so far, they seem to come in a few different shapes and sizes. Their radio bursts repeat on timescales of minutes to hours.

Some have been making regular pulses for more than 30 years, while others turn off for days at a time or go permanently radio-silent.

Where do they come from?

Astronomers initially thought long-period transients were just very slowly spinning neutron stars, called pulsars. These are the fast-rotating dense cores left after the supernova explosions of massive stars.

The first few of these radio transients discovered were repeating roughly every 20 minutes. That’s much slower than the average pulsar, which repeats every few seconds.

Furthermore, when pulsars slow down their spin, they should stop producing radio light. This means we shouldn’t see radio bursts from neutron stars rotating so slowly.

So astronomers investigated other theories involving white dwarfs – the slowly cooling dead centres of less massive stars. And recently we discovered some long-period transients in binary systems (two stars in a close orbit) with evidence of both a white dwarf and a lower-mass red dwarf star.

The discovery of ASKAP J1745

ASKAP J1745 is a new long-period radio transient we found with the ASKAP radio telescope, owned and operated by CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency. It’s the first one of these strange sources that we’ve identified as a “cataclysmic variable”.

Cataclysmic variables are systems with two stars – one of them a white dwarf – that orbit each other closely enough to interact. If the stars are close enough, the white dwarf’s gravity can pull (or “accrete”) material from the other star. That’s why these systems are also known as accreting white dwarf binaries.

Another long-period radio transient was recently discovered with X-ray bursts, repeating with the same regularity as the radio. However, the origin of the bursts and their shared timing remained unclear.

Now, for the first time, we have combined observations from radio, X-ray and optical telescopes to find that ASKAP J1745 produces both X-ray and radio bursts with each orbit of its two stars.

In these rapidly orbiting systems, the X-ray light is thought to come from the material heating up as it streams onto the white dwarf.

The bright radio bursts were a bit more of a mystery. But knowing that this is an accreting binary system helped us figure things out.

The type of pulsed radio light we detected is typically caused by energetic particles interacting with strong magnetic fields. Here, we have the perfect combination: two stars with strong magnetic fields (typically thousands of times stronger than an MRI machine), with charged particles flowing towards the white dwarf from the other star.

What this means for the future of astronomy

This discovery is unique because we have more information and at more different wavelengths than any other previous long-period transient.

Just like the Rosetta stone was key to decoding ancient Egyptian symbols, ASKAP J1745 will be key to deciphering the origins of other long-period radio transients that lack information at other wavelengths.

ASKAP J1745 is the first long-period transient showing signs of accretion across the spectrum of light – from radio waves to visible to X-rays. And this stream of charged material is a crucial ingredient for making the radio light we detect from these systems.

Exploring the mechanism that produces long-period radio bursts gives us a new laboratory to learn about extreme physics such as plasma flows and magnetic fields in conditions we can’t recreate on Earth.

We acknowledge the Wajarri Yamaji as the Traditional Owners and Native Title Holders of Inyarrimanha Ilgari Bundara, the CSIRO Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory where ASKAP is located.

Kovi Rose, Astrophysics PhD Candidate, University of Sydney

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

If you’ve ever taken your child to a maternal, child and family health nurse for a growth check, you might have felt a mix of curiosity and anxiety.

As health professionals, we’re often asked: is my baby gaining enough weight? Am I feeding enough? Why did they drop a percentile? Why is my friend’s baby bigger than mine? Am I doing something wrong?

In most cases, the answer is that there is nothing wrong at all. Let’s look at what the measurements actually mean and we’ll answer some questions that commonly arise during these appointments.

What actually happens at a growth check?

Growth checks are usually done by a maternal, child and family health nurse at a community health centre, or by your family GP.

Each state and territory, as well as New Zealand, has its own schedule of recommended growth and development checks. In Victoria, for example, appointments are booked when your baby is aged two weeks, four weeks, eight weeks, four months, eight months, 12 months, 18 months, two years, and three and a half years.

In the early weeks, when feeding is still being established and child growth is rapid, these appointments can help identify feeding difficulties.

First, the nurse will observe your baby or child, then they will weigh them, measure their length (if they’re babies) or height, and measure their head circumference. They plot these numbers on a growth chart in your child’s health record or the Well Child Tamariki Ora book in New Zealand.

The nurse will check your child’s alertness, appearance and muscle tone. They will also ask questions about feeding, sleep, wet/dirty nappies and any recent changes.

Nurses are there to support you as a new parent. They provide reassurance and a chance to ask questions to help build confidence during a period that can feel uncertain.

Over time, growth checks allow nurses to see if your child is growing and developing at an expected rate.

For toddlers and preschoolers, the nurse will check for typical development in behaviour, language and play. If required, they will provide support or referrals to a GP who may then refer to a paediatrician, speech pathologist, occupational therapist, or psychologist, depending on the child’s needs.

What do the dots on a growth chart really mean?

Growth charts in Australia and New Zealand are based on the World Health Organization’s Child Growth Standards, which reflect optimal growth for healthy, breastfed children.

They provide context for your child’s growth through a reference population of children of the same age and sex. The curved lines are called percentiles.

• a child on the 50th percentile is right in the middle
• a child on the 25th percentile is smaller than average
• a child on the 85th percentile is larger than average.

If your child is on the 25th percentile for weight, it means that if 100 children of the same age and sex were lined up in increasing order of weight, your child would be number 25. So 75 children would weigh more and 24 would weigh less.

A single measurement tells very little. The pattern of the weight over time is even more important.

But there is no “ideal” percentile. Every child grows at their own pace and this can be influenced by their genetics, ethnicity, birthweight and gestation. Even siblings or twins may follow different patterns.

When should parents be concerned?

Small fluctuations on the chart are common, as babies grow in spurts. But nurses may look more closely if a child:

• crosses several percentile lines over time – either in an upward or downward trend
• is showing signs of feeding difficulties or dehydration
• appears unwell.

Even in these cases, the approach is careful assessment, not alarm, and your nurse might suggest additional checks. This helps see whether a feeding adjustment is working, or whether something else might need attention.

In most cases, extra visits end with reassurance. When there is a concern, extra visits allow things to be identified and addressed early.

3 common questions answered

1. When should I consider supplementing with formula?

Breastfeeding is recommended where possible. But there are situations where supplementing with formula might be recommended – for example, when there are concerns about weight gain. In these cases, we always recommend to discuss supplementing with your trusted health care provider.

Your nurse is there to support your child and reassure you – not to judge how you feed them.

2. Should I start solids early if my baby is ‘big’?

In short, no. The guidelines recommend introducing solids at around six months. This should be done when babies show developmental readiness, not because of their size or percentile.

Breastmilk or formula still meets all nutritional needs until around six months.

Starting solids early may increase risks of choking, tummy upset and a greater chance of being overweight later in life.

3. Why doesn’t growth happen steadily week to week?

Babies grow in spurts, not in smooth lines and weight can vary with feeding, sleep and any recent illness.

Periods of rapid growth often occur in the early weeks, around six to eight weeks, three to four months, and around six months with babies growing rapidly throughout the first year of life. During these times, babies may feed more or seem unsettled.

Where to find more support

For more support, contact your local GP and consider asking for a referral to a lactation consultant, paediatrician or dietitian.

As part of the Australian government’s Pregnancy, Birth and Baby program, you can phone (1800 882 436) or video call a maternal and child health nurses for free, seven days a week from 7am to midnight. Or for breastfeeding issues, call the Breastfeeding Helpline on 1800 mum 2 mum (1800 686 268).

For parents in New Zealand, the government’s Plunketline (0800 933 922) is available 24–7 for advice about child health and parenting.

Amit Arora, Associate Professor in Public Health, Western Sydney University; Hannah Dahlen, Professor of Midwifery, Associate Dean Research and HDR, Midwifery Discipline Leader, Western Sydney University; Jessica Appleton, Senior Lecturer, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Technology Sydney, and Lynn Kemp, Director of the Translational Research and Social Innovation group, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University

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

You probably have at least one “super fit” friend. Maybe they’re a marathon runner, a footy player or a keen hiker.

To keep themselves healthy, they may stick to a strict exercise regimen and only eat certain foods.

But in most cases, these people would likely struggle to play a sport or do an activity they’re unaccustomed to.

So, what does “fitness” even mean? And is there more than one kind?

Defining ‘fitness’

When you hear the word “fitness”, you probably picture someone who looks physically strong and athletic. But fitness can take many forms.

This includes cardiovascular endurance, which is how well your heart and lungs use oxygen to create energy.

There’s also muscular strength or your ability to move and lift objects in a single effort, for instance picking up a heavy box.

Body composition, or the amount of muscle you have relative to the amount of fat, is another aspect of fitness.

Aerobic or anaerobic fitness. What’s the difference?

While we can understand fitness in many ways, exercise scientists commonly break it down into two broad categories.

Aerobic

Aerobic fitness refers to your ability to use oxygen to create energy. This allows you to physically exert yourself for longer periods of time, for example, running a marathon.

Researchers assess aerobic fitness using a measurement known as “VO₂max”. This records the maximum amount of oxygen your body can take in and use to create energy. Existing evidence shows people with a higher VO₂max score may have better aerobic fitness, a lower disease risk and a longer lifespan.

Anaerobic

Anaerobic fitness has to do with how well you perform short, high-intensity movements. Examples include jumping as high as you can or running a 100-metre sprint. Research shows anaerobic fitness relies on factors such as muscle mass, strength and explosive power, or how much force you can produce in a short period of time.

Some sports mainly require one type of fitness, say aerobic fitness for long-distance running. But most use a combination of the two. For instance, a football player needs explosive anaerobic power to sprint for the ball, but must also have enough aerobic fitness to keep running for a whole game.

Importantly, your body will adapt to the specific type of training you do. So if you run regularly, your heart, lungs and legs will learn to run very efficiently.

However, running involves a movement pattern that is quite specific. That’s why a runner may initially find it hard to pick up other sports, such as swimming or cycling.

But if you are “running fit” you will have an easier time switching to another sport, compared with someone who is not fit at all. That’s because you’ve already developed your aerobic and anaerobic systems and just need to “transfer” them to your new activity, rather than start from scratch.

These factors can affect your fitness

There are several factors that shape your level of fitness.

One is genetics. There is much research to suggest your genes play a key role in how you respond to exercise. Some people may build muscle more quickly and easily, while others seem to improve their aerobic fitness without much effort. This doesn’t mean that your genes stop you from getting very fit. But it does suggest that not everyone will be able to become an elite athlete.

Another factor is training. The type of exercise you do, and how well you do it, directly impacts how fit you get. Research shows high-intensity interval training – which intersperses short bursts of activity with quick recovery periods – is especially effective for improving aerobic fitness. But if you’re keen to get more anaerobically fit, you can prioritise strength training.

Lifestyle choices also affect fitness. You can train as much as you want, but if you’re not eating and sleeping enough, you may not get the results you want. That’s because good nutrition and consistent sleep ensure your body properly recovers from exercise.

How can fitness impact my health?

The evidence is clear that if you want to live a long, healthy life, you need both aerobic and anaerobic fitness.

Higher aerobic fitness is one of the strongest predictors of overall health. Research shows it protects against illness such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia, and some cancers. It also prevents early death.

Importantly, being more anaerobically fit may lower your risk of getting type 2 diabetes and dying prematurely. Research also shows having stronger and more powerful muscles helps older people avoid falls and stay independent for longer.

In short, high aerobic fitness may help you live longer, while high anaerobic fitness will ensure you stay strong during your twilight years.

So, how can I improve my overall fitness?

Based on the World Health Organization’s physical activity guidelines, you should aim to do at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity each week. This may look like running, cycling or even brisk walking, and doing weight training at least two days each week.

If you are short on time, high-intensity interval training, also known as HIIT, is an effective way to do more exercise in less time.

When it comes to fitness, there are no quick fixes. But regardless what exercise you choose, what matters most is that you do it consistently.

Hunter Bennett, Lecturer in Exercise Science, Adelaide University

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

Australians scammed out of A$3,000 or less could be able to claim automatic reimbursement from banks, phone companies or tech companies, under a new federal government proposal.

Last year, there were 481,523 scam reports in Australia, worth A$2.18 billion, with a median loss of $400, a recent official report found. That was up 7.8% from the year before, but down since scams peaked at $3.1 billion in 2022.

At first glance, if the median scam amount was $400, being able to easily reclaim $3,000 might sound generous.

However, once you start digging deeper into data on Australian scams – then compare it with a similar scheme in the United Kingdom – $3,000 starts to look like an oddly low threshold.

Who would win under the new proposal?

The federal government has just released new details of its Scam Protection Framework, which will make banks, telcos and digital platforms set up stronger anti-scam systems by March 31 next year.

Part of that new framework is a proposed dispute resolution process, making banks, telcos and digital platforms “automatically reimburse scam victims for verified scam losses below $3,000”.

The goal of those automatic repayments would be to prevent low-value scam claims needing to go through costly dispute resolutions. That would save time and stress for scam victims, and avoid wasted time for police and the companies involved.

The reimbursement costs would be shared by the banks, telcos and digital platforms, which would repay people scammed via their services. This follows a similar approach in the UK, where banks sending and receiving fraudulent payments are equally responsible for the reimbursement cost.

The proposal says “the majority of scam complaints lodged in Australia involve losses under $3,000, despite accounting for a small fraction of total scam losses”. And that’s true: a lot of Australians stung by relatively low-level scams would benefit from this proposal.

But a closer look at scam data reveals that some of the most common and costly types of scams would end up not being covered.

Who would miss out?

Australia’s consumer watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, runs the Scamwatch website.

It shows investment scams were the single costliest type of scam in 2025, making up almost half of all of the losses it tracked.

The median loss for an investment scam last year was $7,000. That’s far higher than the proposed automatic scam repayment scheme.

Several other of the top ten most common scams last year – offering fake jobs, money recovery and payment redirections – also had median losses that were higher than $3,000.

The federal government says more expensive scams would have to go through a dispute resolution process instead.

The UK has far higher rapid repayments

In 2019, the UK introduced a voluntary code for its major banks which encouraged victims of “authorised push payment” scams to receive compensation directly from the banks.

This was a revolutionary change for the UK – but it had a mixed reception. Not all banks engaged with the code. Outcomes for consumers were inconsistent, with refund decisions varying considerably.

So the UK changed its Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 which, for the first time, introduced world-first mandatory reimbursements. That’s now been in force since October 2024.

The maximum amount of money an individual can claim is £85,000 (A$159,900), which covers more than 99% of claims. Where more than £85,000 is lost and not reimbursed, people can raise their case with the free Financial Ombudsman Service, which has a compensation limit of £430,000 (A$809,000).

There’s still a requirement for individuals to take responsibility for their transactions. But as long as there is no evidence of negligence, particularly in ignoring warnings from the bank, the refund is usually made within five days.

The UK scheme only covers domestic bank transactions, not international transactions or those involving cryptocurrency. This is narrower than the Australian proposal, which also brings in telcos and digital platforms.

A report looking at the start of the UK scheme found 86% of scam losses were returned in the first three months, totalling about £27 million (close to A$51 million). A similar proportion of refunds (84%) were processed within the five-day guideline.

Asked why Australia was proposing to set its automatic payment threshold lower than the UK, Financial Services Minister Daniel Mulino said the government didn’t want to incentivise bigger scams:

What we want to do is to make sure that we don’t have the wrong incentives for perpetrators to see Australia as a soft target.

Lifting an ‘oddly low’ threshold

It’s good news that Australia is trying to broaden reforms first started in the UK, by going beyond just bank transfers as the UK does to also capture payments made on other large digital platforms.

But what about the automatic repayment threshold: should we set it as high as the UK, equivalent to almost $160,000 here?

Actually, I don’t think we should.

If you’re making payments of that size, such as a home deposit, there’s a good case for insisting on extra diligence.

For instance, when I bought a property, I got an email from the realtor with account details. Instead of just transferring all the money at once, I rang them directly first, checked the account, then transferred a small, specific amount and rang again to ask them to confirm they’d got it.

But $3,000 is oddly low as a proposed threshold.

More research would be needed to recommend a more adequate amount. But given this is out for public consultation until June 25, now is the time to reconsider what the threshold should actually be.

Unless it’s lifted higher, national scam data shows too many people will still miss out.

Correction: an earlier version of this article referenced a report on the first six months of the UK scheme. However, the figures from that report – 86% of scam losses being returned, totalling about £27 million – were from the first three months of the scheme. This has been updated.

Paul Haskell-Dowland, Professor of Cyber Security Practice, Edith Cowan University

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

The next federal election in 2028 looks set to be a battle of the tax plans.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has dropped hints Labor may deliver more tax cuts for wage earners. Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has promised to fix “bracket creep” by tying what people pay in income tax to inflation.

Labor’s New South Wales Premier Chris Minns unexpectedly appeared to side with the Coalition this week, suggesting some Australians were now working half of the week just to pay their income tax:

The top marginal [tax] rate of 47%, as I said in parliament last week, you’re working Monday, Tuesday, and half of Wednesday for yourself, and then Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday for the government.

Is that true?

Let’s take a look at the latest data on how much income tax typical Australian households paid in 2025.

How much Australians pay in tax

Most countries with comparable economies to Australia belong to the 38-nation Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Just weeks ago, the OECD released its latest annual Taxing Wages report, showing the tax trends for full-time workers across all those countries for 2025. Their earnings ranged from just 67% of an average full-time wage, up to higher income earners on 167% of the average wage.

For Australian workers, the OECD used A$108,674 as the base level that an average full-time worker earned in 2024-2025.

Crucially, the OECD analysis also takes into account any other government benefits they received to come up with a net tax rate for each type of household. For example, if you receive a government cash payment – such as family tax benefits – that extra money balances out some of the tax you’ve paid the government.

Taking that into account, the OECD report showed many Australians paid less income tax last year than the OECD average.

Specifically, Australia’s single full-time workers, single parents on a lower income with two kids and dual income couples without kids all paid less tax than in comparable wealthy countries.

The most any of them paid was 28.7% for a higher income single person (someone earning 167% more than the average wage). That was less than the OECD’s average of 30.3%.

As an example, this is how a single Australian worker, earning an average wage, compared on tax rates against other OECD nations.

But there were some cases where Australians paid more.

For example, a married, dual income couple – both earning an average wage – with two kids paid a tax rate of 23.5% in 2025. This was higher than the OECD average of 21.5%. This couple would not receive any family tax benefit, as their income would be higher than the means tests allows.

The OECD analysis does not include investment income.

No one in Australia pays 47% on their entire salary

None of the households covered in the latest OECD analysis were paying anything like a 47% tax rate – particularly once you also take into account government payments like family tax benefits.

But what about Australia’s highest income earners, who weren’t covered in that OECD analysis?

No, not even someone on a very high salary is paying 47% of their entire salary.

Australia has a highly progressive tax system, with low income earners benefiting more from tax allowances such as the low income tax offset and transfer payments such as the family tax benefit.

Effective marginal tax rates vary based on income level and whether a person receives any government payments. Families tend to get more of those benefits – like family tax benefits – than singles.

Australia’s highest tax rate of 47% only applies as a “marginal tax”: meaning it’s only applied on each extra dollar that people earn above the highest $190,000 threshold. Here’s how it works.

The actual tax rates income earners pay

These are Australia’s current marginal tax rates, for the 2025-26 year. Note, there’s an additional 2% Medicare levy for many taxpayers – taking the top tax rate to 47%.

Let’s use an example. The New South Wales Premier Chris Minns’s salary from July 1, 2025, was $348,301 (plus expenses).

Minns only has to pay the highest 47% tax rate (including the Medicare levy) on what he earns from $190,001 up: less than half of his total salary.

According to the federal government’s Moneysmart income tax calculator, someone with a $348,301 salary in 2025-26 would have an after-tax income of $218,462.

That’s an effective tax rate of 37.27% – not 47%.

So are any Australian salary earners “working Monday, Tuesday, and half of Wednesday for yourself, and then Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday for the government”?.

The simple answer? No.

Helen Hodgson, Adjunct Professor, Curtin Law School and Curtin Business School, Curtin University

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

From July 1 this year, all Australian businesses will have to pay their employees’ superannuation on the same day as they pay salaries. If you’re an employee, that means your employer’s super payment will need to reach your super fund within seven days of pay day.

In the lead up to the change, the Australian Taxation Office has been encouraging employers to transition to “payday super” early. So you may have already noticed a change.

Underpayment or failure to pay superannuation has become a growing problem. The tax office recently said around A$6 billion in superannuation is currently unpaid to workers.

So what’s changing from July 1? How much is it likely to boost your super balance over time? And where can you get help if you need it, either as an employer or an employee?

What’s new from July 1?

In Australia, all employees receive a minimum amount of superannuation on their wages paid into their nominated super fund. This is called the superannuation guarantee and is 12% of your wages (whether you’re full-time, part-time or casual).

Under the current rules, ending on June 30, most businesses pay superannuation quarterly. That money has to reach an individual employee’s super fund 28 days after the end of the relevant quarter.

Although some businesses may have paid super more regularly, until now many individuals may have seen only quarterly deposits to their super fund.

This means it can be difficult for an employee to match the super on their payslip with the deposits into their fund. There are often delays between an employer making the payment and a super fund processing the payment.

Payday super is a new step to ensure payments are actually made to the super fund at the same time as they’re reported to the tax office.

Thousands more for a typical worker over time

If the main difference from July 1 is the timing when an employer pays super, does this make any difference for the employee? Yes, it will.

Even an employee without underpaid or unpaid super will benefit from more regular payments of super to their super fund. This is because earlier and more frequent payments will help super investments and returns grow faster.

Estimates vary of how much it could be worth over time. Last year, the federal government said it could add around $6,000 in today’s dollars to average 25-year-old worker’s retirement balance.

The Super Members Council – which represents superannuation funds with 12 million Australian members – separately estimated a typical worker could be $9,400 better off in retirement if super was paid at the same time as wages.

Why was any change needed?

Super Members Council analysis found younger Australians on lower wages, people in insecure work, lower-paid women, and migrant workers were particularly hard hit by lost super. One in two workers who earn less than $25,000 a year have unpaid super.

A 2022 report by the federal government’s Australian National Audit Office showed workers in construction, retail, professional scientific and technical services, accommodation and food services were the most likely to have unpaid super.

And very small and small businesses were the most likely to have underpaid their staff super.

But larger corporations have been caught out too. Just last year, supermarket giants Woolworths and Coles were found to have underpaid wages for about 28,000 staff, with an estimated final bill that could reach $1 billion. Those underpayments included underpaid superannuation.

All too often, individuals only realised their super was unpaid, or underpaid, after it was too late, such as if their employer unexpectedly went bankrupt. That’s the key problem the new payday super rules aim to prevent.

How employers can get help

If you’re an employer, payday super is a significant change to how you might have done business in the past.

Super for employees can no longer be considered as a problem for down the track – and this will have cashflow implications.

If you haven’t already, there is still time to get prepared using these tax office checklists and videos for employers.

Last week, the tax office said more than half of employers were still not paying super more frequently than quarterly. But it’s also made it clear it will focus on education over punishment for employers trying to do the right thing in the coming financial year.

How employees can get help

While payday super is certainly a win for employees, unfortunately there will always be a minority of employers that deliberately or accidentally do the wrong thing.

If you’re an employee, especially if you have any reason for concern, follow these three quick steps:

• make sure your employer has your current super details
• understand where your super goes
• and regularly check your super fund balance against your payslip.

Communicate any errors to your employer in writing as soon as you can.

Then you’ll have peace of mind the payday super rules are working for you.

There’s more easy-to-read information for employees on the tax office website.

Toni Patricia Brackin, Professor of Accounting and Deputy Head of School - Business, University of Southern Queensland

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

Australia’s spy agency issued a stark warning to politicians and public servants last week: do not discuss sensitive or classified information in vehicles.

Speaking at senate estimates, ASIO Deputy Director-General Lisa Alonso Love said the warning concerned “any vehicle, whether it’s connected or not”. But she added that “connected vehicles” may come with additional risks for data collection. Her advice was that classified conversations should occur only in properly secured locations, not while travelling.

The warning came after seven models of Chinese electric vehicles were added to the list of taxpayer-funded cars available to federal politicians, representing 30% of the vehicles now available under the parliamentarian vehicle scheme.

But this is not just a problem with electric cars, nor cars manufactured in China. Connected vehicles of any kind come with several privacy and national security risks.

What are ‘connected cars’?

According to the Australian Signals Directorate, any vehicle that is connected to the internet, either through an embedded SIM card or a paired smartphone, can be considered a connected vehicle.

Almost all major cars sold in Australia with “connected services” collect and transmit driver and passenger data to the vehicle manufacturer.

A study by consulting firm McKinsey found 50% of cars on the road in 2021 had internet connections and predicted the number will rise to 95% by 2030.

Data is collected and stored both on vehicle and offshore. For example, Great Wall Motor’s policy states its data is transmitted to Singapore but is available for analysis in China.

What data do these cars collect?

Connected vehicles are packed with sensors: in the seats, the dashboard, the engine, the steering wheel. Many also have additional driver-facing cameras plus external cameras. Vehicles can generate 1 to 2 terabytes of raw data per car each day.

Manufacturers collect sensor data to measure vehicle performance. However, collected data also includes precise geolocation data, infotainment use, whether you buckle your seatbelt, drive too fast or brake too hard, and whether you are sleepy or drank too much.

Some of the data collected, such as real-time location and when the driver and passengers are inside or outside the vehicle, can infer weight, age, race and facial expressions.

Vehicles also have access to data from Bluetooth connections to our cellphones. This includes contacts, mapping data, calendar information, habits and hobbies and a myriad of other data sets. Data shared through cellphones can provide even more personal data such as your financial and relationship status.

And it isn’t just driver data. The privacy of passengers is also of concern. Sales agreements state the driver is responsible for advising passengers anything they say or do can be collected by the on-platform sensors. It is up to the driver to warn passengers.

According to a 2023 report by software company Mozilla, vehicles are the most egregious for collecting personal information and violating privacy norms.

Of the 25 vehicles Mozilla reviewed, none passed their privacy review.

According to vehicle privacy disclosures reviewed by Mozilla, manufacturers use data for product evaluation and improvement. However, it is also made available for sale to affiliates and data aggregators where it is repackaged and sold.

In 2023, Reuters revealed Tesla employees privately shared highly invasive videos and images that had been collected from customers’ cars. The recordings reportedly included people in the nude and others involved in crashes.

What can you do to protect yourself?

Generally, consumers can choose to opt out of some of the data collection. However, if they refuse the collection, they may not receive all of the vehicle’s full functionality.

The following steps can help you stay secure:

1. Review the manufacturer’s privacy and sharing agreements when you purchase a vehicle and know your rights.

2. Go to vehicleprivacyreport.com and enter your vehicle identification number to check to see what data is collected.

3. Do not allow the manufacturer’s SIM card to be installed or activated in data-enabled cars.

4. If the vehicle has a downloadable application, you may be able to turn off some of the collection features associated with that vehicle.

5. Alternatively, many vehicles have the data collection description and the ability to opt-out through its infotainment centre dashboard.

6. If you sell or loan your vehicle, make sure you do a full factory reset to eliminate any collected data. Advise the new owner to ensure the vehicle has been reset.

Dennis B. Desmond, Lecturer, Cyberintelligence and Cybercrime Investigations, University of the Sunshine Coast

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