Social media platforms Instagram and YouTube have a design defect which means they are addictive, a jury in the United States has ruled.

The Los Angeles jury took nearly nine days to reach its verdict in the landmark case brought by a woman known as KGM against social media platforms. It awarded US$3 million in damages, with Meta (owner of Instagram) being 70% responsible and Google (owner of YouTube) 30%. The jury later awarded a further US$3 million in punitive damages.

Both TikTok and Snap settled on confidential terms before the six-week trial commenced.

This is Meta’s second big loss in the US courts this week, with a New Mexico jury finding the company guilty on March 24 of concealing information about the risks of child sexual exploitation and the harmful effects of its platforms on children’s mental health.

KGM’s case is the first of its kind, but won’t be the last: it is one of more than 20 “bellwether” trials due to go to court soon. These are essentially test cases used to gauge juries’ reactions and set a legal precedent.

As such, the verdict is set to have far reaching ripple effects. It could be big tech’s big tobacco moment, with thousands more similar cases waiting in the wings.

Machines designed to addict

KGM – now 20 years old – said she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine, and allegedly developed compulsive use patterns, including up to 16 hours in a single day on Instagram. The platforms’ design features, she argued, contributed to her anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation.

Her case argued that Meta and YouTube made deliberate design choices – for example, “infinite scroll” – to make their platforms more addictive to children in order to boost profits. It alleged the companies borrowed heavily from the behavioural and neurobiological techniques used by poker machines and exploited by the cigarette industry to maximise youth engagement and drive advertising revenue.

KGM’s lawyer Mark Lanier told the jurors:

These companies built machines designed to addict the brains of children, and they did it on purpose.

Lanier cited an internal Meta study called “Project Myst”. This allegedly found that children who had experienced “adverse effects” were most likely to get addicted to Instagram, and that parents were powerless to stop the addiction.

He said:

The moment [KGM] was locked into the machine, her mom was locked out.

The jury heard that Meta’s internal communications compared the platform’s effects to pushing drugs and gambling. The jury found this internal awareness was the kind of corporate knowledge that supports liability.

In addition, a YouTube memo reportedly described “viewer addiction” as a goal, and an Instagram employee wrote the company was staffed by “basically pushers”.

Mark Lanier drew a direct parallel to tobacco litigation, arguing that where there is corporate knowledge, deliberate targeting, and public denial, liability follows.

Pointing the finger at the family

Meta argued KGM faced significant challenges before she ever used social media, and that the evidence did not support reducing a lifetime of hardship to a single factor.

Meta’s lawyer highlighted KGM’s family dynamics as responsible for her mental health struggles, and argued social media may have actually provided a healthy outlet for her when she faced difficulties at home.

Meta’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg gave evidence for the defence:

I’m not trying to maximise the amount of time people spend every month.

On safety tools Meta added in recent years Zuckerberg said:

I always wish we could have gotten there sooner.

In closing arguments, YouTube’s lawyer argued there was not a single mention of an addiction to YouTube in KGM’s medical records.

The companies centred part of their defence on Section 230 protections, arguing they cannot be held liable for content posted on their platforms.

However, the judge instructed the jury that the way content is delivered is a separate consideration to what the content is. This limited Meta and Google’s ability to rely on Section 230 protections.

Challenging a legal protection

This was one of the first cases against big tech which was a jury trial – something companies have previously been keen to avoid.

For example, in June 2024, a few months ahead of a scheduled jury trial in the Department of Justice’s challenge to Google’s advertising technology monopoly, Google paid more than US$2 million (A$2.8 million) to the Department of Justice.

This was treble the damages claimed, plus interest.

In the US, a jury trial is only required when monetary damages are at stake. By paying the full damages amount upfront in that case, Google eliminated the damages claim and with it, the right to a jury.

Until now, US courts have largely denied motions that focused on design.

This includes infinite scroll and notification systems. The distinction between “platform design” and “content curation” has been central to how courts have analysed First Amendment arguments in this litigation.

The effect of the jury’s verdict in KGM’s case is to demonstrate the limitations of the Section 230 protection.

The first – but not the last

This is the first big tech case, on a global basis, that has examined addiction as a cause of damage. Other cases have focused on breaches of law.

For example, in the case in New Mexico against Meta, the jury concluded the company made false or misleading statements and engaged in “unconscionable” trade practices that exploited children’s vulnerability and inexperience. It identified thousands of individual violations, resulting in a total penalty of US$375 million (A$539 million).

KGM’s case paves the way for the many other actions seeking damages from social media platforms for the effects of addiction.

There is logic for these cases to be heard concurrently in a class action in the US. The verdict could also be used as the basis for both class actions and individual actions on a global basis.

Meta and Google have said separately they plan to appeal the verdict.

Rob Nicholls, Senior Research Associate in Media and Communications, University of Sydney

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

Child abuse in Australian sport can happen to anyone, in any sport, at any level – during practice, in competition and online.

At community level, volunteers play an essential role. But some are not able to recognise when a child is in danger, and many don’t know how to respond when a young person tries to speak up.

Our just-published research found many volunteers had minimal confidence and organisational support, and points to the need for urgent reforms.

Abuse at the top levels

In recent years, several reports of abuse in elite sport have captured national media attention in Australia.

In 2021, an independent review into Gymnastics Australia found evidence of bullying, harassment, abuse, neglect, racism, sexism and ableism.

A 2022 investigation into Australian swimming was sparked by Maddie Groves quitting the Tokyo Olympic trials after saying she was sexually abused as a teenager by a man who was still working in the sport.

In 2024, Sports Integrity Australia reviewed the volleyball program at the Australian Institute of Sport and revealed systemic verbal and physical abuse of athletes, excessive punishments, body shaming, and forced isolation from family or friends.

These high-profile issues unfolded at the top levels of Australian sport. The picture at community levels is just as confronting.

Our previous research sparked questions

In 2022, we researched what was happening in community sports. We found more than 80% of Australian adults surveyed had experienced at least one type of abuse (psychological, physical, sexual) when playing youth community sport in Australia.

Most never disclosed those experiences to an adult because they feared they would not be believed or would be removed from sport.

Australia’s huge volunteer workforce – about three million people – includes coaches, team managers, committee members and canteen workers, among others. In youth sport, it is overwhelmingly made up of parents whose children play sport.

Despite the essential role volunteers play, we know very little about whether they feel prepared, confident, or supported to act when a child discloses abuse.

These realities made us ask a simple but important question: how prepared are these volunteers to notice when a child is being harmed and to respond when a young person tries to speak up?

What we found in our national survey

We surveyed more than 200 volunteers across 50 different sports nationally, examining their knowledge, confidence, beliefs and support to recognise and respond to disclosures of child abuse.

While most were highly motivated to respond to child abuse in sport, only half said their club made it clear that responding was part of their role.

One respondent shared:

In the 12-odd years of active coaching and refereeing, I have never had a face-to-face or group induction to the child reporting responsibilities I have in my sport roles.

One in five volunteers feared repercussions from their club if they raised concerns of child abuse and fewer than 40% believed current reporting systems were effective.

One volunteer shared a poignant example:

Last season, a coach made the entire team walk across a player’s back as a punishment. I spoke up. My child was then not selected … (the) coach was not stood down.

One in five volunteers also held damaging assumptions including the belief that children lie about abuse, despite evidence it is extremely rare.

Finally, 7.8% of respondents said there had been a time they suspected child abuse in sport but did not report it.

The issues were consistent across sports, highlighting a sector-wide challenge rather than isolated problems in individual clubs.

These issues existed despite the fact 65% of the respondents had undergone some form of child safeguarding training within the past 12 months.

While it’s easy to assume this is simply a training or policy gap, the reality is child safeguarding in sport cannot fall solely on the shoulders of volunteers.

So what can be done?

Insights from those who have experienced abuse

After the survey closed, our team established a committee of seven people who had experienced abuse in sport to co-develop reflections and recommendations.

In their initial response to the survey findings, the committee members collectively stated:

Overall, we’re surprised, frustrated and disappointed about the lack of progress on child safeguarding practices in sport, in light of the learnings from the 2017 Royal Commission on Institutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse.

Working with the committee members and a small cohort of community sport volunteers, we developed some priority actions for the sport sector as a whole, clubs, and volunteers.

The sport sector needs to strengthen safeguarding through targeted initiatives (education/public campaigns) that support volunteers to recognise and respond to all forms of abuse and challenge harmful myths. These must be underpinned by trauma-informed practices.

Volunteers are encouraged to take a few simple but powerful actions such as normalising conversations with kids and their parents about the club’s practices, and emailing club members about relevant child safeguarding policies.

Independent community sport platform Play by the Rules has some great templates and resources for volunteers, while we have also developed a resource to help sports organisations apply trauma-informed principles.

More is needed

These findings align with national efforts such as the Australian Sports Commission’s Play Well strategy and the Sport Volunteer Coalition Action Plan which aim to build capability, transform culture and strengthen systems that ensure safe, inclusive sport.

Our research indicates achieving this relies not only on volunteers being trained and supported to act when they see harm or hear a disclosure, but also on strong system and leadership-level commitment to create environments where safe responses are enabled, reinforced and prioritised.

Mary Woessner, Associate professor, Victoria University; Alexandra Parker, Executive Director of the Institute for Health and Sport, Professor of Physical Activity and Mental Health, Victoria University; Aurélie Pankowiak, Research Fellow, Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, and Fiona McLachlan, Associate Professor, Sport Studies and Associate Director, Research Training, Victoria University

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

Every Australian shopper knows the pull of cheap junk foods lining supermarket shelves. Meanwhile, the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables continues to climb.

So it’s little wonder conditions such as obesity and type 2 diabetes are so common, and Australia’s health-care system struggles to cope.

But what if policies could help level the playing field? And what would that mean for our health, and health-care expenditure?

Our new research, published today in The Lancet Public Health, estimates a 20% tax on unhealthy foods could prevent 212,000 premature deaths and save A$14.9 billion in health-care costs over the lifetimes of Australian adults alive today.

We estimated the health impact could be even greater if the tax revenue is used to subsidise fruit and vegetables.

What we did

By “unhealthy foods”, we mean sugary drinks, lollies, salty snacks, biscuits, pastries, processed meat and ice cream. These are the kinds of foods the Australian Dietary Guidelines says we should limit for optimal health. Yet most Australians find them hard to resist.

We modelled how taxing these foods by 20% could shift the type of food Australians buy. This could be a 20% tax on the retail price or a 20% tax applied at the point of manufacture (an excise tax). But our modelling didn’t specify the type, just that the price would increase by 20%.

We also modelled the knock-on effects on weight, blood pressure and chronic disease over the lifetimes of adults aged 20 or greater in Australia.

We then estimated what would happen if we used that revenue to subsidise fruit and vegetables, and any extra health benefits this would have.

We also looked at how these impacts could differ for households across the socio-economic spectrum – from the poorest 20% to the richest 20% – to see how taxes and subsidies might affect people in different financial situations.

What we found

We estimated the 20% tax could cut purchases of unhealthy foods by about 8–26% depending on the category.

This could lead to 660,000 fewer cases of type 2 diabetes and 787,000 fewer cases of heart disease over the remaining lifetimes of Australian adults alive today. In turn, this could prevent about 212,000 premature deaths.

The economic returns could be substantial. We estimated a total reduction of $14.9 billion in health-care costs. That’s a health-care cost saving of $781 per adult over their lifetime.

While the average Australian could pay about $139 more in tax each year, the policy could help make Australia fairer: low-income Australians could experience roughly 76% greater health benefits than high-income Australians. This is because low-income Australians bear the greatest burden of diet-related illness and could see the largest reductions in purchases of unhealthy foods.

So this measure would ease the unequal burden of obesity, diabetes and heart disease on those affected the most.

The revenue raised could also be enough to reduce the average cost of fruits and vegetables by 19–26% across the population. This could ease cost of living pressures, avert 194,000 more cases of heart disease and prevent an additional 45,000 premature deaths.

Implementing the tax and subsidy together would also come at no net cost to the government.

How does this compare to a sugar tax?

You might have heard about proposals for a “sugar tax” that taxes sugary drinks. It’s an approach the World Health Organization endorses.

But we estimated extending these taxes to unhealthy foods more broadly could deliver around seven times the health benefits.

Similarly, the tax-and-subsidy package we modelled could have a greater impact than mandating the Health Star Rating, restricting junk food advertising, reducing harmful ingredients in products (such as salt), or running a national healthy eating campaign.

This doesn’t mean the tax-and-subsidy package alone will fix the enormous personal and health-care costs of unhealthy diets in Australia. But our findings reinforce its potential to be a powerful policy lever the government should consider.

After all, we know price is a strong driver of the foods we buy.

What now?

Australian politicians are debating a tax on sugary drinks. This is a great start, but our findings suggest Australia should consider a broader system of taxes and subsidies for much greater impact.

Public support for such measures is strong. Around 53% of Australians support a tax on unhealthy foods, rising to around 72–74% if the revenue is used to subsidise fruit and vegetables.

The subsidies could be delivered through existing avenues. These include using vouchers, via school programs, retail subsidies in First Nations communities, and healthy food prescription programs.

Advocacy from health and community groups could help drive policy uptake. In Colombia, such sustained advocacy led to the introduction of a 20% tax on unhealthy foods. Evidence suggests this is improving population diets without affecting jobs in the food industry.

Australia has navigated similar debates before. Tobacco taxes, once controversial, have contributed to large reductions in smoking while funding initiatives such as the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.

Given unhealthy diets and being overweight now drive more chronic disease than smoking, we should be considering equally sensible measures – including food taxes and subsidies – to help Australians act on their best intentions at the supermarket.

Tazman Davies, PhD Candidate, Food Policy, George Institute for Global Health and Jason Wu, Professor and the Head of the Nutrition Science Program, George Institute for Global Health

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

“Cashback” apps make an enticing promise. You download an app or click on a web browser extension. You go about your online shopping as usual, spend money, but then get some cash back. It sounds simple, right?

In recent years, cashback programs have made a serious splash with online shoppers.

The Singapore-based company ShopBack, for example, currently has more than 55 million customers worldwide and was last valued at A$1.4 billion.

And it’s competing in a crowded market, alongside companies such as Freecash, Honey, Kickback, Boost your Super and Grow My Money.

Even some of the big banks are getting in on the cashback trend. Westpac has partnered with Shopback, NAB has its own “NAB Goodies Program”, and Commonwealth Bank has “CommBank Yello”.

Of course, nothing is free. When a “middle man” cashback company is involved, either you or the retailer is paying somehow. Here’s how these programs work – and some of the risks you should be aware of.

Money for nothing?

Cashback programs entice shoppers with incentives such as cash, discounts and rewards when they make a purchase.

Some might be a free app, others a browser extension to use while online shopping. But they’re almost always designed to serve consumers with advertisements and collect consumer information.

The typical model is to track purchases using an app or browser, and then deal out “rewards” once certain conditions are met.

This could include:

• meeting a minimum spend
• purchasing particular products
• waiting until your purchase is tracked and approved.

To avoid products being returned after rewards have been granted, wait times for cash back can be long and indefinite.

Where does the money come from?

There are a few different ways these companies make money.

One is by providing a simple advertising service. Cashback companies will often channel online traffic to retailers in return for a commission. They then use this commission to offer consumers rewards for their purchases (and keep some for themselves as profit).

But they also typically collect extensive data about their users’ online behaviour – including searches for products they’re interested in, shopping history and more.

Your data is valuable

When you download an app or use a web extension, you may need to enter information or “accept” that the software will collect your information.

However, even when you “consent” to disclose your personal information, you may not realise the extent of what you’re handing over, including your sensitive information.

Most data collection, use, storage and disclosure is difficult to detect and track. Sometimes consumers won’t know what privacy implications their app or web extension usage will have in future.

In the worst case scenario, a consumer’s identifying data may be sold and bought multiple times online without their knowledge. (However, some apps specifically state they don’t sell that data.)

Consumer data is valuable to companies who are trying to understand consumer behaviour, such as purchasing habits. This data also appeals to companies trying to market products, networks involves in identity thefts, and scams and criminals who take advantage of data breaches.

What the law says

Information privacy is protected by the Privacy Act and the 13 Australian Privacy Principles that restrict how an entity can handle a consumer’s personal information.

This includes strict rules about management, notification, use, cross-border disclosure and security of personal information.

Private information can be subject to a data breach if adequate data security systems are not in place. And even large, well known and trusted companies are not immune to this risk.

For example, in 2023, Singapore’s data privacy watchdog fined Shopback S$74,400 (A$83,300) over a 2020 data breach that impacted more than 1.4 million people.

Private, personal and sensitive information can cross borders without detection and this can lead to wider exposure of information that may be used to identify or impersonate an individual.

Buyer beware

So, while getting 5% back on your purchases, there are a few key things to be aware of.

Consumers need to be careful when disclosing information to these companies and this includes information that can identify them as an individual. For example, personal information might include names, a signature, an address, phone number, date of birth or a photograph.

Sensitive information might include ethnicity, gender, health data or beliefs.

Generally, sensitive information has a higher level of privacy protection than other personal information, and should be treated with an extra level of care.

Financial information is a special category of information and consumers should think carefully before disclosing financial details to a third party – even if there is an incentive offered.

Mirella Atherton, Lecturer in Law, University of Newcastle

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

On a quiet suburban street, a modern Australian home wakes before its owners do.

The lights turn on automatically, the thermostat adjusts to a comfortable temperature, and the coffee machine begins brewing. A doorbell camera watches the front yard, a baby monitor streams live footage to a parent’s phone, and a smart speaker waits for its next command.

This is the promise of the smart home: convenience, efficiency and peace of mind.

But behind this smooth experience is a hidden risk: every connected device can also be a way for cyber attackers to get in.

The Australian government has responded by introducing minimum security standards for smart devices to better protect households in this increasingly connected world.

These standards recently took effect. So what’s in them? And are they sufficient to keep people safe?

Starting with manufacturers

From my experience working in cybersecurity, I’ve seen that security risks start from manufacturers themselves.

Many smart devices are not designed with security as a priority. Manufacturers often focus on keeping costs low, releasing products quickly, and making them easy to use. Security is treated as an afterthought.

For example, many devices arrive with weak default passwords such as “admin” or “1234”, which users rarely change. This creates an easy opportunity for attackers to gain access.

The Mirai botnet attack in 2016 clearly demonstrated the risks. In this case, hundreds of thousands of insecure devices such as doorbell cameras were hijacked to launch massive “distributed denial-of-service” (DDoS) attacks. This is a type of cyber attack where many computers or devices are used together to overwhelm a website, server, or network with traffic, so it becomes slow or completely unavailable to legitimate users.

More recent research has shown smart home devices can be exploited not only to disrupt systems but also to spy on households. In some cases, strangers have accessed baby monitors, and poorly secured cameras have exposed private footage online.

Another major issue is the lack of regular software updates.

Many low-cost or older devices don’t receive ongoing security patches, which means known software vulnerabilities remain open indefinitely. Attackers actively scan the internet for such devices, exploiting weaknesses at a large scale. Cloud-connected and AI-enabled systems amplify risks.

The consequences of these weaknesses go beyond individual households. Compromised devices can be used as part of larger cyber attacks, forming botnets that target critical infrastructure or businesses.

In effect, an insecure smart lightbulb or camera can become a building block in global cyber crime operations.

What are the new standards?

In response to these growing threats, the Australian government has begun introducing mandatory minimum security standards for connected devices.

These standards took effect earlier this month. They aim to establish a baseline level of protection across all products entering the market.

While the details of these standards may evolve, the key ideas are clear.

First, devices must not use universal default passwords. Each device should either require users to create a unique password during setup or be shipped with a unique credential.

Second, manufacturers must provide a clear vulnerability disclosure policy, allowing security researchers to report issues responsibly.

Third, there must be transparency around how long a device will receive security updates, so consumers can make informed decisions.

These changes shift some responsibility from users to manufacturers. Instead of expecting consumers to fix security problems themselves, devices must be designed to be safer from the start.

In practice, this means fewer vulnerabilities and greater accountability across the industry.

Regulation alone isn’t enough

However, regulation alone is not enough. Household behaviour still plays a critical role in maintaining security. Fortunately, some of the most effective steps are simple.

Changing default passwords to strong, unique ones is one of the most important steps. A strong password should be long, complex and not reused across multiple devices or accounts.

Enabling multi-factor authentication wherever possible adds a second layer of defence, making it significantly harder for attackers to gain access.

Regularly updating device firmware, also known as “software for hardware”, is equally important. Firmware updates often include patches for newly discovered vulnerabilities, and delaying them leaves devices exposed.

Users should also consider their home network design. Placing smart devices on a separate network, such as a guest wifi, can help isolate them from more sensitive information on personal or work devices.

Finally, choosing reputable manufacturers matters. Companies with a strong track record of providing ongoing security updates and transparent policies are generally safer choices than unknown or low-cost alternatives.

Smart homes are becoming an integral part of everyday life, and their benefits continue to grow. But as intelligence and automation expand, convenience must not come at the expense of security and trust.

With stronger standards, better-designed devices and more informed users, it is possible to enjoy the benefits of smart homes without exposing ourselves to unnecessary cyber risks.

Yang Xiang, Professor, Computer Science, Swinburne University of Technology

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

If you’ve topped up your tank at a petrol station recently, did it feel like you were “panic buying”? Or did it feel more like “I’d better buy some, just in case”?

During the COVID pandemic, our research team wrote about the psychological drivers behind Australians buying up toilet paper: scarcity mindset, anticipated regret and regaining “control”. We also warned that politicians or media coverage rebuking people for buying more at the supermarkets actually risked making it worse.

Over recent weeks, some senior politicians have repeated this mistake, berating people as “un-Australian” for “panic buying” fuel.

But one of the lessons we should have learnt from COVID – when supermarket shelves were cleared and some buying limits had to be introduced – is that most people didn’t perceive themselves as “panic buyers”.

‘Just in case’ shoppers

A 2020 survey asked 450 people in the United States and Australia “to what extent did you engage in panic buying in the first few months of the COVID-19 outbreak?”. On average, both the older US participants and mostly university-aged Australians participants scored themselves as only having “low engagement” in panic buying.

A smaller UK study published in 2022 found similar results, concluding “‘panic buying’ is not a useful concept”.

Instead, Australian and other shoppers during COVID saw buying a bit extra as playing it safe, rather than panicking.

Many Australians have lingering memories of times when supply has struggled to meet demand: from banana prices jumping from A$2 a kilogram to $15 a kilo after Cyclone Larry in 2006, to struggling to find eggs last year due to bird flu.

With little sign of the Strait of Hormuz being safe for oil tankers anytime soon, it’s entirely rational for people to think “I’d better get petrol now, before the price jumps further” – sooner than we might have refilled normally.

But when enough people buy more “just in case”, all those individual choices can collectively overwhelm our fuel and food systems.

‘A few extras’ can empty shelves

Australia has spent decades pursuing lean supply chains – what’s known as “just-in-time” supplies, with minimal buffer stock sitting around in warehouses.

It’s a hyper-efficient system that uses sophisticated demand forecasting to keep costs low. But it also assumes that tomorrow will look exactly like today.

Supply chains here and in many other countries are now optimised for predictable demand, rather than surges in demand.

In March 2020, market research group Kantar analysed the shopping habits of more than 100,000 UK consumers. It found only a small minority of people were buying far more than usual. For instance, only 3% of shoppers were stockpiling far more packets of pasta than usual.

But a significant number of consumers were adding just a few extra products and shopping more often than usual. Kantar concluded those “just a few extras” shoppers were inadvertently emptying shelves.

For our supply systems to keep working today, we need to resist the instinct to buy more fuel or other essentials than usual – unless there’s a genuine need, like residents in Queensland and the Northern Territory needing supplies before Cyclone Narelle hit.

Buying just what you need

Our work in behavioural theory suggests two approaches that would help Australia avoid repeating some of the mistakes of the early COVID response.

First, we need to highlight what the majority are doing. Focusing on the minority – those emptying shelves of jerry cans at Bunnings – can accidentally create a powerful, negative social norm that can amplify hoarding behaviour.

Most Australians are still buying petrol and shopping as normal. Highlighting sensible behaviour normalises and stabilises it.

Second, we should appeal to people’s collective responsibility. This means emphasising the need for collective effort to keep supplies available for everyone. Bringing values of shared responsibility to mind can encourage more considered choices.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese appears to have realised this. Talking about surging fuel demand late last week, he put greater emphasis on what “a good Australian” would do:

My message to Australians is please do not take more fuel than you need […] It’s the Australian way to think of others, to think of their neighbours, their community and also to think of the national interest. Only take what you need.

At the same time, we also need to build greater responsiveness into our fuel and food distribution systems, balancing efficiency with resilience.

The real lesson of empty petrol stations or supermarket shelves isn’t that people are irrational. It’s that perfectly rational individual behaviour can overwhelm a fragile system.

Until more resilient systems are in place in future, we can all play our part to keep essentials like petrol and food in stock, by shifting from a “just in case” mentality to “just take what you need”.

Jennifer Macklin (Downes), Senior Research Fellow, BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash University and Ananya Bhattacharya, Senior Lecturer, Department of Management, Monash University

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

When living with a partner, you might be sharing more than just the same home, lifestyle and interests. You might also share various microscopic organisms residing on and in you.

This community of microorganisms, which consists of mainly bacteria, viruses and fungi, is known collectively as the human microbiome. The various microbiomes found throughout the body all play an important role in health.

From birth, the human microbiome is shaped by our interactions with our mother, who introduces diverse microorganisms that build our immune and digestive systems. As we get older, social interactions with our close community continue influencing this delicate ecosystem.

The people we live with have huge influence on what microbes we have in our microbiome. In fact, it’s thought that partners share around 30% of their resident microbes in the gut alone.

But it isn’t just the microbes in your gut that may be similar to your partner. The microbes in many other parts of the body may also be shared with your loved one – and this could potentially affect your health.

Gut microbiome

Diet and lifestyle are thought to have the greatest influence on the gut microbiome’s make-up. But studies on couples have found that living with your partner can also influence the microbiome.

Couples living together may share 13% to 30% of their gut bacteria. This was true even when diet (which many couples share) was factored out. Research also shows that couples who live together have greater microbial diversity compared to people who live alone.

This is good news for couples who co-habitate, as a more diverse gut microbiome is correlated with lower risk of irritable bowel syndrome, cardiovascular diseases and potentially high blood sugar.

But it might not all be good news. Research shows that some of the bacterial species couples share can have varying effects on health.

Take the bacteria from the Ruminococcus family. While some species of Ruminoccocus benefit health, others have been linked to negative health outcomes, including diabetes and irritable bowel syndrome.

So these bacteria may not always offer the same benefits in different demographics. This highlights the complexity of resident gut bacteria and their health impacts.

Oral microbiome

Sharing an oral microbiome with our partners might seem obvious considering we regularly exchange saliva when we kiss. A ten-second kiss alone can exchange up to 80 million bacteria. The more kisses a couple shares, the more shared salivary bacteria they will have.

Although most of these bacteria will quickly pass through our mouth and into our gut when we swallow saliva, research show that couples actually share many of the same longer-term tongue microbes that form the foundation of the oral microbiome. Research even suggests that 38% of the oral microbiome is shared in couples living together – compared to only 3% in couples who don’t live together.

Sharing this proportion of your oral microbiome could have many potential health effects.

A healthy oral microbiome is important for protecting against tooth decay and it has anti-inflammatory properties. Some researchers also suggest the oral microbiome’s health effects may extend as far as the gut and nervous system.

But some of the bacteria that couples tend to share may also have potentially harmful health effects.

Couples are more likely to have similar numbers of the bacteria Neisseria in their gut compared to single people. Neisseria can reside in the mouth for long periods of without causing disease.

Some Neisseria bacteria can be harmful and may cause meningitis. Yet some Neisseria bacteria actually fight against these meningitis-causing species, stopping them from overgrowing and causing harm.

So while you may want to avoid kissing someone when they’re poorly for obvious reasons, it turns out that a kiss even when you’re healthy can transfer all sorts of bacteria between the two of you.

More research is needed to really understand what overall effect sharing these bacteria with your partner has on health.

Skin microbiome

The skin microbiome is the most unique and personalised microbiome, tailored to each person. It’s even sometimes referred to as our microbial fingerprint.

Being the most exposed microbiome, the skin microbiome has evolved to be adaptable to external factors such as the climate and cosmetic products. No matter what, these bacteria work hard to remain at an equilibrium.

Close contact with our partners – and even pets – has a huge influence on what bacteria live on our skin. After comparing the gut and oral microbiome, researchers found the skin microbiome to be the most similar among couples.

It isn’t just the bacteria on your arms or hands that are shared, either. Research shows that couples shared 35% of the bacteria living on their feet, and around 17.5% of the bacteria on their eyelids.

You may not even need to touch your partner to have the same skin bacteria as them. Factors such as sleeping in the same bed and walking on similar surfaces are thought to explain why such a large proportion of our skin microbiome is similar.

This is because humans naturally shed bacteria in a similar way as dogs shed fur. We leave traces of our bacteria on everything we touch – and we also easily pick up bacteria from our environments.

The shared effect of living together on the skin microbiome is so great that researchers were able to use computer models to accurately predict 86% of cohabiting couples based off of their individual bacterial samples alone.

But while it’s clear that couples share much of the same skin microbiome, the health effect that this has is not currently known.

While sharing bacteria with your partner may sound alarming, there’s often no cause for concern. Bacteria teach our bodies how to fight infections, they help us digest foods and even produce key nutrients. The bacteria we share with our partners are often harmless and sometimes benefit our health rather than hindering it.

Conor Meehan, Associate Professor of Microbial Bioinformatics, Nottingham Trent University and Janelle Mwerinde, PhD Candidate, Skin Microbiology, Nottingham Trent University

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

Imagine spending years living on the edge of your family’s story.

You know something is wrong with your brother or sister. You see the hospital visits and medication routines, the quiet worry on your parents’ faces. You piece things together from overheard conversations, wondering whether what you feel is normal and whether anyone notices what you are missing.

This is the lived reality for millions of siblings of children with long-term health conditions worldwide. In the United States, up to 30% of children grow up with a sibling who has a chronic condition such as epilepsy, cystic fibrosis, childhood cancer or cerebral palsy.

In Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia the statistics are comparable. The ASB national health survey 2022 found two in five (45%) Australian children live with at least one chronic condition.

New Zealand doesn’t have a single definitive data set but the 2023 household disability survey identified 98,000 disabled children, with asthma alone affecting 15–20% of children. When the full range of long-term conditions is considered, the number of children growing up alongside an affected sibling is likely similar to that seen in the US and Australia.

Research consistently shows the impact extends well beyond the child who is unwell.

Siblings experience higher anxiety, disrupted schooling, social isolation and major changes to family life. Yet as our work with a sibling advisory group shows, siblings remain largely invisible in clinical settings designed to support families.

They frequently sit on the sidelines while conversations happen around them rather than with them. Doctors speak to parents. Parents speak to the child with the condition. Siblings are watching and worrying but receive little direct information.

Many describe feeling overlooked or ignored during appointments and left to make sense of situations without language to understand them.

Lack of sibling support at children’s hospitals

To find out how well children’s hospitals in New Zealand and Australia support siblings, we looked not at policy documents or mission statements, but at what siblings and families can realistically access.

We audited major children’s hospital websites across both countries. Using the search term “sibling”, we examined whether any material was genuinely written for siblings, rather than for parents or clinicians. The findings were disappointing.

In New Zealand, only Starship Children’s Hospital returned search results. Of 54 results, just two grief booklets were remotely relevant, but both were still written mainly for parents.

Kidz First, Te Wao Nui and Whangārei Hospital provided nothing for siblings.

Across Australia, provision was uneven. Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network and the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne offered sibling‑specific material, while Queensland Children’s Hospital, Monash Children’s Hospital and Perth Children’s Hospital had little.

Even where material existed, siblings were rarely the intended audience. Most information targeted parents or mentioned siblings briefly within family resources. When siblings were acknowledged, it was in the context of grief, not the everyday reality of growing up alongside a brother or sister with a long‑term condition.

Beyond the hospital bed

In contrast, some of the richest and most thoughtful support sat outside the hospital system altogether.

Charities and non-governmental organisations such as Siblings Australia, Canteen Australia, Drenched, Kidshealth and New Zealand’s Parent2Parent offered age-appropriate information, peer support programmes, camps and opportunities for siblings to connect with others like them.

These supports matter deeply but are rarely signposted by healthcare teams and many families are unaware they exist.

For the young people we work with, these findings are unsurprising. Members of our sibling advisory group describe having felt invisible in clinical spaces, excluded from conversations about their sibling’s health, and left to fill in the gaps alone.

Research echoes this experience, showing restricted hospital access and information filtered through parents leave siblings confused and distressed.

What siblings are asking for

Siblings want clear, honest information about their sibling’s condition, shared in ways that match their age and understanding. They want to be included, not managed out of the room.

They want clinicians to recognise that this is their experience, too. Evidence shows when siblings receive accurate and timely information, anxiety decreases and fears about their own health or the future lessen.

Many want opportunities to connect with peers. These are not extraordinary requests. They are the foundations of good child and family care, recognising the whole family, not only the child in the hospital bed.

International reviews from Canada and elsewhere show similar findings to our audit, with sibling‑focused support scarce, poorly integrated and often invisible to families.

Researchers in Sweden, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are now working together to ask siblings aged five to 18 what information they need and how they would prefer to receive it, with the aim of improving sibling‑specific resources.

The message from research, practice and young people is clear. Siblings are an afterthought in systems organised around patients and parents.

For clinicians, change starts by acknowledging siblings and offering age‑appropriate explanations. For hospitals, it means ensuring sibling‑specific resources are visible.

Sibling‑inclusive care is not optional. For every child waiting outside a clinic room, watching their brother or sister disappear through doors they cannot follow, it is the right thing to do.

With thanks to research assistant Jess Gardiner and the young people who make up the New Zealand siblings advisory group.

Julie Blamires, Senior Nursing Lecturer, Auckland University of Technology

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

As a urological surgeon, I meet many patients with chronic (long-term) kidney disease.

Sometimes, I see patients that have progressed to the point where their kidneys do not work at all. This leads to the toxic build-up of waste products, meaning they need regular dialysis or a kidney transplant.

While these treatments are lifesaving, access to them is becoming increasingly challenging.

As more people are newly diagnosed with chronic kidney disease, the larger the demand for dialysis. By 2032, it is expected dialysis rates in Australia will surge by almost 86% compared with rates in 2022.

Many dialysis units across the country have more patients than they can treat. Some patients wait on average two to three years for a kidney transplant.

So my colleagues and I are increasingly working in a health-care system at capacity caring for people with kidney disease.

Clearly, it would be better for patients and the health system if we detected kidney disease early and treated it before it progressed.

Kidney Health Australia’s action plan provides a practical blueprint of how to get there.

The cost of kidney disease

An estimated one in seven Australian adults have indicators of chronic kidney disease, the vast majority not knowing it.

About three out of four Australian adults have at least one factor that increases their risk of chronic kidney disease. This includes diabetes or high blood pressure.

Chronic kidney disease is associated with a higher risk of heart attack, stroke and premature death.

It also has a significant public health impact, costing Australia A$9.9 billion a year.

Remind me, what do your kidneys actually do?

The kidneys are two fist-sized organs that sit at the back of the abdomen and perform some of the body’s most essential tasks.

They are best known to filter waste and excess fluid from the bloodstream to produce urine.

They produce hormones that help support red blood cell production and bone health. They also regulate blood pressure by maintaining the balance of salts and minerals in the body.

But kidney disease can start and progress for a variety of reasons.

For instance, high blood glucose (sugar) levels and high blood pressure can damage kidney blood vessels and nephrons (filtering units). This affects the kidneys’ ability to filter blood.

Kidney disease is often ‘silent’

Kidney disease is often described as “silent”. That’s because kidneys can lose up to 90% of their function before development of symptoms including:

• fatigue

• swelling in the legs and ankles

• persistent high blood pressure

• shortness of breath

• needing to urinate more often, especially at night

• foamy urine.

Unfortunately, kidney damage is often irreversible by this stage. So we need to focus on preventing kidney damage in the first place.

What you can do now

Not all causes of chronic kidney disease are easily preventable. However, there are ways to reduce the chance of kidney disease:

Check in with your GP to make sure you are:

• controlling your blood pressure

• managing your diabetes well

• maintaining a healthy weight

• eating a healthy diet with minimal salt intake

• not smoking

• exercising regularly

• drinking enough water

• avoiding excessive use, over long periods, of NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), such as ibuprofen.

How do we catch kidney disease early?

Kidney Health Australia proposes GPs perform a “kidney health check” on people at higher risk every one to two years. This would include:

• people with diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, or who are obese

• First Nations people

• people who smoke or vape (or who have done so in the past)

• people with a family history of kidney disease

• those aged over 60.

This check would include a blood pressure reading, blood test for kidney function and urine test checking protein levels.

It has been estimated early detection and treatment of kidney disease could prevent more than 38,000 premature deaths, generate 165,000 extra years of healthy life, and deliver a saving of $45 for every $1 invested over the next 20 years.

The best dialysis is the one you never need

By the time many patients reach specialists like me, the damage to their kidneys is advanced and irreversible.

Many causes of kidney disease, however, such as high blood pressure and diabetes are largely preventable.

Greater awareness of how to look after your kidneys, simple screening and early intervention could stop many Australians progressing to kidney failure.

Anthony Dat, Consultant Urological Surgeon and Adjunct Lecturer, Department of Surgery, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University

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

Can you hold your breath until you’re almost bursting to take another breath in? This urgent feeling that you need to get more air is called “air hunger”.

You may feel this sensation when you exercise intensely and push to your limit. Your breath will usually return to normal quickly once you’ve stopped exerting yourself.

But some people – such as those living with lung conditions or severe anxiety – experience air hunger frequently in their day-to-day lives. Air hunger, which is sometimes described as “drowning” or “suffocating” from a lack of air, can be incredibly distressing.

And it can be hard not to panic.

So, what helps if you experience air hunger? And when should you get help?

What is air hunger?

Many conditions can cause shortness of breath (also called dyspnoea). These commonly include heart diseases and lung conditions such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or long COVID.

Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, air hunger is not the same as shortness of breath.

Air hunger is an extreme and distinct feature of breathlessness: the feeling you can’t get enough air or take a full breath in.

This sensation can make people take bigger breaths or breathe faster, to try and get more oxygen. But this can actually make the feeling of breathlessness worse. Some people may also find they yawn or sigh a lot as they try to get more air.

For some people, an episode may be brief and resolve on its own. Others may pass out and need immediate medical attention to regain their breath.

In addition to difficulty breathing, symptoms can include chest tightness, sweating, dizziness and coughing. If you experience any of these symptoms, especially for the first time, you should seek immediate medical attention by calling triple 0.

Identifying the cause

The key to treating air hunger is understanding what’s behind it. So a doctor will first try to identify the underlying cause.

Air hunger may happen as part of an acute condition that causes breathlessness. For example, if you have a chest infection, you may struggle to breathe deeply and get enough oxygen. When you recover from the illness, you may no longer experience the feeling that you’re unable to fill your lungs.

But air hunger can also be a feature of a chronic condition. Those who live with severe heart or lung conditions – such as congestive cardiac failures or interstitial lung diseases – may never feel they can breathe deeply or fully fill their lungs. This can significantly limit their ability to exercise or participate in everyday activities.

Living with mental health conditions such as an anxiety or panic disorder can also mean frequent episodes of air hunger.

Even when air hunger resolves by itself, you should still see your doctor for further assessment, to identify the cause and work out how to manage it.

What a doctor will look at

Your doctor will typically observe your breathing rate and ask about your symptoms, how often you experience air hunger, and how much distress it causes.

They may also ask you to rate your shortness of breath using a Borg scale, which involves picking a number on the scale to best describe how short of breath you feel.

Your doctor will also measure vital signs such as your pulse rate and oxygen saturation levels. Oxygen saturation means how much oxygen is actually making it into your bloodstream, and can be measured with a device called a pulse oximeter.

If you’ve felt short of breath regularly over at least six weeks, you may need to do further testing. A lung function test or an exercise stress test can provide a comprehensive report on your lung capacity and how well your lungs and heart function under stress. Your doctor may also be refer you to a specialist.

What helps?

Depending on the cause, you may be prescribed medication, such as inhalers or oxygen for a lung condition. Opioids (morphine) or benzodiazepines (diazepam) may alleviate symptoms, but these would only be used in the short term, due to the risk of becoming dependent.

Apart from medications, breathing and relaxation techniques may help some people manage the unpleasant sensation. These include:

• pursed lip breathing: pucker your lips and focus on blowing the air out slowly, until you are able to take a big breath in

• mindful breathing: find a relaxed resting position where you can draw your attention to your breath and focus on regaining control of your rate of breathing

• timed breathing: while moving, time your breath with your body. For example, focus on breathing out when stepping with your right leg and breathing in when you step out with your left

• the cool fan technique: blow a fan (electric or hand-held) directly onto your face. The cool air stimulates the nerves in the face to reduce the sensation of breathlessness. A cool washer on your face may help create the same effect.

When to seek help

To manage air hunger episodes, you should follow your health professional’s advice about how and when to take medications.

Your doctor will also provide you with a management plan to guide you and your loved ones on what to do when you have an air hunger episode. Check in with your doctor regularly, as the plan may need updating if or when your condition changes.

In an emergency, or if you are experiencing air hunger for the first time, always call triple 0.

Clarice Tang, Senior Lecturer in Physiotherapy, Victoria University

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

If the dental bill has ever made you gulp, you’re far from alone. Around three in ten Australian adults say they avoid or delay dental care due to costs. In Aotearoa New Zealand, almost half of adults overall have unmet dental needs due to cost.

Dental pain or symptoms of infection can be clear signs you might need a dental restoration such as a filling. But like tyres on a car or paint on a house, fillings and crowns wear over time and will eventually need to be replaced.

Let’s look at how long dental restorations usually last, what to ask your oral health practitioner if they’ve recommended these treatments, and how to get a second opinion if you’re still unsure.

How long are fillings, crowns and implants supposed to last?

How long they last depends on the material, how big the repair is, your oral habits, and even how well you care for your mouth at home.

Composite fillings are the most common type used today. They are made from a strong mix of resin and fine glass particles and are designed to blend in with your teeth and bond closely to the layers of teeth (enamel and dentine). Composites typically last 5–15 years. Their lifespan depends on your risk of dental decay, the force of your bite and the size of the cavity. Fillings most often fail when there is new decay or cracks in the surrounding tooth structure.

Crowns are used when a tooth needs more support than a filling can provide, for example after a root canal or when a tooth has large cracks. Most crowns last 10–15 years. Many last longer with regular check-ups and careful home care.

Dental implants are often described as the closest thing to a natural tooth replacement and with good care, can last decades. But they are not a “fit and forget” solution. Implants require long follow-up, not just the first year or two. This should include routine professional cleaning, checks for gum inflammation and monitoring that the implant and screws stay secure.

So your oral health practitioner has recommended treatment? What to ask

If your oral health practitioner recommends treatment, especially if it’s expensive or invasive, consider asking the following questions to get a better sense of your options:

• can you explain what the problem is in plain language?
• what are my options, including the least invasive?
• what happens if I wait or choose not to treat this right now?
• are there lower-cost options that would still work well?
• are there habits or risk factors that could shorten this option’s lifespan?
• can you give me a written treatment plan with itemised fees?
• is there anything else I should know before deciding?

Your oral health practitioner should talk through what the treatment involves, why they’re recommending it, the alternatives (including choosing to do nothing), likely outcomes, costs and give you space to ask questions.

Treatment shouldn’t go ahead until you understand everything and feel comfortable agreeing.

If you want to explore your options, seek a second opinion. This is not a sign of distrust – it’s good self-advocacy and ensures your treatment choices align with your values, budget and long-term wellbeing.

So how do you get a second opinion? What might change?

Getting a second opinion can be simple as booking in with a second oral health practitioner and let them know you’re seeking their advice. You can ask your usual clinic to email your notes or X-rays if you want to take them to a second provider.

A second opinion means asking another oral health practitioner for their view on your diagnosis or recommended treatment. People usually seek a second opinion when:

• the issue is complex
• the treatment is major or expensive
• they want to explore less invasive or more cost-effective options
• they want to clarify before committing.

This advice can make it easier to decide what course of action aligns with your values, such as whether you favour low intervention or would rather avoid the risks of delaying treatment.

While the evidence is limited in oral health, a study of medical care found 37% of patients received a different treatment recommendation when they sought a second opinion.

Second opinions in medicine often lead to meaningful changes in diagnosis or treatment. Individual studies found changes in as few as 10% or as many as 62% of second opinion cases.

Most patients across the study and review reported high satisfaction with the process.

What are your rights as a patient?

Under Aotearoa New Zealand’s Privacy Act and the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights, you’re entitled to information about all the treatment options and the risks and benefits, clear explanations and enough details to give truly informed consent.

Australian patients have the right to access their dental records under Australian privacy laws. Clinics must keep accurate information about the patient’s care and provide it when asked.

Australia also has clear consumer protections around dental over-servicing. If treatment recommendations seem unnecessary, unsafe, or financially excessive, the Dental Board and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency can investigate.

Knowing these safeguards exist can make it easier to compare advice and feel confident you’re making the best decision for your mouth and your wallet.

Chanae Ihimaera, Senior Lecturer/Kaiwhakaako Oral Health, Auckland University of Technology

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

It’s a Friday evening and you pour a glass of wine while your teenager sits at the kitchen bench scrolling their phone. They barely look up. But they notice more than you think.

My new study found the drinking habits parents model at home carry over to their children.

The influence is strongest during a specific window: when children are aged 15 to 17. This is the stage when teens begin navigating social situations with alcohol and start deciding what “normal” drinking looks like.

It doesn’t mean you have to give up alcohol altogether. But there are behaviours you can tweak to improve the chance your children will have a healthy relationship with alcohol as they grow up.

Tracking influence over 23 years

My study used 23 years of nationally representative Australian data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey. This tracked more than 6,600 people over time, drawing on more than 43,000 observations.

To estimate parental influence, I linked each person’s drinking at a given age to their mother’s and father’s average drinking when that person was aged 12–18. I then compared how strongly those links showed up at different stages of life.

I found parental influence is strongest when children are aged 15–17, declines through the twenties, and rebounds at 28–37 for those who have become parents.

The effect runs mostly along same-sex lines. Mothers influence daughters most clearly, and fathers influence sons. There is no detectable father-to-daughter effect.

There is some crossover from mothers to sons, particularly during adolescence and again in the late twenties and thirties.

When adult children become parents themselves, they appear to revisit the drinking habits they grew up with. Daughters draw on their mothers’ examples; sons who become fathers begin to follow paternal patterns they had not previously adopted.

Genetics vs household norms

The evidence points more toward household norms than genetics. When I compared birth parents with non-birth parents – a broad category that includes step, adoptive, foster and other non-biological caregivers – the mother-to-daughter link held firm regardless of biological connection.

That suggests daughters are learning behaviour, not inheriting a fixed trait. For sons, the picture is more mixed, but the overall message is the same: what children observe matters.

None of this means a single glass of wine in front of your teen will do damage. The study measures repeated patterns of drinking over years, not one-off moments.

What appears to matter is the background signal: how often alcohol appears, how much, and what role it seems to play in everyday life. Is it the centrepiece of every celebration? The first response to a bad day? Or something that shows up occasionally, without fanfare?

How teens’ ideas about alcohol are shaped

My findings fit with broader evidence on how parents shape children’s drinking. A review of long-term (longitudinal) studies found parental modelling, limiting adolescents’ access to alcohol, monitoring, relationship quality and clear communication were all linked to lower levels of drinking in adulthood.

Another Australian study found parents’ heavy drinking episodes were associated with a higher likelihood teenagers had drunk alcohol. Children seem to learn not just whether adults drink, but what place alcohol has in ordinary family life.

Australian longitudinal research has also found parental supply of alcohol to teenagers – even with good intentions – is linked to heavier drinking and more alcohol-related problems down the track, rather than teaching children to drink responsibly.

The good news is broader trends are moving in the right direction. Far fewer Australian teens drink now than two decades ago. In 2001, about 70% of 14-to-17-year-olds had drunk alcohol in the previous year. By 2022–23, that figure was around 30%.

Similar declines have been documented across many high-income countries. The possible reasons include changing cultural attitudes, better education about risk and, as my study suggests, shifts in parental behaviour that flow down through families.

So what can parents actually do?

The practical goal is not perfection. It’s harm minimisation – shaping household norms so that alcohol is less central, less emotionally loaded and less available.

The evidence supports:

• keeping your own drinking moderate and low-key. Australian guidelines recommend no more than ten standard drinks a week for adults, and not drinking at all is the safest option for under-18s

• not supplying alcohol to teenagers, even with good intentions. Australian research suggests parental supply is linked to heavier drinking and more alcohol-related problems later on

• setting clear rules and having calm, consistent conversations about alcohol. In one longitudinal study, teens drank least when strict rules were paired with good-quality, regular communication

• being especially deliberate with your alcohol choices when your children are 15 to 17, because that is when family influence appears to bite hardest.

If your children are already adults, your example may still matter. My study found parental influence re-emerges when adult children start families of their own — particularly for daughters. The habits you modelled years ago can resurface when your grown-up children are deciding what kind of household they want to run.

Parents don’t control everything. Friends, stress and the broader social environment matter too. But what parents can shape is the background – the slow, steady signal about what alcohol is for and how much of it is normal.

Sergey Alexeev, Senior research fellow, University of Sydney; UNSW Sydney

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

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a condition that develops during childhood and affects 6–10% of kids and 2–6% of adults.

People with ADHD have either mainly inattentive symptoms (such as lacking concentration), mainly hyperactive and impulsive symptoms (such as speaking or acting without thinking), or a combination of the two.

Two people with ADHD can have very different symptoms and experiences. So it’s important for clinicians who diagnose the condition to have the right knowledge and expertise.

But our new research found half of psychologists who assess for ADHD don’t follow the diagnostic guidelines or criteria.

This means less-typical presentations of ADHD – such as in women and girls, quiet inattentive adults and high-achieving students – could be overlooked.

How is ADHD diagnosed?

ADHD is currently diagnosed by a psychologist, psychiatrist, or paediatrician. Queensland GPs can also diagnose ADHD, with more states and territories to follow.

ADHD can’t be diagnosed with a blood test or other single measure. It requires the consideration of multiple factors and information sources, along with clinical judgement.

Australia’s evidence-based practice guideline for ADHD, released in 2022, provides a clear standard for assessment and treatment. It recommends ADHD assessments include a full developmental, mental health and medical history.

Medical assessments should be used to rule out other factors which could look like ADHD, such as sensory impairment, thyroid disease, anaemia, or medication side effects.

The clinician must also consider the social, psychological and clinical context of a person’s symptoms. This requires input from more than one setting and person such as a teacher or family member. The assessment shouldn’t rely solely on questionnaires or looking at the person.

The diagnosis of ADHD should be made in line with diagnostic criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM 5) or the International Classification of Disease (the ICD). These require impairments that are out of step with the person’s age, that began before they were 12, and that have impacts across multiple settings, such as home and school or work.

In practice, a comprehensive ADHD assessment could include:

• interviews with a person and a family member covering their history and current situation
• review of school reports
• completion of questionnaires to assist in clarifying the diagnosis
• investigation of any medical issues which may be causing ADHD-like symptoms.

Our study

Our recent study used an online questionnaire of 322 Australian psychologists involved in diagnosing and treating ADHD. We wanted to see how they were assessing for it, if that matched the Australian guidelines, and how well they knew the diagnostic criteria.

The study was limited to psychologists due to the low number of responses from psychiatrists and paediatricians, and because there are many more psychologists than other specialists.

The study relies on anonymous self-reported data. This reduced the likelihood that only the most confident people would participate, or that clinicians would be focused on looking good.

But there’s a chance the psychologists might not remember their assessments accurately, or apply as much effort to the questionnaire as they would to a client.

What we found

Three in four psychologists said they always followed guidelines, with more saying they followed them some of the time. But overall, fewer than half reported assessment practices that actually followed the guidelines.

This suggests people seeking an assessment can’t rely on a clinician’s assurance they’re following the guidelines and need to ask specifically what’s involved.

Almost all psychologists used client interviews and gathered a developmental history. However, only three in four completed a mental health assessment. Less than one in three assessed for other illnesses. None reported performing a sensory assessment.

This makes it much more difficult to instead diagnose a different condition or rule out other potential causes for symptoms.

Next, we gave psychologists in the study a list of the ADHD criteria, and another item from the specific learning disorder criteria (difficulties with learning and using academic skills).

While ADHD is associated with lower grades at school, it’s not a requirement for diagnosis. Someone may meet the criteria for ADHD without experiencing difficulties learning. Kids with a specific learning disorder can also have ADHD, and it’s important these learning difficulties are also detected.

But fewer than one in three psychologists surveyed correctly identified all the ADHD criteria and also rejected the non-ADHD item. This means people who do well in school but struggle in other areas of their life might miss out on a diagnosis.

Likewise, four in ten clinicians did not recognise that symptoms needed to be out of step for the person’s age and stage of development for a diagnosis. This could mean people are diagnosed when they don’t actually fit the criteria.

Overall, these inconsistencies mean people whose symptoms overlap with anxiety, depression, trauma, sleep problems, thyroid problems, hearing or vision issues, or learning disorders are at greater risk of being misdiagnosed or missing out on helpful support.

What should I look for if I’m seeking an assessment?

If you’re concerned about ADHD symptoms for yourself or your child, discuss your concerns with your GP and find out what services are available in your area.

The wait times and costs for assessments can vary widely, so compare your options before committing to an assessment.

If you’re interested in exploring medications, you will need to visit a paediatrician, psychiatrist or, in some states and territories, a GP, as psychologists aren’t able to prescribe medications.

To make sure you or your child is being properly assessed, look at the guidelines and ask before booking what’s involved in the assessment.

Clare O'Toole, Clinical Psychology Phd Candidate, University of Wollongong

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

Yesterday, the Australian federal government released new expectations for data centres and artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure.

The message is simple: if companies want faster federal approvals, they must show their projects are in Australia’s national interest, support the clean energy shift, use water responsibly, create local jobs, and build local capability.

The government states it will prioritise projects that line up with those goals. Assistant Minister for Science, Technology and the Digital Economy, Andrew Charlton, said

we will do what is necessary to ensure the growth of AI is sustainable and underpinned by a strong social license.

This is a big shift. It means data centres in Australia are no longer being treated as just another property or tech investment. They’re now being treated as major infrastructure, with real effects on the power grid, water systems, land use and local communities.

What is a data centre again?

Data centres are large buildings packed with computing equipment that stores, processes and moves data. These sites help run cloud services, video calls, online banking, research and the growing wave of AI tools.

The International Energy Agency says a typical AI-focused data centre can use as much electricity as 100,000 households. The largest ones under construction today could consume 20 times as much.

While Australia already has more than 250 data centres, that number is set to grow as the AI boom continues. These facilities help power modern life and they can bring jobs, investment and digital capability.

But essential infrastructure still needs public trust. And that trust will depend on whether these facilities pay their own way, or whether nearby communities end up carrying the hidden costs through more pressure on electricity, water and scarce urban land.

Electricity is the first big issue

A report prepared for the Australian Energy Market Operator found data centres in Sydney already use about 4% of New South Wales’ grid-supplied electricity. By 2030, that could rise to 11%.

Nationally, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation says data centres could account for up to 11% of Australia’s total electricity use by 2035.

The same report states Australia would need another 3.2 gigawatts of renewable electricity generation and 1.9 gigawatts of battery storage by 2035 to contain price rises and avoid extra emissions.

That doesn’t mean data centres are automatically bad for the energy system. In fact, they could help fund new renewable energy, storage and grid upgrades if the rules around that are right. But that is the key point: if the rules are right and the government enforces them.

Water is the second issue

Not all data centres use the same amount, because water demand depends heavily on their cooling systems and what water source they use. But water can no longer be treated as a side issue.

A Water Services Association of Australia report on data centre water use in Australia says estimates for Sydney range from about 1.9% of water supply by 2030, to around 15–20% by 2035.

The water question is not just local. Australia’s water utilities say current data-centre use is still low, but future centres are likely to be much larger, with developers already seeking 5 to 40 million litres a day. One industry estimate puts current use at less than 0.1% of Australia’s total water, but future demand will depend on cooling choices and water source.

Hence the new federal expectations: data centres must use water sustainably, work early with utilities and communities, use non-potable water where possible, pay their share of infrastructure costs, and report water use transparently.

Then there is land

Many data centres are drawn to major cities because they need strong power, fibre links, water, site access and, in some cases, proximity to end users. But that also means they often compete for industrial land

In New South Wales, industrial land is already under pressure and is needed for logistics, urban services, jobs close to home and the construction supply chains that help deliver housing.

In January, NSW set up a parliamentary inquiry into data centres. It’s looking at electricity demand, grid impacts, water use, drought risk, noise, heat, traffic, land-use conflicts and whether data centres’ resource demands are impinging on new housing supply.

It is also asking who gets the benefits, who carries the costs and how transparent the approval process really is. In other words, NSW is already treating data centres as a public interest issue. Other states may need to follow, because federal expectations alone cannot resolve state planning and land-use conflicts.

What can we expect from the new federal policy?

At best, the new expectations should end the idea that any data centre is a good data centre simply because it brings private investment.

If the government adheres to its own rules, new data centre projects should bring their own clean power or help fund it. They should use water efficiently and, where possible, use recycled or non-drinking water. They should create real local jobs and skills. And they should be open about their energy, water and environmental performance.

The way forward is not to block data centres – Australia will need more of them. The answer is to be much more selective about where they go, how they are powered, how they are cooled and what they give back.

If they are essential infrastructure, they should meet the same test as any other big piece of infrastructure: serve the public, not just the market.

Ehsan Noroozinejad, Senior Researcher and Sustainable Future Lead, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University

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

Nearly eight years ago Australia and the European Union (EU) launched trade negotiations. Finally, today Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and EU President Ursula von der Leyen signed an agreement in Canberra.

Von der Leyen said the deal would remove nearly all tariffs and add about A$8 billion to Australia’s economy a year. She told reporters:

It will become easier for Australia to export to the European Union based on high standards.

Overall the EU, with its 450 million people, is Australia’s third-largest trading partner. In 2024, two-way trade was A$110 billion. In practical terms, however, our exporters are selling into 27 different countries, each with their own culture and retail system.

When Australia walked away from negotiations in 2023, it was because of problems with the EU’s demand for naming rights for food and drink products and the very limited EU offer for tariff-free quotas to sell our agricultural goods in Europe.

The trade negotiations restarted in June last year with a renewed sense of urgency following US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs that upended global trade.

Improved market access for beef

The announcement today demonstrates some improvement in the market access offer for beef. The background to the quota limitations on selling Australian beef in Europe is complex, but the agreement is disappointing for both the beef export and lamb export industries.

They had pushed for quotas of 50,000 and 67,000 tonnes respectively, but have only achieved 35,000 and 25,000 tonnes.

The actual outcome is a compromise, increasing existing quotas eightfold, but falling far short of industry demands.

But it is likely European farmers will still object, as they did with the recent EU-Mercosur trade agreement with South American nations.

Prosecco at home, but not abroad

Turning to naming rights, the standout names that had been disputed until today were parmesan, feta and prosecco. In Australia these are common names – parmesan and feta are names for cheese varieties, similar to cheddar and brie.

Australian producers have always been allowed to use the name prosecco for wine made from prosecco grapes, under our bilateral wine treaty with the EU.

Because prosecco is globally recognised as a grape variety name, Australia has also been able to export prosecco-labelled wine, though not to the EU itself.

Under today’s deal, Australia will give up the right to export wine under the prosecco name and the bilateral wine treaty will be amended to reflect this change, to be phased in over ten years.

Continued domestic use of the word prosecco will be subject to as-yet-undisclosed new labelling requirements.

In 2013 the EU attempted to register the name prosecco in Australia as a certification trademark, but this was rejected. Today’s compromise partly reverses that outcome.

This is a clear loss: it recognises our sovereignty at home, while sacrificing a valuable naming right abroad. Industry sources put the value of this at around A$7 million a year.

What about the cheese makers?

The outcome for parmesan is good, while for feta it seems to at least equal the arrangements for Canada.

Parmesan has now been accepted by the EU as a common name in Australia. This parallels existing EU recognition of parmesan as a common name in its other trading partners, such as South Korea and Japan. Producers of feta will be able to continue to use the name feta.

This is a long and complex treaty and so far only summaries are available. Once the detailed legal wording becomes available, there will be nuances that are not evident today. This includes issues such as the right of existing feta producers to sell their businesses, complete with current naming rights.

Our boutique spirits industry

A little-discussed loss in the trade agreement is the lack of any proper opposition process to dispute the names the EU wants protected by the treaty. This could be of particular concern to new operators in the burgeoning boutique spirits industry.

The EU has achieved “protection” for 231 spirit names and there will be no due process to object to these.

Buyers beware: EU labels can be misleading

Consumers will also need to be aware of the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of product labels for EU products.

These are exempt from EU regulations requiring that the label state the country of origin of the main ingredient, where this differs from the country of production.

For example, Bresaola della Valtellina – an Italian product – is made from meat imported from Brazil. Nowhere on the label is this disclosed.

On other fronts, claims about improved labour access to Europe remain to be demonstrated, as do claims that European investment in Australia will increase.

The 5% tariff on imported European cars has been removed and this will level the playing field with other vehicle imports.

But easing Australia’s luxury car tax should not have been necessary. This tax was simply a means of ensuring the wealthy paid a fairer share of tax. There are no trade-related reasons to change it.

Overall, there are large claims as to the benefits of this trade treaty. But some – such as mutual recognition of professional qualifications – will take many years to implement. Only time will tell if the mooted benefits are real wins for Australia as a whole and whether they offset losses such as to prosecco exporters.

Hazel Moir, Honorary Associate Professor; economics of patents, geographical indications and other "IP"; trade treaties, Australian National University

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

This is the point of absurdity we have reached: on March 15, US President Donald Trump, in a Truth Social post, asserted that American news organisations were running AI-generated Iranian propaganda, and should be charged with treason for the dissemination of false information. One of the instances he cited was coverage of Iranians at a rally to support new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, which he said was totally AI-generated, and the event never took place, despite abundant evidence to the contrary.

The most powerful man in the world is making large and important claims, one palpably false, the others without offering any evidence, and it seems few if any people take him seriously. Then he blithely threatens to charge unnamed people with treason, which in the United States is potentially a capital offence, and again it is not clear anyone takes him seriously. Despite the all-but-universal dismissal of his statements, he will probably suffer no political consequences. It is just another drop in an ocean of unaccountability.

One reason it will pass with negligible consequences is that these accusations have become so commonplace. Republicans have long railed against the “liberal” news media, but the Trump administration has brought such attacks to a new level of intensity.

In 2017, his first year in office, Trump denounced “fake news” and called the media the enemy of the American people. He said he had a “running war” with the media, and described journalists as “among the most dishonest human beings on Earth”.

Trump’s standard response to a question he doesn’t want to answer is to call the reporter (especially female reporters) a nasty person, or to denounce the organisation they work for. Recently his response to a US ABC reporter’s question was that her employer “may be the most corrupt news organisation on the planet. I think they’re terrible.”

As the war with Iran threatened to become more politically contentious, the administration has trained its rhetorical sights on the media. Trump endorsed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr’s threat to revoke broadcast licences of “the corrupt and highly unpatriotic media”:

They get billions of Dollars of FREE American airwaves, and use it to perpetuate LIES, both in news and almost all of their shows, including the Late Night Morons, who get gigantic Salaries for horrible Ratings.

Far more than any of his predecessors, Trump concerns himself with individuals and media organisations. For example, he thought Netflix should dismiss one of its board members who had worked for his Democrat predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden: “Netflix should fire, racist, Trump deranged Susan Rice IMMEDIATELY.”

A history of legal action

Trump has gone beyond rhetorical denunciations, however. He is the first US president, in recent times at least, to sue a news organisation. His targets so far have included the Pulitzer Prize Board, the Des Moines Register and its pollster Ann Selzer, the Wall St Journal, the New York Times, Penguin Random House and the BBC.

Without exception, his writs have no legal merit. (He has already lost suits against the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN). They are a means of harassment or perhaps just a threat: Trump sued CBS in 2024 over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. Initially CBS said the case had no merit. However, in July 2025 it agreed to settle for $16 million.

The agreement came amid CBS parent company Paramount’s $8.4 billion merger with Skydance, which received regulatory approval weeks later. Stephen Colbert, host of its top-rating night show, called it “a big fat bribe”. Three days later Colbert’s show was cancelled, which the network said was purely a financial decision.

Trump congratulated himself in a post on his Truth Social site under the headline “President Trump is reshaping the media”. He listed 12 media organisations and individuals who are “gone”, such as CNN reporter Jim Acosta and Colbert. Then he listed a dozen “reforms”, such as CNN having new ownership. He finished the post with the word “Winning”.

Apart from the president, the most enthusiastic member of the cabinet in harassing the media is former Fox News presenter, now secretary of war, Pete Hegseth. Last year he announced that journalists who solicited unauthorised military information would have their access revoked and be deemed a security risk. Fifty-five out of 56 accredited journalists refused to sign the new agreement. In March a judge ruled the policy was unconstitutional but the government has said it will appeal.

Recently, Hegseth thought photos of him were “unflattering”, so photographers were banned from his next two briefings.

So it is not surprising Hegseth has been a vocal critic of media coverage. He finished one recent tirade by saying: “The sooner David Ellison takes over [CNN], the better.”

Ellison at the wheel

What is new and alarming about this is the reference to Ellison. It follows one of the biggest corporate takeovers in history. Ellison’s company, Paramount Skydance, has just succeeded in taking over Warner Bros Discovery. CNN is part of the package Ellison has acquired.

David is the son of Larry Ellison, the sixth-richest person in the world, who founded Oracle, a wildly successful software company. After Trump became president, the Ellisons moved into media in a big way.

The family first attracted public prominence when it was a central part of Trump choreographing the formation of a US TikTok company. Biden, with the approval of Congress, had sought to ban the popular video-sharing platform because of worries about security with the Chinese company ByteDance. Instead, Trump, on his first day of this second term, started a process to make it US-based, to remove the security risk.

In the end, Ellison’s Oracle, Silver Lake and MGX became the three managing investors, each holding a 15% share in the new company. The Chinese company ByteDance retained 19.9% of the joint venture. Oracle would also handle all the software aspects. All up, a very Trump-friendly outcome.

The Ellisons next attracted attention in July 2025, when their niche media company Skydance merged with Paramount to form Paramount Plus. This made them the owner not only of one of the biggest film studios but also of TV network CBS. The consequences for CBS news have already been far-reaching.

Ellison began by pledging to end the company’s “diversity equity and inclusion” initiatives. He appointed as ombudsman the former head of a conservative think tank and named Bari Weiss, a centre-right advocate, as editor-in-chief of CBS News.

An early controversy hit with a CBS 60 Minutes episode on a notorious prison in El Salvador, where the US government is sending migrant detainees. Although it was cleared through all the normal internal processes, the story was blocked at the last minute in what the reporter called an act of censorship. It was shown four weeks later.

Six out of 20 evening news producers have left CBS, with one, Alicia Hastey, saying the kind of work she came to do was increasingly impossible, as stories were now evaluated not just on their journalistic merit but on whether they conform to a shifting set of ideological expectations.

In a missive to the newsroom, Weiss declared “we love America” should be the guiding principle for the relaunch of CBS Evening News. Putting this into practice, the new anchor of the evening news, Tony Dokoupil, finished one program by saying “[Secretary of State] Marco Rubio, we salute you”.

Ellison’s early acquisitions were dwarfed by the recent battle between Paramount Plus and Netflix to take over Warner Bros Discovery, which Paramount finally won in February 2026. Paramount’s final, winning offer valued the company at US$111 billion (A$159 billion), paying US$31 (A$44) per share. Months earlier, Netflix’s original offer was US$19 (A$27) per share. Assuming the deal goes through, Paramount will carry an estimated US$90 billion (A$128.6 billion) of debt, but it will also have a conglomerate of media-related holdings like no other company in history.

Despite the size of the takeover, which has several implications for reduced competition, commentators are confident it will achieve regulatory approval. This is principally because in the Trump era there is a strong, shall we say, transactional flavour about when regulation is enforced and when not. Trump has described the Ellisons as “two great people”. “They’re friends of mine. They’re big supporters of mine. And they’ll do the right thing.”

Media monsters

In the 1950s, looking at the way Australian newspaper companies came to control the new commercial radio and television stations, journalist Colin Bednall referred to “media monsters”. Around 1990, British media commentator Anthony Smith wrote a book titled The Age of Behemoths, looking especially at the way large corporations such as News Corp had gone international.

But both were talking about media pygmies compared with the new mega-corporation owned by the Ellisons. Apart from their software business and extensive real estate holdings, they now have a central player, TikTok, in social media. They own two of the biggest five US movie studios, they have two of the biggest five streaming services, they have large entertainment producing corporations in Discovery, Warner Bros and CBS, and they own two of the most important TV news services – CBS and CNN.

This gives them the usual commercial advantages over smaller newcomers trying to break in. It also means the news services are owned by a conglomerate that has many other interests, including some that demand negotiation with the government.

In trying to understand the moment we are living through, it is often difficult to disentangle what is of momentary significance and what of lasting importance. What are egomaniacal histrionics that will fade into history with Trump? And which signal ongoing threats to the fabric of democratic institutions?

The unprecedented media empire built by the Ellisons will not disappear, no matter who wins the next election.

Rodney Tiffen, Emeritus Professor, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

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