The Australia Security Intelligence Organisation believes there is a “realistic possibility” a foreign government will try to assassinate a “perceived dissident” in Australia, ASIO’s boss Mike Burgess has revealed.

Delivering the 2025 Lowy lecture on Tuesday, Burgess said: “This threat is real.

"We believe there are at least three nations willing and capable of conducting lethal targeting here. It is entirely possible the regimes would try to hide their involvement by hiring criminal cut outs, as Iran did when directing its arson attacks.”

He stressed he was talking about an “attempt to assassinate”.

“ASIO and our law enforcement partners are acutely alive to this threat and are working around the clock, using all our powers, to protect Australia and Australians,” he said.

Burgess said Australia had never faced simultaneously and at scale so many different threats.

There are multiple, cascading and intersecting threats to our social cohesion, fuelled by three distinct but connected cohorts:

• the aggrieved,
• the opportunistic, and
• the cunning.

He said many Australians were feeling dispossessed, disaffected, and disenfranchised, with spikes in polarisation and intolerance.

Many of the foundations underpinning our security, prosperity and democracy were being tested.

Social cohesion was eroding, there was declining trust in our institutions and truth was being undermined by misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theories.

“Similar trends are playing out across the Western world.

"Angry, alienated individuals are embracing anti-authority ideologies and conspiracy theories; engaging in uncivil debate and unpeaceful protest.

"Many of the aggrieved do not necessarily espouse violent views, but may still see violence as a legitimate way to effect political or societal change.”

Burgess said extremist organisations were skilled at exploiting fissures in cohesion and harvesting grievances.

“The way nationalist and racist violent extremists attempted to leverage the so-called March for Australia rallies is a case in point.

"The biggest neo-Nazi group, the National Socialist Network – or White Australia as it is rebranding itself – identified the demonstrations as a vehicle to raise its profile.

"It strategically and opportunistically exploited the organisers’ complaints about immigration and the cost of living,” Burgess said.

“Even if the organisation does not engage in terrorism, I remain deeply concerned by its hateful, divisive rhetoric and increasingly violent propaganda, and the growing likelihood these things will prompt spontaneous violence, particularly in response to perceived provocation,” he said.

“While nationalist and racist violent extremists make up the significant majority of our investigations into ideologically motivated extremism, events in the Middle East triggered a troubling increase in anarchist and revolutionary extremism, which is also straining cohesion.

"Since October 2023, we’ve seen more provocative protests and a notable uptick in intentionally disruptive and damaging tactics by anti-Israel activists, including multiple acts of arson, vandalism and violent protest against defence companies accused of supplying weapon components.”

Burgess said of the three cohorts he was canvassing, “the cunning is the most concerning”.

“Aggrieved individuals clawing at our social fabric is one thing. Extremist groups opportunistically undermining it is another.

"But cunning nation states deliberately trying to set the fabric alight and fan the flames is something else again in terms of threat.

"Regimes are operating in a security ‘grey zone – using non-traditional tools to interfere in decision-making, promote discord, amplify distrust and spread false narratives in Western democracies.

"Authoritarian regimes demonstrate a chilling willingness to exploit fault lines in countries they consider hostile.”

He highlighted ASIO’s identifying the Iranian regime being behind some of the anti-semitic attacks in Australia

Burgess said that in our region ASIO was tracking the spread of a strain of extremist propaganda.

“While the material purports to be from a transnational terrorist group, ASIO and our international partners suspect it is fake, and is actually being created and disseminated by a hostile nation state.

"The propaganda glorifies violent extremism and advocates attacks on specific targets, presumably to encourage violence, alarm communities, incite sectarianism and destabilise regional governments.”

He said ASIO had recently uncovered links between pro-Russian influences in Australia and an offshore media organisation that almost certainly received directions from Russian intelligence.

“The Australians publish and push extreme online narratives justifying the invasion of Ukraine and condemning Australia’s support for Kiev.

"Deliberately hiding their connection to Moscow – and the likely instruction from Moscow – the propagandists try to hijack and inflame legitimate debate. They use social media to spread vitriolic, polarising commentary on anti-immigration protests and pro-Palestinian marches.

"ASIO’s investigation is ongoing,” Burgess said.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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

In the span of just a few days, two children were killed in separate e-bike crashes in Queensland – one on the Sunshine Coast and another on the Gold Coast.

Not more than a week later, seven people were hospitalised in Queensland in a series of separate e-bike and e-scooter crashes across the state.

There have been four e-bike deaths involving children and teenagers in Australia since July. Three have been in Queensland.

What can be done to prevent injuries and deaths on e-bikes?

E-bikes in Australia

E-bikes are generally defined as pedal-assisted bicycles powered by small electric motors, limited to 250 watts and 25 kilometres per hour under Australian law. These bikes are either bought by consumers or rented and used on roads.

However, many of the bikes involved in recent crashes appear to exceed those limits. Some are modified and capable of far higher speeds.

Across Australia, there is no age limit for riding e-bikes.

However, shared mobility operators such as Lime and Beam require riders to be at least 16-18 years old, depending on the city and service.

Australia also has no formal mechanism for recording e-bike fatalities – itself a significant data gap. But the trend is hard to ignore: e-bike crashes involving young riders appear to be an escalating risk.

Evidence from e-scooter studies shows children aged under 18 are disproportionately involved in serious crashes, which is why most states have imposed age limits for e-scooter use.

The risks of riding e-bikes

For the general population, evidence shows e-bike riders face a higher fatal crash risk than pedal cyclists.

In the Netherlands for example, the rate of fatal crashes involving e-bike owners has far exceeded that of regular bicycles in recent years.

A large study in the United States analysed injury records for children involved in e-bike crashes – almost 4,000 cases – and compared them with nearly two million traditional bicycle injuries of children.

The findings were striking.

From 2011 to 2020, e-bike injuries among children increased, while regular bicycle injuries declined. And children injured on e-bikes were twice as likely to end up in hospital than those using regular bikes.

The most affected age group for e-bike injuries was 10–13.

Another study, from Israel, compared injuries among more than 500 children admitted to hospital after bicycle crashes – around one-third on e-bikes and the rest on traditional bicycles.

The results were consistent with the US study, but even more alarming: children on e-bikes had more severe injuries overall and a greater likelihood of being involved in collisions with motor vehicles. They were also more likely to experience loss of consciousness and nearly half required orthopaedic surgery.

More recent evidence reinforces the same picture.

A 2025 study of more than 700 young riders aged 10–25 found e-bike riders were twice as likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries as those on regular bicycles.

For risks specific to children and within the Australian context, the closest comparison that can be drawn comes from the adjacent mode: e-scooters.

My recent research shows one in three fatal e-scooter crashes in Australia involved a rider under the age of 18, a significant over-representation relative to this group’s share of the population.

In near parallel to what we are now seeing with e-bikes, more than half of these child fatalities on e-scooters occurred in Queensland.

There are many reasons why more accidents are happening in Queensland. The state was an early adopter of e-micromobility, has Australia’s most permissive e-scooter rules for children (allowing riders as young as 12 with supervision) and enjoys a warm climate and long riding season – all of which increase exposure.

A Queensland parliamentary inquiry into e-mobility safety is expected to deliver a report in the first half of next year.

Why children are more at risk

E-bikes expose young riders to a mix of physical and behavioural risks.

The machines are heavier and faster than regular bikes, often capable of speeds around 40–60km/h.

Research on hazard perception helps explain part of this risk.

In experimental settings, e-bike riders aged 16–18 were found to identify significantly fewer developing hazards and to respond later than adults when viewing real-world traffic scenes.

Their hazard awareness mainly improved with age and riding experience.

In Australia, many of the e-bikes children ride are technically illegal or modified.

Conversion kits sold online can remove speed limiters, turning a standard bike into one capable of highway speeds.

Online tutorials make these modifications accessible to teenagers, and enforcement is minimal.

Behavioural patterns add another layer.

News reports describe teenagers performing wheelies, racing through intersections and riding on the wrong side of traffic. These behaviours are often amplified by social media and peer imitation.

What should be done?

There’s already enough international evidence to guide our policy. We don’t need to wait for local tragedies to confirm what’s been shown elsewhere – that e-bikes pose distinct risks to children.

Many countries have already acted. Minimum age limits for e-bike use are common in some countries – typically 16 years – recognising these vehicles require cognitive and physical maturity comparable to those of motorcycles.

In Australia, the definition of a legal e-bike is already clear: capped at 250 watts of power and 25 km/h under pedal-assist.

The issue is not classification but enforcement and scope.

Current laws do little to prevent riders from accessing and riding high-powered or modified e-bikes that fall outside these limits.

What’s missing are age-based restrictions, controls on the import and sale of illegal conversion kits and targeted awareness campaigns for parents as well as retailers (by encouraging responsible point-of-sale behaviour).

Public awareness campaigns are particularly important ahead of the Christmas season, when e-bikes and conversion kits are increasingly marketed as gifts.

Milad Haghani, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow in Urban Risk and Resilience, The University of Melbourne

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

Rigid norms of manhood, based in manly confidence and toughness, emotional stoicism, disdain for femininity, and dog-eat-dog banter, are influential among boys and young men in Australia.

Between one quarter and one half of boys and young men endorse these norms. Over half feel pressure from others to live up to them, believing most people expect them always to be confident, strong and tough.

These are some of the findings from a new Australian survey of adolescents aged 14-18 years, conducted by The Men’s Project at Jesuit Social Services.

In a climate of heightened concern about boys and young men and so-called “toxic masculinity”, this study provides invaluable data on boys’ and young men’s own views. This includes the pressures they feel to live up to stereotypical masculine norms and the profound impact of those beliefs.

There are six key findings from this research.

1. Pressure to be manly remains strong

The pressure on males to be “manly” remains strong in Australian society, even in adolescence. Societal pressures on teenage boys to be “a real man” were equally observed by both boys and girls: between 60% and 63% of boys and girls believe most people expect teenage boys to be manly, confident, and strong at all times.

2. Most boys are open-minded about what it means to be a man

Despite this, most boys and young men themselves do not subscribe to stereotypical masculine norms. Like young adult men aged 18-30, most boys endorse more open-ended, inclusive models of manhood. Of the 27 “adolescent man box” rules – the rigid ideas of manliness – there was majority endorsement among boys for only three of them.

These findings should steer us away from two extremes in views of boys and young men. In one, all boys are painted as the flag-bearers for a rigid, sexist masculinity. In the other, the harms some boys and young men perpetrate against others are described as the problem of only a very small number of mad, bad males.

Neither is true.

In contradiction to the first, boys’ support for rigid masculine norms is weaker and more uneven. In contradiction to the second, between one in five and one in ten boys personally endorse attitudes that condone or support violence and control in sex and relationships. In addition, one in five boys reported engaging in some form of bullying, physical violence or sexual harassment in the previous month.

3. Boys are more likely than girls to believe in masculine norms

There is a large gender gap in adolescents’ support for stereotypical norms of manhood. Although boys and girls agree on the extent of societal pressure, boys are far more likely than girls to endorse these norms.

For example, the seven adolescent man box statements reflecting a constant effort to be manly receive support from 25% to 44% of boys, while the seven statements reflecting emotional restriction receive support from 7% to 34% of boys.

Far smaller proportions of girls endorse these statements: 8% to 15% for constant efforts to act manly, and 2% to 14% for emotional restriction. What impact will this gender gap have on young people’s relationships and friendships, when twice as many boys as girls feel that boys have to act manly, confident, and strong, avoid activities usually done by girls, and hide their feelings and fears?

4. More boys think boys have it harder than girls

While adolescents in general support gender equality, there is also ambivalence and backlash, particularly among boys. Nearly all adolescents agree it is “important for teenage boys to treat girls and women as equals in all areas of life”. However, 42% of boys (and 13% of girls) also agree that “in Australia today, boys have it harder than girls”.

This simultaneous support for gender equality as a general ideal while agreeing that men or boys are now disadvantaged relative to women or girls is visible in other Australian data too. It can be found, for example, in surveys conducted in 2018, 2020, 2021, and 2025.

Young men’s views of boys as disadvantaged may reflect recognition of genuine forms of male disadvantage such as in schooling outcomes, defensive backlash to shifts in gender relations, or the influence of the “manosphere”, the online network of anti-feminist groups.

5. Parents’ and peers’ views have a large effect

Parents and peers play influential roles in shaping boys’ and young men’s attitudes towards masculinity. Although this comes from males’ own reports, other data corroborate this, finding for example that fathers’ adherence to traditional masculine ideology is correlated with their sons’ adherence.

6. The stronger the masculine norms, the more harmful

Boys’ and young men’s endorsement of rigid masculine norms feeds into harm to boys and young men, and to the people around them. The more strongly adolescent boys hold rigid views about masculinity, the less likely they are to seek help for a personal problem or to report that anyone knows them well. For example, under one quarter (23%) of boys with the highest levels of support for the “man box” agreed that no one really knows them well, compared to 46% of boys with the lowest levels of support.

The stronger their personal endorsement of masculine norms, the more likely they are to blame victims of domestic violence, consume violent pornography, and cause harm to others. For example, 39% of boys with the highest level of support for the man box had used bullying, physical violence or sexual harassment in the past month, more than five times as many as the 7% of boys with the lowest level of support.

Although a range of valuable initiatives engaging boys and young men have sprung up around Australia, we are not doing anywhere near enough to shift entrenched masculine cultures of sexism and stoicism.

We must build gender-equitable approaches to masculinity into school curriculums, parenting programs, and initiatives in sports, workplaces and online media. We must craft messages that encourage boys and men to resist harmful masculine norms. And we need to build on the positive, such as boys’ already substantial rejection of rigid norms of manhood. This will strengthen the protective factors that feed into healthier, more equitable ways of being.

We must balance attention to pain and privilege, addressing both how boys and young men suffer harm and how some do harm – to women and girls, gender-diverse people, and each other. Sexism is baked into the “man box”, particularly in the disdain and hostility for girls and femininity. It must be confronted head-on.

Above all, we must take the work to scale, moving from a handful of programs among boys in schools to systematic efforts across settings and communities.

Michael Flood, Professor of Sociology, Queensland University of Technology

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

All those thousands of hours that Australians put towards unpaid household work and care – cooking, cleaning and caring for family members – are an essential thread that keeps our economy stitched together.

But they’re not recognised in official economic statistics.

My new research puts a dollar value on what all this unpaid labour is worth to the economy: about A$688 billion. That’s equivalent to around one-third of gross domestic product – and is mostly contributed by women.

What happens when we count it in?

The System of National Accounts, which guides how countries worldwide define “production” and measure the size of their economy, is limited to activities that have a price tag or market wage.

Unpaid work and care falls outside this official definition.

In my new academic paper, published in the Economic Record, I calculate a dollar value of this unpaid productive activity by adding up how much it would cost if we were to pay someone an hourly wage do this work as their paid job.

For example, we can value each unpaid hour looking after children as the equivalent of a childcare worker’s average hourly wage.

Each hour spent on housework can be calculated by using a domestic cleaner’s wage as a proxy. And time spent on meal preparation can be proxied using a kitchen hand’s typical wage.

Women contribute the bulk (61.5%) of total time spent on unpaid work and care, based on data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Time Use Survey.

The average time and type of unpaid work that women do, which tallies to 3 hours and 56 minutes per day, equates to A$771 worth of labour per week.

Men’s typical unpaid work and care, which averages 2 hours and 28 minutes per day, adds up to $493 weekly.

Tallying up for the population, women’s unpaid labour is worth the equivalent of $427.3 billion per year. Men’s unpaid work amounts to $261 billion. Yet none of this vital work is counted in our national accounts.

Women’s real contribution to the economy

Let’s imagine we add another column to our national accounts ledger which now counts this invisible labour and adds it to our measurement of paid labour.

We see that women’s share of total labour effort in the economy expands to 47.2%. This compares with just 36.8% when we only count paid work.

One problem with this “replacement wage” methodology is many of these proxy occupations used to value unpaid work and care are female-concentrated – and systematically undervalued on the basis of gender.

We can fix this by estimating a wage equation, using HILDA Survey data, to measure the extent by which an occupation is systematically paid less (or more) on the basis of its gender composition. While we’re at it, we can also estimate the wage premium enjoyed by men irrespective of their industry and occupation.

When we adjust for these sources of gender-based undervaluation, women’s share of total labour climbs to 50.5%.

In other words, women and men are contributing roughly equal labour effort to our economy. But it’s not reflected in the way we measure our economy, or in the gender gaps that persist in pay, wealth, assets and control over resources.

These findings have practical use in setting wages, dividing up household assets, and even measuring productivity.

The observed decline in measured productivity – occurring at the same time the care sector is rapidly swelling in size – could very well be due to an economic system that is failing to fully recognise the value of female-concentrated sectors.

This is about more than just numbers

The invisibility and under-recognition of “women’s work” – that is, the work that society assigns to women – is not just a matter of numbers.

It’s an erasure and diminishing of the value of women’s capabilities and contributions to our economy.

The gender biases embedded in conventional economic architecture are a marker, and driver, of women’s lower status, power and decision-making authority.

Feminist economics have long been pointing out the shortcomings of economic frameworks that centre on the productive activities traditionally assigned to men. As feminist academic Marilyn Waring bluntly observed:

The laws of economics and those that govern the UNSNA [United Nations Systems of National Accounts] are creations of the male mind and do not reflect or encompass the reality of the female world. The conceptual models are limited to the world that the economist knows or observes, and housework is most certainly not part of that world.

Counting unpaid work and care is now possible with the Australian Bureau of Statistics bringing back the Time Use Survey in 2020–21. The survey was previously last conducted in 2006.

This ongoing investment in Australia’s data infrastructure is crucial for applying a gender lens to our economic statistics and policy analysis, undoing gender biases, and shining a spotlight on uncounted “invisible” work.

Leonora Risse, Associate Professor in Economics, University of Canberra

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

There has been much excitement since Australia signed a landmark agreement with the United States last month to expand cooperation on critical minerals and rare earth elements.

These materials are essential for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and clean energy technologies. The deal promises to help Australia move beyond simply digging and shipping raw materials. Instead, we would refine and manufacture advanced, high-value products here at home.

But at the very moment we’re being asked to play a bigger role in global clean-tech supply chains, the science facilities that underpin these ambitions are under threat.

Making great science possible

The Australian Synchrotron in Melbourne and the Australian Centre for Neutron Scattering at Lucas Heights in Sydney are among Australia’s most important pieces of scientific infrastructure.

These facilities are operated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). They house several instruments, including the infrared microscopy and terahertz/far-infrared beamlines which fire a high-intensity and continuous spectrum of X-ray light at samples. Researchers use these to probe materials at the atomic scale. This helps reveal how atoms are arranged, how they move, and how they interact.

These insights underpin everything from advanced batteries to pharmaceuticals, green hydrogen production, and new materials for defence and aerospace. They also allow researchers to study the chemistry of living cells and tissues in real time, develop lightweight fire-fighting suits, explore new cancer therapies and fight antibiotic resistance.

The tools also contributed to research that led to the 2025 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for metal-organic frameworks. These materials, invented in Melbourne, can capture carbon dioxide or filter PFAS contaminants from water.

Hundreds of projects and hundreds of PhD students and early-career researchers rely on these instruments for training and discovery.

In short, these facilities don’t just make great science possible – they make it possible in Australia.

A false economy

Despite this, ANSTO has recently proposed a series of “sustainability measures” – that is, funding cuts – for the Australian Synchrotron and Australian Centre for Neutron Scattering, as first reported by the Sydney Morning Herald. It says these cuts are needed to “support financial stability for the long term”.

The proposed cuts include the closure of the world-leading experimental beamlines that continue to make so much great science possible. As such, they would erode the very foundation of Australia’s scientific and industrial capability.

They would also result in the closure of a program that allows Australian scientists to use overseas synchrotron beamlines when local facilities can’t meet specific experimental needs.

A final decision on the proposed cuts will reportedly be made in December. They could be classified as a false economy: they will save little in the short term but undermine future innovation and growth.

Vital for the future economy

The recent US–Australia critical minerals partnership highlights how vital the scientific facilities that are in the firing line are for the future economy.

Processing and refining critical minerals such as lithium, nickel, cobalt and rare earths, requires deep understanding of how materials behave under complex conditions. That’s exactly the kind of insight neutron and X-ray scattering experiments can provide.

To do this sustainably, Australia must also innovate in “clean manufacturing”. This means developing processes that reduce emissions and waste, just as we are striving to create green steel and green hydrogen. These large-scale research facilities will be essential for making that transition real.

Many other major economies recognise that large-scale research infrastructure is a national asset. Europe is investing billions in the European Spallation Source, a major neutron scattering research facility, which will house initially 15 beamlines. Elsewhere, the US, Japan and the United Kingdom continue to expand their neutron and synchrotron capabilities.

Australia has a much smaller budget than these countries. Yet it consistently produces world-class science and innovation outcomes. If we let these cuts proceed, we risk losing our competitive position.

We also risk losing the next generation of scientific talent these facilities train and inspire.

A moment for leadership

ANSTO’s neutron and synchrotron facilities are among the best-run and most productive parts of Australia’s research system. Their reported “deficits” stem not from mismanagement within these programs, but from broader financial pressures elsewhere at ANSTO. It would be a grave mistake to allow short-term accounting to jeopardise long-term national capability.

Scattering instruments are “enablers across disciplines”. That is, they accelerate innovation and deliver both scientific and commercial returns.

If we want to lead in fields such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing and health technology, we must keep our national research infrastructure strong.

Scientists are ready to find ways to save these irreplaceable facilities. In fact, many are already exploring cost-sharing models with universities and industry. They are also exploring mail-in and remote-access operations to cut travel costs, and sponsorship approaches.

Scientists are prepared to make changes to protect the foundations of our national science capability. But ANSTO and the Australian government will need to do their bit, too.

Michael Preuss, Professor of Structural Materials, Monash University; University of Manchester and Maggie Zhai, Associate Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University

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

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental condition that affects around 2.5% of adults and 7% of children. It causes difficulties with attention, impulsivity and hyperactivity.

If unrecognised and untreated, ADHD can significantly impact educational and work achievements, and social and emotional wellbeing. It can also increase the risks of serious accidents and injuries, offending, mental illness and substance abuse.

When accurately identified and appropriately treated, these negative outcomes can be significantly reduced.

But as a recent article in the Medical Journal of Australia highlights, some people struggle to access and afford diagnoses and treatment the disorder.

Meanwhile, some popular social media channels that provide online “tests” for ADHD are sponsored by private clinics that, once you have screened positive, direct you to their sites for an online assessment. This has raised concern about potential over-diagnosis.

So, what is ADHD diagnosis actually based on? A key component is functional impairment. Let’s take a look at what that means.

Why a brief assessment isn’t enough

In Australia, there are reports of business models where clinics are charging several thousand dollars for a quick, brief online assessment and diagnosis.

These brief assessments don’t comply with evidence-based guidelines and are problematic because they:

• focus solely on ADHD and don’t attempt to assess other aspects of a person’s difficulties

• rely heavily on information from the person being assessed and don’t seek the opinions of significant others

• rely heavily on information about symptoms, gathered through questionnaires, and don’t assess their impact on day-to-day functioning.

This is important because a core requirement for a diagnosis of ADHD is evidence that the:

symptoms must interfere significantly with social, academic, or occupational functioning.

No matter how many symptoms you have, if they’re not having an impact on your day-to-day life, a diagnosis of ADHD shouldn’t be made.

So what is a comprehensive assessment?

To make an accurate diagnosis of ADHD, a comprehensive assessment is needed. This includes a clinical interview to evaluate the current and past presence (or absence) of each of the 18 core ADHD symptoms and associated impairment.

While there are scales such as the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale and the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule that can aid assessment, these are best used as conversation starters rather than stand-alone tools.

A comprehensive assessment also includes a broader assessment for current mental and physical health problems, developmental history, personal and family mental health, substance use, addiction and, where appropriate, interactions with the justice system.

This interview shouldn’t be conducted as a simple tick-box exercise, with yes and no answers. A detailed interview is needed to explore and identify symptoms, and evaluate their impact on functioning.

It’s also strongly recommended the clinician hears from one or more people who can speak to the person’s childhood and current functioning.

What counts as ‘functional impairment’ is very individual

The diagnostic manuals don’t give detailed accounts of what counts as significant enough impairment to be diagnosed with ADHD.

This has led some commentators to complain that lack of a standardised definition could lead to over-diagnosis.

But the impacts of ADHD are so broad it would be very difficult to formulate a clear, comprehensive and encompassing list of valid impairments.

Such a list would also fail to capture the very personalised nature of these impairments. What is impairing for me may not be for you and vice versa.

So a rigid definition would likely result in missed as well as mis-diagnoses.

How do clinicians determine if someone is impaired?

Clinicians are very used to assessing the impact of symptoms on functioning. They do so for many other mental and physical health conditions, including depression and anxiety.

Research has identified several common themes in ADHD:

• impaired romantic, peer and professional relationships
• parenting problems
• impaired educational and occupational achievements
• increased accidents and unintentional injuries
• driving offences
• broader offending
• substance use and abuse
• risky sexual behaviours.

ADHD symptoms are often associated with:

• emotional dysregulation
• exhausting levels of mental and physical restlessness
• low self-esteem
• fatigue
• high stress levels.

One caveat is that some people are receiving a lot of support and scaffolding or have found ways to compensate for their difficulties. Whether or not this should count as impairment depends on the circumstances and requires considerable thought.

However, ADHD shouldn’t be ruled out on the basis of high levels of achievement in certain aspects of life like school or work. A person may be under-achieving relative to their potential, or having to put in extreme levels of effort to keep afloat.

An adult with ADHD, for example, may be excelling at work but by the end of the workday is too exhausted to do anything but sleep. They may also be experiencing impairments in other aspects of their lives that aren’t obvious unless specifically asked about.

Others will present multiple impacts that, when explored, aren’t true functional impairments.

So it’s crucial clinicians drill down into the details until they’re confident that it is or isn’t a genuine impairment related to the core ADHD symptoms.

Clinician training is essential

The skill of accurately assessing impairments in ADHD is not difficult to train or learn. This is done by observing experienced clinicians and practising with structured protocols.

Newly trained clinicians quickly become confident in assessing impairment and there is generally close agreement between different professionals about whether an ADHD diagnosis should be made.

However, few health professionals currently get high-quality training in ADHD either during their core or more advanced training. This must change if we’re going to improve the accuracy of assessment and reduce missed and mis-diagnoses.

David Coghill, Financial Markets Foundation Chair of Developmental Mental Health, The University of Melbourne

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

In just over a month Australia’s social media ban will begin.

From December 10, those under 16 will only be able to see publicly available content on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X and YouTube. They will not be able to have their own accounts.

For example, they could look up Taylor Swift’s latest music video on YouTube, but they would not be able to post their own content.

There are no penalties for children who access an account on an age-restricted platform, or for their parents. Platforms face fines of up to A$49.5 million if they don’t take reasonable steps to implement the ban.

While the changes have been welcomed by some safety experts and parent advocates, eSafety acknowledges, “many parents and carers are worried about how under 16s will react to no longer having access to social media accounts”.

If you have a child or teen who loves social media, how can you help approach this change, while minimising conflict in your family?

Social media is already a source of conflict

My research shows young people’s social and digital media use is already a major source of conflict for families.

A lot of the tension comes from parents not understanding the important role digital media plays in young people’s lives, and young people reacting to “unfair” restrictions imposed by parents.

So conflict around screen time rules and parents’ social media restrictions is common. Young people can put a lot of pressure on their parents for devices or access to certain platforms to fit in with their peers (“but all my friends have it”).

One of the federal government’s rationales for the social media ban is to help parents manage this situation – because people are already finding it hard.

So, potentially, some families may find relief in being able to say “this is just what the government says, this is the law”.

Uncertainty ahead

But we still don’t really know what’s going to happen come December 10. Some of the criticism of the ban has been that young people will find a way around it, such as by using a VPN (which can mask location and identity). Experts are also concerned about the reliability and privacy implications of age verification technology,

Meanwhile, some parents may also help their children circumvent the restrictions.

If a lot of parents in a friendship group are helping their children get around the ban, this could in turn create pressures on other parents and lead to conflict or resentment in families.

Parents need to remember there is no blanket right or wrong answer. All families and kids are different and its important to make decisions based on your family values and your child’s maturity.

Acknowledge it’s hard

Either way, if young people are used to social media and suddenly it’s gone, they might be really sad, annoyed or angry. And parents will have to manage the fall out.

We know young people can forge important connections with others over social media. It’s not just mindless scrolling, it’s a significant way to interact with peers. This is especially important for marginalised young people.

So young people will need to find other ways to connect – and parents should help their kids maintain their social connections.

It’s also important parents are not dismissive and acknowledge this may be a difficult time and transition.

Young people tend to respond much better to rules and regulations when they are given a clear rationale and a clear reason.

For example,

I know it’s hard. It’s out of my hands, this is a decision made by the government. We may not like it, but this is the way it is. Can I help you find another way to connect with your friends or participate in these communities?

You may also want to note how time away from social media, where young people may be doomscrolling or exposed to cyberbullying, can be healthy.

Don’t assume kids are now ‘safe’

One risk of the ban is parents will now think kids are “safe” online. We know children are likely to find other spaces online – and if they don’t, their friends will. And the ban only covers certain platforms.

Parents needs to keep talking to their children about what they see and do online.

Parents also need to keep providing opportunities for children to develop critical digital literacy skills – this means they can assess what they are reading and seeing and not just taking it on face value. Children also need help to navigate social relationships online as they grow up.

This means children under 16 need ongoing opportunities to explore online spaces with support and guidance. This doesn’t necessarily mean parents monitor everything their children do online. But they should show an interest in their children’s activities, and be available to help navigate any risks and tricky situations.

Catherine Page Jeffery, Lecturer in Media and Communications, University of Sydney

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

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming commonplace, despite statistics showing that only approximately 7% to 13% (depending on size) of companies have incorporated AI into their regular business workflows.

Adoption in specific business functions is far higher, with up to 78% of companies reporting use of AI tools in at least one business area. And more than 90% of companies plan to increase AI investment within three years.

This surge in adoption is underpinned by expectations of significant efficiency gains and cost reduction.

Widespread implementation of AI is also accompanied by layoffs. Estimates vary, but it’s clear that within the next decade, millions of jobs will be reshaped or even replaced thanks to AI.

However, despite the lofty promises of AI, many companies aren’t seeing the payoff. Data on productivity gains from AI use is murky at best, and many companies are facing costly implementation failures.

Organisations are falling for what is known as the doorman fallacy: reducing rich and complex human roles to a single task and replacing people with AI. This overlooks the nuanced interactions and adaptability humans bring to their work.

What is the doorman fallacy?

British advertising executive Rory Sutherland coined the term “doorman fallacy” in his 2019 book Alchemy. Sutherland uses the concept of the humble hotel doorman to illustrate how businesses can misjudge the value a person brings to the role.

To a business consultant, a doorman appears to simply stand by the entrance. They engage in small talk with those coming and going, and occasionally operate the door.

If that’s the entirety of the job, a technological solution can easily replace the doorman, reducing costs. However, this strips away the true complexity of what a doorman provides.

The role is multifaceted, with intangible functions that extend beyond just handling the door. Doormen help guests feel welcome, hail taxis, enhance security, discourage unwelcome behaviour, and offer personalised attention to regulars. Even the mere presence of a doorman elevates the prestige of a hotel or residence, boosting guests’ perception of quality.

When you ignore all these intangible benefits, it’s easy to argue the role can be automated. This is the doorman fallacy – removing a human role because technology can imitate its simplest function, while ignoring the layers of nuance, service and human presence that give the role its true value.

Doormen everywhere

As AI becomes increasingly common, many companies have started evaluating employees the way a consultant might evaluate a doorman. The judgement is based purely on the most visible, basic tasks they perform, such as taking food orders or answering phones.

The focus is on what can be automated and what costs can be reduced. What often gets overlooked is the broader value a person brings through context, judgement, and the countless invisible contributions that support a thriving workplace.

This narrow view leads straight into the doorman fallacy, assuming a role is simple because only the obvious parts are seen.

Earlier this year, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia fired 45 customer service staff and rolled out an AI voice bot, claiming the bot drastically cut call volumes.

After the workers’ union challenged the layoffs, the bank reversed its decision, admitting it “did not adequately consider all relevant business considerations and this error meant the roles were not redundant”.

In the United States, fast-food chain Taco Bell has been rolling out voice AI in its drive-throughs since last year, in hopes of cutting errors and speeding up service.

After a barrage of customer complaints and social media videos documenting various glitches, the company is now rethinking its AI use. Taco Bell’s chief technology officer conceded to the Wall Street Journal it might not make sense to only use AI at drive-through and that human staff might handle things better, especially during busy times.

These are not isolated examples. A recent report from software platform Orgvue states up to 55% of the companies that replaced employees with AI now acknowledge they moved too quickly. Some companies are rehiring the very people they let go.

On top of that, consumers dislike dealing with AI in customer service settings, and most say they’d likely choose a competitor that doesn’t use AI.

A job is more than a list of tasks

To avoid the doorman fallacy, companies must recognise jobs are more than the visible tasks listed on a job description.

Employees frequently contribute in subtle ways that leaders don’t see day-to-day, yet those contributions hold real value for customers and organisations as a whole.

Smart AI adoption requires a full understanding of the human elements inside every role. The concept of “efficiency” should be expanded to valuing customer experience and long-term outcomes as much as cost savings.

Before a company attempts to automate any roles and hand tasks over to AI, it must have a deep understanding of the roles in question. If the task needs human oversight and intervention, it’s not a good candidate for automation.

AI can be implemented in roles that don’t require human oversight, such as data entry, image processing, or even predictive maintenance that monitors the health of equipment – roles that are rule based and clearly measurable, freeing up people to do other things.

The evidence so far is clear: the best way to use AI is to pair it with human judgement. This approach preserves the parts of work where context, personal touch, and trust matter.

By supplementing human roles with AI, standardised and repetitive tasks can be completed efficiently, allowing individuals to focus on contextual work where a human touch is important.

Gediminas Lipnickas, Lecturer in Marketing, University of South Australia

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

Optus has promised its staff will be held accountable for September’s Triple Zero outage – but only after “the dust settles” on current investigations. Three deaths have been linked to the outage.

On Monday, the first day of hearings for a Senate inquiry into the incident, inquiry chair and Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young bluntly asked “who’s going to get the sack?” from inside Optus’ executive team.

Optus chairman John Arthur replied:

If you’re asking me whether or not there will be accountabilities here, and accountabilities not just for junior people, then I can assure you that there will be, when the dust settles.

Yet even if that happens, how much will Australians know about any future exit payouts for Optus executives? Probably less than Optus customers would like, thanks to it being a foreign-owned company.

When major corporate failures occur, Australians expect meaningful accountability – including on executive pay.

Why leaving a company can be worth more than staying

Modern executive pay extends far beyond salaries. Think of it as a financial layer cake. Base salary is often just the bottom layer.

On top of this can sit performance bonuses, stock options worth millions, and restricted shares that “vest” over time. Vesting means the shares have completed a required waiting period and now fully belong to the employee.

There are also retention bonuses, designed to keep executives during uncertain periods, and severance agreements that can shield executives from the financial fallout of poor performance.

When an executive’s departure is described as “mutual”, rather than being fired “for cause”, they typically keep the rights to exercise stock options they have earned and claim severance payments.

They may even get accelerated access to restricted shares that hadn’t yet “vested”. This is the icing on the cake.

In some cases, leaving the company can be more financially rewarding than staying.

Leaders respond to incentives

Research shows executives who hold valuable stock and options can become reluctant to make decisions that might threaten that wealth, even when those decisions would benefit shareholders.

Yet, when failures occur, these holdings often survive their departure completely intact.

Research examining executive compensation has found the sensitivity of stock options to price changes can encourage executives to pursue strategies that increase volatility, regardless of long-term benefit to shareholders or the public.

Consider what happened at Qantas after the COVID pandemic. While the airline illegally dismissed ground workers and sold tickets on thousands of already-cancelled “ghost flights”, chief executive Alan Joyce departed with a substantial payout.

Despite widespread public outcry and major regulatory penalties, his compensation remained largely protected by contracts negotiated before the crisis.

Without visibility into compensation structures, we cannot determine whether pay arrangements appropriately align executive incentives with public safety – or whether compensation design itself contributed to corporate failures.

Why Optus is even more opaque

Despite being one of Australia’s largest telecommunications providers, delivering essential services to millions, the public has limited visibility into how Optus’ executives are compensated.

Optus, while wholly owned by Singapore’s publicly listed Singtel, operates as a private subsidiary in Australia.

This means it faces less stringent local disclosure requirements than a company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), such as Telstra.

For listed Australian companies, executive departures and remuneration details must be disclosed in their annual reporting, in the directors’ remuneration report. However, this may occur with a significant time lag.

As a proprietary company, Optus has no such duty.

While parent company Singtel reports to the Singapore Exchange, these disclosures rarely detail individual Australian executive payments.

This means Australians would likely never know the full financial details of any executive exit packages following the Triple Zero outage, despite the direct impact on public safety.

3 changes to boost accountability

When corporate failures compromise access to emergency services, three key changes would offer greater transparency. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), Australia’s telecommunications regulator, would be the appropriate authority to enforce such requirements for companies like Optus.

1. Mandatory compensation disclosure

Companies providing essential services should be required to publicly disclose total compensation for departing executives following major failures, regardless of their listing status.

This should include the value of equity holdings, what was forfeited, what was retained, and any severance paid.

2. Automatic clawback provisions

Companies providing essential services should face automatic clawback provisions (where companies can recover compensation already paid) when corporate failures result in significant public harm, regardless of whether financial misreporting occurred.

3. Clear distinctions in public statements

There is a world of difference between being fired “for cause” and departing “by mutual agreement”. Yet companies routinely blur these lines in public announcements. The compensation treatment should match the reality, and both should be disclosed.

Whether an organisation is listed on the ASX, privately held, or operates as a subsidiary should not determine whether the public can assess if executives face real consequences for failures.

Anish Purkayastha, Senior lecturer, University of Sydney

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

You work a full day, drive the kids to various after school activities, make a mad dash to the supermarket to pick up something for dinner, check emails … and then remember you need a gift for Aunty June’s birthday tomorrow.

Sound familiar?

Our new research shows the “mental load” of managing a household on daily basis falls disproportionately to mothers. This means all the remembering, planning, anticipating and organising that keeps family life running “sticks” to mothers in partnered, heterosexual couples even when they work full-time, earn high incomes, or are the family breadwinner.

While mothers who earn and work more do less of the physical domestic tasks, the mental load remains unmovable. This reveals a less recognised or seen – but nonetheless enduring – barrier to gender equality at home that persists across different work and income patterns.

What is the domestic mental load?

The domestic mental load is the essential emotional thinking work that keeps family life functioning. We measured it by 21 distinct tasks, ranging from keeping track of when children’s nails need clipping, to ensuring the fridge is stocked for the next meal. We asked more than 2,000 US-based parents living in a heterosexual couple which partner is mostly responsible for each task.

On average, mothers report being mainly responsible for 67% more household management than fathers. As the figure below shows, we observed the largest gaps for “core”, routine tasks that often crop up daily, including family scheduling, managing the cleaning, organising childcare, managing social relationships, and taking care of the food.

While fathers report greater responsibility for cognitive tasks related to household maintenance and finances, these gender gaps are comparatively small. These are also tasks that are typically less urgent and done less frequently.

So, while fathers are contributing to mental labour tasks, they are much less likely to say they are primarily responsible for them. This is an important distinction because primary responsibility means accountability – it’s who gets blamed when things go wrong or are forgotten.

But cognitive labour is only one piece. We also found that, on average, mothers are doing 85% more of the physical childcare and housework, too. These patterns are not just a US parent phenomenon - our interviews with Australian parents demonstrate a similar pattern. Mothers are carrying heavier domestic loads both in their physical labour and in their minds.

Mothers’ ‘sticky’ situation

We know from decades of research and the results from our own survey that mothers who work longer hours spend less time in housework and childcare on average. Earning more money is also a key bargaining tool for mothers to reduce their domestic contributions.

Crucially, though, we do not see these same patterns when it comes to the mental load. Instead, mothers who work and earn more still do significantly more than their fair share of the mental load, even as their physical workloads lighten.

We call this “gendered cognitive stickiness”: once the mental load is socially assigned to mothers – and, given gender expectations of mothers’ role as primary caregivers, it almost always is – it tends to “stick” to them regardless of their employment status or how much they earn.

This reflects how different the mental load is from physical childcare and housework. Cognitive domestic labour is not seen, acknowledged, or discussed in the same way as physical chores. This is precisely because it happens inside our heads — anywhere, anytime — and is usually only visible when something goes wrong, such as a forgotten appointment or a key ingredient missing from the cupboard.

The fact mothers do so much more of this cognitive labour than fathers even as employment and earnings increase reflects how much harder the mental load is to outsource, offload, or devolve to others than physical chores.

Because of this, no amount of money or career success frees mothers from the unseen and constant need to remind, anticipate, and coordinate everything that needs doing for the family.

We do find that when fathers earn more, they take on more of this thinking work. For example, fathers earning more than $100,000 reported 17% more involvement in “core” mental tasks, such as arranging extracurricular activities. We suspect this reflects new norms that expect fathers to be more involved in the primary care of children as well as the flexibility more common in high-paying jobs.

However, fathers’ increased contributions do not offset mothers’ overall burden. Mothers are still shouldering the bulk of the mental load.

These findings indicate a plateau in progress towards gender equality. While women have achieved high rates of education and workforce participation, men’s participation in household work - especially the mental load - has not kept pace.

The enduring domestic mental load helps explain why mothers, including those working and earning healthy incomes, feel stretched thin, stressed, and short on time. They are holding down paid jobs and keeping on top of all the household needs in their heads. This has negative implications for women’s wellbeing, careers, and families.

Equalising the mental load is not just about fairness. It is also about ensuring that families can thrive and that progress toward gender equality continues rather than stalls.

Leah Ruppanner, Professor of Sociology and Founding Director of The Future of Work Lab, Podcast at MissPerceived, The University of Melbourne; Ana Catalano Weeks, Associate professor in comparative politics, University of Bath, and Helen Kowalewska, Lecturer in Social Policy, University of Bath

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

Here is a statistic that tells you what a self-defeating funk the federal opposition is in. On Monday alone, as it wallowed in the crisis over energy policy, its parliamentarians indulged in more than 35 media appearances.

Opposition members  can’t resist talking about themselves, fighting their battles in the glare of the spotlight. In particular, Sky News is an irresistible honey pot.

All this is good for the media, but not for messaging. It amplifies the shambles.

Of course the Nationals, having dumped net zero on Sunday, don’t themselves feel in chaos. They’ve just been the prime cause of the chaos for the Liberals and the Coalition generally.

Here’s where the current state of things appears to stand within the Liberals.

The majority of the parliamentary party has shifted in favour of ditching net zero. Core conservatives wanted this all along. For less ideological Liberals  who’d like to keep net zero as an aspiration, that has become too hard.

But as of Tuesday, the hardcore moderates were fighting on, wanting to retain at least some reference to net zero. This group includes the deputy leader of the Liberals in the Senate, Anne Ruston, Angie Bell, and senators Andrew Bragg, Dave Sharma and Maria Kovacic.

The question is, how far would the moderates be prepared to go to push their point? Would they take their rout lying down, or would any consider resigning from frontbench positions in protest?

With her leadership on the line, Ley is pragmatic, willing to drop net zero altogether for the sake of preserving her position. Her deputy, Ted O'Brien, is in favour of ditching it. (His deputy position is bound to Ley’s survival: if she went, so would he.)

But Ley also has to anticipate whether the moderates would fight to the death. If they did, the fracas could bring her down.

That would pave the way for conservative aspirant Angus Taylor to become leader – a prospect that could stay the hand of the moderates.

The exact timetable for resolving the Liberals’ position remains fluid. The Coalition party room was told on Tuesday the finished review of energy policy by spokesman Dan Tehan was imminent.

Tehan is copping some criticism for not moving faster on the review at an earlier stage and for being overseas, inspecting nuclear facilities in the United States, when the government announced its 2035 emissions reduction target.

The current thinking appears to be that the Liberal Party will return to Canberra to consider its policy before the last parliamentary sitting week, which is at the end of this month.

Alex Hawke, Ley’s numbers man, in comments on Tuesday reflected the move away from net zero.

Asked  what his position was on whether the Liberals should remain  committed to net zero by 2050, Hawke said, “well,  like most of my colleagues, we have always  been concerned about  the cost of net zero. […] The cost  of net zero  is starting to hit  our economy.”

Hawke played down any threat to Ley’s leadership. “Colleagues are minded to land the policy. We’ll do that. […] Sussan will lead us.  There’s no one proposing anything different.”

Victorian Senator Jane Hume, who has previously strongly advocated the retention of net zero, said, “Let’s face it, net zero has become a new form of whether you believe in climate change or not – that’s crazy.”

Asked about Ley’s leadership Hume, who has been critical of Ley on occasion, said, “that’s not an issue”.

She said she “absolutely” had confidence in Ley.

“The most important thing  now, though, is that the leader takes a position on energy policy and does so with a matter of urgency, because we cannot allow this conversation to continue.”

That’s a statement hard for any Liberal to dissent from.  

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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