Adam Guastella, University of Sydney; Kelsie Boulton, University of Sydney, and Natalie Silove, University of Sydney

When parents are concerned about their child’s development, they often seek an assessment to address concerns and identify any conditions, such as autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or learning disorders.

Common worries include difficulties making friends, focusing on tasks, or meeting educational goals.

It might seem counter-intuitive but assessments are starting to focus on a child’s strengths during this process. This can create powerful opportunities to improve child and family outcomes, particularly when too much of the focus is on challenges in the family home, school and play settings.

There is, however, a lack of evidence about how to do such assessments and how certain strengths can be used in assessment.

In a new research paper, we have developed a strengths checklist for parents, carers and clinicians to more easily identify children’s skills, talents and positive qualities – and understand the type of support they need at home, school or socially.

The aim was to provide an easy way for parents and clinicians to identify strengths in children, and to provide a method for studying the role of strengths in development. This assessment can be used alongside more established assessments of challenges.

Why highlight a child’s strengths?

Focusing on a child’s strengths can have a powerful impact on children and parents. It can boost a child’s motivation, self-esteem, cognitive skills, language development, problem-solving abilities and build stronger relationships.

For parents and caregivers, it can increase their own feelings of self-worth and improve the quality of their relationship with their own children.

When parents and caregivers believe in their child’s abilities and encourage their strengths, children and families thrive.

However, there are many gaps in research about how to apply a strengths-based approach in the context of a neurodevelopmental assessment.

Currently, while the basic principle of incorporating strengths is clear, clinicians need to rely on intuition and creativity to guide their practices.

We have long needed better evidence-based methods to guide this.

This is where our research comes in

Our new study used the Sydney Child Neurodevelopment Research Registry, which aims to improve the neurodevelopmental assessment processes and the evidence for what works for families and clinicians. We asked caregivers to identify their child’s strengths on their first assessment visit.

Nearly 700 caregivers reported an average of 2.8 strengths about their children. Using these themes, we developed a child strengths checklist to use for clinical assessments.

We showed caregivers identified six categories of child strengths: cognitive and intellectual, social and interpersonal, hobbies and passions, character and personality, physical, and resilient behaviours.

Some caregivers might report that while their child had difficulty with peer interactions, they were also kind, affectionate, honest and caring.

Other caregivers described concerns about cognitive delays, but they also described how children persevered and persisted with tasks.

Analysing the data qualitatively – where we read caregiver transcripts and extracted themes – we captured the richness and detail of unique strengths. In total, we identified 61 unique strengths.

With community representatives and clinicians, we used this to develop a strengths-based checklist we’re calling the Child Autism and Neurodevelopment Strengths Checklist, or the CANS checklist.

This type of research will provide the evidence needed to be able to implement national guidelines and to develop better evidence about how strengths can be used to improve outcomes. We want to develop best practices for combining concerns and strengths into feedback, support plans and intervention strategies.

What can caregivers and clinicians do now?

Support schemes including the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) often require families to highlight what children can’t do. Still, there are some practical ways caregivers and clinicians can ensure a child’s strengths are kept front and centre.

For caregivers, along with discussing concerns, reflect on and talk with your clinicians about your child’s strengths. Make sure clinicians keep these in mind when devising supports.

For both caregivers and clinicians, it can be helpful to think about characteristics often seen as challenges – such as a strong need for routine – as also potential strengths. It may lead to new ways of supporting children. With the right environment and support, these traits can be valuable assets in a child’s development.

For clinicians, consider how a child’s strengths can inform your assessment and intervention strategies. Make sure you don’t only focus on what children can’t do or need support with.

Communicate clearly about the child’s strengths and consider how these strengths can:

• support the child’s long-term development and goals. If the child thrives on routine and pays close attention to details, showing them how to embrace these strengths can teach them how to use them to reach their own goals and to be more independent

• be the target of an intervention. Everyone needs to experience success. Designing activities around strengths can make intervention more enjoyable and engaging, and the effects are more likely to be long-lasting

• be used to support the wellbeing of families. Helping families focus on each other’s strengths and improve the way family members talk about and support one another creates a positive environment where they can all feel valued, respected and cared for.

By focusing on strengths, we want to create more effective and personalised support for children with neurodevelopmental conditions to reach their full potential.

Building a strong, evidence-based approach will help ensure children’s strengths are consistently considered in assessments and intervention planning.

Adam Guastella, Professor and Clinical Psychologist, Michael Crouch Chair in Child and Youth Mental Health, University of Sydney; Kelsie Boulton, Senior Research Fellow in Child Neurodevelopment, Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, and Natalie Silove, Neurodevelopmental Paediatrician and Associate Professor, University of Sydney

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

Joel Hodge, Australian Catholic University and Antonia Pizzey, Australian Catholic University

Pope Francis has died on Easter Monday, aged 88, the Vatican announced. The head of the Catholic Church had recently survived being hospitalised with double pneumonia.

Cardinal Kevin Farrell’s announcement began:

Dear brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis. At 7:35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father.

There were many unusual aspects of Pope Francis’ papacy. He was the first Jesuit pope, the first from the Americas (and the southern hemisphere), the first to choose the name “Francis” and the first to give a TED talk. He was also the first pope in more than 600 years to be elected following the resignation, rather than death, of his predecessor.

From the very start of his papacy, Francis seemed determined to do things differently and present the papacy in a new light. Even in thinking about his burial, he chose the unexpected: to be placed to rest not in the Vatican, but in the Basilica of St Mary Major in Rome – the first pope to be buried there in hundreds of years.

Vatican News reported the late Pope Francis had requested his funeral rites be simplified.

“The renewed rite,” said Archbishop Diego Ravelli, “seeks to emphasise even more that the funeral of the Roman Pontiff is that of a pastor and disciple of Christ and not of a powerful person of this world.”

Straddling a line between “progressive” and “conservative”, Francis experienced tension with both sides. In doing so, his papacy shone a spotlight on what it means to be Catholic today.

Between a rock and a hard place

Francis was deemed not progressive enough by some, yet far too progressive by others.

His apostolic exhortation (an official papal teaching on a particular issue or action) Amoris Laetitia, ignited great controversy for seemingly being (more) open to the question of whether people who have divorced and remarried may receive Eucharist.

He also disappointed progressive Catholics, many of whom hoped he would make stronger changes on issues such as the roles of women, married clergy, and the broader inclusion of LGBTQIA+ Catholics.

The reception of his exhortation Querida Amazonia was one such example. In this document, Francis did not endorse marriage for priests, despite bishops’ requests for this. He also did not allow the possibility of women being ordained as deacons to address a shortage of ordained ministers. His discerning spirit saw there was too much division and no clear consensus for change.

Francis was also openly critical of Germany’s controversial “Synodal Way” – a series of conferences with bishops and lay people – that advocated for positions contrary to Church teachings. Francis expressed concern on multiple occasions that this project was a threat to the unity of the Church.

At the same time, Francis was no stranger to controversy from the conservative side of the Church, receiving “dubia” or “theological doubts” over his teaching from some of his Cardinals. In 2023, he took the unusual step of responding to some of these doubts.

Impact on the Catholic Church

In many ways, the most striking thing about Francis was not his words or theology, but his style. He was a modest man, even foregoing the Apostolic Palace’s grand papal apartments to live in the Vatican’s simpler guest house.

He may well be remembered most for his simplicity of dress and habits, his welcoming and pastoral style and his wise spirit of discernment.

He is recognised as giving a clear witness to the life, love and joy of Jesus in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council – a point of major reform in modern Church history. This witness has translated into two major developments in Church teachings and life.

Love for our common home

The first of these relates to environmental teachings. In 2015, Francis released his ground-breaking encyclical, Laudato si’: On Care for Our Common Home. It expanded Catholic social teaching by giving a comprehensive account of how the environment reflects our God-given “common home”.

Consistent with recent popes such as Benedict XVI and John Paul II, Francis acknowledged climate change and its destructive impacts and causes. He summarised key scientific research to forcefully argue for an evidence-based approach to addressing humans’ impact on the environment.

He also made a pivotal and innovative contribution to the climate change debate by identifying the ethical and spiritual causes of environmental destruction.

Francis argued combating climate change relied on the “ecological conversion” of the human heart, so that people may recognise the God-given nature of our planet and the fundamental call to care for it. Without this conversion, pragmatic and political measures wouldn’t be able to counter the forces of consumerism, exploitation and selfishness.

Francis argued a new ethic and spirituality was needed. Specifically, he said Jesus’ way of love – for other people and all creation – is the transformative force that could bring sustainable change for the environment and cultivate fraternity among people (and especially with the poor).

Synodality: moving towards a Church that listens

Francis’s second major contribution, and one of the most significant aspects of his papacy, was his commitment to “synodality”. While there’s still confusion over what synodality actually means, and its potential for political distortion, it is above all a way of listening and discerning through openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It involves hierarchy and lay people transparently and honestly discerning together, in service of the mission of the church. Synodality is as much about the process as the goal. This makes sense as Pope Francis was a Jesuit, an order focused on spreading Catholicism through spiritual formation and discernment.

Drawing on his rich Jesuit spirituality, Francis introduced a way of conversation centred on listening to the Holy Spirit and others, while seeking to cultivate friendship and wisdom.

With the conclusion of the second session of the Synod on Synodality in October 2024, it is too soon to assess its results. However, those who have been involved in synodal processes have reported back on their transformative potential.

Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge, explained how participating in the 2015 Synod “was an extraordinary experience [and] in some ways an awakening”.

Catholicism in the modern age

Francis’ papacy inspired both great joy and aspirations, as well as boiling anger and rejection. He laid bare the agonising fault lines within the Catholic community and struck at key issues of Catholic identity, triggering debate over what it means to be Catholic in the world today.

He leaves behind a Church that seems more divided than ever, with arguments, uncertainty and many questions rolling in his wake. But he has also provided a way for the Church to become more converted to Jesus’ way of love, through synodality and dialogue.

Francis showed us that holding labels such as “progressive” or “conservative” won’t enable the Church to live out Jesus’ mission of love – a mission he emphasised from the very beginning of his papacy.

Joel Hodge, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Theology and Philosophy, Australian Catholic University and Antonia Pizzey, Postdoctoral Researcher Research Centre for Studies of the Second Vatican Council, Australian Catholic University

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

Celia Deane-Drummond, University of Oxford

The death of Pope Francis has been announced by the Vatican. I first met the late Pope Francis at the Vatican after a conference called Saving Our Common Home and the Future of Life on Earth in July 2018. My colleagues and I sensed something momentous was happening at the heart of the church.

At that time, I was helping to set up the new Laudato Si’ research institute at the Jesuit Hall at the University of Oxford. This institute is named after the pope’s 2015 encyclical (a letter to bishops outlining church policy) on climate change.

Its mission is rooted in the pope’s religiously inspired vision of integral ecology – a multidisciplinary approach that addresses social and ecological issues of equality and climate breakdown.

Originating from Argentina, Pope Francis, the first Jesuit pope, witnessed firsthand the destruction of the Amazon and the plight of South America’s poorest communities. His concern for justice for vulnerable communities and protection of the planet go hand in hand with his religious leadership.

In his first papal letter, Laudato Si’, he called for all people, not just Catholics, to pay more attention to the frailty of both our planet and its people. What we need is no less than a cultural revolution, he wrote. As a theologian, I recognise that he inspired significant change in three key ways.

1. At global climate summits

It’s no coincidence that Pope Francis released Laudato Si’ at a crucial moment in 2015 prior to the UN climate summit, Cop21, in Paris. A follow-up exhortation, or official statement, Laudate Deum, was released in October 2023, just before another UN climate summit, Cop28 in Dubai.

Did the decisions at these global meetings shift because of the influence of Pope Francis? Potentially, yes. In Laudate Deum, Pope Francis showed both encouragement and some frustration about the achievements of international agreements so far.

He berated the weakness of international politics and believes that Cop21 represented a “significant moment” because the agreement involved everyone.

After Cop21, he pointed out how most nations had failed to implement the Paris agreement which called for limiting the global temperature rise in this century to below 2°C. He also called out the lack of monitoring of those commitments and subsequent political inertia. He tried his best to use his prominent position to hold power to account.

Promoting a general moral awareness of the need to act in ecologically responsible ways, both in international politics and at the local level is something that previous popes, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI also did. But, Pope Francis’s efforts went beyond that, by connecting much more broadly with grassroots movements.

2. By advocating for Indigenous people

Cop28 marked the first time that close to 200 countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels. Pope Francis’s interventions potentially helped shift the needle just a little in the desired direction.

His emphasis on listening to Indigenous people may have influenced these gatherings. Compared with previous global climate summits, Cop28 arguably opened up the opportunity to listen to the voices of Indigenous people.

However, Indigenous people were still disappointed by the outcomes of Cop28. Pope Francis’s lesser-known exhortation Querida Amazonia, which means “beloved Amazonia”, was published in February 2020.

This exhortation resulted from his conversations with Amazonian communities and helped put Indigenous perspectives on the map. Those perspectives helped shape Catholic social teaching in the encyclical Fratelli Tutti, which means “all brothers and sisters”, published on October 3 2020.

For many people living in developing countries where extractive industries such as oil and gas or mining are rife, destruction of land coincides with direct threats to life. Pope Francis advocated for Indigenous environmental defenders, many of whom have been inspired to act by their strong faith.

For example, Father Marcelo Pérez, an Indigenous priest living in Mexico, was murdered by drug dealers just after saying mass on October 23 2023 as part of the cost of defending the rights of his people and their land.

While 196 environmental defenders were killed globally in 2023, Pope Francis continued to advocate on behalf of the most marginalised people as well as the environment.

3. By inspiring activism

I’ve been speaking to religious climate activists from different church backgrounds in the UK as part of a multidisciplinary research project on religion, theology and climate change based at the University of Manchester. Most notably, when we asked more than 300 activists representing six different activist groups who most influenced them to get involved in climate action, 61% named Pope Francis as a key influencer.

On a larger scale, Laudato Si’ gave rise to the Laudato Si’ movement which coordinates climate activism across the globe. It has 900 Catholic organisations as well as 10,000 of what are known as Laudato Si’ “animators”, who are all ambassadors and leaders in their respective communities.

Our institute’s ecclesial affiliate, Tomás Insua, based in Assisi, Italy, originally helped pioneer this global Laudato Si’ movement. We host a number of ecumenical gatherings which bring together people from different denominations and hopefully motivate churchgoers to think and act in a more climate-conscious way.

Nobody knows who the next pope might be. Given the current turmoil in politics and shutting down of political will to address the climate emergency, we can only hope they will build on the legacy of Pope Francis and influence political change for the good, from the grassroots frontline right up to the highest global ambitions.

---

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Celia Deane-Drummond, Professor of Theology, Director of Laudato Si' Research Institute, Campion Hall, University of Oxford

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

Matthis Auger, University of Tasmania

Beneath the surface of the Southern Ocean, vast volumes of cold, dense water plunge off the Antarctic continental shelf, cascading down underwater cliffs to the ocean floor thousands of metres below. These hidden waterfalls are a key part of the global ocean’s overturning circulation – a vast conveyor belt of currents that moves heat, carbon, and nutrients around the world, helping to regulate Earth’s climate.

For decades, scientists have struggled to observe these underwater waterfalls of dense water around Antarctica. They occur in some of the most remote and stormy waters on the planet, often shrouded by sea ice and funnelled through narrow canyons that are easily missed by research ships.

But our new research shows that satellites, orbiting hundreds of kilometres above Earth, can detect these sub-sea falls.

By measuring tiny dips in sea level – just a few centimetres – we can now track the dense water cascades from space. This breakthrough lets us monitor the deepest branches of the ocean circulation, which are slowing down as Antarctic ice melts and surface waters warm.

Dense water helps regulate the climate

Antarctic dense water is formed when sea ice grows, in the process making nearby water saltier and more dense. This heavy water then spreads across the continental shelf until it finds a path to spill over the edge, plunging down steep underwater slopes into the deep.

As the dense water flows northward along the seafloor, it brings oxygen and nutrients into the abyss – as well as carbon and heat drawn from the atmosphere.

But this crucial process is under threat. Climate change is melting the Antarctic ice sheet, adding fresh meltwater into the ocean and making it harder for dense water to form.

Past research has shown the abyssal circulation has already slowed by 30%, and is likely to weaken further in the years ahead. This could reduce the ocean’s ability to absorb heat and carbon, accelerating climate change.

Our research provides a new technique that can provide easy, direct observations of future changes in the Southern Ocean abyssal overturning circulation.

Satellites and sea level

Until now, tracking dense water cascades around Antarctica has relied on moorings, ship-based surveys, and even sensors attached to seals. While these methods deliver valuable local insights, they are costly, logistically demanding, carbon-intensive, and only cover a limited area.

Satellite data offers an alternative. Using radar, satellites such as CryoSat-2 and Sentinel-3A can measure changes in sea surface height to within a few centimetres.

And thanks to recent advances in data processing, we can now extract reliable measurements even in ice-covered regions – by peering at the sea surface through cracks and openings in the sea ice.

In our study, we combined nearly a decade of satellite observations with high-resolution ocean models focused on the Ross Sea. This is a critical hotspot for Antarctic dense water formation.

We discovered that dense water cascades leave a telltale surface signal: a subtle but consistent dip in sea level, caused by the cold, heavy water sinking beneath it.

By tracking these subtle sea level dips, we developed a new way to monitor year-to-year changes in dense water cascades along the Antarctic continental shelf. The satellite signal we identified aligns well with observations collected by other means, giving us confidence that this method can reliably detect meaningful shifts in deep ocean circulation.

Cheap and effective – with no carbon emissions

This is the first time Antarctic dense water cascades have been monitored from space. What makes this approach so powerful is its ability to deliver long-term, wide-reaching observations at low cost and with zero carbon emissions – using satellites that are already in orbit.

These innovations are especially important as we work to monitor a rapidly changing climate system. The strength of deep Antarctic currents remains one of the major uncertainties in global climate projections.

Gaining the ability to track their changes from space offers a powerful new way to monitor our changing climate – and to shape more effective strategies for adaptation.

Matthis Auger, Research Associate in Physical Oceanography, University of Tasmania

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

Colin Hawes, University of Technology Sydney

Far from causing trade frictions, an Australian buyout of the Port of Darwin lease may provide a lifeline for its struggling Chinese parent company Landbridge Group.

Both Labor and the Coalition have proposed such a buyout based on national security grounds.

But neither party has placed a dollar amount on a potential buyout, preferring to seek out private investors first. Any enforced acquisition would need to provide fair market value compensation to Landbridge.

The previous Northern Territory government leased the port to Landbridge for 99 years in 2015. The A$506 million contract was supported by the then Turnbull government.

Finding a buyer

This could put Australian taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. Private investors might baulk at taking on a port lease that has consistently lost money for many years.

It is not clear why the national security situation has changed. The latest government inquiry found there were no security risks requiring Landbridge to divest their lease.

The more pressing risk threatening the port is a financial one.

Troubled times

If Landbridge Group, which holds the lease through its Australian subsidiary, declares insolvency, it will no longer be able to sustain the port’s operations. And the terminal could not support itself.

Several hundred employees would lose their jobs, and serious disruptions to trade and cruise ship tourism would follow.

The Australian media reported last November that the Port of Darwin racked up losses of $34 million in the 2023–24 financial year. Yet this figure is overshadowed by the financial liabilities Landbridge has in China.

Where the problems started

The problems started with Landbridge Group’s ambitious expansion between 2014 and 2017.

In that time it shelled out almost $5 billion on international and Chinese assets. Purchases included Australian gas producer WestSide Corporation Ltd, ($180 million in 2014); the Port of Darwin lease ($506 million in 2015); and another port in Panama ($1.2 billion in 2016). Landbridge reportedly planned to plough a further $1.5 billion into that port.

In China, the Landbridge Group also signed a partnership deal with Beijing Gas Co in 2019 to construct a huge liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal at its main port site in Rizhao City, Shandong Province. The planned co-investment was worth $1.4 billion.

Rushing to invest

This was a heady time for Chinese private firms to invest overseas. Their often charismatic founders took advantage of the central government’s devolution of approval powers to the provinces and dressed up their pet investment projects as Belt and Road initiatives.

Much of this breakneck expansion was funded by high-interest bonds issued on the Chinese commercial interbank debt markets or so-called shadow banking.

Most private Chinese firms did not have easy access to the generous bank loans available to state-owned enterprises.

Landbridge, a private firm controlled by Shandong entrepreneur Ye Cheng and his sister Ye Fang, was no exception. They borrowed heavily to fund their acquisitions.

Mounting debt

Unfortunately, Landbridge’s income from its Chinese and international operations has not kept pace with its debt obligations. As early as 2017, the group was already struggling to pay debts.

By 2021, Landbridge had been sued by at least 14 major financial or trade creditors. Outstanding judgment debts were issued by the Shanghai People’s Court amounting to about $600 million.

Since then, all of the group’s main assets have been frozen in lieu of payment. Unpaid debts and interest amounting to more than $1 billion have been passed on to state asset management companies to collect or sell off at knockdown prices, an indication the group is effectively insolvent.

Time to restructure

In early 2025, a restructuring committee was formed by the local government in Rizhao City, where Landbridge is headquartered. Its job is to find a way to keep the company’s Rizhao Port operating and avoid losing thousands of local jobs.

As recently as 2021, Ye Cheng was still ranked among the top 300 richest entrepreneurs in China, with an estimated net worth of more than $3 billion.

He is currently on the hook for his company’s debts after mortgaging all his business assets and giving personal guarantees to major creditors. He has also been fined by China’s corporate regulator for failing to lodge any annual financial reports for Landbridge Group since 2021.

Landbridge’s plans to develop its Panama port were cut short and its lease there was terminated in 2021 due to financial shortfalls.

Ye’s next move?

Ye Cheng may be unwilling to sell off his remaining overseas assets as this would be an admission of defeat. Yet an enforced buyout of the Darwin Port lease arranged by Australia may provide his businesses with a temporary financial lifeline in China.

It would also absolve Landbridge of its previously announced commitments to invest about $35 million in expanding Darwin Port’s infrastructure.

Far from causing trade frictions between Australia and China, such an enforced buyout – or more accurately, a bail-out – should be privately welcomed by both Landbridge and the Chinese government.

Colin Hawes, Associate professor of law, University of Technology Sydney

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

Fiona Macdonald, RMIT University

The Fair Work Commission has found award pay rates in five industrial awards covering a range of female-dominated occupations and industries do not provide equal pay.

This important decision should narrow the gender pay gap.

The commission proposed significant increases to award pay rates covering thousands of workers including pharmacists, early childhood education and care workers, psychologists, physiotherapists and some other health workers.

The Fair Work Commission’s review of the five “priority” awards was undertaken following the Labor government’s changes to the Fair Work Act in 2022. The changes require the commission to take account of the need to achieve gender equality in setting modern award rates of pay.

Who is covered by the latest review?

The five priority modern awards reviewed by the expert panel are:

1. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers and Practitioners and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services Award 2020

2. Children’s Services Award 2010

3. Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020

4. Pharmacy Industry Award 2020

5. Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010.

The commission examined the evidence and found many pay rates in the five modern awards do not reflect the value of the work undertaken in these female-dominated occupations and industries.

The commission found pay rates in these awards are not equal to pay rates for comparable work, due to the work largely being done by women.

Skills typically required to work with and to provide care and support to people, sometimes referred to as “soft” skills, have not been valued as much as the so-called “hard” skills required in male-dominated technical roles.

Past attempts were not successful

Before the Labor government’s 2022 changes to the Fair Work Act, almost all attempts by unions to have industrial tribunals address gender pay inequity failed.

One major barrier to success was a requirement that discrimination be demonstrated. The need to prove gender undervaluation of work largely done by women by referring to “comparable” jobs largely undertaken by men has also been a problem.

Now, under an amended Fair Work Act, the Fair Work Commission is able to examine the skills required in feminised jobs to assess the work’s value without needing to find a male comparison.

The commission’s decision that a total increase of 14% in award rates for pharmacists is justified will take effect in three phases, starting in July 2025.

The commission’s decisions on pay increases for workers covered by the other four awards, including proposed increases of 23% for Certificate III qualified childcare workers, have been put forward as provisional views only. The expert panel will begin consultations on these views in May.

Some concerns remain

The commission’s proposal for remedying gender undervaluation in one of the awards, covering a broad range of workers in social and community services, including disability workers, is puzzling.

The remedy appears to risk undermining past pay gains won for many social and community services workers because of proposed changes in the classification structure. These changes may not take account of the complexity and diversity of skills used by workers in the wide range of roles covered by the award.

Reflecting this, unions have expressed concerns the proposals for changes to this award may have the unintended consequence of reducing pay and hurting careers for some workers.

The final pay increases and their timing for workers covered by the four awards other than the pharmacy award will be made following consultations with unions, employers and funding bodies, including federal and state governments.

Following last week’s decision, one large employer group is arguing employers in private hospitals and the early childhood education and care sectors cannot afford the proposed pay increases.

They are calling on the government to fund increases in the industries that are largely government funded, including the early childhood education and care sector.

The funding picture so far

The Labor government supported the Fair Work Commission’s gender undervaluation review when it was announced in 2024. At the time the government also made clear it was their view any large pay increases would need to be phased in.

The government did fully fund increases for aged care workers, which it said came to a total investment of A$17.7 billion.

The government has also funded a 15% pay increases for early childhood workers gained through a multi-enterprise agreement covering hundreds of centres. The first increase of 10% came into effect in December, with a further 5% increase due in December 2025.

Better pay in care and support occupations was identified by the Labor government as essential to the sustainability and growth of the care and support economy.

The Coalition has not made any commitments regarding funding for any pay increases awarded in the gender undervaluation proceedings. The Coalition spokeswoman on workplace relations, Michaelia Cash, said the Coalition would examine the decision and its implications.

The Coalition did not support the larger Secure Jobs Better Pay legislation that included the gender equality changes.

Fiona Macdonald, Policy Director, Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute and Adjunct Principal Research Fellow, RMIT University

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

Katherine Kent, University of Wollongong

Being a university student has long been associated with eating instant noodles, taking advantage of pub meal deals and generally living frugally.

But for several years, researchers have been tracking how students are not getting enough food to eat. This can have an impact on their mental and physical health as well as their academic performance.

In new research, we look at how the problem is getting worse.

Our research

In March 2022 and March 2024, we surveyed University of Tasmania students about their access to food.

More than 1,200 students participated in the first survey and more than 1,600 participated in the second. Students were recruited through university-wide emails and social media and included both undergraduate and postgraduate students from a range of disciplines.

We used an internationally recognised survey to assess food insecurity. It can tell us whether students are struggling and to what extent.

It asked simple but revealing questions about financial barriers to food, such as “In the past 12 months, did you ever skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?” or “Did the food you bought just not last, and you didn’t have money to get more?”

Students were then classified as “food secure” or as one of three levels of food insecurity:

1. marginally food insecure: students were worried about running out of food

2. moderately food insecure: students were compromising on the quality and variety of food they ate

3. severely food insecure: students were often skipping meals or going without food altogether.

Regularly going without food

We found overall, food insecurity among students increased from 42% in 2022 to 53% in 2024.

The proportions of those experiencing marginal or moderate levels of food insecurity was stable (at about 8% and 17–18% respectively). But the number of students experiencing severe food insecurity jumped from 17% to 27%.

While food insecurity increased among most groups, younger students, those studying on campus and international students were the most at risk.

Although our study focused on the University of Tasmania, similar rates of food insecurity have recently been reported at other regional and metropolitan universities across the country. This suggests it is a widespread issue.

National data on food insecurity in the general Australian population is limited, with no regular government monitoring. The 2024 Foodbank Hunger Report estimates 32% of Australian households experienced food insecurity, including 19% with severe food insecurity.

Why is this happening?

While our study didn’t directly explore the causes of student hunger, rising inflation, high rents and limited student incomes are likely factors.

The surveys happened during a time of sustained inflation and rising living costs. We know rents, groceries and other essentials have all gone up. But student support payments have not kept pace over the study period.

What can we do?

To address food insecurity among students, coordinated action is needed across universities and state and territory governments.

Universities often run food pantries to provide students with basic supplies, but they also need more long-term supports for students.

Institutions could expand subsidised meal programs, offer regular free or subsidised grocery boxes and ensure healthy, low-cost food is consistently available on campus.

State governments can reduce the financial stress that contributes to food insecurity by expanding stipends and support for students on unpaid clinical placements in the state system. They could also expand public transport concessions to all students, including international students.

The federal government can raise Youth Allowance and Austudy to reflect real living costs. The new Commonwealth Prac Payment could be expanded beyond teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work to cover all students undertaking mandatory unpaid placements. The government’s plan to raise HECS-HELP repayment thresholds could also ease the financial pressure on recent graduates.

Katherine Kent, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Wollongong

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

Marlene L. Daut, Yale University

In 2002, Haiti’s former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide argued that France should pay his country US$21 billion.

The reason? In 1825, France extracted a huge indemnity from the young nation, in exchange for recognition of its independence.

April 17, 2025, marks the 200th anniversary of that indemnity agreement. On Jan. 1 of this year, the now-former president of Haiti’s Transitional Presidential Council, Leslie Voltaire, reminded France of this call when he requested that France “repay the debt of independence and reparations for slavery.” In March, tennis star Naomi Osaka, who is of Haitian descent, added her voice to the chorus in a tweet wondering when France would pay Haiti back.

As a scholar of 19th-century Haitian history and culture, I’ve dedicated a significant portion of my research to exploring Haiti’s particularly strong legal case for restitution from France.

The story begins with the Haitian Revolution.

France instituted slavery in the colony of Saint-Domingue on the western third of the island of Hispaniola – today’s Haiti – in the 17th century. In the late 18th century, the enslaved population rebelled and eventually declared independence. In the 19th century, the French demanded compensation for the former enslavers of the Haitian people, rather than the other way around.

Just as the legacy of slavery in the United States has created a gross economic disparity between Black and white Americans, the tax on its freedom that France forced Haiti to pay – referred to as an “indemnity” at the time – severely damaged the newly independent country’s ability to prosper.

The cost of independence

Haiti officially declared its independence from France on Jan. 1, 1804. In October 1806, following the assassination of Haiti’s first head of state, the country was split into two, with Alexandre Pétion ruling in the south and Henry Christophe ruling in the north.

Despite the fact that both Haiti rulers were veterans of the Haitian Revolution, the French had never quite given up on reconquering their former colony.

In 1814, King Louis XVIII, restored as king after the overthrow of Napoléon earlier that year, sent three commissioners to Haiti to assess the willingness of the country’s rulers to surrender. Christophe, crowned king in 1811, remained obstinate in the face of France’s exposed plan to bring back slavery. Threatening war, the most prominent member of Christophe’s cabinet, Baron de Vastey, insisted,“ Our independence will be guaranteed by the tips of our bayonets!”

In contrast, Pétion, the ruler of the south, was willing to negotiate, hoping that the country might be able to pay France for recognition of its independence.

In 1803, Napoléon had sold Louisiana to the United States for US$15 million. Using this number as his compass, Pétion proposed paying the same amount. Unwilling to compromise with those he viewed as “runaway slaves,” Louis XVIII rejected the offer.

Pétion died suddenly in 1818, but Jean-Pierre Boyer, his successor, kept up the negotiations. Talks, however, continued to stall due to Christophe’s stubborn opposition.

“Any indemnification of the ex-colonists,” Christophe’s government stated, was “inadmissible.”

Once Christophe died in October 1820, Boyer was able to reunify the two sides of the country. However, even with the obstacle of Christophe gone, Boyer repeatedly failed to successfully negotiate France’s recognition of independence. Determined to gain at least suzerainty over the island – which would have made Haiti a protectorate of France – Louis XVIII rebuked the two commissioners Boyer sent to Paris in 1824 to try to negotiate an indemnity in exchange for recognition.

On April 17, 1825, Charles X, brother to Louis XVIII and the new French king, performed a sudden about-face. Charles X issued a decree stating that France would recognize Haitian independence but only at the price of 150 million francs – or nearly twice the 80 million francs the U.S. had paid for the Louisiana territory.

Baron de Mackau, whom Charles X sent to deliver the ordinance, arrived in Haiti in July, accompanied by a squadron of 14 brigs of war carrying more than 500 cannons.

His instructions stated that his “mission” was “not a negotiation.” It was not diplomacy either. It was extortion.

Amid the threat of violent war and a looming economic blockade, on July 11, 1825, Boyer signed the fatal document, which stated, “The present inhabitants of the French part of St. Domingue shall pay … in five equal installments … the sum of 150,000,000 francs, destined to indemnify the former colonists.”

French prosperity built on Haitian poverty

Newspaper articles from the period reveal that the French king knew the Haitian government was hardly capable of making these payments, as the amount was nearly six times Haiti’s total annual revenue. The rest of the world seemed to agree that the agreement was absurd. One British journalist noted that the “enormous price” constituted a “sum which few states in Europe could bear to sacrifice.”

Forced to borrow 30 million francs from French banks to make the first two payments, it was hardly a surprise to anyone when Haiti defaulted soon thereafter. Still, a subsequent French king sent another expedition in 1838 with 12 warships to force the Haitian president’s hand. The 1838 revision, inaccurately labeled “Traité d’Amitié” – or “Treaty of Friendship” – reduced the outstanding amount owed to 60 million francs, but the Haitian government was once again ordered to take out crushing loans to pay the balance.

It was the Haitian people who suffered the brunt of the consequences of France’s theft. Boyer levied draconian taxes in order to pay back the loans. And while Christophe had been busy developing a national school system during his reign, under Boyer, and all subsequent presidents, such projects had to be put on hold. Moreover, researchers have found that the independence debt and the resulting drain on the Haitian treasury were directly responsible not only for the underfunding of education in 20th-century Haiti, but also for the lack of health care and the country’s inability to develop public infrastructure.

A 2022 analysis by The New York Times, furthermore, revealed that Haitians ended up paying more than 112 million francs over seven decades, or $560 million – estimated between $22 billion and $44 billion in today’s dollars. Recognizing the gravity of this scandal, French economist Thomas Piketty has argued that France should repay at least $28 billion to Haiti in restitution.

A debt that’s both moral and material

Former French presidents, from Jacques Chirac to Nicolas Sarkozy to François Hollande, have a history of punishing, skirting or downplaying Haitian demands for recompense.

In May 2015, when Hollande became only France’s second head of state to visit Haiti, he admitted that his country needed to “settle the debt.” Later, realizing he had unwittingly provided fuel for the legal claims already prepared by attorney Ira Kurzban on behalf of the Haitian people, Hollande clarified that he meant France’s debt was merely “moral.”

To deny that the consequences of slavery were also material is to deny French history itself. France belatedly abolished slavery in 1848 in its remaining colonies of Martinique, Guadeloupe, Réunion and French Guyana, which are still territories of France today. Afterward, the French government demonstrated once again its understanding of slavery’s relationship to economics when it financially compensated the former “owners” of enslaved people.

The resulting racial wealth gap is no metaphor. In metropolitan France, 14.1% of the population lives below the poverty line. In Martinique and Guadeloupe, in contrast, where more than 80% of the population is of African descent, the poverty rates are 38% and 46%, respectively. The poverty rate in Haiti is even more dire at 59%. And whereas the gross domestic product per capita – the best measure of a country’s standard of living – is $44,690 in France, it’s a mere $1,693 in Haiti.

These discrepancies can be viewed as the concrete consequences of stolen labor from generations of Africans and their descendants.

In recent years, French academics have begun to increasingly contribute to the conversation about the longitudinal harms the indemnity brought to Haiti. Yet what effectively amounts to a statement of “no comment” has historically been the only response from France’s current government under President Emmanuel Macron.

On April 17, 2025, the bicentennial of the indemnity ordinance, Macron finally broke his silence. In an official communiqué, Macron acknowledged the “heavy financial indemnity” his country imposed upon Haiti and announced “a joint Franco-Haitian commission responsible for examining our common past and shedding light on all its dimensions.” But he did not address the question of reparations.

Many Haitians were rightfully not satisfied: the only initiative from France that would really matter, they said, would be one detailing how it plans to provide economic recompense to the Haitian people.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on June 30, 2020.

Marlene L. Daut, Professor of French and African American Studies, Yale University

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

Rob Nicholls, University of Sydney

Tech giant Google has just suffered another legal blow in the United States, losing a landmark antitrust case. This follows on from the company’s loss in a similar case last year.

Social media giant Meta is also currently embroiled in a landmark legal battle in the US that could change not only how it operates, but how millions of people around the world communicate.

Hearings in the Meta case commenced earlier this week in a court in Washington DC, after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg failed to settle the case for US$450 million. Brought by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the suit alleges Meta broke antitrust laws and illegally secured a monopoly over social media platforms.

Along with Google and Meta, Amazon and Apple are also currently facing significant antitrust challenges in the US.

All of these actions are continuing despite major changes in both the FTC and the US Department of Justice as a result of the election of Donald Trump.

Collectively, these cases represent a substantial regulatory push to examine and potentially curb the market power of big tech. So what are all of these cases about exactly? What are the next steps in each of them? And what might they mean for consumers?

The cases against Google

The case Google just lost was related to online advertising.

The US Department of Justice alleged Google had behaved anticompetitively to monopolise the complex digital advertising technology market. This market facilitates the buying and selling of online ads.

The US district judge, Leonie Brinkema, agreed Google has a monopoly over the tools used by online publishers to host ad space, and the software that facilitates transactions between online publishers and advertisers.

In her ruling, Judge Brinkema said Google had “wilfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts” which ultimately resulted in it obtaining “monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad server market”.

Google has said it will appeal the decision. The Department of Justice will ask the court to require Google to divest parts of its ad tech business when the remedies phase of this trial starts later this month.

The second case involving Google is related to internet search.

The Department of Justice argued Google used exclusionary agreements, such as paying Apple billions annually to be the default search engine on iPhones, to lock out competitors.

In August 2024, a federal judge ruled Google acted illegally to maintain its search monopoly.

The case has now moved to the remedies phase. A crucial remedies trial is scheduled to begin next week. During this, the court will hear arguments on what actions should be taken against Google. Potential remedies could be significant, with regulators previously suggesting measures such as restrictions on Google’s Android operating system or even forcing the sale of its Chrome browser.

Google has stated its intention to appeal this ruling as well.

The case against Meta

The FTC’s case against Meta alleges the tech giant illegally maintained a monopoly in the market for “personal social networking services”.

The core of the FTC’s argument is that Meta employed a “buy-or-bury” strategy to eliminate competitive threats.

This allegedly involved acquiring nascent rivals, most notably Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014, specifically to neutralise them before they could challenge Facebook’s dominance.

The FTC points to internal communications as evidence of anticompetitive intent. These include Mark Zuckerberg’s statement, “It is better to buy than compete”. They also include an internal memo which showed Zuckerberg considered spinning off Instagram in 2018 over concerns about antitrust scrutiny.

The commission argues Meta’s actions stifled innovation and harmed consumers by limiting choices. It’s seeking to force Meta to divest, or sell off, both Instagram and WhatsApp.

Meta vigorously defends its actions. It argues it does not hold a monopoly, facing fierce competition from platforms such as TikTok, YouTube and X (formerly Twitter).

The company contends the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp were pro-competitive, allowing Meta to invest billions to improve and scale the apps, ultimately benefiting users. A key defence point is that the FTC itself reviewed and approved both deals over a decade ago.

The trial is expected to last eight weeks.

The cases against Apple and Amazon

In March 2024, the Department of Justice, along with several states, sued Apple, alleging it illegally maintains a monopoly in the smartphone market.

The lawsuit claims Apple uses its control over the iPhone ecosystem to stifle competition and innovation by, for example, degrading messaging quality between iPhones and Android devices and limiting the functionality of third-party digital wallets and smartwatches.

Apple filed a motion to dismiss the case in August 2024. The litigation is in its early stages and is expected to continue for several years.

In September 2023, the FTC, joined by numerous states, also sued Amazon.

The lawsuit alleges the tech giant unlawfully maintains monopoly power in both the market for “online superstores” (where consumers shop) and “online marketplace services” (for third-party sellers).

The FTC claims Amazon uses interlocking anticompetitive tactics. These include punishing sellers for offering lower prices elsewhere, coercing sellers into using its services, degrading search results with excessive ads, and charging exorbitant seller fees.

In late 2024, the presiding judge largely denied Amazon’s attempt to dismiss the core federal claims, allowing the case to proceed.

A trial is currently scheduled for October 2026.

Major structural changes could come

Taken together, these lawsuits represent the most significant antitrust enforcement push against major technology firms in the US in decades. They signal a fundamental re-examination of how competition laws apply to fast-evolving digital platforms and ecosystems.

The outcomes could potentially lead to major structural changes. These changes could include the forced breakup of companies such as Meta, or significant behavioural remedies restricting how these firms operate.

Regardless of the specific results, the decisions in these cases will likely set crucial legal precedents. In turn, these will profoundly shape the future competitive landscape for technology. They will also likely influence regulation globally, and impact innovation and investment across the digital economy.

What the cases do not reflect is the change in independence of regulatory bodies in the US, where consistency with White House policy is now paramount. The outcomes will surely test the relationship between Trump and the “tech bros” who’ve, quite literally, been at his side recently.

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.

Christian Tietz, UNSW Sydney

A New South Wales Senate inquiry into public toilets is underway, looking into the provision, design and maintenance of public toilets across the state.

Whenever I mention this inquiry, however, everyone nervously laughs and the conversation moves on. It’s not something people feel comfortable talking about.

Yet, a public toilet goes to the heart of what a city provides for its inhabitants and visitors. It is a critically important piece of public infrastructure that sets the tone for public behaviour, expectations and conduct.

And we could be doing so much better with our public toilets.

An important first impression

Public toilets communicate social values. They show how we provide for our citizens and what we expect of them in return.

A public toilet is often the first thing someone new to a place sees and wants; it creates an important first impression.

As communication theorist Paul Watzlawick said, “One cannot not communicate.” Infrastructure is no exception.

So public toilets play an important social role and, through their design, help communicate and shape relationships between citizens.

They not only provide relief for our urgent bodily needs; in them, we are equal humans. External hierarchies are largely removed.

Their appearance and design influences whether we feel cared for, trusted and appreciated, seen and acknowledged.

This is reflected in what members of the public have said to the current NSW senate inquiry. One submission, for instance, noted:

It’s important that public toilets don’t look like prisons.

If they are perceived as such, then the message is we can’t be trusted. We are assumed to damage or destroy them and behave like criminals.

Public toilets should be appealing, inviting, visually interesting – and anticipate and provide for the many different needs for which people visit them.

Designing and maintaining with this in mind means they’ll delight the user, rather than making them feel like a criminal.

Might that not then help inspire a sense of gratitude toward governments, ratepayers and taxpayers and, by extension, broader society?

Costs, yes. But also benefits

Access to adequate public toilets is a basic right. But they are also used to administer medication, breastfeed, care for children, access drinking water and find a quiet place to rest. Public toilets are often the only private space in public.

So, how can a communal space like the public bathroom evolve accordingly? One issue emerging in several inquiry submissions so far is the issue of public toilets being routinely locked at night.

As one submission writer puts it:

We don’t have a curfew, we are aloud (sic) out at night. If you don’t want people pissing in the street, then leave them open.

Cost is the greatest concern. Councils know how much their toilet blocks cost, but not how many people use them.

A submission from Blacktown City Council states their 218 public toilets cost more than A$15 million annually, involving six staff and three vehicles to service these facilities.

This equals more than $68,800 per toilet per year.

On the other hand, good public toilets could help grow the economy. A submission by Guide Dogs Australia quotes Deloitte Access Economics estimates that inclusive public spaces could add $12.7 billion to Australia’s economy annually and boost GDP by about $1.2 billion through increased workforce participation.

And a submission by Bathurst Regional Access Committees notes:

The disability tourism trade is worth well over $8 billion dollars annually. Tourism is what keeps many regions alive.

Decent and accessible toilets may even help attract more people to a local area, activating public spaces and building community.

Flipping the toilet script

We need to flip the way we think about public toilets and those who clean them.

They must radiate thoughtful care, pride, civic engagement and delight.

Australian urban designer David Engwicht’s community consultation approach to public space provides a great blueprint. He advocates recognising that place making is similar to home making; it can create memorable and potentially transformative experiences. It can help bring us into the present, creating a feeling of rootedness and connection.

The toilet can transcend its shameful, dirty, grimy image and last resort status. It can become a privilege to maintain, clean and keep in pristine condition for the public good.

The public toilet could become a valuable asset, an attraction, a sought after destination, a jewel in the crown of the government’s public offering.

They could be pieces of enchanting infrastructure sponsors line up to support.

Tokyo toilets

The Tokyo Toilet project is a great example.

In this project, 17 toilets were designed by world-leading Japanese architects and designers and their cleaners’ uniforms by a famous fashion designer.

The toilets were equipped with custom high quality toilet paper, cleaned three times a day, and given their own stunning interactive website.

German filmmaker Wim Wenders even made a feature film, Perfect Days, about a man who cleans these toilets.

These toilets, sponsored by the non-profit Nippon Foundation in collaboration with Shibuya City government and Shibuya Tourism Association, represent a highly innovative approach.

Here, the public toilet is celebrated as an international attraction, while providing an excellent service to the public.

Christian Tietz, Senior Lecturer in Industrial Design, UNSW Sydney

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