What would attending your own wake be like? To say goodbye to the people in your life in person? What stories would you tell in your own eulogy?

While still relatively uncommon, living wakes are an emerging end-of-life rite in Australia. They may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but for those who want to share one more cuppa before they go, they offer a final opportunity to come together.

There are multiple initiatives increasing death literacy in Australia. These include events such as Dying to Know Day, a rise in death cafes (where people can ask questions, tell stories and talk about death) and death doulas, as well as national advocacy around voluntary assisted dying.

My ongoing ethnographic research has involved extensive interviews and time spent with families and deathcare workers around Australia, particularly those involved with living wakes.

My findings show people are becoming more confident and willing to discuss, plan and craft these personalised end-of-life rituals.

What is a living wake?

A living wake goes by many names, and sometimes no name at all. It can be called a living funeral, a celebration of life, an “awakening”, a bon voyage party, or even a creatively personalised name such as the “Festival of Barry’s Life”.

Regardless of the name used, it is a deliberate coming together around a person who is dying, in order to say goodbye and celebrate their life.

One of my interviewees described why her mum wanted a living wake:

she wanted to have a chance to tell her stories, and see the friends and family that she hadn’t seen […] she wanted to see everyone together again.

The late Australian radio broadcaster James Valentine held his own living wake, before his death last month. His celebration, on Valentine’s day, became part of a documentary tracing his last year.

Sharing stories such as James’, as well as those of less public figures, is vital in bringing living wakes into the public imagination.

Bringing personality to end-of-life rituals

Timing can be one of the challenges with a living wake. These events are typically hosted by people who have a terminal illness and are aware of their imminent death.

Many death doulas – non-medical deathcare workers who support the dying person and their families – advise that people who would like to have one should have it as early as they can, while they still feel up to it.

Voluntary assisted dying also enables the choice to include these goodbye rituals.

Living wakes are part of a growing trend of ritual creativity. This includes newer ritual elements, such as coffin decorating, alongside the personalisation of familiar funerary traditions – which could be as simple as holding a memorial at the person’s favourite place.

The event may incorporate religious or cultural elements, such as prayers or cultural ritual, or may be more secular with activities that best represent the dying person, such as karaoke or ice-cream tasting. Hosts and guests at living wakes tend to have few rigid expectations, as it’s usually everyone’s first time taking part in one.

There are no guidelines, no set structure and no need for formalities. A barbeque in the backyard with the dying person’s favourite beers is as legitimate as an event with a formal celebrant and speeches.

“We made it up as we went along, really” is a common refrain from family and friends. This doesn’t make the rituals less meaningful. Rather, it creates opportunities for authentic and memorable gatherings.

An Australian irreverence and practicality can sometimes colour the event with playful and unexpected flair, without denying the very real feelings of anticipatory grief.

Shared storytelling, including from the dying person, is often described as the highlight for guests: an opportunity to laugh and cry alongside each other and make new memories.

An increasingly accepted practise

Living wakes have gained traction in recent years as part of a broader shift towards more celebratory and personalised funerals that aim to offer the bereaved a goodbye that feels authentic.

As Melbourne-based death doula told me:

You know, people walk away from funerals and say ‘she would have loved that’. A living wake is a chance to say instead ‘it was great that Granny was there to hear those stories and feel loved’.

My research has found only a few reported examples of living wakes in Australia before the 1980s. A scattering of events in the 1990s started to show global rising interest, and since then media reports have helped further expose these events to the general public.

That said, most living wakes go entirely unrecorded by anyone other than attendees. With only a few deathcare professionals present, such as funeral directors and celebrants, these intimate events become stories held in the family, rather than in public archives.

Cindy Stocken receives funding from the Commonwealth through an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. She is studying with University of Melbourne and the Death Tech Research Team ( https://arts.unimelb.edu.au/research/deathtech ).

After trauma, some people develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a mental health condition that can involve intrusive nightmares, flashbacks and physical reactions when reminded of the traumatic event, such as a racing heart or difficulty breathing.

Some people with PTSD also develop profoundly negative beliefs about themselves – intense shame, guilt and even feeling responsible for what happened.

For example, someone who experienced a violent assault may believe they somehow deserved to be attacked. Such beliefs can cause significant distress and drive persistent PTSD symptoms.

There are multiple evidence-based forms of cognitive therapy, also called “talk therapy”, that can effectively treat PTSD by helping to reframe these negative self-beliefs.

However, some people don’t respond to these kinds of therapy much – or at all.

In our research, we scanned the brains of 136 people – half who had PTSD, and half who didn’t – while they used cognitive therapy techniques to challenge negative beliefs. We found the reason some people don’t respond to treatment may lie in the way PTSD has restructured their brains.

First, how does talk therapy work for PTSD?

Research shows talk therapies targeting negative beliefs – including cognitive processing therapy (CPT) and trauma-informed cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT) – are broadly effective for PTSD. Most people show meaningful improvement in their symptoms.

Talk therapy for PTSD usually aims to equip patients with skills to challenge distorted negative beliefs through a structured dialogue, known as cognitive restructuring.

During therapy, a therapist might guide the person to counter the rationale underlying beliefs (for example, “who made the decision to commit the assault?”), or consider alternative perspectives (“is there another way of understanding what happened, which doesn’t put the blame on you?”).

Another therapy, prolonged exposure (PE) gradually increases how much someone is exposed to reminders of the trauma, usually alongside reframing techniques. This can be done during therapy (for example, repeatedly describing what happened) or between sessions (for example, revisiting the scene of the trauma).

---

Read more: Why do some people who experience childhood trauma seem unaffected by it?

---

But it doesn’t work for everyone

Clinical studies show, after these kinds of cognitive therapy for PTSD, about one-third of people will still have diagnosable PTSD symptoms.

While zero improvement is rare, it means a significant proportion of people still aren’t achieving ideal outcomes from therapy. The factors underpinning this are complex and poorly understood.

But we know some people with PTSD are more likely to show no or little improvement after talk therapy. They include those with:

• the most severe symptoms
• persistent exposure to trauma (particularly during childhood)
• other psychiatric diagnoses, such as depression or substance use disorders.

Some studies also suggest older people, men, those from racial minorities and military veterans show less benefit on average from cognitive PTSD therapies.

This may because these groups are more likely to report other factors which affect how well treatment works. For example, men with PTSD typically have more symptoms of anger problems than women, and less social support.

What we did and what we found

Our recent study showed there may be a neurobiological explanation for why talk therapies work for some people and not others.

We asked 70 people with PTSD, and 66 people who’d been exposed to trauma but without PTSD, to challenge negative self-beliefs via cognitive restructuring while inside an MRI brain scanner.

In people with PTSD, we found their prefrontal cortex (the brain’s “control centre”) was worse at regulating activation in the thalamus – a small structure that works as a relay hub, allowing different parts of the brain to communicate.

These regions work together to let us represent abstract information – such as self-beliefs – in the brain, and to update our beliefs and their associated emotions with new information.

Among people with PTSD in our study, those with more severe negative beliefs showed weaker connectivity in this pathway when using restructuring techniques to challenge negative self-beliefs.

Weaker connection between these regions might hinder people’s ability to update negative self-beliefs with new information, resulting in less benefit from therapy.

So, why might this be?

We know that self-beliefs in people with PTSD are more often heavily influenced by negative information and events – that is, being criticised might make you feel worse about yourself, but being praised won’t make you feel that much better.

The way PTSD changes brain pathways points to why some people’s self-beliefs are harder to counter with positive reframing techniques, meaning these beliefs become “stuck”.

These trauma survivors may understand, on an intellectual level, that they weren’t to blame for what happened. But that understanding never quite shifts the part of them that still feels responsible, and they have little emotional relief.

---

Everyone seems to be talking about trauma. Do we know more about it? Or has the meaning changed? In this five-part series, we explore the shifting definition of trauma, why talking about it doesn’t always help, and what else can work.

---

What might work instead?

Some people may need treatments that first address the brain’s wiring needed to engage with talk therapy. For example, certain evidence-based approaches aim to build people’s emotion regulation skills before talk therapy.

A therapist will help someone improve their ability to deal with negative emotions, for example by learning effective strategies to tolerate and manage distress. They will unpack how these emotions influence their interactions with other people, so they are better able to take on the challenges of cognitive restructuring in therapy.

Other emerging evidence suggests therapy using MDMA or ketamine for PTSD may help those who haven’t responded to other treatments, by directly influencing brain pathways. Research is exploring how these can be delivered safely.

---

Read more: Psychedelic drug MDMA could help treat PTSD – but there’s a reason it’s not widely available

---

For some people, simply trying different treatments can yield better outcomes. What works can depend on a person’s symptoms or preferences. This won’t always be the first treatment someone tries.

However, we know people whose symptoms don’t improve after one first-line intervention (the “best-practice” treatments with the strongest evidence base) are less likely to engage in further treatment.

By refining our understanding of the brain mechanisms underpinning cognitive restructuring, we’re hopeful our work can inform more precise and targeted approaches to treating PTSD.

But there are other limitations

People with ongoing or repeated exposure to trauma, such as first responders, are also at risk of re-traumatisation. This is where past trauma causes heightened reactions to new trauma. Ongoing trauma can also amplify symptoms and make therapy less effective.

Cultural factors may also shape how well standard therapy formats fit. There is growing evidence that culturally adapted or group-based approaches (especially for interpersonal trauma, such as abuse) better serve some communities than the standard model of one-on-one talk therapy.

Trevor Steward receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Andrea Putica and James Agathos do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Chinese food heritage is diverse and vast, and embodies the distinct geographical and historical traces of various cultural identities.

As migrants in Australia, Chinese food features prominently in our everyday lives. Jing grew up eating regional cuisine from northern China; Wilfred grew up eating Cantonese food; Catherine grew up in Singapore enjoying home cooked Chinese food with a Eurasian twist.

The ways in which we understand, approach, enjoy and cook Chinese food are different, and we set out to find the role of food in the lives of other migrants of Chinese ancestry.

Tracing food heritage

We talked to Chinese-Australians between the ages of 18 to 40 to learn about how their food heritages have guided them to navigate and adapt to Australian lives.

They spoke to us about incorporating non-traditional Chinese ingredients, new ways of cooking and sourcing cooking equipment.

In their Australian kitchens, they experimented with the recipes they learnt from their families and those they interpret as “Chinese” cuisine.

They were concerned about authenticity, health and taste to varying degrees in the Chinese dishes they cooked, and spoke about how food heritage helped intergenerational families connect.

Fei* is ethnically Chinese and was born in Indonesia. She has lived in Australia for the past 12 years. She told us:

Whenever I go back to Indonesia, my auntie would cook for us, so I would ask a lot of old recipes […] I love their response because they will always say, when you were a child, you liked to eat this food. They will give you some feedback, but they’ll say, there’s a new way of cooking this.

Fei’s cooking was co-developed with family members, even when they are living in different countries. The art of cooking becomes a way for her family connect, despite distance.

Sally* migrated to Australia about nine years ago from Yunan Province. She shared a poignant story of the health of the older members of her family:

Even my grandmother [who] had Alzheimer’s and she barely remember who am I, but when she had – before I hang up the phone call, she’s like, remember to eat vegetable.

For Sally’s grandmother, even in old age, food was an expression of care.

Food facilitates new understandings of intergenerational family members – even those who have passed away.

Lynn* is an undergraduate student who migrated to Australia as a baby. She describes herself as “ethnically Chinese, but culturally Singaporean”, and told us how she got to know her grandfather through her father’s cooking:

I actually have never tried my grandpa’s chilli crab. I didn’t know that he actually made chilli crab until I think it was like two years [after] he’d passed when my dad made this recipe. […] I’m not sure how similar it was to the original, but it was pretty good.

Lynn’s father’s cooking his father’s chilli crab recipe as a way of honouring him and keeping his memory alive.

New habits

Food heritage is the phrase for the traditional cuisines which define our cultural identities and includes ingredient sourcing, food preparation and food consumption.

Food heritage is not static. It changes as migrants adapt to life in Australia.

Australia’s rich multicultural food cultures create transcultural food experiences for our Chinese-Australians.

Sally spoke to us about her and her mother melding Italian and Chinese ingredients:

If I cook dishes that require Yunnan’s ham, I use Italian prosciutto ham to replace it. It tastes really similar to Yunnan’s ham. My mum does that as well. She likes to get Italian Deli ham, smoked cured bacon, and then she’ll think it tastes like the actual thing from Yunnan.

Rong* came to Australia about 10 years ago from Shandong Province. She told us how she cooks for her daughter who loves noodles:

I need to bring something healthier to her table, and then I was like, okay, I’m not going to use the noodles, the Chinese noodles. I’m going to use pasta noodles, which is low GI, healthier. So, I just tried to figure different kind of ways of the noodles, not only Chinese noodles, but also Italian noodles, Vietnamese noodles, like pho. So all those kinds of things, and she loved them.

Rong also told us that she had to change the way she cooks because her apartment has an induction stove rather than a gas stove.

Although gas and induction stove tops are both common in China, certain dishes such as stir-fry are perceived to taste better in a hot wok on a gas stove.

“Soggy food”, according to many of our participants, is the result of induction stoves and flat pans rather than woks. Rong even told us that now, when she returns to China, she does not know how to cook in a Chinese kitchen with a gas stove.

Adapting to Australia

Food culture, is central to migrant adaptation, acculturation and wellbeing.

By better understanding the evolving nature of food heritage practices in Australia, we can better understand how migrants navigate Australia creatively while these transcultural connections provide an anchor for settlement and belonging.

---

*Names have been changed.

Catherine Gomes is a member of The Australian Sociological Association.

Jing Qi is affiliated with the RMIT Chinese-Australian Studies Forum, and the Chinese Community Council of Australia Victoria Chapter.

Wilfred Yang Wang is affiliated with Centre for Holistic Health, a not-for-profit organisation that supports the social and mental wellbeing of the Chinese communities in Melbourne, Australia.

On May 23, Caleb Shomo, lead singer of American rock/metalcore band Beartooth, publicly came out in an Instagram post as a “proudly gay man”.

The announcement was the first time Shomo took to social media after temporarily deleting his Instagram account in February, shortly after homophobic backlash following the release of the music video for Free.

In the days following the announcement, there has been blatant homophobia and attempts to twist the story into a tabloid saga, infringing on the privacy of Shomo and his family. Both function to undermine the personal and cultural significance of Caleb’s emotional post.

Shomo is by no means the only member of the LGBTQIA+ community to be in alternative music, but he now stands as one of few high-profile examples. This moment offers a chance to reflect on whether metal – a music and culture built on rebellion – amplifies or denigrates LGBTQIA+ voices.

The initial backlash

Beartooth are not newcomers to the world of metal. Shomo originally conceived the project alone in 2012. The band has since amassed a large following with 1.8 million monthly listeners on Spotify.

What else is well known is Shomo’s evolving fashion and performance style, which at first glance makes the backlash to the Free video more of a head-scratcher.

Shomo’s coming out post has comments disabled. Nevertheless, social media is engaged in a tug-of-war between support and slurs. Queer fans are excited to have representation, but opposition is attempting to tear the man down once more. This is entirely typical of the metal community.

In practice, queerness and metal should not be at odds. After all, fans and performers position metal as a music for outcasts and rebellion against societal norms.

But not all metalheads are outcasts for the same reasons.

Reflecting on past coming out moments

The metal genre has been dominated by cisgender, heterosexual people for most of its history – and this has given room for problematic behaviours to flourish.

Queer performers such as Gorgoroth and Otep Shamaya received death threats from the community after coming out in the 2000s.

The hypermasculine aesthetics of the genre have likely intensified this discrimination. Researchers such as Robert Walser have labelled metal as an “arena for gender”, where masculinity is defined, and then imposed on all metalheads. This creates barriers to participation for LGBTQIA+ individuals, as well as women and people of colour.

That said, we have seen a shift taking place in recent years. Bands comprising entirely cisgender and heterosexual men have openly embraced queer fans, including previous tourmates of Beartooth, Motionless In White, who dedicated their 2017 song Voices to the LGBTQIA+ community.

In fact, Shomo’s coming out is reminiscent of that of another gay man in metal. Rob Halford (Judas Priest) divulged what had been dubbed “the worst kept secret in metal” when he came out in a 1998 MTV interview.

Halford maintained his status in the genre after coming out, providing grounds to believe that metal, and by extension other alt music scenes, were accepting of the LGBTQIA+ community. Nonetheless, research I published earlier this year in Metal Music Studies found that homophobia and transphobia are still prevalent, both at metal shows and online.

Trans and trapped at the local level

Halford’s coming out did not open the gates to other LGBTQIA+ performers in metal. It did, however, demonstrate that if you are able to establish yourself before coming out, your career is more likely to be safe.

The same will probably be true for Shomo. But for performers attempting to enter the scene as openly LGBTQIA+, it’s a different story, especially when looking at the more marginalised individuals in the community.

Through interviews with Australian trans metal performers, I found that trans-ness functions as its own inhibitor to rising through the ranks in metal. As one interviewee shared:

me being a trans woman and probably the vocalist puts me in a big limelight, which is also a bit of an Achilles’ heel for the band getting anywhere.

Despite this, community-driven initiatives such as Transgenre prove there is a thriving community of trans performers dreaming of the success achieved by performers such as Shomo.

Unfortunately, they are trapped at the local level, rarely receiving opportunities to represent their local music scenes and trans community.

The parallels between Shomo and Halford, however, illuminate a potential chance for change. That is, Shomo has an opportunity to help shift societal attitudes within alt music, by providing more exposure to other LGBTQIA+ metal performers.

There will undoubtedly now be more queer fans drawn to Beartooth’s music. Shomo – along with the bands that surround him as allies – should consider platforming and elevating more trans and queer performers in the scene, who have been patiently waiting for an opportunity like this.

Tour lineups of global powerhouses are overpopulated by cisgender and heterosexual men. Shomo is now one of a handful of LGBTQIA+ representatives among them. His influence could turn the tide in making rock and metal’s biggest stages reflect the diversity that exists at the local level.

Vik J. Squires does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

More people are relying on social media – such as TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and Reddit – to learn about mental health conditions and to interact with people who have shared experiences.

These aren’t only long-familiar disorders such as depression, anxiety and schizophrenia. They also include conditions often placed under the “neurodivergent” umbrella such as autism, ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder), Tourette syndrome and dyslexia.

For instance, on TikTok the hashtag #adhd has had more than 50 billion views.

We wanted to explore how social media platforms shape how we understand mental health. So we analysed more than 14 million posts and comments about mental health on Reddit.

We show a shift in conversations toward ADHD and autism, and away from anxiety and depression.

Our findings have important implications for how people make sense of, and seek help for, mental health problems.

A complex relationship

Social media coverage of mental health has made it more visible, with some positive effects. It has probably reduced the stigma of mental illness and increased the use of mental health services.

However, it also has downsides. It can induce or exacerbate eating disorders, can contribute to the spread of symptoms (such as tic-like behaviours), and has been attributed to the rise of questionable self-diagnoses.

Misinformation is common in social media discussions of mental health. One study found a majority of the most popular TikTok videos on ADHD were misleading. Inaccurate information about many other mental health conditions on social media is common.

Discussions change and evolve

Mental health content has not merely risen in volume. Some conditions have increasingly attracted the spotlight, others have receded from view, and the relationships among them have shifted.

In our Reddit study published last year, we found that as the largest ADHD- and autism- related communities (subreddits) became increasingly more prominent from 2012 to 2022, their content gradually became more similar, and their users increasingly overlapped.

Discussions in both communities increasingly emphasised the experiences of adults, challenges in accessing diagnostic assessments, and struggles with personal relationships.

This growing convergence of these two conditions on Reddit illustrates how social media can reshape representations of mental health.

Our latest study takes this further

In our new study, we analysed more than 14 million posts and comments from several of the largest mental health communities on Reddit.

The 14 communities we studied included those related to mood, anxiety, trauma, personality, dissociation and psychosis, as well as those focused on conditions often placed under the “neurodivergent” umbrella, such as autism, ADHD, Tourette syndrome and dyslexia.

We investigated how the people belonging to these communities and the language they used changed from 2015 to 2022.

We explored which communities became more or less closely associated over time – sharing more or fewer members and containing posts and comments with similar or different linguistic content. We also looked at whether these changes reflected shifts in the amount of attention the 14 conditions received.

Although our analysis only covered a seven-year period, it revealed a striking pattern of changes. The two diagrams show how the 14 communities were interrelated at the beginning and end of the period.

The size of the circles represents the relative size of the communities. The width of the links between them indicates how closely they were associated.

In 2015, depression and anxiety were prominent mental health communities on Reddit. They were among the most active and their members and content overlapped with those of many other communities. In this sense, they were “central” to the network.

However, in 2022, ADHD and autism communities had become most popular and prominent, displacing depression and anxiety. ADHD, autism and other neurodivergent conditions became more closely associated with other communities, and consequently more central to the network.

These analyses suggest that on Reddit the mental health landscape has been re-configured. Mood and anxiety disorders once dominated discussions. But discussions of mental health have increasingly pivoted to discussing conditions related to being neurodivergent.

Reddit users do not represent the general population; they tend to be younger, male, more educated, and have a higher income. Nevertheless, our study offers important insights into changes in mental health discussions on one social media platform over time.

Why does it matter?

The rising prominence and centrality of ADHD and autism makes them increasingly popular explanations for mental health problems. This might promote accurate self-diagnosis by people who once would not have recognised the nature of their difficulties.

However, it could also lead people to misinterpret and mislabel their experiences as ADHD and autism when there’s another explanation.

The rising prominence of these conditions on social media may also lead people to interpret mood or anxiety symptoms as signs of ADHD or autism.

Misinterpretations can lead people to pursue inappropriate diagnoses or unhelpful treatment, delaying access to the help they need. This in turn places increasing pressure on mental health services, and can lead to other conditions being overlooked.

Jemima Kang receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, an Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering Elevate Scholarship, and a University of Melbourne Helen Macpherson Smith Scholarship.

Nick Haslam receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Mike Conway does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

When major new climate change scenarios are released, there’s always strong interest. These scenarios lay out what our future climate will look like, depending on how fast we act to cut emissions.

But what was surprising about the seven new scenarios announced last week was that United States President Donald Trump took an interest.

Why? Because a high-emissions scenario – known as RCP8.5 and its successor SSP5-8.5 – had been removed. Under these worst-case scenarios, nations would make no effort to cut emissions and expand fossil fuel use. By 2100, carbon dioxide levels would almost triple, to 1,135 parts per million and the world would be around 4.5°C hotter than the pre-industrial period.

The climate scientists responsible for laying out the range of possible futures removed the RCP8.5 scenarios for a very good reason. Although often slow and incomplete, our efforts to tackle climate change have made a tangible difference. We have averted the worst climate future once thought possible.

The job is far from done. Emissions are at record highs and global warming is speeding up.

But the removal of this high-emissions scenario isn’t, as Trump and other climate sceptics have claimed, a sign of failed modelling, or that climate change was a hoax. It’s a sign the expansion of solar, wind, electric vehicles and batteries have slowed emissions growth.

How are these scenarios made?

Many climate impacts are becoming evident after about 1.4°C of warming – the level we’re roughly at now.

Because this period of extremely rapid climate change is due to human activities, it means we also have the opportunity to shape the future.

What will this look like? Will the world keep heating up, or will rapid action cut emissions and bring warming to a halt? The answer will make a big difference to the future humanity faces.

Predicting anything is difficult. But a group of scientists has created scenarios representing a range of possible climate futures.

Because the future is not set, scientists lay out a range of possible pathways for our future greenhouse gas emissions. They base them on what’s happened so far and what might happen in politics and technology over coming decades.

Then they select the emissions pathways deemed most plausible and then sample a range of different futures which are more or less optimistic about our fossil fuel use.

Scientific groups around the world then model these scenarios in depth using different climate models to ensure there’s a large amount of data available at global, regional and local levels.

These scenarios aren’t ranked by how likely they are. All are considered to be plausible futures. The huge range of temperature outcomes – approaching 2°C between the most and least optimistic scenarios by 2100 – points to how much of the future is in our hands.

Why the fuss about RCP8.5?

The two previous releases included two closely related scenarios – RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5 respectively.

Here, “8.5” refers to radiative forcing – the level of extra heat (in watts) trapped per square metre by 2100.

In these worst-case scenarios, the world sharply boosts fossil fuel use. Unsurprisingly, this leads to very high amounts of global warming. Scientists have long argued over whether this was plausible in the first place.

None of the new scenarios are as pessimistic as RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5. The worst possible scenario now envisions high emissions leading to warming of around 3.5°C by 2100. That would still be very, very bad.

Sceptics acting in bad faith

Climate sceptics leapt on the removal of RCP8.5 as a sign the projections were wrong. These attacks were not made in good faith, but to cast doubt on climate science.

A clear eyed assessment is that RCP8.5 was removed because climate action is starting to work.

But while the worst outcome has been averted, we have also missed the window for the best future climate.

The new scenarios have no pathway as optimistic as the lowest emissions scenario from the last round of major climate projections. That scenario – SSP1-1.9 – envisaged strong climate action and rapid cuts to emissions, leading to global warming peaking at around 1.5°C.

Because global emissions haven’t yet begun to fall, the most optimistic new pathway would lead to warming peaking at about 1.9°C.

While we will definitely now pass 1.5°C, the hope is to only temporarily overshoot that level of warming while working to draw carbon dioxide back out of the atmosphere to get back to 1.5°C.

Our current emissions trajectory is somewhere in the middle – below the high emissions path but well above the most optimistic scenario. Based on current policies and countries’ actions, we’re looking at around 2.6°C warming by 2100.

You might wonder why we need to keep redoing these climate scenarios.

One reason: facts change on the ground. Solar keeps rolling out far faster than expected, but fracking has opened up large new fossil fuel deposits. Political shifts make climate action more or less likely.

Another is because our climate models are continually improving. The better the models get, the more accurate and detailed our projections of sea level rise and other climate impacts can be.

Yes, this is progress

Taking RCP8.5 off the table is a sign of progress – we’ve avoided the worst-case scenario. But we have also missed the best case future.

The next five years could play out in many different ways, leading to better or worse future climates. We must understand and prepare for what we’re facing – and double down on our efforts to create the best future possible.

Andrew King receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Environmental Science Program.

Picture sea ice in your mind. You probably imagine brilliant white, snow-covered floes floating on the surface of the ocean, home to penguins in the south of the globe or polar bears in the north.

But our new research shows Antarctic sea ice can turn into rafts of rotting floes (the free-floating pieces of ice) or an icy green slush when it interacts with waves in the stormiest ocean on the planet.

We now know the wave-driven processes that cause the surface of the sea ice to melt are a “missing link” in understanding what’s driving the increasing Antarctic sea ice melt each summer.

These processes can dramatically increase the rate the ice melts, with major implications for the global climate and Antarctic marine ecosystems.

Our planetary heartbeat

Each year, the sea ice that hugs the coast of Antarctica expands from 3 million square kilometres in summer to 19 million square kilometres in winter, stretching far north into the Southern Ocean. As the sun rises and the temperatures increase, it retreats again.

This remarkable seasonal change is like a heartbeat within our planet’s climate system, moderating global temperatures, driving ocean circulation and forming a unique habitat for a plethora of living organisms, all adapted to its seasonal rhythms.

The annual summer sea ice melt is particularly remarkable because it occurs over only three months. But even the most sophisticated climate models underestimate the rapid rate of sea ice retreat each summer.

How do waves melt sea ice?

Until now, the waves travelling from the ice-free ocean into the area covered in sea ice had only been studied for their role in breaking up ice floes. We knew these smaller floes were prone to melting around their sides and bottoms as the ocean was heated by the sun as summer progressed.

But this is not the full story.

We now know waves also flood over ice floes, washing away the bright snow cover that shields the underlying ice from sunlight and creating ponds of seawater on the floe surfaces.

Due to their reduced brightness, the snow-free ice and these “wave ponds” absorb substantially more solar heat than snow-covered ice, and this melts the ice from the top down. Moreover, the snow-free ice and wave ponds are oases in which algae thrive, turning the ice and ponds green and absorbing even more heat from the sun.

The waves also pulverise the floes into small fragments and slush. Under the right conditions, the combination of wave flooding, algal greening and pulverisation turns the sea ice cover into a slushy mixture, resembling a green soup.

We estimate that flooding, ponding and pulverisation can increase summer-time ice thinning by over 4 centimetres per day. Algal greening can add an additional 1 centimetre of thinning per day. These are extraordinary accelerators of ice melt, considering that most Antarctic sea ice is less than 1 metre thick at the end of winter.

Waves are also generated deep within the Antarctic sea-ice region by winds blowing over large openings in the ice cover. In this way, wave melt processes eat away at the ice cover from within, as well as from the edge throughout summer.

Feedbacks could trigger further melt

Our ice melt estimates are significant, yet they are likely underestimates. They do not account for amplifications to melting caused by so-called “positive feedbacks”.

For example, the ice darkening caused by waves removing the snow, ponding and pulverisation substantially increases the amount of sunlight absorbed by the ice. This causes additional surface and interior melting, which further reduces the ice brightness. And this causes more vertical melting, and so on, in an amplifying cycle.

We propose that this positive feedback is strengthened by algal greening that further darkens the ice, leading to further absorption of sunlight and melting.

Exactly how much these feedbacks would cause further ice melt is tricky to quantify, so we have left this as an exciting future research challenge.

Ponds at both poles

The Antarctic “wave ponds” we have observed are the seawater equivalent of “melt ponds”. These form extensively across Arctic sea ice in summer from pooling snow meltwater.

These freshwater melt ponds have been intensively studied and integrated into climate models, because of their important role in the rapid decline in the coverage and thickness of Arctic sea ice over recent decades.

Unlike melt ponds, seawater wave ponds occur year-round. Although they only occur in regions where sea ice interacts with ocean waves, this encompasses a large proportion of Antarctic sea ice over the course of a year.

The future of Antarctic sea ice

The effects of wave melt, greening and associated feedbacks are likely to intensify on sea ice around Antarctica over coming decades. Climate change is predicted to increase wind speeds and wave heights across the polar Southern Ocean.

This disruption of the annual sea ice cycle and further sea ice loss has serious consequences for global climate and marine ecosystems.

We need further observations using autonomous camera systems on icebreakers and modelling research to better understand these wave processes and their overall influence on Antarctica’s sea ice cycle.

These advances are vital to understanding the causes of recent dramatic sea-ice losses around Antarctica, and promise vital insights about the future of the icy south and our Earth system.

Luke Bennetts receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Bonnie Light receives funding from the United States National Science Foundation and the United States Office of Naval Research.

Petteri Uotila receives funding from the Research Council of Finland.

Rob Massom receives funding from the Australian Government's Australian Antarctic Program Partnership and the Australian Research Council.

Philip Reid does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Cities around the world are planting more trees to cope with rising urban heat. But our research shows trees alone are often not enough. In some cases, the wrong kind of greening can even make streets feel less comfortable on a hot day.

We compared field measurements from Melbourne, Munich and Hong Kong to test how different kinds of urban planting changed the heat people experience outdoors.

The results showed layered vegetation – where trees are combined with shrubs and ground cover – often cooled cities more effectively than trees alone. We also found local climate and street design strongly shaped whether greening worked well.

These findings matter because urban greening is no longer just about aesthetics. As cities spend billions adapting to extreme heat, planting design may matter as much as planting quantity.

Cities are getting hotter

Cities trap heat. Roads, buildings and asphalt absorb solar energy during the day and slowly release it back into the air, especially at night.

This “urban heat island” effect, combined with climate change, is making heatwaves more intense and more dangerous in our cities.

Trees are one of the most popular responses because they provide shade and reduce the amount of heat absorbed by surrounding surfaces. But outdoor comfort depends on more than air temperature alone.

People experience heat through sunlight, reflected heat, humidity and airflow. A shaded street can still feel uncomfortable if humidity is high or if wind cannot move through the space.

That is why a “one-size fits all” greening strategy can fail. A planting design that works well in Melbourne may behave very differently in Hong Kong or Munich.

What we found

To better understand how urban vegetation affects heat stress, we did field measurements in three cities with different climates: temperate Melbourne, cooler Munich and humid subtropical Hong Kong.

Rather than relying only on computer models, we measured real conditions in streets and green spaces during summer.

We compared open urban spaces (with no plantings), sites with trees only, and layered planting (which means trees, shrubs and ground cover together).

Importantly, we did not just measure air temperature. We also measured “mean radiant temperature”, which captures the heat radiating from roads, walls and other surfaces onto the human body.

In Melbourne, street trees reduced radiant heat absorbed by pedestrians by more than 18°C, compared with open streets. Even where air temperatures changed only slightly, shaded streets felt substantially cooler.

Munich showed the strongest benefits from layered planting. There, streets and green spaces containing trees, shrubs and ground cover reduced afternoon heat stress by almost 8°C compared with more open spaces.

Hong Kong also benefited from vegetation, especially through shade created by overlapping tree canopies. But the results there were more mixed because the humid climate changed how cooling worked (more on that later).

Across all three cities, one finding stood out: vegetation structure matters.

Combining trees with shrubs and ground cover often performed better than trees alone, but the benefits depended on how the planting interacted with the local environment.

Why some greening can fail

The study showed that more vegetation is not automatically better.

In Hong Kong, dense vegetation sometimes increased humidity enough to reduce some of the cooling benefit. Plants release water vapour into the air through transpiration, which can help to cool dry climates. But in already humid cities, extra moisture can make outdoor spaces feel sticky and uncomfortable because sweat evaporates less efficiently.

In some Munich streets, dense vegetation reduced airflow through narrow urban corridors, trapping warm air and slowing the movement of vehicle pollution away from pedestrians.

These findings highlight why cities cannot rely on generic canopy targets copied from elsewhere. Climate, street width and airflow all shape whether vegetation improves comfort or creates unintended side effects.

Designing cooler cities

The solution is not to stop planting trees. It is to design urban greening more carefully.

Cities need planting strategies tailored to local conditions rather than universal greening formulas. In parks and open green spaces, layered vegetation can provide strong cooling while also supporting biodiversity. In dense streets, planners may need to balance shade with ventilation.

The findings also suggest cities should move beyond measuring success through tree numbers alone. The arrangement, density and type of vegetation matter just as much as canopy cover.

Designing for local conditions

Our research shows urban vegetation can reduce heat stress, but the benefits depend on how and where cities plant it.

Melbourne demonstrated the strong cooling effect of street trees on radiant heat, Munich showed the added value of layered vegetation, and Hong Kong revealed how dense planting can sometimes backfire in humid conditions.

Cities need climate-smart green spaces designed for local conditions, airflow and human comfort to remain liveable as temperatures rise.

Mohammad A Rahman receives funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG), TREE Fund, Humboldt Foundation, Bavarian State Ministry of the Environment and Consumer Protection, German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), Sustainable Consumption Institute (SCI), University of Manchester and the European Union.

Since April 15, Victoria has been operating without meaningful political finance laws. As the days have passed, candidates have received unregulated political donations that would once have exceeded donation caps. Foreign and anonymous donations have been allowed.

For the first time in years, Victorians have had no reliable way of knowing who is funding political campaigns.

That vacuum is a serious threat to the integrity of Victoria’s democratic system. The unregulated and undisclosed flow of money into politics raises concerns about corruption, undue influence, and the creation of an unfair playing field between the political candidates who have access to wealth, and those who do not.

So it’s a welcome development this week that the Allan government appears to have finally secured a pathway to restoring some key political finance safeguards.

Just as importantly as the short-term fix, secured through the political negotiations with the cross-bench, the proposed legislation also includes a comprehensive independent post-election review of Victoria’s political finance framework.

The wild west for political donations

The current predicament began with the collapse of the previous laws, held in April to be unconstitutional by the High Court. The court found the laws fell foul of the Constitution’s implied freedom of political communication because of the preferential treatment of bodies known as “nominated entities”.

Nominated entities were organisations associated with the major political parties that could receive unregulated donations separately from those parties.

Following the High Court’s decision, the state government appeared to have been caught flat-footed. The weeks of urgent political negotiation that followed had, until now, failed to produce a replacement.

---

Read more: High Court takes an axe to Victoria’s political donations laws - and it will make federal MPs nervous

---

What’s in the new laws?

The bill that has finally been introduced into parliament restores some essential guardrails.

It reintroduces the previous 21-day disclosure obligations for donations over $1,250. There are again prohibitions on donations from foreign and anonymous donors.

The bill reinstates donation caps, but at a higher level than the previous $4,970. It is effectively $10,000 for the upcoming 2026 election. After that, it will be set at $7,500.

In an attempt to offset the advantage of incumbents, this is doubled for “new entrants”.

The bill also restores public funding. Administrative funding has been increased, with parties receiving $300,000 for the first MP elected, $100,00 for the second MP, and $55,000 for the 3rd to 45th MP.

Victoria appears to have learnt at least the immediate lesson, because the new bill removes the nominated entity arrangements that lay at the heart of the High Court’s decision. It also includes provisions requiring the major parties to pay back donations received from nominated entities.

That key elements of the regulatory vacuum have been filled – and particularly the disclosure scheme – should be welcomed.

But it’s not perfect

However, the rushed and politically driven nature of the process that has led to this bill, which allocates significant new public funding to political parties and restricts political activity, makes the legislation more of an emergency repair job than a comprehensive redesign.

Indeed, several weaknesses from the previous regime remain. Notably, the legislation still does not provide for expenditure caps, which are essential for a level playing field.

It does not resolve longstanding ambiguity about the treatment of fundraising events. It continues to allow wealthy people to spend large amounts financing their own political participation.

It doesn’t address the exceptions carved out for affiliation fees from associated entities, including organisations such as unions, think tanks and businesses. These are payments made by organisations to political parties to maintain formal relationships, such as participation and representation rights.

And on policy development funding, the bill retains distinctions between political parties and independents that raise concerns about unfair treatment.

It also introduces some new features that raise questions. There is a new provision allowing for wealthy individuals and entities to spend unrestricted amounts for the benefit of others.

There are concerns the significant expanding of public funding for administrative expenses that benefit political parties creates a potentially unconstitutional preferential treatment.

There is a newly introduced ability to set disclosure thresholds and donation caps into the future through regulation, and without full parliamentary review. The application of donation caps and bans to transactions that have already occurred raises concerns about fairness, legal certainty, and whether the rules can actually be implemented in practice.

A path forward

Political finance regulation is inherently difficult to get right. It requires elected representatives to make decisions about rules that affect their own electoral interests.

The Centre for Public Integrity has long argued that a holistic political finance framework should incorporate evidence-informed donation and expenditure caps, robust disclosure requirements and fair public funding arrangements.

However, donation and spending caps and public funding at the right level takes time. It requires looking holistically, informed by evidence about the cost of running campaigns, at a range of issues. These include how disclosure requirements, donations and spending caps, and public funding work together.

For instance, before South Australia introduced its landmark “donations ban”, the state government engaged an expert panel to inquire into these matters.

Previously, too, Victoria has recognised these challenges through independent review processes that have produced important evidence and recommendations. Some of these were relied on in the High Court challenge.

The bill’s current review clause requires a three-person expert panel to be created after the November 2026 election to examine the operation of the new laws. It says the panel cannot be dominated by politicians. It would be required to consult with stakeholders and the public, and to consider options for a comprehensive and enduring political finance framework for Victoria.

In the meantime, the Victorian government has managed to plug the worst of the gaping hole left by the High Court’s decision. Most importantly, it has restored disclosure requirements.

Other aspects of its short-term solution are questionable. But encouragingly, the government has also committed to the kind of robust independent review that longer-term reform requires.

Correction: in the table above, a zero was missing from the administrative expenditure figure in the new bill, this has now been added.

Gabrielle Appleby works as the Research Director for the Centre for Public Integrity. She has received funding from The Australian Research Council.

Joo-Cheong Tham has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, European Trade Union Institute, International IDEA, the New South Wales Electoral Commission, the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Victorian Electoral Commission. He is a Director of the Centre for Public Integrity; Expert Network Member of Climate Integrity; a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia; and the Victorian Division Assistant Secretary (Academic Staff) of the National Tertiary Education Union.

If your child has ever dug their heels in on the morning of the school athletics or cross country day, or refused to speak in front of the class, you’re not alone.

For some children, these kinds of events bring a heavy, anxious feeling: what if I’m the slowest, what if everyone’s watching, what if I get it wrong?

For parents, it can be hard to know what to do. Push too hard and the morning becomes a meltdown. Let them off and you worry you’ve taught them to opt out.

Is it ever okay to follow their lead? And how do you give them the best chance of having a go next time?

Why (gently) facing fears matters

When we avoid something we’re afraid of, we feel instant relief. That relief is powerful, and it teaches the brain that avoiding worked. Over time, the fear grows and the impulse to avoid gets stronger. This is true for all of us, not just children.

So, in general, it helps for children to face fears sooner rather than later, before avoidance settles in.

But that doesn’t mean forcing a child through a panic. Pushing too hard can confirm to them the situation really is dangerous.

It’s worth helping your child face the fear before avoidance takes hold. What that looks like depends on what’s driving it.

Start by understanding what’s going on

If you can see a tricky day coming, talk to your child about how they are feeling ahead of time. Ask gentle questions to work out what the resistance is actually about.

Did something happen last time? Is something going on with friends? Is your child worried about failing, being judged, or being laughed at?

You might say:

I noticed you got really quiet when Dad mentioned athletics day. Is something about it worrying you?

Children won’t always have the words straight away, so give them time. It can help to have these conversations side-by-side rather than face-to-face: at bedtime, walking or driving together. Without eye contact, children find it easier to think and talk about hard things.

Try not to jump in to say “you’ll be fine” or “there’s nothing to worry about”. This can come across as dismissing the feeling, and your child may stop talking. Just listening can help children open up.

Validate the feeling

Once you have a sense of what’s going on, let your child know the feeling makes sense before moving to suggesting what to do. Children find it easier to think about solutions once they feel heard. You might say:

I can see this feels really big right now. It makes sense you’re worried.

Pause and stay silent for a moment. They may start crying, which is often part of processing fears.

This is often when we are tempted to rescue or reassure them. Instead, try to just remain a supportive presence. You can offer a hug and say, “This sounds really hard”.

Then work out a plan together

At this point, help your child think about what taking part might look like in a way that feels safe and manageable for them. You might say:

I wonder what might make it easier to go? What’s one small part of it you think you could manage?

Options might be walking the cross country instead of running it, reading the speech to one trusted teacher before presenting to the class, or going along and just observing to start with.

For some events, it’s worth having a quiet word with the teacher too, so the plan works at school as well as at home. The goal isn’t a perfect performance, it’s helping your child take part in a way they can manage.

Try not to rush or pressure them. If they say “I don’t know” acknowledge it can be hard to think when you are feeling worried. Sometimes it helps to take a brief break and come back to explore options later.

On the day

You can calmly remind them of what has been discussed. It can help to state what you would like to happen and then provide opportunity for the child to express how they are feeling:

It’s time to go. I know this is not easy and a part of you really doesn’t want to do this.

If they become upset, stay close and let the feelings be there. You don’t need to fix it or hurry them through it. A hand on their back or a quiet “I’m here” is often enough.

Children often need to feel their fear before they can move through it. This is where courage grows. Courage isn’t the absence of fear, it’s being able to move forward even when fear is present.

When children see they can carry their worries and still take part, they begin to develop confidence in their ability to cope with challenges.

Is it ever okay to follow their lead?

Sometimes, yes, if your child is really distressed, a brief step back will help them regain a sense of control.

A one-off opt-out isn’t a problem, and children are allowed to dislike things.

The warning sign is a pattern: when avoidance is creeping in more often, or your child is missing out on things they actually want to do.

If there’s a history of bullying, a bad past experience, or their fear and anxiety is starting to limit daily life, it’s worth seeing your GP for a referral to a psychologist who works with children.

How to approach ‘achievement’ and ‘participation’ in general

Most of what helps a child “have a go” is built in to the everyday conversations at home, not on the morning of the event. It’s about gently setting expectations: that we don’t always have to win, be the best, or get it right, and that’s okay.

A few themes are worth weaving in often.

The first is everyone has different brains and bodies so some things will come more or less easily to each of us. Difference is normal, and worth admiring rather than ranking. You might say:

I loved learning from my colleague Penny at work today. She knows so much about how water works in the environment.

The second is that skill is built, not bestowed. Children often think of sport, music or performance as fixed talents you either have or you don’t. But ability develops with practice. A child who plays sport every day will find running at athletics day easier, because they’ve put in the time, not because they were born for it.

The third is to help children notice progress against their own past self, rather than the ranking.

Last week you could swim 20 metres, and now you are swimming almost 30!

And the fourth, persisting at something hard is the real achievement. It’s easy to do what you’re already good at. Sticking with the thing that doesn’t come easily is harder, and worth naming when you see it.

I can see how frustrated you are with your reading. Keeping going – when it’s this hard is the bit I’m most proud of.

The goal isn’t a fearless child

The goal is a child who learns, over time and in small steps, that they can do hard things, and that being different from the child next to them is okay and a normal part of life.

Elizabeth Westrupp receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. She is Editor-in-Chief of the journal Mental Health & Prevention, affiliated with the Parenting and Family Research Alliance, and is a registered clinical psychologist.

Christiane Kehoe is co-author on the Tuning in to Kids suite of programs and receives royalties from the sale of the facilitator manuals used by clinicians who deliver the parenting groups. She is affiliated with the Parenting and Family Research Alliance and Deputy Editor of the journal Mental Health & Prevention.

Rebecca Knapp does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

A special Redbridge poll that was mostly taken before the federal budget had Labor winning 76 of the 150 House of Representatives seats (a majority of one), with One Nation on 53 and the Coalition 12.

Three more regular polls that were all taken since the budget have One Nation continuing to gain, with DemosAU having One Nation first on primary votes. The Essential and DemosAU polls both have the total vote for the Coalition and One Nation at 51%, while Morgan has the total right vote at 48.5%.

MRP polls (Multilevel Regression with Poststratification) use modelling and large sample sizes to estimate seat outcomes. A national Redbridge and Accent Research MRP poll for The Financial Review, conducted April 29 to May 14 from a sample of 6,015, had Labor winning 76 of the 150 House seats as its central estimate (down 18 since the 2025 election), a bare majority for Labor.

One Nation was winning 53 seats (up 53), the Coalition 12 (down 31), the Greens zero (down one) and others nine (down three). Seat ranges were 70–82 for Labor, 46–59 for One Nation, 7–21 for the Coalition, 0–1 for the Greens and 5–11 for others.

A total of 62 seats would change hands in the central estimate, with the Coalition losing 37 seats to One Nation while gaining five from Labor, and Labor making a few gains.

National primary votes in this poll were 31% Labor, 28% One Nation, 21% Coalition, 11% Greens and 9% for all Others. Most of the poll was taken before the May 12 federal budget. Polls since the budget have usually had drops for Labor, so the seat projections would probably be worse now.

DemosAU has One Nation leading on primary votes

A national for Capital Brief, conducted May 15–20 from a sample of 1,502, gave One Nation 28% of the primary vote (up two since the mid-April DemosAU poll), Labor 26% (steady), the Coalition 23% (steady), the Greens 13% (steady) and all Others 10% (down two).

No two-party estimate was provided, but seat projections gave Labor 65–74 of the 150 House seats (68–78 previously), One Nation 47–58 (40–51 previously), the Coalition 16–28 (16–30), the Greens 1–5 (1–4) and others 2–6 (3–8). This poll suggests Labor would lose their majority and that One Nation and the Coalition combined could have a majority.

In a three-way preferred PM question, Anthony Albanese had 34% (down one), Pauline Hanson 27% (up three) and Angus Taylor 23% (up one). Albanese’s net positive score was unchanged at -20 (47% negative, 27% positive). Taylor’s net positive was up four points to +1 (28% positive, 27% negative). Hanson’s net positive was up eight points to +3 (39% positive, 36% negative).

By 43–23, respondents thought the budget was bad. By 53–16, they thought the tax changes would make it harder for the average Australian, and by 44–17 they thought the changes would hurt the economy. By 34–29, respondents approved of the changes to negative gearing, but they disapproved by 29–28 of the changes to capital gains tax and by 34–27 of the changes to family trusts.

By 42–38, respondents thought income from investments should be taxed at a lower rate than work income, rather than similarly to work income.

Essential poll: One Nation’s rise continues

A national Essential poll, conducted May 20–24 from a sample of 1,062, gave Labor 29% of the primary vote (down one since the late April Essential poll), One Nation 28% (up three), the Coalition 23% (down one), the Greens 11% (steady), all Others 5% (steady) and undecided 4% (down one).

Despite One Nation’s primary vote surge, a better flow of respondent preferences to Labor gave them a 48–47 lead over the Coalition including undecided (previously 49–47 to the Coalition). By 2025 election preference flows, Labor would have led by about 50.5–49.5, a one-point gain for the Coalition. No Labor vs One Nation two-party estimate was given.

Albanese’s net approval slumped seven points to -17, with 54% disapproving and 37% approving. Taylor’s net approval was down four points to -4 (37% disapprove, 33% approve).

By 39–25, respondents disapproved of the overall budget. By 32–27, they supported the wind back of negative gearing and the capital gains discount for property. By 32–29, they supported the wind back of the capital gains discount for shares and investments. But by 38–26 they opposed the introduction of a 30% tax on family trusts.

By 45–21, respondents thought the budget would be bad for the economy overall and by 44–18 bad for “you personally”. By 30–28, respondents thought the negative gearing and capital gains changes would make the housing system less fair for younger people.

In contrast to the DemosAU poll, 32% thought profits from investments and assets should be taxed more than wages and salaries, 33% said they should be taxed at the same rate and just 13% thought wage income should be taxed more.

On the Albanese government’s performance since winning the May 2025 election, 55% said it had fallen short of expectations, 28% met expectations and just 6% said it had exceeded expectations.

By 46–41, respondents thought governments should stick to election commitments no matter what, over it being reasonable to change when circumstances change. By 53–8, they thought social media companies should be regulated more, not less.

On AI opportunities and risks, 36% said there were more risks (down 11 since May 2025), 22% more opportunities (up two) and 41% thought risks and opportunities about the same (up nine).

Morgan poll: Labor still ahead on primary votes

A national Morgan poll, conducted May 18–24 from a sample of 1,613, gave Labor 27.5% of the primary vote (down two since the May 11–17 Morgan poll), One Nation 25.5% (up one), the Coalition 23% (down one), the Greens 13.5% (up two) and all Others 10.5% (steady).

By respondent preferences, Labor led the Coalition by 53–47, a one-point gain for the Coalition. Labor led One Nation by 53.5–46.5, the first time Morgan has done a Labor vs One Nation two-party estimate. By 2025 election preference flows, Labor led the Coalition by 52–48, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition.

Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Tax time is coming – and with it, the unfortunate reality of needing to do something to get ready.

Don’t put your head in the sand and ignore it. That’s how you can end up missing the October 31 deadline and potentially end up with fines and penalties.

And don’t risk taking tax advice from unofficial sources.

This year, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has warned against relying on online tips or “tax hacks” from “finfluencers”: financial influencers on social media. It’s also warned artificial intelligence platforms can draw from outdated, inaccurate or foreign sources – so using them for your tax can be risky.

If you’re seeking advice, always ensure you are dealing with a registered tax agent.

Luckily, the ATO has been improving its online tax tools, so lodging your tax yourself is not as daunting as it once was.

A growing trend to DIY taxes

More than 6.1 million Australians (around 43%) did their own tax online with MyTax in 2025.

More than 8.1 million (around 57%) still choose to use a tax agent.

But doing your own tax has been a steadily growing trend for more than a decade, as more people realise the ease of using MyTax.

The tax office knows a lot

As a taxpayer, you have the obligation to tell the ATO what you have earned – even if you think you don’t have to pay any tax.

While the ATO know a lot more about you than you might realise, they are not mind readers.

The tax office collects more than 600 million transactions annually from various third parties. Sometimes they share the information with you – such as when they pre-fill sections of your MyTax form – but sometimes they don’t.

While articles like this about tax time often focus on claiming deductions, being transparent about your income is non-negotiable.

Whatever you claim on your tax return, the onus is on you to get it right.

If you have deposits in your bank account, can you explain where those came from? If not, the ATO may deem that those deposits were income. Then it is up to you as the taxpayer to prove otherwise.

Claiming work deductions

When you get to your deductions, there are three “golden rules” to remember:

• you have to have spent the money and not been reimbursed (such as if your employer paid for your phone or petrol expenses)
• your spending must be directly related to earning your income
• you must have proof (usually a receipt).

If you are claiming working from home, there are two options to reduce your tax bill: the fixed rate or actual cost approaches.

The $0.70 per hour fixed-rate method is much simpler. For most people doing their own tax, it’s the one you’re more likely to use.

But watch out for traps. To claim this deduction, you need to keep records the entire year.

And the fixed-rate method includes common expenses such as phones and stationery, so don’t double dip by claiming those separately.

You cannot claim rent or interest for working from home, unless your home is an actual place of business, such as a doctor’s surgery or hair salon.

Similarly, you cannot claim everyday clothing. To claim a deduction on clothing, it needs to be occupation specific, protective (such as steel-capped boots), a compulsory uniform (likely to be written into your employment contract) or a registered non-compulsory work uniform.

You cannot claim private travel. This includes driving to and from work, or commuting on public transport. There are very limited exceptions.

Don’t just rollover your claims from last year, either. What have you actually spent this year – and have you got the receipts to back it up?

Why you can’t claim a $1,000 ‘instant’ deduction just yet

There’s been a lot of coverage about the $1,000 “instant” tax deduction and the “working Australians tax offset” of $250, announced in last month’s federal budget.

These are not relevant for this tax season. Those are due to start from next financial year and beyond, assuming they’re passed by parliament.

---

Read more: How much a new $1,000 tax offset would really be worth – and who’s better off avoiding it

---

When it’s better to lodge early or later

Taxpayers should lodge when required. Think Goldilocks here: not too soon – and not too late.

If you try to do it too early, ATO data matching may not be complete. Generally that’s done by around end of July.

You’re better off waiting until all the information is there, otherwise the ATO is likely to amend your return. You can either lodge yourself or use a registered tax agent.

Expecting a tax refund? You’re better off lodging earlier, from late July on. For simple, self-lodged tax returns, you can generally expect to get a refund within about two weeks. So that means you’ll have more money in your bank account sooner.

Expecting a tax bill? That’s when you’re better off lodging just in time: by October 31 if you’re submitting yourself, or making sure you have a tax agent locked in by then.

Where to get help

The ATO provides a variety of guidance and advice to support taxpayers, while tax agents can help you to pay the right amount of tax.

Be careful of unregistered tax agents, particularly those tax “influencers” offering huge refunds. If you’re unsure, check this official register.

Never give out your login details to myGov or myTax. Registered tax agents will never ask for your passwords.

If you’re facing financial, social or personal challenges and need help, free tax clinics can provide targeted assistance.

And if you’re having difficulties meeting your tax obligations, or are unable to lodge on time, contact the tax office or a registered tax agent as soon as possible.

Disclaimer: This is not tax advice, it is for educational purposes only. Taxpayers should seek advice from a registered tax agent or suitably qualified professional.

Elizabeth Morton has previously been contracted to co-facilitate a short-term training contract for tax and crypto facilitated by UNSW for the ATO and is currently a member of the ATO's Crypto Industry Working Group. This is unrelated to this article. Elizabeth has not received grant funding directly related to the content of this article. Elizabeth is a Chartered Accountant, Fellow of the Tax Institute and member of the Institute of Public Accountants.

Lisa Greig has previously been contracted to co-facilitate a short-term training contract for tax and crypto facilitated by UNSW for the ATO. Lisa has not received grant funding directly related to the content of this article. Lisa is a fellow of the Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, a chartered tax adviser with the Tax Institute and a fellow of the Institute of Public Accountants. Lisa volunteers at the Melbourne Law School Tax Clinic.