As Aboriginal nations mounted a series of coordinated and strategic campaigns to defend Country against invading settlers, the smallpox epidemic spread across the southeast from 1830 to 1832.

It disproportionately affected Aboriginal people, killing large numbers of First Nations people exposed to it. Historical research so far has looked at the origins of the epidemic, mortality and the culpability of the settlers.

Yet Aboriginal warfare in the late 1830s suggests many communities survived the earlier epidemic. So how did Aboriginal people respond and survive in the face of a new and deadly disease?

With access to a lesser-known medical report from 1831 by army doctor John Mair, our newly-published research offers an alternative account of Wiradjuri, Gomeroi and Wailwan peoples of the plains and river country (of what is now western and northwestern New South Wales). This gave us an insight into their experience of what they named “Boulol” on the northwestern plains and “Thunna Thunna” in the Lachlan and Wellington Valleys.

Our research unearthed three distinct responses that are reminiscent of leading disease control measures across the globe and that continue today.

Efforts to isolate and separate

The 1830s epidemic probably was not the first time the peoples of the plains and rivers experienced smallpox. Old men at one cattle station told the station manager in 1831 they had experienced the disease when they were very young, and they had the distinctive scars to prove it.

It’s likely these men had previously caught smallpox in 1789 or 1790, after the disease had first broken out around the colonisers’ camp at Sydney Cove and moved west over the ranges. These men – and other plains country old people – would have understood the disease from the vast networks of trade and communication that linked the coast to the plains country.

It should come as no surprise, then, that they had well thought out strategies to respond to the epidemic, such as the movement of people away from the disease and population centres.

At that same station, the manager observed one smaller group isolating away from a larger group that had the disease. What the stockman interpreted as enmity could instead have been strictly observed isolation. This could have been similar to the sometimes violent quarantine practices of English-speaking societies.

In another example, this time from a station at Wallerawang (near present-day Lithgow), a group “convinced of the contagious nature of the disease” fled to Emu Plains, 100 kilometres southeast and on the opposite side of the mountains, in order to escape the epidemic.

Again, the Wallerawang station Wiradjuri people seem to have recognised how smallpox spread from person to person.

After the epidemic, they returned. We know this because a decade later the local pastoralist, James Walker, reported he was grateful for their return as he relied on their labour.

Devising treatments

The Aboriginal peoples of the plains and river country also responded to the smallpox epidemic with active treatment.

George Clarke was a bushranger known as “the Barber” who lived with the Gomeroi people for several years. He provided detailed descriptions of how Gomeroi doctors treated the disease.

Initially, treatment included immersion in cold water, but since deaths still occurred, this treatment was discontinued and other cures tried.

Head hair was removed by scorching close to the scalp. Further treatment included “pricking the pustules with a sharp pointed fish bone” and pressing out the fluid with a flat instrument.

John Mair, who interviewed Clarke, interpreted these treatments as being consistent with the best accepted medical interventions for smallpox then known in the world. Mair was highly trained, with a medical degree from the University of Edinburgh and training at leading British and French hospitals.

He found examples of head-shaving and pustule pricking in his textbook. He was comfortable with the idea that Aboriginal knowledge systems may have reduced mortality of the smallpox epidemic and mitigated symptoms.

Clarke’s bushranging itself pointed to the effectiveness of Gomeroi practices. “The Barber” was arrested twice in 1831, in April and October, before and after the epidemic. Gomeroi warriors were with him both times. Smallpox did not prevent them from fighting the invading squatters.

Getting vaccinated

Accepting vaccination was another way that Wiradjuri, Gomeroi and Wailwan peoples responded to the smallpox epidemic.

Smallpox was the first virus for which a vaccine was found. Yet in the 1830s, this technology was still only 30 years old, with significant limitations in its efficacy and safety.

Mair was committed to vaccination, offering it to settler children in Sydney. When he first heard rumours of the epidemic to the west, he sent vaccine packages and later performed vaccinations himself.

Mair was conscious that vaccination could only work if it was accepted by Aboriginal people. He soon found out Aboriginal people took up vaccination very readily, compared with the “little desire” he had seen in Sydney among the settlers.

Reading Mair’s views, we conclude these unnamed Wiradjuri people decided to trust Mair, even with limited evidence, to receive a procedure that they probably understood as an action intended to prevent the return of smallpox.

When vaccination was not possible, at least one group of colonisers offered a riskier alternative. Variolation involved controlled inoculation with smallpox pus, which supposedly caused a mild case of smallpox that prevented future infection.

---

Read more: Eradicating smallpox: the global vaccination push that brought the world ‘arm-to-arm’

---

It mostly worked, even if it could have up to a three in 100 fatality rate.

When vaccination failed during the epidemic, Arthur Ranken, a pastoralist on the Lachlan River, performed variolation on several Wiradjuri people and convinced his neighbours John and Jeremiah Grant to do the same. The Grants experimented with variolation in stages – first testing it on ten people from “Miles’ and Camberrang’s tribes”, then others from the community, and lastly, on Jeremiah Grant himself.

This procedure did offer protection, but it also came with more risk. The pastoralists may have been motivated to resort to variolation to secure their Aboriginal labour force. Variolation had become common on slave plantations in the Caribbean and Americas during the 18th century for this reason, and Ranken had brothers who were both doctors and slave owners.

Yet Ranken and the Grants appear to have omitted one crucial part of the variolation procedure – the strict quarantine of people who’d had the treatment. Without this step, the colonisers let the recovering patients spread smallpox to others, even while being protected themselves.

Aftermath

The smallpox epidemic of the early 1830s undoubtedly was a devastating event that caused many deaths and affected survivors for decades. Yet to focus only on this impact is to tell an incomplete history.

The Wiradjuri, Gomeroi and Wailwan peoples of the plains and river country actively responded to smallpox just as they responded to other forms of violence. They carefully deployed Traditional Knowledge, observation and intuition in the treatment and response to smallpox, in ways that drew on networks across vast distances with earlier experience of the disease.

Less than a decade after the epidemic, from 1838 to 1844, Gomeroi, Wiradjuri and Wailwan led an uprising that has been described as a high point of resistance to the colonisers, forcing them, in some places, to retreat. Smallpox did not destroy either culture or willingness to fight for country.

Heidi Norman receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Greater Sydney Parklands.

Nicholas Pitt receives funding from the Australian Research Council’s Australian Laureate Fellowship and the School of Humanities and Languages at UNSW Sydney.

The latest Ebola outbreak is showing no signs of slowing.

On April 24, the first suspected case of the rare Bundibugyo strain of Ebola was detected in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). On May 17, the World Health Organisation declared the outbreak a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern”.

The current Ebola outbreak is the third-largest in world history, with 906 suspected cases and 223 deaths in the DRC alone as of 27 May.

And it may have spread to other continents. Health authorities are now investigating a suspected case in Italy, and two possible cases in Brazil. All three are believed to be travellers returning from either the DRC or Uganda. One American man who tested positive for Ebola is currently being treated in Germany.

As concerns grow, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations has committed more than A$86 million in funding to fast-track the development of three potential vaccines, targeting the Bundibugyo strain.

But in the meantime, could this outbreak spread further? And how concerned should we be?

A deadly virus

Ebola is a rare but potentially fatal virus that mainly spreads through direct contact with the bodily fluids – such as blood, faeces and vomit – of an infected person.

Early symptoms of Ebola include sore throat, headaches, fever, fatigue and body pain. Severe Ebola cases can cause skin rashes, shortness of breath, vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal pain and seizures.

Ebola was first identified in humans in 1976. Since then, there have been more than 40 outbreaks around the world, with the majority occurring in African countries.

The current outbreak is the third ever to be caused by the rare Bundibugyo strain. The majority of past outbreaks were driven by the more deadly Zaire strain, which kills up to 90% of people compared to up to 34% for Bundibugyo.

---

Read more: Ebola outbreak declared a global health emergency – what you need to know

---

What is driving this latest outbreak?

The factors driving this latest outbreak also contributed to the devastating West African outbreak of 2014-16, where more than 11,000 people died.

In both outbreaks, the virus had been circulating for months before an outbreak was declared, and initial cases had non-specific symptoms.

Both outbreaks also rapidly spread in urban areas. Transmission in health-care settings is another common factor.

Political instability and social unrest also contributed to both outbreaks. Most recently in the DRC, crowds have set fire to hospital tents, prompting some patients to flee isolation wards.

And certain cultural practices – including traditional burial rituals that often involve handling dead bodies – may have accelerated the spread of both outbreaks.

---

Read more: Health authorities are racing to contain Ebola in the DRC and Uganda. Here’s what’s making it so challenging

---

How it crossed continents

Similar to the West African outbreak, this latest Ebola outbreak has spread to other continents through travel.

Nine cases and one death have already been reported in Uganda, which shares a border with the DRC.

An American man who tested positive for Ebola while working in the DRC, is in a stable condition after being treated in Germany.

In Italy, authorities are monitoring a traveller who recently returned from the DRC to the city of Cagliari.

According to some reports, Brazilian authorities are investigating two suspected Ebola cases. They are believed to be two travellers, one who returned from the DRC to São Paulo and the other from Uganda to Rio de Janeiro.

Importantly, both suspected cases have been diagnosed with other illnesses. The São Paulo patient presented with fever and was later diagnosed with severe meningitis. The Rio de Janeiro patient tested positive for malaria after developing a cough, chills and diarrhoea, but has since tested negative for Ebola.

So for now, no Ebola cases have been confirmed in Brazil. But these suspected cases have prompted the country to activate its Ebola safety protocols, including patient isolation, laboratory testing, and epidemiological investigations.

Meanwhile, several countries have imposed travel restrictions to prevent Ebola from reaching their shores.

Both the United States and Canada are temporarily restricting entry for travellers from the DRC, Uganda and South Sudan. The US and other countries such as India and Mexico are also strengthening public health screening and disease monitoring measures, particularly at airports. Some countries have mandated a 21-day quarantine period for their citizens returning from the DRC.

---

Read more: Ebola outbreak in the DRC: four reasons it will be hard to contain

---

Could it spread further, including to Australia?

At this stage, the risk of Ebola reaching Australia is very low.

Australia has not put in place any travel or quarantine requirements for affected countries, but federal health minister Mark Butler says authorities are still monitoring the outbreak “very closely”.

Based on lessons from past outbreaks, there are three main ways the current Central African outbreak could play out.

Without effective control measures, cases may surge in the coming months. Some models suggest that by mid-May, up to 1,000 cases had already occurred in the DRC, compared to official figures of about 900 cases. So the actual number of Ebola cases may be much higher than authorities realise.

In a more favorable scenario, a strengthened public health response could bring this latest outbreak under control. This would be possible with continued support from the international community, the rapid development of vaccines and community engagement.

However, the most realistic outcome is cases will continue to rise before authorities successfully contain the current outbreak.

Nevertheless, the international community responded much more swiftly to this outbreak, particularly compared to the devastating 2014-16 West African outbreak. That alone may protect us from an outbreak of the same catastrophic scale and cost.

Holly Seale receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and NSW Health. She has previously received funding from Pfizer to present at international conferences.

Abrar Ahmad Chughtai and Md Saiful Islam 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.

The abrupt resignation of the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner Paul Brereton is a pivotal moment for the federal watchdog. For years, questions over the commissioner’s leadership arising from concerns about his ability to manage conflicts of interest had undermined public confidence and trust in a key Australian integrity institution.

The government has committed to a “merit-based process” to appoint the next commissioner.

But can we trust the government to do that and rebuild trust in our national anti-corruption commission? Research finds governments often abuse their power to appoint, fund and oversee integrity agencies in order to avoid serious oversight.

How do we avoid this abuse and safeguard the independence of our integrity agencies? A new report from the Centre for Public Integrity outlines three key ways to ensure these agencies are truly independent.

These reforms should guide the appointment of a new national anti-corruption commissioner.

Fundamental tensions

To do their job, integrity agencies must be independent from the government. This means they must be able to investigate and criticise governments and public officials without fear of political retaliation.

But in practice there are a few problems with this idea.

Unlike the courts and parliament, these agencies are not protected in the Constitution. Instead, they are often created by the government through an act of parliament.

This creates a foundational tension: integrity agencies are designed by government, to hold the government to account.

The government has a vested interest in these institutions being weak. Governments have been accused of establishing weak watchdogs, or deliberately “clipping the wings” of these bodies by amending laws.

There are also operational tensions. Governments can weaken integrity agencies in more subtle ways.

One way is through political appointments. In Australia, we have seen such politicisation, for instance, in appointments to the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal, ultimately leading to its abolition.

Or they might be in the form of cutting funding. This happened most recently in the current budget, with a funding cut in real terms to the Australian National Audit Office. The office had previously said that with its current funding levels, it would not be able to meet its responsibilities for performance audits.

On budget day, the joint parliamentary committee on public accounts and audit expressed its ongoing concern about the operational capability of the office given its financial position.

A new report released by the Centre for Public Integrity outlines a number of ways the independence of these agencies must be protected across three key pillars: appointments, funding and oversight.

You can’t choose your own watchdog

Our analysis shows that across the country, there is significant variation in how heads of integrity agencies are appointed. Many governments exercise broad and opaque discretion over who leads the core integrity agencies.

This creates obvious risks. If governments can appoint agency heads through opaque processes, there may be concerns — justified or not — about whether those leaders are suitably qualified or truly independent.

The controversy surrounding Brereton illustrates the stakes involved. Questions about conflicts of interest under his leadership have fuelled broader concerns about the lack of a transparent, merit-based appointment process for the role.

Our report recommends legally requiring open advertising of senior integrity positions, independent selection panels and greater parliamentary involvement in appointments.

There’s no need to wait. The government could implement such a process in the upcoming NACC appointment, instead of relying on vague platitudes of a “merit-based process”.

This proposal is similar to one that has been successfully adopted elsewhere, including for the reformed Administrative Review Tribunal.

We also recommend longer but non-renewable terms for agency heads to alleviate any pressure leaders may feel in seeking reappointment.

Handing over the purse strings

The second problem then is funding. Most Australian integrity agencies rely on governments to decide how much money they receive each year.

In practice, this means the government can place pressure on agencies by limiting their resources. Underfunded integrity agencies cannot properly investigate corruption, scrutinise spending or carry out oversight work.

Our report argues integrity agencies should have stronger protections around funding, again, drawing on models that have been successfully developed elsewhere, particularly in the ACT for their “Officers of Parliament”.

Our proposal includes separate parliamentary processes and independent funding panels that can publicly recommend appropriate funding levels. Governments would still make final budget decisions, but there would be greater transparency when they made decisions that cut agency funding.

---

Read more: Australia’s anti-corruption commissioner has a trust problem. He needs to change course to fix it

---

Genuinely independent oversight

Finally, independence does not mean integrity agencies should operate without accountability. These agencies exercise significant powers. Some can compel evidence, conduct hearings and make findings that seriously affect reputations and careers.

So oversight is essential – but that oversight must be independent. Oversight systems for integrity agencies are often poorly designed. In many jurisdictions, for instance, parliamentary oversight committees are dominated by government members.

A better system would involve parliamentary committees not dominated by government MPs, alongside independent inspectors for agencies exercising coercive powers.

The importance of such roles is underscored by the work of the NACC Inspector, in receiving and investigating complaints about the commission’s decision not to investigate Robodebt referrals.

---

Read more: NACC belatedly to investigate whether six Robodebt referrals engaged in ‘corrupt conduct’

---

Is real independence possible?

Australia has invested heavily in creating a set of core integrity agencies. Even if reluctantly, every jurisdiction across the country now has an anti-corruption agency, auditor-general and ombudsman office.

The next challenge is ensuring those institutions are sufficiently independent to do their job. Across the country, there are good designs that alleviate the operational pressures these agencies face. Adopting these designs will help secure better and more transparent funding, appointment, and oversight of core integrity agencies.

These more independent integrity agencies can in turn help safeguard the health of our democracy.

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

William Partlett is a Stephen Charles Fellow at the Centre for Public Integrity.

Everyone has a storm story – whether it’s that time you just escaped a downpour, or the hailstorm that wrote off your car. Even though hailstorms are relatively rare, they cause significant damages. Two new studies shed light on how hail might change as the world warms.

In our study, published today in Nature Climate Change, we show that hail conditions may move towards the poles with global warming and shift a bit from summer to winter. This could lead to more hailstorms in places such as northern Europe, Canada, southeastern Australia and New Zealand’s South Island.

Another new study led by Shiyi Zhang at Peking University shows that hail may also become more damaging.

Hailstorms are costly. In Australia in 2025, hail in New South Wales and Queensland caused A$1.9b in insurance claims, and in recent years severe storms have caused enormous losses globally.

Severe storm costs are increasing. Much of this increase is because people and assets are more exposed to storms as populations increase and cities expand.

But is climate change also playing a role?

How does hail form?

To get hail you need a thunderstorm, and to get a thunderstorm you need an updraught. Updraughts form when buoyant air rises in a localised area. They bring up water vapour, which condenses into clouds made of tiny water droplets.

Inside a storm those drops hit each other, and if it’s cold enough, liquid drops freeze onto ice particles, growing them into hailstones.

For hail to affect us at ground level, a strong updraught needs to keep hailstones aloft for long enough to grow, and the hailstones must then survive melting as they fall to Earth’s surface.

Wind shear, or shifts in wind with height, increases storm severity by moving falling rain and hail away from the updraught, so the updraught is not inhibited and can grow stronger.

Buoyancy and wind shear form the basic atmospheric “ingredients” required for hail.

How might climate change affect hailstorms?

Climate change is warming the atmosphere and adding moisture to it. Moisture is the fuel for storms, and a warmer atmosphere is more likely to make strong updraughts that can support larger hail.

A warmer atmosphere also melts falling hail faster, which might make hailstones shrink or melt away before they reach the ground. So, these two changes work against each other.

According to past research, the broad expectation of climate change’s impact on hail is that it will bring less frequent hail, but the hailstones will be larger when hail does happen. That’s because more melting would mean smaller hail reaches the ground less often, but stronger updraughts would enable larger hailstones.

However, these changes vary regionally, depending on variations in the delicate balance between hailstorm ingredient changes.

Global climate models generally can’t tell us about individual storms, let alone hailstones – think of a low-resolution image that only shows the broad picture but no details.

So, instead of looking at hail directly, our study examined how the ingredients for hailstorms change. Because the exact relationships between ingredients and hail risk remain unclear, we used several so-called “proxy” relationships, including one that we previously developed for Australia and the wide range of weather regimes here.

New global projections for hail frequency

We applied three proxies to outputs from eight climate models to look at a range of possible future warming scenarios.

First, the proxies and models agree that in the warming scenarios hail-prone conditions are shifting toward the poles – decreasing across mid-latitudes in the southern hemisphere, and increasing in mid-high latitudes, particularly in the northern hemisphere.

We project more frequent hail conditions in northern Europe, Canada and the northwestern US, southeastern Australia, and the South Island of New Zealand; and less frequent hail conditions in northern Australia, most of Africa, southern India and southeastern China.

Second, our results predict less frequent hail conditions in summer and more in winter. That means winter crops like wheat may see increasing risk, while risk may decrease for summer crops like maize. If climate change shifts arable regions closer to the poles, these crops may be subjected to increased hail frequency there.

Third, the different proxies don’t always agree, particularly in the tropics where some show increases and others decreases. These disagreements highlight the difficulties in estimating changes in hail environments and how that connects to whether hail happens.

Less frequent, but more damaging

What about the severity of hail when it occurs? Zhang and colleagues took a different approach to ours. They applied a model of hailstone growth and melting to climate simulations, to examine possible hail sizes and changes in potential damage they might cause.

Their new global simulations overall predict more large hailstones and fewer small ones. This result is in line with previous reasoning – a warmer atmosphere can melt smaller hailstones away but produce larger hail through stronger updraughts.

Like ours, their study shows regional differences in changes. Both studies show increasing hail risk with increased frequency and hail damage potential in the mid-high latitude northern hemisphere and southeastern South America.

In sub-tropical regions of Africa and northern South America, both studies show decreasing hail risk. In southeast US, mid-northern Africa, southern India, and northeastern Australia, we project decreasing frequency while Zhang and colleagues project increasing damage potential.

These two studies point to increasing risk from hail damage in a warming world, even though the details of where this will be experienced are still not clear. The more warming occurs, the more this risk will increase.

Quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the surest way to blunt the most damaging effects of climate change.

Timothy H. Raupach's role at UNSW receives funding from QBE Insurance, which had no role in the design of this study. He receives funding for other projects from the Australian Research Council, Guy Carpenter, and Aon Japan.

Steven Sherwood receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Minderoo Foundation.

Shark fins on a plane, seahorses in your bag and sea cucumbers in the post – these are just a few examples of illegal marine wildlife trafficking.

This crime can be hard to detect. But in a new study, published in the journal Frontiers in Ocean Sustainability, we show how artificial intelligence (AI) can be harnessed as a complimentary detection tool to help stop marine wildlife trafficking at international airports and mail facilities.

A global crime

The cross-border trade in live animals, animal parts or products is a global crime, facilitating the flow of billions of illicit dollars each year. It’s known to converge with other criminal activity, including the trafficking in drugs, arms and humans.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime identifies five sources of demand for wildlife trafficking: food, medicine, pets and ornamental plants, specialist collection and adornment.

In some cases, such as pet prestige, people are motivated both by the desire to have a pet and the perceived status it brings to own an exotic animal.

People traffic marine animals too

Wildlife trafficking affects around 4,000 species. Many of the more well-known examples involve land-based animals – ivory from elephant tusks, horns from rhinos and scales from pangolins – the world’s most trafficked mammal.

Closer to home, we also see native Australian reptiles and birds, sometimes shoved in tins, put in socks and packaged up live to be sent overseas.

Marine creatures, unfortunately, are targeted too. This can include live animals such as fish in people’s bags, or dried marine life such as the rise of the seahorse trade and demand for shark fin.

We have small pockets of knowledge of this activity. But the reality is we don’t fully understand how widespread it is.

AI to detect marine wildlife trade

Currently, the best means of detecting illegally trafficked wildlife is humans. And then there are our four-legged friends: biosecurity dogs.

Recently, Australia has also been working to develop the use of AI as a potential means of detecting land-based wildlife in illegal wildlife movements – building on existing detection pathways using 3D X-ray machines fitted with algorithms.

For our latest study, we built on these efforts by developing world-first marine wildlife algorithms. We taught computers to look for shark fins, seahorses and sea cucumbers.

We did this by collecting a total of 68 samples of dead marine animals, which we scanned in a 3D X-ray machine to create a library of images. We then used this image library to develop algorithms to enable computers to search for what we taught it to look for – in this case, shark fins, seahorses and sea cucumbers.

Samples were scanned alone and then in more complicated scenarios to reflect how people actually traffic marine life. This means if a bag or mail item is hiding a shark fin, seahorse or sea cucumber, the algorithm will be able to flag this to an operator, prompting them to inspect the item.

Out of a total of 298 scans and a training data set derived from these samples, our algorithm had success rates of 95%, 95% and 85% for shark fins, seahorses and sea cucumbers, respectively.

Humans and biosecurity dogs still needed alongside AI

While technology fitted with computer algorithms may help people inspecting luggage or mail, we still need people to verify what computers see. Sometimes the algorithms get it wrong and may miss items.

Despite this, the broader implications of having AI as a second set of eyes searching for trafficked marine life will aid in identifying key trade routes to potentially stop this activity. The next step is relying on implementation of these algorithms at the front lines.

Like computer algorithms and AI, the more we learn, the better we get at detecting and potentially stopping this harmful crime.

Vanessa Pirotta received funding from Rapiscan Systems for this research.

Justine O'Brien receives funding from the San Diego Zoo and Wildlife Alliance; NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; the Australian Research Council; Institute of Museum and Library Services; Great Barrier Reef Foundation; and the Taronga Foundation.

Phoebe Meagher receives funding from San Diego Zoo and Wildlife Alliance and the Taronga Foundation.

Zara Bending serves as a Resident Expert for the Jane Goodall Institute Global and is a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Macquarie University Environmental Law Research Centre.

Frances Rings’ artistic directorship of Bangarra Dance Theatre’s shines through the company’s new triple-bill production, Sheltering.

Rings demonstrates a commitment to uplifting company members and First Nations creatives, with a coherent curatorial vision that shows care for diverse audiences.

This triple-bill is a beautiful sampler of what this important company has to offer to the cultural, political and creative facets of our nation.

A nurturing home for First Nations creatives

Sheltering comprises three individual choreographic works: Keeping Grounded, Brown Boys, and Sheoak.

Sheoak is a 2015 work by Rings herself, commissioned by then Artistic Director Stephen Page.

Keeping Grounded (2023) is choreographed by Indjalandji-Dhidhanu and Alyawarre woman Glory Tuohy-Daniell, with a cast of eight company dancers.

The most recent work is a short dance film called Brown Boys (2024). It was directed by Cass Mortimer Eipper and Daniel Mateo, a Bangarra company member and Gomeroi and Mari Ma’ufanga, Tongatapu (Tonga) man.

Both Brown Boys and Keeping Grounded were first presented in Bangarra’s emerging artist showcase, Dance Clan, and supported from there onto the mainstage program. Creators Tuohy-Daniell and Mateo trained at NAISDA, Australia’s National Indigenous Dance College, and joined Bangarra through its Russell Page Graduate Program, which provides training and mentorship for new company dancers.

Keeping Grounded

Keeping Grounded opens onto an enormous and heavy rope net designed by Dyarubbin woman, Shana O’Brien. Under it, figures twitch and roll like a catch of fish.

Karen Norris’ textured lighting supports the impression of a coastal setting, and “sets the scene” across the work as it shifts from an evocation of Country to a more technologically-mediated aesthetic.

In an interview with Glory Tuohy-Daniell, the choreographer describes how the work invites viewers “to consider how small, almost forgotten actions keep us grounded […] a step barefoot, a moment of stillness, a return”.

Tuohy-Daniell’s movement vocabulary is striking for its literal groundedness, reflecting the central theme highlighted in the work’s title.

The first sections see the dancers bound to the floor with a variation on the typical angular, rolling, swooping and sharply delineated shapes of Bangarra’s Indigenous contemporary style – here purposefully fractured.

Set to a score by Brendon Boney, the movement in this section is broken into one movement per beat, a staccato rhythm that suggests a disconnect from the flow of nature. This “pixellated” quality makes familiar forms new in an exciting way.

Brown Boys

Six-minute dance film Brown Boys is a meditation on the experience of young First Nations men. Daniel Mateo, the writer, choreographer and performer, has a cultural background spanning northern New South Wales and Tonga.

The program notes describe Brown Boys as a total work of art involving poetry, choreography, cinematography, sound and dramaturgy.

Adding to this is the central role of sculpture. Set and costume designer Elizabeth Gadsby has worked with traditional forms to establish a culturally informed aesthetic. This includes a fale (pronouned “fah-lay”), which is a traditional Tongan shelter made of grass matting. This structure frames Mateo’s body inside the film frame.

Ochres, minerals and soils are other material elements featured in the design and choreography. The striking final image shows Mateo literally grounded by a soil mound that takes the silhouette of a 19th century crinoline skirt.

Mateo’s text and performance are extraordinary. His direct and settled gaze to camera, gentle unfolding movements, and spoken word poem, give visibility, dignity and complexity to the figure of the young Indigenous man. That he has “always been beautiful” could not be more persuasively portrayed.

Sheoak

Rings’ mastery of group choreography was recently showcased in her commissioned work for the Australian Ballet, Flora. Having delivered another major work for Vivid 2025, this was likely the right time to revive one of her classics.

The opening image of Sheoak showcases both Rings’ choreographic skill and Jennifer Irwin’s amazing legacy as a costume designer. The dancers wear shirts with black on white streaks – skeletal puzzle pieces that join together to form larger human sculptures.

The theme of this work is cultural strength, resilience and adaptability, with the sheoak tree as the central metaphor. Dancer Chantelle Lee Lockhart is captivating in the role of this “Grandmother tree”, as it’s known to the Dharawal people.

The choreography weaves around Jacob Nash’s set design, featuring seven two-metre-long branches. The passing of branches signals the struggle to pass on cultural responsibility and knowledge from generation to generation.

The company of technically virtuosic dancers seems right at home in each of the three diverse works of Sheltering. The program particularly underscores Tuohy-Daniell’s potential as a new leading light in Australian choreography

Sheltering as a whole is dedicated to the late David “Dubboo” Page, brother of former Artistic Director Stephen Page. David’s work as composer, singer and musician was central to establishing the Bangarra aesthetic. His music also features in Rings’ Sheoak.

Sheltering is on now at the Sydney Opera House until June 13. The production will show at the Arts Centre Melbourne from June 18 to 27, and at the Queensland Performing Arts Centre from July 9 to 18.

I am writing as an Australian of Irish and Danish political exile, convict, and settler descent working within the Western tradition of contemporary art and dance. I acknowledge the much deeper cultural traditions that bind music, dance, painting, sculpture, and site in the art of Indigenous peoples.

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.

After another spell of wet weather along Australia’s east coast, with storms, heavy rain and flash flooding across Sydney and parts of New South Wales, it is natural to ask whether our cities are shaping the rainfall that descends upon them.

This matters because most people now live in cities. If urbanisation changes rainfall, even slightly, the effects can reach large populations through flooding, stormwater design, water supply and infrastructure planning.

Satellite data have consistently shown that many cities experience more rain events than the countryside around them. The usual explanation is that cities themselves are involved: urban heat, rougher surfaces, aerosols and changed land cover can all affect how storms develop and where rain falls.

Our new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, asks a related question: how much of this data reflects real changes in rainfall, and how much depends on how we observe it?

Why we need satellites

Understanding rainfall over cities is hard.

Rain gauges accurately measure rainfall at a specific location, but are irregularly distributed and cannot fully capture how rain varies across a large city. Climate models can simulate urban weather in detail, but kilometre-scale simulations across many cities and decades remain computationally expensive.

Satellite observations help fill this gap.

NASA’s Integrated Multi satellite Retrievals for GPM, known as IMERG, provides near-global rainfall estimates at high resolution, and is now widely used for studying rainfall over cities.

What the satellite data shows

We examined IMERG rainfall data across 15 of the world’s largest cities, including Sydney and Melbourne. The cities span different climates and geographic settings, including both coastal and inland regions.

A clear pattern emerged. Rain events occurred more often over urban areas than over nearby rural ones. The strongest signal was not that every storm became stronger, but that satellites counted more hours in which it was raining over cities. Individual events over urban centres often dropped less water than those in surrounding areas.

In other words, the main urban signal in IMERG is more frequent rain, not heavier rain.

Different sensors, different stories

Modern satellite rainfall data combines both infrared and microwave observations.

Infrared sensors estimate rainfall indirectly from the temperature at the top of clouds. They provide broad coverage, but can miss light, shallow or warm rain because these can occur even when the tops of the clouds are not very cold.

Microwave satellites fly in low orbit and detect signals more directly linked to raindrops and ice inside clouds, making them particularly useful for identifying whether rain is actually occurring.

When we separated the IMERG data by observation type, the urban signal mainly came from microwave observations, while infrared estimates showed no urban pattern.

This does not mean the microwave signal is wrong, but it raises a potential problem for long-term studies: microwave observations have changed over time. New satellites have been launched and older ones retired, and across the cities we studied, microwave sampling frequency happened almost twice as often by 2023 as it had in 2001.

This matters because the more often a microwave sensor passes overhead, the more rain events it can detect. A light shower missed in 2002 could now be caught by one of several satellites passing within the hour.

Testing the artefact

To test whether this changing sampling affects observed rainfall trends, we compared the microwave and non-microwave with long-term averages. This meant we could separate out the result of changing satellite sampling from the actual changes in weather.

Changes in microwave sampling explained up to about 20% of the long-term rainfall trends across the 15 cities. For rainfall frequency, cities such as Lagos, London, Melbourne, Beijing, Berlin, Mexico City and Paris showed areas where more than 40% of the apparent trend could be linked to the changing observing system.

The satellites did not create the whole urban rainfall pattern. After accounting for sampling effects, the urban signal remained, but the long-term trend became smaller. So we think it really is raining more often over cities, but perhaps not as much as we thought.

Moving forward

For Sydney, we also compared IMERG with CMORPH, another satellite product, and with Bureau of Meteorology rain gauges. CMORPH showed a similar urban pattern, though the two products are not fully independent because they use overlapping microwave observations.

The gauges are a more independent check, but with too few stations outside the urban core, in Sydney and most cities, the true magnitude cannot yet be confirmed on the ground.

Satellite rainfall data is now used everywhere, in climate science, flood risk, agriculture, insurance and water planning. In many regions it is the only consistent rainfall record over large areas. Our results are a caution: part of an apparent trend can come from the changing observing system rather than real change.

As for why cities get more frequent rain, the likeliest explanations are familiar: urban heat that lifts air, rougher surfaces that nudge winds upward, and aerosols that alter cloud droplets. The signal is real. The task now is measuring it properly.

Shankar Sharma receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Andy Pitman receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Jason Evans receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Most of us think of espresso as a hot, high-pressure ritual. Finely ground coffee goes into a machine, boiling water is forced through it, and in about 30 seconds we get a concentrated shot with crema, aroma, bitterness, body and caffeine.

As someone from Colombia, I like to think coffee is in my blood – and I’m proud to come from a country known for producing some of the best coffee beans in the world.

So perhaps that’s why I have spent a lot of time in my laboratory with my team asking a simple question: does espresso really need hot water?

Our new research suggests the answer may be no.

Low energy, full strength

We have developed what we call an ultrasonic espresso: a room-temperature brewing process that uses high-frequency sound waves to extract the flavour, oils, aroma and caffeine from coffee grounds. The result is an espresso-strength coffee made in under three minutes, but needing far less energy than the conventional method.

Saving up to 75% of energy by not heating the water is a minor benefit for home users or small coffee shops. But for companies making ready-to-drink coffee products at industrial scale, it could be very significant indeed.

A concentrated room-temperature coffee could be used directly in bottled drinks, milk-based beverages or cold coffee products. It can also be shipped as a concentrate and diluted later. This would reduce not only energy use, but potentially processing time as well.

Ultrasound replaces heat

The key to the new process is ultrasound. These are sound waves above the range of human hearing.

In our system, a small metal device called a transducer presses against the side of a traditional espresso basket and makes it vibrate rapidly. Those vibrations move through the water and coffee grounds.

This creates a phenomenon known as acoustic cavitation. Tiny bubbles form and collapse in the liquid.

When these bubbles collapse near coffee particles, they produce microscopic jets and forces that act a little like scrubbing brushes. They pit and fracture the surface of the coffee grounds, helping flavour compounds, oils and caffeine move into the water much faster than they normally would at room temperature.

In other words, ultrasound helps us replace heat with mechanical energy.

Water, grind and time

This is not the same as cold brew. Cold brew is usually made by steeping coffee in cold water for 12 to 24 hours. It tends to be smooth, mellow and much less concentrated than espresso. In earlier work, we used ultrasound to speed up cold brew dramatically.

But the challenge in this project was different: could we produce something with the strength, body and intensity of espresso, without heating the water?

To do that, we adjusted several variables. Brew ratio was one of the most important: how much water we used for each gram of coffee. Too much water and the drink becomes diluted; too little and extraction becomes difficult.

Grind size also mattered. Finer grounds allowed us to extract flavour more rapidly. Finally, we tested how long the ultrasound should be applied. We found the sweet spot was about two-and-a-half to three minutes.

The taste test

Of course, making a concentrated coffee in the laboratory is one thing. The real test is whether people want to drink it.

So we ran a blind evaluation with around 100 regular coffee drinkers. They were not trained judges; they were everyday consumers who drink coffee at least once a week.

We served them four coffees in identical cups: traditional espresso, ultrasound-brewed espresso, traditional filter coffee and ultrasound-brewed filter coffee. All were freshly prepared, cooled to the same temperature and presented in random order.

For the espresso samples, participants could not reliably tell the traditional and ultrasonic versions apart. There were no significant differences in aroma, flavour, bitterness or overall liking. For filter coffee, the ultrasound version was actually preferred overall, with participants rating its bitterness more pleasantly.

Those results show espresso may not need to begin with hot water after all. By using sound waves to shake the coffee grounds, we were able to create the same richness, body and intensity, but with far less energy.

UNSW holds a patent for this technology. Francisco Trujillo is one of the inventors.

The latest data on Australian schooling shows about 81.5% of Year 10 students go on to Year 12.

This is a modest rise of 1.6 percentage points on the previous year, but figures have been largely stable since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

There has been decades of research on how to help students finish school.

Each student is of course different and will have different needs. But there are many things schools can do from Year 7 to support students to stay until Year 12.

Here are three of the most important ones.

Why it’s important to finish school

Completing Year 12 is associated with a range of positive longer-term outcomes.

These include better employment prospects, higher lifetime earnings, and stronger health and wellbeing.

It also keeps the widest range of post-school options open, from vocational training and apprenticeships to further study and direct entry into work.

Why do students leave?

The reasons students leave before Year 12 are varied and often complex.

For example, some students might be managing health challenges, navigating difficult life circumstances, or pursuing opportunities like an apprenticeship that fit their goals well.

For others, however, leaving early is shaped by experiences at school itself.

Somewhere along the way, they became disengaged, fell behind, or lost their connection to school. These are the experiences schools are best placed to influence.

Research shows there are three key areas schools can better develop now to help increase the retention numbers in the years ahead.

1. How teachers teach

It may sound obvious but one main way schools can keep students is through teaching approaches that help students learn effectively. This is because students need to feel they can succeed at school — and see themselves making progress — in order to stay engaged and connected to it.

When learning is consistently out of reach, students disengage. In contrast, when they can see themselves getting better at things, school feels worth their effort.

Our research shows effective teaching in Year 7 is connected all the way through to whether a student completes school six years later.

This type of teaching is also linked with students putting in greater effort at school and higher achievement.

What kind of teaching practices are we talking about?

One well-evidenced approach is explicit instruction where teachers clearly model new concepts and skills, guide students through examples, and gradually shift responsibility to students as they gain mastery.

As part of this, two strategies stand out.

First, reducing difficulty during initial learning. When a concept is new, break it into manageable steps and match the challenge to what students already know.

Second, give students well-organised opportunities to practise, paired with specific guidance on how to improve.

2. How the classroom works

Orderly, predictable and positive classrooms free up students to focus on learning rather than navigating disruption.

This is why classroom management is important. This is how teachers structure the classroom environment and the interactions within it so learning can happen.

In a recent study, we found students whose teachers provided strong classroom management were up to six times more likely to have high motivation, engagement, and resilience at school than students whose teachers did not.

Two strategies are particularly effective for classroom management.

First, establishing and consistently maintaining clear rules and routines is important, so students know what to expect.

Second, recognising and building on what students do well rather than only focusing on what goes wrong.

3. Student-teacher relationships

Research also tells us it’s important for teachers to build warm, respectful relationships with students.

It is not only important for retention in its own right — it also underpins the other two areas above. Strong teaching and good classroom management both depend on positive teacher-student relationships.

When students feel known and supported by their teachers, they are more willing to engage and stay connected to school.

Our research shows each relationship a student has with a teacher matters. The more positive relationships students have with their teachers — relative to negative ones — the greater their academic engagement.

Academic engagement in turn, is a key driver of school retention.

Research tells us every teacher can make a difference, and the relationships teachers build with their students could be what helps that student stay on and complete school. This is because the relationships add up — and for some students, the bond they build with one teacher in particular can be what tips the balance toward staying engaged with school.

So it is important to create conditions where every student has the chance to build genuine, positive connections with teachers. This means teachers getting to know students as individuals, showing interest in their lives beyond the classroom, and teaching in ways that feel personal and engaging.

Rebecca J. Collie receives funding from the Commonwealth Department of Education and the New South Wales Department of Education.

Andrew J. Martin receives funding from the Commonwealth Department of Education and the NSW Department of Education.

When we think of marine life, we usually picture colourful coral reefs or dense seaweed forests filled with fish and other critters. The ocean that comes to mind is the one touched by sunlight.

However, most of the ocean is not like that. By volume, roughly 95% of the ocean consists of the permanently dark, cold deep sea. Despite such hostile conditions though, there is life in the ocean’s abyss.

Deep-sea marine sponges are among the organisms that live in these mysterious dark waters. They form “gardens” that are among the largest ecosystems on the planet, some spanning thousands of square kilometres on the ocean floor. They act as ecosystem engineers, providing habitats to many other organisms living on the seafloor.

Individual sponges can also pump and filter thousands of litres of water every day through their bodies. The nutrients they release support other organisms. Yet we know remarkably little about how sponges survive, let alone thrive, in the inhospitable environment of the deep-sea.

Symbiosis with microbes is an important part of how marine sponges live. We’ve been studying deep-sea sponges to better understand life in the ocean’s depths. So far, we’ve found some sponges are packed with microorganisms that use energy from chemical reactions.

This is called chemosynthesis and is commonly found in other deep-sea organisms, such as mussels and tubeworms living in hydrothermal vents – deep-sea “hot springs”.

Our new study, published today in the journal Microbiome, shows sponges and their microbial partners also use a second strategy to make a living in the deep sea.

Two strategies, one sponge

All living organisms produce waste. Just like humans produce urine, many sponges produce ammonia as one of their waste products.

In this study, we analysed the Calyx species of deep-sea sponges from a depth of 830 metres.

About 16% of their microbial partners use the familiar chemosynthesis process. With ammonia as the energy source, they use carbon dioxide dissolved in the water to build biomass – it’s a bit like plants growing through photosynthesis from sunlight, but in the dark.

In well-lit shallow waters, many sponges and corals have photosynthetic microbes that help them build biomass from carbon dioxide. Our findings show that in the dark depths of the ocean, sponges have microbial partners that use ammonia instead of light for the same process.

The remaining 84% of microbial partners are where it gets really interesting. Instead of chemosynthesis these microbes use heterotrophy, which means consuming organic matter to generate energy and biomass (like the vast majority of animals, humans are also heterotrophs).

The problem here is that there’s little organic matter in the deep sea. Whatever falls down from the surface waters, such as dead plankton and algae, gets stripped by bacteria and small crustaceans of anything easily digestible as it sinks through the water column.

So, the little amount of organic matter that reaches the seafloor is generally poor food for the sponge itself. But, as we discovered, not necessarily for its microbial partners.

It turns out the heterotrophic microbes in Calyx sponges have lots of enzymes specialised in breaking down complex compounds, such as xylan and pectin, which make up the hard-to-digest cell walls of algae.

Feeding on these algal skeletons would allow the microbes to thrive and to transform organic molecules into nutrients their sponge host can use.

Protecting what we don’t yet understand

Our study shows that sponges and their microbial partners are complex, biogeochemical reactors. They use and recycle ammonia “urine”, carbon dioxide and hard-to-digest organics to generate biomass.

The biomass can then support the growth of other organisms, such as brittle stars and fish, in turn supporting the broader community of animals living on the dark seafloor.

Unfortunately, these ecosystems are under pressure from human activities. Deep-sea trawling physically destroys sponge gardens. Deep-sea mining, now being actively pursued for rare metals used in batteries and electronics, threatens to disrupt the deep-sea habitat in ways that might take centuries to recover.

The United Nations has recognised deep-sea sponge gardens as vulnerable marine ecosystems, a formal acknowledgement of both their ecological importance and their fragility. But recognition alone is not enough.

If we destroy these habitats before we fully understand their role in carbon transformation, then we may lose a critical piece of Earth’s carbon cycle before fully realising it was there.

Torsten Thomas receives funding from the Betty and Gordon Moore Foundation USA and the Australian Government.

Alessandro N. Garritano 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.

Following the recent announcement that Australia would acquire three submarines already in US service rather than two used submarines and one new one, AUKUS has again dominated headlines.

AUKUS is a defence capability agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. Since it was announced in 2021, it’s rarely been out of the news.

But how much of what you have heard is true?

As a former Navy officer specialising in anti-submarine warfare, I am frequently asked the same questions about AUKUS. While I can’t address everything in one article, here are the details behind some of the most common claims.

Why is Australia buying used submarines?

Australia has Collins class submarines that entered service between 1996 and 2003. Work should already be underway to replace them, but decades of delays and underfunding have left us with an ageing fleet.

Though the Collins class submarines will each go through a multi-year maintenance period extending their life, they won’t last long enough. They will need to be decommissioned before Australia can co-design, build and produce submarines here under AUKUS.

A stopgap solution is required. The purchase of three Virginia class submarines in 2032, 2035 and 2038 will provide this, and also give Australia the ability to start operating nuclear-powered submarines.

Think of it as a “crawl, walk, run” approach. The Virginias are the walk phase before we start building our own nuclear-powered submarines.

Acquiring submarines already in service reduces risk and complexity, avoids the challenges of introducing a new submarine, and removes the need for initial certification trials.

Is Australia getting a less capable submarine?

Not in any meaningful sense, though the third Virginia will be an older version than planned, so its sensors will probably be slightly less capable.

Australia will now receive three Block IV Virginia class submarines. These remain among the most capable attack submarines in the world. They carry more than 20 torpedoes and 12 Tomahawk land strike missiles.

Much of the commentary this week has suggested Australia has lost additional missile capacity because the submarines we’re receiving won’t have the “Virginia Payload Module” – a new hull section that allows the submarines to carry more missiles.

But that commentary is incorrect.

The submarine Australia was expected to receive in 2038 was never intended to have that capability.

In conflict, Australia would predominantly use these submarines in an anti-submarine and anti-ship role. Land strike missiles are not used for this and so the extra capacity isn’t essential. It’s also capability the US has said it is not willing to provide.

The main difference is the third submarine will have fewer years of life remaining than a new boat. A Virginia class submarine off the production line would normally have a 33-year life.

At Senate estimates this week, the Australian Submarine Agency said each boat will have more than 20 years of life remaining when we receive them.

Claims these submarines would only have eight years of life do not withstand scrutiny. The kind of submarines Australia will receive only started entering service in 2020.

Are we paying $368 billion for three used submarines?

The figure most often quoted for AUKUS is $368 billion. While technically correct, this figure covers costs through to 2055 including infrastructure, workforce and maintenance costs over 31 years, plus the purchase of Virginia class submarines to Australia and building our own submarines.

Of the total, about $244 billion is the projected cost, while the remaining $122.9 billion is a 50% contingency on top. This is money set aside to cover risks, cost growth and unforeseen problems. Most defence projects carry 5–10% contingency.

The Department of Defence’s 2026 Integrated Investment Program states nuclear-powered submarines will cost between $71 billion and $96 billion over the next decade.

Against projected defence funding of about $887 billion over the same period, this equates to around 8–11% of defence spending.

---

Read more: In view of Trump’s review of AUKUS, should Australia cancel the subs deal? We asked 5 experts

---

Can the US build enough submarines for Australia?

This is one of the most legitimate points of debate in the discussion.

The US reduced its production rate of submarines after the Cold War. Since 2011 it has set a goal of increasing its build rate to two submarines a year. From 2016–19 it averaged 1.9 boats a year.

According to the US Congressional Research report on Virginia class submarines, this build rate dropped off due to workforce issues during COVID and challenges associated with moving to the build of the new Block V submarine, which is 2,000 tonnes larger than the Block IV Virginia. The US is investing billions of dollars into its submarine industrial base to address this issue.

In May, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Daryl Caudle told Congress he expects Virginia production to reach two boats per year in around 2032. He previously said the US will need to get to a 2.3 production rate to get to its 2054 goal, including the sale of three Virginias to Australia. The US is presently building 1.3 a year.

The US submarine industrial base challenges are real, and will take significant effort to address. Has the US said it will not sell submarines to Australia if it doesn’t get there? No.

Is AUKUS risky?

Yes.

AUKUS is the most complex defence project in Australian history. There are risks in the US and UK industrial bases, workforce growth, infrastructure and funding. Anyone claiming otherwise is not engaging with reality.

But much has been achieved in less than five years.

Australia has established a submarine base near Perth, embedded personnel in US and UK submarine programs, commenced major infrastructure works, trained hundreds of personnel, and secured US congressional approval for the submarine transfers.

At the recent AUKUS Defence Ministers’ Meeting, all three countries stated the program remained on track. Based on the evidence available today, I agree.

This is a multi-decade program. There will be changes along the way. Not every adjustment is evidence of failure.

What happens if Australia abandons AUKUS?

Australia cannot simply walk away from AUKUS and pick another submarine off the shelf. Any alternative would require a new acquisition process, a new agreement and years of negotiation.

There is also no obvious replacement. France’s nuclear-powered submarines, for example, are built through a single shipyard and can take more than a decade to complete.

If Australia was to abandon a second submarine program in little more than a decade, this time with our closest ally, it would be hard to imagine another country lining up to partner with Australia on a future submarine project. After cancelling the French submarine program and significantly reducing other naval programs, our reputation for delivering in this area is already under pressure.

AUKUS should continue to be scrutinised. But that scrutiny should be anchored in facts. Any proposal to abandon it must also explain what replaces it and how Australia avoids a submarine capability gap.

Having spoken with officials in our partner nations, the concern raised most often is not the US or UK industrial base. It is Australian political will. As a nation, we should be mindful of that and measured in our debate.

Jennifer Parker 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.