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.

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.

At a security conference in Singapore over the weekend, the three AUKUS partners – the United States, United Kingdom and Australia – announced a tweak to their partnership that has generated quite a lot of attention in Canberra.

Australia will now receive three second-hand Virginia-class, nuclear-powered submarines in the coming years, instead of the original deal of two used vessels and one brand new sub.

Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles spun this as a welcome streamlining of the fleet that would simplify its supply chain, as well as the management and sustainment of these complex warships.

What Marles seems not to have noticed is that not all Virginia-class submarines are the same.

The new boat the US had promised would have been from Block 6, the most recent design. Instead, all of Australia’s submarines will now likely come from Block 4, which carry a much smaller weapon payload. Firepower is a measure of a fighting ship’s utility. Having the largest weapon capacity is a key ingredient for battle success.

It seems Australia has been a willing – not to say eager – victim of what is essentially a “bait and switch”.

The deal has always been unequal

The unilateral change of plans should not have come as a surprise to anyone in the Australian government.

AUKUS has always been a one-sided deal in which the US reaps the benefits while Australia accepts the risks. The agreement Australia entered into provides the US with numerous opportunities to cancel or modify the deal. Washington simply acted on what was permitted.

In addition, the AUKUS agreement allows the US president to cancel the submarine transfer at his or her whim, while Australia has no right to challenge or lobby against the decision. The current president, Donald Trump, is not known for loyalty to his allies. The fact the AUKUS deal was signed by his predecessor, Joe Biden, is likely to further reduce Trump’s level of commitment.

---

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

---

To make the US decision more of an affront, Australia has already contributed at least US$2 billion (A$2.8 billion) to the American submarine manufacturing pipeline.

The US is not building enough submarines to meet its own requirements, let alone the additional boats it has promised to Australia. The Australian cash contribution was meant to improve the US rate of production so Canberra would be able to get one or two of the latest boats. Australia’s investment has turned out to be a very poor one, and there are no refunds.

The Australian government has also misinterpreted what the US hopes to get out of the deal.

For the Americans, selling Australia any subs at all makes little sense in the contest with China for supremacy in the Western Pacific. It just reduces America’s own military capability.

The key element in AUKUS for the US has always been the submarine base that Australia is building at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia. This is where the US Navy plans to operate its submarines. The US has already announced the establishment of the support elements that will administer and sustain these warships.

As we can see now, Australia has virtually no leverage to make the submarine deal more equitable.

The Americans know that Australian strategic policy since before the Vietnam War has been to demonstrate relevance to the US. Australia has not hesitated to rush into US-led wars – even those of dubious legality – in order to show loyalty. If this was a poker game, the Australians would be playing with most of their cards face-up.

What can Australia do to gain more agency?

Unfortunately, not a lot. The US holds all the important cards. Australia will likely continue to be a dutiful ally in the hope the US will deliver what it has promised. But there are no guarantees.

The only vulnerability the US has is its desire to base its submarines at Stirling. If Australia was to halt construction or restrict US access to the base, it would be seen as tantamount to cancelling the deal. The price Australia would pay for its temerity would be an enormous loss of respect and favour in Washington – the very thing a long succession of governments has sought to boost.

Australia’s defence policy has seen our country ensnared in a trap of its own making. There are lessons our political leaders can hopefully learn.

The first is to accept the wisdom of former UK Prime Minister Lord Palmerston’s adage that countries have no eternal allies, just eternal interests.

The second is to recognise that an unbalanced alliance leads to servility, not partnership.

The final lesson is to develop faith in Australia’s ability to protect itself rather than turning to an ally of increasingly dubious reliability.

Albert Palazzo 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.

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.

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.

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 United States is threatening to impose trade tariffs of up to 12.5% on 60 countries, including Australia, over their inaction on forced and slave labour worldwide.

On Wednesday, US trade representative Jamieson Greer said:

The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labor is unacceptable.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responded that a new tariff on exports to the US was “unjustified”, as Australia has “robust, comprehensive and world-leading legislation addressing forced labour and modern slavery”.

Who’s right? And are the US claims about other nations turning a blind eye to forced and slave labour – where a person is either forced to work, or even owned by someone else – actually true?

Which countries could face new tariffs

In a new report released by the US Trade Representative, 54 countries – including Australia, China, New Zealand and the United Kingdom – were found to have:

failed to impose a legal prohibition on the importation of goods produced wholly or in part with forced labour and to effectively enforce such a prohibition.

All of those countries face a proposed 12.5% tariff on their exports to the US.

Another six economies – including Canada, the European Union and Indonesia – face lower 10% tariffs. They were seen to have done more overall, but failed to effectively enforce their own laws.

Forced labour is a form of modern slavery, defined under international law as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily”.

This definition is consistent with an almost century old US law, Section 307 of the US Tariff Act of 1930. It’s now being used to legally justify this latest round of tariffs.

The US has a strong history of taking legislative action against forced labour. Section 307 prohibits imports of goods mined, produced or manufactured by forced labour.

In 2022, the US also established the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, prohibiting goods being imported from China’s Xinjiang Uyghur region, where there are “credible” allegations of widespread forced labour.

‘We get one ruling, we do it a different way’

These proposed forced labour tariffs appear to be less about labour rights and more about trade.

This latest move comes after US courts blocked US President Donald Trump’s sweeping international tariffs announced over the past year. That prompted Trump to pledge: “We get one ruling, and we do it a different way.”

As former Australian ambassador to the US Joe Hockey said about the new forced labour tariff today, “America is running out of money and they need to get it from somewhere”.

These tariffs are still subject to public consultations over the next month.

While using tariffs as a way to strengthen action on forced labour is questionable, there is some substance behind the US allegations.

41,000 people in Australia alone

An estimated 50 million people around the world – and rising – are trapped in modern slavery, more than half of those in forced labour.

Australia is estimated to have more than 41,000 people working as forced labourers or other forms of modern slavery, including child marriages.

Reports to the Australian Federal Police of human trafficking have nearly doubled in the past five years.

Australia’s laws are not world leading

In 2018, Australia established its Modern Slavery Act. This law was hailed as a critical first step in acting on modern slavery.

The law requires large business to report annually on the risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains.

Since 2019, more 17,000 modern slavery statements from more than 27,000 businesses have been lodged on Australia’s modern slavery registry.

Yet in 2023, an independent report found:

there is no hard evidence that the Modern Slavery Act in its early years has yet caused meaningful change for people living in conditions of modern slavery.

That’s not surprising: there is no enforcement built into the law.

What more needs to be done?

If Australia does want to have “world-leading” laws – and a stronger case to argue for lower US tariffs – what needs to change?

While the Modern Slavery Act has raised awareness of the problem in Australian boardrooms, it is not improving the working conditions of supply chain workers, here at home and overseas.

So Australia needs to move quickly to strengthen that law with enforcement, and establish a forced labour import ban.

A 2023 review of the Modern Slavery Act recommended penalties for companies failing to comply with reporting requirements and the introduction of a human rights “due diligence obligation” – similar to European Union laws and emerging requirements in South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia. This sees companies working to reduce human rights harms not just in their own factories, but through their suppliers’ suppliers too.

The Albanese government partially accepted some of the 2023 report recommendations, including the need for penalties. Three years on, it’s failed to take serious action.

The Australian government should also establish a forced labour import ban, like one the EU passed two years ago, now being phased in across all 27 member states. This would stop specific goods suspected of being produced with forced labour at the border.

Whether these proposed tariffs come into force or not, this new US forced labour investigation could actually do some good.

Right now, millions of people are working in dangerous, dehumanising conditions to make goods sold in Australia and worldwide. It’s long overdue to do more to stop it.

Justine Nolan 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.

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.

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.

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 Australian government has launched its largest-ever lawsuit, suing American chemical giant 3M and its local subsidiary. The government is seeking A$2 billion in damages for the past and future cost of investigating and managing “forever chemicals” contamination from firefighting foams on almost 30 Defence sites.

The government alleges the company withheld internal testing that showed these foams did significant environmental damage. 3M has vowed to defend itself.

What’s interesting is the scope. State-owned facilities, such as public water utilities, are unlikely to be included. The case also avoids any mention of possible impacts on human health. This is at least in part because the impacts of forever chemicals are a live topic of scientific debate and inquiry.

What is the case based on?

Forever chemicals are properly known as PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. They are also known as “forever chemicals” because they take a very long time to break down in the environment.

The Commonwealth case focuses on the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foams manufactured by 3M and used on Defence bases from the 1970s until the mid 2000s. These aqueous film-forming foams have been slowly phased out in Australia.

Several communities near affected Defence facilities have sued the Commonwealth, with class actions and other claims amounting to around $400 million in legal settlements.

Until now, the government hasn’t sought to recover these costs, but is doing so now to remediate the sites, pay out class actions and cover future remediation.

While full court documents are not yet public, multiple government statements and the court file suggest the claim is mainly based on the Australian Consumer Law.

The Commonwealth may argue 3M engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by failing to disclose what it knew about the environmental risks of these firefighting foams.

In the United States, many state attorneys-general have sought to recover clean-up and monitoring costs from manufacturers allegedly promoting PFAS products as safe, despite knowing their risks.

How likely is a settlement?

While both sides appear to have adopted a firm public position committing to the case, this isn’t guaranteed. Large lawsuits like this frequently reach a settlement before trial.

This is because reaching a settlement allows parties to agree on compensation without a judicial finding of liability.

Australian courts encourage alternative dispute resolution, which can enable settlements and reduce costs and uncertainty, while allowing defendants to avoid formal findings of wrongdoing. Class actions against Defence have all settled before trial.

In the US, municipal governments and water authorities sued 3M and other PFAS manufacturers for selling products they knew would contaminate the environment, seeking payments to “help clean up the mess that they created”. These claims became part of a larger case.

In response, 3M agreed to pay about A$14 billion (US$10 billion) to assist with testing and treatment costs while denying liability.

Settlements have also been reached in personal injury litigation, including one against another manufacturer, DuPont, worth A$953 (US$670) million across 3,550 claims.

What’s in and what’s out of the case?

The proceedings have been framed as an effort to recover past and future costs from almost 30 Defence sites.

Yet PFAS contamination isn’t limited to these sites. Other sites of concern include state-operated firefighting facilities, industrial sites and public water supplies. This case is unlikely to directly address those locations.

It’s not clear whether any funds recovered would support measures sought by affected communities, such as routine blood testing or long-term medical monitoring. Residents of Katherine in the Northern Territory have questioned whether any potential settlement would compensate losses not covered by earlier class actions. Many civilian and military firefighters exposed to these PFAS foams for decades have not been involved in compensation schemes or major litigation.

Notably, the case doesn’t mention any possible effects on human health. Assistant Minister for Defence Peter Khalil has cited advice from health authorities that evidence of health impacts from forever chemicals remains limited.

In 2023, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization found one forever chemical, PFOA, was carcinogenic. But there are many different types of PFAS. The WHO is now conducting a systematic review of key PFAS compounds and health outcomes, such as cancer and reproductive toxicity.

The PFAS class actions against Defence similarly excluded personal injury claims, focusing instead on property, business and cultural losses. Even so, evidence about possible health effects was raised because contamination affected property values.

It will be interesting to see whether the Commonwealth can separate environmental contamination from health concerns, while maintaining its position that evidence of human health impacts remains limited.

What’s next?

If the lawsuit goes to a trial and the government succeeds in its claim, it would likely open the door to further claims against 3M by fire services, water suppliers and other affected groups.

This could also happen if the claim is settled out of court.

Regardless of the result, more legal action and advocacy is likely from communities affected by PFAS around Australia.

Cameron Holley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP260103099).

Carley Bartlett receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP260103099). Her PhD was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program scholarship.

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.