As social media becomes a central part of young people’s lives, concerns are growing about its impact on their mental health. Yet public debates and measures tend to treat adolescents as one homogeneous group. We frequently ignore the fact that social media use does not affect all young people in the same way – nor does it have the same impacts on their wellbeing.

In a recent chapter of the World Happiness Report 2026, published by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network in partnership with the University of Oxford, we have examined how problematic social media use relates to the wellbeing of adolescents from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

We looked at 43 countries spanning six broad regions – Anglo-Celtic, Caucasus-Black Sea, Central-Eastern Europe, Mediterranean, Nordic, and Western Europe – covering mainly European countries and their immediate neighbouring areas.

Using data from over 330,000 young people, we found a clear and consistent pattern: higher levels of problematic social media use – that is, compulsive or uncontrolled engagement with social media – are associated with poorer wellbeing.

Teenagers who report more problematic use tend to experience more psychological complaints, such as feeling low, nervous, irritable, or having difficulty sleeping. They also have lower life satisfaction, a measure of how positively they evaluate their lives as a whole.

This pattern appears across all countries in our study, but its strength varies from one country to another. It is particularly pronounced in Anglo-Celtic countries such as the UK and Ireland, while it is comparatively weaker in the Caucasus-Black Sea region.

Socioeconomic background matters

The story does not end with geography. Globally, teenagers from less advantaged backgrounds tend to be more vulnerable to the negative consequences of problematic social media use than their more advantaged peers.

This means socioeconomic status – the material and social resources available to a household, such as income and living conditions – actively shapes the risks and opportunities that young people experience as a result of online environments.

Interestingly, these inequalities are especially visible when we look at life satisfaction. Differences between socioeconomic groups are smaller when it comes to psychological complaints, but much clearer and more consistent for how adolescents evaluate their lives overall.

One likely reason is that life satisfaction is more sensitive to social comparisons. Social media exposes young people to constant benchmarks – what others have, do, and achieve – which can amplify differences in perceived opportunities and resources.

At the same time, these patterns are not identical everywhere. For instance, socioeconomic differences in psychological complaints tend to be modest in most regions including continental European countries such as France, Austria or Belgium, but are more clearly observed in Anglo-Celtic countries such as Scotland and Wales.

In contrast, socioeconomic gaps in life satisfaction appear across most regions, although they tend to be weaker in Mediterranean countries such as Italy, Cyprus and Greece.

A growing problem

We also examined how these patterns have evolved over time. Between 2018 and 2022, the link between problematic social media use and poor adolescent wellbeing became stronger.

This suggests that the risks linked to problematic use may have intensified in recent years, possibly reflecting the growing role of digital technologies in young people’s daily lives, particularly during and after the Covid-19 pandemic.

Importantly, this intensification has affected teenagers across socioeconomic groups in broadly similar ways in most regions. In other words, while inequalities remain they have not widened over this period.

Leer más: Social media addiction disrupts the sleep, moods and social activities of teens and young adults

No one-size-fits-all solution

While public debates about social media and mental health often treat adolescents as a single demographic group, our results show a more complex reality. Problematic social media use is linked to poorer wellbeing across countries, but its effects are shaped by social realities. They vary depending on where young people live and what resources are available to them.

Not all teenagers experience the digital world in the same way, and not all are equally equipped to cope with its pressures. Recognising this is essential for designing policies that are not only effective, but also equitable, ensuring that interventions reach those adolescents who are most vulnerable to digital risks.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

Roger Fernandez-Urbano receives funding from the Spanish Government’s Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities and the State Research Agency through Ramón y Cajal (RYC) grant. Roger is a member of the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS).

Maria Rubio-Cabañez's involvement in this research was supported by the DIGINEQ (Digital Time Use, Adolescent Well-Being and Social Inequalities) project (Grant agreement ID: 101089233), funded by the European Research Council Consolidator Grant.

Pablo Gracia's involvement in this research was supported by the DIGINEQ (Digital Time Use, Adolescent Well-Being and Social Inequalities) project (Grant agreement ID: 101089233), funded by the European Research Council Consolidator Grant.

The UK now protects 38% of its seas by law. Yet the government’s own assessment shows that our oceans are not thriving.

In April, the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra) published its latest assessment of the health of our seas: the UK marine strategy report.

Of the 15 components of ocean health assessed, only two clearly meet the standard of good environmental status (GES) – the benchmark for healthy seas that the UK committed to achieving by 2020. The other 13 are failing, uncertain or getting worse.

This is despite the UK now having 377 marine protected areas (MPAs), sections of sea designated by law to protect wildlife and habitats. Protected areas are important, but the detail behind that impressive-looking map is sobering.

Marine mammals, such as Whales, dolphins, and porpoises are not judged to have achieved good status. A key reason for this is bycatch: they are being accidentally caught and killed in fishing nets meant for other species.

Seabird populations are declining, with fewer chicks surviving each breeding season as the fish they depend on become harder to find.

The types of fish living in our seas are changing for the worse, with the biggest cod disappearing while smaller species take their place.

The entire food web is under strain. The microscopic organisms that underpin ocean life, called plankton, are becoming less productive as seas warm, and that loss ripples upward through every species that depends on them.

On the seabed, fragile habitats such as seagrass meadows continue to be damaged by pollution and disturbance from shipping and boat activity.

Our seas are getting noisier, more polluted with heavy metals, and littered with waste on the seafloor.

There are some bright spots. The numbers of grey seals are stable or increasing. Beach litter is declining. Commercial fisheries have shown modest improvement, with the share of fish stocks being fished at sustainable levels rising, though it is still fewer than half.

But these gains are outweighed by the broader trajectory.

Why MPAs are not enough

Protected areas play an important role, but they cannot address the full range of pressures our seas face. Drawing a boundary on a nautical chart does not stop warm water crossing it. It does not filter out the nutrient runoff flowing in from agricultural land and overwhelmed sewage systems. It does not silence the increasing underwater noise from shipping and industrial activity. It does not prevent whales, dolphins and porpoises from being caught in fishing gear that operates both inside and outside these boundaries.

Climate change is perhaps the telling example. Sea temperatures around the UK have risen by roughly 0.3°C per decade over the past 40 years, with extreme underwater heatwaves becoming more common. The report acknowledges that this is already altering marine ecosystems, affecting everything from plankton at the base of the food chain to the distribution of fish species. No MPA can insulate its inhabitants from a warming ocean.

Land-based pollution is another pressure that flows straight through protected area boundaries. The report identifies food production and sewage treatment as major causes of nutrient enrichment, with increasing nitrogen inputs entering coastal waters. Heavy metals from legacy mine contamination, particularly in Wales, continue to pollute the marine environment. Contaminants have not met good status because lead, mercury, copper and zinc remain above environmental thresholds.

What ocean recovery actually requires

None of this is an argument against marine protected areas. Well-managed MPAs are an essential tool, and recent proposals to ban bottom trawling in some protected sites are welcome.

But if we are serious about ocean recovery, we need to tackle root causes. That includes reducing agricultural and urban runoff and sewage discharges into rivers and coastal waters. The climate crisis is reshaping our marine ecosystems from the bottom of the food chain upwards so tackling greenhouse emissions is a key step. Managing underwater noise from an increasingly industrialised seascape is essential. And enforcing meaningful fisheries management will reduce bycatch and protect whole ecosystems, not just commercial stocks.

The government’s own environmental watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, has reached a similar conclusion. In September 2025, it identified possible serious failures by Defra to comply with environmental law in relation to the missed GES target, and launched a formal investigation. It is now asking the government to produce an evidenced, resourced and time-bound delivery plan.

When even the body set up to hold government to account on the environment is questioning whether the law has been broken, it is hard to argue that the current approach is working.

The UK was supposed to have achieved good environmental status in our seas by 2020. Six years past that deadline, this report shows we are still far from it. We cannot afford to let the percentage of protected areas on a map be a substitute for the hard and messy work of actually making our oceans healthy.

Heidi McIlvenny receives funding from the National Environment Research Council, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and Ulster Wildlife. She is affiliated with the IOLN, RSPB, National Trust, and Ulster Wildlife.

It’s revision season. If you’re a student preparing for upcoming exams, you might be tempted to put aside sport or other physical activity for a while in order to dedicate more time to learning.

But exercise is extremely important for academic success. Make time to be active. It may well help you revise better.

Doing some physical activity improves our ability to think and process information. My research with colleagues has shown this to be true for both primary school and secondary school pupils.

In fact, when we consider the different types of cognition, such as perception, memory and attention, the domain where physical activity has the greatest benefit is executive function. This is our ability to carry out complex, higher-level thinking. It’s the domain that is linked to academic performance.

Research has found that the beneficial effects of physical activity on cognition last for around 45 minutes. This means it is important to have regular activity breaks to maximise the boost exercise gives to revision.

You could try scheduling your revision in hour-long blocks: 45 minutes of work followed by 10-15 minutes of physical activity. This could be walking, running, body weight exercises such as squats, or even some stretching.

Perhaps most importantly, though, find an activity that you like. You’ll then be more likely to incorporate it into your revision routine. So this could be a ten-minute walk after an hour of revision, a quick five-minute break for some squats or press-ups every half hour – or a morning swim or lunchtime run.

If you can, try to go outside for these breaks. My colleagues and I have recently carried out research showing that outdoor physical activity is more beneficial than indoor physical activity for cognition.

This was true for attention, memory and executive function, which we assessed using a battery of computerised tests. So, get up, take a break, get outside, get active and boost your revision.

You can also use the boost that exercise gives you on exam days. Perhaps take a pre-exam walk – it might help calm any nerves, too.

There are many possible reasons why physical activity can boost your revision. For example, it can increase blood flow to the brain and cause the release of chemicals called neurotransmitters – the tiny signalling molecules which help our brains work more effectively.

It’s vital that schools keep in mind how important physical activity is during exam season, too. One challenge here is that, in many schools, the sports hall also becomes the exam hall. This is understandable given space requirements.

Rather than limiting opportunities for PE, though, it could seen as an opportunity to take school physical activity outside, and for teachers to find innovative ways to help their students get the extra cognition boost that comes from being outdoors.

It’s key that schools, parents and students themselves don’t stop prioritising keeping active, even when there’s so much revision to cram in. Of course, there is always a balance to be found, but physical activity boosts our cognition, revision and learning. Why would we not want to make the most of this?

I often use the term “unleashing the power of physical activity”. I encourage you to do just this during revision and exam season. Whether you (or your child, your class, or any young people you know) are revising for GCSEs, A levels, university exams or any other tests, the same applies – stay smart, and stay active.

Simon Cooper has received funding from the Waterloo Foundation, Rosetrees Trust, Stoneygate Trust, Education Endowment Foundation and Sport England.

Artificial intelligence is transforming our world and financial services are no exception. AI is reshaping the personal banking sector but where does it currently stand on gender parity, transparency and fairness?

When someone applies for a loan today, there is a growing chance that no human ever reads their application. A data-driven algorithm decides whether they qualify, how much they can borrow, and how risky they are considered, often in a matter of seconds and without explanation, quietly shaping financial opportunities in ways most people never see but feel in their everyday lives.

These systems are usually presented as neutral tools: faster than people, more consistent, less prone to prejudice.

In a sector long criticised for opacity and bias, that promise is appealing and frequently echoed in industry and policy debates. But that promise rests on a fragile assumption, rarely made explicit, that the data these systems learn from reflects everyone’s lives equally.

A recent report by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, based on fieldwork in five member states, examined how high-risk AI systems are governed under the EU AI Act in areas such as employment, public benefits and law enforcement. It found a striking gap between legal ambition and practice: while risks of discrimination are broadly acknowledged, providers and deployers often lack the tools, expertise and guidance to assess them systematically. Self-assessments tend to be inconsistent, and oversight remains thin.

This is an important issue. When the data feeding these systems fails to capture the reality of women’s financial lives with the same depth and accuracy as men’s, the result is not just a technical shortcoming but a structural distortion, one that shapes who gets access to credit, on what terms, and with what long-term consequences. For AI-driven finance to be fair, women must first be “visible” in the data on which these systems rely.

Algorithms do not judge fairness or ask whether an outcome makes sense, but estimate what is most likely to be correct based on the data they are given, drawing patterns and projecting them forward. When data is incomplete or distorted, the system’s conclusions rest on shaky assumptions from the start.

If women are underrepresented, poorly measured, or never analysed separately from men, the system cannot see unequal outcomes, and what it cannot see, it cannot correct. Bias is simply carried forward and made routine.

This dynamic is easy to miss when discussions stay at the level of models and regulation, but its effects become clear as soon as automated systems are observed in practice. Across different countries, evidence shows how quickly inequality can be embedded in algorithmic decisions, not because systems are designed to discriminate, but because they faithfully reproduce the distortions already present in the data they learn from.

Kenya offers a telling illustration. According to published studies, a widely used digital lending algorithm consistently offered women smaller loans than men, in some cases by more than a third, despite stronger repayment performance. The system did not single women out deliberately: it simply learned from data shaped by long-standing social and economic disparities, and then applied those patterns at scale.

What matters in this example is not Kenya itself, but what the case makes visible. The algorithm did exactly what it was designed to do, learning from past behaviour and applying those patterns consistently, yet without the ability to distinguish between women’s and men’s outcomes, there was no way to detect that inequality was being reproduced in real time. The problem was not automation, but blindness.

How can finance overcome the gender blind spot?

That is where sex-disaggregated data becomes essential. By sorting financial data by gender, regulators, financial institutions, and technology designers can uncover the impacts of automated systems, identify who has access to finance, and pinpoint areas where outcomes begin to diverge. Without that visibility, gender gaps remain hidden, and hidden gaps have a habit of becoming permanent. In digital finance, data is “a girl’s best friend”, not as a slogan, but as a practical condition for accountability.

Most financial institutions already record a customer’s gender as part of basic identification. On paper, the information is there, embedded in routine reporting and basic customer records. In practice, however, recording a variable is not the same as using it. In many countries, the sex of the customer appears in databases but is never analysed, reported, or monitored by supervisors, including in core supervisory frameworks such as prudential reporting. Too often, the data already exists, but it is collected, filed away, and then quietly ignored. The problem lies not in what can be done, but in what is done.

Fairer finance: developing countries are leading the way

The picture looks very different in countries often assumed to have fewer resources. In parts of Latin America and Africa, regulators have required sex-disaggregated reporting for years and regularly publish data on gender gaps in finance.

In Chile, financial authorities have tracked gender differences in loans and deposits for more than two decades, publishing regular sex-disaggregated financial statistics.

In Mexico, regulators combine bank data with national household surveys to understand how women and men use financial services and how they perform as borrowers.

That visibility has had practical consequences. In Mexico, supervisory data showed that women’s loans were smaller but less risky, evidence that fed into changes in loan loss provisioning rules.

In Chile, the data revealed that equal access to accounts did not translate into equal outcomes in savings or insurance, prompting more targeted policy responses. Once these gaps became visible, they became far harder to ignore.

Seen from this perspective, the situation in many high-income economies looks less like a technical lag and more like an institutional hesitation. In much of Europe, gender data remains voluntary or fragmented despite advanced data infrastructures, a failure not of technical capacity but of institutional choice. My upcoming policy paper “Data Are a Girl’s Best Friends: Tackling Digital Financial Inequality Through Sex‑Disaggregated Data”, due to be published in May explores this.

As artificial intelligence becomes more deeply embedded in financial decision-making, that choice becomes harder to defend. At a time when Europe is implementing the EU AI Act and debating how to regulate algorithmic decision-making in finance, the absence of systematic gender data raises a basic question: how can fairness be monitored if the data needed to detect inequality is never analysed?

Making women visible in the data is not symbolic. Without it, fair finance is little more than a claim.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

Eliana Canavesio est membre de Volt Europa.

Every few years, media comes alive with discussion and debate around the use of technology in pop music, often focused on that most personal of instruments – the human voice.

Vocal manipulation is nothing new. It is ubiquitous and fundamental to pop music production – from self-harmonising on records in the 1950s, to autotune technology in the 90s and now millisecond precise editing, combining hundreds of individual vocal performances at the syllable level.

Generative AI is now prevalent in music as well. The use of platforms such as Suno are hugely popular. Suno can clone a voice within minutes. This can then be used to automatically generate a song with your voice, no matter how in tune or technically capable it originally was.

It can also take existing voices and remap them to other tunes. For example, take this mashup (below) of Cotton Eye Joe, “sung” by a digital Amy Winehouse.

But with the advent of this technology, is there a threshold of achievement before the individual voice is manipulated so much it is effectively removed altogether?

Here are six songs that exemplify how evolving technologies have changed the human voice since the 1950s.

1. Buddy Holly – Words of Love (1957)

The technique of double tracking takes two separate recordings of the voice and plays them together.

This simple technique, only achievable with the creative application of advances in recording technology in the 50s, gives the impression of a “thicker” vocal.

In Words of Love, Buddy Holly went one step further and harmonised with himself. It is a technique that is still used in modern production, by pioneering musicians like Imogen Heap.

2. The Beatles – When I’m 64 (1967)

When I’m 64 features an example of pitch manipulation. It’s done by changing the playback speed of the tape the vocal was recorded onto.

The tape is sped up slightly to give a higher pitched and “frail” sound – signifying the 64-year-old man.

Prince often used this technique. You can hear it in songs like Housequake (1987) on the Sign o’ the Times album.

Read more: The artist formerly known as Camille – Prince’s lost album ‘comes out’

3. Kraftwerk – Autobahn (1974)

The vocal statement as this track kicks in sounds robotic. That is due to the use of a Vocoder machine.

The Vocoder combines the human voice with a synthesiser, creating a strange, futuristic effect.

Daft Punk’s Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger (2001) is another example of this technology.

4. Milli Vanilli – Girl You Know It’s True (1988)

Milli Vanilli is perhaps one of the more controversial examples. That’s because in Girl You know It’s True, the vocals were not performed by the artists themselves. Instead, other anonymous singers were used to lay down the vocals for the albums and the two stars mimed. It caused an uproar when the truth came out.

While not strictly a technique, this is a key pivot point where music is commodified beyond the song into a wider package. The MTV era moved backing track performances to the foreground, as artists – especially pop artists – began to mime to the “perfect” recorded music.

This in turn led to protest performances on shows like the UK’s Top of the Pops, from artists like Oasis who played up to the fact they weren’t singing live.

It also caused embarrassment for singer Ashlee Simpson on Saturday Night Live in 2004 when her lip-synching was revealed as the wrong track played out.

5. Cher – Believe (1998)

Believe was one of the first mainstream examples of using autotune technology as an effect, rather than its intended use of bringing an otherwise out of tune vocal into tune.

The verses and pre-choruses of this track are where this takes place.

This was the catalyst that has led on to autotune being a valid production technique. Its use is exemplified by artists like Charli XCX.

6. Ariana Grande – 7 Rings (2019)

Extreme editing of vocals is achievable in modern music software. We are a long way away from literally taking a razor blade to tape to combine one or two vocal performances, as would have been the norm in the late 50s and 60s.

Nowadays we can edit beyond the individual syllable, and it is common practice to do so, to create the “perfect” performance.

Read more: The science behind Ariana Grande’s vocal metamorphosis

In this example, a stylistic choice has been made to remove the biological necessity of breathing – a technical achievement in vocal layering and processing. There are many other vocal processing effects going on as well, but the minimal breathing is notable.

Grande is also know for using Imogen Heap’s MiMu Gloves to play with her vocals by controlling the sound through hand gestures.

Too much tech?

Artists like Grande use technology creatively. But the use of autotune in particular is becoming standard across recorded, and sometimes even live performance.

It has been argued by artists like Justin Hawkins that many singers sound the way they do precisely because they are not perfect and can’t sing exactly in tune. The character and the nuance of who they are lies in between the tones and microtones.

More sophisticated techniques in production, either live or recorded, will continue to develop, now aided by AI. These developments will challenge ideas of authenticity, creative ethics, artistry and ownership.

But it is my hope that artists and musicians rise to this challenge and discover new creative possibilities, sparking new and unheard sonic textures and musical genres. All the while retaining that most fundamental component of creativity – humanity.

Luke Harrison 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.

What people see on screen can shape what they do off it. When actors such as James Dean and Marlon Brando lit cigarettes in 1950s rebel films, smoking came to signify cool, defiance and desire for an entire generation.

Among 12- to 17-year-olds in the US, smoking initiation rose from about 20% in the early 1950s to roughly 35% to 40% by the mid-1960s, according to retrospective data from national surveys. Screen media do not simply reflect society. They can also influence how people think about health, risk and behaviour.

Film and television reach vast audiences, embedding health-related behaviours in dramatic storylines. Medical dramas such as Grey’s Anatomy and ER have brought hospital life into living rooms around the world, shaping public ideas about medicine and, for some viewers, even inspiring careers in healthcare.

Sometimes films become accidental public health educators. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2011 film Contagion surged in popularity as viewers returned to it for insight into viral spread, quarantine and contact tracing. Its depiction of outbreak control closely mirrored real public health responses, reinforcing messages about handwashing and physical distancing, as described in this report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the leading US national public health agency. When storytelling aligns with science, entertainment can improve public understanding of health risks.

But screen influence can also be harmful. Bollywood has long shaped popular culture across south Asia, and iconic films in the 1990s and early 2000s often presented smoking and drinking as stylish, casual and glamorous. These portrayals are not trivial. Research suggests that adolescents heavily exposed to tobacco imagery in Indian films are roughly twice as likely to experiment with tobacco as those with lower exposure.

Global evidence shows similar patterns. A systematic review found that adolescents who frequently see smoking in movies are significantly more likely to start smoking themselves. Despite growing awareness of the issue, tobacco imagery remains common: more than half of major box-office films released in 2024 included some form of tobacco depiction. Anti-smoking warnings shown before films can reduce pro-smoking attitudes slightly, but repeated on-screen smoking scenes often have a stronger effect.

Alcohol follows a similar pattern. Teen films often frame drinking as harmless fun while downplaying addiction, injury and long-term health consequences. Studies link heavy exposure to these portrayals with earlier and riskier alcohol use among adolescents. More recently, streaming series have helped make casual vaping seem socially routine, reinforcing the idea that e-cigarettes are acceptable and relatively harmless.

Screen storytelling shapes more than substance use. Hollywood’s beauty ideals, centred on thin bodies, flawless skin and effortless glamour, can distort body image, especially among teenage girls. A striking example occurred in Fiji after western television arrived in the mid-1990s. Within three years, self-induced vomiting to control weight had risen from 0% to 11.3% among adolescent girls, while the proportion showing high levels of disordered eating attitudes rose from 12.7% to 29.2%. In interviews, some girls explicitly linked their interest in weight loss to television characters.

Some portrayals carry even greater risks. Research shows that graphic depictions of suicide in films and television dramas can trigger short-term increases in similar behaviour among vulnerable viewers. These concerns have prompted growing collaboration between mental health experts and entertainment producers to encourage safer storytelling.

Yet screen media can also improve health understanding. The World Health Organization has long supported entertainment-education, in which health messages are woven into dramas and soap operas. In parts of Africa and Asia, television narratives addressing HIV prevention, maternal health and malaria have increased clinic visits, testing uptake and awareness. In Ghana, culturally relevant health films have encouraged women to attend cervical cancer screening and antenatal care.

Read more: Soap operas can deliver effective health education to young people – new research

Some films have also helped shift public attitudes. In 1993, Philadelphia humanised the AIDS epidemic, helping reduce stigma and foster empathy towards people living with HIV. In India, the 2007 film Taare Zameen Par helped destigmatise dyslexia and encouraged schools to take learning difficulties more seriously. Hollywood blockbusters such as Outbreak have heightened awareness about infectious disease threats and preparedness.

Young audiences may be especially responsive to these messages. Children and teenagers spend hours consuming films and streaming content, often absorbing fictional lifestyles as cues about what is normal, attractive or desirable.

Creative media can also support wellbeing in less obvious ways. In my own research exploring online dance sessions for people with pulmonary fibrosis, a chronic lung disease, participants exercised to familiar Hollywood songs and simple choreography. The programme improved mood and engagement while offering modest health benefits, showing that film, music and movement can be harnessed positively.

Film-makers may not think of themselves as health educators, yet their work can shape real-world people’s beliefs and behaviours. A single scene can glamorise smoking or reckless drinking. It can also reduce stigma, encourage people to seek help, or make complex health information easier to understand.

Films are shaped by the societies that produce them, but they shape society in return. The next blockbuster may aim only to entertain. Even so, the story it tells may subtly influence how audiences think about their bodies, their habits and their health.

Vikram Niranjan receives funding from New Foundations, Research Ireland for a research about dance as an exercise.

In an interview with NBC News in January 2026, Donald Trump said: “Maga is me. Maga loves everything I do.” Until recently, this statement was true. But over the past several months, cracks have begun to appear in the loyalty of the US president’s “Make America Great Again” base.

Two of the movement’s most prominent figures – former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson – have voiced their discontent with the leader they previously lavished with unconditional support.

Greene’s falling out with Trump was rooted in her advocacy for releasing the investigative files related to late child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But it also centred on her discomfort with US support for Israel and a sense that Trump had abandoned his “America first” campaign promises.

In December 2025, Greene told CNN that “the dam is breaking” on Trump’s grip over the Republican party. As an example, she pointed to the 13 Republicans who voted with Democrats that month to overturn an executive order that allowed Trump to fire federal employees. Greene resigned from the House of Representatives in January.

Carlson’s more recent break with Trump was equally dramatic. “I don’t hate Trump,” he told the Wall Street Journal in an interview released on April 25. “I hate this war [in Iran] and the direction this US government is taking.” Carlson went so far as to apologise to the public for “misleading” them into voting for Trump in 2024.

In a week when an attempt to assassinate Trump is once again headline news, we are reminded of Carlson’s take on a previous attempt on the US president’s life in 2024. Carlson had invoked “divine intervention” to explain Trump’s survival of that attempt, declaring “something bigger is going on here”.

At that point, the president had religious-right elites firmly on his side. This fervour has dissipated in recent times. But are Greene and Carlson representative of a broader problem for the Maga movement, or are they just a pair of high-profile defections and nothing more?

Putting ‘America first’

The grievances and concerns outlined by Greene and Carlson are real. When Trump ran for president in 2016, he broke with Republican orthodoxy by denouncing the Iraq war as a catastrophic mistake. He promised to extract the US from costly foreign wars and put America ahead of global policing commitments.

His first-term record was somewhat mixed, but the key takeaway was that no new major wars were initiated. On the 2024 campaign trail, Trump repeated these earlier pledges. He said he would end the Ukraine war within 24 hours and keep the US out of new conflicts. Trump has clearly reneged on these commitments.

The Iran war is broadly unpopular with the US electorate. Polls show that more people are against the war than support it. On average, 15% more people oppose than back it, and in some recent surveys that gap is even bigger, with up to 27% more people against than in favour. About 75% of US adults also now describe the economy, which is being affected by higher prices, as “very” or “somewhat” poor.

This dissatisfaction is visible among Republicans voters, though probably not to an extent that suggests support for Trump is in danger of imminent collapse. Recent polling by the Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicates that, while dropping by 13 percentage points compared to a year ago, 38% of Republican voters still “strongly” approve of Trump’s presidency.

At the same time, there are some signs that Trump’s core Maga base remains largely steadfast in its support, despite the very vocal dissent from some. The same poll found that roughly 90% of Americans who self-identify as “Maga Republicans” approve of Trump’s overall job performance. Another survey by NBC suggests that 87% of these people currently approve of his handling of the war in Iran.

While these surveys are unlikely to capture the full range of sentiment within the Maga movement, they still indicate that Trump retains a solid core of support from members of this group. However, if the conflict drags on and economic pain deepens, the room for elite dissatisfaction to percolate down to the base is likely to widen.

Presidential ambitions

There may be other reasons explaining why Carlson, in particular, has broken with Trump. As Jason Zengerle, a journalist at the New Yorker magazine and the author of a biography of Carlson, put it recently when discussing Carlson’s reversal on Trump: “He’s also sort of making a political move.” Various media outlets have suggested that Carlson may be eyeing a 2028 presidential run.

Some commentators, including White House counterterrorism adviser Sebastian Gorka, have drawn parallels between Carlson and Pat Buchanan. In the 1990s, Buchanan challenged President George H.W. Bush over the Gulf war and reshaped the Republican party’s ideological trajectory even without winning its presidential nomination.

Greene has floated Carlson for president. In a social media post in March, she wrote: “I SUPPORT TUCKER. Trump doesn’t even know what Maga is anymore.” Carlson, for his part, has publicly dismissed a presidential bid.

But this rebranding exercise, of attempting to seize the Maga label from Trump and attach it to a new vessel, is a significant development. It suggests that “America first” is no longer exclusively synonymous with one figure.

The looming question is whether this seed of elite discontent can grow into something organisationally meaningful before 2028, when Americans elect their next president.

Clodagh Harrington 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.

The interim report from the royal commission on antisemitism, set up after the Bondi massacre, leaves hanging more questions than it answers.

Perhaps no one should be surprised. The decision to have this report was a case of putting the cart before the horse.

Initially the government planned, after the December murder of 15 innocent people at a Jewish festival, to have a quick inquiry into whether federal agencies had adequate powers, processes and communications arrangements. That inquiry was to be done by former senior public servant Dennis Richardson.

Later, and reluctantly, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was pushed into having a much wider royal commission into “antisemitism and social cohesion” under Virginia Bell. The Richardson review was folded into the commission. This didn’t go well and Richardson quit in March, declaring he had become a “fifth wheel” and “surplus to requirements”.

The merging of the review, with its end-of-April deadline, into the commission, has meant this interim report has been made before relevant figures have appeared before the commission, which only starts hearing evidence next week.

Given this apparently illogical timing, it would have made more sense to have extended the deadline for the interim report, to enable the commission to gain the full picture on key issues it canvasses. Undoubtedly the government would have granted extra time if the commission had requested it.

As it is, the interim report is thinner than one would wish, as Richardson predicted it would be when he quit.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Dennis Richardson’s exit puts antisemitism royal commissioner under more pressure

Albanese at a news conference on Thursday seized on the commission’s conclusion that no legal or regulatory gap had been found that impeded “the ability for law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies to prevent or respond to” an attack of the kind that happened at Bondi.

The legal framework might be OK but how well or badly did agencies operate within it? Key answers to that are left for later.

“Important issues arising from the Bondi attack, including whether there was any failure to identify and act upon intelligence in the lead up to it, or in the allocation of police resources to the Chanukah event, will be addressed in hearings,” the report says.

“No conclusion in these respects can be reached on a review of the agencies’ documents alone and in the absence of according procedural fairness to any person or agency at risk of an adverse finding.”

Precisely. But some hearings will have to be held in secret, the commission adds.

Much material about ASIO is classified in this report, including how it sets its priorities. The report gives year-by-year public statements from ASIO, which assess the various threats.

“It can be seen from the course of the Director-General of Security’s public statements from 5 August 2024 until late 2025 that ASIO publicly and repeatedly drew attention to the heightened risk of a terrorist attack and to an environment of ‘disturbing escalation’ of antisemitic incidents,” the report says.

“It will be necessary to investigate whether and how ASIO and other Commonwealth and state intelligence and law enforcement agencies understood and acted on those assessments of a probable attack; and to consider the adequacy of what was said to be ASIO’s ‘full use of our capabilities and powers’ in the context of ongoing antisemitic attacks.

"These are matters that will be explored in hearings.”

The report invites a lot of reading between the lines.

The commission does make the pointed observation, after reviewing classified material, that despite an overall increase in funding for the national intelligence community, “the proportion of funding allocated to counter-terrorism significantly declined across the NIC over the period from 2020 to 2025”.

Albanese was anxious to stress the government is acting quickly on the report’s recommendations, as far as they relate to Commonwealth responsibilities. Cabinet’s national security committee ticked off on them early Thursday morning.

Of the 14 recommendations, five are secret.

A big restraint referred to in the report is the criminal action against the surviving alleged Bondi offender. This means while some now-secret material may be released subsequently, that could be a long time away given how slowly the law proceeds. A relevant question is how much of a constraint the legal proceedings will put on the commission’s final report.

The report’s chapter about Commonwealth and state intelligence and law enforcement agency activities regarding Bondi is classified. “It should remain confidential until the finalisation of any criminal proceedings arising out of the Bondi attack. Thereafter a public version of the chapter should be released.”

Two recommendations go to the government’s gun buyback scheme, saying in essence it should be finalised as soon as possible. At present some jurisdictions are being recalcitrant or dragging their feet. Queensland on Thursday immediately repeated it would not be budging in its refusal to sign up to the gun buyback.

But, though given a lot of emphasis by the government, the gun issue is not the most important of the many challenges presented by the threats of terrorism and antisemitism.

Certain recommendations go to doing the very obvious. For example: “The Counter-Terrorism handbook should be updated promptly and then at least every three years”, and the Commonwealth Counter-Terrorism Coordinator’s role should be full-time.

The report also says the federal government “should consider whether National Security Committee ministers, including the Prime Minister, should participate in a counter-terrorism exercise, along with all National Cabinet members, within nine months of each federal election”.

At the sharp end of things, the commission recommends a more comprehensive approach by New South Wales police at high-risk Jewish events.

The commission observes, “the outbreak of hostilities between the United States and Israel and Iran in February 2026 is likely to have increased the risk of attacks directed at the Australian Jewish community”.

Public attention has been focused on how the war has exposed Australia’s vulnerability on fuel and other items coming through our supply lines, and its implications for inflation and economic growth. The commission’s grim warning is a reminder of the intensified danger of terrorism as another cost the Iran war poses.

Michelle Grattan 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.

For many people, the rollout of smart technology across the UK’s road network has been clouded by fears about the removal of traffic-free safety lanes. Traditionally, motorway hard shoulders offered motorists a safe haven into which they could steer stricken vehicles.

But amid growing traffic numbers, the rationale for smart motorways (part of the UK government’s wider digital roads plan) was to free up these extra lanes to traffic. During a breakdown, the remote monitoring system could then quickly reinstate a temporary hard shoulder while the broken down or crashed vehicle was removed.

However, since the first official smart motorway system was introduced on the M42 near Birmingham 20 years ago, the public has repeatedly raised concerns that being stranded in a live lane rather than on a hard shoulder can be more dangerous.

In 2020, BBC Panorama reported that 38 people had been killed on smart motorways in the preceding five years. Since then, campaign groups have continued to highlight fatal collisions on smart motorway stretches where broken-down vehicles have been struck in live traffic.

In April 2023, the government’s rollout of more smart motorways in England was halted by then-prime minister Rishi Sunak on the grounds of both safety and cost. However, existing smart motorways remain in operation and continue to receive safety upgrades.

The National Highways’ most recent stocktake on smart motorways in England, published in December 2024, stated: “Overall, in terms of deaths or serious injuries, smart motorways remain our safest roads.”

But the same year, another Panorama investigation found nearly 400 instances where safety technology had lost power on smart motorway stretches between June 2022 and February 2024.

As part of a National Highways-funded research programme, I and other researchers at Cardiff University have worked with drivers and transport-sector experts to explore how people feel about the future of the UK’s road network. We investigated their concerns not only around safety but also surveillance and data collection.

Sense of uncertainty

The UK’s digital roads strategy entails much more than smart motorways. Even after the hiatus on building new smart motorways in England, there is still a growing ecosystem of digital and data-driven technologies embedded across the UK road network. These include roadside sensors to monitor traffic flow, cameras to detect incidents and infrastructure that communicates with control centres.

The aim is not automation for its own sake, but earlier detection of problems, faster response, smoother traffic flow and fewer serious incidents. Artificial intelligence and predictive analytics form part of this system.

Our study shows that most people are not resistant to these innovations on the roads. Many people we spoke to welcomed technologies that promise to improve safety or reduce congestion.

However, what unsettled many of them was the sense of uncertainty they felt about the rollout of these systems.

Some participants worried that data generated through digitally connected vehicles and road infrastructure could eventually “be used by insurance companies to penalise drivers”.

Others raised concerns that “systems designed for traffic management might gradually expand into broader forms of surveillance”.

One participant described the possibility of geolocation data revealing patterns of “my daily or weekly movement in the case of a data breach, which is dangerous”.

Another wondered whether automated sensing technologies might distract drivers who feel compelled to “avoid the sensor that records what I am doing”.

In general, people did not reject technological change out of hand. Rather, they want clearer safeguards around how these systems are governed, who can access the data they generate, and how accountability will be maintained as transport infrastructure becomes increasingly “intelligent”. Their concerns centre on questions of fairness, trust and accountability.

Technology trade-offs

Over the past 20 years, smart motorway schemes are estimated to have cost UK taxpayers billions of pounds.

The M4 smart motorway upgrade alone, between junctions 3 and 12, cost around £848 million. Recent safety reviews have committed a further £900 million to retrofit additional emergency refuge areas and improve detection systems on existing stretches.

But the costs are not only financial. There are also social and institutional costs: public confidence, legitimacy and the burden placed on road users to trust systems they did not choose and may not fully understand.

Understanding these trade-offs is important for the public. Smart road infrastructure represents a major public investment to address genuinely risky situations: broken-down vehicles, sudden congestion, poor visibility or secondary accidents caused by delayed response.

Much of this happens invisibly, which is precisely why transparency matters. When people do not understand what systems are doing, silence is easily interpreted as secrecy. Multiple parliamentary and audit reports have raised questions about whether the smart motorway rollout was too rapid, or communication to the public was inadequate – or both.

Some countries have taken a more explicit approach to public engagement around transport innovation. In Sweden, for example, the national road safety strategy, Vision Zero, was introduced as part of a broad public policy framework that placed societal consent and safety at the centre of infrastructure design.

In the UK’s third road investment strategy (2025-2030), smart roads will probably become more interconnected, more predictive and more automated.

Digital twins – virtual models that replicate real roads and infrastructure so planners can test scenarios before implementing them – will play a larger role in planning. Increased data sharing may allow more integrated services across multiple modes of transport. AI and analytics could increasingly support operational decisions.

But the controversy around smart motorways wasn’t just about design choice. It reflects a deeper public concern: what happens when safety depends on systems people can’t see or easily understand?

To answer this, the systems that run smart roads need to be open and trustworthy, safe and reliable in the eyes of those who rely on them every day.

This research was funded by National Highways. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or position of National Highways.

Justice Virginia Bell has handed the governor-general her interim findings from the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responded immediately by promising to implement all its recommendations.

The interim report recommends specific changes to counter-terrorism policy – and a speedy resolution to the lagging gun buyback scheme.

These sorts of changes may help. But they don’t begin to answer deeper questions about how a terror attack on that scale could occur in Australia. The commission is yet to examine how underlying conditions might have fuelled the attack, and what else governments, their agencies and we as a society must do to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

Read more: Months on from the Bondi terror attack, the national gun buyback is floundering

What does the interim report recommend?

The interim report contains 14 recommendations, five of them confidential.

Of the nine public recommendations, nearly all focus on counter-terrorism policy and the ways government agencies operate. For example, recommendations three through six focus on the Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee: a high-level coordination body made up of senior members of government.

The interim report recommends the committee be included in the Australian government’s Crisis Management Framework. The committee should brief National Cabinet at least annually.

Recommendation seven says ministers on the National Security Committee of cabinet should participate in a counter-terrorism exercise within nine months of each federal election.

These changes will not stop a terrorist from committing another attack. And most Australians could be forgiven for having never heard of these committees.

There’s also no reason why this all couldn’t have been investigated, possibly more quickly, by the original, departmental inquiry announced by Albanese. This was to be led by former head of ASIO, Dennis Richardson.

Richardson recently resigned from the royal commission, saying he felt like an overpaid research officer. He was also worried the process would take too long to deliver concrete recommendations on policing and intelligence.

Back in 2019, Richardson undertook a comprehensive review of Australia’s intelligence and surveillance architecture. The interim report explains key findings from that review and others that preceded it.

This interim report reads more like a continuation of those earlier reviews, and less like a fundamental inquiry into how the Bondi terror attack could possibly have happened in Australia.

Still, it’s just the first step in a longer, ongoing process. We can’t expect, at this point, concrete answers on what, if anything, might have prevented the attack. More practical interim recommendations may well be found in the classified version.

The commission is also hamstrung somewhat, as it can’t take evidence or comment on anything that might prejudice the accused’s criminal trial. This includes statements from witnesses or details on how the attack unfolded.

What can we expect next?

Public hearings for the royal commission will begin next week. In the first round, people with lived experience of antisemitism are expected to give evidence.

After that, it remains to be seen where the inquiry will direct its focus.

Its terms of reference are extremely broad, covering antisemitism, social cohesion, training for law enforcement, border control and immigration, radicalisation, specific circumstances surrounding the attack, and anything else that might be “reasonably incidental” or relevant.

It has so far received more than 3,500 submissions. The commission must report back by December 14 this year, before the one-year anniversary of the attack.

To report meaningfully on all these topics on such a pressured timeline will be a monumental task. Some focus may be necessary, but there will be valid differences of opinion as to whether this inquiry is primarily about antisemitism, social cohesion, counter-terrorism, radicalisation, the Bondi attack, or all of the above.

Read more: These are the 6 key questions the antisemitism royal commission needs to answer

At the moment, it is about all these things, which may ultimately undermine what it is able to contribute on any one.

Bell clearly knows the scale of the task. She has warned that “examining the ways in which we might strengthen social cohesion in Australia could well be the work of years, not months”.

For now, there is little in the interim report for Australians to start making sense of last year’s terror and tragedy in Bondi.

Keiran Hardy receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a Discovery Project on conspiracy-fuelled extremism.

Oil is once again making headlines.

This week, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) made the shock decision to leave the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

OPEC is network of oil-producing nations formed in 1960 with the aim of stabilising oil prices in ways that reduce competition and increase profits for member states.

In the decades since, OPEC has become one of the dominant players in the global oil market. This was evident during the 1970s oil shock, where global oil prices quadrupled largely due to OPEC-led cuts to production and sales.

But OPEC has just lost one of its largest producers in the UAE.

So will this dampen OPEC’s influence? And what does this mean for global oil prices?

The origins of OPEC

Before OPEC, there were the “Seven Sisters”. This refers to the seven Western international oil companies – Texaco, Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Gulf Oil, British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell – that dominated the petroleum industry in the 19th century. They did this by controlling virtually every step of the oil supply chain, from extraction to refining to transport.

By the end of the Second World War, the Seven Sisters had gained control of Middle East oil production. They did this by forming contracts with Middle Eastern rulers that effectively gave the companies total control of their oil reserves.

Eventually, these governments got tired of being dominated by the Seven Sisters. For them, the final straw came in 1960, when the oil companies made cuts to the posted price – the price a company publicly agrees to pay for oil. In protest, four Middle Eastern oil-producing states – Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia – along with disgruntled Venezuela formed their own cartel in September 1960. And OPEC was born.

Since then, OPEC has expanded to officially include Algeria, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Libya and Nigeria.

Read more: Will oil prices ever truly go back to ‘normal’?

How does OPEC influence oil prices?

OPEC was formed with the explicit aim of setting the global oil price by regulating the supply of oil. Its goal remains the same today.

To achieve this, OPEC sets production quotas for member countries. This creates either a scarcity or glut of oil. Creating a scarcity increases profits for OPEC members while creating a glut prevents other producers – such as the US – from challenging their dominance.

In 1973, OPEC showed its power for the first time by embargoing oil exports to the US. Within months, OPEC members were able to nearly quadruple global oil prices.

The embargo drove the world into recession, leading the US Federal Reserve to repeatedly cut interest rates. And the economy of import-reliant Japan shrank for the first time since the Second World War.

However, OPEC has only ever controlled part of total global oil production. Between 1992 and 2022, OPEC production on average accounted for 40% of the global crude oil supply.

In 2016, OPEC expanded its influence by forming an alliance with Russia and nine other non-member nations. This alliance is known as OPEC+, and today controls about 44% of global oil production.

Read more: The UAE is leaving the OPEC oil cartel. What could that mean for oil prices?

Are OPEC’s actions legal?

The short answer is, it’s complex.

OPEC is often described as a cartel – a group of exporters working together to improve profits and reduce competition.

If OPEC operated in the private sector, its control of production quotas and pricing would be considered illegal. Cartels are banned because they are anti-competitive, in that they artificially control prices, stifle innovation and restrict production. They do this all while maintaining the illusion of competition.

But OPEC’s members are not businesses. They’re nations. Several American legal rulings maintain OPEC’s actions are not cartel activities and, as a result, cannot be brought to court.

Read more: When oil prices spike, where does the money go?

Is OPEC getting weaker?

Since 2000, OPEC’s strength has waned due to two key factors.

One is the resurgence of the US as a global oil power. In the 20th century, US oil production peaked in 1975 before falling sharply as the country’s oilfields ran dry.

But in the 2000s, US oil companies found a way to combine two oil extraction techniques – fracking and horizontal drilling – to great effect. This allowed the US to double its oil production between 2010 and 2020. The US is now the world’s top oil and gas producer, churning out roughly 16.5 million barrels each day. Most of this goes towards domestic consumption.

The second factor is the unpredictability of OPEC’s members. OPEC is an international organisation, but nations can and do leave to pursue their own interests.

Over almost 30 years, Ecuador variously suspended, renewed and withdrew its membership before ultimately leaving OPEC in 2020. This allowed it to increase domestic oil production, free of OPEC’s production quotas.

Read more: The end of oil? As fuel shocks cascade, 53 nations gather to plan a fossil fuel phaseout

Qatar quit in 2019 to concentrate on gas exports, but Qatar’s exit may be construed as a response to OPEC’s waning influence. Its dominance in gas rather than oil may also be a factor.

The UAE has become the latest deserter. Its government now intends to increase oil production, free of its OPEC obligations. However, analysts view the UAE’s decision as a sign of growing rifts between Gulf nations. And the ongoing US-Iran war has only heightened tensions.

The UAE’s exit is a major blow to OPEC’s influence. In today’s volatile world, other OPEC members may also consider quitting the organisation. But only time will tell if that decision is a brave or foolhardy one.

Tina Soliman-Hunter 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.

For five years, many Australian university students have been watching the amount they have to pay for their studies with alarm and despair.

In response, the Senate is considering a Greens bill to slash high university student contributions for arts, law and business students.

The bill proposes to reverse student contribution increases imposed in 2021 by the “Job-ready Graduates” policy. This includes doubling the cost of arts degrees – which now cost more than A$50,000 as a result.

Despite the unpopularity of the Job-ready Graduates scheme in the community, the bill is unlikely to pass the Senate.

Only the federal government can fix the problems created by Job-ready Graduates. And in the lead up to the next federal budget on May 12, it shows no interest in doing that.

Job-ready Graduates

The Job-ready Graduates policy cut student contributions in teaching, nursing, engineering and IT courses. It did so to encourage students to enrol in these degrees, which were deemed “job-ready” by the Morrison government.

At the same time, Job-ready Graduates increased student contributions in arts courses, where many graduates take time to find suitable work.

Student contributions also went up for business and law courses, despite their above-average graduate employment rates. Three year bachelor degrees in all these fields now cost more than $50,000.

Under the new Senate bill, proposed by Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi, the annual student contribution for arts courses would reduce from $17,399 to $8,164. For business and law, the price would drop from $17,399 to $13,624. These are the pre-Job-ready Graduate scheme rates adjusted for inflation.

The flaw in the legislation

At a Senate inquiry into the bill this week, most witnesses – which included university leaders, union representatives and researchers such as myself – favoured student contribution reform.

But they were less supportive of the Greens bill as the way to improve matters.

The reason is the bill would cut student contributions without offsetting increases in public subsidies.

The total annual funding rate received by universities per full-time arts student – the student contribution plus the public subsidy via the government – would drop from $18,715 to $9,480. This would effectively halve universities’ revenue from arts students. Law and business funding would drop by 20%.

So, many courses currently on offer would not be viable on these reduced funding rates.

This policy flaw reflects the Australian Constitution’s constraints rather than the Greens policy. Under the constitution, the Senate cannot “appropriate” money, such as authorising the use of public funds for higher subsidies to universities.

The government’s resistance to change

Labor opposed Job-ready Graduates when it was in opposition, but in government it has delayed taking concrete action to reverse it.

In February 2024, the Universities Accord recommended “urgent” change to student contributions.

In November 2024, Education Minister Jason Clare said the new Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) would examine student contributions. But legislation passed in March 2026 to formally establish ATEC, did not mention student contributions.

Clare has implied cost is the main reason for avoiding student contribution reforms so far.

As he told the ABC’s Four Corners program in March:

I’ve said [the Job-ready Graduates scheme has] failed. I’ve also said it’s expensive to fix and not easy to fix.

The Innovative Research Universities group (which includes Flinders, Griffith and James Cook universities among others) estimates a full reversal of Job-ready Graduates would cost the government $1.9 billion a year.

A possible workaround

While the new Australian Tertiary Education Commission cannot directly advise on student contributions (what students pay to go to uni) it can examine the total funding per individual university student.

ATEC can also advise on the Commonwealth’s contribution to student funding. The total funding rate minus the Commonwealth contribution equals the student contribution. ATEC can therefore indirectly suggest student contributions.

Omitting student contributions from ATEC’s legislation may be a government own goal. It could end up with implied new student contributions that can be calculated with simple maths, but without the political protection of justifications provided by expert ATEC advice.

‘One bite at a time’

In explaining his approach to higher education reform, Clare sometimes uses the proverb of “eating an elephant” – something that is only possible one bite a time.

The imagery is off-putting, but the government has implemented other higher education priorities, including a 20% cut in student debt last year.

Perhaps there will be a first move on student contributions in next months’s budget, but no hints have been dropped so far. Having already suffered the political cost for resisting reform on student fees, the government may want to keep the budget benefits.

What could work instead?

My own submission to the current Senate inquiry proposed an incremental approach to reform. Urgent action should be taken on student contributions for arts degrees, as current levels condemn many arts graduates to decades of repayments which may never clear all their debt. Other student contribution decreases, for degrees with better repayment prospects, can be postponed.

To limit cost to government, I suggest increased student contributions for engineering and IT courses, which received discounts under Job-ready Graduates. Graduates from these fields have relatively high incomes.

The Universities Accord recommended student contributions based on expected lifetime incomes. If this principle is eventually adopted, these interim changes would move in this direction.

There is no perfect student contribution system. But we can do much better than now in balancing fairness to students, university funding, and constraints on Commonwealth funding.

Andrew Norton works in Monash University's Faculty of Business and Economics, which would lose money if the discussed legislation passed in its current form. He put in a submission to the Senate inquiry discussed in the article and appeared as a witness.