Kategori: Nyheter

A month in, and it is clear even to conservatives that US President Donald Trump is attempting to fundamentally reshape the role of the American president.

Trump and his supporters sees the natural authority of the American president in broad terms, similar to those of the Russian president, or a king. Trump, in fact, has already likened himself to a king.

This desire to “Russify” the presidency is not an accident: Trump and many of his supporters admire the king-like power that Vladimir Putin exercises as Russian president.

Understanding how Trump is attempting to transform presidential power is key to mobilising in the most effective way to stop it.

Decrees by a ‘king’

Russia’s system of government is what I call a “crown-presidential” system, which makes the president a kind of elected king.

Two powers are central to this role.

First, like a king, the Russian “crown-president” does not rely on an elected legislature to make policy. Instead, Putin exercises policy-making authority unilaterally via decree.

Russian President Vladimir Putin saluted by guards at the Kremlin in May 2024. (Yury Kochetkov/Pool Photo via AP)
Yury Kochetkov/Pool Photo via AP

Putin has used decrees to wage wars, privatise the economy and even to amend the constitution to lay claim to the parts of Ukraine occupied by Russia since 2014.

He has also used these decrees in a performative way, for example, by declaring pay raises for all Russian state employees without any ability to enforce it.

Over the last month, Trump has made similar use of decrees (what the White House now terms “presidential actions”).

He has issued scores of presidential decrees to unilaterally reshape vast swathes of American policy – far more than past presidents. Trump sees these orders as a way of both exercising and demonstrating his vast presidential power.

Control over the bureaucracy

Second, like a king, Putin does not allow the Russian legislature to use the law to organise the executive branch and create agencies independent of presidential control. Instead, he has unquestioned dominance over both the organisation and staffing of the executive branch. This has given him vast power to dominate politics by controlling information gathering and legal prosecutions.

A similar push is underway in the United States. Trump has appointed key loyalists to head the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation.

President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi after she was sworn in on February 5 2025.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Moreover, he is seeking to restructure the executive branch by abolishing some agencies altogether and vastly reducing the size of the workforce in others.

Can the courts stop Trump?

Trump’s attempt to Russify the American presidency undermines the American constitutional order.

Courts are the natural “first responders” in this kind of crisis. And many courts have blocked some of Trump’s early decrees.

This legal response is important. But it is not enough on it own.

First, the US Supreme Court might be more willing to accept this expansion of presidential power than lower courts. In a ruling last year, for example, the court granted the president immunity from criminal prosecution, showing itself to be sympathetic to broad understandings of executive power.

Second, presidential decrees can be easily withdrawn and modified. This can allow Trump and his legal team to recalibrate as his decrees are challenged and find the best test cases to take to the Supreme Court.

Third, parts of the conservative right have long argued for a far more powerful president. For instance, the idea of a “unitary executive” has been discussed in conservative circles for years. This essentially claims that the president should be able to direct and control the entire executive branch, from the bureaucracy to prosecutors to the FBI.

These arguments are already being made to justify Trump’s actions. As Elon Musk has said, “you could not ask for a stronger mandate from the public” to reform the executive branch. These arguments will be made to courts to justify Trump’s expansion of power.

Fourth, even if the Supreme Court does block some decrees, it is possible the White House will simply ignore these actions. We had an early glimpse of this when Trump posted that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”.

Vice President JD Vance has also said judges “aren’t allowed” to block the president’s “legitimate power”.

The importance of political mobilisation and messaging

Trump’s aggressive use of presidential power is not just a constitutional crisis, it is a political one. For those seeking to resist, this is too important to just be left to the courts; it must also involve America’s key political institutions.

The most obvious place to start is in Congress. Lawmakers must act decisively to assert the legal power granted to them in the constitution to check the power of the presidency. This would include active Congressional use of its budgeting power, as well as its oversight powers on the presidency.

This could happen now if a few Republicans were to take a principled position on important constitutional issues, though nearly all have so far preferred to fall in line. Democrats could retake both branches of Congress in the midterm elections in 2026, though, and assert this power.

The states can and should also act to resist this expansion of presidential power. This action could take many forms, including refusing to deploy their traditional police powers to enforce decrees they view to be unconstitutional or unlawful.

In mobilising to defend the constitution, these institutions could appeal to the American people with more than the narrow legal argument that Trump’s acts are unconstitutional. They could also make the broader political argument that turning the American president into a Russian-style, elected king will foster a form of inefficient, unresponsive and corrupt politics.

Or, in the words of The New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, “it’s the corruption, stupid”.

Time is of the essence. Russia shows the more time a “crown-president” is able to operate, the more entrenched this system becomes. For those hoping to preserve American democracy, the time is now for not just legal, but political resistance. Läs mer…

Thirty-four artworks created with artificial intelligence (AI) have gone up for sale at Christie’s in New York, in the famed auction house’s first collection dedicated to AI art.

Christie’s says the collection aims to explore “human agency in the age of AI within fine art”, prompting viewers to question the evolving role of the artist and of creativity.

Questions are not all the collection has prompted: there has also been a backlash. At the time of writing, more than 6,000 artists have signed an open letter calling on Christie’s to cancel the auction.

What’s in the collection?

Sougwen Chung’s Study 33 (2024) was created through a process that captured data from an EEG headset and a computer vision system tracking body movement and fed it to a painting robot called D.O.U.G._4.
Sougwen Chung / Christie’s

The Augmented Intelligence collection, up for auction from February 20 to March 5, spans work from early AI art pioneers such as Harold Cohen through to contemporary innovators such as Refik Anadol, Vanessa Rosa and Sougwen Chung.

The showcased pieces vary widely in their use of AI. Some are physical objects, some are digital-only works – sold as non-fungible tokens or NFTs – and others are offered as both digital and physical components together.

Some have a performance aspect, such as Alexander Reben’s Untitled Robot Painting 2025 (to be titled by AI at the conclusion of the sale).

After generating an initial image tile, the work iteratively expands outwards, growing with each new bid in the auction. As the image evolves digitally, it is translated onto a physical canvas by an oil-painting robot. The price estimate for the work ranges from US$100 to US$1.7 million, and at the time of writing the bid sits at US$3,000.

Alexander Reben’s Untitled Robot Painting 2025 involves art generated by AI and painted by robot as bids come in.
Alexander Reben / Christie’s

Claims of exploitation

The controversy surrounding this show is not surprising. Debates over the creation of AI art have simmered ever since the technology became widely available in 2022.

The open letter calling for the auction to be cancelled argues that many works in the exhibition use “AI models that are known to be trained on copyrighted work without a license”.

Embedding Study 1 & 2 (from the xhairymutantx series) (2024) by Holly Herndon and Matt Dryhurst explores the concept of ‘Holly Herndon’ in generative AI models.
Holly Herndon and Matt Dryhurst / Christie’s

The letter says:

These models, and the companies behind them, exploit human artists, using their work without permission or payment to build commercial AI products that compete with them.

The models in question include popular image generators such as Stable Diffusion, Midjourney and DALL-E.

The letter continues:

[Christie’s] support of these models, and the people who use them, rewards and further incentivizes AI companies’ mass theft of human artists’ work.

Copyright and cultural appropriation

Refik Anadol’s Machine Hallucinations – ISS Dreams (2021) is a video work used an AI model trained on publicly available images taken from the International Space Station.
Refik Anadol / Christie’s

There are several attempts by artists to bring legal proceedings against AI companies underway. As yet, the key question remains unresolved: by training AI models on existing artworks, do AI models infringe artists’ copyright, or is this a case of fair use?

Artists who are critical of AI are rightly concerned about losing their incomes, or their skills becoming irrelevant or outdated. They are also concerned about losing their creative community – their place in the creative ecosystem.

Last year, Indigenous artists withdrew from a Brisbane art prize, highlighting concerns about AI and cultural appropriation.

At the same time, many AI artists don’t use copyrighted material. Refik Anadol, for instance, has stated that his work in the Christie’s collection was made using publicly available datasets from NASA.

How the ‘work’ of art is changing

The Christie’s event occurs during a major shift in what it means to be an artist, and to be creative. Some participants in the show even question whether the label of “artist” is even necessary or required to make meaningful imagery and artefacts.

Many non-artists may wonder – if AI is used, where is the real “work” of art? The answer is that many forms of work will look different in the age of AI, and creative endeavours are no exception.

Creativity gave humans an evolutionary edge. What happens if society censors or undermines certain forms of creativity?

Pindar Van Arman’s Emerging Faces (2017) was created via two AI agents: one attempted to generate images of faces, while the other stopped the process as soon as it recognised the image as a face.
Pindar Van Arman / Christie’s

Clinging to traditional ideas about how things are done ignores the bigger picture. When used thoughtfully, technology can stretch our creative potential.

And AI cannot make art without human artists. Creating with new technologies requires context, direction, meaning, and an aesthetic sense.

In the case of the Christie’s auction, artists are doing much more than typing in prompts. They iterate with data, refine models, and actively shape the end result.

This evolving relationship between humans and machines reframes the creative process, with AI becoming more like a “conversational partner”.

What now?

Calling for the Christie’s auction to be cancelled may be shortsighted. It oversimplifies a complex issue and sidesteps deeper questions about how we should think about authorship, what authenticity means, and the evolving relationship between artists and the tools they use.

Whether we embrace or resist AI art, the Christie’s auction pushes us to rethink artistic labour and the creative process.

At the same time, Christie’s may need to take more care to produce collections that are sensitive to contemporary issues. Artists have real concerns about loss of work and income. A “move fast and break things” approach feels ill-suited to the thoughtfulness associated with artistic production.

Harold Cohen’s Untitled (i23-3758) (1987) was produced with the groundbreaking AARON image-generating AI system.
Harold Cohen / Christie’s

Beyond protest, more education and collaboration is required overall. Artists who do not adapt to new technologies and ways of creating may be left behind.

Equally important is ensuring AI does not diminish human agency or exploit creatives. Discussions around achieving sustainable and inclusive AI could follow other sectors focusing on equally sharing benefits and having rigorous ethical standards.

Examples might come from the open source community (and organisations such as the Open Source Initiative), where licensing and frameworks allow contributors to benefit from collective development. And in the tech realm, some software companies (such as IBM) do stand out for their rigorous approach to ethics.

Rather than cancelling the Christie’s auction, perhaps this is a moment for us to reimagine how we do creativity and adapt with AI.

But are artists – and audiences – prepared for a future where the nature of being an artist, and creativity itself, is radically different? Läs mer…

Not that long ago, the term “deepfake” wasn’t in most people’s vocabularies. Now, it is not only commonplace, but is also the focus of intense legal scrutiny around the world.

Known in legal documents as “digital replicas”, deepfakes are created by artificial intelligence (AI) to simulate the visual and vocal appearance of real people, living or dead.

Unregulated, they can do a lot of damage, including financial fraud (already a problem in New Zealand), political disinformation, fake news, and the creation and dissemination of AI-generated pornography and child sexual abuse material.

For professional performers and entertainers, the proliferation and increasing sophistication of deepfake technology could demolish their ability to control and derive income from their images and voices.

And deepfakes might soon take away jobs: why employ a professional actor when a digital replica will do?

One possible solution to this involves giving individuals the ability to enforce intellectual property (IP) rights to their own image and voice. The United States is currently debating such a move, and New Zealand lawmakers should be watching closely.

Owning your own likeness

Remedies already being discussed in New Zealand include extending prohibitions in the Harmful Digital Communications Act to cover digital replicas that do not depict a victim’s actual body.

Using (or amending) the Crimes Act, the Fair Trading Act and the Electoral Act would also be helpful.

At the same time, there will be political pressure to ensure regulation does not stymie investment in AI technologies – a concern raised in a 2024 cabinet paper.

Legislation introduced to the US Congress last year – the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Bill – proposes a new federal intellectual property right that individual victims can use against creators and disseminators of deepfakes.

Known informally as the “No Fakes Bill”, the legislation has bipartisan and industry support, including from leading entertainment worker unions. The US Copyright Office examined the current state of US law and concluded that enforceable rights were “urgently needed”.

From the New Zealand perspective, the No Fakes Bill contains both helpful ideas and possible pitfalls. As we discuss in a forthcoming paper, its innovations include expanding IP protections to “everyday” individuals – not just celebrities.

All individuals would have the right to seek damages and injunctions against unlicensed digital replicas, whether they’re in video games, pornographic videos, TikTok posts or remakes of movies and television shows.

But these protections may prove illusory because the threshold for protection is so high. The digital replica must be “readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual”, but it’s not clear how identifiable the individual victim of a deepfake needs to be.

Well known New Zealand actors such as Anna Paquin and Cliff Curtis would certainly qualify. But would a New Zealand version of the bill protect an everyday person, “readily identifiable” only to family, friends and workmates?

Can you license a digital replica?

Under the US bill, the new IP rights can be licensed. The bill does not ban deepfakes altogether, but gives individuals more control over the use of their likenesses. An actor could, for example, license an advertising company to make a digital replica to appear in a television commercial.

Licences must be in writing and signed, and the permitted uses must be specified. For living individuals, this can last only ten years.

So far, so good. But New Zealand policy analysts should look carefully at the scope of any licensing provisions. The proposed IP right is “licensable in whole or in part”. Depending on courts’ interpretation of “in whole”, individuals could unknowingly sign away all uses of their images and voice.

The No Fakes Bill is also silent on the reputational interests of individuals who license others to use their digital replicas.

Suppose a performing artist licensed their digital replica for use in AI-generated musical performances. They should not, for example, have to put up with being depicted singing a white supremacist anthem, or other unsanctioned uses that would impugn their dignity and standing.

Protectng parody and satire

On the other side of the ledger, the No Fakes Bill contains freedom of expression safeguards for good faith commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire and parody.

The bill also protects internet service providers (ISPs) from liability if they quickly remove “all instances” of infringing material once notified about it.

This is useful language that might be adopted in any New Zealand legislation. Also, the parody and satire defence would be an advance on New Zealand’s copyright law, which currently contains no equivalent exception.

But the US bill contains no measures empowering victims to require ISPs to block local subscribers’ access to online locations that peddle in deepfakes. Known as “site-blocking orders”, these injunctions are available in at least 50 countries, including Australia. But New Zealand and the US remain holdouts.

For individual victims of deepfakes circulating on foreign websites that are accessible in New Zealand, site-blocking orders could offer the only practical relief.

The No Fakes Bill is by no means a perfect or comprehensive solution to the deepfakes problem. Many different weapons will be needed in the legal and policy armoury – including obligations to disclose when digital replicas are used.

Even so, creating an IP right could be a useful addition to a suite of measures aimed at reducing the economic, reputational and emotional harms deepfakes can inflict. Läs mer…

United States President Donald Trump has made a series of high-profile threats against Canada and other countries since his second term began a month ago — but his proposed educational reforms also require serious attention.

Linda McMahon, President Donald Trump’s nominee for education secretary, attends a hearing of the Health, Education, and Labor Committee on her nomination on Feb. 13, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Trump has promised to close the Department of Education, which enforces civil rights in education, sends funding to schools and oversees student loans.

The Associated Press reported the president’s pick for education secretary, Linda McMahon, has acknowledged that only the U.S. Congress could fully shut down the education department, but she wants to “reorient” it.

McMahon is expected to be confirmed after her nomination is considered by the full Senate.

The Legal Defense Fund, an organization that supports racial justice, has expressed concern that McMahon will support reduced federal oversight that will result in undermining civil rights protections and key federal programs.

Read more:
Why does Trump want to abolish the Education Department? An anthropologist who studies MAGA explains 4 reasons

Moves to weaken public education in the United States may seem distant. However, as Canadians have seen with polarization affecting democratically elected school boards, shifts in the U.S. can act like canaries in the coal mine for our own public education systems.

We address this as researchers and educators whose combined expertise has examined how defunding and policy interventions can erode public education.

A protester is removed while calling out for protections for transgender and immigrant students during a nomination hearing for Linda McMahon, President Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education, at a Health, Education and Labor Committee hearing on Feb. 13, 2025, in Washington.
(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Project 2025 and education

In recent years, there has been escalating hype that public schools have become sites of political proselytizing as alleged “woke” teachers aim to instil “Marxist attitudes” among youth.

Trump has, unfortunately, concertedly stoked flames of distrust, particularly among MAGA movement supporters, toward teachers, administrators, curricula and public educational systems.

The now infamous Project 2025 policy framework has a dedicated chapter outlining drastic educational reformation in the U.S.

The U.S. Department of Education building is seen in Washington in November 2024.
(AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

While the president publicly disavowed any formal affiliation with Project 2025, his positions formally outlined in his Agenda 47 Ten Principles for Great Schools Leading to Great Jobs and other public statements are generally indistinguishable from those espoused by Project 2025.

Read more:
Trump’s administration seems chaotic, but he’s drawing directly from Project 2025 playbook

Trump’s 10 Principles

The 10 principles for educational revision include “restoring parental rights” by allowing parents to vote to appoint local school principals; abolishing teacher tenure, which will undermine teachers’ unions; and introducing merit pay. In addition, there are plans to “create a credentialing body to certify teachers who embrace patriotic values and support the American Way of Life.”

Trump also aims to bar critical race theory and “gender indoctrination” from public schools. During campaign events, Trump often reiterated his goals to “cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory … and other inappropriate racial, sexual or political content ….”

These ideas have been steadily infiltrating some states’ legislative and school policies. An example is Florida’s re-framing of academic standards to teach that some enslaved people benefited from enslavement. The non-profit Human Rights Campaign Foundation notes that that “of the 489 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in 2024, over 60 per cent — more than 300 bills — focused on youth and education.”

High school teacher Brandt Robinson, bottom centre, speaks during a rally hosted by Florida Rising in St. Petersburg, Fla., in July 2023, where people protested bills on education and other issues.
(Jefferee Woo/Tampa Bay Times via AP)

Smilar attacks seen in Canada

Trump declared during his inauguration speech that “we have an education system that teaches our children to be ashamed of themselves — in many cases, to hate our country … All of this will change starting today, and it will change very quickly.”

Evidently, significant educational reform is a high priority.

Reforms to the American education system should be cause for concern for Canadians. The overt attacks on public education that we are seeing in the U.S. are already occurring in Canada, albeit often in more insidious and fragmented ways.

Parental rights rhetoric

“Parental rights” rhetoric is fuelling movements across Canada that are aimed at delimiting the rights of students to learn about sexual health and understand gender diversity.

Parents have a multitude of diverse concerns for their children and their interests, and parental engagement is of importance for schools.

Read more:
If I could change one thing in education: Community-school partnerships would be top priority

But these “rights”-based movements fuel public moral panic and fan the flames of neo-conservative agendas.
The “parental rights” movement capitalizes on rights rhetoric to mobilize only the concerns of the conservative right and their traditional family narratives. This denies other parents’ concerns, and as child advocates have argued, it also violates children’s rights.

The parental rights movement also aims to undermine school-based sexual health education, which most parents support.

Across provinces

In 2023, Saskatchewan passed a Parents’ Bill of Rights requiring parental consent for children under the age of 16 to use a different pronoun or name in school.

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and numerous professors of law denounced the move for pre-emptively using the notwithstanding clause to override rights upheld in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We saw similar efforts in New Brunswick and in Manitoba in governing parties’ platforms and recent unsuccessful re-election campaigns.

Read more:
New Brunswick’s LGBTQ+ safe schools debate makes false opponents of parents and teachers

This year, Alberta introduced a more expansive bill banning gender-affirming care for children under the age of 16 and banning trans women and girls from competing in female sports.

Students walk out of Leduc Composite High School to protest sweeping gender policies announced by the Alberta government in Leduc, Alberta, in February 2024.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Amber Bracken

The parental rights rhetoric, a dog-whistle for anti-2SLGBTQ+ views, is not new in Canada. However, it seems to be finding renewed energy, especially in conservative-led provinces.

Anti-2SLGBTQ+ rhetoric can also found in recent attempts to advocate for book bans (like in Chilliwack B.C. and in Manitoba in 2022) or in protests against Drag Queen story hours (in Ontario in 2023).

Read more:
Shifts in how sex and gender identity are defined may alter human rights protections: Canadians deserve to know how and why

There have also been efforts by national neoconservative organizations to interfere with school board elections, endeavouring to recruit and support anti-trans candidates to run for office.

Undermining teachers and unions

Similarly, attempts to undermine teachers and their unions are occurring.

For example, the Manitoba government recently passed Bill 35. The legislation was introduced under the premise of addressing teacher sexual misconduct, but the bill’s language was broadened to include teacher “competence” and “professionalism.”

A similar bill was recently passed in Alberta.

In both examples, governments say they are creating an “arms-length” disciplinary process for teachers. But these reforms have been criticized for weakening teachers’ unions, deprofessionalizing teaching and conflating competence and misconduct — all of which work to expand government regulation and oversight of teachers while undermining unions.

In Ontario, in 2022 following concerning pandemic interruptions to in-person schooling, the government implemented a mandatory online learning graduation requirement. Procedures exist for students to be opted out, but it’s up to parents or students to specifically request this.

The requirement has been criticized for reducing teaching staff and increasing the privatization of public schools.

Strong public schools

Strong public schools rely on qualified teachers whose professional judgment and autonomy is protected and supported, in part, by teacher unions.

The events unfolding in the U.S. should act as a warning to Canadians, calling us to pay close attention to what is happening in our local school districts and school boards.

Being able to understand and identify regressive reform efforts and how they are subverting public education and democracy — as we endeavour to foster and build real relationships in our local school communities — is of urgent and national concern. Läs mer…

“Vegan,” “vegetarian,” “meatless,” “plant-based,” “plant-rich,” “plant-forward,” “animal-free”: these are all terms used to describe foods or diets that are mostly or completely made of non-animal sources.

This list can go on and, although these terms are to some extent related, they’re not the same. For example, the term “vegan,” coined in 1944 by The Vegan Society, is used to define products that contain no animal-based ingredients.

According to Canada’s Food Guide, “vegetarian diets are those that exclude some or all animal products,” whereas a plant-based diet is defined as one that “puts more emphasis on eating plant foods such as vegetables and fruits, whole-grains and legumes (beans) and less emphasis on eating animal foods.”

In another definition, The British Dietetic Association describes a plant-based diet as “based on foods that come from plants with few or no ingredients that come from animals.”

Why does this matter? Because regardless of the label, evidence supports that diets that contain fewer animal-based products such as meat are proven to be better for your health and the natural environment.

Adoption of plant-based diets remains low

Even with the growing public interest around plant-rich diets, the number of people adopting these diets remains low, particularly in Canada.

For many, plant-based foods are often perceived as an unfamiliar option that lacks in taste or does not align with their cultural food norms. Many consumers are also confused about the true meaning of these terms, which makes choosing food more complicated.

From a legislative perspective, many of these terms do not have unique legal definitions in in most markets, including Canada.

What is the result of all this confusion and perceived barriers? Even though there are a variety of plant-based food options available in stores, and various restaurants offering vegan/vegetarian dishes or full menus, plant-based foods are not many people’s choice.

Many consumers are confused about the meaning of labels like ‘vegan,’ ‘plant-based’ and ‘plant-forward.’
(Shutterstock)

A recent report by Globe Scan, an international insights and advisory firm, showed that “although 68 per cent of people worldwide express interest in consuming more plant-based foods, only 20 per cent do so regularly, down from 23 per cent in 2023.”

The report noted that with rising food costs, many consumers have returned to “cheaper, familiar foods” rather than plant-based alternatives. Therefore, there is a growing need for more population-level support and interventions to help consumers navigate their food choices.

The responsibility and pressure to make the “right” choice should not be solely on the consumer. They cannot be expected to make radical and sudden changes to their eating habits such as entirely eliminating meat. However, small modifications, such as gradually reducing animal-based food (instaed of complete elimiation) and moving towards plant-rich diets, is a promising solution.

So, what does this mean for food producers, restaurant owners and decision-makers who want to promote their products? They should use appealing language and framing to describe food, whether it’s the description on a menu or labels on a package. It’s important to avoid using labels that create more confusion or reinforce the feeling of unfamiliarity.

Here are four low-cost tips and recommendations that could help positively influence consumer choices:

1) Leverage the halo effect

The halo effect is a cognitive bias where one positive characteristic or impression of a product influences the overall perception. In terms of food labelling, this means people might be more likely to purchase food if the name is appealing to them.

Research shows labelling food vegan can decrease consumers’ taste expectations and, in turn, their purchasing intentions. On the contrary, labels and names that use appealing language that promotes delicious, high-quality food, evokes enjoyment and increases positive reactions is a strategy that has proven effective in altering consumer choices.

Using variants of ‘plant-based’ in food labelling instead of vegan or vegetarian has proven to increase mainstream consumer purchasing intent.
(Shutterstock)

2) Emphasize the role of sensory appeal

A study by The Good Food Institute found that consumers responded more favourably to plant-based burgers described with indulgent terms compared to those labelled with health-focused or restrictive language.

Why? Because using descriptive language that highlights the taste, texture and overall eating experience attracts a broader audience. Terms such as savoury, juicy or spicy can enhance the appeal of plant-based dishes. Think about “Juicy American Burger” versus a plant-based alternative that might be described simply as “Vegan Burger.”

3) Refrain from using terms with negative connotation

Steer clear of labels that may imply restriction, compromise or carry unintended negative connotations. Instead focus on terminology that implies inclusivity and offers complementary choices. The terms vegan and vegetarian are shown to be associated with negative stereotypes and feelings among some consumers, particularly the term vegan.

Steer clear of labels that may imply restriction, compromise or carry unintended negative connotations.
(Shutterstock)

Labelling food as vegan/vegetarian does make food easily identifiable for consumers who are seeking plant-based options. However, using variants of “plant-based” instead of vegan/vegetarian has been proven to increase mainstream consumer purchasing intent.

A further recommendation is to avoid labels such as plant-based milk “substitute” (for example for oat milk) or “veggie burger,” which can imply a replacement for existing choice and create an unnecessary competition between the choices.

4) Highlight provenance and culinary tradition

Plant-rich diets are not a new invention. Many food cultures around the globe have been plant-based for many years. Therefore, there is no need to reinvent the wheel to come up with labels and names. Take falafel, for example: it is essentially a veggie burger with a different name, yet it is popular among consumers.

Research also demonstrates highlighting food origins (also known as the country-of-origin effect) and including geographic references makes foods more appealing; for example, Panera Bread had a boost is soup sales by changing the name of one dish from “Low Fat Vegetarian Black Bean Soup” to “Cuban Black Bean Soup.”

Adopting a plant-rich diet is considered healthy and can be budget-friendly. Using language that appeals to consumers, instead of unfamiliar terms that may have negative associations for many people, can help encourage these dietary choices among a broader group of consumers. Läs mer…

In the 2022 federal election, two demographics were key to the final outcome: women and young people.

With another election fast approaching, will they swing the result again?

To answer this question, I turned to the Australian Election Study (AES) data spanning the period from 1987 to 2022, to investigate how different demographics have voted over time.

I found that, generally, Australian women and young people tend to favour left-of-centre parties.

However, specific election issues can have a substantial impact, making the political context of each election crucial. So what can we expect this time around?

Leaning to the left

Last year highlighted a growing gulf in political leanings between the sexes worldwide.

Young women are increasingly progressive. Young men – particularly Gen Z (born after 1994) – are leaning more conservative in many countries, including the United States, China, South Korea and Germany.

My analysis of the Australian data mirrors global trends, but with a twist.

Young Australian women are moving sharply to the left. But unlike in many other countries, young Australian men are also shifting left, just at a slower pace.

Australia’s leftward move across generations is reflected in both self-placement on a left-right ideological scale, and in the vote in federal elections.

In the 2022 Australian election, the Coalition received its lowest-ever share of the women’s vote at just 32%.

Only 24.3% of Millennials (21.9% of men and 25.7% of women) voted for the Coalition in 2022.

These are the lowest levels of support for either major party among younger people in the history of the survey.

Among Gen Z, a slightly higher proportion of 24.6% voted for the Coalition (34.0% of men and 19.8% of women).

What’s driving this?

In theory, women’s leftward shift is driven by several factors. These include higher education levels, greater participation in professional work, and exposure to feminist values. Despite Australia’s post-industrial, egalitarian image, persistent gendered inequalities and discrimination also play a role.

Meanwhile, young men’s move to the left can be attributed to progressive and egalitarian socialisation. Plus, unlike in other countries, Australia lacks Donald Trump-like figures who could mobilise anti-feminist or hardline conservative sentiments. This limits the expression of such views at an aggregate level.

Young Australian women are likely to vote for left-leaning parties.
Jono Searle/AAP

This leftward shift is, in part, a generational effect – or at least a reflection of the times.

The generational angle is crucial, as the 2025 federal election will be the first in which Millennials and Gen Z together will outnumber Baby Boomers as the dominant voting bloc in Australia.

This shift should shape how political parties campaign, whom they target, and which issues take centre stage.

Policies are voter priorities

My analysis highlights another important angle. Over the study period, voting decisions have increasingly been driven by policy issues, with 48% of Australians citing them as the primary factor. This is followed by party affiliation (29%), party leaders (14%) and local candidates (9%).

In 2022, 54% of voters reported policy issues as the main factor influencing their choice.

Across election years, I identified the most prominent and recurrent election issues that voters identified as influential. I added these issues to my model to see how people who care about these issues lean (left-right) and whether men and women differ in their political leanings (progressive-conservative). I also considered other factors known to impact voting, including:

sociodemographic factors (education, marital status, social class, home ownership and rural/urban residency)
familial socialisation (what their parents’ political preferences were)
social network factors (whether they’re religious or a member of a union)
electoral context (what each respondent said were the most important voting issues)

Overall, women tend to be slightly more left-leaning on policy issues than men, and while this difference is statistically significant, it is small and the general trend holds across both sexes.

Compared with Boomers, each successive generation is more likely to vote for a left party. Gen Z is the most left-leaning (though their smaller sample size warrants some caution in interpretation).

So who votes for whom?

Unsurprisingly, people vote according to who they think will best address the policy areas they care about most.

Those prioritising interest rates, taxation or economic management favour right-wing parties. Voters most concerned with health, Medicare and climate change are more likely to vote for the left.

Education, class and social networks matter, too. Highly educated, working-class, non-religious and union-affiliated voters tend to support left parties. So, too, do those raised in left-leaning households.

While the size of these effects varies slightly between men and women, the overall direction remains the same.

How might this play out in 2025?

The thing about election issues is that they are highly time-sensitive. Take the GST: it was one of the defining issues of the 1998 election, yet was largely irrelevant after 2004.

In recent years, left-leaning issues — the environment, health and Medicare — were more likely to be front-of-mind when Australians all of ages headed to the polls. This gives Labor and the Greens an issue-owner advantage.

Cost of living (spanning day-to-day expenses, interest rates and housing affordability) has now become the defining issue of this election cycle. At first thought, among the two major parties, the Coalition is traditionally seen as a better economic manager.

However, my analysis from 2022 election data shows that, compared with the 2019 election, fewer people considered the Coalition the best manager of the economy among those who considered it the most important election issue.

Further, for the first time in the past five elections, a majority of the voters perceived Labor as more aligned with their own views on immigration, refugees and asylum seekers. These issues, historically seen as Coalition strongholds, are also likely to be key this time around.

For the Coalition, this is bad news. But for Labor, the challenge is twofold: retaining younger, progressive voters while addressing broader economic anxieties.

With growing voter volatility and a diminished sense of party loyalty, neither major party can rely on a stable base.

Australians are increasingly willing to shift allegiances, including to the increasing supply of independent alternatives. Both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton will have to convince voters they have the best solutions for the key issues. Läs mer…

As we head towards a federal election, the Labor government recently announced a funding package worth A$573 million for women’s health.

The funding includes $100 million to support two national trials for pharmacies to provide the oral contraceptive pill and treatments for uncomplicated urinary tract infections over the counter.

The question of whether or not pharmacists should be able to provide the oral contraceptive pill without a prescription from a GP has long been a topic of debate.

We asked five experts for their thoughts. Should pharmacists be able to provide the pill over the counter without a script?

Four out of five said yes. Here are their detailed responses. Läs mer…

As we head towards a federal election, the Labor government recently announced a funding package worth A$573 million for women’s health.

The funding includes $100 million to support two national trials for pharmacies to provide the oral contraceptive pill and treatments for uncomplicated urinary tract infections over the counter.

The question of whether or not pharmacists should be able to provide the oral contraceptive pill without a prescription from a GP has long been a topic of debate.

We asked five experts for their thoughts. Should pharmacists be able to provide the pill over the counter without a script?

Four out of five said yes. Here are their detailed responses. Läs mer…

In the past 12 months, more than 1,300 people have died on Australia’s roads. In January alone, there were 114 road deaths in Australia – roughly 20% more than the average for that month over the previous five years.

Our new study projects these tragedies are set to continue over the next 25 years, despite a commitment by Australian governments to achieving zero deaths on the nation’s roads by 2050.

Published in the journal Injury, our study uses a modelling tool to forecast the number of road fatalities in 2030, 2040 and 2050. Importantly, it also identifies the people and regions at higher risks, which provides an opportunity for taking a more nuanced and targeted approach to road safety.

Clear trends

Improved vehicle safety technology, stricter traffic laws and public awareness campaigns have led to a significant drop in the number of road deaths over the past several decades in Australia. But tragically, the number of people dying on Australia’s roads is still high.

The data reveal some clear trends. For example, weekdays see fewer fatalities, likely due to routine commuting and lower-risk behaviours. On the other hand, weekends, particularly Saturdays, experience spikes linked to alcohol consumption and more social travel.

December emerges as the deadliest month. This is likely driven by holiday travel surges, with secondary peaks in March and October tied to school holidays and seasonal weather changes that affect road conditions.

Geographic disparities further complicate the picture. Urban centres in New South Wales and Victoria such as Sydney and Melbourne account for 35% to 40% of fatalities, in part because of dense traffic volumes, complex intersections and pedestrian-heavy zones.

In contrast, rural and remote areas, though less congested, have more severe road accidents because of inadequate road infrastructure and higher speed limits. For example, the Northern Territory, with vast stretches of high-speed highways, records the highest fatality rate, while the Australian Capital Territory, with its urban planning emphasis on safety, reports the lowest.

Speed zones of 51–80 km/h are particularly lethal for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. This underscores the crucial role of speed management in urban and rural areas alike.

Demographic risks also remain entrenched. For example, men constitute more than 70% of fatalities – in part because they are more likely to engage in risky behaviour such as speeding and drunk driving. Young drivers (17–25 years) and middle-aged adults (40–64 years) are also over-represented due to a combination of inexperience, overconfidence and high mileage.

In good news, child fatalities (0–16 years) have sharply declined. This reflects the success of targeted measures like child seat laws and school zone safety campaigns.

High speed limits increase the risk of severe road accidents.
BJP7images/Shutterstock

35 years of data

To forecast these trends over the next 25 years, our new study used a modelling tool called Prophet developed by tech company Meta.

We fed 35 years of road data – from 1989 to 2024 – into the model. This data came from Australia’s Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics. It incorporated variables such as road user type, age, gender, speed limits and geographic location.

To refine predictions, we also incorporated public holidays such as Christmas and Easter.

Prophet outperformed other models we tested, including SARIMA and ETS. It did a better job at modelling past changes in road safety. And it especially excelled at handling non-linear trends, multiple seasonal patterns (daily, weekly, yearly) and the effects of holiday periods.

An unmet target

The findings of the study are cause for some cautious optimism.

Overall, by 2050 fatalities are expected to decline. But Australia’s ambitious zero fatality target by the middle of the century will remain unmet.

The modelling indicates annual male fatalities will drop from 855 in 2030 to 798 in 2050, while female fatalities will plummet from 229 to 92.

There will also be a drop in the number of child fatalities – from 37 in 2030 to just two in 2050. But the model shows a troubling rise of the number of older drivers (over 65) dying on Australia’s roads – from 273 in 2030 to 301 in 2050. This reflects Australia’s ageing population, with more people expected to have both reduced mobility and reduced reflexes.

Motorcyclist fatalities buck the overall trend, rising from 229 in 2030 to 253 in 2050. This signals urgent needs for dedicated lanes and better rider education.

Regionally, Queensland and the Northern Territory lag due to rural road risks. Urban areas with speed limits lower than 80 km/h show steadier declines.

Motorcyclist fatalities are expected to rise from 229 in 2030 to 253 in 2050.
FotoDax/Shutterstock

A shared priority

Based on these findings, our study provides several recommendations to mitigate the risk of death on Australia’s roads.

Speed management: enforce dynamic speed limits in high-risk zones such as school areas and holiday corridors, and expand 80 km/h zones on rural highways.

Targeted campaigns: launch gender-specific safety initiatives for men (for example, anti-speeding programs) and age-focused interventions, such as mandatory refresher courses for drivers over 65.

Infrastructure upgrades: invest in rural road safety such as median barriers and better signage, as well as dedicated cyclist pathways.

Technology integration: accelerate the adoption of autonomous vehicles to reduce crashes caused by human error and risky behaviours, and pilot artificial intelligence-driven traffic systems for real-time hazard detection.

Expand public transport: subsidise off-peak travel and rural transit networks to reduce how much people – particularly high-risk groups – depend on car travel.

Better enforcement: strengthen weekend and nighttime policing of roads and deploy more mobile speed cameras during peak holiday periods.

By following these recommendations, Australia can move closer to its vision of safer roads. Our findings underscore that sustained progress demands not only rigorous policy, but also community engagement. Läs mer…

In 1987, UK researchers lamented how schools were organised “around the assumption that the nuclear family is the norm”. Families who did not fit this model were “either ignored (tactfully) or categorised as abnormal”.

Several generations have passed through schools since then. And as we know, it remains very common for parents to be separated or divorced. In Australia, about 28% of children under 14 have parents who are separated.

But in our new research, interviewees report surprisingly little has changed in schools’ interactions with separated parents in the past 40 years.

They say schools still treat the nuclear family as the default and assume students have a mum and dad who are together.

Schools are preoccupied with the ‘primary parent’

We interviewed 11 separated parents about their experiences with their children’s schools. These parents were a subgroup from our previous study, which found more than half of separated parents surveyed had negative experiences with their children’s teachers, principals and school administrators.

Our interviewees repeatedly talked about how school information systems (regardless of whether they were for private or public schools) required families to identify a “primary parent”.

This was the parent who the school contacted if the child was unwell or to discuss a school-related issue. This parent also received all school-related communications: newsletters, excursion notes, medical updates, report cards and invoices for school fees.

There seemed to be no way for school systems to accommodate diverse families for whom identifying a “primary parent” was more complicated.

A number of separated parents said they needed to “combat” the school to receive the same updates and information as the nominated primary parent. One father’s contact details had to be entered into the system’s allergy advice section to flag he should be contacted if his child became unwell.

Another father told us his child’s school insisted the primary parent “needs to be the mother”, even though he had majority care.

Separated parents in our study said they needed to ‘combat’ their child’s school to get important information.
Peopleimages.com/Shutterstock

Read more:
’The teacher returned the call to my ex’: how separated parents struggle to get information from their child’s school

Parents can be kept in the dark

The type, amount and timing of information non-primary parents received primarily depended on their relationship with their ex-partner. For amicably separated parents, the situation was difficult but workable. As Amanda told us:

[One of the biggest challenges] is trying to work out ‘Did you get this email?’, ‘Did you get that one?’, ‘What’s happened with this note?’, and then kind of working out amongst ourselves how to best manage that if only one of us is receiving information.

But parents in high-conflict situations sometimes found themselves shut out by the other parent or the school itself.

Even though there were no court orders in place, Michael reported his children’s mother excluded him from school communications and withheld information, which made it impossible for him to be actively involved in his children’s schooling.

When I contacted the school and said, you know, that I either wasn’t receiving any information or that all the notices suddenly weren’t coming to me, they said, ‘Oh, we’re not going to get involved’. And so, I was left completely out of it.

The ‘primary parent’ is contacted if a child is sick at school or if there is a school-related issue that needs to be discussed with the child’s family.
Chai Te/Shutterstock

Situations can be manipulated

Parents also reported the primary parent can manipulate school interactions. In high-conflict relationships, school information can be used to elevate one parent into a position of power.

Again, Michael explained how his children’s mother kept from him important information about school fees and homework. His ex-partner’s legal team then used his non-payment of fees and lack of signatures in a homework book to demonstrate Michael’s purported lack of engagement in his child’s schooling and to imply his negligence as a parent.

This is an extreme example. However, Michael’s situation speaks to the complex politics of parent–school engagement.

While some parents found teachers open and receptive to involving both parents, others reported some teachers “take sides” and can be unresponsive to parent requests for basic school-related information.

What about step-parents?

Some parents in our study had become step-parents after re-partnering. These parents explained they were heavily involved in the day-to-day lives of their step-children but the school did not recognise them as parental figures.

Step-parents didn’t have access to parent–teacher interviews and school reports, or even basic information about school activities. While acknowledging the primacy of the biological parent, step-parents wondered why the school could not include all parent figures in a child’s education.

As Michelle explained:

I guess it takes a while to be fully recognised as a parent or carer […] It’s just that it would have been nice if there was a little bit more of a conscious effort from the school.

The nuclear family is still seen as ‘normal’

While working with separated parents is not a new phenomenon for schools, it seems to be an area in which schools have made little progress.

Our research demonstrates schools need more effective policies and procedures so all parents can be included and involved. Schools also need improved support and education for staff in how to manage high-conflict co-parenting relationships.

Finally, school systems, including data infrastructures and software, must be able to accommodate and properly acknowledge diverse families.

As the 1987 study noted:

Until each school defines its philosophy of the family in a realistic way, teachers, parents, and pupils have no option other than to collude in maintaining the fiction that the nuclear family is normal.

Names have been changed. Läs mer…