Mrs Sharon Wallace - Head of Library
Ms Kathryn Harrison - Library Technician
Ms Linda Kolevas - Library Technician
Mrs Andrea Christensen - Library Technician
Ms Martina Pysing - Library Technician
Mrs Sharon Wallace (St Mary's) is available to help develop your study skills in all the following areas:
Book a session by sending an email through to us or dropping by the Library.
Each session is a maximum of 45 mins long, it may be shorter depending on your request.
Our Mission; Our Place
Our library is a place..
To Aspire and Inspire,
To Relax and Enjoy,
To Think and Imagine
To Reflect and Peruse.
It is Our Place to Explore; to Discover;
To Live Mercy.
It is Our Shared Place where we can Realise Our Potential;
Where we can Succeed Together.
If you are a member of any of the libraries below, you can log in using your library card number and access many of their electronic subscriptions and databases, such as Encyclopaedias, Reference sites etc. All of these could be of immense value to your studies.
Becoming a member of one of these libraries is quite easy.
For the Goldfields Library, visit and fill in a form to join.
For the State and National Libraries, it is just a matter of clicking on the link and filling out an on-line application form. It will not cost you anything, and your card will usually arrive in the post within a week.
Once you have your card it's just a matter of going on-line and using your card number to access electronic databases and encyclopaedias.
Instructions on how to borrow an ebook and/or audiobook:
For Students Access click on this icon,
To access Renaissance Home click on the link below.
This is where you log in to complete the reading tests and check your progress
|
|
To request a Libguide page Please see the Library staff
“I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library.” – Jorge Luis Borges
The Coalition has been forced to reassert its commitment to the Paris climate agreement after its energy spokesman Ted O’Brien appeared to waver on the pledge on Thursday.
O'Brien faced off against Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen at a debate in Canberra, weeks out from a federal election in which energy policy is emerging as a hot-button issue.
Under the landmark Paris deal, Australia has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by the end of the decade, compared to 2005 levels. O'Brien on Thursday said the Coalition would review the target if it wins office. He deflected a question on whether a Dutton government would remain a signatory to the Paris Agreement, saying the Coalition would “always act in the national interest”.
Within hours of the debate, the Coalition was forced to clarify O'Brien’s comments and reaffirm its commitment to Paris. But the Coalition appears intent on winding back the 2030 target if it is elected next month – a move that would weaken our bipartisan commitment to net zero by 2050 and be against the interests of the global climate.
The Coalition has long disputed Labor’s claims that the 43% target would be met.
In June last year, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton claimed the Albanese government has “no hope of achieving the targets and there’s no sense signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving”.
In January this year, Dutton said a Coalition government would remain party to Paris, despite United States President Donald Trump’s move to withdraw his nation from the deal.
On Thursday, O'Brien confirmed a Coalition government would review the 43% target. In doing so, it would consider three factors: Australia’s emissions trajectory, the state of the economy and the Coalition’s suite of policies – including nuclear power and more gas.
O'Brien went on to say:
Labor, the Coalition, nobody in this country will be able to achieve the emission target set by Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese. The difference between Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese is that Peter Dutton has been honest and upfront about that.
O’Brien would not rule out withdrawing Australia from the Paris deal, but later released a statement saying the Coalition remained committed to the agreement.
During the debate, Bowen claimed Australia is “on track” to meet its emissions-reduction goal. He pointed to analysis by his department released late last year showing emissions are projected to be 42.6% below 2005 levels in 2030.
Australia will have to work hard to meet the target, with our emissions reductions having stalled since 2021. The government’s projection assumes it achieves its target of 82% renewable electricity generation by 2030 – possible but very challenging from about 45% today.
It also depends on two policies to reduce emissions outside electricity, neither of which have yet demonstrated their progress.
The first is the safeguard mechanism, which aims to reduce emissions from heavy industry. It began in mid-2023 but its results are not yet clear. Second is the new vehicle efficiency standard, introduced from January this year.
Even if a Dutton government remained in the Paris Agreement, walking back on the 43% emissions target is problematic, for a number of reasons.
Most obviously is that the threat of dangerous climate change is real, and growing. The Paris deal aims to keep average global temperatures “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and ideally, limit warming to no more than 1.5°C.
But according to official data, Earth’s monthly global average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for 11 months last year. So meeting the Paris commitment is already looking shaky.
While the Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty, there has been much debate as to the real meaning of “legally binding”. Some argue that national commitments to reduce emissions are not legally binding, and can be revised in either direction. While a downward revision is liable to draw criticism, it could be a legally available option under the Paris Agreement. Transgressors don’t get kicked out of the club.
But any downward revision on the targets is a bad look on the global stage. University of Melbourne climate law expert Jacqueline Peel has argued that any moves by a future Coalition government to water down Australia’s 2030 target, or to submit a 2035 target weaker than our current pledges, would:
go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Paris Agreement, and – in some circumstances – could constitute a breach of those obligations.
The Albanese government chose not to announce a 2035 target before the election. The Opposition says it won’t set a 2035 target until it’s in government.
That means voters will be left in the dark on this important issue as they head to the ballot box.
At the moment, the Coalition appears to be relying on its controversial nuclear power plan to meet the bipartisan goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. But analysts have warned the plan will lead to much more emissions between now and then.
Meanwhile, there is far more work to be done outside the energy sector – in agriculture, transport, industry and more – to meet Australia’s climate commitments.
Australia’s cost of living crisis has garnered much attention during the election campaign so far. There has been very little talk about how Australia’s entire economy will get to net-zero.
That’s a terrible reflection on the state of our politics. Ultimately, unmitigated climate change will be bad for the planet and very bad for Australia.
Tony Wood may own shares in companies in relevant industries through his superannuation fund.
When Jim Chalmers and Angus Taylor met for this week’s treasurers’ debate, the moderator observed that in three or six years they might be facing each other as prime minister and opposition leader.
Election results trigger, or subsequently lead to, leadership resets. Even in the turmoil of a campaign, players will also have their eyes on the future.
After two weeks, the election campaign appears to have shifted more clearly in Labor’s direction. The uncertainty caused by Donald Trump is making some voters inclined to stick with the status quo, and the Liberal campaign has appeared faltering. Things could change, but as of now, Labor is better placed.
Assuming Anthony Albanese wins, the dynamics within Labor will be different according to whether his government is in minority or majority.
Albanese’s negotiating skills were evident during the last minority Labor government, and would likely come to the fore again if Labor had to wrangle crossbenchers in the House of Representatives.
But regardless of majority or minority, there would probably be pressure for a leadership change at some point during the next term. It is hard to see Albanese, 62, taking Labor into the 2028 election.
Chalmers, 47, is the obvious frontrunner to succeed him, but not the only horse in the field. And, apart from Chalmers, other aspirants might be concerned time would pass them by if there was not a transition next term.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, 55, from the right in NSW, is ambitious and canny; he has delivered to the unions and could look to support from that quarter. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, 57, who hails from the Victorian right, also sees himself as a potential successor.
The left’s Tanya Plibersek, 55, is a favourite with the party rank and file but could struggle to get enough backing in a leadership transition during a second term. Energy Minister Chris Bowen, 52, has had a tough time selling the government’s energy transition policy; in the past he was seen as a serious leadership contender, but doesn’t make it into dispatches these days.
If the Labor leadership is contested, the rules provide for a ballot of the rank and file. That contributes 50% of the result, with caucus providing the other 50%. A transition in government during the term either would not involve a formal ballot or, if it did, the rules would be changed to override the provision for a long grassroots contest.
The dynamic between Chalmers and Albanese in a second-term government would be closely watched. There have been some differences between the two over the past three years, notably over the recalibration of the Morrison government’s tax cuts. Chalmers eventually won his push to change them. The treasurer’s loyalty to Albanese has not been in question. But the contrast in their communication skills has been widely remarked on.
The usual pattern of these things is that a treasurer who sees himself as a future prime minister becomes increasingly impatient as time goes on. Paul Keating, who eventually toppled Bob Hawke, and Peter Costello, who never got to the point of challenging John Howard, are examples.
While Albanese has obviously not had to watch his back this term, the dynamic would be different next time around. The example of Scott Morrison is instructive. After he unexpectedly won the 2019 election, Morrison was seen as untouchable. Fast forward to before the following election and some in the Liberal party approached then treasurer Josh Frydenberg to try to replace Morrison. He rebuffed them.
Looking across the board, it’s notable that the most impressive Labor leaders currently are two state premiers, Chris Minns in New South Wales and Peter Malinauskas in South Australia. Both are centrist, pragmatic, unifying figures who come across well. Many in Labor might regret they are not in the federal parliament (although the leadership aspirants would be relieved).
On the other side of politics, if 54-year-old Peter Dutton loses, what happens with the Liberal leadership? The size of the loss would be crucial. If Labor remained in majority, that would be such a major failure Dutton would surely be replaced immediately. If he picked up a respectable number of seats, on the other hand, he would likely be kept on. He has worked his relationships within the Liberal Party well; he is seen as more consultative than, for example, Morrison or Malcolm Turnbull.
But how long would he last as leader? If the Coalition was only a whisker away from power, he might get a second crack in 2028. However if Labor, although in minority, was looking solid, the Liberals would start thinking about a new leader.
Their problem is that there is a dearth of frontbench talent.
Taylor, 58, certainly has ambition. But he has not performed well as shadow treasurer, and is not a good retail politician. Liberal Deputy Leader Sussan Ley, 63, is scatty and widely criticised by colleagues. Defence spokesman Andrew Hastie, 42, hasn’t broadened out as much as might have been expected this term, and has the disadvantage of coming from Western Australia, which has limited his visibility.
The loss of Frydenberg at the last election has left the Liberals with a long-term succession problem.
Partly, though not entirely, this goes back some way, to the sort of candidates selected in former years. This is an increasing challenge for both “parties of government”. The talent pool is narrowing.
Fewer potential high flyers are wanting to enter politics. A toxic political culture and greater media intrusion contribute to this. Politicians might never have commanded great respect but they are accorded even less these days, and there are larger rewards elsewhere. Also, political staffs are bigger, and these young hustlers are well placed to secure preselection.
There is another factor. Nowadays there’s more pressure to put forward “local champions” – people who are deeply embedded in their communities. We’ve seen this in the success of the “community candidates” movement – many voters respond to them.
With fewer “safe” seats and this desire for localism, the major parties cannot so easily parachute high-flyers into seats in which they don’t live. Labor notoriously tried this with Kristina Keneally, a former senator and former NSW premier, at the last election, and managed to lose what had been the solid Labor seat of Fowler.
The political move to local champions and community candidates, whatever pluses it might have, will over time erode the potential leadership pools of the major parties.
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.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have both committed to stripping a Chinese company, Landbridge, of the lease to operate Darwin Port. Landbridge paid A$506 million for the 99-year lease from the Northern Territory government in October 2015.
In Australia’s political system, democratically elected representatives like Albanese and Dutton have the power to make such decisions. Still, Australians would hope and expect these decisions were driven by the best available advice, not domestic political sparring ahead of a federal election.
This is particularly so when such a move would likely elevate fears among foreign investors around sovereign risk.
Defence Minister Richard Marles has refused to say if security agencies are recommending Australia retake control of the port, nor has the Coalition provided a reason for its new stance.
Media reports often cite “defence experts” who claim Chinese ownership of the lease involves unacceptable risks.
However, it has been the long-standing and consistent advice of Australia’s most senior national security officials that this is not the case.
Landbridge did not need Canberra’s approval when it secured the port lease in 2015. Nonetheless, the company notified the Foreign Investment Review Board of its interest in submitting a competitive bid for the lease four months before the deal was sealed.
The Department of Defence and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) “examined it thoroughly”. The then-secretary of the Department of Defence, Dennis Richardson, said:
We are at one in agreeing that this was not an investment that should be opposed on defence or security grounds.
Richardson told Senate Estimates in 2015 he was “not aware of any concerns” among the senior leadership in the Australian Defence Forces (ADF), either.
The chief of the ADF, Mark Binskin, said in the same hearing:
If [ship] movements are the issue, I can sit at the fish and chip shop on the wharf […] and watch ships come and go, regardless of who owns it.
Some analysts raised concerns after the sale, but these were borderline ridiculed by officials with access to the most highly classified national security information.
Analysts at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, for example, warned that a Chinese company holding the lease “could facilitate intelligence collection” of ADF operations and US Marine deployments.
Richardson said it was “amateur hour” to suggest Chinese spies could use the port for this purpose. He added: “It’s as though people have never heard of overhead imagery” from spy satellites.
Analysts also suggested China could acquire valuable knowledge of the types of signals an Australian or US warship would “emit through a variety of sensors and systems”. Richardson dismissed this as “absurd”.
Even more ludicrous were claims the port deal would provide the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLA-N) with “facilitated access to Australia”.
Richardson labelled this as “alarmist nonsense”. Any visits by foreign naval vessels cannot be approved by a commercial port operator, he said. They must be signed off on by the Department of Defence.
Analysts also contended that Landbridge’s chairman, Ye Cheng, was a “senior Communist Party official” and the company was a “commercial front intimately tied to state-owned operations, the party and the PLA”.
This was debunked by a Chinese law and corporate governance expert.
Tellingly, when Landbridge found itself in financial difficulty in 2017, it was forced to borrow in high-interest rate debt markets. This is common for privately owned Chinese firms, but not those with close state and party connections. They would be able to access subsidised loans from state-owned banks.
When Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was asked in 2018 whether she had any lingering security fears about the Darwin Port lease, she replied the Department of Defence “had no concerns […] and that is still the case”.
As the China-Australia relationship deteriorated in the ensuing years, the Morrison government reviewed the deal in 2021. It found there were still no national security grounds sufficient to overturn the lease.
Yet another review by the Albanese government just 18 months ago also deemed it “not necessary to vary or cancel the lease”. It concluded:
there is a robust regulatory system in place to manage risks to critical infrastructure, including the Port of Darwin.
In announcing his pledge to reacquire the Darwin Port last weekend, Dutton alluded to “advice of the intelligence agencies”, pointing to a deterioration in Australia’s strategic circumstances.
However, the Coalition had apparently not yet received an intelligence briefing on any security risks specifically connected to the Port of Darwin when Dutton made this pledge. Opposition leaders only made a request for the national security advice underpinning Albanese’s promise to reacquire the port in a letter to the government on Monday.
The reality is that if Albanese and Dutton now suddenly and genuinely believed that Darwin might need to serve as a staging post for military conflict with China, forcing the sale of a few commercial wharves currently operated by a Chinese company would be a woefully inadequate response.
They would instead be committing to a massive infrastructure upgrade, most likely in the form of an entirely new port facility. Planning for such a facility was already being mooted in 2019.
The fact that they aren’t says a lot.
James Laurenceson 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 Trump administration has announced a 90-day pause on its plan to impose so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly all US imports. But the pause does not extend to China, where import duties will rise to around 125%.
The move signals a partial retreat from what had been shaping up as a broad and aggressive trade war. For most countries, the US will now apply a 10% baseline tariff for the next three months. But the White House made clear that its tariffs on Chinese imports will remain in place.
So why did President Trump back away from the broader tariff push? The answer is simple: the economic cost to the US was too high.
Using a global economic model, we have been estimating the macroeconomic consequences of the Trump administration’s tariff plans as they have developed.
The following table shows two versions of the economic effects of the tariff plan:
As is clear, the US would have faced steep and immediate losses in employment, investment, growth, and most importantly, real consumption, the best measure of household living standards.
Under the pre-pause scenario, the US would have seen real consumption fall by 2.4% in 2025 alone. Real gross domestic product (GDP) would have declined by 2.6%, while employment falls by 2.7% and real investment (after inflation) plunges 6.6%.
These are not trivial adjustments. They represent significant contractions that would be felt in everyday life, from job losses to price increases to reduced household purchasing power. Since the current US unemployment rate is 4.2%, these results suggest that for every three currently unemployed Americans, two more would join their ranks.
Our modelling shows the damage would not just be short-term. Across the 2025–2040 projection period, US real consumption losses would have averaged 1.2%, with persistent investment weakness and a long-term decline in real GDP.
It is likely that internal economic advice reflected this kind of outlook. The decision to pause most of the tariff increases may well be an acknowledgement that the policy was economically unsustainable and would result in a permanent reduction in US global economic power. Financial markets were also rattled.
The new arrangement announced on April 9 scales the higher tariff regime back to a flat 10% for about 70 countries, but keeps the full weight of tariffs on Chinese goods at around 125%. Rates on Canadian and Mexican imports remain at 25%.
In response, China has announced an 84% tariff on US goods.
The table’s “post-pause” column summarises the results of the scaled-back plan if the pause becomes permanent. For consistency, we assume all countries except Australia, Japan and Korea retaliate with tariffs equal to those imposed by the US.
As is clear from the “post-pause” results, lower US tariffs, together with lower retaliatory tariffs, equal less damage for the US economy.
Tariffs applied uniformly are less distortionary, and significant retaliation from just one major partner (China) is easier to absorb than a broad global response.
However, the costs will still be high. The US is projected to experience a 1.9% drop in real consumption in 2025, driven by lower employment and reduced efficiency in production. Real investment is projected to fall by 4.8%, and employment by 2.1%.
Perhaps we should not be surprised that the costs are still so high. In 2022, China, Canada and Mexico accounted for almost 45% of all US goods imports, and many countries were already facing 10% reciprocal tariffs in the “pre-pause” scenario. Trump’s tariff pause has not changed duty rates for these countries.
Much of the domestic commentary in Australia has focused on the risk of collateral damage from a US-China trade war. Given Australia’s economic ties to both countries, it is a reasonable concern.
But our modelling suggests that Australia may actually benefit modestly. Under both scenarios, Australia’s real consumption rises slightly, driven by stronger investment, improved terms of trade (a measure of our export prices relative to import prices), and redirection of trade flows.
One mechanism is what economists call trade diversion: if Chinese or European exporters find the US market less attractive, they may redirect goods to Australia and other open markets.
At the same time, reduced global demand for capital, especially in the US and China, means lower interest rates globally. That stimulates investment elsewhere, including in Australia. In our model, Australian real investment rises under both scenarios, leading to small but sustained gains in GDP and household consumption.
These results suggest that, at least under current policy settings, Australia is unlikely to suffer significant direct effects from the tariff increases.
However, rising investor uncertainty is a risk for both the global and Australian economies, and this is not factored into our modelling. In the space of a single week, the Trump administration has whipsawed global investor confidence through three major tariff announcements.
Tariffs appear to be central to the administration’s economic program. So Trump’s decision to pause his broader tariff agenda may not signal a shift in philosophy: just a tactical retreat.
The updated strategy, high tariffs on China and lower ones elsewhere, might reflect an attempt to refocus on where the administration sees its main strategic concern, while avoiding unnecessary blowback from allies and neutral partners.
Whether this narrower approach proves durable remains to be seen. The sharpest economic pain has been deferred. Whether it returns depends on how the next 90 days play out.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Muslim and Palestinian advocacy groups have called for the term dehumanisation to be used by Australian universities, instead of two distinct terms: antisemitism and Islamophobia.
In February, Australian universities agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Now, they are developing a corresponding definition of Islamophobia.
Eight Muslim and Palestinian organisations argue separate definitions would pit groups against each other and risk “suppressing legitimate criticism”.
But what is dehumanisation?
Dehumanisation involves seeing certain groups as inhuman or subhuman, so undeserving of equal treatment. It can attribute evil, machine-like or animal features to them.
There are two broad forms of dehumanisation. In the first, groups are denied uniquely human traits, such as cognitive aptitude, refinement and civility. This is called animalistic dehumanisation.
In the second, groups are denied traits fundamental – but not necessarily unique – to humans (such as warmth and being emotional). This typically means groups are likened to robots or self-operating machines. This is called mechanistic dehumanisation.
Both kinds of dehumanisation strip people of intrinsic human qualities and dignity, while morally justifying discrimination and violence against them. It is an outcome of racism, xenophobia, misogyny and religious intolerance.
Compared to group-based terms like “Islamophobia” or “antisemitism”, dehumanisation is a broader and more inclusive definition of hate. It applies to hate directed at the disabled and homeless, as well as racial, religious and sexual minorities. It also includes everyday hate, with no historical or political backdrop.
In February this year, the Australian Human Rights Commission, after consulting widely with Arab, Jewish, Muslim and Palestinian communities, published a report noting that dehumanisation was “a common characteristic of racist incidents”.
Viewing or framing everyone within the same community as having “the same inherent nature” fosters “isolation, exclusion and fear”, the report said.
Dehumanisation can appear in subtle forms, like thinking others lack fully developed human qualities, so are incapable. This can lead to negative stereotypes.
For example, Black and Indigenous communities are often portrayed as dangerous, backward and inherently prone to criminality. Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations (1996) is just one example of a widely cited, “classic” book that portrays Muslims as violent and backward,. It states “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards”. Its many critics include Edward Said.
In its stronger form, dehumanisation involves seeing groups of people as animals or machines. This can create a feeling of disgust, and escalate to a desire by one group to exterminate the other.
History shows the danger of dehumanisation if it is not stopped early. Before the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, Hutu leaders labelled all Tutsi men, women and children cockroaches. In Nazi Germany, Jewish people were likened to viruses or parasites, which led to murder and genocide.
Israeli officials have used animal and insect metaphors to dehumanise Palestinian people and justify violence.
In Australia (and around the world), First Nations people were exploited and mistreated, cast as less than human. In just one example, up to 20 Aboriginal people were taken from northern Australia to be exhibited alongside animals in a “Human Zoo” that toured Europe and North America in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Community-specific hate definitions are shaped by unique histories and struggles. Yet hate is rarely one-dimensional. The term dehumanisation helps address:
Complex motives: hate often stems from a mix of religion, race, gender and politics – not just one identity.
Intersectionality: groups with overlapping vulnerabilities – such as Muslim women who are visibly identifiable, migrants or solo mothers – often face layered discrimination, missed by single definitions.
Regional and historical differences: antisemitism in Europe, Islamophobia in China or anti-Black racism in the US vary widely in context and expression.
Blurry lines between critique and hate: legitimate criticism is sometimes wrongly branded as bigotry. Criticism of the Taliban, for example, is not Islamophobia. Nor is criticism of the current Israeli government’s actions necessarily antisemitic.
Uncategorised hate: Dehumanisation captures harms that fall outside traditional categories. This includes discrimination against the elderly, obese, mentally ill, or homeless.
Clarity: University complaint officers can lack the legal or cultural expertise to interpret nuanced definitions. A dehumanisation framework simplifies the process. It focuses on impact, not intent.
Yet, dehumanisation as a framework needs to be made even stronger.
It should cover hate-motivated property damage. It should be legally grounded and adaptable across marginalised groups. And it should be tested by complaint officers, so it can streamline responses, aligned with Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act (Sections 18C and 18D), to ensure fairness across all forms of hate.
Global tensions have led to growing pressure on universities to adopt politicised, sometimes controversial definitions of antisemitism and Islamophobia.
Such community-specific definitions have educational value. They raise awareness and build empathy. But relying solely on them can risk creating a hierarchy of hate, over-prioritising some groups, while leaving others unrecognised or unsupported.
Research suggests dehumanisation is a more inclusive, evidence-informed alternative. As a standalone, standard description of hate, dehumanisation highlights our common vulnerability to hate and exclusion. And it invites collective strategies to overcome it, regardless of background.
Derya Iner 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.
Please see library staff for password and Username
Sell-off comes amid anger from Democrats over retreat that rattled markets, while Republicans praise Trump’s ‘art of the deal’ in action
US stocks fell again on Thursday morning after a historic rally following Donald Trump’s shock retreat Wednesday on the hefty tariffs he had just imposed on dozens of countries.
The sell-off comes as Democrats continue to react with anger over the sudden retreat that rattled markets, while Republicans praised Trump’s “art of the deal” in action, referencing Trump’s 1987 book.
Continue reading...Guardian Australia is highlighting the plight of our endangered native species during an election campaign that is ignoring broken environment laws and rapidly declining ecosystems
A rare “bum-breathing” turtle found in a single river system in Queensland has suffered one of its worst breeding seasons on record due to flooding last December. It has prompted volunteers to question how many more “bad years” the species can survive.
A freshwater species that breathes by absorbing oxygen through gill-like structures in its tail, the Mary River turtle is endemic to south-east Queensland. Its population has fallen by more than 80% since the 1960s and its conservation status was upgraded from endangered to critically endangered last year.
Get Guardian Australia environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as an email
Continue reading...Exclusive: Peter Dutton’s plan to reduce public service may see 26.5% jobs at Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission disappear, according to union
Hundreds of jobs could be lost at the government agency responsible for investigating allegations of serious wrongdoing and mistreatment in aged care homes if the Coalition wins the election, the public sector union has warned.
The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission has hired more than 500 public servants since the 2022 election to deal with a backlog of complaints from residents and to resolve a “staggering” number of real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest involving consultants paid millions of dollars to conduct audits in homes.
Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter
Continue reading...Alice Fraser thought she was being paranoid until her lawyer advised her jokes about Donald Trump and Elon Musk could be scrutinised at US airport
An award-winning Australian comedian has cancelled a planned trip to the US after receiving legal advice that she could be stopped at the border due to her previous jokes about the Trump administration.
Alice Fraser, who has appeared on Australia’s ABC and the BBC and toured internationally, was due to head to New York in the first week of May to promote her recently published book.
Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter
Continue reading...Gout Gout has become the third Australian to run 100m in less than 10 seconds, and he did it twice within two hours on a dramatic day at the national athletic championships in Perth.
But neither of the teenager’s two times of 9.99s – one in the heat and one in the final – will be formally recorded due to illegal tailwinds.
Continue reading...
Cereal Readers is a book resource website where you can find books published in series for children and young adults. We recognize that books in series are vitally important to both avid and reluctant readers alike. Why is that?
Well, if truth be told, we all prefer the familiar, and once you've read a book you enjoy there's a high probability you'll enjoy the other books in the series, too. You like the genre; you enjoy the writing style; you know the characters - it's simplicity itself to slip from one book to the next. If you're not an eager reader, you can leverage the time you've already invested in finally finding a book you enjoy, and delay your laborious search for a new novel of interest. Just relax and cruise your way through an entire series. If you're a voracious reader, you can take a reprieve from the never-ending hunt for the next good read for a whole...week. It's win-win!
Seriously Series-Centric
Our whole site is series focused in structure with the following features:
Cereal Readers wants to show you the popular series, as well as those fabulous series you had no idea even existed. Keep in mind, our site is fresh out-of-the-box and will be growing week-by-week. Apart from continuing to build our reference of series and authors, we will be adding reviews, site features and visitor interactivity in the months to come. Please let us know if a series you particularly enjoy has not yet been included on the site, so we can hasten its arrival. Wishing you happy serial reading, from Cereal Readers!
