Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jesse Kearse, Postdoctoral Researcher, Geophysics, Kyoto University

During the devastating magnitude 7.7 Myanmar earthquake on March 28 this year, a CCTV camera captured the moment the plate boundary moved, providing the first direct visual evidence of plate tectonics in action.

Tectonic plate boundaries are where chunks of Earth’s crust slide past each other – not smoothly, but in sudden, violent ruptures.

The footage shows Earth’s surface lurching sideways, like a gigantic conveyor belt switched on for just a second, as the fault slips.

What we’re seeing is the propagation of a large earthquake rupture – the primary mechanism that accommodates plate boundary motion at Earth’s surface. These shear fractures travel at several kilometres per second, making them notoriously difficult to observe.

These rare events, separated by centuries, have shaped our planet’s surface over millions of years, creating features such as Aotearoa New Zealand’s Alpine Fault and the Southern Alps.

Until now, seismologists have relied on distant seismic instruments to infer how faults rupture during large earthquakes. This video sheds new light on the process that radiates seismic energy and causes the ground to shake.

Analysis of the video

In our new study, we analysed the video frame by frame. We used a technique called pixel cross-correlation to reveal that the fault slipped 2.5 metres sideways over a duration of just 1.3 seconds, with a maximum speed of 3.2 metres per second.

The total sideways movement in this earthquake is typical of strike-slip fault ruptures, which move the land sideways (in contrast to faults that move land up and down).

But the short duration is a major discovery.

The timing of when a fault starts and stops slipping is especially difficult to measure from distant recordings, because the seismic signal becomes smeared as it travels through Earth.

In this case, the short duration of motion reveals a pulse-like rupture – a concentrated burst of slip that propagates along the fault like a ripple travels down a rug when it’s flicked from one end.

Capturing this kind of detail is fundamental to understanding how earthquakes work, and it helps us better anticipate the ground shaking likely to occur in future large events.

Validation of the ‘slickenline’ hypothesis

Our analysis also revealed something more subtle about the way the fault moved.

We found the slip didn’t follow a straight path. Instead it curved. This subtle curvature mirrors patterns we’ve observed previously at fault outcrops.

Called “slickenlines”, these geological scratch marks on the fault record the direction of slip.

Our work shows the slickenlines we see on outcrops are curved in a manner similar to the curvature seen in the CCTV footage. Based on our video analysis, we can be certain that curved slip occurs, giving credence to our interpretations based on geological observations.

In our earlier research, we used computer models to show that curved slickenlines could emerge naturally when an earthquake propagates in a particular direction. The Myanmar rupture, which is known to have travelled north to south, matches the direction predicted by our models.

This alignment is important. It gives us confidence in using geological evidence to determine the rupture direction of past earthquakes, such as the curved slickenlines left behind after the New Zealand Alpine Fault’s 1717 earthquake.

This first glimpse of a fault in motion shows the potential for video to become a powerful new tool in seismology. With more strategic deployments, future earthquakes could be documented with similar detail, offering further insight into the dynamics of fault rupture, potentially revolutionising our understanding of earthquake physics.

Jesse Kearse receives funding from Royal Society Te Apārangi Marsden Fund.

– ref. The first video of Earth’s surface lurching sideways in an earthquake offers new insights into this force of nature – https://theconversation.com/the-first-video-of-earths-surface-lurching-sideways-in-an-earthquake-offers-new-insights-into-this-force-of-nature-261004

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hortle, Deputy Director, Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania

When the results firmed up a few hours after polling closed on Saturday, many Tasmanians would have been wondering, “what was the point of all that?”.

A state election only 16 months after the last one looks to have delivered a parliament with a broadly similar distribution of seats.

Read more:
Liberals easily win most seats at Tasmanian election, but Labor may form government

The results

By the time counting ceased last night, the ABC had the Liberals on 14 seats, Labor on nine, the Greens on five, and three confirmed independents.

With 65.3% of the vote counted, four seats remained in doubt. There was a small positive swing to the Liberals (3.3%), while a swing against Labor of 3.1% has them on track for their worst primary vote in more than a hundred years. The final seats may not be confirmed for a couple of weeks.

Love, Labor’s lost

At this stage, it looks like Labor’s gambit – instigating the no confidence motion that led to this election – has utterly failed. The party will now need to engage in some sober self-reflection on two fronts.

First, there is the one-dimensional strategy that brought on the election and allowed the Liberals to blame Labor – and leader Dean Winter in particular – for dragging Tasmanians to the polls again.

Labor had hoped that targeting the no confidence motion specifically at Premier Jeremy Rockliff would encourage the conservative-leaning Liberal cabinet to turf out their moderate leader.

It was a near thing. Rockliff’s rivals apparently had almost enough votes to depose him by the time the Governor called the election.

But did anyone at Labor HQ plan for what would happen if their gamble failed and the Liberals held firm under Rockliff? As Labor’s woefully under-prepared campaign stumbled into motion, it seemed the answer was “no”.

Second, there will be questions asked about that lacklustre campaign, just as there were in 2024. An opposition could not ask for more favourable conditions: an 11-year incumbent government suffering a string of high profile policy failures; a looming mountain of debt; and ongoing health, education, housing, cost of living and sustainability challenges.

And yet, Labor suffered negative swings in every seat, and they are battling to match their 2024 result of 10 seats.

Liberals and Greens hold firm

The Liberals will be pleased with the result. In the face of the dire circumstances outlined above, they have secured a positive swing in their primary vote and may pick up one or (at an outside chance) two additional seats.

It doesn’t seem like their pro-stadium stance lost them votes in the north – where the proposal is unpopular – in part because Labor denied themselves a point of difference by also supporting the stadium.

Another important factor in the north was the recruitment of two former federal Liberal MPs in Bass and Braddon, who are both polling well so far. However, their success may come at the expense of sitting Liberal members.

The Greens’ vote held steady, with a projected 0.2% increase in their primary vote. All of their MPs had been returned before the close of counting on Saturday night, and they will be hoping one more can scrape through in Braddon.

The crossbench zoo

As expected, ex-Labor MP David O’Byrne, centre-left Kristie Johnston, and maverick Northwester Craig Garland were all returned. Johnston and Garland, in particlar, seem to have strongly increased their vote shares.

There will be at least one new independent, with anti-salmon farm advocate Peter George securing a very strong primary vote in Franklin off the back of his recent federal campaign.

There is a chance that this broadly progressive crossbench will be joined by climate change denier and pro-gun rights candidate Carlo di Falco (Lyons) from the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers.

Where to now?

So how are the major party leaders approaching the looming period of wheeling and dealing? Who’s forming minority government?

Rockliff was the first to address the tally room on election night. He boldly claimed that the voters had re-endorsed his Liberal government – based on their increased vote share – and said he will ask the Governor to recommission him as premier.

However, with only 14 or 15 seats, it will be challenging for the Liberals to implement their agenda in a parliament featuring a crossbench that is, for the most part, solidly progressive and vehemently anti-stadium.

The Greens’ leader, Rosalie Woodruff, also spoke and again extended an offer of cooperation to Labor.

Finally, as election night drew to a close, Labor Leader Dean Winter stepped up to speak. His tonally confused speech began with a tribute to murdered Tasmanian Police Constable Keith Smith, then shifted to the need for a more collaborative approach to politics. Winter left things on a cliffhanger, essentially saying “let’s wait and see”.

Observers in the room noted the speech was strikingly similar to that given by former leader Rebecca White following the 2024 election – shortly before she was replaced by Winter.

Will Labor have a crack at forming government? There would be a few obstacles to this. First, Winter would have to negotiate support from the diverse crossbench, including the Greens, with whom he has previously vowed not to collaborate.

He and Labor have ignored previous opportunities to seize government in this way, the most recent being just five weeks ago. A change in tack at this stage could be difficult to sell.

And if Rockliff forges ahead with his stated plan, Labor and the crossbench would need to vote down a new Liberal minority government on the floor of parliament. Labor would need to be very certain of their ability to govern before doing this – or risk another election.

So while all of the party leaders spoke of maturity and collaboration in their speeches, until actions match words, Tasmanians will be forced to watch the parliamentary shenanigans continue.

Robert Hortle 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.

– ref. After yet another election, Tasmanians are left wondering what the point of it was – https://theconversation.com/after-yet-another-election-tasmanians-are-left-wondering-what-the-point-of-it-was-260505

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

With 63% of enrolled voters counted in today’s Tasmanian state election, The Poll Bludger is projecting that the final results will give the Liberals 39.7% of the statewide vote (up 3.0% since the March 2024 election), Labor just 25.7% (down 3.1%), the Greens 14.1% (up 0.2%), the Shooters 3.2% (up 0.9%), the Nationals 1.7% and independents 15.4%.

Tasmania uses the proportional Hare-Clark system for its lower house elections. As described previously, the five seats Tasmania has at federal elections each return seven members for a total of 35 MPs. A quota for election is one-eighth of the vote, or 12.5%.

The main Poll Bludger page gives projected quotas for each electorate for the Liberals, Labor and the Greens. The Liberals have just under four quotas in Braddon, over three in Bass and Lyons and over two in Clark and Franklin, suggesting 14 definite seats with more possible.

Labor is just above or just below two quotas in all five seats, and should win ten seats. The Greens have 1.8 quotas in Clark, over one in each of Franklin, Bass and Lyons and 0.6 in Braddon, so they should win at least five seats.

Of the independents, environmental campaigner Craig Garland has 0.8 quotas in Braddon and will be re-elected. Left-wing independent Kristie Johnston has 1.3 quotas in Clark, and will also be re-elected. In Franklin, both former Labor leader David O’Byrne and Teal Peter George (0.9 and 1.3 quotas respectively) have been elected.

In Lyons, the Shooters candidate, with 0.6 quotas, is well positioned to win the final seat. In Bass, it appears more complex, but the final seat is likely to go to either the Liberals or the Shooters. None of the three former Jacqui Lambie Network MPs who won seats at the March 2024 election have been re-elected.

Overall, the right-wing parties (Liberals and Shooters) are likely to win 16 of the 35 seats, but Labor, the Greens and left-wing independents are likely to win 19 seats. So even though the Liberals will win the most seats, Labor may be able to cobble together a government, but only if they cooperate with the Greens.

This overall result assumes a 4–3 right split in Bass, Braddon and Lyons, but a 5–2 left split in both Clark and Franklin. In Franklin, the Liberals would be unlucky not to win three with 2.7 quotas, but Labor has 1.8 quotas and preferences from George should assist Labor.

Many pre-poll votes have not yet been counted, and postals won’t be counted until next week. Postals are likely to assist the Liberals. The postal effect should be accounted for by The Poll Bludger’s projections.

YouGov poll badly understated Liberals

A late YouGov poll, conducted July 7–18 from a sample of 931, gave the Liberals 31% of the statewide vote (steady since June), Labor 30% (down four), the Greens 16% (up three), the Nationals 2%, the Shooters 1% and independents 20% (up two).

A two-party vote is not applicable in Tasmania’s proportional system, but this poll gave Labor a 55–45 lead over the Liberals. Labor leader Dean Winter also led Liberal incumbent Jeremy Rockliff as better premier by 55–45. Rockliff was at -19 net approval and Winter at -13.

The only other public Tasmanian polls were conducted by DemosAU. The final DemosAU poll, which I covered on Tuesday, gave the Liberals 34.9%, Labor 24.7%, the Greens 15.6%, the Nationals 2.7%, the Shooters 1.8% and independents 20.3%.

The results show the Liberals headed for about a 14-point vote share win over Labor, so YouGov badly understated them.

Federal Bradfield legal challenge

Last Monday the Liberals challenged Teal Nicolette Boele’s 26-vote win in Bradfield at the May 3 federal election to the High Court, acting as the Court of Disputed Returns. Boele will be seated until the court resolves the case.

The court can either confirm Boele’s win, void the election for this seat and order a byelection in Bradfield, or overturn the result and declare the Liberal candidate elected.

After the official declaration of the election on June 12, the 40-day period for legal challenges to the results expires on Tuesday. Tuesday will also be the first sitting of federal parliament since the election, though it could have sat at any time after June 12.

The Bradfield challenge will delay a Labor vs Liberal two-party count in that seat until the challenge is resolved. It’s likely the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) current estimate in Bradfield is understating Labor, and therefore Labor is being very slightly understated nationally.

DemosAU polls on democracy in Australia and Queensland federal

DemosAU has emailed me a poll on democracy and voting systems in Australia. This poll was conducted in two waves in May and June from a total sample of 1,713.

By 69–12, respondents thought Australian democracy is something to be proud of, and by 71–19 they did not think Australia needs a PM like Donald Trump. By 67–15, respondents trusted the AEC. By 53–23, they did not want the number of MPs increased.

Asked for preferred voting system in the House of Representatives, 36% selected compulsory preferential voting (CPV), 27% first past the post (FPTP), 25% optional preferential voting (OPV) and 12% proportional representation (PR).

Head to head, CPV and OPV both beat FPTP by 53–47, while CPV beat OPV by 54–46. All single-member systems were much preferred to PR.

I previously covered the Queensland state DemosAU poll. In the federal Queensland poll, Labor led by 53–47 (50.6–49.4 to the Coalition at the election). Primary votes were 35% Labor, 31% Coalition, 13% One Nation, 12% Greens and 9% for all Others.

Adrian Beaumont 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.

– ref. Liberals easily win most seats at Tasmanian election, but Labor may form government – https://theconversation.com/liberals-easily-win-most-seats-at-tasmanian-election-but-labor-may-form-government-261255

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra

John Owen Stone AO was a legendary leader of the Commonwealth Treasury. He was secretary (departmental head) from January 1979 to September 1984 but was an intellectual driving force before then as deputy secretary from 1971 to 1978.

Over those years he dealt with eight treasurers: Billy Snedden, Gough Whitlam, Frank Crean, Jim Cairns, Bill Hayden, Phillip Lynch, John Howard and Paul Keating.

It is a sign of his influence that those years were dubbed the “Stone Age” by South Australian Premier Don Dunstan and others.

Former Defence Department heads Arthur Tange and Tony Ayers were at various times called the “last of the mandarins” but Stone is probably truly the last.

In 1978 journalist Paul Kelly called Stone “one of the two men who ran the nation”, the other being then prime minister Malcolm Fraser.

It is hard to think of any later public servant about whom that could be said.

Stone’s entry in the Senate’s biographical dictionary captures him well:

he could be charming, witty and flattering, but he is often decried as being obstinate and arrogant.

A Reserve Bank official is said to have said “I wish I was as certain about one thing as John Stone is about everything.”

This obduracy cemented the Treasury’s reputation for arrogance and weakened its influence.

Early years – from physics to economics

John was born in 1929, the elder of two sons of a farmer and a primary school teacher. His childhood was spent in the Western Australian wheat belt. But after his parents divorced when he was 12, he moved with his mother to Perth.

He attended Perth Modern School where contemporaries included Bob Hawke, Rolf Harris and Maxwell Newton.

He graduated with first-class honours from the University of Western Australia in 1950, majoring in mathematical physics, and served as president of the students’ association.

While there he met Billy Snedden, who two decades later would be Prime Minister William McMahon’s treasurer and with whom Stone would work as treasury deputy secretary.

In 1951 he won a Rhodes scholarship. He initially enrolled for a physics degree at Oxford, but switched to economics, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts in Politics, Philosophy and Economics.

He joined Australia’s Treasury, initially in its London office, in 1954. The same year he married Nancy Hardwick, a biochemical researcher, and they would have five children.

The mandarin who put Treasury first

Stone was an admirer of fellow Rhodes scholar Sir Roland Wilson, the longest-serving Treasury secretary with doctorates from Oxford and Chicago.

Along with Wilson, Stone was a strong critic of the 1965 report of the Committee of Economic Inquiry known as the Vernon Report which called for greater planning and an independent economic advisory committee whose advice would have rivalled Treasury’s and succeeded in having Prime Minister Menzies reject it.

In the late 1960s as treasury’s representative he was an executive director at the International Monetary Fund and defied his treasurer William McMahon by voting against the introduction of Special Drawing Rights that gave members rights over other members’ reserves.

Stone believed that was why he was passed over for the secretary’s position when Frederick Wheeler was appointed in 1971.

At treasury in the 1970s, Stone publicly clashed with members of a global environmental group called the Club of Rome about whether there were environmental limits to economic growth.

During a public meeting in Canberra in 1973, he argued the world would not run out of the resources it needed because price rises would create incentives to use them more efficiently and develop substitutes.

These ideas permeated the treasury’s second economic research paper called Economic Growth – is it Worth Having? which he heavily influenced.

Stone claimed to have personally drafted the words in Treasurer Bill Hayden’s 1975 budget statement that said Australia was

no longer operating in that simple Keynesian world in which some reduction in unemployment could, apparently, always be purchased at the cost of some more inflation.

Stone was the driving force behind the subsequent Fraser government’s mantra of “fight inflation first”.

As a senior Treasury officer, Stone was often openly contemptuous of politicians. He would share these views with journalists at the bar of the Hotel Canberra and in later years at the bar of the National Press Club.

He was particularly critical when politicians had the temerity to take advice from what he termed “meretricious players” from outside the treasury.

This attitude led Stone to oppose even the sort of free-market measures he might be expected to like when they were advocated by someone else.

He unsuccessfully opposed the Whitlam government’s cuts to tariffs in 1973 and some of the recommendations of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into Australia’s financial system in 1981.

Fraser is said to have said Stone “believes in the deregulation of everything he does not regulate”.

Stone also opposed the Hawke government’s decision to float the dollar in 1983.

He argued the timing was wrong and that the dollar would appreciate, weakening the economy. After rising for a short time, the dollar actually depreciated and the economy performed strongly.

Ludicrously, Stone denied having ever opposed it.

Many in the Labor Party had wanted Stone sacked when it came to power in 1983, but Keating kept him on, partly to reassure financial markets. As Keating’s confidence in his own judgement grew, Stone’s influence waned.

Stone announced his resignation just before the August 1984 budget and made a scathing attack on many of the government’s policies in his 1984 Shann Memorial Lecture at the University of Western Australia.

Read more:
Happy birthday AUD: how our Australian dollar was floated, 40 years ago this week

Politics post-treasury

Stone isn’t the only treasury official to have gone into politics. Leslie Bury even became treasurer. Jim Short and Arthur Sinodinos became assistant treasurers.

But Stone was the only former head of the treasury to enter politics. He served as a National Party Senator for Queensland from 1987 to 1990, having been part of the Joh for Canberra campaign which had as its organising principle the anointing of Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen as prime minister.

He was the Senate running mate to Sir Joh’s wife Flo Bjelke-Petersen.

Stone was twice the Coalition’s finance spokesman, but he was something of a loose cannon. John Howard dropped him from the front bench for a time after he said “Asian immigration has to be slowed”.

He apparently held ambitions to be treasurer. In 1990 he resigned from the Senate to contest a seat in the House of Representatives that would have made that easier given treasurers are traditionally members of the lower house.

Stone failed to win it. He then reneged on an earlier promise by nominating to return to his Senate seat. Faced with uproar in the party, he withdrew and his meteoric political career was over.

He co-founded the HR Nicholls Society, which pressed for the deregulation of industrial relations laws, and the Samuel Griffith Society which concerned itself with states’ rights.

Stone was active in the Institute of Public Affairs and wrote frequently in Quadrant. He opposed republicanism, centralism, trade unionism, multiculturalism and climate action.

He died aged 96 and is survived by five children.

John Hawkins was a senior economist at the Australian Treasury where he wrote a series of biographical essays on Australian treasurers.

Selwyn Cornish is the Reserve Bank of Australia historian and a former Australian Treasury official.

– ref. From ‘Stone Age’ treasury boss to National Party Senator: John Stone 1929-2025 – https://theconversation.com/from-stone-age-treasury-boss-to-national-party-senator-john-stone-1929-2025-216360

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenna Woods, Dean, School of Indigenous Knowledges, Murdoch University

First Nations people please be advised this article speaks of racially discriminating moments in history, including the distress and death of First Nations people.

In 1997, Australia was confronted with the landmark Bringing Them Home report. It chronicled the country’s long, dark history of the forced removal of First Nations children.

The report also made recommendations on what to do next. Compensation was key among them. Every state and territory heeded that call in the years that followed, except Western Australia.

In the decades since, many have called for the recognition of, and compensation for, First Nations people in WA forcibly removed from their families, culture and Country. In May, Premier Roger Cook answered that call, announcing a redress scheme for living survivors of the Stolen Generations.

But the Stolen Generations aren’t just historical; they’re ongoing. Many still feel the reverberations of decades of trauma. WA will finally seek to redress some of it.

Generations forced apart

WA had the highest rates of forcible removal of Aboriginal children in this country. Today, more than 50% of Aboriginal people in WA are either Stolen Generations survivors or their direct descendants.

Historian Margaret Jacobs wrote that through the 1905 Aborigines Protection Act, “Indigeneity itself became inextricably associated with neglect”.

Aboriginal families, due solely to their Aboriginality, were regarded as inferior and their children were removed en masse to missions where traditional cultural practices were prohibited. Stolen Generations child removals continued until the 1970s.

In the missions where Aboriginal children were placed after removal, psychological, physical and sexual abuse was widespread. The children, often removed as infants, were institutionalised and raised by religious missionaries.

Speaking in traditional languages or engaging in cultural practices were prohibited, with the goal being to strip them of their Aboriginality so they could be fully assimilated into Western society. To minimise barriers to this, parents and families were prohibited from communicating or visiting their children.

The human consequences of these inhumane practices have been monumental.

The financial impact

Attachment theory attests to the importance of early childhood experiences of love, care and safety on an individual’s future life outcomes. The theory suggests infants develop one of four main attachment styles in response to the care they receive from their parents or other carers during infancy.

The significance of this in the context of generations of children being forcibly removed from their caregivers cannot be understated.

In addition, the majority of Stolen Generations children survived various forms of abuse within these institutions and live with the resulting trauma of that.

Under the 1905 act, any property or personal items owned by Aboriginal people could be confiscated at any time and money owing to Aboriginal peoples, including wages, was to be paid to the Chief Protector of Aborigines.

This prevented Aboriginal families from securing financial stability and establishing intergenerational wealth, despite their significant labour contributions to WA’s economic development.

A good indicator of intergenerational wealth consolidation can be found in rates of home ownership.

Currently, 45.8% of Aboriginal people in the greater Perth area own their home, compared with 70.4% of their non-Aboriginal counterparts.

Of those, 10.8% of Aboriginal households own their home outright, compared with 28.5% for non-Aboriginal owners.

This makes redress not just a symbolic move, but a deeply practical one too.

Compounding disadvantage

Overall, these circumstances have created a “gap within the Gap”.

This refers to the first gap, being that Aboriginal people have poorer life outcomes than their non-Aboriginal counterparts.

The gap within that gap is that Stolen Generations survivors and their descendants have poorer life outcomes than the general Aboriginal population.

Stolen Generations peoples and their descendants are more likely to have mental health disorders, to experience family violence, homelessness or criminal justice involvement, and to have an addiction, including substances and gambling, while also being less likely to have a support network.

This state scheme will make individual payments to living survivors of the Stolen Generations who were forcibly removed before July 1 1972.

It will deliver a one-off payment of $85,000 to survivors in recognition of the trauma and pain they suffered through their removal.

Registrations for Stolen Generations members who are eligible for this scheme will open in the latter half of 2025 and payments will commence by the end of the year.

It won’t fix everything, but it’s a welcome sign of progress.

13YARN is a free and confidential 24/7 national crisis support line for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are feeling overwhelmed or having difficulty coping. Call 13 92 76.

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.

– ref. WA had the highest rates of Indigenous child removal in the country. At last, the state is finally facing up to it – https://theconversation.com/wa-had-the-highest-rates-of-indigenous-child-removal-in-the-country-at-last-the-state-is-finally-facing-up-to-it-258695

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Wilson, Research Fellow and PhD Candidate in Men’s Mental Health, The University of Melbourne

Breakups hurt. Emotional and psychological distress are common when intimate relationships break down. For some people, this distress can be so overwhelming that it leads to suicidal thoughts and behaviours.

This problem seems especially the case for men. Intimate partner problems including breakups, separation and divorce feature in the paths to suicide among one in three Australian men aged 25 to 44 who end their lives.

Men account for three in every four suicides in many nations worldwide, including Australia. So improving our understanding of links between relationship breakdown and men’s suicide risk has life-saving potential.

Our research, published today, is the first large-scale review of the evidence to focus on understanding men’s risk of suicide after a breakup. We found separated men were nearly five times more likely to die by suicide compared to married men.

What did we find?

We brought together findings from 75 studies across 30 countries worldwide, involving more than 106 million men.

We focused on understanding why relationship breakdown can lead to suicide in men, and which men are most at risk. We might not be able to prevent breakups from happening, but we can promote healthy adjustment to the stress of relationship breakdown to try and prevent suicide.

Overall, we found divorced men were 2.8 times more likely to take their lives than married men.

For separated men, the risk was much higher. We found that separated men were 4.8 times more likely to die by suicide than married men.

Most strikingly, we found separated men under 35 years of age had nearly nine times greater odds of suicide than married men of the same age.

The short-term period after relationship breakdown therefore appears particularly risky for men’s mental health.

What are these men feeling?

Some men’s difficulties regulating the intense emotional stress of relationship breakdown can play a role in their suicide risk. For some men, the emotional pain tied to separation – deep sadness, shame, guilt, anxiety and loss – can be so intense it feels never-ending.

Many men are raised in a culture of masculinity that often encourages them to suppress or withdraw from their emotions in times of intense stress.

Some men also experience difficulties understanding or interpreting their emotions, which can create challenges in knowing how to respond to them.

Overall, our research found relationship breakdown may lead to suicide for some men because of the complex interaction between the individual (emotional distress) and interpersonal (changes in their social network and availability of support) impacts of a breakup.

Many of these impacts don’t seem to feature in the paths to suicide after a breakup for women in the same way.

Breakups also impact social networks

As intimate relationships become more serious, we tend to spend less time investing in our friendships, especially if juggling the demands of a career and family.

Many men, especially in heterosexual relationships, rely on their intimate partner as a primary source of social and emotional support – often at the expense of connections outside their relationship.

This can create a risky situation if relationships break down, as it seems many men are left with little support to turn to. This rang true in our research, as men’s social disconnection and loneliness seemed to increase their suicide risk following relationship breakdown.

We also know people can struggle to know how to support men after a breakup. Research has found some men who ask for support are told to just “get back on the horse”. Such a response invalidates men’s pain and reinforces masculine stereotypes that relationship breakdown doesn’t affect them.

So, what can we do?

There is no simple answer to preventing suicide following relationship breakdown, but a range of opportunities exist.

We can intervene early, by educating young people with the skills to end relationships healthily, handle rejection and regulate the difficult emotions of a breakup.

We can embed support groups and other opportunities for connection and peer support in relationship services that are regularly in contact with those navigating separation, to help combat loneliness.

We can ensure mental health practitioners are equipped with the skills necessary to engage and respond effectively to men who seek help following a breakup, to help keep them safe until they can get back on their feet.

Most importantly, if men come to any of us seeking support after a breakup, we can remember that time is often a great healer. The best we can do is sit with men in their pain, rather than try and get them to stop feeling it. This connection could be life-saving.

Support and information is available at Relationships Australia and MensLine Australia. If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Michael Wilson works for The University of Melbourne and consults to Movember. He receives funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, provided by the Australian Commonwealth Government and the University of Melbourne.

Jacqui Macdonald receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Medical Research Future Fund and the Australian Research Council. She convenes the Australian Fatherhood Research Consortium and she is on the Movember Global Men’s Health Advisory Committee.

Zac Seidler has been awarded an NHMRC Investigator Grant. He is also the Global Director of Research with the Movember Institute of Men’s Health. He advises government on men’s suicide, masculinities, violence prevention and social media policy.

– ref. Separated men are nearly 5 times more likely to take their lives than married men – https://theconversation.com/separated-men-are-nearly-5-times-more-likely-to-take-their-lives-than-married-men-258196

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heike Schanzel, Professor of Social Sustainability in Tourism, Auckland University of Technology

Tourists in Kathmandu are tempted everywhere by advertisements for trekking expeditions to Everest Base Camp. If you didn’t know better, you might think it’s just a nice hike in the Nepalese countryside.

Typically the lower staging post for attempts on the summit, the camp is still 5,364 metres above sea level and a destination in its own right. Travel agencies say no prior experience is required, and all equipment will be provided. Social media, too, is filled with posts enticing potential trekkers to make the iconic journey.

But there is a real risk of creating a false sense of security. An exciting adventure can quickly turn into a struggle for survival, especially for novice mountaineers.

Nevertheless, Sagarmatha National Park is deservedly popular for its natural beauty and the allure of the world’s highest peak, Chomolungma (Mount Everest). It is also home to the ethnically distinctive Sherpa community.

Consequently, the routes to Everest Base Camp are among the busiest in the Himalayas, with nearly 60,000 tourists visiting the area each year. There are two distinct trekking seasons: spring (March to May) and autumn (September to October).

High mountains require everyone to be properly prepared. Events which under normal conditions might be a minor inconvenience can be magnified in such an environment and pose a serious risk.

Even at the start of the trek in Lukla (2,860m), one is exposed to factors that can directly or indirectly affect one’s health, especially altitude mountain sickness or unfamiliar bacteria.

We interviewed 24 trekkers in May this year, as well as 60 residents and business owners in May 2023, to explore some of the safety issues anyone considering heading to base camp should be aware of.

Life at high altitude

First, it’s vital to choose goals within one’s technical and physical capabilities. While the human body can adapt to altitudes of up to 5,300m, the potential risk of altitude mountain sickness can occur at only 2,500m – lower than Lukla.

Proper acclimatisation above 3,000m means ascending no more than 500m a day and resting every two to three days at the same altitude. The optimal (though rarely followed) approach is the “saw tooth system” of climbing during the day but descending to sleep at a lower level.

Residents of the Khumbu region (on the Nepalese side of Everest) are familiar with the problem of tourists not acclimatising, or not paying attention to their surroundings. As one hotel owner said, pointing to a trekker setting out:

He’s going uphill and it’s already late. It’s going to get dark and cold soon. He won’t make it to the next settlement. We have to report this to the authorities or go after him ourselves.

Inexperienced trekkers should hire a local guide. Several we interviewed had needed medical evacuation, including a woman in her mid-20s who had to leave base camp after one night. She found her guides – not locals – online. But they never checked her vital signs during the trek:

[The doctors] said that I had high-altitude pulmonary edema […] it was just really important to come down the elevation. And if I had tried to go higher, it probably would have been really bad.

Health checks throughout the trek are imperative. This includes assessing the four main symptoms of altitude mountain sickness: headache, nausea, dizziness and fatigue. If they appear, the trekker shouldn’t go higher and might even need to descend.

Take time to adapt

Using a reputable local trekking agency might be more expensive, but it will help ensure safety and also familiarise the visitor with the local culture, helping avoid negative impacts on the host community.

Too often, the primary goal of trekkers is a photo on the famous rock at base camp. Once obtained, many simply take a helicopter back to Kathmandu. As a helicopter tour agency owner said:

They don’t want to get back on their feet. The goal, after all, has been achieved. In general, tourists used to be much better prepared. Now they know they can return by helicopter.

Helicopter travel can be dangerous on its own, of course. But this tendency to view the trek as a one-way trip also affects host-guest relations and can irritate local communities.

It’s also important to monitor your food and drink intake and watch for signs of food poisoning. Diarrhoea at high altitudes is particularly dangerous because it leads to rapid dehydration – hard to combat in mountain conditions.

Low air pressure and reduced oxygen exacerbate the condition, weakening the body’s ability to recover. Also, the symptoms of dehydration can resemble altitude mountain sickness.

When travelling in other climate zones or countries with different sanitary standards, there is inevitable contact with strains of bacteria not present in one’s natural microbiome.

A good solution is to spend a few days naturally adapting to bacterial flora at a lower altitude in Nepal before heading to the mountains. Also, try to eat the local food, such as daal bhat, Nepal’s national dish. According to one hotel owner in Pangboche:

Tourists demand strange food from us – pizza, spaghetti, Caesar salad – and then are angry that it doesn’t taste the way they want. This is not our food. You should probably eat local food.

Most of the trekkers we interviewed during this spring season reported experiencing gastrointestinal issues, often for several days.

Overall, diarrhoea-related infections are the leading cause of illness among travellers, including base camp trekkers. Studies conducted in the Himalayas show as many as 14% of mountain tourists contract gastroenteritis, accounting for about 10% of all helicopter evacuations.

In the end, the commonest cause of failure or accident in the mountains is overestimating one’s abilities – what has been called “bad judgement syndrome” – when the route is too hard, the pace too fast, or there’s been too little time spent acclimatising.

A simple solution: walk slowly and enjoy the views.

Michal Apollo receives funding from the National Science Centre NCN Poland, the small-scale project awarded by the Institute of Earth Sciences, and the Research Excellence Initiative of the University of Silesia in Katowice. He is affiliated with the Global Justice Program, Yale University, and Academics Stand Against Poverty.

Heike Schanzel 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.

– ref. Thinking of trekking to Everest Base Camp? Don’t leave home without this expert advice – https://theconversation.com/thinking-of-trekking-to-everest-base-camp-dont-leave-home-without-this-expert-advice-260497

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Edward Sing Yue Chan, Postdoctoral Fellow in China Studies, Australian National University

The Albanese government has faced an increasingly uncertain world since its re-election in May.

US President Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australia–US alliance, raising fresh questions about Canberra’s long-term regional strategy.

Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s approach to foreign policy is reflecting a careful recalibration – one that seeks to balance security partnerships with the pursuit of economic opportunities, especially with Australia’s largest trading partner, China.

Albanese has wrapped up a six-day visit to China which was characterised by a highly pragmatic approach to dealing with the problems and irritants in the bilateral relationship.

Economic engagement

Albanese’s visit to Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu – cities emblematic of Australia’s political, economic and cultural connections with China – was more than symbolic.

It was a high-profile diplomatic venture, with Albanese meeting both the Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang.

But it was more than a leaders’ summit. A large team of key business leaders in banking, manufacturing, mining and education were on the trip to meet their Chinese counterparts and seek more cooperation.

Economic engagement dominated the visit. As Albanese highlighted before his trip, “my priority is jobs”.

Broader partnerships spanning multiple sectors, including healthcare, education and green energy, were canvassed. The two nations also explored closer cooperation on energy transition and climate change.

Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian has even floated a collaboration on artificial intelligence.

However, the suggestion has been met with caution in Canberra due to ongoing concerns around national security and data governance.

Cooperate where we can

Beyond trade and investment, the visit also marked an effort to rebuild people-to-people exchanges.

Since last year, Australian citizens have been able to visit China for up to 30 days without a visa. In turn, Australia will welcome more Chinese visitors under a new Memorandum of Understanding promoting Australia as a premier tourist destination for Chinese travellers.

Albanese’s meetings with Xi Jinping and Li Qiang also yielded concrete results.

The official joint statement emphasised economic cooperation, particularly in climate-related areas such as steel decarbonisation, dryland farming and the green economy.

These outcomes align with the Albanese government’s guiding principle: cooperate where we can.

The deeper economic cooperation has been noted in China, where there is an expectation collaboration will continue to accelerate on the back of improved relations.

As James Laurenceson of the Australia–China Relations Institute recently noted, a stronger economic partnership will help foster more resilient ties across the board.

More independent foreign policy

Other analysts also see increased mutual benefits in the bilateral relationship.

China-watcher James Curran suggests the visit may signal a maturing, more independent Australian foreign policy.

The primary role of Australian statecraft is to do everything we possibly can to avoid a conflict. To avoid ever getting close to a decision about following the Americans into a war of that kind.

This was best illustrated by Albanese’s refusal to provide Washington with a wide-ranging and largely open-ended commitment to support the US in any conflict with China over Taiwan.

Indeed, as Curran observes, Albanese has tried to steer the relationship away from disagreement and towards pragmatic engagement.

Following his meeting with Xi, Albanese was repeatedly asked by Australian journalists if he raised sensitive issues such as Taiwan, China’s military build-up and the South China Sea.

While he confirmed these topics were addressed, he emphasised a preference for peaceful engagement:

[…] we want peace and security in the region. That is in the interest of both Australia and in the interest of China.

Unsurprisingly, the joint statement made no reference to these issues, reflecting a mutual decision to sidestep confrontation in favour of stabilising the relationship.

Quietly managing differences

This diplomatic posture toward China would appear to be a defining feature of the Albanese government’s second term: strengthening cooperation while quietly managing differences.

Rather than highlighting points of contention, the government is opting to avoid open disagreement where possible.

Overt disputes risk destabilising bilateral ties. If issues are raised publicly, it is unlikely to shift entrenched positions on either side. This explains why the ownership of the Port of Darwin, for example, was not mentioned during Albanese’s meeting with Xi.

Critics, however, argue this risks projecting weakness towards China.

Justin Bassi, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, warns the government is staying silent in the face of ongoing Chinese coercion:

Australia is only complying with China’s desires when the government says nothing and leaves the public to trust that the threats posed by China are all being dealt with in the classified realm. This is not viable policy. Australia’s sovereignty must not be contingent on Beijing’s preferences.

Even within China, analysts are cautious about Albanese’s approach. As one Chinese scholar told us, “a stable relationship does not necessarily mean a friendly one”.

In fact, while the Chinese media has stressed Australia and China’s shared commitment to regional stability, this was barely mentioned in the official joint statement.

Mutual interests

Still, there is recognition on both sides that pragmatism rather than ideological grandstanding is the more sustainable path forward.

In sum, Albanese’s visit does not mark a dramatic reset or bold new direction in Australia–China relations. Rather, it signals a shift toward greater realism.

In an increasingly complex and multipolar world, diplomacy grounded in mutual interests, rather than ideology, is not just practical, but may be a growing trend across the globe.

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.

– ref. Pragmatic engagement – what Albanese’s visit reveals about China relations in a turbulent world – https://theconversation.com/pragmatic-engagement-what-albaneses-visit-reveals-about-china-relations-in-a-turbulent-world-260578

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeff Borland, Professor of Economics, The University of Melbourne

New figures show Australia’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate unexpectedly rose to 4.3% – its highest level since late 2021 – in June this year, up from 4.1% in May.

While this is bad news, it’s not as bad as it might seem. Higher unemployment came from more people looking for work. In the long run, that’s good for the economy.

And these figures also make it more likely we’ll see an interest rate cut next month – which is now looking overdue.

What’s the bad news?

This is the second month in a row we’ve seen no growth in total employment, while total hours worked (the number of hours worked by employed individuals, regardless of whether they are full-time, part-time or overtime) in the past month has gone backwards.

All this adds to the picture of a slowing labour market since the start of the year, after surprisingly strong growth in the second half of 2024.

The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics release also includes data on where extra hours worked during 2025 have come from.

Employment growth has come entirely from the “non-market sector” – which is healthcare and social assistance, education and training, and public administration and safety. And the big driver of those extra jobs has been in social assistance and health care, which is largely government-funded.

That means employment has gone backwards in the rest of the economy, adding to a picture of a jobs market being propped up by government investment in the caring economy.

Why it as bad as you might think

The reason unemployment rose is that more people were looking for work – so it’s not because employment fell.

Of course, we’d prefer those people to have found jobs. But it does mean people weren’t losing jobs for the unemployment rate to rise.

The growth in labour force participation in June continues the trend of strong growth since late 2021. In the long run, that’s a good thing – it means the country can produce more output, and more people gain an income from work.

An interest rate cut now looks more certain

A fortnight ago, the Reserve Bank surprised most people by keeping the cash rate on hold at 3.85%.

Today’s unemployment data is extra evidence that the labour market isn’t contributing to inflation pressure – in fact, it’s the opposite.

It shows an interest rate cut is now overdue. The Reserve Bank board meets again in mid-August, with a decision on rates announced on August 12.

When will we know if this is a blip or a trend?

One possibility is that some of the extra people who became unemployed in June have a job to go to in the next month. Ups and downs in that group have at times been influential in driving unemployment numbers in recent times. In that case, this month’s figures may partly turn out to be a blip. We’ll be able to tell that when we see next month’s figures.

But the blip is unlikely to explain all of the rise in June. This is also about a labour market that is slowing.

Jeff Borland receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Why a surprise jump in unemployment isn’t as bad as it sounds – https://theconversation.com/why-a-surprise-jump-in-unemployment-isnt-as-bad-as-it-sounds-261375

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

This week, the Federal Court found the Australian government has no legal duty to protect Torres Strait Islanders from climate change. The ruling was disappointing, but it’s not the end of the matter.

The plaintiffs, Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai, hail from the low-lying islands of Saibai and Boigu, near Papua New Guinea. They argued the Commonwealth was negligent for failing to take strong action on climate change.

While the judge accepted the devastating effects climate change has wrought on the Torres Strait Islands, he found the Uncles did not prove their case of negligence.

However, the judge found previous Australian governments had not taken the best available science into account when setting emissions reduction targets. The finding tightens the screws on the Albanese government, which is due to announce Australia’s long-awaited targets to cut emissions out to 2035.

To protect communities in the Torres Strait, and across Australia, the government must set a 2035 target that is in line with the science.

And the court finding is unlikely to stem the tide of litigation seeking greater government accountability for climate change – especially for those most vulnerable to its harms.

Limitations of Australian law

The Uncles’ case did not fail because there was no merit in their allegations. It failed because Justice Michael Wigney ruled negligence law was not the appropriate vehicle to deal with climate change policy.

Justice Wigney found the Torres Strait Islanders proved much of their case, including that Australia’s emissions targets set in 2015, 2020 and 2021 were not consistent with the best available science. That science dictates national governments should set emissions reduction targets in line with international efforts to hold global temperature rise to 1.5°C.

The Coalition was in power during the period in question. Justice Wigney found the government of the day “did not engage with or give real or genuine consideration to the best available science” when setting its targets.

Looking ahead to our 2035 targets

The Labor government is currently weighing its 2035 emissions reduction target. The Climate Change Authority, which provides independent advice to government on climate policy, is expected to recommend a target between 65% and 75%.

But evidence suggests this may not be in line with the best available science.

For example, according to some scientists, emissions reduction of 90% by 2035, based on 2005 levels, would be required to stay in line with the 1.5°C goal.

Australia’s 2035 targets are not just crucial to the global effort to tackle climate change. They will also affect our standing in the Pacific at a time of deepening geostrategic competition.

Australia is bidding to host the UN climate talks next year in partnership with Pacific island countries. Our climate policy for the decade ahead will be a powerful signal to our Pacific neighbours about our commitment to the region, and to climate justice.

A shifting legal landscape

Tuesday’s court finding left open the possibility an appeal court may revisit the state of the law, and recognise the duty of care claimed by the Uncles.

This would require an appeal to the full court of the Federal Court. Wigney was a single judge and considered himself bound by past precedent set by the full court.

Around the world, courts and human rights bodies are holding governments accountable for climate inaction. It is possible for Australian law to do the same.

Courts in the Netherlands and Belgium, for example, have recognised government duties to heed the science to address foreseeable harms of climate change.

Next week, the International Court of Justice – the world’s highest court – will issue an historic legal opinion on the obligations of nations to tackle climate change.

This opinion will clarify the obligations of countries to prevent human rights harms caused by climate change, and to limit pollution of the Earth’s oceans and climate system. The opinion will be non-binding, but could influence future climate litigation.

What’s more, attribution science is improving all the time. This field of science examines how greenhouse gas emissions affect a particular weather event or climate pattern.

Clearer attribution science will provide courts an ever-stronger basis to consider how government policy decisions on emissions cause climate impacts – and resulting harms to people.

As the legal responsibilities of governments are clarified, further strategic litigation in Australia is likely.

Change is coming

In his judgement, Justice Michael Wigney said the law currently “provides no real or effective legal avenue” for people or communities to seek legal recourse for government inaction on climate change. That will remain the case until the law changes, he said.

To remain legitimate, legal norms must reflect changing social expectations. History shows laws can adapt when they are challenged repeatedly by those who are harmed by the status quo. Eventually, the dam wall breaks, and law is reinterpreted.

A clear example is the Mabo case of 1992. The High Court of Australia acknowledged the obvious fact that Indigenous peoples have lived on this continent for tens of thousands of years, and that the “terra nullius” (land belonging to no-one) concept was a legal myth.

The Mabo decision allowed common law to recognise native title. It was a departure from previous rulings which relied on the terra nullius concept to reject native title claims.

Australia’s legal norms largely pre-date the scientific consensus on climate change. They must evolve to better recognise climate impacts that are harming Australians. While this week might not have been the time, change is inevitable.

As Justice Wigney said, until the law adapts, the key avenue for change is public advocacy, protest and voter action at the ballot box.

Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council.

Riona Moodley 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.

– ref. Australia got off on a technicality for its climate inaction. But there are plenty more judgement days to come – https://theconversation.com/australia-got-off-on-a-technicality-for-its-climate-inaction-but-there-are-plenty-more-judgement-days-to-come-261305

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Faisal Hai, Professor and Head of School of Civil, Mining, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Wollongong

The kettle is a household staple practically everywhere – how else would we make our hot drinks?

But is it okay to re-boil water that’s already in the kettle from last time? While bringing water to a boil disinfects it, you may have heard that boiling water more than once will somehow make the water harmful and therefore you should empty the kettle each time.

Such claims are often accompanied by the argument that re-boiled water leads to the accumulation of allegedly hazardous substances including metals such as arsenic, or salts such as nitrates and fluoride.

This isn’t true. To understand why, let’s look at what is in our tap water and what really happens when we boil it.

What’s in our tap water?

Let’s take the example of tap water supplied by Sydney Water, Australia’s largest water utility which supplies water to Sydney, the Blue Mountains and the Illawarra region.

From the publicly available data for the January to March 2025 quarter for the Illawarra region, these were the average water quality results:

• pH was slightly alkaline
• total dissolved solids were low enough to avoid causing scaling in pipes or appliances
• fluoride content was appropriate to improve dental health, and
• it was “soft” water with a total hardness value below 40mg of calcium carbonate per litre.

The water contained trace amounts of metals such as iron and lead, low enough magnesium levels that it can’t be tasted, and sodium levels substantially lower than those in popular soft drinks.

These and all other monitored quality parameters were well within the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines during that period. If you were to make tea with this water, re-boiling would not cause a health problem. Here’s why.

It’s difficult to concentrate such low levels of chemicals

To concentrate substances in the water, you’d need to evaporate some of the liquid while the chemicals stay behind. Water evaporates at any temperature, but the vast majority of evaporation happens at the boiling point – when water turns into steam.

During boiling, some volatile organic compounds might escape into the air, but the amount of the inorganic compounds (such as metals and salts) remains unchanged.

While the concentration of inorganic compounds might increase as drinking water evaporates when boiled, evidence shows it doesn’t happen to such an extent that it would be hazardous.

Let’s say you boil one litre of tap water in a kettle in the morning, and your tap water has a fluoride content of 1mg per litre, which is within the limits of Australian guidelines.

You make a cup of tea taking 200ml of the boiled water. You then make another cup of tea in the afternoon by re-boiling the remaining water.

On both occasions, if heating was stopped soon after boiling started, the loss of water by evaporation would be small, and the fluoride content in each cup of tea would be similar.

But let’s assume that when making the second cup, you let the water keep boiling until 100ml of what’s in the kettle evaporates. Even then, the amount of fluoride you would consume with the second cup (0.23mg) would not be significantly higher than the fluoride you consumed with the first cup of tea (0.20mg).

The same applies to any other minerals or organics the supplied water may have contained. Let’s take lead: the water supplied in the Illawarra region as mentioned above, had a lead concentration of less than 0.0001mg per litre. To reach an unsafe lead concentration (0.01mg per litre, according to Australian guidelines) in a cup of water, you’d need to boil down roughly 20 litres of tap water to just that cup of 200ml.

Practically that is unlikely to happen – most electric kettles are designed to boil briefly before automatically shutting off. As long as the water you’re using is within the guidelines for drinking water, you can’t really concentrate it to harmful levels within your kettle.

But what about taste?

Whether re-boiled water actually affects the taste of your drinks will depend entirely on the specifics of your local water supply and your personal preferences.

The slight change in mineral concentration, or the loss of dissolved oxygen from water during boiling may affect the taste for some people – although there are a lot of other factors that contribute to the taste of your tap water.

The bottom line is that as long as the water in your kettle was originally compliant with guidelines for safe drinking water, it will remain safe and potable even after repeated boiling.

Faisal Hai 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.

– ref. Is it okay to boil water more than once, or should you empty the kettle every time? – https://theconversation.com/is-it-okay-to-boil-water-more-than-once-or-should-you-empty-the-kettle-every-time-260293

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Madeleine Perrett, PhD Candidate in Law, University of Adelaide

Armed with obscure legal jargon and fringe interpretations of the law, “sovereign citizens” are continuing to test the limits of the Australian justice system’s patience and power.

A few weeks ago, two Western Australians were jailed for 30 days after defying a Supreme Court order and refusing to acknowledge the court’s authority.

Weeks earlier, former AFL footballer Warren Tredrea told the Federal Court he could not pay his legal costs to his former employer, Channel 9, because he did not believe in Australian legal tender.

And former One Nation senator Rod Culleton is currently fighting the Australian Federal Police, arguing his court-declared bankruptcy is not legally binding and therefore should not affect his federal election nomination.

These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a growing trend known as “pseudolaw”.

What is ‘pseudolaw’?

Pseudolaw describes the practice of constructing legal arguments that sound convincing but are fundamentally wrong.

It often relies on real law or cases, twisting them through bizarre or inaccurate interpretations. It looks like law, but isn’t.

Common pseudolegal arguments include:

• governments have no authority over “natural persons”
• writing a legal name in all capital letters creates a separate legal entity (a “strawman”), which is not subject to state authority
• money is not real and anything can be legal tender
• tax laws only apply to federal entities, not individuals
• “natural rights” override statutes and court-made rules.

Not one of these arguments has ever succeeded in an Australian court.

What are ‘sovereign citizens’?

Those who believe and engage in pseudolaw are sometimes termed “sovereign citizens” or “SovCits”, a label imported from the United States during the 1970s.

The sovereign citizen “movement” reached Australia in the late 1990s.

As the Australian Federal Police explain, sovereign citizens believe they are morally and legally correct, and are quite open about their beliefs and plans.

They reject government authority, refuse to comply with laws and rely on complex but false legal theories to justify their actions.

Because many social media platforms ban their content, sovereign citizens frequently communicate through encrypted messaging apps or gather in person at protests and “common law courts” – unofficial tribunals based on a distorted reading of historical legal principles. These “courts” claim to operate outside state authority and often “try” public officials, file false claims against property and carry out other pseudolegal actions with no real legal force.

They claim to be peaceful and say they are acting in “self-defence” against perceived government overreach. But a small number turn violent.

The rise of pseudolaw in Australia

In the 1970s, WA farmer Leonard Casley labelled his farm the “Hutt River Province”, then attempted to secede from the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Western Australia.

A curiosity back then, but a warning sign.

For years, fringe tax protesters and anti-government groups quietly pushed these ideas.

Then the COVID pandemic hit: lockdowns, mandates and rising distrust meant pseudolaw went more viral. Social media lit up with people claiming they weren’t subject to Australian law.

They spouted strawman theories, cited fake laws and filmed themselves refusing police orders.

Now it’s in the courts, on the streets and in online echo chambers.

It is not just noise. It is congesting the judicial system and putting people, including adherents, at risk.

A recent South Australian study highlights how pseudolaw is increasingly disrupting legal processes in that state.

The law, however, still stands, no matter what those on YouTube say.

What the ‘real’ law says

To be clear, pseudolaw looks real but isn’t; the real law is clear on many of the points raised by sovereign citizens.

For example, the federal government derives its authority to govern from the Commonwealth Constitution. This document clearly states the government has executive authority and can make laws that bind all Australians.

This includes tax laws and laws declaring Australian money as legal tender: in 2007, the Federal Court flatly rejected arguments that income tax and currency laws were invalid.

The “strawman theory” – which states someone has two personas, one of real flesh and blood and the other a separate legal personality, who is the “strawman” – has also been debunked by the courts countless times. The West Australian Supreme Court recently called it “fundamentally misguided”.

And does capitalising your name on official documents like your birth certificate or driver’s licence affect your rights? The courts have categorically said “no”.

Pseudolaw is, as one Victorian judge described it last year, nothing more than “nonsense”, “gibberish”, and “gobbledygook”.

Why sovereign citizens are a threat

While this might seem eccentric, or even harmless, pseudolaw poses real risks.

The Judicial Commission of New South Wales warns it’s not just a nuisance – it’s clogging up courts, wasting police resources and putting public officials at risk.

But the danger isn’t only to others – it is to the followers too.

Adherents lose more than arguments. Some have racked up massive legal bills fighting fines. Others have lost custody in family court or been imprisoned for ignoring court orders.

Pseudolaw is a dangerous ideology.

It is crucial all Australians recognise that pseudolaw not only threatens your credibility but can land you in hot water under the real law.

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.

– ref. What does Australian law have to say about sovereign citizens and ‘pseudolaw’? – https://theconversation.com/what-does-australian-law-have-to-say-about-sovereign-citizens-and-pseudolaw-260289

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Dahlen, Professor of Midwifery, Associate Dean Research and HDR, Midwifery Discipline Leader, Western Sydney University

A study published this week in the international obstetrics and gynaecology journal BJOG has raised concerns among women due to give birth in Australia’s public hospitals.

The study compared the outcomes of mothers and babies, as well as the costs, of standard public maternity care versus private obstetric-led care from 2016 to 2019 in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland.

It found women who gave birth in the public system were more likely to haemorrhage, sustain a third or fourth degree tear, and were less likely to have a caesarean than those who birthed in the private system. It found their babies were more likely to be deprived of oxygen, to be admitted to intensive care and to die.

But the study and subsequent media reports don’t tell the whole story. There are also several reasons to be cautious about this data.

And it’s important to keep in mind that while things sometimes go wrong during childbirth, the majority of women who give birth in Australia do so safely.

Birth options in Australia

Australia has a two-tiered system of health care:

• a publicly funded system that provides care for free, or limited out-of-pocket costs, to patients in public hospitals

• a private system where patients with private health insurance access care from doctors mainly in private hospitals. They face varying out-of-pocket costs.

There are multiple models of maternity care in Australia, but these can be grouped into:

• fragmented care models, where women see many different care providers. Fragmented models include medical and midwifery care, and GP shared care (shared between GPs, obstetricians and midwives)

• continuity of care models where one (or a small number of providers) provide the majority of the care throughout the antenatal, birth and postnatal period. This includes continuity of midwifery care in the public system, private obstetric care, or care from a privately practising midwife in the private system.

Women favour continuity of care and they and their babies experience better outcomes in these models, especially under midwifery continuity of care.

However, continuity of midwifery care can be difficult to access, despite calls to expand this model worldwide.

Digging into the data

The BJOG paper examined the outcomes for 368,292 births selected out of a bigger data set of 867,334 women who gave birth in NSW, Queensland and Victoria between January 2016 and December 2019.

It used publicly available data collected on each birth in three states in Australia, as well as Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) data linked to these cases to help examine cost.

The study grouped all the models of care together in the public system and compared them to one model of private obstetric care (excluding the privately practising midwifery model altogether).

A major problem with doing research with big data sets is they do not contain the many medical and social complexities that inform health outcomes. These complexities are much more prevalent in the public system and impact on health outcomes.

Only diabetes and blood pressure problems were included in medical complications controlled for in this paper.

But there are others that impact on outcomes. There was no controlling for drug and alcohol use, mental health, refugee status and many more significant factors impacting health outcomes for mothers and babies.

On the other hand, women who give birth in private hospitals are more likely to be socially advantaged (with higher incomes, more education, and greater access to health care, transport and safe housing), which also impacts on birth outcomes.

While the researchers attempted to “match” the population groups to be as similar as possible and reduce these differences, some of the variables were not included in the data sets. Data on artificial reproductive technology, body mass index and smoking, for example, were not available in all three states. These variables impact outcomes.

The study did not consider some key outcomes often used to measure maternity care, such as rates of episiotomies (surgical cuts to the perineum). Rates of episiotomies are higher in the private sector.

The findings of the study also differ from other research on some measurements, such as third and fourth degree perineal tears. The BJOG paper reports severe perineal tearing is lower in private hospitals, while other earlier research shows the opposite.

Severe perineal tearing does, however, occur more often among some ethnic groups who are more likely to have public health care.

More c-sections

The study found women in private hospitals were more likely to have a caesarean section (47.9%) than in the public system (31.6%). There were also higher rates of caesarean sections undertaken before 39 weeks in private obstetric-led care.

It was beyond the scope of the paper to examine the impacts of this on children, however previous research shows early births are linked to an increased risk of developmental problems, such as poorer school performance.

While caesarean sections are generally safe, past research as found c-sections can increase risks for women’s future pregnancies and births and can have long-term impacts on children’s health.

Our previous research showed low-risk women who gave birth in private hospitals had higher rates of intervention but earlier research showed no difference in the rate of deaths. Thankfully, baby deaths are very rare in Australia’s high-quality health system.

It’s important that women have a choice in how they give birth, and for that choice to be informed and supported. Australian women can also be reassured that Australia is one of the safest countries in which to give birth.

Hannah Dahlen receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council, and the Medical Research Future Fund. She is a member of the Australian College of Midwives.

Jenny Gamble receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council. She is a member of the Australian College of Midwives. She is a co-author of the BJOG study.

– ref. Is childbirth really safer for women and babies in private hospitals? – https://theconversation.com/is-childbirth-really-safer-for-women-and-babies-in-private-hospitals-261179

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jo McDonald, Professor, Director of Centre for Rock Art Research + Management, The University of Western Australia

On Friday, the Murujuga Cultural Landscape in northwest Western Australia was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List. We were in Paris to see Murujuga become Australia’s 21st world heritage property, but only our second property listed exclusively for its Indigenous cultural values.

Murujuga, meaning “hip bone sticking out”, is an ancient rocky landscape rising out of the Indian Ocean in northwest Australia.

Murujuga is shaped by the Lore and the presence of Ngarda-Ngarli – the collective term for the Traditional Owner groups of the coastal Pilbara – since Ngurra Nyujunggamu, when the earth was soft, the beginning of time.

Murujuga includes the Burrup Peninsula, the Dampier Archipelago’s 42 islands and the listed property covers almost 100,000 hectares of land and sea country. Across this cultural landscape are between one to two million petroglyphs – rock art – created by carving designs into rock surfaces. The petroglyphs record Ngarda Ngarli’s attachment and adaptation to a changing environment through deep time.

The UNESCO listing recognises the “outstanding universal value” of the Murujuga Cultural Landscape. This value lies in the traditional system governing it, in tangible and intangible attributes that attest to 50,000 years of Ngarda-Ngarli using and caring for the land and seascape.

The Ngarda-Ngarli have campaigned for World Heritage Listing of the Murujuga Cultural Landscape for more than 20 years.

A controversial nomination

While the outstanding universal values of this place were not in question, the nomination became mired with broader climate concerns.

Industrial development began at Murujuga in the 1950s and was established before Traditional Owners had decision-making authority. The Dampier Archipelago, as well as housing petroglyphs across 42 islands, is also home to one of the largest industrial hubs in the southern hemisphere.

The recent approval for the North-West Gas Hub has elevated climate change concerns and raised questions about whether the government is serious about protecting Murujuga.

The Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring Program (MRAMP) year two report was released around the same time as the north west gas hub announcement.

While acidic pollution has been suggested by some, our work on the monitoring program found rain and dust at the site was pH neutral, and there is no acid rain impacting on the petroglyphs.

Other criticism included that the air quality at the site is compromised by local gas production. The research found the air quality at Murujuga is “good” to “very good” by international standards. We also found average annual nitrogen dioxide levels − the emission under most scrutiny − is five times lower than World Health Organisation guidelines.

According to MRAMP research, Murujuga’s air quality is well within national standards. Nitrogen dioxide is 16 times lower than the national standard, and sulphur dioxide never exceeding 10% of the national standard.

Importantly, the research program is ongoing and will transition to monitoring led by the Ngarda-Ngarli with support and training from the scientists. And this ongoing monitoring will be part of the management regime in place to protect Murujuga as a world heritage listed site.

Ngard-Ngarli leadership

Traditional Owners and Custodians led the world heritage nomination, supported by State and Commonwealth governments.

Traditional Owners consider the listing will better protect Ngarda-Ngarli knowledge, lore and culture as expressed through the landscape and in the petroglyphs.

World heritage recognition will support Ngarda-Ngarli decision-making and ongoing management across the Murujuga Cultural Landscape.

This global recognition is a mechanism to help Ngarda-Ngarli do what they have always done: protect their culture and decide what is right for Country for future generations.

The inscription is a testament to the old people who started this quest decades ago, many of whom have not lived to celebrate this victory.

Australia’s deep time heritage

Australia now has two places on the World Heritage List which are exclusively listed as Indigenous sites of outstanding universal value to all humanity.

The Murujuga Cultural Landscape joins on the list the southwestern Victorian site Budj Bim, one of the world’s most extensive and oldest aquaculture systems.

By this listing, the world has recognised the deep time creative genius and ongoing connection of Ngarda-Ngarli to the Murujuga Cultural Landscape.

This international acclaim recognises the extraordinary resilience of Australia’s First Nations peoples and should be a source of pride and celebration for all Australians.

Jo McDonald is an employee of the University of Western Australia and receives funding from the Australian Research Council.The Centre for Rock Art Research and Management receives funding for its research and training operations from Rio Tinto. Jo was a member of the World Heritage committee and contributed to the writing of the dossier.

Amy Stevens is an employee of Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, which receives funding from the Australian Government, the WA Government and industry and was a lead author on the Murujuga Cultural Landscape World Heritage nomination.

Belinda Churnside serves as Deputy Chair. Board Directors are remunerated for their duties in accordance with community-approved sitting fees. These payments are made from MAC’s operational income.

All funding sources and expenditures are transparently reported in MAC’s annual financial report, which is audited each year by an independent external auditor.

Ben Mullins is the lead scientist on the Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring Project, which is funded by the Government of Western Australia.

Peter Hicks is the Chair of the Board of Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation (MAC). Board Directors are remunerated for their duties in accordance with community-approved sitting fees. These payments are made from MAC’s operational income.

All funding sources and expenditures are transparently reported in MAC’s annual financial report, which is audited each year by an independent external auditor.

Terry Bailey is a World Heritage advisor to Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation and WA Government and was lead editor and co-author of Murujuga Cultural Landscape World Heritage nomination. His appointment is funded by the WA Government.

– ref. We were part of the world heritage listing of Murujuga. Here’s why all Australians should be proud – https://theconversation.com/we-were-part-of-the-world-heritage-listing-of-murujuga-heres-why-all-australians-should-be-proud-261066