Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

The United States can count on Australia as one of its closest allies.

Dating back to the shared experiences in the second world war and the ANZUS Treaty signed in 1951, Australia has steadfastly worked to help ensure the US remains the principal security guarantor in the Indo-Pacific.

Australia’s track record speaks for itself. Yet additional demands are being placed that rankle.

The Pentagon wants to know how Australia – and other allies such as Japan – would respond in the event of a war with China over Taiwan.

Making these demands – which are being sought as part of the review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement – is both unjustified and unreasonable.

‘100 years of mateship’

Since federation in 1901, Australians have found themselves alongside US counterparts in almost all the major conflicts of the 20th century and beyond.

It is this shared experience that led former Ambassador to Washington, Joe Hockey, to coin the term “100 years of mateship”.

The pinnacle of the security relationship is the ANZUS Treaty which is a loosely worded document barely 800 words long.

However, it is important to remember AUKUS is just that – a technical agreement, albeit premised on the century-spanning trusted collaboration across the full spectrum of national security ties.

Goldilocks solution

More recently, the US administration has made demands of allies, including Australia, the likes of which have not been seen in living memory.

This spans not just tariffs, but also increased defence spending. American policymakers appear oblivious or unconcerned about the blowback they are generating.

It is this context which makes the US demands for a broad-ranging and largely open-ended commitment over the defence of Taiwan, in advance of any conflict, so extraordinary and unhelpful.

Australia has long had a fear of abandonment. Ever since the searing experience of the fall of Singapore in 1942, officials have been eager to burnish ties with US counterparts. Conversely, there has always been a strong element in the community that has feared entrapment in yet another US-led war in Asia.

The experience in the Korean and Vietnam wars, let alone Afghanistan and Iraq, left many guarded about the efficacy of hitching the wagon to US-led military campaigns.

In essence, though, Australian policymakers have long sought the Goldilocks solution: not too enthusiastic to trigger entrapment and not too lukewarm to trigger abandonment.

No guarantees

Now Australia, Japan and others face a surprising new push by American officials for a commitment to a hypothetical conflict, under open-ended circumstances.

The irony is that American demands for a commitment fly in the face of the loosely worded ANZUS alliance – which stipulates an agreement to consult, but little more than that.

The AUKUS agreement includes no such guarantees either. The overt and confronting nature of Washington’s demands means Prime Minister Anthony Albanese effectively has no option but to push back:

We support the status quo when it comes to Taiwan. We don’t support any unilateral action […] we want peace and security in our region.

Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy was adamant Australia would not be committing forces ahead of any “hypothetical” conflict:

The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance, but by the government of the day.

A further irony is Australia, like Japan, is already hugely invested in its US military relationship, particularly through its military technology.

The purchase of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, for instance, was meant to help enable the generation of interoperable forces, yet no such demand has been made when it comes to an advance commitment over their use in support of US ambitions.

So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

Evidently, the way the US is trying to stand over Japan and Australia is harmful to its own interests. Such adversarial and unduly transactional behaviour could provoke a popular backlash in Australia and elsewhere.

The government has rightly rebuffed the calls saying it would be up to the government of the day to make such a decision. It is likely this will not be well received by the Trump administration. The PM is right though, to say it’s hypothetical and not worthy of a public endorsement.

Strategic ambiguity

Yet a further irony is that this is mostly a moot point.

The key benefit of alliance collaboration is already in place – and that relates to the efforts to deter China from ever acting on its desire to change the status quo in the first place.

As former PM and now ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd explained in his book, The Avoidable War, geo-political disaster is still avoidable, particularly if the US and China can find a way to coexist without betraying their core interests through managed strategic competition.

This strategic ambiguity is meant to complicate a potential adversary’s military planners and political decision makers’ thought processes over the advantages and disadvantages of going to war.

China already knows a clash over Taiwan would mean US allies like Japan and Australia would find it virtually impossible to avoid being entangled. The strategic ambiguity can be maintained ad infinitum, so long as an outright invasion is averted.

And the likelihood of conflict over Taiwan? I remain sanguine that conflict can be avoided.

But to do so would involve clear and compelling messaging: both through diplomatic channels and through the demonstration of robust military capabilities that war would be too costly.

John Blaxland received funding (2015–2018) from the US DoD Minerva Research Initiative.

– ref. Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse committing to a hypothetical conflict with China over Taiwan – https://theconversation.com/washingtons-war-demands-australia-right-to-refuse-committing-to-a-hypothetical-conflict-with-china-over-taiwan-261076

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Juliette Crowther, Researcher in Food Policy, George Institute for Global Health

Most Australians consume far too much sodium, mostly in the form of salt (sodium chloride) in the food they eat.

The National Health and Medical Research Council recommends no more than 2,000 milligrams of sodium a day, roughly one teaspoon of salt.

Yet the average Australian consumes nearly twice that.

In some regional and remote communities, salty drinking water is quietly adding to this problem – yet sodium levels in tap water are often overlooked.

Our new research reviewed 197 countries and shows when drinking water standards for sodium exist, they’re usually based on taste, not health.

Most follow guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO) which, in its global campaign to lower sodium intake, has focused on diet but largely ignored drinking water.

Salty water is an overlooked health risk

Excess sodium is a major risk factor for high blood pressure and cardiovascular diseases, such as heart attacks and stroke. These are leading causes of death and disability across the world.

In 2013, these health risks led the WHO to set a global target to reduce sodium intake by 30% by 2025. The WHO has since extended this to 2030, due to slow progress.

Public health efforts to reduce sodium (salt) have focused mainly on food, not drinking water. This is because most tap water contains low sodium levels (usually below 20mg per litre).

But some natural water sources contain excessively high sodium. In Australia, this mainly affects remote and rural communities.

Evidence suggests it’s a growing issue, compounded by climate change, rising sea levels, more frequent storms, prolonged droughts, and human activities, including over extraction of groundwater and agricultural runoff.

What does the WHO say about water?

The WHO’s recommended threshold for sodium in water – no more than 200mg/L – is based on how water tastes (palatability), not what is safe for health.

Worryingly, the WHO recommendations about drinking water are based on an outdated 2003 report that found evidence linking sodium with high blood pressure was lacking.

Convincing evidence has since confirmed that higher sodium intake is directly related to increased blood pressure.

The WHO updated its dietary guidelines for sodium in 2012 to reflect these health risks. But water guidelines have not changed.

What our new research shows

Our new research, published in recent weeks, reviewed guidelines for sodium in drinking water in 197 countries.

It found 20% of countries – home to 30% of the world’s population – have no sodium limit in drinking water.

Among the 132 countries that do, most (92%) follow WHO guidelines.

Our research found only 12 countries cited health reasons for setting sodium limits, and just two of these set stricter limits than WHO guidelines.

This means across the world, most drinking standards for sodium continue to be guided by taste, not health.

Palatability is highly subjective. Just as some people enjoy salty chips and others find them overpowering, sensitivity to sodium in water varies.

In contrast, the health risks of too much salt are clear.

What do Australia’s guidelines say?

Australia’s drinking water guidelines include a non-mandatory sodium limit of 180mg/L, also based on taste.

But this is still too high to protect health.

Drinking two litres of water at this concentration in one day would mean having 360mg of sodium – almost one-fifth of the recommended maximum. This is equivalent to eating a large bag of sea-salt popcorn.

While the guidelines do recommend that people with high blood pressure drink water with less than 20mg/L sodium, there is no clear plan for how this can be achieved equitably, especially when the alternative is expensive bottled water.

Water inequity in Walgett

The consequences of this policy gap are stark in places such as Walgett, a remote town in north-western New South Wales with a high Aboriginal population (almost 50%).

In 2018, when the local river ran dry, the town switched to bore water. Residents immediately noticed the water was slimy and undrinkable.

Local Aboriginal community controlled organisations asked researchers from the University of New South Wales to test the water. This revealed sodium levels over 300mg/L.

In 2020, the New South Wales government eventually installed a desalination plant, but due to issues managing waste, it was decommissioned a few months later.

Today, Walgett still lacks a long-term solution to provide drinking water with low levels of sodium.

Water inequality is health inequality

Walgett isn’t an isolated case. Many inland and remote towns, often with high Aboriginal populations, rely on rivers and bore water increasingly affected by drought and agricultural overuse.

This inequity in access to safe drinking water worsens the health gap.

Indigenous Australians already face higher rates of high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease – all worsened by excess sodium.

In places such as Walgett, where some people report spending as much as A$50 a week on bottled water, families are forced to choose between safe hydration and essentials such as food or medicine.

Without mandatory health-based limits, these communities have no way to compel authorities to make their water safe.

Safe drinking water is a human right

In 2023, the European Union mandated legally binding drinking water standards in all member states.

Although still based on the outdated 200mg/L taste threshold, this legal framework gives communities a basis to advocate for safer water – something Australia currently lacks.

A sodium limit closer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency guideline of 30–60mg/L would better align with health advice.

Without enforceable, health-based limits, Australia risks falling behind on its commitments to the sodium reduction targets and sustainable development goals set by the United Nations.

No one should have to fight for safe drinking water. If we want to protect our most vulnerable communities, water policy must catch up with science and public health priorities.

We would like to thank all of the authors of the paper, and the Yuwaya Ngarra-li, a community-led partnership between the Dharriwaa Elders Groups in Walgett and the University of New South Wales.

This research was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The George Institute’s Food Policy Group is a World Health Organization Collaborating Centre on Population Salt Reduction. Juliette Crowther has no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Jacqui Webster receives salary funding from a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant (#2018015) and DFAT. Jacqui Webster is Chief Investigator on the NHMRC Ideas grant (#2003862) that this research is funded through.

– ref. How much salt is OK in drinking water? Without limits, Australia’s health gap widens in remote and regional areas – https://theconversation.com/how-much-salt-is-ok-in-drinking-water-without-limits-australias-health-gap-widens-in-remote-and-regional-areas-260496

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

The United States can count on Australia as one of its closest allies.

Dating back to the shared experiences in the second world war and the ANZUS Treaty signed in 1951, Australia has steadfastly worked to help ensure the US remains the principal security guarantor in the Indo-Pacific.

Australia’s track record speaks for itself. Yet additional demands are being placed that rankle.

The Pentagon wants to know how Australia – and other allies such as Japan – would respond in the event of a war with China over Taiwan.

Making these demands – which are being sought as part of the review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement – is both unjustified and unreasonable.

‘100 years of mateship’

Since federation in 1901, Australians have found themselves alongside US counterparts in almost all the major conflicts of the 20th century and beyond.

It is this shared experience that led former Ambassador to Washington, Joe Hockey, to coin the term “100 years of mateship”.

The pinnacle of the security relationship is the ANZUS Treaty which is a loosely worded document barely 800 words long.

However, it is important to remember AUKUS is just that – a technical agreement, albeit premised on the century-spanning trusted collaboration across the full spectrum of national security ties.

Goldilocks solution

More recently, the US administration has made demands of allies, including Australia, the likes of which have not been seen in living memory.

This spans not just tariffs, but also increased defence spending. American policymakers appear oblivious or unconcerned about the blowback they are generating.

It is this context which makes the US demands for a broad-ranging and largely open-ended commitment over the defence of Taiwan, in advance of any conflict, so extraordinary and unhelpful.

Australia has long had a fear of abandonment. Ever since the searing experience of the fall of Singapore in 1942, officials have been eager to burnish ties with US counterparts. Conversely, there has always been a strong element in the community that has feared entrapment in yet another US-led war in Asia.

The experience in the Korean and Vietnam wars, let alone Afghanistan and Iraq, left many guarded about the efficacy of hitching the wagon to US-led military campaigns.

In essence, though, Australian policymakers have long sought the Goldilocks solution: not too enthusiastic to trigger entrapment and not too lukewarm to trigger abandonment.

No guarantees

Now Australia, Japan and others face a surprising new push by American officials for a commitment to a hypothetical conflict, under open-ended circumstances.

The irony is that American demands for a commitment fly in the face of the loosely worded ANZUS alliance – which stipulates an agreement to consult, but little more than that.

The AUKUS agreement includes no such guarantees either. The overt and confronting nature of Washington’s demands means Prime Minister Anthony Albanese effectively has no option but to push back:

We support the status quo when it comes to Taiwan. We don’t support any unilateral action […] we want peace and security in our region.

Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy was adamant Australia would not be committing forces ahead of any “hypothetical” conflict:

The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance, but by the government of the day.

A further irony is Australia, like Japan, is already hugely invested in its US military relationship, particularly through its military technology.

The purchase of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, for instance, was meant to help enable the generation of interoperable forces, yet no such demand has been made when it comes to an advance commitment over their use in support of US ambitions.

So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

Evidently, the way the US is trying to stand over Japan and Australia is harmful to its own interests. Such adversarial and unduly transactional behaviour could provoke a popular backlash in Australia and elsewhere.

The government has rightly rebuffed the calls saying it would be up to the government of the day to make such a decision. It is likely this will not be well received by the Trump administration. The PM is right though, to say it’s hypothetical and not worthy of a public endorsement.

Strategic ambiguity

Yet a further irony is that this is mostly a moot point.

The key benefit of alliance collaboration is already in place – and that relates to the efforts to deter China from ever acting on its desire to change the status quo in the first place.

As former PM and now ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd explained in his book, The Avoidable War, geo-political disaster is still avoidable, particularly if the US and China can find a way to coexist without betraying their core interests through managed strategic competition.

This strategic ambiguity is meant to complicate a potential adversary’s military planners and political decision makers’ thought processes over the advantages and disadvantages of going to war.

China already knows a clash over Taiwan would mean US allies like Japan and Australia would find it virtually impossible to avoid being entangled. The strategic ambiguity can be maintained ad infinitum, so long as an outright invasion is averted.

And the likelihood of conflict over Taiwan? I remain sanguine that conflict can be avoided.

But to do so would involve clear and compelling messaging: both through diplomatic channels and through the demonstration of robust military capabilities that war would be too costly.

John Blaxland received funding (2015–2018) from the US DoD Minerva Research Initiative.

– ref. Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse being dragged into a potential conflict with China over Taiwan – https://theconversation.com/washingtons-war-demands-australia-right-to-refuse-being-dragged-into-a-potential-conflict-with-china-over-taiwan-261076

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

The United States can count on Australia as one of its closest allies.

Dating back to the shared experiences in the second world war and the ANZUS Treaty signed in 1951, Australia has steadfastly worked to help ensure the US remains the principal security guarantor in the Indo-Pacific.

Australia’s track record speaks for itself. Yet additional demands are being placed that rankle.

The Pentagon wants to know how Australia – and other allies such as Japan – would respond in the event of a war with China over Taiwan.

Making these demands – which are being sought as part of the review of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement – is both unjustified and unreasonable.

‘100 years of mateship’

Since federation in 1901, Australians have found themselves alongside US counterparts in almost all the major conflicts of the 20th century and beyond.

It is this shared experience that led former Ambassador to Washington, Joe Hockey, to coin the term “100 years of mateship”.

The pinnacle of the security relationship is the ANZUS Treaty which is a loosely worded document barely 800 words long.

However, it is important to remember AUKUS is just that – a technical agreement, albeit premised on the century-spanning trusted collaboration across the full spectrum of national security ties.

Goldilocks solution

More recently, the US administration has made demands of allies, including Australia, the likes of which have not been seen in living memory.

This spans not just tariffs, but also increased defence spending. American policymakers appear oblivious or unconcerned about the blowback they are generating.

It is this context which makes the US demands for a broad-ranging and largely open-ended commitment over the defence of Taiwan, in advance of any conflict, so extraordinary and unhelpful.

Australia has long had a fear of abandonment. Ever since the searing experience of the fall of Singapore in 1942, officials have been eager to burnish ties with US counterparts. Conversely, there has always been a strong element in the community that has feared entrapment in yet another US-led war in Asia.

The experience in the Korean and Vietnam wars, let alone Afghanistan and Iraq, left many guarded about the efficacy of hitching the wagon to US-led military campaigns.

In essence, though, Australian policymakers have long sought the Goldilocks solution: not too enthusiastic to trigger entrapment and not too lukewarm to trigger abandonment.

No guarantees

Now Australia, Japan and others face a surprising new push by American officials for a commitment to a hypothetical conflict, under open-ended circumstances.

The irony is that American demands for a commitment fly in the face of the loosely worded ANZUS alliance – which stipulates an agreement to consult, but little more than that.

The AUKUS agreement includes no such guarantees either. The overt and confronting nature of Washington’s demands means Prime Minister Anthony Albanese effectively has no option but to push back:

We support the status quo when it comes to Taiwan. We don’t support any unilateral action […] we want peace and security in our region.

Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy was adamant Australia would not be committing forces ahead of any “hypothetical” conflict:

The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance, but by the government of the day.

A further irony is Australia, like Japan, is already hugely invested in its US military relationship, particularly through its military technology.

The purchase of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, for instance, was meant to help enable the generation of interoperable forces, yet no such demand has been made when it comes to an advance commitment over their use in support of US ambitions.

So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

Evidently, the way the US is trying to stand over Japan and Australia is harmful to its own interests. Such adversarial and unduly transactional behaviour could provoke a popular backlash in Australia and elsewhere.

The government has rightly rebuffed the calls saying it would be up to the government of the day to make such a decision. It is likely this will not be well received by the Trump administration. The PM is right though, to say it’s hypothetical and not worthy of a public endorsement.

Strategic ambiguity

Yet a further irony is that this is mostly a moot point.

The key benefit of alliance collaboration is already in place – and that relates to the efforts to deter China from ever acting on its desire to change the status quo in the first place.

As former PM and now ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd explained in his book, The Avoidable War, geo-political disaster is still avoidable, particularly if the US and China can find a way to coexist without betraying their core interests through managed strategic competition.

This strategic ambiguity is meant to complicate a potential adversary’s military planners and political decision makers’ thought processes over the advantages and disadvantages of going to war.

China already knows a clash over Taiwan would mean US allies like Japan and Australia would find it virtually impossible to avoid being entangled. The strategic ambiguity can be maintained ad infinitum, so long as an outright invasion is averted.

And the likelihood of conflict over Taiwan? I remain sanguine that conflict can be avoided.

But to do so would involve clear and compelling messaging: both through diplomatic channels and through the demonstration of robust military capabilities that war would be too costly.

John Blaxland received funding (2015–2018) from the US DoD Minerva Research Initiative.

– ref. Washington’s war demands – Australia risks being dragged into a conflict with China over Taiwan – https://theconversation.com/washingtons-war-demands-australia-risks-being-dragged-into-a-conflict-with-china-over-taiwan-261076

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kinda Alsamara, Lecturer in the School of Languages and Cultures, The University of Queensland

The end of the oppressive Assad regime in Syria in late 2024 has been broadly welcomed on the global stage – underscored by the fact the United States and European Union have now lifted sanctions against the country.

However, women have been marginalised by Syria’s new leadership. That’s a problem for Syrian women, of course, but it also puts at risk prospects for sustainable peace in Syria.

A growing body of research, including our own, shows a direct correlation between gender equality and peace.

Syria now stands at a crossroads. Will it ensure women’s meaningful participation and follow a path to peace? Or will things head in the other direction?

This is more urgent than ever. Failure to grapple with women’s rights in Syria risks plunging the nation further into extremist violence.

Women excluded both before and after Assad’s rule

After decades in power, the harsh Assad regime was overthrown late last year by rebels led by Sunni Islamist militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

But women – who were marginalised politically and economically under Assad – continue to be systematically excluded from decision-making in the new government.

This is even though women played an essential role in the Syrian revolution. They organised protests and advocated for rights (often at great personal risk).

They endured sacrifices such as imprisonment, torture, disappearance and displacement.

Yet, only one woman was appointed to Syria’s immediate post-Assad caretaker government. She didn’t get a ministerial title.

The caretaker government spokesman reportedly suggested women’s “biological and physiological nature” makes them unsuitable for certain government roles.

Reports allege the man initially appointed as Syria’s new minister of justice previously oversaw executions of women accused of being sex workers.

Some Syrian activists are concerned Hayat Tahrir al-Sham will enforce a gendered and conservative interpretation of Islamic law, which prevailed in its previous stronghold of Idlib (a city in northwestern Syria).

Limited roles for women

A key moment came when the new Syrian government held a “national dialogue conference” earlier this year. This conference was to establish a forward-looking “political identity” for Syria.

Of the seven-member conference preparatory committee, only two were women.

There was no representation on the preparatory committee from several of Syria’s diverse communities, including Kurdish, Alawite and Druze groups.

Most members had strong ties with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham or other Islamist factions.

About 200 of the 1,000 delegates at the conference were women. However, their input in legislative and security committees was minimal.

Only one of 18 conference recommendations referred (in a limited way) to women.

Following the national dialogue conference, new Syrian President Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa signed into force a constitutional declaration that set a five-year transition period and established the interim government.

Senior figures in the new government described the declaration as guaranteeing women’s political and economic rights.

Yet only one of Syria’s 23 ministers is a woman: Hind Kabawat, appointed as minister of social affairs and labour. This “soft” portfolio is commonly associated with gendered expectations around care and welfare.

Key ministries were allocated to al-Sharaa’s all-male long-time comrades from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s base in Idlib.

Change is possible

A just and sustainable peace requires proactive measures to integrate women into leadership roles in Syria.

Change is possible. For example, constitutional mandates could guarantee minimum representation for women in ministerial leadership and judicial positions, which would better reflect the diversity of Syrian society.

Independent mechanisms could be established to investigate and address gender-based injustices. This would need to provide accountability for past abuses and protect women’s rights under the post-Assad system.

As we have previously noted, there cannot be a “collective forgetting” of crimes Syrian women experienced in the past.

Economic empowerment initiatives would also help foster women’s financial independence and participation in public life.

Public awareness campaigns could also highlight women’s contributions to the revolution and their essential role in nation-building.

Syria at a crossroads

With the recent lifting of sanctions by the US and EU, and ongoing regional instability globally, Syria stands at a crossroads.

The G7 Summit in May 2025 emphasised the global community’s renewed focus on women’s participation in peace processes.

Influential middle-power countries can play a key role by reviewing sanctions and tying humanitarian aid to the promotion of human rights, gender inclusion and pluralistic governance.

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. Women played key roles in Syria’s revolution. Now they’ve been pushed to the margins – https://theconversation.com/women-played-key-roles-in-syrias-revolution-now-theyve-been-pushed-to-the-margins-257358

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Blazevich, Professor of Biomechanics, Edith Cowan University

You’re standing at your front door, facing a five kilometre commute to work. But you don’t have your car, and there’s no bus route. You can walk for an hour – or jump on your bicycle and arrive in 15 minutes, barely breaking a sweat. You choose the latter.

Many people would make the same choice. It’s estimated that there are more than a billion bikes in the world. Cycling represents one of the most energy-efficient forms of transport ever invented, allowing humans to travel faster and farther while using less energy than walking or running.

But why exactly does pedalling feel so much easier than pounding the pavement? The answer lies in the elegant biomechanics of how our bodies interact with this two-wheeled machine.

A wonderfully simple machine

At its heart, a bicycle is wonderfully simple: two wheels (hence “bi-cycle”), pedals that transfer power through a chain to the rear wheel, and gears that let us fine-tune our effort. But this simplicity masks an engineering that perfectly complements human physiology.

When we walk or run, we essentially fall forward in a controlled manner, catching ourselves with each step. Our legs must swing through large arcs, lifting our heavy limbs against gravity with every stride. This swinging motion alone consumes a lot of energy. Imagine: how tiring would it be to even swing your arms continuously for an hour?

On a bicycle, your legs move through a much smaller, circular motion. Instead of swinging your entire leg weight with each step, you’re simply rotating your thighs and calves through a compact pedalling cycle. The energy savings are immediately noticeable.

But the real efficiency gains come from how bicycles transfer human power to forward motion. When you walk or run, each footstep involves a mini-collision with the ground. You can hear it as the slap of your shoe against the road, and you can feel it as vibrations running through your body. This is energy being lost, literally dissipated as sound and heat after being sent through your muscles and joints.

Walking and running also involve another source of inefficiency: with each step, you actually brake yourself slightly before propelling forward. As your foot lands ahead of your body, it creates a backwards force that momentarily slows you down. Your muscles then have to work extra hard to overcome this self-imposed braking and accelerate you forward again.

Kissing the road

Bicycles use one of the world’s great inventions to solve these problems – wheels.

Instead of a collision, you get rolling contact – each part of the tyre gently “kisses” the road surface before lifting off. No energy is lost to impact. And because the wheel rotates smoothly so the force acts perfectly vertically on the ground, there’s no stop-start braking action. The force from your pedalling translates directly into forward motion.

But bicycles also help our muscles to work at their best. Human muscles have a fundamental limitation: the faster they contract, the weaker they become and the more energy they consume.

This is the famous force-velocity relationship of muscles. And it’s why sprinting feels so much harder than jogging or walking – your muscles are working near their speed limit, becoming less efficient with every stride.

Bicycle gears solve this problem for us. As you go faster, you can shift to a higher gear so your muscles don’t have to work faster while the bike accelerates. Your muscles can stay in their sweet spot for both force production and energy cost. It’s like having a personal assistant that continuously adjusts your workload to keep you in the peak performance zone.

Walking sometimes wins out

But bicycles aren’t always superior.

On very steep hills of more than about 15% gradient (so you rise 1.5 metres every 10 metres of distance), your legs struggle to generate enough force through the circular pedalling motion to lift you and the bike up the hill. We can produce more force by pushing our legs straight out, so walking (or climbing) becomes more effective.

Even if roads were built, we wouldn’t pedal up Mount Everest.

This isn’t the case for downhills. While cycling downhill becomes progressively easier (eventually requiring no energy at all), walking down steep slopes actually becomes harder.

Once the gradient exceeds about 10% (it drops by one metre for every ten metres of distance), each downhill step creates jarring impacts that waste energy and stress your joints. Walking and running downhill isn’t always as easy as we’d expect.

Not just a transportation device

The numbers speak for themselves. Cycling can be at least four times more energy-efficient than walking and eight times more efficient than running. This efficiency comes from minimising three major energy drains: limb movement, ground impact and muscle speed limitations.

So next time you effortlessly cruise past pedestrians on your morning bike commute, take a moment to appreciate the biomechanical work of art beneath you. Your bicycle isn’t just a transport device, but a perfectly evolved machine that works in partnership with your physiology, turning your raw muscle power into efficient motion.

Anthony Blazevich 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. Cycling can be 4 times more efficient than walking. A biomechanics expert explains why – https://theconversation.com/cycling-can-be-4-times-more-efficient-than-walking-a-biomechanics-expert-explains-why-257120

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mario Peucker, Associate Professor and Principal Research Fellow, Institute for Sustainable Industries and Liveable Cities, Victoria University

The way racism manifests itself may have changed over time, but it remains a persistent problem in Australia.

The 2024 Reconciliation Barometer found a significant increase in racism against First Nations people. Antisemitism and Islamophobia have also been on the rise.

Many other migrant communities and their Australian-born descendants continue to face racial discrimination, abuse and systemic marginalisation.

And yet the true picture of racism in Australia is hard to determine, as a lot of racism goes unreported. Our soon to be published research reveals people often don’t know how to come forward, are scared of negative consequences, or simply don’t think anything would change if they did report it.

Unheard voices

The silencing of those who have experienced racism manifests in various ways, including the sceptical, at times hostile public reactions to those who speak out publicly.

But our research, funded by VicHealth and accepted for publication by the journal Ethnic and Racial Studies, analysed how inadequate formal reporting pathways can mean people don’t come forward about their experiences.

We conducted a survey of more than 700 people, then focus groups with almost 160 people. In total, we examined the experiences of 859 Victorian adults from culturally or racially marginalised communities.

The vast majority of them – 76% of the survey respondents – had experienced racism in Australia, across many areas of life. These experiences happened at work, in shopping centres, on public transport and on the streets. Some also encountered racism in schools, healthcare, housing, online or when dealing with police.

But crucially, only 15.5% of them had ever reported any such incident to an organisation.

Unsurprisingly, one of the reasons why people do not report is that many are not aware of existing reporting options, for example through the federal or states’ human rights commissions.

For 75.2% of survey respondents, not knowing where and how to report was a key barrier. The only place most people knew about was the police, which was often not seen as appropriate unless the incident involved physical violence.

Moreover, trust in an effective response by police was generally low. A Muslim woman in one of the focus groups said:

the biggest reason [for not reporting] is probably not knowing. The obvious is the police station, but then, well, many of us already feel that police won’t do much. But what else is out there?

High cost, low reward

An even bigger obstacle is that reporting racism was commonly considered high-cost, but low-reward. Most participants (83.2%) were deterred by the conviction that the process was taking too much time and effort.

As one Asian-Australian participant stated:

I imagine the reporting to be a long process. Do I want to go through the process, especially as a migrant. You ask yourself: is it life and death? If not, let me just get on with my day.

Many highlighted concerns they would not be taken seriously (75.9%) or that reporting would have negative consequences for them or their children (72.8%). They were also concerned about how reporting could negatively affect their career, treatment at school or even their legal resident status.

An African-Australian man said:

You know you’re gonna be a double victim. Let’s say at your workplace, if you report racism, straight away […] you become a target.

No accountability

These factors shape the discouraging perspective that reporting is a high-cost action.

But what makes it even worse is the very common conviction, expressed by 90.6% of survey respondents, that “nothing would change” even if they were to report, and that there was no accountability for racist behaviour.

A Somali-born mother, whose daughter was called a racist slur by her teacher, complained to the school principal, but “he didn’t do anything”. She said her kids and their friends “all agreed that no one would do anything about this”. She said:

They have this belief that if they make a complaint, it will not go anywhere. They all said the same thing: If you go somewhere, no one will care.

Another survey participant said reporting racism would have to be worth the effort:

We need to know that the mental and emotional sacrifice of reporting will be worth it, that it will result in an outcome. Why would I report racism if nothing will be done?

‘Don’t rock the boat’

In addition, there are other psychological factors at play.

Of those surveyed, 70.1% explained they refrain from reporting because they don’t want to “cause trouble”. In the focus groups, participants often spoke about not wanting to “rock the boat” or refraining from “talking bad, talking about racism because they might hate us”.

Similarly, others are so determined to “blend in” they feel they have to accept racism. A Chinese-Australian participant explained her community wouldn’t complain because:

we want to, and try to, fit in. And we have come to accept a little bit of tough treatment.

Even protecting the perpetrators of racism from harm was described by some as a reason for not reporting:

I thought by reporting I would hurt her [the perpetrator], and in our culture, we should not be hurting another person.

What can be done?

Our research shows racism often goes undetected and unreported due to systemic and cultural barriers. As a result, injustice remains unchallenged and normalised.

But communities are finding alternative ways of speaking out against racism, often outside formal reporting channels.

Following our research, for example, three local community-led anti-racism support networks have been set up in parts of Victoria to complement the existing support and reporting system.

These networks provide trusted and culturally safe spaces and support to those who face racism. They have started to systematically document racism, working towards local evidence that can be used to raise awareness and inform targeted anti-racism actions in the future.

Networks like these could be introduced around the country to give people more options to come forward.

We won’t be able to properly address racism while those experiencing it think they won’t be listened to. We all need to ensure racist incidents are taken seriously, responded to promptly and that people are heard.

Mario Peucker receives funding from the Victorian Government and VicHealth.

Franka Vaughan receives funding from VicHealth

Jo Doley received funding from VicHealth.

Tom Clark receives funding from VicHealth.

– ref. ‘You become a target’: research shows why many people who experience racism don’t report it – https://theconversation.com/you-become-a-target-research-shows-why-many-people-who-experience-racism-dont-report-it-260092

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Lee, Adjunct Professor at the National Drug Research Institute (Melbourne based), Curtin University

Alcohol has many negative effects on our health, some of which may surprise you. These include short-term impacts such as waking up with a pounding head or anxiety, to long-term effects including cancer.

If you are thinking about taking some time off alcohol, you’ll find many quick wins and long-term gains for your health.

How long will you have to wait to feel the benefits?

We’ve made a timeline – based on scientific research – that shows what you might feel in the first days, weeks, months and years after taking a break from alcohol.

Some benefits start immediately, so every day without alcohol is a win for your health.

After one day

Alcohol takes around 24 hours to completely leave your body, so you may start noticing improvements after just one day.

Alcohol makes you need to urinate more often, causing dehydration. But your body can absorb a glass of water almost immediately, so once alcohol is out of your system alcohol dehydration is reduced, improving digestion, brain function and energy levels.

Alcohol also reduces the liver’s ability to regulate blood sugar. Once alcohol leaves the system, blood sugar begins to normalise.

If you are a daily drinker you may feel a bit worse to start with while your body adjusts to not having alcohol in its system all the time. You may initially notice disrupted sleep, mood changes, sweating or tremors. Most symptoms usually resolve in about a week without alcohol.

After one week

Even though alcohol can make you feel sleepy at first, it disrupts your sleep cycle. By the end of an alcohol-free week, you may notice you are more energetic in the mornings as a result of getting better quality sleep.

As the body’s filter, the liver does much of the heavy lifting in processing alcohol and can be easily damaged even with moderate drinking.

The liver is important for cleaning blood, processing nutrients and producing bile that helps with digestion.

But it can also regenerate quickly. If you have only mild damage in the liver, seven days may be enough to reduce liver fat and heal mild scarring and tissue damage.

Even small amounts of alcohol can impair brain functioning. So quitting can help improve brain health within a few days in light to moderate drinkers and within a month even for very heavy dependent drinkers.

After one month

Alcohol can make managing mood harder and worsen symptoms of anxiety and depression. After a few weeks, most people start to feel better. Even very heavy drinkers report better mood after one to two months.

As your sleep and mood improve you may also notice more energy and greater wellbeing.

After a month of abstinence regular drinkers also report feeling more confident about making changes to how they drink.

You may lose weight and body fat. Alcohol contains a lot of kilojules and can trigger hunger reward systems, making us overeat or choose less healthy foods when drinking.

Even your skin will thank you. Alcohol can make you look older through dehydration and inflammation, which can be reversed when you quit.

Alcohol irritates the gut and disrupts normal stomach functioning, causing bloating, indigestion, heartburn and diarrhoea. These symptoms usually start to resolve within four weeks.

One month of abstinence, insulin resistance – which can lead to high blood sugar – significantly reduces by 25%. Blood pressure also reduces (by 6%) and cancer-related growth factors declines, lowering your risk of cancer.

After six months

The liver starts to repair within weeks. For moderate drinkers, damage to your liver could be fully reversed by six months.

At this point, even heavy drinkers may notice they’re better at fighting infections and feel healthier overall.

After one year or more

Alcohol contributes to or causes a large number of chronic diseases, including heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and seven different types of cancer, as well as mental health issues. All of these risks can be reduced by quitting or cutting back on alcohol.

Alcohol increases blood pressure. High blood pressure (hypertension) is the top risk factor for death in the world. A small 2mmHg increase in blood pressure above the normal range (120mmHG) increases death from stroke by 10% and from coronary artery disease by 7%.

Cutting back on alcohol to less than two drinks a day can reduce blood pressure significantly, reducing risk of stroke and heart disease. Reducing blood pressure also reduces risk of kidney disease, eye problems and even erectile dysfunction.

With sustained abstinence, your risk of getting any type of cancer drops. One study looked at cancer risk for more than 4 million adults over three to seven years and found the risk of alcohol-related cancer dropped by 4%, even for light drinkers who quit. Reducing from heavy to moderate drinking reduced alcohol-related cancer risk by 9%.

Making a change

Any reduction in drinking will have some noticeable and immediate benefits to your brain and general health. The less you drink and the longer you go between drinks, the healthier you will be.

Whether you aim to cut back or quit entirely, there are some simple things you can do to help you stick with it:

• set clear goals plus the smaller steps you need to take to get there

• pay attention to the benefits you notice from quitting

• monitor your progress with a Drink Tracker

• get support from others, for example Hello Sunday Morning’s anonymous Daybreak app, SMART Recovery, CounsellingOnline or Sober in the Country.

If you are still wondering about whether to make changes or not you can check your drinking risk here.

If you have tried to cut back and found it difficult you may need professional help. Call the National Alcohol and other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015 and they will put you in touch with services in your area that can help. You can also talk to your GP.

We would like to thank Dr Hannah MacRae for assistance in identifying the research used in this article.

Nicole Lee works as a paid evaluation and training consultant in alcohol and other drugs. She has previously been awarded grants by state and federal governments, NHMRC and other public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research. She is CEO of Hello Sunday Morning.

Dr Katinka van de Ven is the Research Manager of Hello Sunday Morning. She also works as a paid evaluation and training consultant in alcohol and other drugs. Katinka has previously been awarded grants by state governments and public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research.

– ref. Even a day off alcohol makes a difference – our timeline maps the health benefits when you stop drinking – https://theconversation.com/even-a-day-off-alcohol-makes-a-difference-our-timeline-maps-the-health-benefits-when-you-stop-drinking-249272

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Reeve, Program Director, Energy and Climate Change, Grattan Institute

As the world looks for ways to tackle climate change, Australia has invested heavily in green hydrogen.

Green hydrogen is shaping as the best option to strip carbon emissions from some industrial processes, such as iron-making and ammonia production. But making the dream a reality in Australia is proving difficult.

Two recent announcements are a case in point. This month, the Queensland government withdrew financial support for the Central Queensland Hydrogen Hub. It came weeks after energy company Fortescue cut 90 green hydrogen jobs in Queensland and Western Australia.

I led the development of Australia’s National Hydrogen Strategy in 2019, in my previous job as a federal public servant. I also co-authored a Grattan Institute report on how hydrogen could help decarbonise the Australian economy. Here, I explain the main challenges to getting the industry off the ground.

But first, what is green hydrogen?

Hydrogen is the lightest and most abundant element in the universe. It’s usually found as a gas, or bonded to other elements.

It’s used to make products such as fertilisers, explosives and plastics. In future, it may also be a zero-emissions replacement for fossil fuels in industries such as steel and chemicals manufacturing.

Australia currently makes very low volumes of hydrogen using natural gas, which produces greenhouse gas emissions. We are well-placed to produce “green” or zero-emissions hydrogen, through a process powered by renewable energy which releases hydrogen from water.

But creating a large green hydrogen industry won’t be easy. These are the main five challenges.

1. The learning curve is steep

About 15 facilities in Australia are currently producing green hydrogen, all at low volumes – between 8 kilograms and one tonne a day (see chart below).

By contrast, most recently cancelled projects would have produced hundreds of tonnes of green hydrogen daily. The Central Queensland Hydrogen Hub, for example, would initially have produced about 200 tonnes a day, scaling up to 800 tonnes in the 2030s.

The failure of these big projects shows Australia has much to learn about planning, building, commissioning and operating large green hydrogen facilities.

2. Demand is limited

Very little hydrogen is currently used in Australia – around 500,000 tonnes a year. This is less than 1% of national energy consumption.

Most of this hydrogen is produced using natural gas, and is produced on site at existing industrial operations that require hydrogen, such as oil refiners and ammonia plants. Using hydrogen from a different source would require major – and costly – engineering changes at these facilities.

So, how do new green hydrogen producers create demand for their product?

The first option is to convince a company to spend money changing their operations to bring in green hydrogen from outside. This is not an easy prospect. The second is to find big new markets – which leads to the next challenge.

3. The chicken-and-egg problem

Renewable hydrogen isn’t a direct substitute for conventional fuels.

You can’t burn hydrogen in your gas stovetop without changing the pipes in the house and the burners on the stove. Likewise, you can’t use hydrogen as a substitute for coal when making steel without changing the smelting process.

This creates a chicken-and-egg problem. Green hydrogen proponents won’t invest in high-volume production unless there are large users to buy the product. But large users won’t invest in changing their processes unless they are assured of supply.

4. Green hydrogen is expensive

Green hydrogen is much more expensive than conventional hydrogen. And as yet, there’s little evidence buyers are willing pay more for it.

So for green hydrogen to compete with conventional production, it needs government subsidies.

The huge expense is largely due to the electricity used to make green hydrogen – prices of which are currently high.

As renewable energy expands, electricity prices in Australia are expected to fall. But building more large-scale renewable generation in Australia is itself a difficult prospect.

5. Economic and political turmoil

Recent turmoil in global markets has made companies more cautious about investing outside their core business. And global inflation has helped drive up the cost of electricity needed to produce green hydrogen.

Globally, governments have scrambled to keep national economies afloat, which has led to cuts in green hydrogen in several countries.

In Australia, green hydrogen is still key to the Albanese government’s Future Made in Australia policy. And hydrogen has been a rare area of agreement between the two major parties, at both federal and state levels.

But there are signs this is changing. The federal opposition last year fought the government’s hydrogen tax credits, and the withdrawal of support for the Central Queensland Hydrogen Hub came from the Queensland LNP government, which won office in October last year.

What next?

There is a long road ahead if green hydrogen is to help Australia reach its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

So what have we learned so far?

Many scrapped projects tried to implement a “hub” model – combining multiple users in one place, which was designed to make it more attractive to suppliers. But this was difficult to co-ordinate, and vulnerable to changing global conditions.

The green hydrogen industry should focus on the most promising uses for its product. For example, if it could successfully make enough green hydrogen to supply ammonia production, it could build on this to eventually support a bigger industry, such as iron-making.

It’s also time to rethink how subsidies are structured, to reflect the fact some sectors are better bets than others. At present, the federal government’s Hydrogen Headstart program and the hydrogen tax credit are agnostic as to how the hydrogen is used, which does little to help demand emerge in the right places.

Finally, political unity must be renewed. Hydrogen projects require a lot of capital, and investors get nervous when an industry does not have bipartisan support.

The hype around green hydrogen in Australia is fading. There are some reasons for hope – but success will require a lot of hard work.

Since 2008, the Grattan Institute has been supported by government, corporations, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporters is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

– ref. What’s happened to Australia’s green hydrogen dream? Here are 5 reasons the industry has floundered – https://theconversation.com/whats-happened-to-australias-green-hydrogen-dream-here-are-5-reasons-the-industry-has-floundered-260634

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Whelan, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Sydney

House prices continued to rise across Australia in June, recent data shows. Nationally, prices have risen about 38% in the past five years.

Higher housing prices are simply one contributor, albeit a very important one, to the cost of living crisis that Australian households face. Energy prices are another.

Those higher costs of living and the financial stress associated with them are linked to a range of negative outcomes for households, including poor health and wellbeing, greater housing insecurity, and some families having to go without some essential items.

One consequence of house prices that has largely been ignored is their relationship to marriage and divorce.

Divorce rates are at historic lows

The rate of divorce in Australia is at the lowest level since the introduction of no-fault divorce in 1976.

The 1990s recession was also a period of significant financial hardship for households, and divorces rose over that time. Why isn’t this happening now?

Couples may prefer to divorce but can’t for financial reasons.

Why? Put simply, divorce is a decision that brings with it significant costs. The financial implications of divorce could mean couples stay together longer than they’d like to.

Why do people choose to marry or separate?

To understand patterns of divorce, a good place to start is to think about why couples choose to marry, or separate, in the first place.

Economists argue that individuals marry if the expected benefits from marriage exceed the benefits from remaining single.

As new information arises or unexpected outcomes occur, individuals may reassess their beliefs about the expected benefits from being married versus being single.

In turn, we might expect that separation occurs if either partner believes they will be better off outside the marriage than within it, taking into account all costs and constraints.

How housing prices can affect the likelihood of divorce

Research shows that housing prices are closely linked to a range of household behaviours and outcomes, including consumer spending, labour supply and fertility intentions.

Rising housing prices might encourage couples to remain married (or not separate) due to the higher housing costs they would face if they separated.

It is generally cheaper to run a single household where many resources are shared rather than two separate households. This may be thought of as a cost that accompanies higher house prices.

Of course, higher house prices also offer some benefit in the event of separation. For homeowners, the asset held by the couple is more valuable and the wealth each partner may be entitled to is greater. This benefit from separation might encourage couples to separate and divorce.

Our research, presented at the Australian Conference of Economists last week and not yet peer reviewed, addresses this issue. We looked at whether unanticipated changes in the growth of housing prices are related to the likelihood of divorce.

It is important to focus on unanticipated changes in housing prices. Unanticipated changes, or “shocks”, will lead individuals to reassess their decision to stay married, or separate and divorce.

Which factors explain divorce in Australia?

Our research sought to understand the key factors associated with divorce in Australia using the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.

Not unexpectedly we found couples who share similar traits such as the same religion, education level or place of birth are more likely to remain married. A longer time being married is also linked to couples being less likely to separate. In contrast, partners whose parents had divorced are more likely to separate.

Importantly, the inclusion of housing price shocks into our analysis indicates they have a significant effect on the likelihood of divorce. But the effect differs depending on whether the housing price shock is positive or negative.

For homeowners, lower-than-anticipated housing price growth significantly increases the likelihood of separation. In this case the cost of lower house prices is more important than the benefit of lower house prices. When house prices don’t grow as quickly as anticipated, couples can separate knowing they will not face as large a penalty running separate households.

So what lesson may be drawn from this research and why is a link between housing prices and divorce important?

Our findings indicate higher-than-expected house price growth may be keeping some people in marriages they’d otherwise leave, but don’t, for financial concerns. This is more likely to include women with low education levels, low-income households and older couples.

In some instances, this will have negative consequences. Often those harmful consequences are disproportionately experienced by women and policy settings have a role to play in reducing those effects.

One only needs to look at initiatives such as the Leaving Violence Program. By providing financial support to assist people leaving potentially dangerous relationships, it will alleviate barriers associated with high housing costs that come after separation.

Stephen Whelan receives funding from the Australian Research Council as part of DP230101054. Funding is also received from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute for project 24/PRO/73346.

Luke Hartigan receives funding from the Australian Research Council as part of DP230100959.

– ref. Soaring house prices may be locking people into marriages, new research shows – https://theconversation.com/soaring-house-prices-may-be-locking-people-into-marriages-new-research-shows-260086

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia

These days when you see people exercising, they’re usually also listening to music, whether they’re at the gym, or out jogging on the street.

It makes sense, as studies have shown listening to music can help you get the most out of a workout.

Somehow the ancient Greeks and Romans knew this too, long before modern science was there to back it.

A more than 2,000-year-old habit

In his oration To the People of Alexandria, the Greek writer Dio Chrysostom (40-110 CE) complained about a phenomenon he saw all the time.

Dio wrote people loved to listen to music in their daily activities. According to him, music could be found in the courtroom, in the lecture theatre, in the doctor’s room, and even in the gym.

“Everything is done to music […] people will presently go so far as to use song to accompany their exercise in the gymnasium,” Dio wrote.

But exercising to music wasn’t a new thing in his day. This practice has been recorded across the ancient Greek and Roman worlds from the earliest times, and as far back as the poems of Homer (circa 800 BCE).

Why exercise to music?

There are many depictions of professional athletes training, or competing, to the accompaniment of music in ancient Greek vase paintings.

In one vase painting from the 5th century BCE, a group of athletes trains while a musician plays the aulos, a type of ancient pipe instrument.

The ancient writer Plutarch of Chaeronea (46-119 CE) tells us music was also played while people wrestled or did athletics.

Athenian writer Flavius Philostratus (circa 170-245 CE) offers clues as to why. In a book about gymnastics, Philostratus wrote music served to stimulate athletes, and that their performance might be improved through listening to music.

Today’s researchers have proven this to be true. One 2020 study involving 3,599 participants showed listening to music during exercise had many benefits, such as reducing the perception of fatigue and exertion, and improving physical performance and breathing.

Singing and trumpets

Since ancient people didn’t have electronic devices, they found other ways to exercise to music. Some had music played by a musician during their exercise routine. Others sang while they exercised.

Singing while playing ball games was particularly popular. In Homer’s Odyssey (circa 8th century BCE), Nausicaa, the daughter of the King of Phaeacia, plays a ball game with her girl friends, and they all sing songs as they play.

Similarly, the historian Carystius of Pergamum (2nd century BCE) wrote the women of his time “sang as they played ball”.

Another popular activity was dancing to music. Dancing was widely regarded as a gymnastic exercise people could do for better health.

One famous advocate of the benefits of dancing as exercise was the great Athenian philosopher Socrates (circa 470-399 BCE). According to the historian Diogenes Laertius (3rd century CE), “it was Socrates’ regular habit to dance, thinking that such exercise helped to keep the body in good condition”.

Apart from individuals using music in their personal exercise, soldiers also did training exercises, and marched to battle, to the sound of trumpets.

Don’t skip leg day

There was a belief in ancient Greek and Roman that music and exercise played an important role in shaping and developing the body and soul.

The ideal was harmony and moderation. The body and soul needed to be balanced and proportionate in all their parts, without any excess. As such, doing one kind of exercise too often, or exercising one body part excessively, was frowned upon.

The physician Galen of Pergamum (129-216 CE) criticised types of exercise that focused too much on one part of the body. He preferred ball games as they exercised the whole body evenly.

Immoderation in music – that is, listening to too much, or listening to music that was too emotional – was also sometimes frowned upon.

For example, the Athenian philosopher Plato (circa 428-348 BCE) famously argued most music should be censored as it can stir the passions too strongly. Plato thought only simple and unemotional music, listened to in moderation, should be allowed.

If the ancients could see today’s people running along the pavement with music thumping in their ears, they would surely be amazed. And they’d probably approve – as long as it wasn’t being done in excess.

Konstantine Panegyres 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. Can’t work out without music? Neither could the ancient Greeks and Romans – https://theconversation.com/cant-work-out-without-music-neither-could-the-ancient-greeks-and-romans-258069

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Honorary Senior Fellow, School of Culture and Communication, The University of Melbourne

Almost 60 years after former prime minister Harold Holt began to dismantle the White Australia Policy, The Neighbour at the Gate at Sydney’s National Art School Gallery presents a thoughtful examination of the consequences when good neighbours become good friends.

Street posters promoting the exhibition feature an image of a magpie. Advertising always distorts. Pardu (Tirritpa) by James Tylor, who has Kaurna and Mãori heritage, is a series of groupings of exquisite small bird daguerreotypes. Their shadowed silver surface gives the impression of antiquity, which is Tylor’s intention.

In Kaurna, the names of birds come from the songs they sing. This is also how birds are named in many Asian languages. Onomatopoeia makes a bridge between cultures. A QR code on the wall next to each grouped images of birds allows the viewer to hear blends of birdsong with human music.

Remembering the past

The visitor enters the exhibition through Imaginary Homelands, Jacky Cheng’s installation in the shape of a traditional Chinese paifang (牌坊).

The 1,110 strips of paper, with fragments of Chinese characters, represent a poem she learnt as child in Kuala Lumpur. But some of the language has been lost by the distortions of time. She now lives on Yawuru country (Broome), an Australian town with close links to many South East Asian cultures.

In remembering her past, she grasps elements of her Malay Chinese heritage.

Dennis Golding’s Bingo is possibly as fragmented a memory as Cheng’s. Golding, a Kamilaroi/Gamilaraay man, has made a tribute to the community space his Nan and Aunty created in an abandoned terrace house in the Block at Redfern, where at night they would play bingo.

Each of the etchings scattered across the wall is the size of brick; each quotes small details of community life in Redfern before it was “discovered” by the gentrifiers. The exquisite etchings appear to be scattered at random, but a careful look will show the word “Bingo” in white in the spaces on the wall.

Elham Eshraghian-Haakansson’s God of War is a beautiful and sensual video on love, rage, reconciliation and the emotional journey of being a refugee.

Eshraghian-Haakansson is a second generation Iranian-Australian whose work is shaped in part by the experience of her mother and grandmother, whose Baha’i faith placed them in peril in 1979 after the Ayatollahs seized power. The different segments of this elegant video are deliberately broken by rough insertions, giving it a sense of a work reclaimed from history.

Along the water

Jenna Mayilema Lee’s complex installation in three parts is both a universal statement on the integration that is the long-term consequence of the meeting of cultures, and a personal statement on her own circumstances.

Each component – the photographic mural, the video and the billabong sculpture – can be seen as an independent work, but when combined they form magic.

Lee is truly a modern Australian, descended from Gulumerridjin (Larrakia), Wardaman, KarraJarri people as well as having Japanese, Filipino, Chinese and Anglo ancestors.

The lotus sculptures in the billabong are constructed from copies of immigration documentation. Her Chinese ancestors were living in Australia well before the White Australia policy of 1901. When they needed to travel, bureaucracy demanded multiple forms.

She has layered the forms with a hand print from one of her Japanese ancestors which, much to her pleasure, she discovered is the same size as her own hand.

The billabongs of northern Australia, especially in Larrakia country, are filled with lotus plants. The ancestors of the lotus plants of northern Australia floated across the narrow seas from Asia many years ago, in much the same way as people.

Water does not always bring life. James Nguyen’s Homeopathies_where new trees grow, is a reminder of another consequence of colonisation.

As with many other Vietnamese Australians, his family lives near the Parramatta and Duck rivers, west of central Sydney. One of the horrors of the Vietnam war was the way Agent Orange, destroyed both the jungle and the lives of people who came into contact with it.

Agent Orange was made by Union Carbide, near the Parramatta River. When the factory closed the contaminated site was not properly sealed and the poison seeped into the river.

Nguyen’s giant floating textile is of made of raw cotton and silk strips, dyed with mud and weeds contaminated by dioxin and Agent Orange. The evil of contamination is countered by clay pinchpot incense holders which line the stairs and entrances to the exhibition.

The cleansing smoke of incense is another link between the cultures of Asia and those of Australia’s First Nations people.

The Neighbour at the Gate is a generous and inclusive exhibition, a reminder of a common humanity. Clothilde Bullen, who heads the curatorium with Micheal Do and Zali Morgan, sees art as a way of countering divisions in society.

She told me:

If we are to work as a society and if we are to work as a community then we have to call people in, and we have to be prepared to embrace that difference. And so that is really what this show is all about.

The Neighbour at the Gate is at the National Art School Galleries, Sydney, until October 18.

Joanna Mendelssohn has in the past received funding from the Australian Research Council

– ref. A new exhibition is a thoughtful examination of the lasting relationship between Asia and Australia – https://theconversation.com/a-new-exhibition-is-a-thoughtful-examination-of-the-lasting-relationship-between-asia-and-australia-259040

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Petra Vaiglova, Lecturer in Archaeological Science, Australian National University

Have you ever stopped by the grocery store on your way to a dinner party to grab a bottle of wine? Did you grab the first one you saw, or did you pause to think about the available choices and deliberate over where you wanted your gift to be from?

The people who lived in western Iran around 11,000 years ago had the same idea – but in practice it looked a little different. In our latest research, my colleagues and I studied the remains of ancient feasts at Asiab in the Zagros Mountains where people gathered in communal celebration.

The feasters left behind the skulls of 19 wild boars, which they packed neatly together and sealed inside a pit within a round building. Butchery marks on the boar skulls show the animals were used for feasting, but until now we did not know where the animals came from.

By examining the microscopic growth patterns and chemical signatures inside the tooth enamel of five of these boars, we found at least some of them had been brought to the site from a substantial distance away, transported over difficult mountainous terrain. Bringing these boars to the feast – when other boars were available locally – would have taken an enormous amount of effort.

A big feast from before the dawn of agriculture

Feasting activities are widely documented in the archaeological record, primarily from communities that rely on agriculture to generate a food surplus. In fact, it has been suggested feasting may have been a driving force behind the adoption of agriculture, although this theory has been widely debated.

While evidence from after the adoption of agriculture is plentiful from all reaches of the globe, evidence pre-dating agriculture is more sparse.

What is special about the feast at Asiab is not only its early date and that it brought together people from wider reaches of the region. It is the fact that people who participated in this feast invested substantial amounts of effort, so that their contributions involved an element of geographic symbolism.

Food and culture

Food and long-standing culinary traditions form an integral component of cultures all over the globe. It is for this reason that holidays, festivals, and other socially meaningful events commonly involve food.

We cannot imagine Christmas without the Christmas meal, for example, or Eid without the food gifts, or Passover without matzo ball soup.

What’s more, food makes for gifts that are highly appreciated. The more a food item is reminiscent of a specific country or location, the better. It is for this reason that cheese from France, crocodile jerky from Australia, and black chicken from Korea make for good currency in the world of gift giving.

Just like today, people who lived in the past noticed the importance of reciprocity and place, and formulated customs to celebrate them publicly.

At ancient feasts at Stonehenge, for example, research has shown people ate pigs brought from wide reaches of Britain. Our new findings provide the first glimpse of similar behaviour in a pre-agricultural context.

How to read a tooth

Did you know that teeth grow like trees? Much like trees and their annual growth rings, teeth deposit visible layers of enamel and dentine during growth.

These growth layers track daily patterns of development and changes in the dietary intake of certain chemical elements. In our study, we sliced the teeth of wild boars from Asiab in a way that allowed us to count these daily growth layers under the microscope.

We then used this information to measure the composition of enamel secreted at approximately weekly intervals. The variability in the isotopic ratios we measured suggests at least some of the wild boars used in the feast at Asiab came from considerable distance: possibly from at least 70 km, or two or more days’ travel.

The most likely explanation is that they were hunted in farther reaches of the region and transported to the site as contributions to the feast.

Reciprocity is at the heart of social interactions. Just like a thoughtfully chosen bottle of wine does today, those boars brought from far and wide may have served to commemorate a place, an event and social bonds through gift-giving.

The work was funded by Early Career Research grants from Griffith University and the Society for Archaeological Science.

– ref. Guests at a feast in Iran’s Zagros Mountains 11,000 years ago brought wild boars from all across the land – https://theconversation.com/guests-at-a-feast-in-irans-zagros-mountains-11-000-years-ago-brought-wild-boars-from-all-across-the-land-260179

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Dawson, PhD Candidate, School of Psychology and National Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, The University of Queensland

Around 41% of Australians report they’ve used cannabis at some point in their life.

Research estimates that 22% of recreational cannabis consumers meet criteria for a cannabis use disorder. This condition can make it difficult to control how often or how much cannabis they use.

For medicinal cannabis, our research estimated the percentage of cannabis consumers who meet criteria for a cannabis use disorder was similar, around 25%.

These figures may come as a surprise, as the perceived risks associated with cannabis have been steadily declining in many countries.

So, how can you tell if your cannabis use is a problem?

What does cannabis use disorder look like?

A person might use cannabis to relax after a stressful day at work or to help them sleep. At first, they might do so every now and then. But over time, they might come to rely on using cannabis to stop feeling uncomfortable, stressed and sleepless.

They might begin to use cannabis daily to feel “normal”.

With regular use, the body develops tolerance to the effects of cannabis. So the person needs to use more cannabis to get the same “high”.

People who consume cannabis might use more cannabis than they intended or might have problems performing at work because they’re high at the start of the work day, or they fail to do important things such as paying bills, and buy cannabis instead.

The person might keep using cannabis despite noticing their use is causing clouded thoughts, memory issues and anxiety.

Friends and family might notice problems with their cannabis use and recommend they stop or cut back. This can be difficult for people with cannabis use disorder because they may feel anxious, irritable and have difficulty sleeping if they suddenly stop using cannabis.

These withdrawal symptoms can make it harder to quit or cut back. Withdrawal symptoms are quickly relieved by using cannabis, creating a cycle of relapse.

How is it diagnosed?

Health professionals use specific criteria to diagnose a cannabis use disorder.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a person may have a cannabis use disorder if they show at least two symptoms within one year. Symptoms can include:

• using larger amounts over longer periods than intended

• cravings for cannabis, where the person feels a strong urge or desire to use cannabis

• trying and failing to cut back on cannabis use

• continuing cannabis use despite worsening physical or psychological problems

• failing to fulfil major role obligations at work, school or home

• needing to use a greater amount for the same effect, known as tolerance

• experiencing withdrawal symptoms such as feeling anxious, irritable or having trouble sleeping.

According to the DSM, two to three symptoms indicate a mild cannabis use disorder and few problems. A moderate disorder involves four to five symptoms, while six-plus symptoms means a severe disorder.

Who is at greatest risk?

In both recreational and medicinal consumers, the risk of cannabis use disorder is higher for people who use cannabis:

• frequently, especially daily

• by smoking or vaping

• with higher levels of THC or in larger amounts.

Other risk factors are starting cannabis use at a younger age and using cannabis to relieve symptoms of anxiety, depression and chronic pain.

What’s the relationship with chronic pain?

People struggling to manage their pain may turn to cannabis hoping to find relief.

However, recent studies question the effectiveness of cannabis to manage pain.

So people may increase how often they use cannabis or use more potent cannabis products in an unsuccessful attempt to control their pain.

This can lead to a cannabis use disorder, making it more difficult to manage their pain and impairing their ability to cope with the demands of everyday life.

How to reduce your risk

Legal changes in many countries, including Australia, have allowed greater access to cannabis for medical reasons. People now often use cannabis for both recreational and medical reasons (dual-use).

If you use cannabis, reduce your risk of developing a cannabis use disorder by avoiding daily use and avoiding cannabis products with high THC.

If you’re concerned about your cannabis use, consult your medical practitioner or contact the National Alcohol and Other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015 for confidential advice.

Wayne Hall has in the past five years been paid to advise the WHO on the adverse health effects of cannabis and to advise the Commonwealth Department of Health on the safety and effectiveness of medical uses of cannabis-based medicines.

Danielle Dawson and Valentina Lorenzetti 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 is cannabis use disorder? And how do you know if you have a problem? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-cannabis-use-disorder-and-how-do-you-know-if-you-have-a-problem-256098

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Belinda Clarence, Law Lecturer, RMIT University

During the recent conflict between Iran and Israel, Iran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s major shipping routes.

Would that be possible, and what effects would it have?

The Strait of Hormuz is a choke point at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. It is used to transport about 20% of global daily oil consumption.

Iran effectively controls this crucial shipping route because it is a coastal state bordering this narrow stretch of water. The strait is too narrow to avoid navigating waters claimed by Iran. This raises thorny legal questions about whether it is really possible for Iran to block the strait, and what recourse other states have if it does.

This geographical reality is far from new, and the legal frameworks governing international maritime activity have developed over centuries. At its heart is the lex mercatoria — the “law of merchants” — a body of transnational commercial law that emerged organically from the practices of traders operating across borders.

Within this broader framework sits the lex maritima, or customary maritime law, which has long adapted to the hazards of shipping across vast oceans.

The lex maritima originated from the shared practices of seafarers and merchants. Its purpose? To manage the unpredictable nature of maritime trade that demands coherent and stable rules.

One of the most enduring principles of this legal tradition is the idea of mare liberum, or “the free sea”, set out by Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1609. He argued the high seas should remain open to all for peaceful navigation and trade. This conveniently legitimised the ambitions of European colonial powers, granting them unfettered access to global maritime routes at a time when control over sea-based trade promised immense economic and strategic advantage.

The shifting boundaries of maritime law

One of the most fundamental questions in maritime law is: where do a nation’s territorial waters end, and the high seas begin?

After the second world war, a series of conferences culminated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), where the customary 3 nautical miles (5.56km) of territorial waters states could claim as their own was extended. This narrow limit was rooted more in historical naval range – the so-called “cannon shot rule” – than in modern geopolitical or environmental realities.

In 1959, Iran took the unusual step of unilaterally extending its territorial sea to 12 nautical miles, despite not being a party to UNCLOS. Two decades later, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the US Embassy hostage crisis, Washington grew increasingly anxious about the security of oil flows from the Persian Gulf. These concerns intensified during the Iran-Iraq War, especially as Iran began using small islands in the Strait of Hormuz to deploy military forces and threaten commercial shipping.

UNCLOS and the new rules of the sea

One of the key compromises of UNCLOS was an extension of territorial waters for states that ratified the treaty. In exchange, UNCLOS replaced the older concept of “innocent passage” – which allowed only surface navigation through territorial seas – with the broader notion of “transit passage”. Under this regime, vessels and aircraft from other states are granted the right to travel not only on the surface, but also under the sea and through the air above straits used for international navigation.

While 169 states have ratified UNCLOS, both Iran and the United States remain notable holdouts. This means Iran does not enjoy the broader 12-nautical-mile limit recognised under UNCLOS, and the US cannot claim the agreement’s protections for transit passage through strategic choke points.

While the geopolitical and legal tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz may seem far removed from the world of private commerce, the global economy continues to function thanks to a powerful legal tool: the contract. Contracts offer a predictable framework that allows trade across borders without parties needing to trust one another personally.

The Strait of Hormuz is bordered by active, assertive states such as Iran, which means the potential for interstate conflict is relatively high. This doesn’t mean commercial contracts are irrelevant to the recent dispute in the Strait of Hormuz — far from it. But their influence is more indirect.

What can be learned?

Without significant political change in Tehran, it’s unlikely either Iran or the US will shift its position on adopting UNCLOS. Yet despite Iran’s repeated threats to close the strait, it has never followed through — and the US Navy continues to maintain a steady presence in the region. For now, a fragile but persistent equilibrium holds.

Belinda Clarence 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. What is the Strait of Hormuz and why is it so important for global shipping? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-strait-of-hormuz-and-why-is-it-so-important-for-global-shipping-260920

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jon Whittle, Director, Data61, CSIRO

There’s been much talk recently – especially among politicians – about productivity. And for good reason: Australia’s labour productivity growth sits at a 60-year low.

To address this, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has convened a productivity round table next month. This will coincide with the release of an interim report from the Productivity Commission, which is looking at five pillars of reform. One of these is the role of data and digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI).

This will be music to the ears of the tech and business sectors, which have been enthusiastically promoting the productivity benefits of AI. In fact, the Business Council of Australia also said last month that AI is the single greatest opportunity in a generation to lift productivity.

But what do we really know about how AI impacts productivity?

What is productivity?

Put simply, productivity is how much output (goods and services) we can produce from a given amount of inputs (such as labour and raw materials). It matters because higher productivity typically translates to a higher standard of living. Productivity growth has accounted for 80% of Australia’s income growth over the past three decades.

Productivity can be thought of as individual, organisational or national.

Your individual productivity is how efficiently you manage your time and resources to complete tasks. How many emails can you respond to in an hour? How many products can you check for defects in a day?

Organisational productivity is how well an organisation achieves its goals. For example, in a research organisation, how many top-quality research papers are produced?

National productivity is the economic efficiency of a nation, often measured as gross domestic product per hour worked. It is effectively an aggregate of the other forms. But it’s notoriously difficult to track how changes in individual or organisational productivity translate into national GDP per hour worked.

AI and individual productivity

The nascent research examining the relationship between AI and individual productivity shows mixed results.

A 2025 real-world study of AI and productivity involved 776 experienced product professionals at US multinational company Procter & Gamble. The study showed that individuals randomly assigned to use AI performed as well as a team of two without. A similar study in 2023 with 750 consultants from Boston Consulting Group found tasks were 18% faster with generative AI.

A 2023 paper reported on an early generative AI system in a Fortune 500 software company used by 5,200 customer support agents. The system showed a 14% increase in the number of issues resolved per hour. For less experienced agents, productivity increased by 35%.

But AI doesn’t always increase individual productivity.

A survey of 2,500 professionals found generative AI actually increased workload for 77% of workers. Some 47% said they didn’t know how to unlock productivity benefits. The study points to barriers such as the need to verify and/or correct AI outputs, the need for AI upskilling, and unreasonable expectations about what AI can do.

A recent CSIRO study examined the daily use of Microsoft 365 Copilot by 300 employees of a government organisation. While the majority self-reported productivity benefits, a sizeable minority (30%) did not. Even those workers who reported productivity improvements expected greater productivity benefits than were delivered.

AI and organisational productivity

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to attribute changes in an organisation’s productivity to the introduction of AI. Businesses are sensitive to many social and organisational factors, any one of which could be the reason for a change in productivity.

Nevertheless, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has estimated the productivity benefits of traditional AI – that is, machine learning applied for an industry-specific task – to be zero to 11% at the organisational level.

A 2024 summary paper cites independent studies showing increases in organisational productivity from AI in Germany, Italy and Taiwan.

In contrast, a 2022 analysis of 300,000 US firms didn’t find a significant correlation between AI adoption and productivity, but did for other technologies such as robotics and cloud computing. Likely explanations are that AI hasn’t yet had an effect on many firms, or simply that it’s too hard to disentangle the impact of AI given it’s never applied in isolation.

AI productivity increases can also sometimes be masked by additional human labour needed to train or operate AI systems. Take Amazon’s Just Walk Out technology for shops.

Publicly launched in 2018, it was intended to reduce labour as customer purchases would be fully automated. But it reportedly relied on hiring around 1,000 workers in India for quality control. Amazon has labelled these reports “erroneous”.

More generally, think about the unknown number (but likely millions) of people paid to label data for AI models.

AI and national productivity

The picture at a national level is even murkier.

Clearly, AI hasn’t yet impacted national productivity. It can be argued that technology developments take time to affect national productivity, as companies need to figure out how to use the technology and put the necessary infrastructure and skills in place.

However, this is not guaranteed. For example, while there is consensus that the internet led to productivity improvements, the effects of mobile phones and social media are more contested, and their impacts are more apparent in some industries (such as entertainment) than others.

Productivity isn’t just doing things faster

The common narrative around AI and productivity is that AI automates mundane tasks, making us faster at doing things and giving us more time for creative pursuits. This, however, is a naive view of how work happens.

Just because you can deal with your inbox more quickly doesn’t mean you’ll spend your afternoon on the beach. The more emails you fire off, the more you’ll receive back, and the never-ending cycle continues.

Faster isn’t always better. Sometimes, we need to slow down to be more productive. That’s when great ideas happen.

Imagine a world in which AI isn’t simply about speeding up tasks but proactively slows us down, to give us space to be more innovative, and more productive. That’s the real untapped opportunity with AI.

Jon Whittle works at CSIRO which receives R&D funding from a wide range of government and industry clients.

– ref. Does AI actually boost productivity? The evidence is murky – https://theconversation.com/does-ai-actually-boost-productivity-the-evidence-is-murky-260690

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Laurenceson, Director and Professor, Australia-China Relations Institute (UTS:ACRI), University of Technology Sydney

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese leaves for China on Saturday, confident most Australians back the government’s handling of relations with our most important economic partner and the leading strategic power in Asia.

Albanese’s domestic critics have lambasted him for meeting Chinese leader Xi Jinping before United States President Donald Trump. They are also aggrieved at his refusal to label China a security threat.

But neither criticism really stacks up.

An Albanese-Trump meeting would have happened last month on the sidelines of a G7 gathering in Canada. It was Trump who left early, standing up more leaders than just Albanese.

Nor is Albanese the first Australian prime minister to meet a Chinese president before an American one. His predecessor Tony Abbott caught up with Xi a few weeks after coming to office in 2013, before he had a chance to meet President Barack Obama.

‘Friends, not foes’

Meanwhile, polling indicates just one in five Australians see the relationship with China first and foremost as “a threat to be confronted”. Rather, a clear two-thirds majority see it as “a complex relationship to be managed”.

Albanese is also regarded as more competent than his opposition counterpart in handling Australia’s foreign policy generally – and better at managing the China relationship specifically.

The prime minister’s Chinese hosts also have an incentive to ensure his visit is a successful one.

In the past fortnight, China’s ambassador in Canberra, Xiao Qian, has penned opinion pieces in two of Australia’s biggest media outlets, insisting Australia and China are “friends, not foes” and touting the “comprehensive turnaround” in bilateral ties since Labor won government in May 2022.

Beijing and Washington view each other as their geopolitical priority. Beijing can make it harder for Washington to enlist security allies such as Canberra in this rivalry by maintaining its own strong and constructive bilateral ties with Australia.

And quite apart from the competition with the US, China relied on Australia last year as its fifth largest import source.

Plenty of complaints

None of this is to say Albanese’s visit will be easy, because Australia-China relations are rarely smooth.

Canberra continues to have many complaints about China’s international behaviour.

For example, Foreign Minister Penny Wong recently signed a joint statement with her counterparts in Washington, Tokyo and New Delhi expressing “serious concerns regarding dangerous and provocative actions” by China in the East and South China Seas, and the “abrupt constriction […] of key supply chains”.

Wong has also said the government remains “appalled” by the treatment of Australians imprisoned in China, including Dr Yang Jun, who is facing espionage charges he strongly denies.

Defence Minister Richard Marles has voiced Canberra’s alarm at Beijing’s “no limits agreement” with Moscow, and claimed China has

engaged in the biggest conventional military build-up since the end of the second world war.

However, this assessment is contested by independent Australian analysts.

Beijing also has plenty of complaints. They include Canberra’s ongoing pursuit of closer military cooperation with the US and UK through the AUKUS pact.

There is also the commitment to forcing the sale of the lease to operate the Port of Darwin that is currently held by a Chinese company.

Reliable trading partner

Albanese has already made clear his visit to China will have a strong economic focus.

While grappling with security challenges, any Australian government, Labor or Coalition, must face the reality that last year, local companies sold more to China – worth A$196 billion – than our next four largest markets combined.

China is also, by far, Australia’s biggest supplier, putting downward pressure on the cost of living.

Research produced by Curtin University, commissioned by the Australia-China Business Council, finds trade with China increases disposable income of the average Australian household by $2,600, or 4.6% per person.

In an ideal world, Australia would have a more diversified trading mix.

But again, any Australian government or business must grapple with the reality that obvious major alternative markets, like the US, are not only less interested in local goods and services, but are walking away from their past trade commitments.

Under the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement signed two decades ago, Australian exporters selling to the US faced an average tariff of just 0.1%. But nowadays Washington applies a baseline tariff of 10% on most Australian imports.

Meanwhile, owing to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement struck in 2015, Beijing applies an average tariff of just 1.1%.

No wonder more Australians now say China is a more reliable trading partner than the US.

This also explains Alabese’s response when he was asked in April if he would support Trump’s trade war against China:

It would be extraordinary if the Australian response was “thank you” and we will help to further hurt our economy

Likewise, Trade Minister Don Farrell is adamant Australia’s interests will determine the Albanese government’s choices, not “what the Americans may or may not want”.

We don’t want to do less business with China, we want to do more business with China.

Deeper trade ties with Asia, including China, are not just about making a buck. Wong has stressed the national security implications of a strong economic relationship:

[It is] an investment in our security. Stability and prosperity are mutually reinforcing.

All of this means Albanese’s six-day visit to China is shaping up to be time well spent.

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.

– ref. Albanese’s China mission – managing a complex relationship in a world of shifting alliances – https://theconversation.com/albaneses-china-mission-managing-a-complex-relationship-in-a-world-of-shifting-alliances-260404

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Lensen, Senior Lecturer in Artificial Intelligence, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The government’s newly unveiled National AI Strategy is all about what its title says: “Investing with Confidence”. It tells businesses that Aotearoa New Zealand is open for AI use, and that our “light touch” approach won’t get in their way.

The question now is whether the claims made for AI by Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology Shane Reti – that it will help boost productivity and enable the economy to grow by billions of dollars – can be justified.

Generative AI – the kind powering ChatGPT, CoPilot and Google’s video generator Veo 3 – is certainly earning money. In its latest funding round in April, OpenAI was valued at US$300 billion.

Nvidia, which makes the hardware that powers AI technology, just became the first publicly traded company to surpass a $4 trillion market valuation. It’d be great if New Zealand could get a slice of that pie.

New Zealand doesn’t have the capacity to build new generative AI systems, however. That takes tens of thousands of NVIDIA’s chips, costing many millions of dollars that only big tech companies or large nation states can afford.

What New Zealand can do is build new systems and services around these models, either by fine-tuning them, or using them as part of a bigger software system or service.

The government isn’t offering any new money to help companies do this. Its AI strategy is about reducing barriers, providing regulatory guidance, building capacity and ensuring adaption happens responsibly.

But there aren’t many barriers to begin with. The regulatory guidance contained in the strategy essentially says “we won’t regulate”. Existing laws are said to be “technology-neutral” and therefore sufficient.

As for building capacity, the country’s tertiary sector is more under-funded than ever, with universities cutting courses and staff. Humanities research into AI ethics is also ineligible for government funding as it doesn’t contribute to economic growth.

A relaxed regulatory regime

The issue of responsible adoption is perhaps of most concern. The 42-page “Responsible AI Guidance for Businesses” document, released alongside the strategy, contains useful material on issues such as detecting bias, measuring model accuracy, and human oversight. But it is just that – guidance – and entirely voluntary.

This puts New Zealand among the most relaxed nations when it comes to AI regulation, along with Japan and Singapore. At the other end is the European Union, which enacted its comprehensive AI Act in 2024, and has stood fast against lobbying to delay legislative rollout.

The relaxed approach is interesting in light of New Zealand being ranked third-to-last out of 47 countries in a recent survey of trust in AI. In another survey from last year, 66% of New Zealanders reported being nervous about the impacts of AI.

Some of the nervousness can be explained by AI being a new technology with well documented examples of inappropriate use, intentional or not. Deepfakes as a form of cyber bulling have become a major concern. Even the ACT Party, not generally in favour of more regulation, wants to criminalise the creation and sharing of non-consensual, sexually explicit deepfakes.

Generative image, video and music creation is reducing the demand for creative workers – even though it is their very work that was used to train the AI models.

But there are other, more subtle issues, too. AI systems learn from data. If that data is biased, then those systems will learn to be biased, too.

New Zealanders are right to be anxious about the prospect of private sector companies denying them jobs, entry to supermarkets or a bank loan because of something in their pasts. Because modern deep learning models are so complex and impenetrable, it can be impossible to determine how an AI system made a decision.

And what of the potential for AI to be used online to mislead voters and discredit the democratic process, as the New York Times has reported may have occurred already in at least 50 cases?

Managing risk the European way

The strategy is essentially silent on all of these issues. It also doesn’t mention Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. Even Google’s AI summary tells me this is the nation’s founding document, laying the groundwork for Māori and the Crown to coexist.

AI, like any data-driven system, has the potential to disproportionately disadvantage Māori if it involves systems from overseas designed (and trained) for other populations.

Allowing these systems to be imported and deployed in Aotearoa New Zealand in sensitive applications – healthcare or justice, for example – without any regulation or oversight risks worsening inequalities even further.

What’s the alternative? The EU offers some useful answers. It has taken the approach of categorising AI uses based on risk:

• “Unacceptable risk” – the likes of social scoring (where individuals’ daily activities are monitored and scored for their societal benefit) and AI hacking – is outright banned.

• High-risk systems, such as uses for employment or transportation infrastructure, require strict obligations, including risk assessments and human oversight.

• Limited and minimal risk applications – the biggest category by far – imposes very little red tape on companies.

This feels like a mature approach New Zealand might emulate. It wouldn’t stymie productivity much – unless companies were doing something risky. In which case, the 66% of New Zealanders who are nervous about AI might well agree it’s worth slowing down and getting it right.

Andrew Lensen receives government funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment through contestable academic research funds. He is the co-director of LensenMcGavin AI, a consultancy specialising in the responsible uptake of AI in Aotearoa.

– ref. NZ’s new AI strategy is long on ‘economic opportunity’ but short on managing ethical and social risk – https://theconversation.com/nzs-new-ai-strategy-is-long-on-economic-opportunity-but-short-on-managing-ethical-and-social-risk-260798

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yuting Zhang, Professor of Health Economics, The University of Melbourne

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has fined Bupa A$35 million for unlawfully rejecting thousands of health insurance claims over more than five years.

Between May 2018 and August 2023 Bupa incorrectly rejected claims from patients who had multiple medical procedures, with at least one of those procedures covered under their health insurance policy.

Instead of paying the portion of the treatment that was covered, Bupa’s automated systems wrongly rejected the entire claim.

Bupa admitted these errors were due to system problems and poor staff guidance, and has started to recompensate members.

So you may be worried whether your private health insurance will cover you for the procedures you need.

Here’s what you need to know about the different types of hospital cover. And if your claim is rejected, what to do next.

From basic to gold

As of March 2025, 45.3% of Australians have private health insurance for hospital cover. There are four tiers: basic, bronze, silver and gold.

Each tier has a minimum set of “clinical categories”. These are groups of hospital treatments that must be covered.

For example, basic hospital cover only has three mandatory inclusions: rehabilitation, hospital psychiatric services and palliative care. But this is “restricted” cover, meaning patients will often still have to pay substantial out-of-pocket costs for these services.

Basic cover is entry-level cover, mainly for people who want to avoid the Lifetime Health Cover loading and the Medicare Levy Surcharge. These are both ways of encouraging people to take up private health insurance while young and keeping it, especially people on higher incomes.

At the other end of the scale is gold cover, which includes unrestricted cover for all defined clinical categories, including pregnancy and birth.

You can generally change your level of cover at any time. When you upgrade to include new services or increase benefits for existing services, you will need to serve new waiting periods for those new or increased benefits.

A common waiting period is 12 months for pre-existing conditions (any ailment, illness or condition that you had signs or symptoms of during the six months before upgrading, even if undiagnosed), and for pregnancy and birth-related services. But there is generally only a two-month waiting period for psychiatric care, rehabilitation or palliative care, even if it’s for a pre-existing condition.

It’s a good idea to review your policy every two years because your health needs and financial circumstances can change.

How much do companies pay out?

The proportion of premiums that are paid out to cover medical claims is known as the “average payout ratio”. And this has been about 84–86% over most of the past 20 years.

This does not mean your health insurer will pay out 84–86% of your individual claim. This national average accounts for the percentage of all premiums in any one year, across all insurers, that’s paid out in claims.

The payout ratios vary by insurer and are slightly higher for not-for-profit health insurers than for-profit insurers.

That’s because for-profit health insurers have pressure to deliver profits to shareholders and have incentives to minimise payouts and control costs.

If not properly managed, these incentives may result in higher out-of-pocket expenses and denied claims.

Why has my claim been rejected?

Common reasons for claims to be rejected include:

• the policy excluded or restricted the clinical category

• the waiting period was not served

• incorrect information (for example, a doctor billed an incorrect item number)

• what’s known as “mixed coverage” (as in the Bupa scandal), where not everything in a claim is covered, but the entire claim is declined.

What if I think there’s an error?

If your health insurance company refuses your claim, you can request a detailed explanation in writing.

If you believe your claim has been incorrectly denied, you can make a formal complaint directly with the insurer. For this you need to check your policy documents, and gather supporting evidence. This may include detailed invoices, medical reports, referral letters and correct item numbers.

If you are not satisfied with the outcome of the health fund’s internal review, or the fund doesn’t respond with the specific time-frame (for instance, 30–45 days), you can escalate your complaint.

You can get in touch with the Commonwealth Ombudsman (phone: 1300 362 072). This provides a free, independent complaint handling service for a range of consumer issues, including health insurance.

Bupa customers concerned about a “mixed coverage” claim can contact the company directly.

What can governments do?

The Bupa scandal, along with ongoing concerns about transparency and rising out-of-pocket costs, highlights the need for policy reforms to better protect consumers.

The government should require health insurers and health-care providers to give clear estimates of all potential out-of-pocket costs for a procedure before it happens. This would avoid unexpected bills and help consumers make informed decisions about their health care.

The government could also let the ACCC or the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority conduct regular, independent audits of insurers’ claims systems and practices.

Yuting Zhang has received funding from the Australian Research Council (future fellowship project ID FT200100630), Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Victorian Department of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council and Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network. In the past, Professor Zhang has received funding from several US institutes including the US National Institutes of Health, Commonwealth fund, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She has not received funding from for-profit industry including the private health insurance industry.

– ref. Will my private health insurance cover my surgery? What if my claim is rejected? – https://theconversation.com/will-my-private-health-insurance-cover-my-surgery-what-if-my-claim-is-rejected-260702

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

It’s such a familiar pattern. When a big scandal breaks publicly, governments jump into action, ministers rush out to say they’ll “do something” instantly.

But how come they hadn’t seen problems that had been in plain sight?

Who can forget then-workplace relations minister Tony Burke insisting he’d been unaware, before media revelations, that organised crime was in the CFMEU? After a Nine media expose, a large portion of the notorious union soon ended up in administration.

When a childcare worker was charged with some 70 offences last week, Education Minister Jason Clare immediately declared he’d introduce legislation in the new parliament’s first sitting for the removal of federal funds from errant providers.

After ABC reporter Adele Ferguson had exposed serious safety issues in the system on Four Corners in March, the Albanese government announced it would be “exploring” various measures to strengthen Commonwealth powers “to deal with providers that put profit over quality and child safety at risk”.

In another expose, Ferguson this week revealed substantial problems in the training system for childcare workers.

Federally, childcare comes under the education minister, and there’s also a dedicated minister for early childhood education (Anne Aly last term, now Jess Walsh). Basically, the federal government funds the system while the states and territories regulate it.

Anthony Albanese made major promises for expanding childcare in his 2022 and 2025 election pitches. The government also supported higher wages for workers in the sector. Albanese has nominated “affordable childcare” as the legacy he wants to leave.

It’s all the more surprising, then, that the government didn’t seem to spot a plethora of problems in an area so central to the prime minister’s ambitions.

The government points to the division of responsibility between Commonwealth and states.

But surely that explanation doesn’t wash or, if it does, the relevant federal and state ministers, public servants and the regulators have not been doing their designated jobs effectively.

In various human service policy areas, there are split responsibilities, which differ in specific arrangements.
Politically, this often brings blame-shifting, and arguments over money and accountability.

The federal government attaches conditions, for example, to funding agreements for hospitals and schools, which fall under state responsibility. But in practice, there are slippages.

Split responsibilities, whatever their precise form, can never be “set and forget” – rigorous, constant scrutiny needs to be built in.

Childcare policy has its complications. But, in terms of complexities, it is nothing like, say, running the nation’s defences. There are not unknowns.

The obvious issues within childcare include funding, safety, workforce numbers and training.

The childcare revelations will inevitably lead to new regulations – ironically just as a debate about the desirability of easing excessive regulation in some sectors has become fashionable. In many policy areas, there are tensions between regulation and costs, and no unanimity about where the trade offs should be struck.

The childcare imbroglio highlights the challenges when public policy is substantially delivered by the “for profit” private sector. Social services expert Gabrielle Meagher, professor emerita at Macquarie University, says, “It’s very difficult to regulate across the gaps governments open up when they fund policies that they don’t deliver themselves”.

The childcare issue also invites much wider questions about how “governing” is working. Such as, are ministers too distracted?

Today’s ministers spend more time than ever in the media, and travelling (part of the modern “permanent” election campaign). This takes a large amount of their attention. The prime minister is in the media most days.

One has to wonder how much of this is a diversion for ministers from detailed policy work, especially as they must bone up on “talking points” because, given the 24-hour news cycle, they will be quizzed about issues outside their portfolios. They usually feel obliged to offer an opinion, rather than saying “sorry, that’s not my bag”.

What about the public servants, who are formally responsible for policy advice, implementation and supervising?

We saw with Robodebt shocking behaviour by some bureaucrats. There have been substantial reforms since then and, apart from that, the Albanese government has boosted the numbers and strengthened the capability of the public service.

But is it fit-for-purpose? If it were, wouldn’t the problems in childcare, apparently well-known among many parents, have filtered up through the system to the ears of ministers – even allowing that regulation rests mainly with the states?

Apart from failures by state regulators, one issue is who is telling what to whom about the sector. The federal minister responsible for early childhood education visits dozens of childcare centres. But on those visits, the minister will be talking to managers, who will have their own set of concerns. The minister is less likely at the centres to encounter parents who have had a bad experience.

This goes to a wider problem: in areas of human service delivery, providers of services will usually be organised, while consumers lack the same coherent and forceful voice. Complaining through the media may be only way for families using a service to bring things to light.

But what about the complaints that do flow into government departments, and ministers’ offices? Surely these give a channel for the red flags that point to a policy failure?

Bureaucrats say all this communication amounts to a great deal of “noise”, but the challenge is to identify what it signifies, in terms of substantive problems to be addressed.

When programs are growing very fast, the risk is that corners are cut in delivery. We saw this, disastrously, years ago during the global financial crisis when the Rudd government rolled out the home insulation scheme. A royal commission was damning about the failures of the program, which was marked by several deaths and many household fires. Safety had been compromised in the pursuit of speed and the delivery framework was inadequate.

There are many lessons from the childcare policy failures. A big announcement does not automatically mean a successful policy delivery. Programs can be working on some fronts while flawed on others. All new or expanded policies should come with detailed evaluation arrangements which are then carefully monitored. And while ministers will boast publicly about how well a policy is doing, they should be constantly demanding to know from their bureaucrats where things might be going wrong.

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.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: childcare is a ‘canary in mine’ warning for wider problems in policy delivery – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-childcare-is-a-canary-in-mine-warning-for-wider-problems-in-policy-delivery-259690

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matteo Vergani, Associate Professor, Deakin University

On July 6, an arson attack targeted the East Melbourne Synagogue. It was the latest in a series of antisemitic incidents recorded across Australia since October 7 2023, when Hamas carried out a horrific terrorist attack, killing about 1,200 Israelis. These domestic incidents have escalated in both number and severity.

Australia has not previously experienced antisemitism at this scale. In response, the Albanese government appointed Jillian Segal as the nation’s first special envoy for combating antisemitism, and commissioned a plan with recommendations to address the issue.

The plan has now been released. Let’s unpack it.

Read more:
Envoy’s plan to fight antisemitism would put universities on notice over funding

What does the plan say?

The recommendations fall into three broad areas.

1. Preventing violence and crime, including a proposed law enforcement framework to improve coordination between agencies, and new policies aimed at stopping dangerous individuals from entering Australia.

2. Strengthening protections against hate speech, by regulating all forms of hate, including antisemitism, and increasing oversight of platform policies and algorithms.

3. Promoting antisemitism-free media, education and cultural spaces, through journalist training, education programs, and conditions on public funding for organisations that promote or fail to address antisemitism.

The government has said it will consider the recommendations.

These measures are broadly reasonable and make practical sense. Some – such as those aimed at preventing violence and crime – are more straightforward to implement than others. It would also be logical to apply them to all forms of hate, not just antisemitism.

But that needs to be done with caution. We don’t want to create an environment in which any criticism of a community or group is shut down by regulation.

In a democracy, open and robust debate is essential. The challenge lies in the details: how we define hate, and where we draw the threshold for what counts as hate.

The document ignores the elephant in the room: whether the plan could be used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.

The special envoy’s plan notes antisemitism has risen since October 7, but it does not fully explain the context. Israel’s military response in Gaza, which has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, has prompted a wave of global protest and criticism of Israel, including accusations of genocide.

In this context, the line between antisemitism and criticism of Israel has become more difficult and contested than ever. Some people who attack Israel or Zionism may be expressing antisemitic views. Others may not. Distinguishing between the two is complex, but essential.

Read more:
When does anti-Zionism become antisemitism? A Jewish historian’s perspective

Where criticism ends and antisemitism begins

The envoy adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which covers both direct attacks on Jewish identity and certain criticisms of Israel, such as comparisons with Nazi Germany.

In my experience as a researcher working on online hate (including antisemitism), even members of the Jewish community adopting this definition often disagree on how to apply it.

The threshold varies – for example when deciding whether an online post or a statement crosses the line into antisemitism.

So where should we draw that line? It’s a crucial question. If the envoy’s recommendations are implemented, decisions about funding, visas, and even criminal charges could depend on it.

There is, of course, broad agreement on some cases. Setting fire to a synagogue is clearly antisemitic – it targets a Jewish place of worship.

Similarly, attacking a Jewish-owned business or damaging property in a Jewish neighbourhood suggests the target was chosen because it was Jewish.

Some people – often those already harbouring anti-Jewish views – treat the entire Jewish community as if it represents the Netanyahu government or the Israel Defense Forces.

This ignores the diversity of views within Jewish communities. That lack of nuance fuels antisemitism.

Few would disagree that antisemitic acts include attacks on Jewish people or property carried out indiscriminately, or when anti-Israel protests attempt to hold the whole Jewish community collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.

But we also need to be realistic. We are unlikely to eliminate all forms of antisemitic hate or intimidation from public life. Hate can be expressed without breaching laws, and people can intimidate others while staying just within legal boundaries.

Humour, sarcasm and coded language are often used to incite hatred without triggering any formal consequence. That kind of harm is much harder to prevent – and it may be something we have to learn to live with, while continuing to push back against it.

Rebuilding trust

In the long term, the only real solution is building mutual understanding. That’s why personal relationships matter.

Knowing someone who is Jewish is one of the strongest antidotes to antisemitism. When you have a Jewish friend, you’re less likely to believe or spread the myths that circulate online and offline about what Jewish people think, believe or represent.

The same applies to all forms of hate. Direct contact helps break down stereotypes across all communities.

The problem is that the current context is pushing communities apart. Segregation and isolation are increasing. Before October 7, there was meaningful interfaith work happening – Jewish students visiting the Islamic Museum, Muslim students visiting the Holocaust Museum. That work has largely stopped.

Now, people are retreating into fear, distrust and generalisations. All nuance is lost. The “other” becomes a single, threatening enemy.

It will take time to rebuild that trust – and the longer the war continues, the harder it will be.

Matteo Vergani receives funding from the Campbell Collaboration, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Home Affairs.

– ref. The special envoy’s antisemitism plan is ambitious, but fails to reckon with the hardest questions – https://theconversation.com/the-special-envoys-antisemitism-plan-is-ambitious-but-fails-to-reckon-with-the-hardest-questions-260914

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formally nominated United States President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. He says the president is “forging peace as we speak, in one country, in one region after the other”.

Trump, who has craved the award for years, sees himself as a global peacemaker in a raft of conflicts from Israel and Iran, to Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

With the conflict in Gaza still raging, we ask five experts – could Trump be rewarded with the world’s most prestigious peace prize?

Emma Shortis

Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

Nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is like entering a hyena in a dog show.

Of course Trump does not deserve it. That we’re being forced to take this question seriously is yet another indication – as if we needed one – of his extraordinary ability to set and reset the terms of our politics.

There is no peace in Gaza. Even if Trump announced another ceasefire tomorrow, it would not last. And it would not build genuine peace and security.

Trump has neither the interest nor the attention span required to build long term peace. His administration is not willing to bear any of the costs or investments that come with genuine, lasting diplomacy. And he is not anti-war.

There is no peace in Iran. Trump’s bombing of Iran simply exacerbates his decision in 2018 to end nuclear negotiations with Tehran. It pushes the world closer to, not further from, nuclear catastrophe.

Under the Trump administration, there will be no peace in the Middle East. Both the US and Israeli governments’ approach to “security” puts the region on a perpetual war footing. This approach assumes it is possible to bomb your way to peace – a “peace” which both Trump and Netanyahu understand as total dominance and violent oppression.

The Trump administration is deliberately undermining the institutions and principles of international and domestic law.

He has deployed the military against American citizens. He is threatening the United States’ traditional allies with trade wars and annexation. His administration’s dismantling of USAID will result, according to one study, in the deaths of 14 million people, including 4.5 million children, by 2030.

Indulging Trump’s embarrassing desire for trophies might appease him for a short time. It would also strip the Nobel Peace Prize of any and all credibility, while endorsing Trump’s trashing of the international rule of law.

What kind of peace is that?

Ali Mamouri

Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

The nomination of Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize by a man who is facing charges of war crimes is an unprecedented and deeply dark irony that cannot be overlooked.

Trump’s role in brokering the Abraham Accords was hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough. It led to the normalisation of relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco.

But this achievement came at a significant cost. The accords deliberately sidelined the Palestinian issue, long recognised as the core of regional instability, and disregarded decades of international consensus on a two-state solution.

Trump’s administration openly supported Israeli policies widely considered to violate international law, including the expansion of illegal settlements and the proposed annexation of Palestinian territory.

His silence in the face of a growing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza was equally telling. Perhaps most disturbing was the tacit or explicit endorsement of proposals to forcibly relocate Palestinians to neighbouring Arab countries, a position that evokes ethnic cleansing and fundamentally undermines principles of justice, dignity and international law.

In addition, there is Trump’s unconditional support for Israel’s military campaigns across the region, including his authorisation of attacks on Iranian civilian, military and nuclear infrastructure. The strikes lacked any clear legal basis, contributed further to regional instability and, according to Tehran, killed more than a thousand civilians.

His broader disregard for international norms shattered decades of post-second world war diplomatic order and increased the risk of sustained and expanded conflict.

Against this backdrop, any serious consideration of Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize seems fundamentally at odds with its stated mission: to honour efforts that reduce conflict, uphold human rights and promote lasting peace.

Whatever short-term diplomatic gains emerged from Trump’s tenure are eclipsed by the legal, ethical and humanitarian consequences of his actions.

Ian Parmeter

Research Scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University

Netanyahu’s nomination of Donald Trump for one of the world’s most coveted awards was clearly aimed at flattering the president.

Trump is clearly angling for the laurel, which his first term predecessor, Barack Obama, won in his first year in office.

Obama was awarded the prize in 2009 for promotion of nuclear non-proliferation and fostering a “new climate” in international relations, particularly in reaching out to the Muslim world.

Given neither of these ambitions have since borne fruit, what claims might Trump reasonably make at this stage of his second term?

Trump has claimed credit for resolving two conflicts this year: the brief India–Pakistan clash that erupted after Pakistani militants killed 25 Indian tourists in Kashmir in May; and the long-running dispute between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi disputes Trump brokered peace. He says the issue was resolved by negotiations between the two countries’ militaries.

With regards to the Rwanda–DRC conflict, the countries signed a peace agreement in the Oval Office in June. But critics argue Qatar played a significant role
which the Trump administration has airbrushed out.

Trump can legitimately argue his pressure on Israel and Iran forced a ceasefire in their 12-day war in June.

But his big test is the Gaza war. For Trump to add this to his Nobel claim, he will need more than a ceasefire.

The Biden administration brokered two ceasefires that enabled the release of significant numbers of hostages, but did not end the conflict.

Trump would have to use his undoubted influence with Netanyahu to achieve more than a temporary pause. He would have to end the war definitively and effect the release of all Israeli hostages.

Beyond that, if Trump could persuade Netanyahu
to take serious steps towards negotiating a two-state solution, that would be a genuine Nobel-worthy achievement.

Trump isn’t there yet.

Jasmine-Kim Westendorf

Associate Professor of Peace and Conflict and Co-Director of the Initiative for Peacebuilding, The University of Melbourne

The Nobel Peace Prize recognises outstanding contributions to peace globally.

Although controversial or politicised awards are not new, awardees are generally individuals or groups who’ve made
significant contributions to a range of peace initiatives.

They include reducing armed conflict, enhancing international cooperation, and human rights efforts that contribute to peace.

Inspiring examples include anti-nuclear proliferation organisations and phenomenal women peacemakers. And Nadia Murad and Denis Mukwege, who won in 2011 for their work trying to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.

Trump has declared his “proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier”. But he is neither.

The president has fuelled escalating insecurity, violent conflict and human rights violations globally, and actively undermined international cooperation for peace. This includes the decision to sanction judges of the International Criminal Court.

There has been a concerning trend towards using the Nobel Peace Prize to encourage certain political directions, rather than reward achievements.

Barack Obama’s 2008 Prize helped motivate his moves toward diplomacy and cooperation after the presidency of George W. Bush.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s 2018 award was for efforts to resolve the 20-year war with Eritrea. The peace prize encouraged Ahmed to fulfill his promise of democratic elections in 2020. Embarrassingly, within a year Ahmed launched a civil war that killed over 600,000 people and displaced 3 million more.

This week’s nomination follows efforts by global leaders to flatter Trump in order – they hope – to secure his goodwill.

These motivations explain why Netanyahu has put forward Trump’s name to the Nobel Committee. It comes at the very moment securing Trump’s ongoing support during ceasefire negotiations is critical for Netanyahu’s political survival.

Trump has also been nominated by the government of Pakistan and by several Republican figures. Flattery is the currency Trump trades in. These nominations pander to a president who has bemoaned

They will never give me a Nobel Peace Prize […] It’s too bad. I deserve it, but they will never give it to me.

Prizes to genuine peacemakers amplify their work and impact.

1984 winner Desmond Tutu said: “One day no one was listening. The next, I was an oracle.” A Nobel can be a powerful force for peace.

Trump is no peacemaker, he doesn’t deserve one.

Shahram Akbarzadeh

Director, Middle East Studies Forum (MESF), Deakin University

Benjamin Netanyahu would have us believe Donald Trump is a peacemaker.

Nothing could be further from the truth. His record is stained with blood and misery. The fact Trump believes himself to be worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize only attests to his illusions of grandeur in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The war in Gaza has gone into its 20th month because Trump did not use the levers at his control to bring the senseless war to a close.

Some estimates put the true Gaza death toll at 100,000 people, and counting. They have been killed by American-made bombs Israel is dropping across the densely populated strip; from starvation because Israel has enforced a blockade of the Gaza Strip and prevented UN food delivery with the blessings of America; and from gunshots at food distribution centres, set up with US private security.

All under Trump’s watch.

Trump could do something about this. Israel is the largest recipient of US aid, most of it military support.

This has multiplied since Israel commenced its attack on Gaza in response to Hamas terrorism on October 7 2023. Trump has approved the transfer of US military hardware to Israel, knowing full well it was being used against a trapped and helpless population.

This is not the act of a peacemaker.

Now the Israeli government is planning to “facilitate” population transfer of Gazans to other countries – a euphemism for ethnic cleansing.

This is the textbook definition of genocide: deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of people. Trump legitimised this travesty of decency and international law by promising a Gaza Riviera.

The outlandish extent of Trump’s ideas would be laughable if their consequences were not so devastating.

When Israel attacked Iran in the middle of nuclear talks, Trump had a momentary pause, before jumping to Netanyahu’s aid and bombing Iran. He then claimed his action paved the way for peace.

Trump’s idea of peace is the peace of the graveyard.

Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

Jasmine-Kim Westendorf has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Shahram Akbarzadeh receives funding from Australia Research Council.

Ali Mamouri and Ian Parmeter 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. Does Donald Trump deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/does-donald-trump-deserve-the-nobel-peace-prize-we-asked-5-experts-260801