Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

The scale of Israel’s strikes on multiple, sensitive Iranian military and nuclear sites on Friday was unprecedented. It was the biggest attack on Iran since the Iran–Iraq War in the 1980s.

As expected, Iran responded swiftly, even as Israeli attacks on its territory continued. The unfolding conflict is reshaping regional dynamics, and Iran now finds itself with no easy path forward.

Strikes come at a delicate time

The timing of the Israeli strikes was highly significant. They came at a critical point in the high-stakes negotiations between Iran and the United States over Tehran’s nuclear program that began earlier this year.

Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report accusing Tehran of stockpiling highly enriched uranium at levels dangerously close to weaponisation.

According to the report, Iran has accumulated around 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity. If this uranium is further enriched to 90% purity, it would be enough to build nine to ten bombs.

The day before Israel’s attack, the IAEA board of governors also declared Iran to be in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in two decades.

The nuclear talks recently hit a stumbling block over a major issue – the US refusal to allow Iran to enrich any uranium at all for a civilian nuclear program.

Iran has previously agreed to cap its enrichment at 3.67% under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a nuclear deal between Iran, the US and other global powers agreed to in 2015 (and abandoned by the first Trump administration in 2018). But it has refused to relinquish its right to enrichment altogether.

US President Donald Trump reportedly urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to attack Iran last week, believing he was close to a deal.

But after the attack, Trump ramped up his threats on Iran again, urging it to agree to a deal “before there is nothing left”. He called the Israeli strikes “excellent” and suggested there was “more to come”.

Given this context, it is understandable why Iran does not view the US as an impartial mediator. In response, Iran suspended its negotiations with the US, announcing it would skip the sixth round of talks scheduled for Sunday.

Rather than compelling Iran to agree to a deal, the excessive pressure could risk pushing Iran towards a more extreme stance instead.

While Iranian officials have denied any intention to develop a military nuclear program, they have warned that continued Israeli attacks and US pressure might force Tehran to reconsider as a deterrence mechanism.

Read more:
As its conflict with Israel escalates, could Iran now acquire a nuclear bomb?

Why surrender could spell the regime’s end

On several occasions, Trump has insisted he is not seeking “regime change” in Iran. He has repeatedly claimed he wants to see Iran be “successful” – the only requirement is for it to accept a US deal.

However, in Iran’s view, the US proposal is not viewed as a peace offer, but as a blueprint for surrender. And the fear is this would ultimately pave the way for regime change under the guise of diplomacy.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei responded to the latest US proposal by insisting that uranium enrichment remains a “red line” for Iran. Abandoning this right from the Iranian perspective would only embolden its adversaries to escalate their pressure on the regime and make further demands – such as dismantling Iran’s missile program.

The fear in Tehran is this could push the country into a defenceless state without a way to deter future Israeli strikes.

Furthermore, capitulating to the US terms could ignite domestic backlash on two fronts: from an already growing opposition movement, and from the regime’s base of loyal supporters, who would see any retreat as a betrayal.

In this context, many in Iran’s leadership believe that giving in to Trump’s terms would not avert regime change – it would hasten it.

What options remain for Iran now?

Caught between escalating pressure and existential threats, Iran finds itself with few viable options other than to project strength. It has already begun to pursue this strategy by launching retaliatory missile strikes at Israeli cities.

This response has been much stronger than the relatively contained tit-for-tat strikes Israel and Iran engaged in last year. Iran’s strikes have caused considerable damage to government and residential areas in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Iran sees no alternative but to push forward, having already been drawn into open confrontation. Any sign of weakness would severely undermine the regime’s legitimacy at home and embolden its adversaries abroad.

Moreover, Tehran is betting on Trump’s aversion to foreign wars. Iranian leaders believe the US is neither prepared nor willing to enter another costly conflict in the region – one that could disrupt global trade and jeopardise Trump’s recent economic partnerships with Persian Gulf states.

Therefore, Iran’s leadership likely believes that by standing firm now, the conflict will be limited, so long as the US stays on the sidelines. And then, Iran’s leaders would try to return to the negotiating table, in their view, from a position of strength.

Ali Mamouri 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. As war breaks out with Israel, Iran has run out of good options – https://theconversation.com/as-war-breaks-out-with-israel-iran-has-run-out-of-good-options-258916

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

On Thursday afternoon local time, an Air India passenger plane bound for London crashed shortly after takeoff from the northwestern Indian city of Ahmedabad. There were reportedly 242 people onboard, including two pilots and ten cabin crew.

The most up-to-date reports indicate the death toll has surpassed 260, including people on the ground.

Miraculously, one passenger – British national Vishwashkumar Ramesh – survived the crash.

Thankfully, catastrophic plane crashes such as this are very rare. But seeing news of such a horrific event is traumatic, particularly for people who may have a fear of flying or are due to travel on a plane soon.

If you’re feeling anxious following this distressing news, it’s understandable. But here are some things worth considering when you’re thinking about the risk of plane travel.

Just how dangerous is flying?

One of the ways to make sense of risks, especially really small ones, is to put them into context.

Although there are various ways to do this, we can first look to figures that tell us the risk of dying in a plane crash per passenger who boards a plane. Arnold Barnett, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, calculated that in 2018–22, this figure was one in 13.7 million. By any reckoning, this is an incredibly small risk.

And there’s a clear trend of air travel getting safer every decade. Barnett’s calculations suggest that between 2007 and 2017, the risk was one per 7.9 million.

We can also compare the risks of dying in a plane crash with those of dying in a car accident. Although estimates of motor vehicle fatalities vary depending on how you do the calculations and where you are in the world, flying has been estimated to be more than 100 times safer than driving.

Evolution has skewed our perception of risks

The risk of being involved in a plane crash is extremely small. But for a variety of reasons, we often perceive it to be greater than it is.

First, there are well-known limitations in how we intuitively estimate risk. Our responses to risk (and many other things) are often shaped far more by emotion and instinct than by logic.

As psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, much of our thinking about risk is driven by intuitive, automatic processes rather than careful reasoning.

Notably, our brains evolved to pay attention to threats that are striking or memorable. The risks we faced in primitive times were large, immediate and tangible threats to life. Conversely, the risks we face in the modern world are generally much smaller, less obvious, and play out over the longer term.

The brain that served us well in prehistoric times has essentially remained the same, but the world has completely changed. Therefore, our brains are susceptible to errors in thinking and mental shortcuts called cognitive biases that skew our perception of modern risks.

This can lead us to overestimate very small risks, such as plane crashes, while underestimating far more probable dangers, such as chronic diseases.

Why we overestimate the risks of flying

There are several drivers of our misperception of risks when it comes to flying specifically.

The fact events such as the Air India plane crash are so rare makes them all the more psychologically powerful when they do occur. And in today’s digital media landscape, the proliferation of dramatic footage of the crash itself, along with images of the aftermath, amplifies its emotional and visual impact.

The effect these vivid images have on our thinking around the risks of flying is called the availability heuristic. The more unusual and dramatic an event is, the more it stands out in our minds, and the more it skews our perception of its likelihood.

Another influence on the way we perceive risks relevant to flying is called dread risk, which is a psychological response we have to certain types of threats. We fear certain risks that feel more catastrophic or unfamiliar. It’s the same reason we may disproportionately fear terrorist attacks, when in reality they’re very uncommon.

Plane crashes usually involve a large number of deaths that occur at one time. And the thought of going down in a plane may feel more frightening than dying in other ways. All this taps into the emotions of fear, vulnerability and helplessness, and leads to an overweighting of the risks.

Another factor that contributes to our overestimation of flying risks is our lack of control when flying. When we’re passengers on a plane, we are in many ways completely dependent on others. Even though we know pilots are highly trained and commercial aviation is very safe, the lack of control we have as passengers triggers a deep sense of vulnerability.

This absence of control makes the situation feel riskier than it actually is, and often riskier than activities where the threat is far greater but there is an (often false) sense of control, such as driving a car.

In a nutshell

We have an evolutionary bias toward reacting more strongly to particular threats, especially when these events are dramatic, evoke dread and when we feel an absence of control.

Although events such as Air India crash affect us deeply, air travel is still arguably the safest method of transport. Understandably, this can get lost in the emotional aftermath of tragic plane crashes.

Hassan Vally 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. News of the Air India plane crash is traumatic. Here’s how to make sense of the risk – https://theconversation.com/news-of-the-air-india-plane-crash-is-traumatic-heres-how-to-make-sense-of-the-risk-258907

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Smith, Associate Professor and Discipline Lead (Paramedicine), La Trobe University

Vishwashkumar Ramesh, a British citizen returning from a trip to India, has been confirmed as the only survivor of Thursday’s deadly Air India crash.

“I don’t know how I am alive,” Ramesh told family, according to his brother Nayan, in a video call moments after emerging from the wreckage. Another brother Ajay, seated elswhere on the plane, was killed.

The Boeing 787-7 Dreamliner crashed into a medical college less than a minute after taking off in the city of Ahmedabad, killing the other 229 passengers and 12 crew. At least five people were killed on the ground.

Surviving a mass disaster of this kind may be hailed as a kind of “miracle”. But what is it like to survive – especially as the only one?

Surviving a disaster

Past research has shown disaster survivors may experience an intense range of emotions, from grief and anxiety to feelings of loss and uncertainty.

These are common reactions to an extraordinary situation.

Some people may develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and have difficulty adjusting to a new reality after bearing witness to immense loss. They may also be dealing with physical recovery from injuries sustained in the disaster.

Most people recover after disasters by drawing on their own strengths and the support of others. Recovery rates are high: generally less than one in ten of those affected by disasters develop chronic, long-term problems.

However, being a sole survivor of a mass casualty may have its own complex psychological challenges.

Survivor’s guilt

Survivors can experience guilt they lived when others died.

My friend, Gill Hicks, spoke to me for this article about the ongoing guilt she still feels, years after surviving the 2005 bombings of the London underground.

Lying trapped in a smoke-filled train carriage, she was the last living person to be rescued after the attack. Gill lost both her legs.

Yet she still wonders, “Why me? Why did I get to go home, when so many others didn’t?”

In the case of a sole survivor, this guilt may be particularly acute. However, research addressing the impact of sole survivorship is limited. Most research that looks at the psychological impact of disaster focuses on the impact of disasters more broadly.

Those interviewed for a 2013 documentary about surviving large plane crashes, Sole Survivor, express complex feelings – wanting to share their stories, but fearing being judged by others.

Being the lone survivor can be a heavy burden.

“I didn’t think I was worthy of the gift of being alive,” George Lamson Jr. told the documentary, after surviving a 1985 plane crash in Nevada that killed all others on board.

Looking for meaning

People who survive a disaster may also be under pressure to explain what happened and relive the trauma for the benefit of others.

Vishwashkumar Ramesh was filmed and interviewed by media in the minutes and hours following the Air India crash. But as he told his brother: “I have no idea how I exited the plane”.

It can be common for survivors themselves to be plagued by unanswerable questions. Did they live for a reason? Why did they live, when so many others died?

These kinds of unaswerable questions reflect our natural inclination to look for meaning in experiences, and to have our life stories make sense.

For some people, sharing a traumatic experience with others who’ve been through it or something similar can be a beneficial part of the recovery process, helping to process emotions and regain some agency and control.

However, this may not always be possible for sole survivors, potentially compounding feelings of guilt and isolation.

Coping with survivor guilt

Survivor guilt can be an expression of grief and loss.

Studies indicate guilt is notably widespread among individuals who have experienced traumatic events, and it is associated with heightened psychopathological symptoms (such as severe anxiety, insomnia or flashbacks) and thoughts of suicide.

Taking time to process the traumatic event can help survivors cope, and seeking support from friends, family and community or faith leaders can help an individual work through difficult feelings.

My friend Gill says the anxiety rises as the anniversary of the disaster approaches each year. Trauma reminders such as anniversaries are different to unexpected trauma triggers, but can still cause distress.

Media attention around collectively experienced dates can also amplify trauma-related distress, contributing to a cycle of media consumption and increased worry about future events.

On the 7th of July each year, Gill holds a private remembrance ritual. This allows her to express her grief and sense of loss, and to honour those who did not survive. These types of rituals can be a valuable tool in processing feelings of grief and guilt, offering a sense of control and meaning and facilitating the expression and acceptance of loss.

But lingering guilt and anxiety – especially when it interferes with day-to-day life – should not be ignored. Ongoing survivor guilt is associated with significantly higher levels of post-traumatic symptoms.

Survivors may need support from psychologists or mental health professionals in the short and long term.

Erin Smith 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. Just one man survived the Air India crash. What’s it like to survive a mass disaster? – https://theconversation.com/just-one-man-survived-the-air-india-crash-whats-it-like-to-survive-a-mass-disaster-258905

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Corben, Research Fellow, Foreign Policy and Defence, University of Sydney

Ahead of a prospective meeting between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and US President Donald Trump at the G7 Summit Canada, two key developments have bumped defence issues to the top of the alliance agenda.

First, in a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles late last month, US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth urged Australia to boost defence spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product (GDP).

This elicited a stern response from Albanese that “Australia should decide what we spend on Australia’s defence.”

Then, this week, news emerged the Pentagon is conducting a review of the AUKUS deal to ensure it aligns with Trump’s “America First” agenda.

Speculation is rife as to the reasons for the review. Some contend it’s a classic Trump “shakedown” to force Australia to pay more for its submarines, while others say it’s a normal move for any new US administration.

Read more:
Trump may try to strike a deal with AUKUS review, but here’s why he won’t sink it

The reality is somewhere in between. Trump may well see an opportunity to “own” the AUKUS deal negotiated by his predecessor, Joe Biden, by seeking to extract a “better deal” from Australia.

But while support for AUKUS across the US system is strong, the review also reflects long-standing and bipartisan concerns in the US over the deal. These include, among other things, Australia’s functional and fiscal capacity to take charge of its own nuclear-powered submarines once they are built.

So, why have these issues come up now, just before Albanese’s first face-to-face meeting with Trump?

To understand this, it’s important to place both issues in a wider context. We need to consider the Trump administration’s overall approach to alliances, as well as whether Australia’s defence budget matches our strategy.

Trump, alliances and burden-sharing

Senior Pentagon figures noted months ago that defence spending was their “main concern” with Australia in an otherwise “excellent” relationship.

But such concerns are not exclusive to Australia. Rather, they speak to Trump’s broader approach to alliances worldwide – he wants US allies in Europe and Asia to share more of the burden, as well.

Trump’s team sees defence spending (calculated as a percentage of GDP) as a basic indicator of an ally’s seriousness about both their own national defence and collective security with Washington.

As Hegseth noted in testimony before Congress this week, “we can’t want [our allies’] security more than they do.”

Initially, the Trump administration’s burden-sharing grievances with NATO received the most attention. The government demanded European allies boost spending to 5% of GDP in the interests of what prominent MAGA figures have called “burden-owning”.

Several analysts interpreted these demands as indicative of what will be asked of Asian partners, including Australia.

In reality, what Washington wants from European and Indo-Pacific allies differs in small but important ways.

In Europe, the Trump administration wants allies to assume near-total responsibility for their own defence to enable the US to focus on bigger strategic priorities. These include border security at home and, importantly, Chinese military power in the Indo-Pacific.

By contrast, Trump’s early moves on defence policy in Asia have emphasised a degree of cooperation and mutual benefit.

The administration has explicitly linked its burden-sharing demands with a willingness to work with its allies – Japan, South Korea, Australia and others – in pursuit of a strategy of collective defence to deter Chinese aggression.

This reflects a long-standing recognition in Washington that America needs its allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific perhaps more than anywhere else in the world. The reason: to support US forces across the vast Pacific and Indian oceans and to counter China’s growing ability to disrupt US military operations across the region.

In other words, the US must balance its demands of Indo-Pacific allies with the knowledge that it also needs their help to succeed in Asia.

This means the Albanese government can and should engage the Trump administration with confidence on defence matters – including AUKUS.

It has a lot to offer America, not just a lot to lose.

Australian defence spending

But a discussion over Australia’s defence spending is not simply a matter of alliance management. It also speaks to the genuine challenges Australia faces in matching its strategy with its resources.

Albanese is right to say Australia will set its own defence policy based on its needs rather than an arbitrary percentage of GDP determined by Washington.

But it’s also true Australia’s defence budget must match the aspirations and requirements set out in its 2024 National Defence Strategy. This is necessary for our defence posture to be credible.

This document paints a sobering picture of the increasingly fraught strategic environment Australia finds itself in. And it outlines an ambitious capability development agenda to allow Australia to do its part to maintain the balance of power in the region, alongside the United States and other partners.

But there is growing concern in the Australian policy community that our defence budget is insufficient to meet these goals.

For instance, one of the lead authors of Australia’s 2023 Defence Strategic Review, Sir Angus Houston, mused last year that in order for AUKUS submarines to be a “net addition” to the nation’s military capability, Australia would need to increase its defence spending to more than 3% of GDP through the 2030s.

Otherwise, he warned, AUKUS would “cannibalise” investments in Australia’s surface fleet, long-range strike capabilities, air and missile defence, and other capabilities.

There’s evidence the Australian government understands this, too. Marles and the minister for defence industry, Pat Conroy, have both said the government is willing to “have a conversation” about increasing spending, if required to meet Australia’s strategic needs.

This is all to say that an additional push from Trump on defence spending and burden-sharing – however unpleasantly delivered – would not be out of the ordinary. And it may, in fact, be beneficial for Australia’s own deliberations on its defence spending needs.

Thomas Corben receives funding from the Australian Department of Defence.

– ref. Trump may push Albanese on defence spending, but Australia has leverage it can use, too – https://theconversation.com/trump-may-push-albanese-on-defence-spending-but-australia-has-leverage-it-can-use-too-258811

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Keersten Fitzgerald, Lecturer in General Practice, University of Sydney

We often use the word vagina to describe everything “down there”, but that’s not actually anatomically correct.

The vagina is the stretchy, muscular tube that connects the external genitalia, or vulva, to the cervix, which is the entrance to the uterus (womb).

Because it’s barely visible from the outside, many vagina owners wonder how long theirs is, or should be.

Worried teenagers going through puberty regularly asked “Dolly Doctor” – the medical advice column Melissa wrote for over 20 years in Dolly magazine – whether their vaginas were too small or short.

Often they were asking because inserting a tampon was difficult or painful.

The vagina is an incredibly adaptable part of the body and its length can change – across your lifetime, within the month, and with hormonal changes and sexual arousal.

Length at different life stages

Before puberty, the vagina usually measures between 5.5 and 8cm in length.

During puberty (usually between 8–13 years old), not only does the length of the vagina increase, but hormones also change the vaginal lining.

In the time of life between puberty and menopause, oestrogen levels rise and cause the lining of the vagina to thicken and soften. This is what makes the vagina moist and responsive to stimuli, such as when aroused.

By adulthood, the vagina is typically between 6.5cm and 12.5cm. This varies greatly from person to person and continues to change at different times during our lives.

What else can change the vagina’s length?

When someone has their period, generally the cervix sits in a lower position, meaning the vaginal canal is shorter. Then, after menstruation, the cervix lifts upwards again and reaches its highest point during ovulation.

The length of the vagina also changes during different reproductive stages. For example, in pregnancy the cervix sits higher up, meaning the vagina is longer.

On the other hand, menopause, along with many other impacts such as vaginal dryness, can shorten the vaginal canal.

A pelvic organ prolapse can also make the vagina shorter. This is when the pelvic floor becomes weakened and organs such as the womb or bladder bulge into the vagina.

Read more:
What is pelvic organ prolapse and how is it treated?

There are also some very rare conditions that can affect the development of the vagina before birth, such as vaginal atresia, which can cause the vagina to not fully form.

What about sex?

Sex also has a large impact on vaginal length.

When someone with a vagina becomes aroused the vagina gets longer and moves the cervix further from the vaginal opening, which allows for sexual penetration.

Despite this lengthening of the vagina, contact with the cervix can still occur during sex, for example with a sex toy, finger or penis. Some people will find cervical stimulation painful or sensitive, while for others it may be pleasurable.

How sex feels can also change depending on your menstrual cycle.

Remember, when you have your period, the cervix is likely to be sitting lower, so this can increase the chance of contact with the cervix during sex, especially during certain sexual positions.

Touching the cervix during sex is very unlikely to cause any damage, although sometimes with vigorous sexual intercourse it can cause bruising. This is not usually dangerous and heals on its own.

Ongoing communication with your partner is crucial to check in and see what feels good for both of you.

So, how long is my vagina?

It can be useful to feel the length of your vagina and the position of your cervix.

For example, if you want to use a menstrual cup during your period, some brands will have different sizes. If you have a shorter vaginal canal, then a shorter or smaller cup may achieve a better fit.

However, other factors – such as your age and how heavy your periods are – can also impact what size is right for you.

To feel the position of your cervix, first wash your hands with soap and water. This is best done around the time of your period, when the vaginal canal will be shorter.

Find a comfortable position, such as sitting, squatting or having one leg bent up on a chair. Then insert your finger into the vagina aiming up and back.

The vagina feels soft and squishy, whereas the cervix is smooth and firm, with a tiny divot in the centre – imagine a mini doughnut.

If you have to really stretch to feel the cervix, you may opt for a longer cup, whereas if you don’t need to insert your whole finger, it is probably sitting a bit lower and you may be more comfortable with a smaller size.

Keep in mind, this will just give you a rough idea of your vagina’s length and where your cervix is sitting (although it may change tomorrow).

Read more:
Menstrual cups are safe and sustainable – but they can be tricky for first-time users, our new study shows

Does the length of your vagina matter?

All of our bodies are unique and there is a wide range of “normal”. Generally, having a “short” or “long” vagina doesn’t make any real difference.

For example, a 2009 study of women over the age of 40 found vaginal length doesn’t affect sexual activity or function.

The vagina is extremely elastic and can stretch and mould to accommodate a variety of needs, before returning back to its baseline.

There are some symptoms that would be worth discussing with your GP though, such as pain during sex, difficulty inserting tampons or menstrual cups, or if you are concerned about a prolapse.

Melissa Kang is affiliated in a volunteer capacity with the Australian Association for Adolescent Health and the International Association for Adolescent Health. She was the medical writer for the Dolly Doctor column in Dolly magazine between 1993 and 2016.

Keersten Fitzgerald 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. How long is a vagina? And how do I know if mine is ‘short’? – https://theconversation.com/how-long-is-a-vagina-and-how-do-i-know-if-mine-is-short-256206

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dana M Bergstrom, Honorary Senior Fellow in Ecology, University of Wollongong

When winter comes to Antarctica, seals and Adélie penguins leave the freezing shores and head for the edge of the forming sea ice. But emperor penguins stay put.

The existence of emperor penguins seems all but impossible. Their lives revolve around seasons, timing and access to “fast ice” – sea ice connected to the Antarctic coast. Here, the sea ice persists long enough into summer for the penguins to rear their chicks successfully.

But climate change is upending the penguins’ carefully tuned biological cycles. The crucial sea ice they depend on is melting too early, plunging the chicks from some colonies into the sea before they are fully fledged.

In the latest bad news for these penguins, research by the British Antarctic Survey examined satellite images from 2009 to 2024 to assess fast-ice conditions at 16 emperor penguin colonies south of South America. They noted an average 22% fall in numbers across these colonies. That translates to a decrease of 1.6% every year.

This rate of loss is staggering. As the paper’s lead author Peter Fretwell told the ABC, the rate is about 50% worse than even the most pessimistic estimates.

Breeding while it’s freezing

Just like polar bears in the Arctic, emperor penguins are the iconic species threatened by climate change in Antarctica.

Emperor penguins are a highly successful species. They’re the tallest and heaviest penguin alive today. They evolved about one million years ago, and are highly adapted to life in one of Earth’s harshest environments. As of 2009, the emperor penguin population was estimated at just shy of 600,000 birds.

Unfortunately, they are now in real trouble, because their breeding habitat appears to be reducing.

At the beginning of every Antarctic winter, the surface of the ocean begins to freeze and sea ice forms. Over March and April, emperor penguins aggregate into raucous breeding colonies along the coast of the ice continent. They need about nine months to care for their chicks, until the young penguins can go to sea and look after themselves.

The males frequently huddle to keep each other warm and their eggs safe. Meanwhile, the females spend months at sea catching krill, squid and fish, returning in July/August to feed their hungry chicks. When summer finally comes in December, the chicks start to shed their down and grow a dense, waterproof plumage – like a feathery armour against the intensely cold seas off the icy continent.

Breeding locations are a kind of “Goldilocks” zone. When choosing a home, the penguins have to find a place that is safe but not too far from the fast ice edge where they go to start hunting.

The greater the distance they have to travel, the longer it takes to return to their offspring, and the chicks may miss out on meals. But if a colony is too close to the edge of the fast ice, the risk increases that the ice breaks up before the chicks are ready to go to sea. Although fast ice can cover vast areas of the ocean surface, its edge is exposed to the swell of the Southern Ocean.

In recent years, the fast ice in different parts of Antarctica has been breaking up early, before the chicks have moulted into their adult plumage. Without waterproof plumage, chicks perish because the cold water kills quickly. As this happens more often, the size of a colony shrinks.

How bad is it?

We don’t yet know if this rate of loss is happening right across Antarctica. The study only covers a the part of the continent that includes the Antarctic Peninsula and the Weddell Sea.

What we do know is that Antarctica and its unique biodiversity are not immune to the consequences of still-rising global greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2021, emperor penguins were listed as endangered by the United States, because the risk of extinction by century’s end had increased. Australia has not yet listed the emperor penguin as a threatened species.

The new research suggests the future of these iconic birds is not looking good. Until the world gets serious about cutting greenhouse gas emissions, sea ice will retreat – and more chicks will fall into the icy water before they are ready to launch.

Seabird ecologist Dr Barbara Wienecke contributed to this article.

Dana M Bergstrom is affiliated with the Pure Antarctic Foundation, a group of scientists and artists interested in communicating science and knowledge to the broader community.

– ref. As Antarctic sea ice shrinks, iconic emperor penguins are in more peril than we thought – https://theconversation.com/as-antarctic-sea-ice-shrinks-iconic-emperor-penguins-are-in-more-peril-than-we-thought-258807

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Conrad Pilditch, Professor of Marine Sciences, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

For the past fortnight, the city of Nice in France has been the global epicentre of ocean science and politics.

Last week’s One Ocean Science Congress ended with a unanimous call for action to turn around the degradation of the ocean. And this week, the United Nation’s Ocean Conference agenda focused on better protection of marine biodiversity, sustainable fisheries and emissions cuts.

The message is clear. With only five years to the UN’s 2030 target for its sustainable development goal – to conserve the oceans, seas and marine resources – and the Global Biodiversity Framework requirement to protect 30% of the ocean, we need to make significant progress.

We all attended last week’s meeting, together with more than 2,000 marine scientists from 120 countries. Here, we reflect on New Zealand’s role and obligations to contribute to these global goals.

Legal imperatives

Globally, the ocean is warming and acidifying at accelerating rates. New Zealand’s waters are not immune to this, with more marine heatwaves which further stress our threatened marine biodiversity.

We depend directly on these ocean ecosystems to provide the air we breathe, moderate the impacts of climate change and feed millions of people.

New Zealand has significant influence on ocean policy – from Antarctica to the sub-tropical Pacific, and within its sea territory, which is 15 times the size of its landmass and spans 30 degrees of latitude.

The government is required by law to take action to secure a healthy ocean.

A recent advisory opinion from the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea unanimously found that states, including New Zealand, have obligations under international law to reduce the impacts of climate change on marine areas, to apply an ecosystem approach to marine law and policy, reduce pollution and support the restoration of the ocean.

New Zealand courts have recognised the need to take a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach to marine management, based on science, tikanga and mātauranga Māori. These legal cases are part of a global upswell of strategic environmental and climate litigation.

If New Zealand does not comply with these marine legal obligations, it may well find itself before the courts, incurring significant legal and reputational costs.

International agreements

In 2022, New Zealand was one of 196 countries that committed to protecting at least 30% of the world’s coastal and marine areas by 2030 under the Global Biodiversity Framework. New Zealand was an enthusiastic supporter, but only 0.4% of its marine territory is fully protected in no-take marine reserves.

Former prime minister Helen Clark has criticised the current government for lagging behind on marine protection, especially in failing to ban bottom trawling.

At this week’s UN ocean summit, a further 18 countries have ratified an agreement known as the High Seas Treaty, bringing the total to 50, still short of the 60 nations needed for it to enter into force.

New Zealand signed this treaty just before the last general election, but is yet to ratify it. Foreign Minister Winston Peters represented New Zealand at the UN ocean conference, but focused mainly on issues in the Pacific.

Meanwhile, the government announced sweeping changes to the national direction on environmental policy, including reworking the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement to better enable the use and development of the coastal environment for “priority activities” such as aquaculture, resource extraction, infrastructure and energy.

Oceanic environmental change is real and accelerating

Some countries showed that effective leadership can help navigate to a safe future for the oceans. For example, China’s commitment to clean energy has seen carbon dioxide emissions begin to fall for the first time despite higher power consumption.

At the UN ocean summit, French Polynesia’s president announced his administration would establish one of the world’s largest networks of marine protected areas.

The cost of inaction far outweighs the economics of the status quo. Ongoing ocean warming is already affecting weather patterns, with more extreme storms.

It is possible for marine ecosystems to recover quite rapidly if they are protected, at least temporarily. Yet this year, New Zealand’s government found itself in hot water (once again) with both conservationists and Māori for its management of fisheries.

We argue New Zealand has an opportunity and responsibility to demonstrate it can shift the downward spiral of oceanic degradation.

The overwhelming message at the half-way point of the UN Ocean Decade is that for marine science to transform the state of our oceans it needs to include Indigenous peoples who have routinely been sidelined from ocean policy discussions despite their longstanding rights and relationships with the ocean.

New Zealand already has a foundation of transdisciplinary and Indigenous ocean research to develop ocean policies that are fit for local purposes and to answer global calls to action. We have a unique window of opportunity to lead the changes needed.

Conrad Pilditch currently receives funding from the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment.

Elizabeth Macpherson receives funding from Te Apārangi The Royal Society.

Karin Bryan receives funding from the Marsden Fund, the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment, the George Mason Centre for the Natural Environment and Waikato Regional Council.

Simon Francis Thrush receives funding from ERC, Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and the Auckland Foundation

Joanne Ellis, Karen Fisher, and Rachael Mortiaux 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. NZ has a vast sea territory but lags behind other nations in protecting the ocean – https://theconversation.com/nz-has-a-vast-sea-territory-but-lags-behind-other-nations-in-protecting-the-ocean-258470

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacob Ware, Adjunct Professor of Domestic Terrorism, Georgetown University

The U.S. Army will celebrate its 250th birthday on Saturday, June 14, 2025, with a parade in Washington, D.C., in which about 6,600 soldiers and heavy pieces of military equipment will roll through the streets. The parade aims to display the Army’s history and power.

“It’s going to be incredible,” President Donald Trump recently said. Trump’s 79th birthday also occurs on June 14.

Despite the festivities, however, the parade will occur amid bleak times for the U.S. military, as it experiences a multiyear decline in recruitment numbers. In the face of a pandemic and a strong civilian job market, the Army, Air Force and Navy all missed their recruitment goals in 2022 and 2023. In 2022, the Army missed its quota by 25%.

In 2024, the U.S. military met its recruitment target, which supports the argument that the bump is not due to Trump, as recruitment levels began to rise again before his reelection. But in some cases, the U.S. military has met its recruitment goals by lowering target numbers.

And as a scholar of terrorism and targeted violence, I believe a close reading of available data on military recruitment suggests U.S. gun violence may be largely to blame for the lack of interest in joining the military.

Gun violence data

Regardless of one’s personal politics, the data on U.S. gun violence makes for painful reading.

Almost 47,000 Americans died from gun-related injuries in 2023. In 2022, there were 51 school shootings in which students were injured or killed by guns. And gun injuries are the leading cause of death for Americans between ages 1 and 19.

Data about the perceptions of gun violence is equally staggering, especially among American youth between ages 14 and 30.

Four out of five American youth believe gun violence to be a problem, and 25% have endured real active-shooter lockdowns, according to data compiled by Everytown for Gun Safety, where I serve as a survivor fellow, the Southern Poverty Law Center and American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab.

Moreover, these perceptions have considerable impacts on youth mental health and their sense of safety. Studies have linked concern over school shootings among adolescents with higher rates of anxiety and trauma-related disorders.

As Arne Duncan, who served as President Barack Obama’s secretary of education during the Sandy Hook tragedy, said in 2023: “Unfortunately, what’s now binding young people across the country together is not joy of music, or sports, or whatever, it’s really the shared pain of gun violence – and it cuts through race and class and geography and economics.”

National security threat

In the past couple of years, polls taken of Generation Z youth, born between 1997 and 2012, suggest mental health and mass shootings are among the most important political issues motivating this band of voters.

Gun violence, in other words, is a national security emergency, undermining the U.S. government’s ability to protect its citizens in their schools, places of worship and communities.

As former Marine Gen. John Allen wrote in 2019: “Americans today are more likely to experience gun violence at home than they might in many of the places to which I deployed in the name of defending our nation.”

Rewriting American culture

Accordingly, gun violence has undercut American patriotism, corroding the U.S. government’s soft power within its own borders. Generation Z, termed by some as the “lockdown generation,” is often derided as less patriotic than its predecessors.

Also, the belief in American exceptionalism is dropping among millennials, born between 1981 and 1996. That perception is combined with less confidence in U.S. global engagement and the efficacy of military solutions.

American culture has long inspired military service, with recruits seduced by action movies and promises of heroic returns to the U.S. But American culture today is being rewired into one of suffering, pain and victimhood.

A fear of violence

Gun violence destroys youth tolerance for the violence that defines a career in the U.S. military.

Internal U.S. military surveys of young Americans show that “the top three reasons young people cite for rejecting military enlistment are the same across all the services: fear of death, worries about post-traumatic stress disorder and leaving friends and family — in that order.”

Generations already suffering a shattered sense of safety and place do not see the military as a viable option.

The explanations the U.S. Defense Department gives for dismal recruitment levels focus on the younger generation’s supposed lack of backbone or hatred of America.

Republicans, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, have blamed alleged “wokeness” for low recruitment levels.

And the Trump administration’s statements about improving recruitment numbers over the past several months overlook both a late Biden-era surge after a pandemic slump as well as the reality that numbers remain depressed due to military services repeatedly lowering their recruitment goals.

Very rarely are introspective questions publicly debated today about the objective attractiveness of military service or the appetite for violence among young people. The problem, I believe, is not that young people are insufficiently patriotic – it’s that they have already been fighting a war, daily, for their entire lives.

In reversing the slide in recruitment, then, the military could improve its sensitivity to these important concerns.

Highlighting the range of careers within the services that do not involve front-line combat and physical danger could encourage more reluctant would-be recruits to volunteer.

Mental health support also could be made an essential element of military training and lifestyle − not a resource only for those bearing the hidden side-effects of life in the ranks. Encouraging those suffering from treatable mental health issues to seek meaning in service could also boost recruitment numbers.

Jacob Ware is a gun violence survivor and serves as a Survivor Fellow at Everytown for Gun Safety.

– ref. US Army’s image of power and flag-waving rings false to Gen Z weary of gun violence − and long-term recruitment numbers show it – https://theconversation.com/us-armys-image-of-power-and-flag-waving-rings-false-to-gen-z-weary-of-gun-violence-and-long-term-recruitment-numbers-show-it-257090

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Duygu Yengin, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Adelaide

For the first time in its 124-year history, Treasury will be led by a woman.

Jenny Wilkinson’s appointment is historic in its own right. Even more remarkable is the fact she joins Michele Bullock at the Reserve Bank and Danielle Wood at the Productivity Commission.

Australia’s three most powerful economic institutions are now led by women economists. In economics, this is not normal. But it certainly does matter.

Stubbornly male

Imagine if only 17% of economics professors were men. It would feel unusual; people would ask why the field was so heavily skewed. But the reality is the opposite: 83% of economics professors in Australia are male.

And yet, this imbalance is almost invisible. Women make up just about one-third of secondary pupils studying economics and 40% of students enrolled in economics courses at university.

In the private sector, women economists are roughly one in three.

So while the appointments of Wilkinson, Bullock and Wood feels groundbreaking, the profession as a whole remains stubbornly male. Still, the leadership story is worth celebrating. When young women see leaders who look like them, they’re more likely to imagine themselves in those roles too.

As women increasingly take the helm, the old stereotype of a suit-clad man with a briefcase gives way to a broader, more inclusive image of what an economist can be.

The public service is leading the charge. As of 2023, women held 53% of senior executive service positions in the Australian Public Service, up from 46% in 2019.

Merit and diversity

Thankfully, unlike other parts of the world, we live in a country where these appointments haven’t triggered claims of so-called “diversity hires”. To be clear: these female pioneers weren’t appointed because they are women.

Each has decades of experience, technical firepower, and deep policy credentials. Wilkinson has led the Department of Finance and the Parliamentary Budget Office. Bullock has held almost every senior role at the Reserve Bank. Wood has shaped public debates on intergenerational equity and tax reform with clarity and rigour.

The idea that diversity is somehow in tension with merit is a false binary. Diverse groups make better decisions and are more creative, especially in high-stakes settings.

Decades of economics and business research has shown that incorporating diverse perspectives into decision-making only strengthens the outcomes. Decisions made and executed by diverse teams delivered 60% better results than those by non-diverse teams.

Merit isn’t just what’s on paper, it’s shaped by how we judge it.

When men and women perform equally well, success is more often credited to skill for men and to luck for women. Swap a male name for a female one on a CV, teaching evaluation or reference letter, and perceptions of competence, leadership and hireability start to shift.

These unconscious biases don’t just affect who gets ahead; they shape how we define merit in the first place.

Will it make a difference?

Economics often prides itself on being objective and neutral. While the economic models may be technically gender-blind, the questions we ask and investigate rarely are.

This is where gender diversity matters – not just in who holds the top jobs, but in what gets researched and how decisions are made. There’s growing evidence male and female economists don’t just ask different questions, they also approach problems differently.

One study found female central bankers tend to act with greater independence and deliver lower inflation. A United States study and another in Europe showed striking gender differences in how economists think about a range of areas, including labour markets, taxation, health and the environment, and more broadly on public spending – everything from welfare to the military.

Having more diverse perspectives doesn’t dilute economics – it deepens it. It makes the discipline more responsive to the diversity of the real-world challenges it’s meant to address.

Economic policies impact the whole society. So does the composition of economists.

So, what’s next?

Of course, three women in top economic roles won’t create miracles overnight – they all operate within existing systems and structures.

So, what can we expect from Wilkinson’s leadership? Her time at the Department of Finance suggests a steady, pragmatic hand: consultative, strategic and deeply experienced.

Wilkinson brings bipartisan credibility, a sharp grasp of fiscal discipline, and the capacity to act decisively in a crisis, as we saw during COVID. She won’t remake Treasury overnight, but she’s well placed to lead it with rigour, integrity and a long-term view.

This moment matters for women in economics. It shows change is possible in the profession, and it could mark the start of economic policy that truly reflects the diversity of the people it serves.

Duygu Yengin is affiliated with the University of Adelaide, Women in Economics Network, and the Economic Society of Australia.

– ref. It took more than a century, but women are taking charge of Australia’s economy – here’s why it matters – https://theconversation.com/it-took-more-than-a-century-but-women-are-taking-charge-of-australias-economy-heres-why-it-matters-258680

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Tidwell, Director, Center for Australian, New Zealand and Pacific Studies, Georgetown University

Since 2018, the United States has worked, albeit often haltingly, to regain its footing with Pacific Island countries. It’s done this largely by reflecting a sentiment familiar in Pacific capitals: the region is not a geopolitical backwater, but a crucial strategic zone in the 21st century.

Spurred by China’s strategic expansion – security deals, port access, political influence – the first Trump presidency and then the Biden administration renewed the US focus on the Pacific.

Washington was also prodded by regional allies, including New Zealand. In 2018, Foreign Minister Winston Peters said: “We unashamedly ask for the United States to engage more and we think it is in your vital interests to do so. And time is of the essence.”

Building on the tentative steps of its predecessor, the Biden administration acted. It opened new embassies, invited Pacific leaders to the White House, unveiled a dedicated strategy for the Pacific Islands, and committed to recognising the Cook Islands and Niue.

It also negotiated more funding for the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and Palau. Along with the 2022 Pacific Islands Summit, it all signalled Washington’s desire to be a better partner.

Crucially, the Biden administration recognised climate change and the economy, not great-power rivalry, as the region’s defining security concerns. Now, much of that progress is being eroded.

The second Trump administration has gutted key international development agencies, with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation shuttered.

More than mere symbols, these agencies were tools of statecraft, facilitating Washington’s capacity to compete with China’s “no questions asked” development model. Their removal leaves a vacuum, which Beijing will happily fill.

China pressing the advantage

Other signs of retreat are equally troubling. Congressional funding for the South Pacific Tuna Treaty – which pays for access for US fishing fleets and is the primary multiparty agreement the US has with the Pacific Islands – was tripled by Biden, but remains incomplete.

Trump recently signed an executive order opening the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument, a 1,282,534 square kilometre protected marine zone, to commercial fishing. This might be welcomed by the US tuna fleet, but it raises questions about Washington’s commitment to the tuna treaty.

Hoped-for expansion of US consular access, especially vital for Pacific Islanders who must travel long distances for basic services such as visa applications, is in limbo. The US embassy in Vanuatu, damaged by the earthquake in 2024, remains closed, leaving diplomats to work out of their hotel rooms.

China, by contrast, has not slowed down. Its security pact with Solomon Islands, its police training efforts in Samoa and Kiribati, and its growing intelligence presence across the region show a clear pattern of assertiveness.

Beijing has proven adept at offering timely, visible assistance. Its diplomats show up. Its companies build. Its promises, however opaque, are matched with resources.

The result has not necessarily meant Pacific nations have “chosen” China. Rather, most revert to the longstanding posture of “friend to all, enemy to none”.

In a region where non-alignment is both a survival strategy and a principle of sovereignty, the perception of US unreliability makes China’s attentions all the more welcome, or at least tolerable.

Not a binary contest

The US now appears to be abandoning efforts to break this cycle, and the Trump administration risks a genuine strategic error rather than a mere diplomatic misstep.

More than distant dots on a map, the Pacific Islands control vast stretches of ocean, including key shipping lanes and undersea cables. Their diplomatic weight matters in the United Nations.

And the region matters to Taiwan, which is recognised by 12 countries globally, three of which are in the Pacific.

Some argue the US should press Pacific nations to “choose” between Washington and Beijing. But that approach is shortsighted and counterproductive.

Most have no interest in being drawn into a binary contest. They seek concrete benefits – resilience funding, fair trade, visa access – not ideological alignment. Framing relationships as zero-sum contests misunderstands the region’s diplomatic logic.

Listening to Pacific leaders

To revive the relationship, the US will need to show up, follow through and demonstrate its partnership offers more than rhetoric.

This would involve restoring some elements of foreign assistance, fully funding the South Pacific Tuna Treaty obligations, opening and staffing embassies, and supporting Pacific regional organisations such as the Pacific Islands Forum with meaningful recognition and resources.

But the US review of Pacific foreign assistance (a small portion of US development aid formerly administered by USAID) has been delayed once again, and likely won’t emerge until mid-July.

More importantly, the US will have to listen to Pacific leaders, who have articulated their priorities clearly. They do not want to be sites of contest; they want to be agents of their own futures.

In short, the US will have to treat the Pacific Islands as sovereign equals.
When Trump returned to the White House, he found a workable policy architecture for the Pacific. Its core elements could still be rescued.

But continued neglect, mixed signals and cost-cutting risk hastening the outcome China seeks – a region that finds Washington unreliable. Winston Peters, now foreign minister in a new government, might want to update his 2018 call for US engagement in the Pacific – with the emphasis on reliability.

Alan Tidwell 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. With Trump undoing years of progress, can the US salvage its Pacific Islands strategy? – https://theconversation.com/with-trump-undoing-years-of-progress-can-the-us-salvage-its-pacific-islands-strategy-258679

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

As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers turn their attention to improving productivity growth across the economy, it will be interesting to see what the business community brings to a planned summit in August.

Labour productivity (output per hour worked) has barely grown this decade.

Much of the focus in the current debate has been on the role of workers (labour) and industrial relations. Less discussed has been low business investment (capital).

Labour will be more productive if each worker can use more capital: machinery, equipment and technology. Over the medium term, providing workers with more capital – “capital deepening”, in the jargon – tends to be the main contributor to labour productivity growth.

But business investment as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) is currently at its lowest level since the mid-1990s.

Investment is low in both the mining and non-mining sectors. In the latest national accounts report for the March quarter, business investment in machinery and equipment fell 1.7%.

The average worker now uses less capital equipment – machines and computers – than a decade ago. Investment just hasn’t kept pace with growth in employment.

Read more:
‘Hard to measure and difficult to shift’: the government’s big productivity challenge

Why is investment so weak?

One possible reason was put forward by then Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe in 2023. He suggested that, during the COVID pandemic, firms concentrated on surviving. Seeking out more efficient ways to produce was a lower priority. But post-pandemic, firms seem to have been slow to pivot back to an efficiency focus.

Another reason may be that, until recently, wage growth has been slower than the growth in prices of goods and services produced. This may have reduced the incentives for firms to invest in the equipment needed to boost labour productivity.

A key driver of investment is profitability. Firms are more likely to fund investment from retained earnings than by borrowing or raising capital. But the share of corporate profits in the economy has been quite high in recent years. So this does not explain low investment.

The ‘animal spirits’ are lacking

Business confidence – what economist John Maynard Keynes famously called “animal spirits” – is another important driver.

Share prices, both in Australia and the rest of the world, have grown strongly in recent years. The S&P/ASX 200 index of Australian share prices is close to its all-time high. This would suggest financial markets are very optimistic about the prospects of Australian companies.

Direct surveys of Australian businesses from National Australia Bank suggest conditions (the current situation) and confidence (about the future) are around their long-term average level. So this also does not explain the low investment.

One contributor to low investment may be that firms are applying inappropriately high “hurdle rates”. These refer to the minimum return firms expect from an investment before they will undertake it.

Hurdle rates tend to be “sticky” over time, meaning they do not move much. Many companies still apply hurdle rates of over 12%. These were appropriate back when interest rates and inflation were much higher, but seem too high now as borrowing costs have fallen with interest rate cuts.

The Productivity Commission has suggested one contributor to low investment could be a higher risk premium. Since the global financial crisis in 2007-08, companies and investors may have become more cautious about taking on risk.

Another factor could be growing market power of Australian companies that dominate a sector, making them complacent rather than striving to improve their performance.

The high degree of uncertainty

The Reserve Bank recently compiled two measures of uncertainty. One is derived from stock markets. The other is based on the number of news articles about policy uncertainty.

Both show the current environment is as uncertain now as it was during the early stages of the global financial crisis in 2007–08 and the COVID pandemic.

A common response to uncertainty is to defer decisions on both investment and hiring new workers until the outlook is clearer. A study by the Reserve Bank found that greater uncertainty did indeed reduce investment. But the size of the impact was – you guessed it – uncertain.

What can be done?

Business lobbies often attribute low rates of investment (and anything else they think people may not like) to “excessively high” corporate tax rates. But at 30% for large companies and 25% for small, the company tax rate is low by historical standards.

Some multinational firms may be deterred from entering the Australian market as our company tax rate is above that in some other jurisdictions. It is hard to tell how important this effect is. Company tax is only one of many factors that affect the comparative risk and return of Australia as an investment destination.

The Productivity Commission is investigating whether the corporate taxation system could be made more efficient rather than just lowering rates.

In the meantime, however, firms may be encouraged to invest more by a more stable domestic economic outlook. Inflation is back within the central bank’s 2-3% target range. Employment is around an all-time high proportion of the working age population. The election has removed some political uncertainty with a government holding a clear majority.

Businesses should stop whingeing and start providing workers with the tools they need to become more productive.

This article is part of The Conversation’s series, The Productivity Puzzle. Read the previous article here.

John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist in the Reserve Bank and the Australian Treasury.

– ref. Workers need better tools and tech to boost productivity. Why aren’t companies stepping up to invest? – https://theconversation.com/workers-need-better-tools-and-tech-to-boost-productivity-why-arent-companies-stepping-up-to-invest-257806

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

Tasmanian politics has been thrown into chaos after a Labor motion of no confidence forced Premier Jeremy Rockliff to either resign or call for a new election. The premier opted for the latter, with Tasmanians to vote on July 19, only something over a year into the four-year term.

In Tasmania, Australia’s smallest state in terms of both size and population, local issues dominate. Labor homed in on economic mismanagement.

But there is controversy over the Macquarie Point Hobart AFL stadium (which the major parties support) as well as the state’s important salmon industry, which saw a lot of attention federally in the lead-up to the last election.

To talk all things Tasmanian, we’re joined by Independent Tasmanian Senator Tammy Tyrrell. She was elected in 2022 under the banner of the Jacqui Lambie Network a former member of the party but left last year. We talk about the state election, as well as federal issues and the new Senate.

Tyrrell laments Tasmanians’ being made to vote again so soon,

I was out and about on the northwest coast of Tasmania all day yesterday and everybody was like, what the heck is going on? They don’t want to go to an election, the people of Tasmania, they want the parliament to actually be grown ups and sort it out amongst themselves.

The budget in Tasmania is in a shambles and we’re so far in the red that we can’t see any way out of it. But really? There’s no way that the Labor [party] is going to form government unless they form a minority government and no Tasmanian will support a Labor-Greens government again in a hurry. But I really think that the Liberal government should have elevated somebody else from within to be the leader, to be the premier.

On her former boss Jacqui Lambie whose party has now collapsed, Tyrrell says it’s because of the kind of person she is,

[In] the federal election, Jacqui focused outside of Tasmania. She focused on expanding the network. And it didn’t work for her because she didn’t campaign enough here in Tasmania.

It’s a shame that she’s not supporting the candidate that is still sitting with her under the network. […] I think she should have stuck by Andrew Jenner and supported him through this [Tasmanian] election because he has shown loyalty to her and he has stuck it through thick and thin. So I believe he should be able to run back under the banner.

Jacqui is a strong person and the network had every chance to be a strong network, but Jacqui [is] not really a team player. She’s more of a single athlete because she’s so determined and strong of her opinion and it’s hard to take a group forward when you’ve got such a strong force that does not communicate sideways very well. She is a strong human being and I still believe in Jacqui but it makes it hard for her to have a team.

On the salmon farming industry, while Tyrrell voices her support, she agrees that environmental concerns do matter,

I support any industry that puts jobs and money into small rural and regional communities in Tasmania. I agree that they need to be as eco and as green friendly as possible and I know that the salmon industry is doing things to be clean and as green as possible. But I also believe that we need to look after the people who live and work in Tasmania.

We can’t sacrifice an industry completely just to satisfy the people that don’t like the salmon industry. I will always support the people of Tasmania and encourage industry and business to be as eco-friendly as possible, which is why we’re encouraging as many biofuels and eco-green fuel companies as possible to come to Tasmania, and thrive here.

On reports that the Nationals approached her to join their party. Tyrell says while she didn’t seriously consider it, she took it as a “compliment”,

It was a big compliment though. The Nats represent rural and regional Australia beautifully, by speaking their voice and for them to see that I am representing the people of Tasmania in a good light. It was a huge compliment to be approached to join them. But I’d already been in a relationship and I’m quite happy being a single divorcee.

It’s amazing being an independent, it means that I can say and do what my community wants me to in their voice without having to agree to broad-sweeping politics or legislative ideas that I don’t agree with fundamentally.

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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Senator Tammy Tyrrell on wild days in Tasmania – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-senator-tammy-tyrrell-on-wild-days-in-tasmania-258802

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

Former prime minister Paul Keating famously used to say the resident galah in any pet shop was talking about micro-economic policy. These days, if you encounter a pet shop with a galah, she’ll be chattering about productivity.

Productivity is currently the hot topic for a conversation on economic reform. Australia, like many other countries, has a serious problem with it. Our productivity hasn’t significantly increased for more than a decade (apart from a temporary spike during the pandemic).

Now Treasurer Jim Chalmers has named productivity as his priority for Labor’s second term; assistant minister Andrew Leigh, part of the government’s economic team, has had it inserted into his title; the Productivity Commission has put out 15 potential reform areas for discussion, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a roundtable to canvass the way ahead.

The roundtable appears to be a prime ministerial initiative. Announcing it at the National Press Club on Tuesday, Albanese made a point of saying he had asked Chalmers to convene it. Perhaps it’s a case of the prime minister emulating his forerunner Bob Hawke, with his penchant for summits, while Chalmers seeks to be a contemporary Keating, as he searches for reforms to promote.

It would be a major achievement if people were able to remember the second-term Albanese government for paving the way for a significant lift in Australia’s productivity. It would probably also be an economic and political miracle.

Let’s never knock a summit, but let’s not be taken in by the suggestion that the planned August meeting, involving employers, unions and the government, will mark some breakthrough moment. Business representatives are approaching it with a degree of cynicism; they saw the 2022 jobs and skills summit as preparing the ground for the new government to meet union demands.

This summit is expected to have fewer participants than the 2022 meeting, and may be briefer. Albanese described it as “a more streamlined dialogue than the jobs and skills summit, dealing with a more targeted set of issues”. Chalmers will announce more details next week. We can expect the government will package a collection of initiatives at least for further work, and perhaps a few for early action.

While many stakeholders give lip service to improving productivity, there are huge obstacles to actually doing so.

There’s perennial talk about tax reform – from business and economists, rather than the government. But serious change produces winners and losers, and having “losers” has become a political no-no, especially when there is not enough money to compensate them.

The housing crisis could be eased, with more homes built faster, if there were less onerous regulations, notably at state and local level. Governments are working around the edges of this, but attempting to seriously slash regulation immediately runs into opposition from those who, variously, argue that will harm city-scapes, the environment, safety or the like.

Red tape hampers big projects, but interest groups concerned about fauna, flora or the climate defend extensive hurdles and appeals processes as important for other priorities.

We’d be more productive if people with skills (whether immigrants or those moving between states) faced fewer complexities in getting their credentials recognised. But critics would point to the risk of underqualified people getting through.

Regulations are both barriers and protections. Whether you see particular regulations as negative or positive will depend where you are coming from. Less regulation can enhance productivity – but in certain cases the trade-off can be less protection and/or more risk. We have, for good or ill, become a more risk-averse community.

Employers say various industrial relations laws and regulations restrict changes that could boost productivity. A Labor government interlocked with the union movement is going to listen to its industrial base on that one. Asked on Tuesday whether his message to business groups going to the summit was, “don’t waste your breath if you’re going to raise IR” Albanese said, “People are entitled to raise whatever they want to raise. But I’m a Labor prime minister.”

Artificial Intelligence presents great opportunities to advance productivity. But it will cost some jobs and produce dislocation. Industry Minister Tim Ayres said recently, “I will be looking in particular at how we can strengthen worker voice and agency as technology is diffused into every workplace in the Australian economy. I look forward to working with our trade union movement on all of this.” Employers’ ears pricked at the union reference.

While the government is signalling it wants to do something meaningful on productivity, the prime minister is also highly cautious when it comes to getting ahead of what he considers to be the government’s electoral mandate. Nor is he one to gamble political capital.

He is not like, for example, John Howard, who before the 1996 election said he would “never ever” have a GST, then brought forward an ambitious GST package that he took to the 1998 election. That package had plenty of compensation for losers but Howard, who had a big parliamentary majority, was nearly booted out of office.

Reform is more difficult than it was in the Hawke–Keating era – though it wasn’t as easy then as is often portrayed now. The voters are less trusting of government, and less willing to accept the downsides of change.

The voices of those wanting to say “no” to various proposed changes are greatly amplified, in a highly professionalised political milieu and ubiquitous media opportunities. In the era of the “permanent campaign”, opinion polling has become so constant that politicians are always measuring their support in the moment, making a government hyper-nervous.

Progress on productivity is also harder these days because the easier things have been done, and because changes in our economy – especially the growth of the care economy – mean in some sectors efficiencies are not so readily available, or measurable.

We don’t actually need more inquiries, or a roundtable, to come up with ideas for what could or should be done on productivity. There have been multiple reports and thousands of recommendations. What is required is for the government to devise a bold program, have the will and the skill to implement it, and the ability to sell it to the public. But that runs into the problem of not having sought permission from the voters – which forces the government back to incrementalism.

Whatever the problems, it is not too fanciful to see Chalmers hanging his hat on the productivity peg in his longer-term bid to be the next Labor prime minister. We’ll see how he goes.

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: the galahs are chattering about ‘productivity’, but can Labor really get it moving? – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-the-galahs-are-chattering-about-productivity-but-can-labor-really-get-it-moving-257337

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

For the first time in memory, an Australian prime minister is approaching a prospective meeting with a US president with a distinct feeling of wariness.

Of course Anthony Albanese would deny it.

But it’s undeniable the government is relieved that Albanese’s coming trip (for which he leaves Friday) won’t feature a visit to Washington with a meeting in the Oval Office. Having seen what happened publicly to some other leaders in such encounters, Albanese has at least avoided any such risk. Instead, Albanese and President Donald Trump are expected to meet on the sidelines of the G7 in Canada.

Think about this. Normally, an Australian prime minister heading to North America would be deeply disappointed at not receiving an invitation to Washington, especially when he had not yet met the president face to face (although Albanese and Trump have had phone calls).

The non-Washington encounter, expected on the sidelines of the G7, is less hazardous but still highly unpredictable for Albanese.

It could go swimmingly. But that will depend on Trump’s mood on the day and what briefings he has had. And who can make sound predictions about any of that? Australian officials find the White House difficult to deal with or read.

Now, on the cusp of Albanese’s trip, a US review of AUKUS has become public.

The story appeared in the Financial Times, which quoted a Pentagon spokesperson saying the departmental review was to ensure “this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president’s ‘America First’ agenda”. The spokesperson noted US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had “made clear his intent to ensure the [defence] department is focused on the Indo-Pacific region first and foremost”.

The review is to be led by the undersecretary of defence for policy, Elbridge Colby, who months ago flagged the US wanted Australia to be spending some 3% of GDP on defence. This was upped to 3.5% in a recent meeting between Defence Minister Richard Marles and Hegseth.

The Australian government is playing down the AUKUS review as being more or less routine. Marles said he has known about it for some time. He told Sky, “I am comfortable about it and I think it’s a pretty natural step for an incoming government to take and we’ll have an opportunity to engage with it”.

Nevertheless, the fact of the review and the timing of the report about it will turn the screws on Albanese over defence spending.

The prime minister makes two points on this – that Australia takes its own decisions, and that defence spending should be set on the basis of the capability needed rather than determined by a set percentage.

But there is a general view among experts that Australia will need to boost substantially its spending. Albanese won’t want to capitulate on the issue, but he will need some diplomatic lines. He could point out Australia has its next Strategic Defence Review in 2026. This is more an update on delivery than a fundamental review but could give an opportunity for a rethink.

On AUKUS, Albanese will want to reinforce its mutual benefits and importance. He canvassed AUKUS in his first call with Trump, after the presidential election.

The president may or may not be briefed on the latest attacks on the pact by two former prime ministers, triggered by the review.

Paul Keating, an unrelenting critic of the agreement, said in a statement the AUKUS review “might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself”.

Malcolm Turnbull said in a social media post that the United Kingdom and the United States are conducting reviews of AUKUS but “Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review”.

The Trump–Albanese conversation could be complicated by the Australian government’s imposition this week of sanctions on two hardline Israeli ministers for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

This action, in concert with the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Norway, was immediately condemned by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who called for the sanctions to be withdrawn.

All this before we even get to the issue of tariffs, and Australia offering a deal on critical minerals to try to get some concessions.

There is a lot of scripting prepared before such meetings. Albanese will have his talking points down pat. But with Trump being an “off-script” man, it is not an occasion for which the PM can be confident ahead of time that he is fully prepared.

But Albanese has one safeguard, in domestic political terms. If things went pear-shaped Australians – who have scant regard for Trump – could be expected to blame the president rather than the prime minister.

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. View from The Hill: Is the US playing cat and mouse ahead of expected Albanese-Trump talks? – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-is-the-us-playing-cat-and-mouse-ahead-of-expected-albanese-trump-talks-257336

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Linda Shearwin, Researcher, Comparative Genome Biology Laboratory, University of Adelaide

For decades, scientists have known that platypuses and echidnas – Australia’s unique egg-laying mammals – have another developmental quirk: they don’t use the same genetic toolkit as other mammals to develop male and female embryos.

What’s more, just how they do it has been a mystery. Until now.

In a recent study published in Genome Biology, our research team has found strong evidence that monotreme sex comes down to a single gene – one that’s much more like what we see in some fish and amphibians than other mammals.

The search for the secret of monotreme sex

The Australian platypus and echidna are monotremes, the most ancient living group of mammals. These unique creatures are famously the only mammals to lay eggs, and they also have other reptile-like features.

Humans and many other mammal species have two sex-determining chromosomes, X and Y. An embryo with an XX pair of chromosomes will develop as female, while an XY pair leads to a male embryo.

In many mammals, the process that makes an embryo develop as male is triggered by a gene called SRY on the male Y chromosome. However, the SRY gene in monotremes has never been found.

About 20 years ago, it was discovered that monotremes have an entirely different system that uses multiple X and Y chromosomes. Scientists assumed the Y chromosomes must still hold a gene that determined sex, but very little was known about what it might be.

In 2008 a full genome sequence of a platypus was published, which was a step in the right direction. However, the genome was from a female so it had no information about Y chromosomes.

By 2021, a new and improved platypus genome and a first echidna genome included sequences of multiple Y chromosomes. A gene emerged as the frontrunner for the role of sex determination in monotremes: the anti-Muellerian hormone (or AMH), which is involved in the sexual development in many animals.

A 100-million-year-old change

Our new research provides the first real evidence that an adapted version of AMH found on one of the monotreme Y chromosomes (dubbed AMHY) is the sex determination gene in monotremes.

We showed that changes in the AMH gene long ago, early in the evolution of monotremes, could explain how AMHY arose and took on a role in male sexual development.

This event would have set the stage for the evolution of the novel sex chromosome system in the ancestor of today’s platypus and echidna, about 100 million years ago when the AMH gene on the XY chromosomes embarked on separated paths.

We showed that although the AMHY gene has changed significantly from the original AMH gene (AMHX), it has retained its essential features. Importantly, we could show for the first time that AMHY is turned on in the right tissue and at the right time to direct development of the testes during male development, which was an important missing piece of the puzzle.

A first for mammals

Unlike the other mammal sex determination genes, which act directly on the DNA to switch on other genes that lead to male development, AMHY is a hormone. It does not interact with DNA, but instead acts at the surface of cells to turn genes on or off.

There is growing evidence that AMHY also plays a role in sex determination in a number of fish and amphibian species. However, AMHY in monotremes would be the first known example of a hormone playing a sex-determining role in mammals.

What’s next? Our ongoing research investigate in detail how AMHX and AMHY work differently in monotremes compared to other mammals.

The work discussed in this article was carried out by researchers from the University of Adelaide, the University of Melbourne, the University of Queensland, Monash University and Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary.

Linda Shearwin receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Frank Grützner 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. In most mammals, one gene determines sex. But 100 million years ago, platypuses and echidnas went their own way – https://theconversation.com/in-most-mammals-one-gene-determines-sex-but-100-million-years-ago-platypuses-and-echidnas-went-their-own-way-258801

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hilary Bowman-Smart, Research Fellow, Australian Centre for Precision Health, University of South Australia

Monash IVF CEO Michael Knaap has resigned after one of the company’s Melbourne clinics mistakenly transferred the wrong embryo to a patient. The patient wanted her partner’s embryo, but instead her own embryo was transferred.

It is the second time this year Monash IVF has made such an announcement. In April, the company revealed a clinic in Brisbane had mixed up two different couples’ embryos.

IVF is big business in Australia. When Monash IVF was listed on the stock exchange in 2014, it raised more than A$300 million, with financial analysts noting the potential for massive profits, as “people will pay almost anything to have a baby”.

Total annual revenue in Australia from the IVF industry is more than $800 million. But what does the booming IVF industry mean for patients?

Strong regulation is crucial

In Australia, regulation of the IVF industry largely happens at the state and territory level. This leads to variation, such as restrictions on single women accessing IVF in Western Australia, which other states do not have.

Victoria passed legislation in 2008, with a guiding principle to safeguard children born through assisted reproduction. However, until recently, Queensland largely relied on industry self-regulation.

The Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand, the peak body for reproductive medicine, has called for a national regulatory framework to address the current “patchwork” of legislation.

Commercialisation is not necessarily a bad thing for patients. It can lead to innovation that improves the chances of successfully having a baby.

However, clinicians, ethicists and patients have raised concerns about the effects of commercialisation on the quality and cost of service provision in IVF.

With the rapid growth of the sector and high-profile incidents such as those at Monash IVF, stronger and more comprehensive regulation at the national level can help ensure quality and safety for patients.

High costs can lead to inequities in access

Most IVF in Australia occurs in private practice, not the public system. While Medicare rebates are available, there is usually a significant out-of-pocket expense. This can range from a few hundred dollars to many thousands for each cycle. IVF can therefore be a big financial decision. Financial expense is one of the biggest barriers, which leads to inequities in access between those who can afford it and those who can’t.

The costs stack up even more if you want non-essential “add-ons”, such as pre-implantation genetic testing, acupuncture, or embryo time-lapse imaging. A study in 2021 found 82% of women using IVF in Australia had used an add-on during their IVF treatment.

Many IVF clinics offer these add-ons, which are promoted as improving patient experience, or the chance of a successful birth. Add-ons are offered as a point of difference on the market.

However, the evidence for these claims is often weak or non-existent. They also come with significant costs and can potentially take advantage of people’s hopes, if they are willing to pay “whatever it takes” to have a baby.

Read more:
IVF add-ons: why you should be cautious of these expensive procedures if you’re trying to conceive

Patients or customers?

Commercial providers in the IVF industry can help provide choice, particularly as it is difficult to get IVF in the public system.

However, when health care becomes a business, a risk is that the relationship between the patient and doctor can be affected: a patient seeking treatment becomes a “customer” buying a product.

The therapeutic relationship should be about enhancing patients’ health and wellbeing, relieving suffering, and promoting human flourishing.

When we talk about “choice” in medicine, we often think about ideas such as informed consent, autonomy and the best interests of the patient. However, if we think of patients as customers, “choice” may become more about being free to purchase what you want to.

The commercialisation of the sector can also increase the risk of over-servicing, where financial incentives may shape medical decision-making.

This doesn’t necessarily mean clinics are making deliberate decisions or misleading patients for financial benefit. However, it can mean doing more IVF cycles, even as success becomes increasingly unlikely.

We need to ensure doctors don’t feel pressure – directly or indirectly – to provide particular treatments just because a patient is willing to pay for it.

Medical professionals’ obligations

Doctors and other healthcare professionals have special responsibilities and moral obligations because of their role. They serve an essential human need in society because of their particular expertise in health and wellbeing. And they often have a monopoly on the essential services they offer.

Without patients’ trust that clinicians are being guided by medical reasons instead of financial ones, their special and privileged role to promote human flourishing can be undermined.

This special role is not necessarily incompatible with business. However, it is essential we allow doctors to maintain their focus on patient wellbeing. This is reflected in the doctors’ code of conduct, which notes their “duty to make the care of patients their first concern”.

What happens next?

Much public and media discourse has framed the embryo mix-up primarily as a reputational and financial risk to Monash IVF – but it is about patients. It’s not (just) an error of corporate governance, it’s about the special trust that we as a society place in medical practice.

IVF is expensive, and can be tough both emotionally and physically. One of the ways we can ensure trust in IVF services is by moving towards consistent and improved regulation at the national level. This might include more uniform standards and policies around who is eligible for IVF.

IVF industry regulation is on the agenda for the federal and state health ministers tomorrow. While there is still much to be done, a review of the regulation and processes in this sector could help prevent more embryo mix-ups from happening in the future.

Read more:
Why do women get ‘reassurance scans’ during pregnancy? And how can you spot a dodgy provider?

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. IVF is big business. But when patients become customers, what does this mean for their care? – https://theconversation.com/ivf-is-big-business-but-when-patients-become-customers-what-does-this-mean-for-their-care-258585