Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Murray, Professor of Cybersecurity, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

Australians are once again being warned to tighten their online security and be extra alert to scammers, after up to 5.7 million Qantas customers’ personal details – including phone numbers and birthdays – were leaked to the dark web on Sunday.

Cyber crime supergroup Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters accessed the data back in June by convincing a Manila-based call centre operator to give the hackers access to their Salesforce system.

On Monday, federal Cyber Security Minister Tony Burke said: “You can’t simply outsource to other companies and think suddenly you’ve got no obligations on cyber security… There are very serious penalties.”

But what are those potential penalties for Qantas? And why is a corporate watchdog warning about even more serious data theft risks when Australian finance companies outsource their work overseas?

What penalties could Qantas face?

Law firm Maurice Blackburn has lodged a complaint over the Qantas data breach with Australia’s independent privacy regulator – the Office of the Information Commissioner – alleging the airline breached privacy laws by failing to adequately protect customer information.

When asked by the ABC, the commissioner’s office wouldn’t comment on whether Qantas would be fined over this latest breach.

So how much is the maximum fine for breaches like this?

Under the Privacy Act, serious or repeated privacy breaches can now incur fines of up to A$50 million or 30% of a company’s adjusted turnover during the period of the breach – whichever is greater.

This Qantas data breach is less serious than those that hit Optus and Medibank in 2022. For instance, hackers shared Medibank customers’ highly sensitive medical history data, and stole valuable identity document data, including credit card, passport and driver’s licence details. That matter is still before the courts.

While the Qantas data was still sensitive – including customers’ dates of birth, phone numbers, addresses, emails and frequent flyer numbers – it presents less of a risk for individual customers.

Besides penalties under the Privacy Act, Qantas also faces a potential class action, which affected Qantas customers can join.

Another potential outcome for Qantas could be a court-ordered payment scheme, in which individuals affected by the breach may be eventually entitled to compensation from Qantas.

We saw a similar arrangement for Facebook users affected by the Cambridge Analytica data breach a decade ago.

What are the rules for companies sharing your data overseas?

The Australian Privacy Act has specific provisions covering how companies handle your data when they send it overseas.

Importantly, when an Australian company gives your data to an offshore entity, the Australian company remains accountable for ensuring your data is kept safe.

This is why it’s important for Australian companies to consider carefully the potential risks of sending Australians’ data overseas.

These risks should be front of mind for Qantas, which in 2024 suffered a much smaller data breach due to alleged misbehaviour of overseas contractors.

However, these risks extend well beyond flagship companies such as Qantas.

Warnings over even more sensitive data

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) regulates Australian markets and financial services companies. Only days ago, it warned of “governance gaps” when financial services companies outsource work overseas – and potentially put Australians’ sensitive data at risk.

This year, ASIC has taken separate court action against Fortnum Private Wealth and FIIG Securities, alleging they failed to manage cybersecurity risks affecting thousands of customers.

In FIIG’s case, ASIC alleges a hacker was able to steal sensitive data including passport, bank account and tax file numbers. Those court cases are yet to be heard.

The finance sector – including banks, financial advisors and superannuation funds – consistently reports the third highest number of data breaches, after the health sector and government.

What we all need to do next

As individuals, we have relatively little control over how Australian companies handle our data, let alone the overseas companies they work with. But we can all do more to make ourselves more secure.

Be on scam watch: given how many Australians were exposed in the Qantas breach, be on the lookout now for scammers.

History suggests scammers target data breach victims, or people who think they may have been impacted by a data breach. If you receive a message you suspect is a scam, don’t respond – report it to Scamwatch.

Practise good “cyber hygiene”: avoid using the same password on multiple websites. Instead, use a password manager that saves your passwords across your computer and mobile phone.

That way, if your data is breached at Company A, it has less chance of impacting your security with Company B.

Companies need to step up too: Australian company executives would do well to ensure their governance, risk and compliance practices are up to scratch, especially on how they manage third-party risks.

As consumers, we entrust our cyber security to all of the companies with whom we interact. Those companies, in turn, owe it to us to ensure the drive to maximise profits doesn’t come at the cost of leaving customers worse off.

Toby Murray receives funding from the Department of Defence and Google. He is Director of the Defence Science Institute, which receives funding from the Commonwealth and State governments.

– ref. Beyond Qantas’ data leak, Australian finance companies are also at risk of offshore hacks – https://theconversation.com/beyond-qantas-data-leak-australian-finance-companies-are-also-at-risk-of-offshore-hacks-267311

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Fountaine, Associate Professor of Communication, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

There’s a telling moment in the documentary film Prime Minister when Jacinda Ardern reflects on her rapid rise from Labour leader to prime minister, saying she had “no time to redesign myself […] I could only be myself”.

This reference to her “true” self signals a commitment to political authenticity, a thread that runs through the award-winning documentary about Ardern’s remarkable time in office.

But in political communication, authenticity is seldom straightforward.
It is primarily understood as a “performance” of self, usually by politicians for voters, and filtered by news and social media.

Skilled politicians – on the right as much as the left – know this. And voters, too, can accept things as simultaneously “real” and manufactured.

By drawing from behind-the-scenes footage shot by Ardern’s partner and producer Clarke Gayford, and from recordings for the Political Diary Oral History Project, Prime Minister is a showcase for certain key strategies of “performed” authenticity.

This is not to say Ardern is “faking it” or that the documentary feels contrived. After all, the goal of the authentic politician is to minimise any differences between their public and private performances of self.

Consistency and ordinariness

In an increasingly mediated world, the desire for authenticity – what is perceived as honest and real – is a powerful social force. From early in her career, Ardern has understood this, presenting herself as relatable and likeable on her popular social media channels.

This consistency is commonly regarded as the central strategy of political authenticity. We see it in the film’s repeated use of footage that captures Ardern’s political values.

There’s her maiden speech to parliament about her passion for social justice, and official speeches and election rallies containing messages of kindness and compassion.

These are reinforced with childhood photos and a car trip down the street where she grew up, allowing Ardern to establish the stability of her inner self.

Conveying a sense of ordinariness is another way to build political authenticity. In Prime Minister, we see Ardern in her slippers and engaging in recognisably ordinary activities, usually involving daughter Neve: feeding, bedtime and kite flying.

The dated backdrop of the family’s private apartment at Government House adds to this impression of the commonplace. So does footage shot in their modest Auckland home, with all the usual mess of family life on display.

Motherhood is the most accessible source of ordinariness in a documentary about Ardern’s prime ministership. And it contrasts with the public events of her time in office – the Christchurch terror attack, Whakaari/White Island and the pandemic – that are so clearly extraordinary.

By regularly interspersing images of a seemingly normal home life with shots of official meetings and state dinners, Prime Minister helps defuse the tension between the ordinary and extraordinary that challenges many politicians in their quest to appear authentic.

Immediacy and intimacy

A perception of authenticity is also supported by an impression of immediacy in political communication – the creation of a shared sense of the “here and now”.

Prime Minister taps into a common cultural experience by including memorable television footage, such as the daily COVID updates. This is reinforced with scenes from Ardern’s current life in the United States, from where she responds to audio recordings made during her prime ministership.

Thanks to Gayford’s home recordings, we also hear about Ardern’s anxiety levels and sleeping problems. The visuals confirm she is tired. These recordings are not always flattering, which adds to their apparent authenticity.

The audience also gains a kind of political backstage pass, watching Ardern prepare to announce the first pandemic lockdown, distribute presents at a staff Christmas party, and attempt to work in her noisy office during the parliamentary protests.

Learning about Ardern’s pregnancy before she officially announces it, and later hearing her joke about wanting to hit opposition leader Simon Bridges after a parliamentary exchange about the Auckland lockdowns, contribute to the sense of intimate access promised by the documentary’s promotional material.

Authenticity to the left and right

All in all, Prime Minister is a compelling performance of political authenticity, complete with its own publicity machine.

But many politicians, from across the ideological spectrum, are working to convince voters of their authenticity in a time when that virtue is under attack from fake news, generative AI and disinformation.

Populist politicians who try to position themselves as “truth tellers” have a particular need to present as authentic. In fact, consistency as a tool of authenticity does not require the steadfastly “positive” attributes exhibited by Ardern in Prime Minister.

Politicians such as Auckland mayor Wayne Brown build authenticity by being consistently abrasive and outspoken.

US President Donald Trump is sometimes described as “consistently inconsistent”. But his rhetoric regularly makes use of the same recognisable words, phrases and inflections, providing regular fodder for comedians and impersonators.

How audiences respond to politicians’ performances of authenticity is ultimately influenced by their political attitudes and party identifications, as well as exposure to political information across different media.

And research shows people who regularly watch mainstream television news and view or follow political candidates’ social media accounts are primed to perceive politicians as more authentic.

But one of the paradoxes of performed authenticity is that audiences can simultaneously perceive communication as “real” while recognising it as a manipulation.

Perhaps authentic politicians are especially alert to this. If you watch Prime Minister, look out for scene where Ardern calls out Gayford for faking the housework.

Susan Fountaine 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. Savvy politicians know how to ‘perform’ authenticity – the Jacinda Ardern doco offers a masterclass – https://theconversation.com/savvy-politicians-know-how-to-perform-authenticity-the-jacinda-ardern-doco-offers-a-masterclass-267091

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marina Yue Zhang, Associate Professor, Technology and Innovation, University of Technology Sydney

The trade dispute between the United States and China has resumed. US President Donald Trump lashed out at the weekend at Beijing’s planned tightening of restrictions over crucial rare-earth minerals.

In response, Trump has threatened 100% tariffs on Chinese imports.

But with the higher tariff rate not due to start until November 1, and the Chinese controls on December 1, there is still time for negotiation.

This is no longer a trade dispute; it has escalated into a race for control over supply chains, and the rules that govern global trade.

For Australia, this provides an opening to build capacity at home in minerals refining and rare-earths processing. But we also need to keep access to our biggest market – China.

A long-running battle

Since 2018, the US has sought to choke off China’s access to semiconductors and chipmaking tools by restricting exports.

China last week tightened its export controls on rare earth minerals that are essential for the technology, automotive and defence industries. Foreign companies now need permission to export products that derive as little as 0.1% of their value from China-sourced rare earths.

Rare earths are essential to many modern technologies. They enable high-performance magnets for EVs and wind turbines, lasers in advanced weapons, and the polishing of semiconductor wafers. An F-35 fighter jet contains about 417 kilograms of rare earths.

By targeting inputs rather than finished goods, China extends its reach across production lines in any foreign factories that use Chinese rare earths in chips (including AI), automotive, defence and consumer electronics.

Who holds the upper hand: chips or rare earths?

The US plan is simple: control the key tools and software for making top-end semiconductor chips so China can’t move as fast on cutting-edge technology.

Under that pressure, China is filling the gaps. It’s far more self-sufficient in chips than ten years ago. It now makes more of its own tools and software, and produces “good-enough” chips for cars, factories and gadgets to withstand US sanctions.

Rare earths aren’t literally “rare”; their value lies in complex, costly and polluting separation and purification processes. China has cornered the industry, helped by industry policies and subsidies. China accounts for 60–70% of all mining and more than 90% of rare earths refining.

Its dominance reflects decades-long investment, scale and an early willingness to bear heavy environmental costs. Building a China-free supply chain will take years, even if Western countries can coordinate smoothly.

A window for Australia?

Australia is seen as a potential beneficiary. As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares to meet Trump on October 20 in Washington, many argue the rare-earths clash offers a diplomatic opening.

Trade Minister Don Farrell says Australia is a reliable supplier that can “provide alternatives to the rest of the world”. Australia’s ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, has made the same case.

The logic seems compelling: leverage Australia’s mineral wealth for strategic gain with its closest security partner. But that narrative is simplistic. It risks drifting from industrial and economic reality.

The first hard truth is that Australia has the resources, but doesn’t control the market. It is a top-five producer of 14 minerals, including lithium, cobalt and rare earths, yet it doesn’t dominate any of them. Australia’s strength is in mining and extraction, rather than processing.

Here lies the strategic paradox: Australia ships the majority of its minerals to China for processing that turns ore into high-purity metals and chemicals. Building alternative, China-free supply chains to reduce US reliance on China would decouple Australia from its main customer for raw materials.

Demand from the defence sector is not enough. The US Department of Defense accounts for less than 5% of global demand for most critical minerals.

The real driver is the heavy demand from clean energy and advanced technology, including EVs, batteries and solar. China commands those markets, creating a closed-loop ecosystem that pulls in Australia’s materials and exports finished goods. Recreating that integrated system in five to ten years, after Beijing spent decades building it, is wishful thinking.

There will be no simple winner

The US restrictions on chips and the Chinese controls over rare earths are twin levers in the contest between two great powers. Each wants to lead in technology – and to set the rules over global supply chains.

We’ve entered a period where control of a few key inputs, tools and routes gives countries leverage. Each side is probing those “chokepoints” in the other’s supply chains for technology and materials – and using them as weapons. In the latest stand-off, Trump has floated export controls on Boeing parts to China. Chinese airlines are major Boeing customers, so any parts disruption would hit China’s aviation sector hard.

There will be no simple winner. Countries and firms are being pulled into two parallel systems: one centred on US chip expertise, the other on China’s materials power. This is not a clean break. It will be messier, costlier and less efficient, where political risk often outweighs commercial logic.

The question for Australia is not how fast it can build, but how well it balances security aims with market realities.

Marina Yue Zhang 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. ‘Extremely hostile’: Trump lashes China over trade controls but there may be a silver lining – https://theconversation.com/extremely-hostile-trump-lashes-china-over-trade-controls-but-there-may-be-a-silver-lining-267294

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Johanna Lim, Research Associate, Strategic Technologies, University of Sydney

The Australian Energy Market Operator estimates data centres will consume 6% of Australia’s grid-supplied electricity by 2030.

To put that in context, that’s more than the current share of Australia’s healthcare and social assistance industry.

This reflects the rapid growth of Australia’s data centre industry – the backbone of artificial intelligence (AI). This growth is, in part, being driven by multi-billion-dollar investments from major tech players including AWS, Microsoft, CDC and NextDC. Atlassian co-founder Scott Farquhar has even suggested Australia could become Southeast Asia’s data centre hub.

The federal government is also fertilising the data centre industry. In August, for example, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced the development of “national interest principles on data centres” as an outcome of the economic reform roundtable.

The power-hungry nature of data centres, however, poses major problems for the current energy grid in Australia. But there are three steps Australia can take to help power these facilities reliably and sustainably.

Increased volatility, increased risks

Unlike households and most industries, data centres require constant power. This adds pressure to an energy grid designed for variable consumption.

As more people use AI for more complex tasks, the workloads on data centres will intensify. This leads to increased baseload demand. But it also leads to unpredictable spikes and drops in demand which the grid was not built to manage. This volatility creates real risks.

In 2024, 60 data centres in northern Virginia suddenly disconnected from the grid due to a tripped safety mechanism. This unleashed a massive surge of excess electricity – which, were it not for network operators implementing emergency countermeasures, would have caused a massive blackout.

This near-miss highlighted the fragility of the grid when faced with sudden, large-scale data centre disconnections.

Clean energy can’t do it alone

The limitations of Australia’s current energy mix are another source of volatility.

While renewable energy is central to the clean energy transition, it alone can’t meet baseload and peak demands from data centres. The problem is twofold. First, renewables are intermittent. Second, energy storage and backup options can only be scaled to a limited degree.

This means most data centres will continue to rely on coal or gas in some form.

Most data centre operators have committed to 100% renewable energy by 2030. But in practice, this often means purchasing annual renewable credits or power purchase agreements.

These mechanisms don’t guarantee clean energy during actual operations – they simply help offset annual consumption. Meeting real-time demand with clean energy is a far more complex challenge. It requires greater investment in renewables, storage and transmission infrastructure. It also requires better coordination between energy regulators, utility companies and data centre operators.

These challenges were reflected in Australia’s new climate target – a 62–70% cut below 2005 levels by 2035. This sits below the 65-75% range initially proposed by the Climate Change Authority last year. Why the reduction? Among the cited “transition risks” is the significant growth of data centres.

Becoming a global champion

Australia has an opportunity to develop policies that synchronise data centre expansion with more efficient energy and grid management.

First, Australia should promote computing methods at scale that reduce emissions but don’t compromise capabilities.

For example, smart scheduling software can automatically shift energy-intensive tasks, such as model training, to off-peak periods when renewable energy is most abundant. This wouldn’t affect more everyday, less energy-intensive tasks, such as using ChatGPT, that require immediate responses. Companies such as Google have already adopted this approach to reduce grid strain without impacting user experience.

Alongside this, data centres should be required to inform power companies in advance of large-scale AI training runs that can cause dramatic energy spikes. Companies such as Hitachi Energy have called on governments to implement such rules to support grid management, citing other energy-intensive industries, such as smelting, where prior warning is already a common practice.

Second, Australia needs to accelerate advanced energy storage innovations, including batteries, pumped hydro and thermal energy storage. Research in many of these technologies is already underway, backed by government initiatives and private investments.

Data centre company AirTrunk, for example, is exploring different ways of implementing battery energy storage systems in its new data centres. However, more targeted financial incentives and support – such as through the Future Made in Australia and the National Reconstruction Fund – can help to bridge the gap between research and commercial scalability.

Third, Australia can require data centres to set what are known as “power usage effectiveness” – or PUE – targets to drive energy efficiency.

PUE targets are calculated by dividing the data centre’s total energy use by its IT equipment energy use. A PUE closer to 1.0 indicates greater energy efficiency.

PUE limits in China helped reduce its average PUE from 1.54 to 1.48 in just one year. Similarly, voluntary initiatives such as the European Union’s code of conduct for data centre energy efficiency, have consistently lowered the average PUE among participating facilities.

There is no shying away from the reality that data centres are energy-hungry behemoths. However, with the right planning and policies, Australia could be a global champion for data centre growth that supports, not derails, the clean energy transition.

Johanna Lim previously worked as an analyst at Mandala Partners, an economics, strategy and policy consulting firm.

– ref. Power-hungry data centres threaten Australia’s energy grid. Here are 3 steps to make them more efficient – https://theconversation.com/power-hungry-data-centres-threaten-australias-energy-grid-here-are-3-steps-to-make-them-more-efficient-266992

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Sturgiss, Professor of Community Medicine and Clinical Education, Bond University

Around one in three Australian adults (32%) has a body-mass index (BMI) of 30 or above. A further 34% has a BMI of 25 or above.

Australia’s regulator has approved Wegovy, the weight-loss version of Ozempic (semaglutide) and Mounjaro (tirzepatide) for weight management, alongside a reduced-calorie diet and exercise.

To access these medications, adults must have a BMI of 30 or above or a BMI of 27 and a weight-related condition such as high blood pressure or sleep apnoea. The drugs aren’t subsidised on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for weight loss, so users face still high out-of-pocket costs.

These drugs work by activating the GLP-1 receptor, which increases insulin secretion and improves the liver’s use of glucose. This decreases the user’s appetite, leaving them feeling fuller after eating less. In trials, these medications reduced participants’ body weight by up to 20% and improved their health outcomes and quality of life.

But while doctors and allied health providers are reducing their reliance on BMI to guide treatment decisions, eligibility for Wegovy and Mounjaro rely on it. This needs to change.

Your BMI alone doesn’t reflect your health status

A Belgian mathematician first invented BMI in the 1830s to try and quantify the “average man”.

An American physiologist and dietitian then adopted BMI in the 1970s to screen for obesity. It has since been used a tool to screen large populations for obesity.

BMI was never meant as the sole measure for a person’s health. When we use BMI with an individual patient, it can often overestimate the risk of their weight on their health. People have a lot of muscle mass, for example, may have a high BMI but low health risks.

BMI can also underestimate a peron’s weight-related health impacts, such as the risks for elderly people with low muscle mass.

Weight doesn’t tell us the whole story about a person’s risk for poor health. But because it’s easy to see a person’s physical shape, it’s often incorrectly used as a marker of healthiness.

It’s possible to improve your health by eating a more nutritious diet and getting more active, even if your weight doesn’t change.

For people who don’t move much during the day, increasing physical activity can boost your heart, lung and mental health.

The definition of obesity might also change

Obesity is most commonly diagnosed when a peson’s BMI is 30 or above.

But earlier this year, an international committee recommended changing how obesity is diagnosed. In its view, a person with a high amount of body fat that is having an impact on their health should be diagnosed as having obesity. So should those with a BMI over 40.

However, according to its recommendations, to diagnose obesity at lower BMIs, a health practitioner should assess the person’s waist circumference or directly measure their body fat, through a special set of scales that directly measures percentage body fat.

These measurements would be assessed according to different cut-offs for obesity based on age, gender and ethnicity.

On top of these body measurements, it also proposes a new diagnosis of “clinical obesity”. This would be given when there is evidence of organ dysfunction or obesity impacting every day function. This way of diagnosing obesity looks at overall health, and not just BMI.

The committee recommended weight-loss treatments, including medications, should be individualised and evidence-based.

What other indicators could clinicians use?

Obesity is complex, with each person experiencing it differently. So rather than basing weight-loss medication eligibility on BMI, clinicians should be able to consider the potential benefits (and risks) for an individual.

The Edmonton Obesity Staging System is a good example of a measure that uses BMI plus any other health conditions the person has, how the person moves and functions day to day, and psychological symptoms such as depression or low mood.

A higher stage is associated with poorer health outcomes, such as having organ damage, being unable to work, or having major depression. A moderate stage might include having high blood pressure, having some limitations on your daily activity and subsequent impacts on quality of life. This staging could help determine who would get the most benefit from weight-loss medicines.

A more comprehensive assessment of health using the Edmonton Obesity Staging System could help patients and their doctors have an informed discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of weight-management medications. For example, the medications could be targeted to people with higher stages rather than just relying on BMI.

This could mean people with lower BMIs, but more health conditions or difficulty with physical function, could decide to use medications, as they would be more likely to have health benefits.

Don’t overlook nutrition and exercise

While medications can help many users improve their health, they won’t be suitable or work for everyone. And not everyone will sustain the same level of weight loss, especially if they’re not supported with dietary changes and exercise.

Research trials of these medications have included the best nutrition, physical activity and psychological support for patients undergoing treatment. Weight-loss drugs should always be used in conjunction with these other supports to get the best health outcomes.

Whether you use weight-loss drugs or not, if you have weight-related health issues, you’re more likely to improve your physical function, your other health conditions and quality of life if you have support from a team of health professionals. This might include a dietitian, exercise physiologist, psychologist and care from a trusted GP.

Liz Sturgiss receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council, The The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) Foundation, Diabetes Australia, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. She is affiliated with the North American Primary Care Research Group, Australasian Association for Academic Primary Care, and was an appointed member of the Guidelines Development Committee for the review and update of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Overweight and Obesity in Adults, Adolescents and Children in Australia. She is a member of the Australian Prescriber Editorial Advisory Committee and Co-Editor-in-Chief of Australian Journal of Primary Health.

Kimberley Norman conducts research as part of her role as Research Fellow with Monash University. She is affiliated with the not-for-profit group The Obesity Collective, Australia’s peak body for improving obesity health related outcomes, and Weight Issues Network, an obesity consumer group in Australia. She is affiliated with the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) and was appointed the Vice-chair (and incoming Chair 2025) of the Trainee Committee for NAPCRG.

– ref. BMI shouldn’t be the only way to assess who can access weight-loss drugs – https://theconversation.com/bmi-shouldnt-be-the-only-way-to-assess-who-can-access-weight-loss-drugs-263634

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Valentina Dinica, Associate Professor in Sustainability and Public Policy, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The government’s proposed reforms of the rules governing public conservation land aim to dismantle any potential obstacle to “unleashing economic growth” in protected areas.

Currently, about a third of New Zealand’s land is under protection. This ranges from national parks (11.6%) to stewardship areas (9.4%) and conservation parks (5.7%). Twelve other designations make up the rest.

Some commercial activities are permitted – including guided walks, aircraft-based sightseeing, ski fields and animal grazing – and approved by the Department of Conservation as “concessions”.

The proposed changes to the Conservation Act include a review of land designation. The government could delist or swap up to 60% of the current area under protection.

Conservation Minister Tama Potaka said he can’t indicate which designations or locations would be delisted. Nor can he say what percentage of conservation lands would be affected – and where – because changes will be driven by demand for land.

The minister only committed to leaving untouched the designations that are difficult to change: national parks, wilderness areas, reserves and world heritage sites.

The question of whether more economic benefits can be obtained from protected areas is legitimate. New Zealand does need a radical reform of its conservation areas and legislation. There is potential for better social and economic outcomes.

But the proposal consolidates ministerial discretion to unprecedented levels and the government follows a misguided fast-track approach to permitting economic activities such as mining. This could take native biodiversity into dangerous territory.

Outdated conservation laws

New Zealand holds tight to an outdated approach known as “fortress conservation”. This limits commercial opportunities to specific areas, mostly concentrated around established facilities (roads, hotels) and the edges of designated lands. Even when regulating other activities such as energy generation or agriculture, the idea has been to “sacrifice” some spaces and keep as much land as possible “locked up”.

A key reason was that people didn’t know enough about the ecological values of the land. As a proxy, lawmakers relied on the subjective concepts of wilderness values and intrinsic values to justify strict protections over most lands.

Insufficient scientific input meant authorities have relied on “ecologically blind” zoning frameworks, such as a planning tool known as the recreation opportunity spectrum. This divides lands according to recreational opportunities and visitor needs.

But there is a better path forward – one that allows public decision making and honours international commitments, while achieving better ecological and economic benefits.

Towards regulations informed by science

This alternative approach is grounded in three key principles.

First, it uses gap analysis to identify which ecosystems and species are underprotected.

Second, it relies on regulations shaped by ecological knowledge and conservation priorities.

Third, it applies the principles of proportionality and precaution, meaning that regulatory responses should match the severity, reversibility and likelihood of environmental harm. Currently, New Zealand’s regulatory framework does not reflect this.

New Zealand has signed the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. This means at least 30% of conservation lands must be representative of most, if not all, native ecosystems by 2030.

At present, coastal, lowland and dryland ecosystems are under-represented. In contrast, alpine and montane environments, are represented way above the recommended threshold (20% of the remaining cover for that ecosystem).

If up to 60% of conservation lands were to be swapped or delisted without prioritising representativeness, vulnerability and rarity, the ecological losses may be immense and irreversible.

Rethinking protection categories

My research develops a broader reform approach. It also reflects growing international consensus on the need for science-informed conservation planning.

I argue New Zealand should set up region-specific and nationwide fora, such as citizen assemblies or consensus conferences. Conversations should focus on specific topics, informed by scientists and iwi.

Vulnerable or under-represented ecosystems currently require stronger protection. Deliberations should indicate which activities should be limited or excluded to better protect such areas.

We must also consider vulnerability to climate change. Scientists expect that ecosystems may migrate outside protected areas.

Consensus should be built around what qualifies as a “significantly over-represented” native ecosystem. Where ecosystems are already well protected and resilient, the public should discuss whether re-designation, land exchanges or even disposals may be appropriate.

If lands are retained, consensus should be sought on the economic uses that can maintain ecological health. If the public doesn’t support land delisting or swaps, alternative strategies must be developed to improve ecological representativeness. Sustainable funding mechanisms should also be identified to support these efforts.

The Department of Conservation should work with independent scientists and iwi to develop a new zoning framework to guide commercial concessions and recreational access. This framework should capture the principles highlighted above.

When applied to each area, it should also enable the mapping of the ecological values feasible to protect. This would help select bespoke regulatory options. In turn, it would balance biodiversity and economic outcomes for each context.

Guidance for these steps should be incorporated in a new national strategy, aligned with domestic goals such as the biodiversity strategy and international commitments.

New Zealand has the expertise for smart reforms. New Zealanders have the passion for nature and patience required to engage in deliberations. But will politicians have the wisdom to avoid a totally unnecessary mutilation of conservation lands, for undefined biodiversity gains?

Valentina Dinica 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. Reform of NZ’s protected lands is overdue – but the public should decide about economic activities – https://theconversation.com/reform-of-nzs-protected-lands-is-overdue-but-the-public-should-decide-about-economic-activities-267105

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, Deputy Director, Engagement and Impact, The ARC Centre of Excellence for the Weather of the 21st Century, Australian National University

Global warming from Woodside’s massive Scarborough gas project off Western Australia would lead to 484 additional heat-related deaths in Europe alone this century, and kill about 16 million additional corals on the Great Barrier Reef during each future mass bleaching event, our new research has revealed.

The findings were made possible by a robust, well-established formula that can determine the extent to which an individual fossil fuel project will warm the planet. The results can be used to calculate the subsequent harms to society and nature.

The results close a fundamental gap between science and decision-making about fossil fuel projects. They also challenge claims by proponents that climate risks posed by a fossil fuel project are negligible or cannot be quantified.

Each new investment in coal and gas, such as the Scarborough project, can now be linked to harmful effects both today and in the future. It means decision-makers can properly assess the range of risks a project poses to humanity and the planet, before deciding if it should proceed.

Every tonne of CO₂ matters

Scientists know every tonne of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions makes global warming worse.

But proponents of new fossil fuel projects in Australia routinely say their future greenhouse gas emissions are negligible compared to the scale of global emissions, or say the effects of these emissions on global warming can’t be measured.

The Scarborough project is approved for development and is expected to produce gas from next year. Located off WA, it includes wells connected by a 430km pipeline to an onshore processing facility. The gas will be liquefied and burned for energy, both in Australia and overseas. Production is expected to last more than 30 years. When natural gas is burned, more than 99% of it converts to CO₂.

Woodside – in its own evaluation of the Scarborough gas project – claimed:

it is not possible to link GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from Scarborough with climate change or any particular climate-related impacts given the estimated […] emissions associated with Scarborough are negligible in the context of existing and future predicted global GHG concentrations.

But what if there was a way to measure the harms? That’s the question our research set out to answer.

A method already exists to directly link global emissions to the climate warming they cause. It uses scientific understanding of Earth’s systems, direct observations and climate model simulations.

According to the IPCC, every 1,000 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions causes about 0.45°C of additional global warming. This arithmetic forms the basis for calculating how much more CO₂ humanity can emit to keep warming within the Paris Agreement goals.

But decisions about future emissions are not made at the global scale. Instead, Earth’s climate trajectory will be determined by the aggregation of decisions on many individual projects.

That’s why our research extended the IPCC method to the level of individual projects – an approach that we illustrate using the Scarborough gas project.

Scarborough’s harms laid bare

Over its lifetime, the Scarborough project is expected to emit 876 million tonnes of CO₂.

We estimate these emissions will cause 0.00039°C of additional global warming. Estimates such as these are typically expressed as a range, alongside a measure of confidence in the projection. In this case, there is a 66–100% likelihood that the Scarborough project will cause additional global warming of between 0.00024°C and 0.00055°C.

This additional warming might seem small – but it will cause tangible damage.

The human cost of global warming can be quantified by considering how many people will be left outside the “human climate niche” – in other words, the climate conditions in which societies have historically thrived.

We calculated that the additional warming from the Scarborough project will expose 516,000 people globally to a local climate that’s beyond the hot extreme of the human climate niche. We drilled down into specific impacts in Europe, where suitable health data was available across 854 cities. Our best estimate is that this project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century.

And what about harm to nature? Using research into how accumulated exposure to heat affects coral reefs, we found about 16 million corals on the Great Barrier Reef would be lost in each new mass bleaching. The existential threat to the Great Barrier Reef from human-caused global warming is already being realised. Additional warming instigated by new fossil fuel projects will ratchet up pressure on this natural wonder.

As climate change worsens, countries are seeking to slash emissions to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement. So, we looked at the impact of Scarborough’s emissions on Australia’s climate targets.

We calculated that by 2049, the anticipated emissions from the Scarborough project alone – from production, processing and domestic use – will comprise 49% of Australia’s entire annual CO₂ emissions budget under our commitment to net-zero by 2050.

Beyond the 2050 deadline, all emissions from the Scarborough project would require technologies to permanently remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Achieving that would require a massive scale-up of current technologies. It would be more prudent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions where possible.

‘Negligible’ impacts? Hardly

Our findings mean the best-available scientific evidence can now be used by companies, governments and regulators when deciding if a fossil fuel project will proceed.

Crucially, it is no longer defensible for companies proposing new or extended fossil fuel projects to claim the climate harms will be negligible. Our research shows the harms are, in fact, tangible and quantifiable – and no project is too small to matter.

In response to issues raised in this article, a spokesperson for Woodside said:

Woodside is committed to playing a role in the energy transition. The Scarborough reservoir contains less than 0.1% carbon dioxide. Combined with processing design efficiencies at the offshore floating production unit and onshore Pluto Train 2, the project is expected to be one of the lowest carbon intensity sources of LNG delivered into north Asian markets.

We will reduce the Scarborough Energy Project’s direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations. Further information on how this is being achieved is included in the Scarborough Offshore Project Proposal, sections 4.5.4.1 and 7.1.3 and in approved Australian Government environment plans, available on the regulator’s website.

A report prepared by consultancy ACIL Allen has found that Woodside’s Scarborough Energy Project is expected to generate an estimated A$52.8 billion in taxation and royalty payments, boost GDP by billions of dollars between 2024 and 2056 and employ 3,200 people during peak construction in Western Australia.

Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Andrew King receives funding from the Australian Research Council (Future Fellowship and Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather) and the National Environmental Science Program.

Nicola Maher receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia

– ref. For the first time, we linked a new fossil fuel project to hundreds of deaths. Here’s the impact of Woodside’s Scarborough gas project – https://theconversation.com/for-the-first-time-we-linked-a-new-fossil-fuel-project-to-hundreds-of-deaths-heres-the-impact-of-woodsides-scarborough-gas-project-266060

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Edwell, Associate Professor in Ancient History, Macquarie University

With both parties agreeing to terms, the first stages of a peace plan in Gaza are in motion. US President Donald Trump is credited (especially in Israel and the US) with having played a vital role in this development.

But why have banners appeared in Israel depicting Trump with the caption “Cyrus the Great is alive”?

Who was Cyrus and what is he renowned for?

Founder of the Achaemenid Persian empire

Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Achaemenid Persian empire (550 BCE to 330 BCE).

Under Cyrus and his successors, the Persian empire stretched across a vast array of territories, including Iran, Mesopotamia (which includes parts of modern-day Turkey, Syria and Iraq), Egypt, Asia Minor (which is mostly modern-day Turkey) and Central Asia.

A key moment in this imperial expansion was Cyrus’ capture of Babylon and its surrounding territory (Babylonia) (mostly in modern-day Iraq) in 539 BCE.

The Babylonian king, Nabonidus, controlled large sections of Mesopotamia and northern Arabia. A surviving clay tablet called the Nabonidus chronicle outlines the alienation of his subjects. Unpopular religious reforms and his long absences from Babylon were among the grievances.

Soon after he defeated Nabonidus, Cyrus issued a decree freeing captive Jews (and others) in Babylon.

A comparatively humane approach to governing

Nebuchadnezzar II, king of the Babylonian empire from 605–562 BCE, had captured the kingdom of Judah (in modern-day Israel and Palestinian territories) in 587 BCE.

Due to rebellions, he ransacked Jerusalem and deported thousands of Jews to Babylon.

When Cyrus freed the Babylonian Jewish exiles almost 50 year later, many returned to Judah.

The biblical book of Ezra records the decree.

Cyrus, according to this version of the story, had been commanded by God to rebuild a temple at Jerusalem that Nebuchadnezzar II had destroyed. The decree released the Jewish exiles from Babylon to return to Jerusalem and rebuild it.

In the Old Testament book of Isaiah, Cyrus was chosen by God to free the Jews of Babylon.

For this reason, Cyrus became (and remains) a legendary figure in Jewish history, though he was not Jewish himself. He was more likely a devotee of Zoroastrianism, which was fervently embraced by his successors, including Darius I (who ruled 522-486 BCE).

An ancient clay tablet from Babylon suggests Cyrus’ occupation of Babylon was peaceful. It confirms the return of exiles, but not specifically Jewish ones. Known today as the “Cyrus cylinder”, it is sometimes referred to as an ancient declaration of human rights. A replica of the tablet is on permanent display at the UN headquarters in New York.

Cyrus was remembered in antiquity for what, at the time, was a comparatively humane approach to governing.

The Greek writer Xenophon, who wrote the Cyropedia (The Education of Cyrus) in about 370 BCE, noted that:

subjects he cared for and cherished as a father might care for his children, and they who came beneath his rule reverenced him like a father.

The benevolent and altruistic reputation of Cyrus was developed in his own reign and later. As one of history’s “winners”, Cyrus would be well-pleased with the propaganda that has continued to develop about his reign.

Conquest and wealth

Cyrus was, of course, a great warrior and strategist. One of his most famous conquests was the kingdom of Lydia (modern southwest Turkey) in about 546 BCE. Its king, Croesus, was known for his incredible wealth.

Cyrus initially ordered Croesus to be burned alive. But when the god Apollo sent a rain storm, Croesus was spared, according to the 5th century BCE Greek historian Herodotus. He then became a trusted advisor of Cyrus, adding to the Persian king’s reputation for benevolence.

Cyrus was also known for large-scale construction projects. The most famous was the palace complex at his capital, Pasargadae (modern southern Iran).

The palace and other buildings were set in the midst of magnificent paradise gardens.

Today, the most intact building at Pasargadae is the tomb of Cyrus. It has become a powerful symbol of Iranian and Persian nationalism. The legacy of Cyrus is still significant in Iran today.

So, the banners comparing Trump to Cyrus appear to be drawing on the story of Cyrus’ role in freeing Jewish captives. In this framing, Gaza is cast as Babylon and Trump as the new Cyrus.

One wonders what Cyrus the Great would think of the comparison.

Peter Edwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Israelis are hailing Trump as Cyrus returned – but who was Cyrus the Great, anyway? – https://theconversation.com/israelis-are-hailing-trump-as-cyrus-returned-but-who-was-cyrus-the-great-anyway-267312

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

The Albanese government has finally announced a major retreat on its proposed controversial superannuation changes.

The plan to tax unrealised capital gains has been dumped altogether, and the proposed new $3 million threshold will be indexed, as well as a $10 million threshold that is being added.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (currently on a week’s holiday) drove the retreat, which was announced by Treasurer Jim Chalmers. Earlier on Monday the cabinet ticked off on the revamp of the original plan.

Chalmers said he had been working on alterations to his earlier plan for some time. He denied he had been “rolled” by the prime minister. “Of course not,” he said.

“The prime minister and I have had discussions over recent months about finding another way to satisfy the same objectives, and that’s what’s happened here,” he said.

Albanese’s caution on the original superannuation changes is being interpreted as a warning Chalmers will have difficulty getting the prime minister to agree to any ambitious tax reform he might hope to make.

The government took the original plan to tax at 30% the earnings on balances of more than $3 million to the election. That plan also included a move to tax unrealised capital gains. Critics pointed out that taxing unrealised gains would hit those with non-liquid assets such as farms in their superannuation. The failure to index the threshold would draw an increasing proportion of people into the new tax net.

The proposals have been under attack for months, including from former treasurer and prime minister Paul Keating who directly lobbied Albanese.

Keating said in a statement after the announcement, “these decisions solidify superannuation tax arrangements in a manner the community can now rely upon for the long-term security of their retirement savings and with it, their peace of mind”.

Keating went out of his way to give credit to Chalmers for the work.

Under the rejigged plan the government has added another threshold, of $10 million, to its original plan. On earnings on balances between $3 million and $10 million, the tax rate will be 30%. On earning on balances over $10 million the rate will be 40%.

At present the tax on superannuation earnings is 15%.

Chalmers said the changes were practical and pragmatic and satisfied the same objective and the original proposal.

He said there would be commensurate treatment of defined benefit interests.

The changes would extend the existing exemptions for some judges to improve consistency across jurisdictions.

The government is also increasing the low-income superannuation tax offset (the LISTO) by $310 to $810 and raising the eligibility threshold from from $37,000 to $45,000 from July 2027. This will cost $435 million over the forward estimates. The LISTO is a boost provided by the government for the superannuation of low income earners.

The start of the new plan, which had been due to begin from July 1 this year, has been delayed until July 1 next year.

The net impact on the budget of the rework is about $4.2 billion over the forward estimates, much of which is due to the one year delay in implementation.

In the first full year of operation, 2028-29, the package will bring a budget saving of about $1.6 billion in net terms, including the cost of increasing the LISTO.

Chalmers said the legislation would be introduced as soon as possible in 2026.

The treasurer spoke with the Greens – whose support the government expects to need to pass the legislation – on Monday. Later the Greens said in a statement they would look at the detail of the changes but were concerned that “the government has further weakened what should be a tax to ensure the super wealthy top 0.5% pay their fair share of tax”.

Shadow treasurer Ted O’Brien said the opposition had fought the original unfair plan all the way and this was “a victory for a coalition of common sense”.

“The treasurer has been chewed up and his tax plan has been chucked out.”

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. Jim Chalmers unveils major retreat on controversial superannuation changes – https://theconversation.com/jim-chalmers-unveils-major-retreat-on-controversial-superannuation-changes-267220

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lester Munson, Non-Resident Fellow, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

US President Donald Trump will visit Israel and Egypt this week to oversee the initial implementation of his Gaza peace agreement, which many hope will permanently end the two-year war in the strip.

Should the peace hold, the Gaza accord will be Trump’s greatest foreign policy achievement, even surpassing the Abraham Accords of his first term that normalised relations between Israel and several Arab countries.

Given the speed with which the Trump administration has helped to negotiate the ceasefire, it is an opportune moment to assess Trump’s frenetic foreign policy at the start of his second presidential term.

The “Trump Doctrine” – the unconventional, high-energy and fast-moving approach to world affairs now pursued by the United States – has had some significant achievements, most notably in Gaza. But are these breakthroughs sustainable, and can his foreign policy approach be effective with larger geostrategic challenges?

A leaner decision-making structure

One way the Trump administration’s approach is different from previous administrations – including Trump 1.0 – is in his leaner organisation, which is more capable of implementing quick action.

Trump has revamped the national security decision-making structure in surprising ways. His secretary of state, Marco Rubio, now serves concurrently as his national security adviser. Rubio has also reduced the staff of the National Security Council from around 350 to about 150, which is still larger than many of Trump’s predecessors before Barack Obama.

There have been some missteps. Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Waltz, tried to accommodate his need for speedy decision-making by establishing group chats on the Signal app for the small group of agency heads and senior advisers who advise Trump. This rightfully caused concerns about the security of classified information – especially after Waltz mistakenly added a journalist to a chat group – and he was subsequently ousted.

With a much smaller staff now, Rubio is implementing a more sustainable method for the president to communicate with his top advisers, mostly through Rubio himself and Trump’s powerful chief of staff, Susie Wiles.

Rubio has also led a top-down revamp of the bureaucratic foreign policy structures. Dozens of offices were eliminated, and hundreds of career professionals were laid off. Numerous political appointments, including ambassadorships, remain unfilled.

Many bureaus are now headed not by Senate-confirmed assistant secretaries, but by career foreign and civil service “senior bureau officials”. This keeps the number of politically appointed policymakers rather small – mostly in Rubio’s direct orbit – while keeping professional “implementers” in key positions to execute policy.

A reliance on special envoys

To set the stage for his own deal-making, Trump also uses his longtime friend and multipurpose envoy, Steve Witkoff, for the highest-level conversations. Without any Senate confirmation, Witkoff has become Trump’s most trusted voice in Ukraine, Gaza and several other foreign policy negotiations.

Massad Boulos, another unconfirmed Trump envoy, conducts second-tier negotiations, mostly in Africa but also parts of the Middle East.

Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, played a key role in the recent Gaza accord as well. This has raised questions of conflicts of interest. However, Trump’s emphasis on deal-oriented businessmen in diplomatic roles is intentional.

The approach appears to be very welcome in some quarters, particularly in the Middle East, where conventional diplomacy was fraught with much historical baggage.

A ‘shock and awe’ approach

On top of all this, of course, is Trump’s style and showmanship.

His most controversial statements – for example, demanding US ownership of Greenland – may seem absurd and offensive at first. However, there are genuine national security concerns over China’s role in the Arctic and the possibility an independent Greenland might serve as a wedge in a critical region. From this standpoint, establishing some US control over Greenland’s foreign policy is an entirely rational proposition.

What is unique to Trump is the pace, breadth and intensity of his personal diplomacy.

Trump’s relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a case in point. While Trump embraces Netanyahu in public and green-lights all of Israel’s military actions, he’s willing to say no to the Israeli leader in private. For example, Trump intervened to prevent Israel from annexing the West Bank immediately before the Gaza breakthrough.

In addition, Trump’s personal charm offensive with Arab leaders in the region – his first major foreign trip after Pope Francis’ funeral was to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – established a coalition to pressure Hamas to say yes to the deal.

It is a “shock and awe” diplomatic approach: everything, everywhere, all at once. Previous agreements and norms (including those set by Trump himself) are downplayed or discarded in favour of action in the moment.

Is there a longer-term vision?

Of course, there are downsides to the Trump approach. The past cannot be ignored, especially in the Middle East. And many previous agreements and norms were there for a reason – they worked, and they helped stabilise otherwise chaotic situations.
It very much remains to be seen whether Trump’s approach can lead to a long-term solution in Gaza. Many critics have pointed out the vagueness in his 20-point peace plan, which could cause it to fall apart at any moment.

It is not unusual for a second-term American president like Trump to focus on foreign policy, where Congress has a highly limited role and the president has wide latitude. But American presidents usually focus on achieving one big thing. Think Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran or George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq.

Today, in addition to the Gaza accord, Trump is pursuing separate diplomatic deals with all four major American adversaries: China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

The logic of this is to put direct stress on the alliance of bad actors. Does Chinese leader Xi Jinping trust Russian President Vladimir Putin enough to resist Trump’s entreaties, and vice versa? How much are Russia and China worried about North Korean leader Kim Jong Un cutting a deal with Washington?

The true test of the Trump Doctrine will not be the success of the Gaza accord, but whether he can build on it to drive the West’s adversaries – mainly China and Russia – apart from each other and into weaker strategic positions.

Lester Munson receives funding from the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. He is affiliated with BGR Group, a Washington DC governmental affairs firm and was previously Republican staff in the US Congress and in the George W. Bush administration.

– ref. Trump’s ‘shock and awe’ foreign policy achieved a breakthrough in Gaza – but is it sustainable? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-shock-and-awe-foreign-policy-achieved-a-breakthrough-in-gaza-but-is-it-sustainable-267316

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dileep Sharma, Professor and Head of Discipline – Oral Health, University of Newcastle

Do your gums look red and often bleed when you brush them, but they’re not painful? If so, you could have the gum disease gingivitis.

Gingivitis is one of the most common inflammatory oral diseases. It affects an estimated 50–100% of adults and children at some point in their lives.

Luckily, gingivitis can be treated if caught in time. However, if left untreated, it can lead to more severe disease that could mean losing your teeth.

Here are some tell-tale signs of gingivitis and how you can work with a dental professional to treat it.

What does gingivitis look like?

The term gingivitis tells us what to expect. It’s when the gums (the gingiva) are inflamed (-itis). It’s essentially the body’s immune response to microbes in the sticky biofilm or plaque on the tooth surface.

You might notice subtle redness of the gums, close to where they meet the teeth, or of the part of the gums between the teeth. You might notice mild-to-moderate swelling of the gums. Or your gums might bleed when you brush or floss.

It can affect the gums close to a few or multiple teeth. Sometimes, it can lead to bad breath (halitosis).

Gingivitis generally develops over time. And you’ll see the most common form starting to develop if you haven’t brushed your teeth well (and have not removed the plaque) for a few days. Gingivitis is painless to start with.

But if it’s not treated it may lead to a more severe form of disease called periodontitis. This is when you also lose some of the bone that holds teeth in place. If periodontitis is left untreated, your teeth loosen and may fall out.

How did I get it?

Several factors increase the chances and severity of gingivitis, beyond poor oral hygiene.

For instance, changes in sex hormones during puberty, the menstrual cycle, pregnancy and oral contraceptive use can increase the severity of gingivitis. This is due to increased blood flow or a change in plaque’s microbial composition.

Other conditions that can worsen gingivitis include diabetes, leukaemia, if you don’t produce much saliva, and certain medications.

An infectious disease could also be behind gingivitis. Bacterial infections (such as streptococcal disease, syphilis and tuberculosis); viral infections (herpes, human papillomavirus, hand-foot-and-mouth disease); and fungal infections (candida thrush) can all involve gingivitis. But unlike the more common type, gingivitis related to infectious disease can also come with fever and enlarged lymph nodes.

A new growth – whether benign (non-cancerous), precancerous (could develop into cancer) or cancer – can present as localised lesions with inflamed gums.

Finally, gingivitis can be traumatic. That is, if you brush your teeth too hard, use cocaine or other drugs, or burn your mouth while eating or drinking hot food and drink, you might see acute inflammation of the gums.

Can I manage it at home?

Only to a limited extent. If you get in at the early stage (one to three days of symptoms), brushing your teeth well will help remove plaque, and so some of the microbes that cause the inflammation.

But if you leave it any longer and the plaque begins to calcify, a dentist or a dental hygienist will need to remove these hardened, rough, surface deposits known as calculus.

They use tools called ultrasonic scalers or manual scalers to remove the calculus and overlying plaque. After this treatment, signs of gingivitis usually resolve.

However, if there are underlying health issues that contribute to gingivitis, they will need to be addressed to see any improvement.

For instance, this could be treating an infection before, during or after scaling. You might also be prescribed a special mouthwash to help healing or relieve symptoms.

If you have a growth, or are diagnosed with periodontitis, you’ll be referred for specialist treatment.

Can mouthwash help?

Mouthwash often helps reduce the bacterial load in plaque. But you can’t rely on it as your only treatment. It is, however, often recommended after your gingivitis has been treated professionally, during the healing phase.

Your dental health professional may recommend chlorhexidine mouthwash twice daily for up to two weeks. You can buy this in the supermarket or pharmacy.

But using mouthwash long term to manage gingivitis (or for other reasons) is not advised. Prolonged use of chlorhexidine mouthwash can lead to side effects such as staining of the teeth and an altered sense of taste.

Some mouthwash also contains a small percentage of alcohol, which might not be the best option for people with a dry mouth as alcohol can be dehydrating. You might also want to avoid these in children, who might not like the burning sensation. There are alcohol-free versions, which are just as effective.

How do I prevent gingivitis returning?

You can prevent gingivitis, and most oral diseases, by brushing your teeth well twice a day and flossing once a day.

Regular dental check-ups also give dental professionals a perfect opportunity to detect and manage most gingivitis (and tooth decay) before it progresses.

Dileep Sharma receives funding from the Dental Council of NSW, International Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research, Australian government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, International College of Dentists and Tropical Australian Academic Health Centre for his dental research projects. He is affiliated with The International Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research and Australian Dental Association.

– ref. What is gingivitis? How do I know if I have it? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-gingivitis-how-do-i-know-if-i-have-it-264335

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

The federal government’s announcement of a A$600 million rescue package for Glencore’s copper smelting and refining operations in Mount Isa and Townsville marks a definitive shift in Australia’s industry policy.

The announcement follows the $2.4 billion rescue of the Whyalla steelworks, and a smaller assistance package for metals smelter Nyrstar.

At the time it was announced, the Whyalla rescue could be seen as a one-off special case. The steelworks’ owner, Sanjeev Gupta, had run into financial difficulties associated with the collapse of its major financier, Greensill Capital. The rescue plan included support for a transition from unsustainable blast furnace technology to “green steel”, though this remains problematic.

By contrast, Swiss giant Glencore is a highly profitable corporation that has made a business decision to close its copper operations. The bailout will keep those operations going for three years, after which the same issue will likely re-emerge.

In combination with the Nyrstar bailout, we now see an expectation that federal and state governments will undertake such rescues regularly, on a 50-50 cost-sharing basis.

A final break with neoliberalism

This shift marks a final break with the policy framework (variously called “neoliberalism” or “economic rationalism”) under which intervention of this kind was seen as an undesirable “distortion” of the market, to be undertaken only in emergencies, if at all. The underlying assumption was that market signals would yield the most efficient allocation of resources.

This shift is not occurring in isolation. Neoliberal ideas have been in retreat since the global financial crisis of 2008.

China has presented its own, state-led model as a superior alternative, and has sought to use control of “critical minerals” as an instrument of geopolitical strategy. Its plan last week to tighten export controls on critical minerals sparked an angry response from US President Donald Trump, who threatened to impose 100% tariffs on China in retaliation.

The US has been backing away from free-trade ideas since the election of the first Trump administration in 2016, and has now abandoned them altogether.

More questions than answers

But it is one thing to abandon the dogmas of neoliberalism. It is quite another to develop a coherent alternative.

A framework that includes bailouts of mineral processing operations as a routine policy tool raises some major questions.

• What are the criteria for such a bailout?
• What, if anything, should the public receive in return?
• What (presumably) unintended consequences arise if failing operations receive assistance, while their competitors do not?

In the light of recent policy discussions, it might seem sensible to focus on minerals deemed “critical” in the context of digital technology and the clean energy transition. Australia maintains a list of these minerals.

However, the recent rescues have been for minerals (iron, lead, zinc and copper) not on this list, although both zinc and copper are classed as as “strategic”.

Looking at evidence from the United States, United Kingdom and European Union, as well as Australia, is unhelpful, as it expands the list of minerals considered “critical” in at least one major jurisdiction to well over 50 elements. Only a handful of naturally occurring metals (including silver, cadmium, gold, mercury and technetium) fail to make at least one of these lists.

Tough choices need to be made

If we are to have a policy based on strategic support of mineral smelting, we will need a much more stringent test, and some hard choices as to which minerals really matter.

In particular, do the aluminium smelters established with substantial government support in the 1980s merit a renewed round in the face of sustained oversupply? Or should we let the US industry, now protected by high tariffs, take the burden of challenging China’s dominance?

Mining giant Rio Tinto is currently in talks with the federal and New South Wales governments to avert the shutdown of the nation’s largest aluminium smelter in the Hunter region. There is also concern the accelerated retirement of the Gladstone power station may imperil Rio Tinto’s Boyne smelter.

The provision of assistance to highly profitable companies such as Glencore and Rio Tinto raises further questions. For example, should such assistance require a return to the public, such as the government taking an equity stake in the company concerned?

Alternatively, we might consider that assistance for mineral processing only makes sense if the minerals in question will one day be more scarce and costly than they are now.

Should we set an advance requirement for a higher return to the public in periods of high prices, as Queensland has done with coal?

Finally, should strategic efforts of this kind be coordinated with allies, and if so, which allies? In the past, it would have been natural to line up with the US against the possibility of trade coercion from China. But now, at least in trade policy, the US is more adversary than ally.

We need to explore regional partnerships with friendly neighbours such as Indonesia and (slightly further afield) South Africa.

Like it or not, the days of free-market trade policy and a rules-based international order are over. If we are not to stumble on with ad hoc bailouts, Australia needs a new strategic vision.

John Quiggin 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. If government bailouts of companies are the new normal, we need a better strategic vision – https://theconversation.com/if-government-bailouts-of-companies-are-the-new-normal-we-need-a-better-strategic-vision-267111

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tara Djokic, Scientific Officer, Palaeontology, Australian Museum; UNSW Sydney

Hidden beneath farmland in the central tablelands of New South Wales lies one of Australia’s most extraordinary fossil sites – McGraths Flat. It dates back between 11 million and 16 million years into the Miocene epoch, a time when many of today’s familiar plants and animals evolved.

It is here that palaentologists and geologists from the Australian Museum Research Institute have made remarkable fossil discoveries. Where dust and drought now dominate, a lush rainforest once flourished. In stunning ecological detail, fossils at McGraths Flat reveal this ancient ecosystem.

Strikingly red in appearance, the sedimentary rocks here are composed entirely of goethite – a fine-grained mineral that contains iron. This iron has preserved a range of plants, insects, spiders, fish and feathers with exceptional detail.

Our new study, published in the journal Gondwana Research, shows there’s another reason these rocks are so intriguing. They fundamentally challenge ideas about where well-preserved fossil sites on Earth can be found, and why.

Beyond shale and sandstone

Traditionally, the most exceptionally well-preserved fossil sites are from rocks dominated by shale, sandstone, limestone, or volcanic ash.

Consider Germany’s Messel Pit or Canada’s Burgess Shale. At these sites, organisms were rapidly buried in fine-grained sediments, allowing the exceptional preservation of soft tissues, not just hard parts.

Messel Pit has preserved roughly 47 million-year-old fossils showing the outlines of feathers, fur and skin. Meanwhile, the Burgess Shale contains soft tissues from some of Earth’s earliest animal life, dating back about 500 million years.

By contrast, sedimentary rocks made entirely of iron are the last place you’d expect to find well-preserved remains of land-based (terrestrial) animal and plant life.

That’s because iron-rich sedimentary rocks are predominantly known from banded iron formations. These massive iron deposits largely formed around 2.5 billion years ago in Earth’s ancient oxygen-depleted oceans, long before complex animal and plant life evolved.

In more recent history, iron is considered a mere weathering product, forming rust on the continents when exposed to our oxygen-rich atmosphere. Just look at Australia’s iconic red-rocked outback landscape that preserves these million- to billion-year-old features.

Yet the discovery of McGraths Flat has defied these expectations.

Terrestrial life entombed in iron

McGraths Flat is made from a very fine-grained, iron-rich rock called ferricrete. It’s essentially a cement made from iron.

The ferricrete consists almost entirely of microscopic iron-oxyhydroxide mineral particles, each just 0.005 millimetres across. When an animal died and was buried in the sediment, this minute scale is what allowed the iron particles to fill every cell. The result? Extraordinarily well-preserved soft tissue fossils.

Compared with marine life, fossil sites preserving terrestrial life are notoriously rare. Terrestrial sites that preserve soft tissues? Even rarer. The exceptional detail captured in the McGraths Flat fossils reveals new snapshots of past life we don’t often get to find.

These fossils are so perfectly preserved that individual pigment cells in fish eyes, internal organs of insects and fish, and even delicate spider hairs and nerve cells can be seen.

This level of preservation rivals other well-preserved fossil sites, such as those consisting of shale or sandstone. Except here, they are entombed in iron.

How did McGraths Flat form?

Our new study sheds light on how this fossil site came to be – a crucial step for finding similar terrestrial fossil troves in iron.

McGraths Flat began forming during the Miocene when iron leached from weathering basalt under warm, wet rainforest conditions.

Acidic groundwater then carried the dissolved iron underground until it reached a river system with an oxbow lake – an abandoned river channel. There, the iron became ultra-fine iron-oxyhydroxide sediment.

It rapidly coated dead organisms on the lake floor and replicated their soft tissue structures down to the cellular level.

A new fossil roadmap

Understanding how McGraths Flat formed could provide a roadmap for finding similar iron-rich fossil sites worldwide.

Key features to look for include very fine-grained and finely layered ferricrete in areas where:

• ancient river channels cut through older iron-rich landscapes, such as basaltic rocks from volcanoes

• ancient warm, humid conditions once promoted intense weathering, and

• the surrounding geology lacks significant limestone or sulphur-containing minerals (such as pyrite), because these could interfere with the formation of the iron-oxyhydroxide mineral sediments.

The red rocks of McGraths Flat open an entirely new chapter in our understanding of how exceptionally well-preserved fossil sites can form.

The next breakthrough in understanding ancient terrestrial life might not come from traditional shale or sandstone fossil beds, but from rusty-red rocks hidden beneath our feet.

The study’s authors acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land and waterways on which McGraths Flat is located, the Wiradjuri Nation people.

Tara Djokic and co-authors received funding for this research from the Etheridge family descendants; Australian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum Trust; and Australian Research Council (ARC). We acknowledge the scientific and technical assistance of Microscopy Australia, especially from the Centre for Advanced Microscopy, ANU (jointly funded by the ANU and the Australian Federal Government).
Tara is affiliated with the not-for-profit organisation Women in Earth and Environmental Sciences Australasia (WOMEESA).

– ref. Unusual red rocks in Australia are rewriting the rules on exceptional fossil sites – https://theconversation.com/unusual-red-rocks-in-australia-are-rewriting-the-rules-on-exceptional-fossil-sites-266904

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt McDonald, Professor of International Relations, The University of Queensland

In his rambling speech to the United Nations last month, United States President Donald Trump described climate change as “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”.

Of course, this claim was unfounded, ignoring the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is occurring.

It was also unlikely to convince gathered dignitaries, who appeared bemused by a speech better suited to a campaign rally than a presidential address to world leaders.

But coming on the eve of the crucial global COP30 climate talks in Brazil, the speech does raise the question: what does the second Trump administration mean mean for international climate action?

Trump digs coal

Beyond enabling climate denialists and disinformation peddlers, Trump has ultimately delivered on his campaign promise to aggressively support the US fossil fuel sector. In his words: “drill, baby, drill”. Or, more recently: “mine, baby, mine”.

Soon after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, the legally binding UN treaty aimed at limiting global temperature rise well below 2°C degrees over pre-industrial levels.

Last month, Trump announced a plan to open up 13 million acres of federal land for coal mining, and offered hundreds of millions in federal subsidies for coal projects.

He has ordered the removal of climate data from government sites and all but eliminated direct government funding for climate science research and monitoring.

And he has gutted the Inflation Reduction Act, the signature climate initiative of the Biden administration that was designed to stimulate large-scale investment in renewable energy.

All told, Trump’s initiatives are likely to mean an additional 7 billion tonnes of emissions will be created compared to a scenario where the US met its Paris commitments.

This is bad news. But what implications will it have for international climate cooperation?

Dark clouds on the climate horizon

Clearly, 7 billion tonnes of additional emissions is a problem. By some accounts, this represents around one fifth of the global carbon budget if we are to keep to the Paris target of under 2°C.

And when the world’s most powerful state, largest economy and second-largest greenhouse gas emitter walks away from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), it does not bode well for international climate action.

Of course this raises the question of how the Brazilian climate talks organisers can motivate states to adopt strong emissions targets when wealthy, high-emitting countries walk away. There is a real risk the US position takes the pressure off other high-emitting countries, such as the Gulf States and Russia, who are disproportionately responsible for the problem.

Finally, climate finance – financial resources used to support action on climate change – looms once again as a crucial issue at climate negotiations. Securing sufficient funding will be far more complicated given Trump’s “America First” platform, which prioritises foreign and domestic policies serving US interests.

Despite this, there are still grounds to be optimistic.

Leadership without the US

A first point in the case for cautious optimism is that global emissions have potentially peaked and are on the verge of decline for the first time since the Industrial Revolution.

This has been driven by unprecedented global investment in renewable energy. The energy market is changing rapidly despite aggressive US subsidies for the fossil fuel sector. Global energy investment is likely to top A$1.5 trillion in 2025. Meanwhile, coal, oil and natural gas will see the first decline in global investment since the COVID pandemic.

There are also signs other countries, like China, view the US position as an opportunity. Last month Beijing outlined a target for emissions reduction (7–10% by 2035) for the first time in its history. Even though China is still adding to its fleet of coal-fired power stations, it is also adding more solar and wind capacity than the rest of the world combined.

China may want to make a case for itself as a responsible global leader in contrast to the US. This could in turn advance China’s strategic interests in regions such as the Pacific which are acutely vulnerable to climate effects.

So far, there’s no evidence countries have used US backsliding as an excuse to pull back from international cooperation. No country has left the Paris agreement since Trump’s withdrawal.

In 2001, when the Bush administration signalled the US wouldn’t ratify the Kyoto Protocol, Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard soon followed suit.

But in 2025, only months after the US withdrew from Paris, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese outlined an increased emissions target.

Even at home, Trump’s position has not amounted to a death knell for climate action. California, whose governor Gavin Newsom famously parodied Trump’s communication style on social media, already oversees one of the world’s largest emissions trading schemes and has entered into a climate partnership with Brazil to further cooperation ahead of COP30.

All in all, there are grounds for cautious optimism, even hope, that the rest of the world might band together without US leadership.

Eyes on COP

Negotiators at next month’s COP30 talks will face formidable challenges which have only become more pressing as a result of the Trump administration’s climate stance.

But past experience suggests hard-fought COP negotiations can build strong momentum for global action by focusing international attention.

Perhaps they can build pressure on the US to come back into the fold, or at least enable pro-climate actors within the US to pursue reform despite President Trump’s interference.

Matt McDonald has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council in the UK.

– ref. Why Trump is not a death knell for global climate action – https://theconversation.com/why-trump-is-not-a-death-knell-for-global-climate-action-266350

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Fox, Researcher in Psychology, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

A lot of research has been dedicated to understanding what makes people believe in conspiracies – and how they might be able to climb out of the rabbit hole again.

Conspiracies do happen. The Watergate scandal in the 1970s, which led to the resignation of US President Richard Nixon, is arguably the most infamous example.
The questioning of authority and the official narrative is something that should be encouraged.

But some people believe conspiracy theories that are contrary to evidence. Recent research found 8.9% of New Zealand participants and 10.1% of Australian participants agreed with the (false) claim fluoride is being intentionally added to the water supply by the government to make people less intelligent and easier to control”.

What draws people to conspiracies like these?

One prominent theory is that conspiracy beliefs are linked to psychological distress such as anxiety and depression.

Our new research explores the causal relationship – whether psychological distress actually makes people more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. We found very limited evidence for a link between elevated distress and conspiracy beliefs.

What research suggests about conspiracy beliefs

The existential threat model of conspiracy theories suggests experiences of psychological distress can make people more likely to develop conspiracy beliefs because they search for explanations for distressing events.

This model argues distress actually worsens once a conspiracy belief is formed, creating a vicious cycle where distress breeds conspiracy belief which, in turn, generates more distress.

The model also suggests this belief is exacerbated when a despised outgroup (political elites, for example) becomes salient as people try to make sense of their experience.

However, few have rigorously tested this claim. While substantial evidence for a correlation between psychological distress and belief in conspiracy theories has been established, correlation does not imply a causal link.

Some analyses of longitudinal data haven’t found evidence to support the hypothesis. But no one has directly tested the claims of the existential threat model.

We set out to do this using a longitudinal survey.

A longitudinal study isn’t as conclusive as a true experiment but it can establish the sequence of cause and effect and rule out some alternative explanations for a relationship.

Our sample consisted of 995 participants with representatives groups from New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom. Each month from September 2022 to February 2023, we presented participants with a survey, including 11 conspiracy theories and common measures of anxiety, depression and stress. Each month we asked them about their level of agreement with the conspiracy theories, and their levels of psychological distress.

Prior to collecting the data, we specified our hypotheses in our research plan. These boiled down to the ideas that increased distress of different types (anxiety, depression, stress) will subsequently increase belief in conspiracy theories and that such beliefs will subsequently increase distress.

Rethinking the vicious cycle

We found very limited evidence for elevated distress subsequently increasing belief in conspiracy theories.

We also found no evidence to support the converse – that belief in conspiracy theories increases distress.

Our findings suggest beliefs in conspiracy theories may mostly reflect a relatively stable worldview rather than being driven by temporary changes in distress.

This matters because some researchers have suggested interventions that reduce stress could be used to help reduce conspiracy beliefs. However, if stress is not driving conspiracy beliefs, as our results suggest, this approach is unlikely to be effective.

We also found no evidence that conspiracy beliefs cause short-term distress. This challenges the common assumption that beliefs in conspiracy theories inherently cause harm to one’s mental health, particularly stress, anxiety and depression. That said, conspiracy beliefs could still cause harm in other ways – such as by contributing to the flow of misinformation.

Our research challenges the idea of a vicious cycle of conspiracy beliefs. It appears distress may not have a key role in making people “spiral” down the rabbit hole.

Interventions that foster an analytical mindset or include critical thinking skills may be more useful.

The following research is supported by the Marsden Fund, managed by the Royal Society Te Apārangi.

This study was supported by the Marsden Fund, managed by the Royal Society Te Apārangi.

– ref. New research challenges the idea of a ‘vicious cycle’ between psychological distress and conspiracy beliefs – https://theconversation.com/new-research-challenges-the-idea-of-a-vicious-cycle-between-psychological-distress-and-conspiracy-beliefs-266588

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Thomas, Lecturer in Middle East Studies, Deakin University

The first steps of the peace plan for Gaza are underway. Now both parties have agreed to terms, Hamas is obligated to release all hostages within 72 hours and the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) will withdraw to an agreed-upon line within the strip.

Hopes are high, particularly on the ground in Gaza and in Israel after two years of brutal conflict. Some argue the parties are now closer than ever to an end to hostilities, and US President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan may be an effective road-map.

But the truth is we have been here before. Hamas and Israel have now agreed to a road-map to peace in principle, but what is in place today is very similar to ceasefire deals in the past, and a ceasefire is not the same as a peace deal or an armistice.

The plan is also very light on specifics, and the devil is definitely in the detail. Will the IDF completely withdraw from Gaza and rule out annexation? Who will take on governance of the strip? Is Hamas going to be involved in this governance? There were signs of disagreement on these issues even before the fighting stopped.

So if the ceasefire steps hold in the short term – then what? What would it take for the peace plan to be successful?

First, the political pressures to refrain from resuming hostilities will need to hold. Once all the hostages are returned, which is expected to take place by Tuesday Australian time, Hamas effectively loses any remaining leverage for future negotiations if hostilities were to resume.

Once the hostage exchange is complete, it’s likely Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will see some pressure from his right to resume hostilities.

With Hamas relinquishing this leverage, it will be essential for the Israeli government to see these negotiations and the end of the war as fundamental to its long term interests and security for peace to hold. There must be a sincere desire to return to dialogue and compromise, not the pre-October 7 2023 complacency.

Second, Hamas will likely have to relinquish its arms and any political power in Gaza. Previously, Hamas has said it would only do this on the condition of recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state. As recently as October 10, factions in Gaza have said they would not accept foreign guardianship, a key part of the peace plan, with governance to be determined “by the national component of our people directly”.

Related to this, any interim governance or authority that takes shape in Gaza must reflect local needs. The proposed “body of peace” headed by Trump and former UK prime minister Tony Blair, could risk repeating previous mistakes of cutting Palestinians out of discussions over their own future.

Part of the peace deal is the resumption of humanitarian aid flows, but the fate of the Gaza blockade that has been effectively in place since 2007 is unclear. The land, sea and air blockade, which was imposed by Egypt and Israel following Hamas’ political takeover of Gaza, heavily restricts imports and the movement of Gazans.

Prior to October 2023, unemployment in the strip sat at 46%, and 62% of Gazans required food assistance as a result of the limits placed on imports, including basic food and agricultural items such as fertiliser.

Should the blockade continue, at best Israel will create the same humanitarian conditions in Gaza of food, medical and financial insecurity that existed prior to the October 7 attacks. While conditions and restrictions are orders of magnitude worse in Gaza today, NGOs called early incarnations of the blockade “collective punishment”. For peace to hold in the strip, security policy needs to be in line with global humanitarian principles and international law.

Most importantly, however, all parties involved must see peace in Gaza as fundamentally connected to broader peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Seeing the Gaza conflict as discrete and separate from the broader Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be a mistake. Discussions of Palestinian national self-determination in Gaza and the West Bank must be taken seriously and be a central part of the plan for peace to last.

While the 20-point plan mentions a “credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood”“, history tells us these pathways struggle to get past the rhetoric stage.

Many challenges stand in the way, including Israeli settlement and annexation, the status of Jerusalem and the question of demilitarisation.

A meaningful step would be for the US to refrain from using its veto power at the UN Security Council (UNSC) against votes supporting Palestinian statehood. While several states recognised a Palestinian state at the recent UN General Assembly, the US has blocked formal status at the UNSC every time.

Despite all these concerns, any pause in hostilities is undeniably a good thing. Deaths from October 7 2023 number nearly 70,000 in total, with 11% of Gaza’s population killed or injured and 465 Israeli soldiers killed. The resumption of aid delivery alone will go far in addressing the growing famine in the strip.

However, peace deals are incredibly difficult to negotiate at the best of times, requiring good faith, sustained commitment and trust. The roots of this conflict reach back decades, and mutual mistrust has been institutionalised and weaponised. Difficulties in negotiating the Oslo Accords in the 1990s showed just how deep the roots of the conflict are. The situation is now much worse.

It is not clear if any party involved in negotiation possesses the political will needed to reach an accord. However, an opportunity exists to reach one, and it should not be taken for granted.

Andrew Thomas 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. Will Trump’s ceasefire plan really lead to lasting peace in the Middle East? There’s still a long way to go – https://theconversation.com/will-trumps-ceasefire-plan-really-lead-to-lasting-peace-in-the-middle-east-theres-still-a-long-way-to-go-267112

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Thompson, Lecturer in Theatre, Australian Catholic University

In the chilling final scene of Francis Ford Coppola’s 1972 masterpiece, The Godfather, the door to Michael Corleone’s office is closed in the face of his wife, Kay. It simultaneously signified the opening of many more doors for the career of actor Diane Keaton.

In that film, so heavily dominated by male actors, Keaton more than holds her own. For someone who would become known for her daffy, comic style, it showed us she also had serious dramatic acting chops.

The multi-award-winning actor, producer and director has died at the age of 79. She leaves behind a legacy of memorable roles in films that include classics such as The Godfather and Annie Hall, spanning genres from comedy to drama.

First steps on stage

Keaton started life in Los Angeles as Diane Hall on January 5 1946. The eldest child of Dorothy and Jack Hall, she was the only one of her siblings – brother Randy and sisters Robin and Dorrie – to show interest in the theatre. It came about in an unconventional way.

When she was “eight or nine”, she told NPR’s Fresh Air in 2004, her mother won “Mrs Los Angeles”

I remember sitting down [in the audience] watching her being crowned. It was that she was the perfect homemaker. […] I did not want to be a happy homemaker, that did not appeal to me. But I did want to go on stage. I saw that that was something that did appeal to me. There she was in the theatre, and I saw the curtain open and there was my mother. And I thought, ‘I think I like that for myself’.

Her career began as a teenage Blanche in Santa Ana High School’s production of A Streetcar Named Desire.

In her 2011 memoir, Then Again, she remembers her father coming backstage:

I could tell he was surprised by his awkward daughter – the one who’d flunked algebra and smashed the new Ford station wagon. For one thrilling moment, I was his Seabiscuit, Audrey Hepburn, and Wonder Woman rolled into one.

She began drama studies at nearby Santa Ana College but soon dropped out, took her mother’s maiden name – Keaton – and travelled to New York to study at the Neighbourhood Playhouse.

In 1968, after a stint in summer stock, she was cast as an understudy in Hair on Broadway. She was 19 and famously refused to do the nude scene.

“It wasn’t for any sort of philosophical reason,” she told the New York Times in 1972, “It was just that I was too scared.”

Silver screen breakout

Her heart was set on the big screen which, of course, meant starting out on the small screen in shows like The FBI (“The worst thing I have ever done,” she told the New York Times. “I was unanimously, resoundingly bad!”) and Night Gallery.

Instead, it was theatre that led to her breakout screen roles.

In 2023, Francis Ford Coppola revealed to Hollywood Reporter he had seen Keaton in Hair.

He later told Keaton he cast her in The Godfather because,

although you were to play the more straight/vanilla wife, there was something more about you, deeper, funnier, and very interesting. (I was right).

Then she auditioned for a new theatrical comedy, Play it Again, Sam, by up-and-coming comedian Woody Allen. That turned out to be what’s known in romantic comedies as a meet cute.

It led not only to their much-publicised relationship, but to a significant collaboration in eight films including the 1977 hit Annie Hall.

For that role, Keaton won the Oscar for best actress. And her costume, designed by Ruth Morley, made her a fashion icon of the 70s. She also gave us the whimsical phrase, “la di dah”.

It’s often thought that Annie Hall was about her relationship with Allen, but as she told the New York Times, “It’s not true, but there are elements of truth in it”.

A force

For the next five decades, Keaton would become a Hollywood force.

She had comic roles in films like The First Wives Club (1996), Something’s Gotta Give (2003) and the Father of the Bride franchise. Alongside these comedies were remarkable dramatic roles in Looking for Mister Goodbar (1977), Reds (1981), The Little Drummer Girl (1984), Crimes of the Heart (1986), Marvin’s Room (1996) and two more Godfather films.

She was also a notable director of films like Unstrung Heroes (1995), Hanging Up (2000), Heaven (1987) and even an episode of Twin Peaks.

In addition to Annie Hall’s Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe, she received Oscar nominations for Reds, Marvin’s Room and Something’s Gotta Give (for which she won her second Golden Globe). She was also nominated for a Tony, two Emmys and another seven Golden Globes.

Despite much-publicised relationships with Al Pacino, Woody Allen and Warren Beatty, Keaton chose to remain single her whole life. In her 50s, she adopted two children, Dexter and Duke.

A rich creative life

Keaton made comedy look easy but told the New York Times in 1977 that “both comedy and drama are equally difficult”.

She later told Fresh Air,

You’re constantly battling with yourself when you’re acting in a [dramatic] part, at least I am. Because it’s just not that easy for me. I think I’m more inclined to live comfortably in the world of humour.

Either way, we were the richer for her creative life and are the poorer for her loss.

Chris Thompson 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. Diane Keaton thrived in the world of humour – and had the dramatic acting chops to back it up – https://theconversation.com/diane-keaton-thrived-in-the-world-of-humour-and-had-the-dramatic-acting-chops-to-back-it-up-267293

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jon C. Day, Adjunct Principal Research Fellow, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University

Since 2020, the conservation outlook has worsened for four of Australia’s 16 natural World Heritage properties – Ningaloo, Shark Bay, Purnululu National Park and the Australian Fossil Mammal Sites. This means 25% of our natural areas globally recognised as being significant are either in worse health or need better planning to secure their future.

The Great Barrier Reef remains in the lowest rating – “critical” – as one of just 17 natural World Heritage properties globally with this outlook. Only Macquarie Island has improved in its outlook, largely due to the removal of rodents and rabbits. Australia’s 11 other properties have an unchanged outlook.

These findings come from the new independent World Heritage Outlook, published today by the world authority on nature, the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Why the downgrades? Climate change is the biggest threat. Worsening marine heatwaves are hitting coral reefs hard, while land areas are also affected by extreme weather and wildfires. Climate change now poses a severe threat to 12 of Australia’s properties – 75% of the total – more than any other threat.

What’s changed?

The new IUCN report shows six Australian World Heritage properties have a “significant concern” rating, while four are rated “good with some concerns” and five are rated as “good”. The Great Barrier Reef is the only one rated “critical”.

Reefs on the frontline

The Great Barrier Reef recently suffered its sixth mass bleaching since 2016. Recent surveys show this is the first time very high (61-90% of corals) and extreme (over 90%) bleaching has been observed across all three regions of the reef.

The world’s largest coral reef complex is considered in critical condition, as it is severely threatened and deteriorating.

Climate change is driving intensifying heat in the oceans, which can trigger coral bleaching and other adverse impacts. Climate change is only one of many threats facing the reef, alongside poor water quality, unsustainable fishing and coastal development.

Western Australia’s Ningaloo Reef is now listed as “significant concern”. Climate change is the biggest threat to this area, known for its whale sharks and manta rays.

Five marine heatwaves have hit Ningaloo over the last 15 years. But the worst by far was this year’s intense marine heatwave, which was off the charts. Major bleaching has been seen along the full length of the reef, inside the shallow lagoon and on the deeper reef slopes.

Western Australia’s Shark Bay has also deteriorated due to escalating climate threats.

The damage done by this year’s marine heatwave is yet to be fully understood. But we do know Shark Bay’s ancient stromatolites are vulnerable to rising sea levels and extreme climate events. A major dieback of enormous seagrass beds occurred during an earlier heatwave in 2010-11.

Under a business as usual scenario for carbon emissions, coral bleaching is expected to intensify to the point where coral reefs disappear by the end of the century.

Land-based parks are also under threat

Most of Australian natural World Heritage areas on land have also been hit by extreme weather events. Severe and widespread bushfires have hit the Tasmanian Wilderness, Gondwana Rainforests, Greater Blue Mountains, K’gari, Wet Tropics of Queensland and Kakadu National Park at some point over the past decade.

The intensity and frequency of such events, compounded by extreme weather, are expected to increase and threaten the resilience of all these areas.

Downgrades due to lack of planning

Two more natural properties have been downgraded from “Good” to “Good with some concerns” due to concerns over planning for the future.

Western Australia’s Purnululu National Park protects the Bungle Bungle Range. IUCN considers updated management planning is needed to address the main challenges facing the area’s ecology, especially given the intensifying threats from climate change.

The Australian Fossil Mammal Site was downgraded for a similar reason. This site consists of two separate areas with rich fossil histories – South Australia’s Naracoorte Caves and Queensland’s Riversleigh.

The downgrade here reflects the assessment that both areas need to be better protected with updated plans, more effective management, regular monitoring of Naracoorte caves and sustained funding for protection, staff training and scientific research.

Good news: Macquarie Island is rebounding

Australia’s Macquarie Island lies halfway between New Zealand and Antarctica. Its isolation made it perfect for seabirds and unusual megaherb plant species. But introduced rats, mice and rabbits did real damage.

The reason Macquarie has been upgraded to a good outlook is due to a highly successful pest eradication and recovery program. Since these pests have been wiped out, plants have regrown and seabirds such as albatross and burrowing petrels have returned in large numbers to breed.

In other good news, the site protection and management of 14 of Australia’s natural properties have been rated as either mostly or highly effective. This is welcome praise for the dedicated work of the staff.

The question now is whether these efforts will be enough to protect these globally important sites against threats from outside the property boundaries, such as climate change, mining and infrastructure and invasive species. These threats are occurring as many properties face budgetary constraints.

Australia at the front of globally worrying trends

Australia isn’t alone in witnessing natural World Heritage properties deteriorate. Since 2020, 10% of the world’s 271 natural and mixed World Heritage areas have deteriorated, while 5% have shown improvement.

Regrettably, Australia is still punching below its weight, given 25% of its natural properties face a worse outlook than they did five years ago and only one has improved.

The threats facing these famous natural places are escalating. Halting the decline will require good management of all types of pressures.

Read more:
The Great Barrier Reef is in trouble. There are a whopping 45 reasons why

.

Given climate change is the single biggest threat, it would make sense for policymakers to be as ambitious as possible on climate action to help preserve what makes these places so special.

Jon Day previously worked for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority between 1986 and 2014, and was one of the Directors at GBRMPA between 1998 and 2014. He also represented Australia as one of the formal delegates to the World Heritage Committee between 2007-2011.

– ref. Since 2020, 4 of Australia’s natural World Heritage properties have deteriorated – https://theconversation.com/since-2020-4-of-australias-natural-world-heritage-properties-have-deteriorated-266578