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

Issues sometimes “come at you”, Anthony Albanese declared on Thursday at the end of a news conference, held at Canberra’s National Situation Room, about Cyclone Alfred.

The cyclone is a disaster for millions of people in its path. For the prime minister, it is a major political disruptor.

Albanese cancelled his visit to Western Australia: he’d wanted to be there when Labor has its anticipated certain win at Saturday’s election.

His own election planning – which seemed headed for an April 12 election called this weekend – has been thrown into some disarray (although this is contested by those involved).

Then there was the good news that was crowded out. Wednesday’s national accounts finally showed some of the much hoped-for positive trends, especially an end to the per capita recession, which had been running for seven consecutive quarters. But with the cyclone naturally dominating attention, who noticed?

Albanese’s response to the new circumstances was to place himself at the centre of the planning for the cyclone. He stood side by side with Queensland Premier David Crisafulli at his news conference on Wednesday and was early to the Situation Room on Thursday morning, promising to give regular updates.

To questions about whether he’d abandoned any thought of calling an election at the weekend, the PM insisted (unconvincingly) that politics was furthest from his mind. Though announcing an election would appear near impossible in the circumstances, and attention had already begun turning to a May date (and a budget beforehand), Albanese on Thursday wouldn’t be drawn. Basically, he was waiting to see what happened with the weather.

The cyclone will be a passing disruptor. The disruption from the Trump administration will be with Australia (and the world) for the foreseeable future.

Next week Australia will know whether its intense lobbying for an exemption from the US tariffs on aluminium and steel has been effective. Those around the government are not optimistic.

More concerning than the immediate impact on Australia if we fail to win the exemption is the effect of US protectionism more generally.

Reserve Bank deputy Governor Andrew Hauser confirmed this week that “from a macroeconomic perspective, Australia’s direct exposure to US tariffs levied on our exports is limited”.

“[But] Australia is heavily integrated into, and reliant on, the global economy more broadly – and particularly China. Hence the bigger macroeconomic risk for us would be if the imposition of US tariffs on third countries triggered a global trade war that impaired our trade and financial linkages more broadly.

“As Australia’s long history has shown, we thrive when trade, labour and assets flow freely in the global economy, but we suffer when countries turn inwards.”

How disruptive this new world will be to the Australian economy can’t be known but it could make things very difficult for a second term Albanese government or a first term Dutton one.

As Trump tries to force a settlement on Ukraine, there’s been increasing attention on the Europeans’ plans to boost their defence expenditure. This week, we started to feel the heat on Australia to do the same.

Trump’s nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Elbridge Colby told the US Senate Committee on Armed Services, in a written answer during his confirmation hearing, that “Australia is a core U.S. ally. […] The main concern the United States should press with Australia, consistent with the President’s approach, is higher defense spending. Australia is currently well below the 3% level advocated for by NATO Secretary General Rutte, and Canberra faces a far more powerful challenge in China.”

Presently Australia’s defence spending is about 2% of GDP, projected to increase to 2.4% by 2033–34.The Coalition has said it would spend more than Labor (but has not specified how much more).

Defence Minister Richard Marles said he could “obviously understand the US administration seeking for its friends and allies around the world to do more. That’s a conversation that we will continue to have with the US administration. […] But it’s really important to understand we are increasing that spending right now.”

It’s also important to understand that if Australia must ramp up defence further or faster than present plans, that will suck funds from other priorities, putting another squeeze on future governments.

Trump’s bullying of Ukraine and its leader Volodymyr Zelensky has not weakened the bipartisan support in Australia for Ukraine.

But a difference has emerged over whether Australia should (if asked) take part in any peacekeeping force. Peter Dutton said this role should be left to the Europeans. But Albanese flagged his government would consider it, pointing to the many other peacekeeping operations we have participated in.

Former prime minister Scott Morrison got on well with Trump during the president’s first term and has become even more signed up since. The Morrisons were at Mar-a-Lago for New Year’s eve.

Morrison was distinctly sympathetic to Trump’s approach when talking this week about Ukraine. He told an Australian Financial Review dinner, “Do we just keep fighting this war every day? The alternative is to find a peace that can be secured.

“There was no conversation, no real conversation, about peace in Ukraine up until now.” Zelensky had the “most to gain” from negotiating to end the war, he said.

Morrison is affiliated with lobbying firm American Global Strategies, which has links to the Trump administration. Colby is listed as a senior adviser. The chairman and founder of the group, Robert C. O’Brien, was formerly a national security adviser to Trump.

Morrison is one of a number of former senior Australian political figures who have a current professional or commercial lock-in to Washington politics.

Former Liberal treasurer Joe Hockey, who was close to the Trump White House when Hockey was ambassador in 2016-20, is founder and global president of Bondi Partners, a lobbying firm that operates between the US and Australia.

Another former Australian ambassador to Washington, Arthur Sinodinos, is based in Washington as a partner in the Asia Group, a strategic advisory firm.

Meanwhile former PM Kevin Rudd, as Australian ambassador in Washington, is trying to amplify Australia’s official voice with the administration.

Speculation continues about Rudd’s future if the government changed. Dutton says that would depend on how effective Rudd was, saying his present instinct would be leave him in the job.

Others are sceptical this would happen, and raise Morrison’s name as a possible replacement. Morrison has reportedly told people he would not want the post. But you couldn’t rule it 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. Grattan on Friday: Anthony Albanese beset by disruptors, from Cyclone Alfred to Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-anthony-albanese-beset-by-disruptors-from-cyclone-alfred-to-donald-trump-251258

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Harrington, Associate Professor, School of Communication, Queensland University of Technology

It’s hard to keep track of US President Donald Trump’s many notable acts since returning to the White House. His recent pro-Russia stance on the war in Ukraine has, rightly, received a lot of attention.

But for every big moment, there are others that fly under the radar. One such issue is the politicisation of the Department of Justice (DoJ).

Although there is longstanding precedent that the DoJ remains politically neutral in its operations, recent events have indicated a dramatic break from that tradition.

And, importantly, Trump has been laying the groundwork to justify this for nearly two years, using a propaganda tactic that’s been employed by authoritarian governments throughout history.

Strategic sidelining

The current administration has attempted to fire or sideline anyone at the DoJ who was involved with prior investigations and prosecutions of the now-president.

This includes special counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into several aspects of Trump’s wrongdoing, which have since ended. Several lawyers have been fired, ostensibly because “the Acting Attorney-General does not trust these officials to assist in faithfully implementing the President’s agenda”.

This action is not only vindictive, but likely designed to intimidate would-be investigators and make them think twice before further examining any wrongdoing by Trump or his associates.

Equally noteworthy has been the department’s attempts to drop corruption charges against New York mayor Eric Adams.
The official reason is that pursuing the charges might “interfere” with Adams’ reelection campaign.

In reality, however, Adams has been accused of cutting a deal with the administration: he agrees to assist with Trump’s immigration crackdown in return for having the charges against him withdrawn (although not dropped entirely).

Adams denies the existence of a quid pro quo, but he did joke about it on national television with Tom Homan, Trump’s “Border Czar”.

So deeply problematic was all this that two US attorneys for the Southern District of New York opted to resign in protest, rather than be party to what they saw as a nakedly corrupt act.

The whole scenario is eerily reminiscent of 1973’s “Saturday Night Massacre”, when President Richard Nixon ordered his Attorney-General Elliot Richardson to fire the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal.

Nixon eventually had his way, but not before refusals and resignations from both Richardson, and the Deputy Attorney-General William Ruckleshaus.

But, where Nixon’s move dramatically hastened his own downfall, Trump’s actions have barely raised an eyebrow. Why?

The propaganda play

The answer lies in a propaganda technique known as “accusation in a mirror”, which entails accusing one’s opponents of the very wrongdoing one plans to commit.

As one legal scholar explains, it’s:

a rhetorical practice in which one falsely accuses one’s enemies of conducting, plotting, or desiring to commit precisely the same transgressions that one plans to commit against them.

Accusation in a mirror has been used in the past, including in the Rwandan genocide. There, trusted voices claimed the Tutsi wanted to “exterminate” the Hutu. Tragically, it helped bring about the exact opposite circumstance.

Similarly, in February 2022 Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the Ukrainian government of committing genocide against Russian-speaking populations in the Donbas region. This baseless accusation provided a justification for invading Ukraine, which mirrored Russia’s own indiscriminate shelling of Ukrainian civilians.

We suggest Trump has been using this technique since he was first criminally indicted, in early 2023, on 34 felony charges related to the falsification of business records. He and his supporters have insisted the department, under President Joe Biden, was “weaponised” against him.

Trump repeatedly claimed those charges – and subsequent indictments – were a politically motivated “witch hunt”. He reiterated these claims in his first speech to Congress.

Many elected Republicans have also supported and amplified that narrative.

These claims of victimhood have helped prime Trump’s base to appraise any subsequent legal scrutiny of him as purely partisan, and therefore invalid.

In reality, the facts were straightforward. Prosecutors were sure there was enough proof to proceed with the case, including evidence Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence, and obstructed attempts to retrieve them.

In a functioning legal system, nobody is “above the law”. This means even former presidents can be prosecuted if there’s enough evidence.

Yet Trump’s accusations of a partisan DoJ completely reframed legitimate investigations into alleged political vendettas. In doing so, it effectively justified his subsequent decisions.

A self-fulfilling prophecy

The idea that “if they did it to me, I’m entitled to do it back” was made explicit by Trump in late 2023.

When asked if he would use the DoJ to go after his political rivals, Trump argued he would only be levelling the playing field, stating:

they’ve already done it, but if they want to follow through on this, yeah, it could certainly happen in reverse.

In short, Trump’s false claim of being victimised by a politicised DoJ served as moral cover for his own politicisation of it.

This is a textbook example of how accusation in a mirror can help manufacture the reality it pretends to condemn.

Addressing the problem

This tactic has long been a play by totalitarian and authoritarian leaders.

Foundational propaganda scholars such as Hannah Arendt and Jacques Ellul highlighted how authoritarian rulers often repeat falsehoods – flipping the aggressor and victim – until the masses become desensitised, alienated and confused.

Once enough people believe the system is already corrupt and untrustworthy, they are less likely to be shocked by an actual purge (such as firing DoJ officials).

The implications of such tactics extend internationally, not just to the US.

History cries out to us about the risks of this sort of public discourse. It erodes trust in institutions and liberal democratic processes, paving the road for leaders to undermine them further, corrupting the system in the name of rooting out corruption.

Ultimately, one of the best antidotes is awareness. By exposing these tactics, we can better safeguard against disinformation, protect the rule of law and hold leaders accountable.

Stephen Harrington receives funding from the Australian Research Council, for the Discovery Project ‘Understanding and Combatting “Dark Political Communication”‘.

Timothy Graham receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) for his Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, ‘Combatting Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour on Social Media’. He also receives ARC funding for the Discovery Project, ‘Understanding and Combatting “Dark Political Communication”‘.

– ref. How Trump is weaponising the Department of Justice, and the ‘dark’ tactic he’s using to get away with it – https://theconversation.com/how-trump-is-weaponising-the-department-of-justice-and-the-dark-tactic-hes-using-to-get-away-with-it-250760

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ferdi Botha, Senior Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research, The University of Melbourne

The 19th annual report from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey was released today.

The HILDA Survey has been following the same people every year since 2001, which makes it possible to examine how the lives of Australians have changed across several aspects.

With data from 2001 to 2022, in this year’s report we looked at issues including income inequality, household chores, and the impact of natural disasters on Australian households.

Income inequality is the highest since 2001

Funded by the Australian government and managed by the Melbourne Institute, the survey is one of Australia’s most valuable social research tools.

HILDA examined the lives of 14,000 Australians in 2001 and has kept coming back each year to discover what has changed over the course of their lifetimes. It now covers 17,000 Australians, due to the expansion of participants’ families.

The survey shows that since COVID-era financial support ended, income inequality has risen substantially.

The increase in inequality stems from growth in higher incomes as compared to middle incomes, as well as a fall in the growth of lower incomes relative to middle incomes.

This means, relative to the median earner, Australians already earning a high income have seen the growth in their incomes rise. In contrast, Australians with low incomes have seen a decrease in the rate of growth in their incomes.

Between 2021 and 2022, 51.2% of respondents reported their real incomes have declined. This is up from about 41% in preceding years, suggesting a decrease in people’s purchasing power.

A technical measure called the Gini coefficient was 0.32 in 2022, the highest since we started the survey in 2001. The measure ranges from 0 to 1 and is an index that measures overall inequality, with higher scores suggesting greater income inequality.

Older Australians are getting richer too

Over the same period, household wealth has continued to grow.

However, there are large and growing age differences in the growth in household wealth. For young people aged between 18 and 34, net wealth rose by 72.4% to $238,942 over the 20 years to 2022.

But for older Australians aged 65 to 74, net household wealth jumped by 125% to about $1.26 million.

These age disparities in household wealth are partly explained by rates of home ownership, which are much higher among older Australians.

Home ownership is also the most important asset component in terms of total wealth. In 2022, almost 65% of households owned their home, and just over 20% of households held investment properties and holiday homes.

As a proportion of total wealth, the family home accounts for 44.5% and investment properties account for 14.9%.

Women are still doing most of the housework

Australian women still undertake the majority of housework, whereas men’s share of housework has remained constant over 20 years.

Women’s time spent on housework (such as cleaning, cooking, running errands) has fallen slightly from 23.8 hours per week in 2002 to 18.4 hours per week in 2022.

Men spent 12.8 hours per week on housework, precisely the same amount they did 20 years earlier. Thus, women are still doing close to 50% more housework than men are.

Men have increased the time they spend on caring responsibilities (such as playing with their children, helping with homework, caring for an elderly relative), from 5 hours per week in 2002 to 5.5 hours per week in 2022. The time women spend on care has risen from 10.1 hours per week to 10.7 hours per week over the same period. In 2022, women spent almost double the time on care duties than men.

Among couples, men are generally more satisfied than women are with the current division of unpaid work. Most women feel they do more than their fair share at home. Men tend to believe they share the housework and care fairly with their partner.

Surge in home damage due to weather-related disasters

Respondents were asked if a weather-related disaster (such as floods, bushfires or cyclone) had damaged or destroyed their home in the past 12 months. In 2022, 4.5% reported experiencing such an event.

This is a substantial increase from the year before, when only 1.3% of Australians reported weather-related home damage, and exceeding the previous peak of 2.7% in 2011.

There are also regional differences, closely corresponding with the timing of specific floods or bushfires in the states and territories. In 2022, 9% of New South Wales residents and 6% of Queensland reported home damage, consistent with major floods experienced in these regions in the months prior to the survey.

Among all Australians who in 2022 reported home damage due to a weather-related disaster, 62.5% were in NSW and 27.3% were in Queensland.

With the current cyclone Alfred forecast to hit Queensland and northern NSW on Friday, we expect a further significant increase in reported home damage.

Ferdi Botha is affiliated with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course.

– ref. HILDA data shows income inequality is at a 20-year high – https://theconversation.com/hilda-data-shows-income-inequality-is-at-a-20-year-high-251596

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily Roycroft, Research Group Leader & ARC DECRA Fellow, Monash University

US company Colossal Biosciences has announced the creation of a “woolly mouse” — a laboratory mouse with a series of genetic modifications that lead to a woolly coat. The company claims this is the first step toward “de-extincting” the woolly mammoth.

The successful genetic modification of a laboratory mouse is a testament to the progress science has made in understanding gene function, developmental biology and genome editing. But does a woolly mouse really teach us anything about the woolly mammoth?

What has been genetically modified?

Woolly mammoths were cold-adapted members of the elephant family, which disappeared from mainland Siberia at the end of the last Ice Age around 10,000 years ago. The last surviving population, on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean, went extinct about 4,000 years ago.

The house mouse (Mus musculus) is a far more familiar creature, which most of us know as a kitchen pest. It is also one of the most studied organisms in biology and medical research. We know more about this laboratory mouse than perhaps any other mammal besides humans.

Colossal details its new research in a pre-print paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. According to the paper, the researchers disrupted the normal function of seven different genes in laboratory mice via gene editing.

Six of these genes were targeted because a large body of existing research on the mouse model had already demonstrated their roles in hair-related traits, such as coat colour, texture and thickness.

The modifications in a seventh gene — FABP2 — was based on evidence from the woolly mammoth genome. The gene is involved in the transport of fats in the body.

Woolly mammoths had a slightly shorter version of the gene, which the researchers believe may have contributed to its adaptation to life in cold climates. However, the “woolly mice” with the mammoth-style variant of FABP2 did not show significant differences in body mass compared to regular lab mice.

What would it mean to de-extinct a species?

This work shows the promise of targeted editing of genes of known function in mice. After further testing, this technology may have a future place in conservation efforts. But it’s a long way from holding promise for de-extinction.

Colossal Biosciences claims it is on track to produce a genetically modified “mammoth-like” elephant by 2028, but what makes a mammoth unique is more than skin-deep.

De-extinction would need to go beyond modifying an existing species to show superficial traits from an extinct relative. Many aspects of an extinct species’ biology remain unknown. A woolly coat is one thing. Recreating the entire suite of adaptations, including genetic, epigenetic and behavioural traits that allowed mammoths to thrive in ice age environments, is another.

Unlike the thylacine (or Tasmanian tiger) — another species Colossal aims to resurrect — the mammoth has a close living relative in the modern Asian elephant. The closer connections between the genomes of these two species may make mammoth de-extinction more technically feasible than that of the thylacine.

But whether or not a woolly mouse brings us any closer to that prospect, this story forces us to consider some important ethical questions. Even if we could bring back the woolly mammoth, should we? Is the motivation behind this effort conservation, or entertainment? Is it ethical to bring a species back into an environment that may no longer sustain it?

Focus on conserving what remains

In Australia alone, we’ve lost at least 100 species to extinction since European colonisation in 1788, largely due the introduction of feral predators and land clearing.

The idea of reversing extinction is understandably appealing. We might like to think we could undo the past.

According to Colossal’s website,

Extinction is a colossal problem facing the world. And Colossal is the company that’s going to fix it.

It’s hard to argue with the first part of that. But focusing on bringing back extinct species distracts from a more urgent reality: species are going extinct right now, and we are not doing enough to save them.

We should first focus on promises to save surviving species, rather than promises to bring back the dead.

With more investment in threatened species monitoring, new pest control methods, and conservation genetic management, we can turn the tide of extinction and secure the future for species that remain.

There’s a long list of threatened species that are still alive now. With the right funding and conservation attention, we can do something to save them before it’s too late.

Emily Roycroft receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the L’Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Programme, and the Australian Academy of Science.

– ref. Woolly mice are cute and impressive – but they won’t bring back mammoths or save endangered species – https://theconversation.com/woolly-mice-are-cute-and-impressive-but-they-wont-bring-back-mammoths-or-save-endangered-species-251595

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia

Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who oversees the health of more than 340 million Americans, says vitamin A can prevent the worst effects of measles rather than urging more people to get vaccinated.

In an opinion piece for Fox News, the US health secretary said he was “deeply concerned” about the current measles outbreak in Texas. However, he said the decision to vaccinate was a “personal one” and something for parents to discuss with their health-care provider.

Kennedy mentioned updated advice from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to treat measles with vitamin A. He also cited a study he said shows vitamin A can reduce the risk of dying from measles.

Here’s what the vitamin A study actually says and why public health officials are so concerned about Kennedy’s latest statement.

Why is a measles outbreak so worrying?

Measles is a highly contagious disease caused by a virus. It spreads easily including when an infected person breathes, coughs or sneezes.

Measles initially infects the respiratory tract and then the virus spreads throughout the body. Symptoms include a high fever, cough, red eyes, runny nose and a rash all over the body.

Measles can also be severe, can cause complications including blindness and swelling of the brain, and can be fatal. Measles can affect anyone but is most common in children.

The Texan health department has confirmed 150-plus cases of measles and one death of an unvaccinated child during the current outbreak. While this is by far the largest measles outbreak in the US in 2025, the CDC has reported smaller outbreaks in several other states so far this year.

Why vitamin A?

Vitamin A is essential for our overall health. It has many roles in the body, from supporting our growth and reproduction, to making sure we have healthy vision, skin and immune function.

Foods rich in vitamin A or related molecules include orange, yellow and red coloured fruits and vegetables, green leafy vegetables, as well as dairy, egg, fish and meat. You can take it as a supplement.

Vitamin A can also be used therapeutically. In other words, doctors may prescribe vitamin A to treat a deficiency. Vitamin A deficiency has long been associated with more severe cases of infectious disease, including measles. Vitamin A boosts immune cells and strengthens the respiratory tract lining, which is the body’s first defence against infections.

Because of this, the CDC has recently said vitamin A can also be prescribed as part of treatment for children with severe measles – such as those in hospital – under doctor supervision.

One key message from the CDC’s advice is that people are already sick enough with measles to be in hospital. They’re not taking vitamin A to prevent catching measles in the first place.

The other key message is vitamin A is taken under medical supervision, under specific circumstances, where patients can be closely monitored to prevent toxicity from high doses.

Vitamin A toxicity can cause birth defects and increase the risk of fractures in elderly people. Vitamin A and beta-carotene (which the body turns into vitamin A) from supplements may also increase your risk of cancer, especially if you smoke.

How about the study Kennedy cites?

Kennedy cites and links to a 2010 study, a type known as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Researchers reviewed and analysed existing studies, which included ones that looked at the effectiveness of vitamin A in preventing measles deaths.

They found three studies that looked at vitamin A treatment by specific dose. There were different doses depending on the age of the children, measured in IU (international units). Having two doses of vitamin A (200,000IU for children over one year of age or 100,000IU for infants below one year) reduced mortality by 62% compared to children who did not have vitamin A.

The 2010 study did not show vitamin A reduced your risk of getting measles from another infected person. To my knowledge no study has shown this.

To be fair, Kennedy did not say that vitamin A stops you from catching measles from another infected person. Instead, he used the following vague statement:

Studies have found that vitamin A can dramatically reduce measles mortality.

It’s easy to see how a reader could misinterpret this as “take vitamin A if you want to avoid dying from measles”.

We know what works – vaccines

The World Health Organization recommends all children receive two doses of measles vaccine.

The CDC states two doses of the measles vaccine (measles-mumps-rubella or MMR vaccine) is 97% effective against getting measles. This means out of every 100 people who are vaccinated only three will get it, and this will be a milder form.

But these facts were missing from Kennedy’s statement. Should we be surprised? Kennedy is well known for his vaccine sceptism and for undermining vaccination efforts, including for the measles vaccine.

As Sue Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the Washington Post:

relying on vitamin A instead of the vaccine is not only dangerous and ineffective […] it puts children at serious risk.

Evangeline Mantzioris is affiliated with Alliance for Research in Nutrition, Exercise and Activity (ARENA) at the University of South Australia. Evangeline Mantzioris has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and has been appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council Dietary Guideline Expert Committee.

– ref. Robert F. Kennedy Jr says vitamin A protects you from deadly measles. Here’s what the study he cites actually says – https://theconversation.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-says-vitamin-a-protects-you-from-deadly-measles-heres-what-the-study-he-cites-actually-says-251465

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jo Caust, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow (Hon), School of Culture and Communication, The University of Melbourne

For the past three weeks the arts have been dominated by a recent decision made by the board of Creative Australia. On February 7 it was announced Khaled Sabsabi and Michael Dagostino had been chosen as the artistic team to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale in 2026.

One week later, the board announced Sabsabi and Dagostino would no longer be representing the country because their selection would cause “a prolonged and divisive debate”.

This about-turn represents a low point in the relationship between artists and their funding body, Creative Australia.

Creative Australia (known as the Australia Council until 2023) has historically endured many attacks from the public, the media and political parties. This past weekend, for example, The Weekend Australian published three different stories critiquing Creative Australia and its arts funding processes.

While the amount of money Creative Australia receives is minuscule in relation to overall government spending (in 2023–24 it received A$258 million), the arts themselves enjoy a profile much greater than their monetary value.

So how does Creative Australia operate? And what does this decision on Sabsabi mean for its relationship with artists?

What is the peer review system?

Funding decisions at Creative Australia are based on two key principles: peer review, and arm’s length funding.

Peer review means decisions on who is funded are made by artists and arts workers with a deep understanding of the artform at hand.

Arm’s length funding means that, while the government funds Creative Australia, artists are supported free from direct political intervention.

The Australia Council, established in 1975, was originally structured around several artform boards, made up of peers from each of the artform sectors. These peers were given the task of overseeing their artforms and making funding decisions. Peers were selected by the government, usually after nomination by the Australia Council, and served terms of between two to five years.

Membership of an artform board was seen as an honour as well as a duty by those selected: a way of influencing funding decisions, but also a way of giving back to the sector.

As a result of an internal review in 2012, the process of peer decision making changed dramatically. The Australia Council in 2013 removed the artform boards (with a couple of exceptions) and introduced an ad hoc peer system where individuals were asked to self-nominate if they wanted to be part of the selection process. Staff then chose individuals, from a large pool of peers, to sit on a panel for each funding round.

As a result of the 2013 reforms the relationship with the minister for the arts was also changed. Up till then, the minister only had the power to appoint the members of the Australia Council board and the members of the various artform boards. In 2013 the act was changed so the minister could also give policy direction to the Australia Council.

In 2019, another category of selector was introduced. Industry advisors advise on multi-year funded applications, with the final decision made by Creative Australia staff.

The changing make-up of decision makers

The membership of the Australia Council’s governing board was historically more politicised, but its members were also often leading figures in the field.

The chair position was usually a leading figure from the arts and cultural field, including writers Donald Horne, Rodney Hall and Hilary McPhee, and music specialist Margaret Seares.

In the 2000s this changed under the Howard government, with the re-framing of the arts as businesses. This led to the appointment of business-people onto the board, particularly as chairs. Chairs this century have included business leaders David Gonski, James Strong, Rupert Myer and now Robert Morgan.

This meant priorities other than artform quality were introduced into the overall decision making.

The Venice Biennale process

Australia has been participating in the Venice Biennale since 1954.

Until 2019 there was a commissioner responsible for the selection of the Australian artist. The role was occupied by notable individuals in the arts world, such as philanthropist and art collector Simon Mordant. Artists would be individually invited by the commissioner to be the Venice representative.

In 2019 the Australia Council took over the role, and the process changed to an application system where artists were assessed by a panel of experts, before the final representatives (such as Sabsabi and Dagostino for 2026) were selected from a shortlist of six.

While all of the details of what happened in the lead up to rescinding Sabsabi’s invitation are unknown, some facts have been laid out: The Australian published an article criticising his selection; Coalition arts spokesperson Claire Chandler asked about his selection in Question Time; and Arts Minister Tony Burke phoned Creative Australia CEO Adrian Collette.

That night, Collette and the board decided Sabsabi’s invitation would be rescinded.

Who gets a say in the arts?

It seems now the funding model that Australia has created for the arts may no longer be serving the artists. The board’s decision following Burke’s phone call to Collette calls into question the principles of peer review and arm’s length funding.

The structure and decision-making processes of Creative Australia should now be reviewed as a matter of urgency. The peer system works remarkably well if structured appropriately. At present it would seem it is not.

Artists deserve a body that defends their rights, so they are not sacrificed for political needs.

Jo Caust has previously received funding from the Australia Council. She is a member of NAVA and the Arts Industry Council(SA). She also worked at the Australia Council in the 1980s.

– ref. Creative Australia’s decisions should be peer reviewed and at arm’s length. Where did things go wrong? – https://theconversation.com/creative-australias-decisions-should-be-peer-reviewed-and-at-arms-length-where-did-things-go-wrong-251153

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Nichol, Lecturer in Law, CQUniversity Australia

Not-for-profit organisations support a range of needs and activities, such as financial disadvantage, health and education.

Governments support these entities through various measures, notably exemption from income tax and other taxes.

Some of Australia’s major professional sports – such as the Australian Football League (AFL) and its clubs, the National Rugby League (NRL) and its clubs and Cricket Australia – are treated as not-for-profits. This means they do not pay income tax.

Not-for-profits and charities

The not-for-profit sector in Australia consists of about 600,000 organisations, 59,000 of which contributed $43 billion to Australia’s economy in 2010 (2010 is the most recent available data).

Some not-for-profit organisations receive special designation as charities and must have a charitable purpose that benefits the public.

A charity is not permitted to distribute profits to its members and must be registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is aware of more than 200,000 entities that receive one or more tax concessions. But only 61,010 are registered charities.

Professinal sports and tax

Within the regulation of not-for-profits exists professional sport.

Sports receive an exemption from income tax if, under section 50-45 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, a club or association encourages or promotes a game or sport.

In addition, the organisation must not conduct business for the purpose of profit for members.

The sports exemption does not differentiate between professional and community (or amateur) sport, as is the case in New Zealand, where charities and taxation law limit a sports charity to an amateur organisation.

Therefore, major Australian professional sports are considered not-for-profits and do not pay income tax.

None of these entities are registered charities.

This raises questions of fairness: these organisations receive revenue that ranges from tens of millions of dollars in the case of clubs to hundreds of millions and even billions for leagues.

When the sports exemption was introduced in the 1950s, it was designed to assist small community clubs. This might include the local golf club that operates on a public course and has operating revenue of $10,000, or the local tennis or football club with similar revenues.

The big business of pro sports

In recent years, the revenues of professional sport have ballooned, primarily due to lucrative broadcasting deals.

For example, in 2023, the AFL had revenues of $1.06 billion and recently announced its 2024 profit of $45.4 million, putting it in Australia’s 30 largest charities by income.

In 2023, the revenues of the AFL’s clubs ranged from $50.4-$105.7 million.

The NRL earned $744.9 million in revenue in 2024.

Also, the AFL and NRL receive a percentage of the income of betting agencies, reportedly $30 million a year for the AFL and $50 million for the NRL.

Half of the NRL clubs are sponsored by betting companies and three NRL stadiums are named after betting agencies.

Some non-Victorian AFL clubs, such as Brisbane and Greater Western Sydney, have gambling sponsorships, but Victorian clubs have signed up to the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation’s “Love the Game, Not the Odds” program.

This reliance on sports betting revenues raises issues as to the public benefit of these organisations and whether they should receive tax exemptions.

Read more:
Will the government’s online gambling advertising legislation ever eventuate? Don’t bet on it

The issue of unrelated business income

The issue of unrelated business income (the income a not-for-profit earns from commercial activities not related to its charitable purpose), especially from gambling and poker machines, raises concerns.

North Melbourne was the first Victorian AFL club to sell its poker machines in 2008. In 2016, it was the only club without pokies.

Collingwood sold its machines in 2018 and Hawthorn sold its two poker machine venues in 2022. But Carlton, Essendon, Richmond and St Kilda earned a collective $40 million from poker machines in 2022/2023.

The profits of poker machines by Victorian AFL clubs can be distinguished from sports clubs in New South Wales, where not less than 0.75% of poker machine profits must be distributed to charities under community development and support expenditure.

Poker machine venues are a considerable source of revenue in the NRL. In 2021, rugby league received $9.8 million from regional licensed clubs – $7.28 million to grassroots rugby and $2.52 million to NRL clubs.

Metropolitan venues gave $29.67 million to rugby league – $17.09 million to grassroots rugby and $12.58 million to NRL clubs.

A possible solution

Unrelated business income tax (UBIT) is a tax on the unrelated business income of not-for-profits. Related business income for a not-for-profit is membership fees and services directly related to the members such as restaurants or meals.

However, the major source of unrelated business income for sports are sponsorship and income from gambling companies and poker machines.

A UBIT has a long history in the United States and was proposed by the Gillard government in 2011, only to be postponed in 2013 and eventually abandoned by the Abbott government in 2014.

In the context of professional sport, a UBIT would fairly treat leagues and clubs, which increasingly engage in commercial activities outside their charitable activities, with a public benefit without removing the tax exemption.

For example, a UBIT would tax the profits of clubs with poker machines. It would also tax some of Australia’s most profitable professional sports clubs and leagues for revenue not related to promoting the sports.

It would also help distinguish between “real” not-for-profits and professional sports.

In doing so, it would also create a fair regulatory environment for the operation of for-profit and not-for-profit businesses.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Australia’s major sports codes are considered not-for-profits – is it time for them to pay up? – https://theconversation.com/australias-major-sports-codes-are-considered-not-for-profits-is-it-time-for-them-to-pay-up-250914

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Himadri Saini, Research Associate at Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

Europe is warmed by heat from ocean currents, which move water from the warm tropics to the colder North Atlantic. Once the warm, salty water from the tropics reach the polar region, they cool enough to sink to the depths and flow back towards the Southern Ocean.

This enormous system of currents is known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Climate scientists are increasingly worried about the AMOC, which appears to be slowing down.

While there’s still debate over whether the AMOC has weakened over the last decades, climate models consistently show the AMOC will significantly weaken over the coming century due to the increase in heat-trapping atmospheric greenhouse gases. As more heat stays in the system, the ocean heats up and ice melts, adding fresh water to polar oceans. The overall effect is to slow these currents. The AMOC could weaken 30% by 2060.

A weaker AMOC would mean big changes in Europe, which benefits directly from the warmer waters it brings. But it would also change the climate in the Southern Hemisphere. Our new research shows a weakening of the AMOC would lead to a large change in rainfall patterns, leading to wetter summers in northern Australia and a drier New Zealand year-round. Indonesia and northern Papua New Guinea would also become drier.

Running AMOC?

In the Earth’s long history, the AMOC has gone through many periods of weakening. These were most common during ice ages, when glaciers expanded, but they also occurred during periods as warm as today.

To reconstruct past climates, researchers use data from ice cores, marine sediment cores and speleothems (mineral deposits in caves such as flowstone and stalagmites), as well as simulations performed with climate models. These data show a weaker AMOC strongly affected the climate in the Northern Hemisphere. When flows of warmer water faltered, sea ice expanded in the North Atlantic, while Europe endured colder, drier conditions and the northern tropics became drier.

If the AMOC weakens significantly, it will mean major change for Northern Hemisphere nations. Average temperatures could actually drop 3°C in Western Europe.

At present, the AMOC’s flows of warmer water give European nations more pleasant climates and keeps ports ice free, while the Canadian side of the North Atlantic has a much more severe climate.

What does it mean for the Southern Hemisphere?

Data from ice cores and marine sediment cores also showed Antarctica and the Southern Ocean became warmer during these past AMOC weakening events. Until now, we haven’t understood what an AMOC weakening would mean for rainfall in the Australasian region.

To find out, we ran climate model simulations with the Australian Earth system model, ACCESS-ESM1.5. Our modelling reveals a complex and regionally varied response, primarily shaped by large-scale atmospheric changes.

As the AMOC weakens, it sets off a chain reaction in the oceans and atmosphere which alter rainfall and temperatures across Australasia.

A weaker AMOC would affect ocean temperatures, cooling surface waters in the northern hemisphere and warming waters in the southern hemisphere. This would push the Intertropical Convergence Zone – a belt of heavy rain near the equator – further south.

This means areas such as northern Papua New Guinea and Indonesia will get less rain, while northern Australia will cop wetter summers.

Next, a warmer south equatorial Atlantic triggers atmospheric waves – large-scale movements of air that travel across the globe. These waves lower air pressure over northern Australia, pulling in more moisture and making summer rainfall even heavier.

At the same time, a weaker AMOC disrupts the usual tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean dynamics, altering wind patterns and pressure systems in the Southern Hemisphere. High pressure systems shift southward, affecting storm tracks. The overall effect is fewer storms reaching southern Australia and New Zealand, leading to drier winters.

Last, as the Atlantic currents peter out, heat builds up in Southern Hemisphere oceans rather than being carried to the poles. This results in hotter summers, particularly in southern Australia and New Zealand.

Deluges and droughts

It’s likely we will see these important currents weaken this century, bringing major change to both hemispheres.

Those in Australia and New Zealand are likely to see a magnification of some existing climate shifts, such as a drier south and wetter north.

Policymakers and resource managers need to prepare for a future where water becomes an increasingly uncertain resource.

In the north, more rain over summer could mean a greater reliance on water storage and flood mitigation. In the south, drier conditions may force increased water use efficiency and drought planning.

In New Zealand, a year-round drying trend could challenge farm productivity and hydropower generation. Long-term water management will be critical.

What happens in the North Atlantic doesn’t stay there. It ripples through the atmosphere and oceans, with far-reaching consequences.

Himadri Saini receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Laurie Menviel receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Weakening currents in the Atlantic may mean a wetter northern Australia and drier New Zealand – https://theconversation.com/weakening-currents-in-the-atlantic-may-mean-a-wetter-northern-australia-and-drier-new-zealand-248679

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Ogden, Associate Professor in Global Studies, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

When Donald Trump’s benefactor and cost-cutter-in-chief Elon Musk recently supported a call for the United States to quit NATO and the United Nations, it should perhaps have been more surprising.

But the first months of the second Trump presidency have already seen key parts of the current international order undermined. Musk’s position fits a general pattern.

Aside from the tilt towards a multipolar world order, the US now refuses to recognise the International Criminal Court, has slashed its foreign aid contributions, and has withdrawn from the World Health Organization, the UN Human Rights Council and the Palestinian relief agency UNRWA.

With Trump’s domestic politics displaying a clear autocratic edge, the rejection of the founding principles and ideals of the UN comes into sharper relief. The intolerant and impatient negotiating approach he displayed with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky also belies a disregard for cooperative and consensus-based diplomacy.

The drive to slash the federal deficit dovetails with this general abandonment of expensive international commitments. If the Trump regime follows through on its apparent strategy of manufacturing crises to advance its agenda, then leaving the UN entirely is a logical next step.

Undermined ideals

This is all in stark contrast to the central role the UN has traditionally played within the US-led international order since 1945.

Along with other institutions, the UN allowed the US to shape the international system in its own image and spread its domestic values and interests across the world. Along with NATO, the UN was designed as a global security institution to produce global stability.

In theory at least, the political and economic values of the US and other democracies enabled the construction of the postwar order. According to political scientist John Ikenberry, this was based on “multilateralism, alliance partnerships, strategic restraint, cooperative security, and institutional and rule-based relationships”.

But by the 21st century, US actions had undermined many of these principles. The US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 bypassed the authority of the UN, causing then secretary-general Kofi Annan to declare that “from the charter point of view [the invasion] was illegal”.

This undermined the legitimacy of the UN and America’s place within it. But it also diminished the organisation as a force for maintaining international security and national sovereignty in global affairs.

The subsequent human rights violations by the US through its use of rendition, torture and detention at facilities such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib further weakened the UN’s credibility as a protector of liberal international values.

The US has also been a regular non-payer of UN fees, owing US$2.8 billion in early 2025. And it is one of the lowest contribtuors of military and police personnel to UN peacekeeping operations, despite paying nearly 27% of the overall budget.

US versus UN

Since the 1990s, several Republican politicians have argued for the US to withdraw entirely from the UN. In 1997, senator Ron Paul introduced the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, aimed at ending UN membership, expelling the UN headquarters from New York and ending US funding.

Although it received minimal support and never reached committee hearings, Paul reintroduced the act in every congressional session until his 2011 retirement. It was then taken up by other Republicans, including Paul Broun and Mike Rogers.

In December 2023, senator Mike Lee and representative Chip Roy led the introduction of the “Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act”.

Roy referenced the perceived negative treatment of Israel, the promotion of China, “the propagation of climate hysteria” and the US$12.5 billion in annual payments. Lee added:

Americans’ hard-earned dollars have been funnelled into initiatives that fly in the face of our values – enabling tyrants, betraying allies, and spreading bigotry.

Public polling in 2024 also showed only 52% of Americans had a favourable view of the UN. This opposition has deeper historical roots, too.

In 1920, US isolationists blocked the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, and with it US participation in the League of Nations (the predecessor to the United Nations). Although the US would interact with the League of Nations until the UN’s formation in 1945, it never became an official member.

Criticism of the UN also has a bipartisan angle, with the US withdrawing funding of UNRWA in 2024 during Joe Biden’s presidency after Israel accused the agency of links to Hamas.

A diminished UN

If Trump harnesses these historical and modern forces to pull the US out of the UN, it would fundamentally – and likely irrevocably – undermine what has been a central pillar of the current international order.

It would also increase US isolationism, reduce Western influence, and legitimise alternative security bodies. These include the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which the US could potentially join, especially given Russia and India are both members.

More broadly, the reduced influence of the UN will endanger general peace and security in the international sphere, and the wider protection and promotion of human rights.

There would be greater unpredictability in global affairs, and the world would be a more dangerous place. For countries big and small, a UN without the US will force new strategic calculations and create new alliances and blocs, as the world leaps into the unknown.

Chris Ogden is a Senior Research Fellow with The Foreign Policy Centre, London.

– ref. Elon Musk thinks the US should leave the UN – what if Trump does it? – https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-thinks-the-us-should-leave-the-un-what-if-trump-does-it-251483

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jamie Wood, Senior Lecturer in Ecology and Evolution, University of Adelaide

Studies of ancient DNA have tended to focus on frozen land in the northern hemisphere, where woolly mammoths and bison roamed. Meanwhile, Antarctica has received relatively little attention. We set out to change that.

The most suitable sediments are exposed near the coast of the icy continent, where penguins like to breed. Their poo is a rich source of DNA, providing information about the health of the population as well as what penguins have been eating.

Our new research opens a window on the past of Adélie penguins in Antarctica, going back 6,000 years. It also offers a surprise glimpse into the shrinking world of southern elephant seals over the past 1,000 years.

Understanding how these species coped with climate change in the past can help us prepare for the future. Wildlife in Antarctica faces multiple emerging threats and will likely need support to cope with the many challenges ahead.

A unique marine ecosystem

Adélie penguins are particularly sensitive to changes in their environment. This makes them what we call a “sentinel species”, providing an early warning of imbalance or dysfunction in the coastal ecosystem. Their poo also provides a record of how they responded to changes in the past.

In our new research, we excavated pits up to 80cm deep at ten Adélie penguin colonies along the 700km Ross Sea coastline. We then collected 156 sediment samples from different depths in each excavation.

Six of these colonies were still active, meaning birds return annually to breed. The other four had been abandoned at various times over the past 6,000 years.

From these sediments we generated 94 billion DNA sequences, which provided us with an unparalleled window into the past lives of Adélie penguins and their ecosystem.

We detected the DNA of several animal species besides Adélie penguins. These animals included two other birds, three seals and two soil invertebrates.

Not all of this DNA came from penguin poo. Our samples also contained DNA from feathers, hairs or skin cells of other species in the environment at the time.

Penguin population size and diet

When we took a closer look at the DNA from penguins of the present day, we found more genetic diversity in samples from larger colonies.

Recognising this relationship between genetic diversity and colony size enabled us to estimate the size of former colonies. We could also reconstruct population trends through time.

For example, in samples from active colonies, we found penguin genetic diversity increased as we sampled closer and closer to the surface. This may reflect population growth over the past century.

The DNA also revealed changes in penguin diets over time. Over the past 4,000 years, the penguins in the southern Ross Sea switched from mainly eating one type of fish – the bald notothen – to another, Antarctic silverfish.

The bald notothen lives beneath the sea ice, so this prey-switching was likely driven by a change in sea ice extent compared with the past.

Surprise! Elephant seals

We made an unexpected discovery at Cape Hallett, in the northern Ross Sea. This is the site of an active penguin colony.

Samples of sediment from close to the surface contained lots of penguin DNA and eggshell. But samples from further down, where penguin DNA and eggshell were scarce, contained DNA from southern elephant seals.

Today, elephant seals are uncommon visitors to the Antarctic continent, and breed on subantarctic islands including Macquarie, Campbell and Antipodes Islands. Yet, bones of elephant seal pups found along the Ross Sea coast indicate the species used to breed in the area.

Carbon dating of these bones indicate elephant seal colonies began disappearing from the southern Ross Sea around 1,000 years ago. Over the following 200 years, colonies in the northern Ross Sea began vanishing too.

As the climate cooled and the extent of sea ice increased, elephant seals could no longer access suitable breeding sites. These sites were then taken over by Adélie penguins who expanded into areas once occupied by seals.

Our DNA evidence suggests Cape Hallett was one of the last strongholds of southern elephant seals on the icy continent. But we may yet again see elephant seals breeding on the Antarctic mainland as the world warms and sea ice melts.

Even more ancient DNA in Antarctica

Our study spans the past 6,000 years, but our research suggests it would be possible to go even further back.

The DNA fragments we found were very well preserved, showing little of the damage expected in warmer climates.

So it should be possible to obtain much older DNA from sediments on land in Antarctica – maybe even 1 million-year-old DNA, as recently reported from Antarctic sediments beneath the ocean floor.

Worthy of lasting protection

In December 2017, 2.09 million square kilometres of the Ross Sea and adjoining Southern Ocean became the world’s largest marine protected area. Establishing the protection was a major achievement, yet it was only afforded for 35 years.

After 2052, continuation of the region’s protected status will require international agreement. Knowledge of the vulnerability of local species and their risk in the face of change will play a key role in informing the decision. Our research provides a case study for how ancient environmental DNA can contribute towards this understanding.

This research was part of the Ross Sea Region Research and Monitoring Programme,, funded by the New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment.

Theresa Cole 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. DNA detectives in Antarctica: probing 6,000 years of penguin poo for clues to the past – https://theconversation.com/dna-detectives-in-antarctica-probing-6-000-years-of-penguin-poo-for-clues-to-the-past-249940

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Becky Thomas, Senior Lecturer in Ecology, Royal Holloway University of London

Cities can be deeply unwelcoming places for wildlife. They are noisy, difficult to get around, full of people and heavily reliant on artificial lighting. Yet some species do better in urban areas than in rural ones.

Research is showing that animals of the same species that live in cities and the countryside are behaving differently. These disparities will probably grow since
over half of people worldwide now live in urban areas, and cities and towns are getting bigger.

A recent study from Tel Aviv University found that Egyptian fruit bats living in urban parts of Israel gave birth two and a half weeks earlier than rural populations. This gives them an advantage as they are more likely to reproduce twice per year.

In the urban areas in the study there was a higher abundance and diversity of fruit trees. In Tel Aviv, for instance, the trees are watered. This means there is fruit for a longer period across the year, meaning more reliable food supplies for the bats.

They may also be benefiting from the urban heat island effect, with warmer temperatures reducing the harshness of the winters felt by their rural neighbours.

Most species perceive humans as predators, so our presence disturbs and distracts them from feeding and breeding. To survive in human-dominated cities, animals must therefore be bold.

This is something researchers have studied for a while in wildlife like foxes. Urban foxes are often more confident in their response to new food when it is presented in a novel object like a puzzle box.

Urban birds, from robins to feral pigeons, are also bolder. In a 2008 study scientists found that urban birds are more tolerant of human disturbance than rural ones), allowing humans to approach them closely.

The birds that reacted less to approaching humans were descended from a large number of generations since urbanisation, showing a long history of adaptation. This behavioural change helps these animals to adjust their stress responses when they are exposed to new situations. If they did not do this, they would suffer with chronic stress.

To test whether this boldness in birds is due to evolutionary adaptations, one 2006 experimental study in Germany hand-raised blackbird chicks taken from both an urban centre and a nearby forest.

They kept all the birds in the same environment until they were adults and then tested their acute stress responses when the birds were caught and handled. The birds from the city had a lower stress response, suggesting that this difference was genetically determined.

However, urban birds tend to be less successful in raising chicks than those in more natural areas. Although birds can take advantage of food provided by people in many cities and towns across the world – whether directly in bird feeders, or by scavenging on our discarded food – urban areas do not provide enough of the invertebrate prey that many nestlings need.

One study published in 2020 found that the biggest challenge for urban great tits was the low abundance of nearby insects.

Same species, different city

Many of these changes in urban species are difficult for people to detect, but one in particular becomes clear when you spend time in cities across the world. Have you noticed that whichever city you visit there seem to be many animals of the same species?

Scientists call this biotic homogenisation. It happens when places start to become increasingly similar over time with the species that you can find there.

This process begins with the exodus of species that cannot tolerate living alongside humans. Large mammals, often predators, are the first to go as an area becomes increasingly urbanised.

Then the non-native species begin to move in. Feral pigeons, rats, starlings and many other species are introduced by people over time, whether accidentally or deliberately, until a point is reached when the biodiversity found in one city, say in the US, starts to resemble another in Europe.

These species often have broader dietary and habitat niches, which makes them good at exploiting urban areas.

Urbanisation is continually changing our relationship with animals and how we perceive nature. Although scientists debate whether we have entered the Anthropocene (a new geological age based on significant planetary changes caused by humans) it is undeniable that humans have and still are moulding landscapes to suit our needs.

The growth of cities and other urban areas is set to continue, with future urban expansion predicted to swallow 11-33 million hectares of natural habitat by 2100, an area the size of Norway. Indeed, humans are becoming the largest driving force in the evolution of wildlife.

Becky 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. Why some animals defy the odds to thrive in urban areas – https://theconversation.com/why-some-animals-defy-the-odds-to-thrive-in-urban-areas-249915

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melita Jazbec, Research Director at the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

Australians largely support transforming the economy to increase recycling, repurpose products and reduce waste, according to a new report from the Productivity Commission, but they are being impeded by inconsistent regulations.

The interim report of the commission’s inquiry into Australia’s circular economy, released Wednesday night, also finds consumers need more information about the durability and repairability of products.

The report says that despite increased awareness of the benefits of a circular economy, the transformation has been complex and progress has been slow.

What is a circular economy?

A circular economy is based on three principles.

The first is designing and making goods without waste and pollution. This includes using renewable energy to reduce carbon emissions.

The second is keeping products and materials in use for as long as possible. This can be achieved by maintaining or repairing products to extend their life.

The third principle is regeneration. This means promoting activities with positive outcomes. This could include activities to deal with biodiversity loss, or social benefits through food relief and donations.

Some businesses are already using circular economy practices but compared to other developed countries, Australia is well behind. The recent CSIRO study found only 3.7% of the Australian economy is circular, half of the world’s average of 7.2%.

In December last year the Federal government released the National Circular Economy Framework providing guidance how to increase circularity.

Coinciding with this, the Productivity Commission evaluated circular economy opportunities in six priority sectors – built environment, food and agriculture, textiles and clothing, vehicles, mining and electronics.

Priority areas

The priority areas were selected based on the impact their materials has on the environment and the economy.

For example, the construction sector uses large quantities of materials which are expensive to recycle. While the increased use of electric vehicles is a bonus for the environment, the lithium-ion batteries they use pose a fire risk if incorrectly managed.

How much impact a particular area has on Australia, was also taken into account.

For example, Australians are the largest consumers of textiles in the world per capita. But most of these are imported, limiting our influence on how they are made.

Also, the impact and effectiveness of policies and regulations was also considered. Stakeholders across government and community sectors provided detailed submissions that informed the commission’s assessment.

Getting consumers, government and business onboard

The Productivity Commission noted material consumption and waste generation has not changed since 2010. This is because consumers are not repairing and reusing appliances or recycling which is important to a circular economy.

Australia generates some of the highest amounts of waste per capita in the world, including food waste, plastic waste, e-waste and textile waste.

While the report recommends how food waste should be managed, consumers need to change their behaviour to reduce the waste they generate.

To do this, however, consumers need information about making informed purchasing decisions. For e-waste, they need easy access to repair services to extend the life of their products rather than buying new.

The report repeats earlier recommendations about repairs and reuse from the Productivity Commission’s 2021 Right to Repair inquiry.

That inquiry recommended the government develop a product labelling scheme giving consumers information about how durable household appliances are and whether they can be repaired.

We believe implementing these recommendations would bring Australia in line with global best practice reflected in the European Eco-design Sustainable Product regulations.

Impeded by regulations

This report highlights the importance of consistent policies and regulations. These currently vary across sectors and jurisdictions.

Standards enabling the use of recycled materials in construction, consistent rules on the disposal of lithium-ion batteries and consistent kerbside recycling guidelines were all needed.

The Circular Economy Ministerial Advisory Group recommended in their final report in December new legislation, a governance model and investment in innovation to help Australia move to a circular economy.

Help for business

When designed well, circular business models have the potential to reduce waste materials and carbon emissions.

However, changing industry and consumer practices represents a big change. As well as inconsistent regulations slowing the transformation, making processes more innovative and experimenting with new technologies can be costly.

The Productivity Commission report says government can help reduce barriers to implementation of circular business models given business has a pivotal role in
driving this transition.

It also supports product stewardship, an approach where producers, importers and brands are responsible and liable for the impact their products have on the environment and on human health across the product life cycle.

Regulations for product stewardship was identified in the report as important, particularly in textiles and clothing, vehicles, EV batteries, solar panels and consumer electronics.

Towards net zero

Several international studies have reported that a circular economy will be needed to achieve net zero targets.

In Australia, the industry sector including mining, manufacturing and construction is responsible for around 34% of total emissions. Using materials more efficiently will help reduce them.

Agriculture, despite its small contribution to the GDP (2.4%), alone contributes 18% to greenhouse gas emissions.

As the report notes, most of these emissions (80%) come from livestock and use of synthetic fertilisers (15%). But only food waste is identified as one of the priority areas.

It should be noted though that food waste only accounts for 3% of emissions. So reducing emissions from agriculture, switching to renewable fertilisers and changing livestock diets should also be a priority.

The Productivity Commission will send its final report to government by August this year.

Melita Jazbec receives research funding from various government and non-government sources. Melita Jazbec is currently conducting research projects on circular economy funded by Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and by AgriFutures.

Melita Jazbec made a submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry which also interviewed her.

Monique Retamal receives research funding from federal DCCEEW, Circular Australia and state government environment departments. Monique was interviewed by the Productivity Commission inquiry.

Nick Florin receives funding from government and non-government organisations, including the Federal department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment, and Water, and the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation. Nick is also a Director of the Product Stewardship Centre of Excellence.

Stuart White receives research funding from various government and non-government sources.

– ref. Australians generate mountains of waste, and we need more help to recycle and resuse it – https://theconversation.com/australians-generate-mountains-of-waste-and-we-need-more-help-to-recycle-and-resuse-it-251354

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yetta Gurtner, Adjunct senior lecturer, Centre for Disaster Studies, James Cook University

For millions of people in southeast Queensland and northern New South Wales, Cyclone Alfred will be their first experience living through a cyclone. Alfred is forecast to make landfall about 2am on Friday morning.

I am a disaster expert based in northern Queensland, which regularly experiences cyclones. In my other role as an acting SES public information officer, I’m heading south to the Gold Coast to help residents prepare and respond.

Here’s what I want you to know. First, don’t panic. Second, do prepare.

Preparation has several steps. It’s important to clearly assess your specific threat. If you live near the sea, storm surges – where the sea spills inland – could be a significant threat, while flooding might pose a large risk if you live near a river – especially in the few days after Alfred passes. The highest rainfall is likely on Alfred’s southern flank from the Gold Coast down to northern New South Wales.

Having enough food, water and medication is vital. Be ready to evacuate too, in case authorities deem it necessary. Check your local council’s disaster website, disaster apps and stay tuned to the ABC, which will run disaster alerts.

What should I do right now?

If you’re in the danger zone, make preparations now, before the full intensity of the cyclone arrives.

Tie down loose objects. Clean gutters to avoid overflow from torrential rain. And prepare your “go bag” – a bag of essentials you can throw in the car if authorities tell you to leave immediately. Don’t take too much – just the bare necessities.

Buy an AM/FM radio and tune it to ABC National, as you cannot be sure mobile networks will function. Radio is a reliable way to get good information from the ABC, Australia’s designated emergency channel.

Make sure the car is fuelled or charged. If you’ve got a generator, make sure you have fuel and the generator is positioned outside in a well-ventilated area. Water is often unreliable after disasters. Fill your bathtub or front-loader washing machine with water. Put containers of water in your freezer, to keep food cold if the power goes out and as another water source. Plan for days of power outages. Protect windows with plywood, heavy blankets or mattresses. Put a mattress between your car and garage roller door to stop it blowing in.

Turn off gas, electricity and solar power.

Authorities recommend using sandbags to reduce the chance of water getting in. You can get sacks from hardware stores or council-run emergency centres, if available, who also provide sand. You also need plastic sheeting.

If there’s a shortage of sand, you can use garden soil or commercial bagged soil. If you can’t get sacks, large plastic shopping bags will do.

Tape strong plastic sheeting around the door or low window where water might get in. This is the barrier that actually keeps water out – sandbags keep it in place.

Fill sandbags and lay them like bricks. Lay one row, and lay the next row offset for strength.

Sandbags are good, but they have limits. There’s little point in piling sandbags higher than about 30 centimetres. If floodwaters edge higher, water will get through.

Many people have had the unpleasant experience of having effluent come back up through toilets during cyclones and subsequent flooding. To stop this, cover your toilet with plastic sheeting (directly on the porcelain) and put a sandbag on top for weight. Do the same for any drains where water might flow back up.

To reduce water damage, put valuable or important items up high, atop tables or bunk beds or upstairs if you have a second storey.

Read more:
How to prepare for a cyclone, according to an expert

What will it be like when Alfred hits?

When the cyclone first hits, it can be overwhelming. The sound is like a roaring jet engine.

If you haven’t been advised to evacuate by authorities, you will be sheltering in place.

This means finding the safest room in the house, to avoid damage from flying objects. Choose the smallest room with the fewest windows – a bathroom or a room under the stairs. Basements are very safe, but will be the first affected by water.

As the cyclone picks up intensity, set up inside this safe room with your pets and children. Do not leave this room until you have been told it’s safe by authorities.

At the centre of strong cyclones is the eye of the storm, which we experience as a period of sudden calm. People often make the mistake of thinking it’s over. But in fact, it’s just a brief reprieve before the intense winds pick up again. Don’t make the mistake of leaving the house – check with authoritative sources.

Cyclone Alfred is a slow-moving cyclone, which means you might be stuck inside for a while. Be prepared to be inside your house for up to 24 hours, even after the worst has passed. This is because there may well be downed powerlines with live electricity, broken glass, falling trees and so on.

For your children (and yourself), being in the cyclone is frightening. Young kids find the sound chilling. You can play music through headphones to help soothe them. Board games, books and puzzles can help pass the time. You will need distraction. Have a bucket in the corner for emergency toilet needs.

Keep track of the storm and any emerging dangers through your radio and internet-enabled phone (if still functioning).

What if I have to evacuate?

Authorities are working to set up evacuation centres for people whose homes may not be safe. Authorities will go door-to-door to tell affected residents to leave, as well as broadcasting the information on radio and online.

You’re more likely to have to evacuate if your house is on low-lying land near the sea, as a storm surge is likely. How much water is pushed ashore will depend on the tide, but it could be as high as 70cm above the high tide line if we’re unlucky.

Evacuations can happen after the cyclone too. Alfred is packing a lot of rain – up to a metre in some areas. That’s very likely to cause flooding, both flash floods and rivers breaking their banks.

If you are asked to evacuate, you can go to the house of a friend or family member if it’s on higher ground and outside the flood risk zones. Or you can go to a local evacuation centre – check your council website to see where your closest one is. Take as little as possible with you.

Many people who choose not to evacuate do so because they’re worried about their pets. This is risky. Some evacuation centres do take pets, so check now. If they don’t, look for other options with friends and family. Staying put after an evacuation order is dangerous.

What will happen after the cyclone?

Cyclone Alfred brings three threats: intense winds, high seas and heavy rain.

After the intense winds die down, the seas will be dangerous for days after Alfred. There are coastal hazard warnings for about 1,000km of coastline.

Cyclones also often decay into tropical low weather systems, which dump heavy rain for days. This is likely.

As you move into recovery phase, don’t relax your guard. In far north Queensland, 16 people have now died after being infected with melioidosis, a bacterium found in mud. The bug is more prevalent after heavy rainfall.

Wear protective gear such as gloves and face masks when dealing with water-damaged goods and mud, and pay close attention to the latest advice authorities are giving.

But remember – don’t panic. We will get through this.

Yetta Gurtner has received funding in the past from the Bureau of Meteorology. She is a community engagement officer with the Queensland State Emergency Services.

– ref. ‘Don’t panic, do prepare’: why it’s not too late to plan for Cyclone Alfred – https://theconversation.com/dont-panic-do-prepare-why-its-not-too-late-to-plan-for-cyclone-alfred-251463

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Turton, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Geography, CQUniversity Australia

Tropical Cyclone Alfred is strengthening as it bears down on the coast of southern Queensland and northern New South Wales, prompting fears it may become a destructive category 3 cyclone before it makes landfall.

As of Wednesday, the cyclone was a category 2 and had begun moving west towards land. It is forecast to maintain intensity on Thursday and cross the coast early on Friday morning, probably between Maroochydore and Coolangatta.

According to the Bureau of Meteorology, the possibility of the system reaching a low-end category 3 was a low risk but “cannot be ruled out”.

The bureau has issued warnings from Double Island Point in Queensland to Grafton in NSW. The area includes Brisbane, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Byron Bay and Ballina.

Brisbane Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner says modelling shows 20,000 properties in Brisbane could be affected by storm surge or flooding.

The intensifying cyclone is a major concern, and makes Cyclone Alfred an unusual phenomenon. Cyclones typically lose strength as they approach the coast – especially this far south. It means Alfred may cause extensive damage, including to inland areas. We can expect it to last well into Friday before petering out and heading south on Saturday.

What to expect in the next few days

From Wednesday afternoon and into Thursday, the bureau forecasts gales, with damaging wind gusts to 120km an hour, along the coast from southeast Queensland to northeast NSW.

From Thursday afternoon, destructive wind gusts of up to 155km an hour may develop around the coast and islands as Alfred’s “destructive core” approaches and crosses the coast, the bureau says.

If Alfred crosses the coast on Friday morning during high tide, it may cause a dangerous storm surge along the coast, especially in waterfront suburbs near and south of the cyclone’s centre. This may inundate low-lying areas, such as canal communities of the Gold Coast.

In Brisbane, peak storm surges are expected from Thursday onwards. Some 20,000 properties have been warned of impacts ranging from minor inundation in yards to significant flooding inside homes. Areas most at risk include Nudgee Beach, Brighton, Windsor, Ashgrove, Morningside and Rocklea.

Damaging surf may also cause serious erosion at open beaches between Sandy Cape and Grafton, and further south into NSW.

From Thursday, residents in southeastern Queensland and northeastern NSW have been told to expect heavy to intense rain. It may lead to life-threatening flash flooding – again, near and south of the cyclone centre.

Northern NSW has already been hit by devastating flooding in recent years, most recently in February 2022. Many of its settlements, including Lismore, are along or close to major river courses. Residents are understandably anxious about what the next few days may bring.

The bureau released the below map on Wednesday morning. It shows the bureau’s best estimate of the cyclone’s future movement and intensity.

The grey zone indicates the range of tracks the cyclone centre may follow. The bureau says winds will almost certainly extend to regions outside the rings on this map.

Why is Alfred so fired up?

Cyclone Alfred has been meandering off Queensland’s coast for almost two weeks. Unusually, it has maintained its cyclonic structure and intensity much further south than is typical.

Over the past two days, unique atmospheric and oceanic conditions have allowed Cyclone Alfred to intensify.

It moved towards an area of warmer coastal water (around 27°C), which caused it to strengthen. It also moved into an area of reduced “vertical wind shear” – a variation in wind speed running at right angles to prevailing winds, which often acts to weaken a cyclone.

Usually, cyclones in this part of Australian waters may brush the coast, but are soon pulled south or east by an upper trough of cold air and then flicked away into the cooler waters of the Tasman Sea – to an area known as the “cyclone graveyard”.

The current situation is unusual because that upper trough is absent. At the same time, a high pressure system in the Tasman Sea is steering the cyclone towards the coast.

The big question now is whether Alfred reaches category 3 – that is, very destructive winds of 165–224km per hour.

Should the cyclone’s forward motion towards the coast slow, it raises the chances of becoming a category 3 storm. That’s because it would spend more time passing over the warm area of coastal water.

Category 3 winds are likely to cause significant structural damage to some buildings. Brisbane is, to some extent, sheltered from the winds by offshore islands. Other areas, such as the Gold Coast, do not have such protections.

How long will the cyclone last?

As I write, gales are starting to rake the coast – including where I live, on the Sunshine Coast. Conditions will continue to deteriorate this afternoon and into tonight.

The cyclone will bring gale-force winds to a large area of coastline – from Double Island Point in the north to potentially as far south as Coffs Harbour.

By Thursday afternoon, conditions on land and just offshore will be pretty rough. If the cyclone keeps travelling at a constant speed, it will cross the coast in the early hours of Friday morning.

This is less than ideal. It will be dark and people can’t see what’s going on. But there is much affected communities can do to prepare, as outlined here.

For cyclone preparedness and safety advice, go to Get Ready Queensland. For emergency assistance call the State Emergency Service (SES) in NSW or Queensland on 132 500.

Steve Turton has previously received funding from the federal government.

– ref. Cyclone Alfred is bearing down. Here’s how it grew so fierce – and where it’s expected to hit – https://theconversation.com/cyclone-alfred-is-bearing-down-heres-how-it-grew-so-fierce-and-where-its-expected-to-hit-251358

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wellett Potter, Lecturer in Law, University of New England

How much is your voice worth?

It could be as little as roughly A$100. That was how much ABC News Verify recently spent to clone federal senator Jacqui Lambie’s voice – with her permission – using an easily accessible online platform.

This example highlights how artificial intelligence (AI) apps which create a synthetic replica of a person’s image and/or voice in the form of deepfakes or voice cloning are becoming cheaper and easier to use.

This poses a serious threat not only to the functioning of democracy (especially around elections), but also to a person’s identity.

Current copyright laws in Australia are inadequate when it comes to protecting people if their image or voice is digitally cloned without their permission. Establishing “personality rights” could help.

Detecting what’s fake is difficult

Deepfake technology is able to produce content which seems increasingly real. This makes it harder to detect what is fake and what is not. Indeed, several people for whom the ABC played the voice clone of Senator Lambie did not initially realise it was fake.

This shows how unauthorised deepfakes and voice cloning can be easily used to generate misinformation. They can also be extremely damaging to individuals.

This was highlighted back in 2020, when one of Australia’s first political deepfake videos was released. It featured the then Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk claiming the state was “cooked” and in “massive debt”.

The video received around 1 million views on social media.

What laws cover this?

In Australia, defamation, privacy, image-based abuse laws, passing off and consumer protection laws might be applicable to situations involving deepfake video or audio clips. You may also be able to lodge a complaint with the eSafety commissioner.

In theory copyright law can also protect a person’s image and voice. However, its application is more nuanced.

First, a person whose likeness has been cloned by an AI platform often does not own the source material. This material could be an image, video or voice recording which has been copied and uploaded. Even if your image and voice is depicted, if you are not the owner of the source material, you cannot sue for infringement.

Using Senator Lambie as an example, the ABC only needed 90 seconds of original voice recording to create the AI clone. Senator Lambie’s voice itself is not able to be copyright-protected. That’s because copyright can only attach to a tangible expression, say in written or recorded form. It cannot attach to speech or unexpressed ideas.

As the ABC arranged, recorded and produced the original 90-second recording, the broadcaster could hold copyright in it as a sound recording. It is a fixed, tangible expression of Senator Lambie’s voice. However, unless the senator and the ABC made an agreement, Senator Lambie would have no economic rights, such as the right to reproduction, to the original voice recording. Nor would she have any rights to the clone of her voice.

In fact, the AI-generated clone itself is unlikely to be protected by copyright, as it is considered authorless under Australian copyright law. Many AI-generated creations are currently unable to be protected under Australian copyright, due to a lack of original, identifiable human authorship.

Moral rights – including the right of attribution (to be credited as the performer), the right against false attribution and the right of integrity – are also limited in scope. They could apply to the original audio clip, but not to a deepfake.

What are ‘personality rights’?

In most jurisdictions in the United States, there exist what are commonly known as “personality rights”. These rights include the right of publicity, which acknowledges that an individual’s name, likeness, voice and other attributes are commercially valuable.

Celebrities such as Bette Midler and Johnny Carson have successfully exercised this right to prevent companies using elements of their identity for commercial purposes without permission.

However, personality rights might not always apply to AI voice clones, with some lawyers arguing that only actual recorded voices are protectable, not clones of voices. This has led to states such as Tennessee introducing legislation to specifically address AI-generated content. The Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act, introduced in 2024, addresses the misappropriation of an individual’s voice through generative AI use.

Urgent steps are needed

There has been longstanding scholarly debate about whether Australia should introduce statutory publicity rights.

One of the challenges is overlap with pre-existing laws, such as Australian consumer law and tort law. Policymakers might be hesitant to introduce a new right, as these other areas of the law may provide partial protection. Another challenge is how to enforce these rights if an AI-generated deepfake is created overseas.

Australia could also consider introducing a similar law to the “No Fakes Bill” currently being debated in the US. If passed, this bill would allow people to protect their image and voice through intellectual property rights. This should be given serious consideration in Australia too.

Deepfakes are becoming more and more common, and are now widespread during elections. Because of this, it’s important that Australians remain vigilant to them in the lead up to this year’s federal election.

And let’s hope that whoever wins that election takes urgent steps to better protect everyone’s image and voice.

Wellett Potter 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. AI deepfakes threaten democracy and people’s identities. ‘Personality rights’ could help – https://theconversation.com/ai-deepfakes-threaten-democracy-and-peoples-identities-personality-rights-could-help-251267

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margaret Murray, Senior Lecturer, Nutrition, Swinburne University of Technology

If you head to the shops to buy bread, you’ll face a variety of different options.

But it can be hard to work out the difference between all the types on sale.

For instance, you might have a vague idea that wholemeal or wholegrain bread is healthy. But what’s the difference?

Here’s what we know and what this means for shoppers in Australia and New Zealand.

Let’s start with wholemeal bread

According to Australian and New Zealand food standards, wholemeal bread is made from flour containing all parts of the original grain (endosperm, germ and bran) in their original proportions.

Because it contains all parts of the grain, wholemeal bread is typically darker in colour and slightly more brown than white bread, which is made using only the endosperm.

How about wholegrain bread?

Australian and New Zealand food standards define wholegrain bread as something that contains either the intact grain (for instance, visible grains) or is made from processed grains (flour) where all the parts of the grain are present in their original proportions.

That last part may sound familiar. That’s because wholegrain is an umbrella term that encompasses both bread made with intact grains and bread made with wholemeal flour. In other words, wholemeal bread is a type of wholegrain bread, just like an apple is a type of fruit.

Don’t be confused by labels such as “with added grains”, “grainy” or “multigrain”. Australian and New Zealand food standards don’t define these so manufacturers can legally add a small amount of intact grains to white bread to make the product appear healthier. This doesn’t necessarily make these products wholegrain breads.

So unless a product is specifically called wholegrain bread, wholemeal bread or indicates it “contains whole grain”, it is likely to be made from more refined ingredients.

Which one’s healthier?

So when thinking about which bread to choose, both wholemeal and wholegrain breads are rich in beneficial compounds including nutrients and fibre, more so than breads made from further-refined flour, such as white bread.

The presence of these compounds is what makes eating wholegrains (including wholemeal bread) beneficial for our overall health. Research has also shown eating wholegrains helps reduce the risk of common chronic diseases, such as heart disease.

The table below gives us a closer look at the nutritional composition of these breads, and shows some slight differences.

Wholegrain bread is slightly higher in fibre, protein, niacin (vitamin B3), iron, zinc, phosphorus and magnesium than wholemeal bread. But wholegrain bread is lower in carbohydrates, thiamin (vitamin B1) and folate (vitamin B9).

However the differences are relatively small when considering how these contribute to your overall dietary intake.

Which one should I buy?

Next time you’re shopping, look for a wholegrain bread (one made from wholemeal flour that has intact grains and seeds throughout) as your number one choice for fibre and protein, and to support overall health.

If you can’t find wholegrain bread, wholemeal bread comes in a very close second.

Wholegrain and wholemeal bread tend to cost the same, but both tend to be more expensive than white bread.

Margaret Murray does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What’s the difference between wholemeal and wholegrain bread? Not a whole lot – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-wholemeal-and-wholegrain-bread-not-a-whole-lot-249156

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Hemming, Associate Professor of Law, School of Law and Justice, University of the Sunshine Coast

After Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded 23 others at Port Arthur in 1996, Australia made fundamental changes to its gun laws. The use of automatic and semi-automatic weapons became restricted and a national gun registry was established.

As a result, unlike the situation in the United States where automatic weapons can be readily obtained, mass shootings are a rarity in Australia.

However, a new and pressing danger in the form of 3D guns, or “ghost guns”, threatens to undermine Australia’s strict gun control laws.

The reason is simple: 3D guns can be manufactured in a suburban garage. In a process like making a dress from a pattern, a digital blueprint for the manufacture of a firearm can be downloaded from the internet. Then, instead of a sewing machine, you need a 3D printer or an electronic milling machine.

The emergence of these types of firearms reveal big loopholes in many of our gun laws. These need urgent attention.

How are these guns made?

A 3D gun is manufactured in stages, with each part of the gun printed separately and assembled manually.

Think of yourself as making a toy LEGO gun, but instead of taking the parts from the LEGO box, you make the parts on your 3D printer based on your digital blueprint and you then assemble your gun. Your raw materials are thermoplastic polymers and metal for the barrel and firing pin.

High-end, industrial-grade 3D printers are priced between $2,000 and $10,000, and are readily available.

This technology has been around for more than a decade.

The first 3D printed handgun was designed by Cody Wilson in 2013, which he christened The Liberator. It was made of 15 parts of plastic and a nail for the ring pin.

Also in 2013, reporters from the Daily Mail newspaper in London 3D-printed a Liberator pistol and smuggled the disassembled gun onto a Eurostar train. They reassembled the gun in the toilet.

As the gun was made of plastic, metal detectors were not activated, demonstrating the danger these weapons pose even in high-security locations such as airports and public transport.

In the recent high-profile murder in New York of Brian Thompson, chief executive of the US health insurance company United Healthcare, the suspect, Luigi Mangione, when arrested was found to be in possession of a similar 3D-printed gun and 3D-printed suppressor to those allegedly used in the shooting.

Leaps forward in technology

In the 12 years since the designs for The Liberator were posted on the internet, the quality and range of 3D guns have greatly improved and expanded.

According to Detective Inspector Brad Phelps from Queensland’s Crime and Intelligence Command Drug Squad, the technology has advanced sufficiently that:

now you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a privately manufactured firearm and a traditional firearm in many instances […] every jurisdiction in Australia has reported an increase, particularly in the last 18 months to two years.

As 3D guns are untraceable, the actual prevalence of 3D guns is unknown, other than the growing number of 3D guns seized in police raids. According to gun safety groups, 3D guns can now fire up to 40 rounds and use standard gauge ammunition.

Police predict homemade guns will soon overtake illicit weapon imports.

In October 2024, Western Australian police seized 21 privately made 3D-printed firearms from a home in Perth.

Fixing the legal loopholes

So, with all these alarm bells ringing in the ears of law enforcement agencies, what steps have authorities taken to meet the threat 3D guns pose to community safety?

Indeed, what effective steps are being taken to prevent further advances in the technology and thwart any efforts to produce these guns en masse?

The answer would appear to be that little attention has been directed towards the dangers 3D guns represent. Legislation across Australian jurisdictions is inconsistent.

At present, only New South Wales and Tasmania have legislated to make it an offence to possess a digital blueprint for the manufacture of a firearm on a 3D printer or electronic milling machine. The maximum penalties are imprisonment for 14 years and 21 years, respectively.

In 2022, WA took a step in the right direction by making unauthorised possession of firearms technology an offence. This included possession of a 3D printer or milling device.

The slow progress on this issue is well illustrated by South Australia. There have been 23 incidents in which police have seized 3D-printed firearms and firearm parts between 2020 and 2023.

But the drafting of proposed legal amendments to address these incidents started in 2024 and are still to be introduced into the SA parliament.

There needs to be a national sense of urgency similar to the federal government’s response to the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. Existing laws are inadequate as there is no uniformity in the legislation covering 3D-printed firearms and their digital blueprints.

There was a senate inquiry into gun violence in 2014, which found 3D printers “were by no means integral to the illegal manufacture of firearms”. This is no longer accurate.

Ironically, the senate committee recommended “Australian governments investigate the requirement for uniform regulations in all jurisdictions covering the manufacture of 3D-printed firearms and firearm parts”. A decade on, little progress has been made.

New laws could distinguish between possessing of a digital blueprint for a 3D gun and actually manufacturing a firearm. This could look like a scale of penalties, such as those imposed for the possession and manufacture of illegal drugs, which are based on the category of drug and the quantity seized.

Andrew Hemming 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. Police are seizing 3D-printed guns across Australia, but our laws aren’t keeping up – https://theconversation.com/police-are-seizing-3d-printed-guns-across-australia-but-our-laws-arent-keeping-up-250255

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

The aftermath of one of the most undiplomatic – and notorious – White House meetings in recent history reveals a changed world.

Having berated Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky for supposedly not wanting peace with Russia and failing to show sufficient gratitude to the United States, President Donald Trump has now paused all military aid to Ukraine.

This equates to about 40% of the beleaguered nation’s military support. If the gap is not quickly covered by other countries, Ukraine will be severely compromised in its defence against the Russian invasion.

This has happened while the Russian army is making slow but costly gains along the front in eastern Ukraine. Trump’s goal appears to be to force Zelensky to accept a deal he does not want, and which may be illegal under international law.

New Zealand is a long way from that front line, but the implications of Trump’s unilateral abandonment of Ukraine still create a serious foreign policy problem.

Aside from its unequivocal condemnation of Russia’s actions, New Zealand has provided Defence Force personnel for training, intelligence, logistics and liaison to the tune of nearly NZ$35 million. The government has also given an additional $32 million in humanitarian assistance.

At the same time, New Zealand has supported global legal efforts to hold Russia to account at both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. With Trump undermining these collective actions, New Zealand faces some stark choices.

Allies at war

While a genuine ceasefire and eventual peace in Ukraine are the right aims, Trump’s one-sided proposal has involved direct talks between Russia and the US, excluding all other parties, including the actual victims of Russian aggression.

With eery parallels to the Munich Agreement of 1938 between Nazi Germany, Britain, France and Italy, peace terms could be dictated to the innocent party. Ukraine may have to sacrifice part of its territory in the hope a wider peace prevails.

In exchange, Ukraine may be given some type of “security assurance”. But what that arrangement would look like, and what kind of peacekeeping force might be acceptable to Russia, remains unclear.

If the current UK and European ceasefire proposals fail, Europe could be pulled more directly into the conflict. Since the Trump rebuff, European leaders are embracing Zelenskyy more tightly, wary of an emboldened Russia threatening other states with substantial Russian populations such as in Estonia and Latvia.

European boots on the ground in Ukraine could escalate the existing war into a much larger and more dangerous conflict. The complexities of this new reality are now spilling over in the United Nations.

A fork in the road

While the Security Council finally agreed on a broad statement in favour of a lasting peace, just what that might look like has seen opposing resolutions in the General Assembly.

On February 18, 53 countries, including New Zealand, voted in favour of a resolution condemning Russian aggression and calling for the return of Ukrainian territory. The resolution passed, but the US, Russia, Belarus and North Korea voted against it.

The US then put up its own resolution calling for peace, without recognising Russian aggression or the illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory. New Zealand supported this, too.

Those two votes clearly signal a fork-in-the-road moment for New Zealand.

As well as the wider consequences and potential precedents of any Ukraine peace settlement for security in Europe and the Pacific region, there is the immediate problem of supporting Ukraine.

With the US and Europe – both traditional allies of New Zealand – now deeply divided, whatever path the government chooses will directly affect present and future security arrangements – including any possible “pillar two” membership of AUKUS.

Potentially complicating matters further, Trump’s civilian lieutenant Elon Musk has publicly advocated for the US leaving the UN and NATO. Whether or not that happens, the threat alone underscores the gravity of the current situation.

No option without risk

Ultimately, if Trump decides to force Zelensky to the negotiating table against his will, and Europe continues urging and supporting him to fight on, New Zealand will have to take sides. It cannot take both.

The National-led coalition government will either have to abandon the stance New Zealand has taken on the Russian invasion over the past three years, or wait for Europe’s response and align with efforts to support a rules-based international order.

The first option would mean stepping back from that traditional foreign policy position, cutting military support for Ukraine (and trusting the Trump process), and probably ending sanctions against Russia and diplomatic efforts for legal accountability.

The other path would mean spending more on military aid, and possibly deploying more defence personnel to help fill the gap Trump has created.

No option is without risk. But, on balance, the European approach to international affairs seems closer to New Zealand’s worldview than the one currently articulated by the Trump administration.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. America or Europe? Why Trump’s Ukraine U-turn is a fork in the road for New Zealand – https://theconversation.com/america-or-europe-why-trumps-ukraine-u-turn-is-a-fork-in-the-road-for-new-zealand-251459

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Bowman, Professor of Pyrogeography and Fire Science, University of Tasmania

For centuries, fire was one of the major fears for city-dwellers. Dense cities built largely of wood could – and did – burn. In 1666, a fire in a bakery went on to destroy two-thirds of the city of London, leaving 85% of residents homeless. In 1871, fire burned out huge areas of Chicago. In World War II, bombing raids by Allied forces largely destroyed cities such as Dresden in Germany and Tokyo in Japan.

The threat of large-scale urban fires drove authorities to spend more on urban firefighting and require buildings to use less flammable material. Fire alarms, fire engines and automatic sprinklers have done much to reduce the chance of uncontrolled spread.

But will our sense of safety endure in the age of climate change? In January, we saw swathes of Los Angeles burn – even in the northern winter. Driven by low humidity and high winds, numerous large fires encroached on the city, destroying outlying suburbs. Climate change made the fires worse, according to climate scientists.

Now we have new research on the question of whether climate change will make large city fires more likely. A research team from China, Singapore and Australia have gathered a decade’s worth of data on fires from almost 3,000 cities in 20 nations, home to one-fifth of the world’s population.

The researchers found for every 1°C increase in air temperature, outdoor fires (rubbish and landfill) increase 4.7% and vehicle fires 2.5%. If the world accelerates its burning of fossil fuels under a high emissions scenario compatible with a 4.3°C temperature rise by century’s end, outdoor fires in cities would soar 22% and vehicle fires 11%. But building fires are projected to actually fall 5%. Thankfully, this emissions scenario is now less likely.

What did this research find?

To make these findings, the researchers aggregated the fire incident data from 2,847 cities located in 20 countries over the 2011–20 decade and analysed them to see how air temperature influences the frequency of three types of fires: outdoor, structural and vehicle. They found a strong correlation.

Of the 20 nations, New Zealand looks likely to have the highest increase in fires, soaring 140% over 2020 figures by 2100.

When we think of fires in a city, we usually think of structural fires – a building going up in flames.

The research suggests building fires would actually decrease 5% by 2100. This is unexpected, and might suggest uncertainty about this finding.

Interestingly, this research found the fewest structural fires occurred at air temperatures of 24°C, a temperature which humans find optimal. When it’s hotter or cooler than that, more buildings catch fire.

Why? It’s likely due to our behaviour. We spend more time indoors when it’s very cold or very hot outside, which the authors suggest could make us more likely to accidentally cause fires by using electrical appliances and fireplaces which have a fire risk.

By contrast, outdoor and vehicle fires do increase linearly as temperatures rise. Most vehicle fires come from an equipment or heat source failure, which are both likely to increase as temperatures rise. We are also more likely to have a car crash when it’s hotter, and vehicle fires often come after a crash.

Outdoor fires become more likely because heat dries out fuels and favours fire spread. Rubbish dumps can spontaneously catch fire when temperatures are too high – even underground. This happens because chemical reactions are accelerated in warmer temperatures, causing waste materials to heat up faster. If the extra heat isn’t dissipated, waste can become so hot that it catches fire on its own.

We should take these estimates with a grain of salt. This is because they project recent statistical patterns into an uncertain future, and draw on a data set not perfectly suited to the task. The data set stops in 2020, before the electric vehicle transition gathered speed. EVs have a different risk profile for accidental fires.

As the authors note, there are large barriers to getting a coherent understanding of fire risk. “Despite multiple efforts, we have been unsuccessful in obtaining fire data from Africa and South America,” they write.

Their estimates also relate to a high-emissions future which is hopefully becoming less likely, though the general pattern of the results are similar under less severe climate projections.

Most importantly, it’s not yet clear why temperature influences urban fires. This uncertainty raises questions over whether simple projections of current patterns into the future are realistic or appropriate.

Cities aflame?

Arguably the most important contribution of this new research is to show us that our cities are not inherently protected from fire.

For city authorities, this research points to the need to manage combustible materials, from piles of mulch to dry urban parks and even home gardens. Storage yards, rubbish dumps and recycling centres will also need to be managed.

Fire used to be a major concern for cities, and it could be again. Cities and fire are uneasy bedfellows, and climate change will worsen the situation.

David Bowman is an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow and also receives funding from the New South Wales Bushfire and Natural Hazards Research Centre, and Natural Hazards Research Australia.

Calum Cunningham receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Fires used to terrify city residents. New research suggests climate change could see this fear return – https://theconversation.com/fires-used-to-terrify-city-residents-new-research-suggests-climate-change-could-see-this-fear-return-251056