Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shannon Brincat, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of the Sunshine Coast

We’re just a few months into US president Donald Trump’s second term but his rule has already been repeatedly compared to tyranny.

This may all feel very new to Americans, and to the rest of us watching on from around the world. But the threat of tyranny is an ancient one.

We can learn much from how people in ancient Greece and China dealt with this issue.

Where does tyranny come from?

The peoples of classical Greece were separated into city-states known as the polis.

A few of these, such as Athens and Argos, were democratic.

Others, such as Rhodes or Chios, had had democratic features such as civic participation in public life.

These city-states routinely faced external enemies but also the threat of tyrannical take-over from within.

Things came to a head in 510 BCE under the rule of an oppressive tyrant known as Hippias. He was ultimately expelled, leading eventually to the establishment of democracy through reforms made under an Athenian statesmen called Cleisthenes.

According to Plato, tyranny is the most degenerate political regime and emerges out of democracy’s excesses.

He argued that as democratic citizens become accustomed to living by pleasure rather than reason or duty to the public good, society becomes fragmented.

Demagogues – populist leaders who gain power by appealing to base desires and prejudices of the masses – promise the people more liberties. They turn citizens away from virtue and toward tyranny.

Aristotle, who was Plato’s student, defines tyranny as the corrupted form of monarchy. The tyrant perverts the constitutional order to bring about self-serving rulership – the rule of one. Tyranny, he argued, destroys law and justice, eroding all public trust.

The approach of Plato and Aristotle to combating tyranny was closely tied to their conception of the polis and the importance of citizenship.

For the classical Greeks, citizenship was a binding relationship of reciprocal duties and obligations owed to all other citizens. The law, they believed, was king.

It was these conventions that constrained political power, especially the arbitrary rule of one.

Civic education by participation in daily democratic life promoted virtue, they believed. All citizens and the ruler were subservient to the law – a bond that tyranny destroyed.

Aristotle said a strong middle class that could best prevent tyranny because they indicated a less unequal, and therefore more stable, society.

Plato’s view was more inward looking. He saw tyranny as a political manifestation of a disordered “enslaved soul” governed by appetites rather than reason. For him, philosophical guidance back to harmony was required for the tyrant and for the people.

Only through wisdom, he argued, could the people recognise and reject demagogues and populists.

Protecting democracy from tyranny

Some city-states learned from their institutional failings when tyranny had taken them over.

For example, after a coup of aristocrats overtook Athenian democracy in 411 BCE, Athenians began to swear the Oath of Demophantos. This was among the first attempts at a constitutional safeguard of democracy against tyranny.

It legally and morally obliged citizens to resist any attempt to overthrow democracy by force. The undertaking was a reciprocal duty; as other scholars have argued, each citizen could count on the support of all others to protect the democracy when a tyrant tried again.

This made it far more likely for people to take action against a would-be-tyrant; they knew every other citizen had sworn an oath to have their back.

The Greek historians of the time support these views. For example, Herodotus in the 5th century documented the rise of several tyrants across Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). He blamed the political vacuum created by the decline of aristocratic rule. Here, the personal ambition and luxury of elites laid the path to tyrannical behaviour.

Another famous historian named Thucydides, writing at the same time, analysed the power and political corruption behind tyranny. He observed how times of crisis exposed vulnerabilities within Athens, leading to factionalism, instability, and the erosion of democracy.

Tyranny in classical China

In classical China we see a complementary, yet unique view of tyranny.

During the Warring States period (475–221 BCE), when the Zhou Dynasty was divided amongst several competing states, preventing tyranny was a central concern.

These states were mostly hereditary monarchies rather than democracies but they still emphasised accountability to the people.

Mencius, a 4th-century BCE Chinese philosopher and Confucian scholar, argued the people’s welfare was the foundation of legitimate rule.

There is, he argued, a responsibility to all under the Mandate of Heaven (天命, tiānmìng). This ancient Chinese doctrine asserted that heaven grants legitimacy to just rulers. If a ruler became despotic or failed to uphold harmony and virtue, the mandate can be withdrawn, justifying rebellion and dynastic change.

Mencius famously said a ruler who oppresses the people is not a ruler but a “mere man” who could be violently overthrown.

Xunzi, another Confucian philosopher writing in the late 4th to 3rd Centuries BCE, believed humans were inherently selfish and chaotic.

To fend off tyranny he emphasised ritual, education, and rule of law. He believed in formal ceremonies and structured practices such as court etiquette, family rites, and daily ethical conduct. These, he believed, helped cultivate virtue, regulate behaviour, and maintain social harmony.

Mozi, writing mostly in the 5th to early 4th centuries BCE, was a Chinese philosopher who opposed Confucianism and founded Mohism, offered a different view.

Opposing all hierarchies, he emphasised jiān ài(兼爱) – universal obligation or care to all others – as a core ethical and political principle.

According to Mozi, tyranny arises when rulers act selfishly – favoring their own families, states, or interests over the common good. He advocated for strong moral conduct and competence of leaders, rather than their lineage, wealth or status.

Tyranny today

Viewed together, these traditions suggest preventing tyranny requires more than just moral leadership.

Rather, it requires a notion of reciprocity – of shared obligations between citizens – and systemic safeguards against the personal ambitions of rulers.

Ethical governance, civic education, legal frameworks, and shared responsibilities are essential.

Shannon Brincat 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. Tyranny is an ever-present threat to civilisations. Here’s how Classical Greece and China dealt with it – https://theconversation.com/tyranny-is-an-ever-present-threat-to-civilisations-heres-how-classical-greece-and-china-dealt-with-it-259680

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Jeffries, Senior Lecturer in Microbiology, Western Sydney University

A person in Arizona has died from the plague, local health officials reported on Friday.

This marks the first such death in this region in 18 years. But it’s a stark reminder that this historic disease, though rare nowadays, is not just a disease of the past.

So what actually is “plague”? And is it any cause for concern in Australia?

There are 3 types of ‘plague’

The word “plague” is often used to refer to any major disease epidemic or pandemic, or even to other undesirable events, such as a mouse plague. Naturally, the word can evoke fear.

But scientifically speaking, plague is a disease caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis.

Plague has three main forms: bubonic, septicemic and pneumonic.

Bubonic is the most common and is named after “buboes”, which are the painful, swollen lymph nodes the infection causes. Other symptoms include fever, headache, chills and weakness.

Bubonic plague is typically spread by fleas living on animals such as rats, prairie dogs and marmots. If an infected flea moves from their animal host to bite a human, this can cause an infection.

People can also become infected through handling an animal infected with the disease.

Septicemic plague occurs if bubonic plague is left untreated, or it can occur directly if the disease enters the bloodstream. Septicemic plague causes bleeding into the organs. The name comes from septicemia, which refers to a serious blood infection.

The recent death in the United States was due to a case of pneumonic plague, which is the most severe form. Bubonic plague can in some cases spread to the lungs, where it becomes pneumonic plague. However, pneumonic plague can also spread from person to person via tiny respiratory droplets, in a similar way to COVID. Symptoms are similar to the other forms but also include severe pneumonia.

Some 30–60% of people who contract bubonic plague will die, while the fatality rate can be up to 100% for pneumonic plague if left untreated.

Plague: a potted history

This disease is one of the most important in history. The Plague of Justinian (541–750CE) killed tens of millions of people in the western Mediterranean, heavily impacting the expansion of the Byzantine Empire.

The medieval Black Death (1346–53) was also seismic, killing tens of millions of people and up to half of Europe’s population.

Spread by the growing trade networks of the British empire, the third and most recent plague pandemic spanned the years 1855 until roughly 1960, peaking in the early 1900s. It was responsible for 12 million deaths, primarily in India, and even reached Australia.

It’s believed the bubonic plague was largely behind these pandemics.

Plague in the modern day

First introduced into the US during the third pandemic, plague infects an average of seven people a year in the west of the country, due to being endemic in groundhog and prairie dog populations there. The last major outbreak was 100 years ago.

Deaths are very rare, with 14 deaths in the past 25 years in the US.

Globally, there have been a few thousand cases of plague over the past decade.

The countries with the most cases currently include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar and Peru, with cases also occurring in India, central Asia and the US. Cases usually occur in rural and agricultural areas.

Plague can be treated

Plague can easily be treated with common antibiotics, typically a course of 10–14 days, which can include both oral and intravenous antibiotics. But it must be treated quickly.

The recent death is concerning, as it involves the airborne pneumonic form of the disease, the only form that spreads easily from person to person. But there’s no evidence of further spread of the disease within the US at this stage.

As Y. pestis is not found in Australian animals, there is little risk here. Plague has not been reported in Australia in more than a century.

But plague, like many diseases, is influenced by environmental conditions. The risk of climate change causing an expansion in the habitat of animal hosts means public health experts around the world should continue to monitor it closely.

The plague, though often perceived as a disease of history, is still with us and can pose a major health threat if not treated early.

Thomas Jeffries 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. A person in the US has died from pneumonic plague. It’s not just a disease of history – https://theconversation.com/a-person-in-the-us-has-died-from-pneumonic-plague-its-not-just-a-disease-of-history-261088

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jon Wardle, Professor of Public Health, Southern Cross University

Australians have long been some of the highest users of herbal and nutritional supplements that claim to boost mood or ease depression. These include omega-3s (found in fish oil), St John’s wort, probiotics and vitamin D.

In fact, among Australians with depression, these supplements are more popular than prescription medicines.

But do they actually work? And how do they compare to other treatments? A new review has assessed the evidence from 209 studies – here’s what it found.

Do these supplements work?

The new study aimed to assess the international evidence available for common over-the-counter products for depression in adults aged 18–60.

Despite their widespread popularity and availability, the study found there is surprisingly little research on these therapies, compared with psychological therapies and prescription antidepressants.

Only a few products had a relatively large body of evidence suggesting they were effective at treating symptoms. These were omega-3 supplements, St John’s wort, saffron, probiotics and vitamin D.

However, most products had only a single trial examining their use.

The researchers noted there was promising evidence for some herbal and nutritional supplements, where multiple studies did exist. These included folic acid, zinc, Rhodiola, lavender and lemon balm. But there is not enough evidence yet to recommend them, so more studies would be needed.

What does other research say?

These findings appear to support previous research assessing supplements for depression.

In 2024, the Australian government’s review of natural therapies also found moderate evidence that several herbal medicines can relieve symptoms in mild to moderate depression. These include curcumin (from turmeric), saffron and St John’s wort.

It also found moderate evidence St John’s wort was as effective as conventional antidepressants.

However, the major caveat is that much of the existing evidence relates to mild to moderate depression.

Mild to moderate depression usually means few symptoms beyond the minimum required for diagnosis (such as loss of pleasure and depressed mood). Major depression involves five or more symptoms along with significant distress and impact on day-to-day function.

While some products were found to have some effect in major depressive disorders – probiotics, for example – there is little evidence to suggest they’re effective where a large number of symptoms exist.

Dose and quality varies

The dose and quality of over-the-counter products can also vary significantly, which can make it difficult to identify appropriate products or assess which ones work.

In the United Kingdom, official advice for health-care practitioners acknowledges there is evidence St John’s wort can help with less severe forms of depression. But it also advises caution in recommending it, given how much the dose, preparation and quality can vary between different herbal products.

In Australia, guidelines for psychiatrists treating mood disorders such as depression note that good evidence exists for using omega-3 fatty acids (fish oils). But they highlight that there only seems to be a benefit when the product has 60% or more eicosapentaenoic acid (one of the main types of omega-3).

Whether folate supplements are effective for depression can depend on their form, which active ingredient is used, and how well the body can absorb it.

There may be other nuances in other supplements that we need more research to understand.

Are there any risks or downsides?

The study also concluded these products present few safety issues, whether used alone or in combination with other treatments. This is the reason most remain available over the counter.

However, herbal medicines and dietary supplements also contain chemicals that can work like drugs and interact with other medications.

For example, the way St John’s wort works on neurotransmitters (the body’s chemical messengers) is similar to many prescription antidepressants.

So taking it alongside antidepressants can lead to serotonin syndrome, a condition which can lead to fever and seizures in extreme instances. In rare cases, you may experience similar side effects to taking antidepressants.

However, many of these treatments are not only safe but more effective when used together with conventional treatments for depression.

For instance, some studies suggest omega-3 supplements used in addition to standard antidepressant therapy resulted in the best outcomes. But more research is needed to explore this link.

How do they stack up against other therapies?

Pharmaceutical medications, such as antidepressants, and talk therapies remain the gold standard in Australian guidelines for mood disorders. They are the most studied interventions for these disorders, which means we have the most evidence for how well they work.

However, emerging evidence is developing for other therapies too.

Lifestyle interventions to improve diet and exercise have been shown to be as effective in addressing symptoms of depression as receiving psychological treatment alone.

Nutrients are the building blocks of many body processes, and some nutrient deficiencies themselves (such as iron and B12) can cause depressive symptoms. So their potential role of nutritional supplements is perhaps unsurprising.

However, research – including our own – increasingly demonstrates eating nutrient-rich foods (rather than taking supplements) can be enough to improve symptoms in mood disorders such as depression.

The Australian government’s review of natural therapies also found the evidence for non-pharmacological treatments, such as yoga, was more certain than for herbal medicines and nutritional supplements in treating depression.

It’s also important to note that depressive symptoms rarely present alone. They can be secondary to other underlying health conditions (such as hypothyroidism) or present with other conditions.

Investigating and addressing these potential root causes and improving general health is essential in managing symptoms.

What are the key takeaways?

Some herbal and nutritional supplements do appear to have a potentially beneficial effect for less severe forms of depression. But for many of these therapies there is still not enough evidence to offer definitive recommendations.

While the Therapeutic Goods Administration regulates the safety and quality of supplements, there is still variation in product quality, dose and how well the body can absorb it.

If you’re thinking of using herbal or nutritional supplements, it’s important to consult a health professional, such as a GP, naturopath or even a psychologist.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Jon Wardle is Foundation Director of the National Centre for Naturopathic Medicine and the Maurice Blackmore Chair of Naturopathic Medicine at Southern Cross University, which undertakes training and research in nutritional and herbal therapies. He has received funding from multiple foundations and agencies to conduct research on nutritional and herbal medicines, including the National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund. He was part of the both the National Health and Medical Research Council Natural Therapies Working Committee and the Department of Health Natural Therapies Review Expert Advisory Panel which supported Professor Kidd in conducting the reviews mentioned in this article. However, this article represents his personal academic opinion and does not represent the opinions of either of these organisations.

Carrie Thomson-Casey is affiliated with both major psychology professional associations the Australian Psychological Society (APS) and the Australian Association of Psychologists Inc (AAPi). Carrie is also the past convenor and now treasurer of an APS interest group Psychology and Integrative Mental Health.

Carrie is an author of one of the papers Jon has cited.

Jessica Bayes has received funding from several organisations to conduct research exploring diet and mental wellbeing, in addition to research investigating nutritional supplements. Jessica has also authored some of the articles referenced here.

– ref. Supermarket treatments for depression don’t require a prescription. But do they work? – https://theconversation.com/supermarket-treatments-for-depression-dont-require-a-prescription-but-do-they-work-261010

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shannon Brincat, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of the Sunshine Coast

We’re just a few months into US president Donald Trump’s second term but his rule has already been repeatedly compared to tyranny.

This may all feel very new to Americans, and to the rest of us watching on from around the world. But the threat of tyranny is an ancient one.

We can learn much from how people in ancient Greece and China dealt with this issue.

Where does tyranny come from?

The peoples of classical Greece were separated into city-states known as the polis.

A few of these, such as Athens and Argos, were democratic.

Others, such as Rhodes or Chios, had had democratic features such as civic participation in public life.

These city-states routinely faced external enemies but also the threat of tyrannical take-over from within.

Things came to a head in 510 BCE under the rule of an oppressive tyrant known as Hippias. He was ultimately expelled, leading eventually to the establishment of democracy through reforms made under an Athenian statesmen called Cleisthenes.

According to Plato, tyranny is the most degenerate political regime and emerges out of democracy’s excesses.

He argued that as democratic citizens become accustomed to living by pleasure rather than reason or duty to the public good, society becomes fragmented.

Demagogues – populist leaders who gain power by appealing to base desires and prejudices of the masses – promise the people more liberties. They turn citizens away from virtue and toward tyranny.

Aristotle, who was Plato’s student, defines tyranny as the corrupted form of monarchy. The tyrant perverts the constitutional order to bring about self-serving rulership – the rule of one. Tyranny, he argued, destroys law and justice, eroding all public trust.

The approach of Plato and Aristotle to combating tyranny was closely tied to their conception of the polis and the importance of citizenship.

For the classical Greeks, citizenship was a binding relationship of reciprocal duties and obligations owed to all other citizens. The law, they believed, was king.

It was these conventions that constrained political power, especially the arbitrary rule of one.

Civic education by participation in daily democratic life promoted virtue, they believed. All citizens and the ruler were subservient to the law – a bond that tyranny destroyed.

Aristotle said a strong middle class that could best prevent tyranny because they indicated a less unequal, and therefore more stable, society.

Plato’s view was more inward looking. He saw tyranny as a political manifestation of a disordered “enslaved soul” governed by appetites rather than reason. For him, philosophical guidance back to harmony was required for the tyrant and for the people.

Only through wisdom, he argued, could the people recognise and reject demagogues and populists.

Protecting democracy from tyranny

Some city-states learned from their institutional failings when tyranny had taken them over.

For example, after a coup of aristocrats overtook Athenian democracy in 411 BCE, Athenians began to swear the Oath of Demophantos. This was among the first attempts at a constitutional safeguard of democracy against tyranny.

It legally and morally obliged citizens to resist any attempt to overthrow democracy by force. The undertaking was a reciprocal duty; as other scholars have argued, each citizen could count on the support of all others to protect the democracy when a tyrant tried again.

This made it far more likely for people to take action against a would-be-tyrant; they knew every other citizen had sworn an oath to have their back.

The Greek historians of the time support these views. For example, Herodotus in the 5th century documented the rise of several tyrants across Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). He blamed the political vacuum created by the decline of aristocratic rule. Here, the personal ambition and luxury of elites laid the path to tyrannical behaviour.

Another famous historian named Thucydides, writing at the same time, analysed the power and political corruption behind tyranny. He observed how times of crisis exposed vulnerabilities within Athens, leading to factionalism, instability, and the erosion of democracy.

Tyranny in classical China

In classical China we see a complementary, yet unique view of tyranny.

During the Warring States period (475–221 BCE), when the Zhou Dynasty was divided amongst several competing states, preventing tyranny was a central concern.

These states were mostly hereditary monarchies rather than democracies but they still emphasised accountability to the people.

Mencius, a 4th-century BCE Chinese philosopher and Confucian scholar, argued the people’s welfare was the foundation of legitimate rule.

There is, he argued, a responsibility to all under the Mandate of Heaven (天命, tiānmìng). This ancient Chinese doctrine asserted that heaven grants legitimacy to just rulers. If a ruler became despotic or failed to uphold harmony and virtue, the mandate can be withdrawn, justifying rebellion and dynastic change.

Mencius famously said a ruler who oppresses the people is not a ruler but a “mere man” who could be violently overthrown.

Xunzi, another Confucian philosopher writing in the late 4th to 3rd Centuries BCE, believed humans were inherently selfish and chaotic.

To fend off tyranny he emphasised ritual, education, and rule of law. He believed in formal ceremonies and structured practices such as court etiquette, family rites, and daily ethical conduct. These, he believed, helped cultivate virtue, regulate behaviour, and maintain social harmony.

Mozi, writing mostly in the 5th to early 4th centuries BCE, was a Chinese philosopher who opposed Confucianism and founded Mohism, offered a different view.

Opposing all hierarchies, he emphasised jiān ài(兼爱) – universal obligation or care to all others – as a core ethical and political principle.

According to Mozi, tyranny arises when rulers act selfishly – favoring their own families, states, or interests over the common good. He advocated for strong moral conduct and competence of leaders, rather than their lineage, wealth or status.

Tyranny today

Viewed together, these traditions suggest preventing tyranny requires more than just moral leadership.

Rather, it requires a notion of reciprocity – of shared obligations between citizens – and systemic safeguards against the personal ambitions of rulers.

Ethical governance, civic education, legal frameworks, and shared responsibilities are essential.

Shannon Brincat 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. Tyranny is an ever-present threat to civilisations. Here’s how Ancient Greece and China dealt with it – https://theconversation.com/tyranny-is-an-ever-present-threat-to-civilisations-heres-how-ancient-greece-and-china-dealt-with-it-259680

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katrina Raynor, Director of the Centre for Equitable Housing, Per Capita and Research Associate, The University of Melbourne

When the Albanese government announced the A$10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund in 2023, the news reverberated through the housing sector.

A new funding facility to help build 30,000 social and affordable rental homes in five years. Given we only increased Australia’s social housing stock by 24,000 dwellings in the decade to 2024, this represents a significant uptick.

The future fund is part of the National Housing Accord’s overall commitment to build 1.2 million new homes by the end of the decade. This target is now in serious doubt following advice from Treasury.

Nonetheless, people were genuinely excited and hopeful about the focus on meeting the housing needs of lower income people.

But stakeholders were also sceptical – and they had every right to be.

How it works

The future fund is a dedicated investment vehicle which helps finance new housing builds using the returns on the original $10 billion endowment.

It does this by distributing loans and grants via competitive funding rounds open to not-for-profits, the private sector and other levels of government.

When announcing the scheme, then Housing Minister Julie Collins said it would help address acute housing needs for people who are especially vulnerable:

[…] this will provide housing support to remote Indigenous communities, women and children experiencing domestic and family violence, older women at risk of homelessness, and veterans experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

Two funding rounds have so far been announced – 9,284 social dwellings and 9,366 affordable homes.

State and territory governments are involved in the process by providing access to land, expediting planning approvals and sometimes acting as developers.

Reasons for hope

The future fund is what the housing sector has been begging for for decades. It is a consistent, somewhat protected, pot of funding with a mandate to build social and affordable housing at scale.

It is one of several hopeful changes underway in the housing space. The housing portfolio is now ensconced in cabinet after being elevated in the first Albanese ministry.

The relocation of housing and homelessness into Treasury is another positive development. Previously, policy areas were fragmented across a variety of departments.

This is particularly welcome given we are yet to see the promised National Housing and Homeless Plan despite consultations beginning in 2023.

Room for improvement

While the future fund is a welcome infusion of money, my discussions with stakeholders have provided mixed feedback.

As with any new program, there have been teething issues. Red tape has slowed contracts, while the May election paused all negotiations.

Housing funding in Australia remains lumpy – characterised by sudden changes in the scale and priorities of funding – and policy is highly politicised.

Survival of the cheapest

Loans and grants are distributed through competitive, oversubscribed funding rounds.

Coupled with a need for quick political wins, bigger players with lower cost projects are far more likely to receive funding to guarantee a larger quantum of housing.

While this may appear to reflect greater value for money, it means the scheme is incentivised to fund affordable housing aimed at moderate income households rather than social housing aimed at more vulnerable people. New homes are not targeted where need is greatest.

Given affordable housing will be delivered at 75% of market rent, there are many people who will still not be able to afford it. While we undoubtedly need both, the need is far greater for social housing.

As the chart above shows, almost all funding in round one went to Tier One Community Housing Providers, who are the biggest developers with the most in-house capacity.

While privileging larger organisations is not necessarily a bad thing, it does mean smaller players with more location or cohort-specific strengths are continuing to miss out.

For example, only one Aboriginal Community Housing Provider was successful in the first round, sparking calls for an Aboriginal-specific funding round.

Program inefficency

Submitting bids is time consuming and uncertain, especially for funding rounds designed to stimulate new partnerships between stakeholders who haven’t worked together before.

Further, establishing partnerships and contracts with government is labour intensive and complex.

One industry insider recently joked the main things being funded by the scheme are new backyard pools for Sydney-based lawyers.

Beyond this, the future fund provides availability payments – which recur quarterly during the operating phase of projects – rather than upfront capital grants.

According to research, this is one of the most inefficient ways to fund social housing. Capital grants paid at the start to support construction are far more cost effective.

Lack of operational funds

Another key barrier is the focus on “bricks and mortar” to the exclusion of ongoing service costs.

Funding to cover tenancy support, building maintenance and operations, and other wrap-around services is essential, especially for social housing aimed at individuals with higher needs.

This is not covered by the fund and is yet to be substantively picked up by state governments either.

Clearly, there are aspects of the housing future fund that need improvement. But this is not a call to abolish the scheme.

The last thing the sector needs is another policy pivot or funding cut. In fact, doubling the fund to $20 billion would be warranted.

The 30,000 new homes fall well short of the estimated 640,000 Australian households whose housing needs are currently unmet.

The Housing Australia Future Fund is just one element – but an important one – in the suite of measures we should be using to address acute housing needs.

Katrina Raynor is the Director of Per Capita’s Centre for Equitable Housing. Per Capita is an independent think tank that receives funding from a range of sources including philanthropy, unions, individuals and government.

– ref. After a hopeful start, Labor’s affordable housing fund is proving problematic – https://theconversation.com/after-a-hopeful-start-labors-affordable-housing-fund-is-proving-problematic-260085

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthias Dehling, Researcher, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University

The snow petrel, a strikingly white bird with black eyes and a black bill, is one of only three bird species ever observed at the South Pole. In fact, the Antarctic is the only place on Earth where this bird lives.

It isn’t alone in this. Antarctica and the sub-Antarctic harbour a large number of endemic species, which means these species are only found in one or a few locations in the world.

In other words, these regions have a high degree of “endemism” – an important metric that tells us where to focus species conservation efforts.

But our new study shows that the degree of endemism in Antarctica and the sub-Antarctic – and in the southern hemisphere more generally – has been underestimated.

This is important because areas with a high degree of endemism harbour species with restricted ranges, unique evolutionary history or unique ecological functions. This makes them potentially more vulnerable to disturbances such as climate change, fundamental changes in habitat, or invasive introduced species.

If the degree of endemism is underestimated, conservation efforts may overlook the sites that are home to irreplaceable birds.

Biased measurements

There are two reasons why global patterns of species endemism aren’t well defined. First, the most common method used to calculate endemism tends to give higher values to places with more species overall – this is known as species richness.

In addition, global studies of diversity often exclude areas that are comparatively species-poor. These areas are mainly in the southern hemisphere – most notably the Antarctic region. When sites that only contain a few species are left out, this influences the estimates of endemism for all other sites.

An alternative way to calculate endemism takes into account a site’s “complementarity”. This metric considers whether species found at a site are also found elsewhere. With this method, we can find sites that have the highest percentage of species with a restricted range.

At such highly endemic sites, the local ecosystem relies heavily on species with restricted ranges to function, which makes them all the more irreplaceable.

Global hotspots for endemic species

This is the approach we used in our new study to reassess the endemism of birds worldwide. In our study, we also considered other aspects of bird diversity. We measured endemism with regard to whether sites hold irreplaceable evolutionary history and ecological functions of birds.

We found that southern-hemisphere communities showed higher rates of local endemism than northern-hemisphere communities across all aspects of diversity. The sub-Antarctic islands and the High Andes, as well as several regions in Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand and southern Africa, stand out as global hotspots of endemism.

These regions hold many charismatic birds with unique evolutionary histories or unique ecological functions, and these birds are largely restricted to the southern hemisphere.

Among these are the palaeognaths – the bird lineage that includes kiwis, emus, cassowaries and ostriches. They also include the lyrebirds and the New Zealand wrens, as well as iconic Antarctic species such as penguins and albatrosses.

Not much land, a lot of ocean

The higher rates of endemism in the southern hemisphere are likely related to the uneven global distribution of landmass. Put simply, there is much more available landmass in the northern hemisphere. As you go further south, landmasses become increasingly separated by vast expanses of ocean.

Because of the smaller and separated landmasses, species in the southern hemisphere have much smaller ranges than species in the northern hemisphere. Consequently, local species communities share fewer species with each other. This leads to the higher observed endemism in the southern hemisphere.

A heightened vulnerability

Our findings suggest that birds in the northern and southern hemisphere might react differently to environmental pressures. Unfortunately, most studies on the impact of climate change to date are from the northern hemisphere.

In response to climate change in particular, species are expected to shift their ranges towards cooler climates. While northern-hemisphere birds are likely free to shift their ranges across large stretches of uninterrupted landmass, birds in the southern hemisphere are hindered by vast expanses of ocean that separate the different landmasses on which they live.

For species at the southern tips of South America, Africa or Australia, the nearest major landmass towards the south is Antarctica. But it is unsuitable for most bird species.

The potentially heightened vulnerability of southern-hemisphere birds suggests they deserve more protection. In addition to known species diversity hotspots that hold large numbers of species, conservation efforts should consider areas that might hold only a small number of species, but irreplaceable ones that aren’t found anywhere else.

Matthias Dehling receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. The southern hemisphere is full of birds found nowhere else on Earth. Their importance has been overlooked – https://theconversation.com/the-southern-hemisphere-is-full-of-birds-found-nowhere-else-on-earth-their-importance-has-been-overlooked-260828

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Logan, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar, Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury

New Zealand 2050: On the morning of February 27, the sea surged through the dunes south of the small town of Te Taone, riding on the back of Cyclone Harita’s swollen rivers and 200mm of overnight rainfall.

By mid-morning, floodwaters had engulfed entire streets. Power was out. Roads were underwater. Emergency services responded swiftly, coordinating evacuations and establishing shelters.

But for many residents, the realisation came days later: the help they expected after the water receded – support to rebuild, relocate or recover – wasn’t coming.

“We lost everything,” says Mere Rākete, a solo mother of three, standing outside her home, now uninhabitable. “I rang the council, the government helpline, even the insurance company. They all said I’m not covered.”

Mere lives in a suburb long identified as “high risk” under national climate risk maps. She didn’t stay there because she ignored the risk. She stayed because she had no viable alternative.

“They say we had a choice. But when houses here were $400,000 and anything safer was $700,000, what choice is that?”

No more buyouts

Although this story is fictitious, it describes a plausible future based on how New Zealand’s draft climate adaptation framework could play out. It reflects the likely consequences of policy decisions that focus narrowly on financial exposure.

Last week’s recommendations from the Ministry for the Environment’s Independent Reference Group rightly called for urgent and improved risk information. But they focused narrowly on direct risk to property and infrastructure.

In particular, the group proposed that beyond 2045 the government should not buy out property owners after climate-related disasters (or those at high risk of future events).

Responding to the recommendations last week, climate policy analyst Jonathan Boston wrote that ruling out property buyouts “is philosophically misguided, morally questionable, administratively inept, and politically naïve”.

But it appears the government shares the reference group’s view. Addressing the current flooding disaster in the Tasman district, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said, “In principle, the government won’t be able to keep bailing out people in this way.”

Beyond the specifics of financial compensation, however, lie the cascading and systemic risks that follow a major weather event. In reality, the impacts do not stop at the property boundary.

When a family is displaced, or even fears displacement, the consequences ripple outward: schooling is disrupted, jobs are lost, mental health declines, community networks fragment and local economies suffer.

Research shows how the after-effects of a disaster domino through interconnected systems, affecting health, housing, labour markets and social cohesion.

A policy decades in the making

Back to the future: our fictional town of Te Taone sits in a floodplain identified decades ago. By the 2040s, insurance had become unaffordable. New development slowed but many families, especially those on lower incomes, remained, with few relocation options.

The adaptation framework proposed in 2025, based on a “beneficiary pays” model, created a 20-year transition period that ended in 2045. After that, residents in high-risk areas became ineligible for buyouts or standard recovery funding.

Future government investment was limited to Crown-owned assets or projects with “national benefit”. Restoration of local infrastructure such as roads and power lines would depend on whether councils or ratepayers could pay.

Today, parts of Te Taone remain cut off. Power is still out in some areas. The school has relocated inland. Local shops have closed. Many homes are damaged, waterlogged, or destroyed, and some families are now living in tents.

“It’s not that we weren’t warned,” says a local community worker. “It’s just that we couldn’t afford to do anything but live with the risk and hope for the best.”

Te Taone’s experience is now raising deeper concerns that Aotearoa New Zealand’s climate adaptation framework may be entrenching a form of “climate redlining”. Those with the means can move to escape risk, while others are left behind to bear it.

Adaptation or abandonment?

Māori communities are especially affected. Parts of the floodplain include ancestral land, some communally owned, some leased by whānau who cannot easily relocate. In many cases, this land was only recently returned from the Crown, after years of land court proceedings or Treaty settlements.

The prospect of abandoning it again, without coordinated support, echoes earlier waves of institutional neglect. Mere Rākete is now considering joining a class action, one of several reportedly forming across the country.

Residents are challenging the government or local councils over a failure in their duty of care by allowing homes to be built, sold or inhabited in known risk zones without clear and enforceable warnings or adequate alternatives.

Meanwhile, adaptation experts are calling for a reset: a national compensation framework with clear eligibility rules, long-term investment in affordable housing beyond hazard-prone areas.

Above all, they argue, government policy based on a climate adaptation framework developed 25 years ago has not reduced exposure to risk. Instead, it has redistributed it from those who could leave to those who couldn’t.

In the meantime, the remaining residents of Te Taone wait for the next cyclone and wonder whether, next time, anyone will help.

Planning with people in mind

Our imagined future scenario can be avoided if governments take a broader view of adaptation. Treating climate risk as an individual responsibility may reduce short-term government liability. But it will not reduce long-term social and fiscal liability.

The risk of failing to act systemically is that the country pays in other ways – in fractured communities, rising inequity and preventable harm.

Adaptation to climate change has to be about more than limiting the upfront costs of buyouts or infrastructure repairs. Ignoring the wider impacts will only shift the burden and increase it over time.

Real economic and community resilience means planning with people in mind, investing early and making sure no one is left behind. That work must begin now.

Tom Logan owns shares in Urban Intelligence. He receives funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and the Royal Society of NZ.

Paula Blackett works part time for Urban Intelligence. She receives research funding from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment and undertakes consulting work regarding climate risk and adaptation.

– ref. A warning from the future: the risk if NZ gets climate adaptation policy wrong today – https://theconversation.com/a-warning-from-the-future-the-risk-if-nz-gets-climate-adaptation-policy-wrong-today-260912

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael J. Socolow, Professor of Communication and Journalism, University of Maine

It was a surrender widely foreseen. For months, rumors abounded that Paramount would eventually settle the seemingly frivolous lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump concerning editorial decisions in the production of a CBS interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in 2024.

On July 2, 2025, those rumors proved true: The settlement between Paramount and Trump’s legal team resulted in CBS’s parent company agreeing to pay $16 million to the future Donald Trump Library – the $16 million included Trump’s legal fees – in exchange for ending the lawsuit. Despite the opinion of many media law scholars and practicing attorneys who considered the lawsuit meritless, Shari Redstone, the largest shareholder of Paramount, yielded to Trump.

Redstone had been trying to sell Paramount to Skydance Media since July 2024, but the transaction was delayed by issues involving government approval.

Specifically, when the Trump administration assumed power in January 2025, the new Federal Communications Commission had no legal obligation to facilitate, without scrutiny, the transfer of the CBS network’s broadcast licenses for its owned-and-operated TV stations to new ownership.

The FCC, under newly installed Republican Chairman Brendan Carr, was fully aware of the issues in the legal conflict between Trump and CBS at the time Paramount needed FCC approval for the license transfers. Without a settlement, the Paramount-Skydance deal remained in jeopardy.

Until it wasn’t.

At that point, Paramount joined Disney in implicitly apologizing for journalism produced by their TV news divisions.

Earlier in 2025, Disney had settled a different Trump lawsuit with ABC News in exchange for a $15 million donation to the future Trump Library. That lawsuit involved a dispute over the wording of the actions for which Trump was found liable in a civil lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll.

It’s not certain what the ABC and CBS settlements portend, but many are predicting they will produce a “chilling effect” within the network news divisions. Such an outcome would arise from fear of new litigation, and it would install a form of internal self-censorship that would influence network journalists when deciding whether the pursuit of investigative stories involving the Trump administration would be worth the risk.

Trump has apparently succeeded where earlier presidents failed.

Presidential pressure

From Jimmy Carter trying to get CBS anchor Walter Cronkite to stop ending his evening newscasts with the number of days American hostages were being held in Iran to Richard Nixon’s administration threatening the broadcast licenses of The Washington Post’s TV stations to weaken Watergate reporting, previous presidents sought to apply editorial pressure on broadcast journalists.

But in the cases of Carter and Nixon, it didn’t work. The broadcast networks’ focus on both Watergate and the Iran hostage crisis remained unrelenting.

Nor were Nixon and Carter the first presidents seeking to influence, and possibly control, network news.

President Lyndon Johnson, who owned local TV and radio stations in Austin, Texas, regularly complained to his old friend, CBS President Frank Stanton, about what he perceived as biased TV coverage. Johnson was so furious with the CBS and NBC reporting from Vietnam, he once argued that their newscasts seemed “controlled by the Vietcong.”

Yet none of these earlier presidents won millions from the corporations that aired ethical news reporting in the public interest.

Before Trump, these conflicts mostly occurred backstage and informally, allowing the broadcasters to sidestep the damage to their credibility should any surrender to White House administrations be made public. In a “Reporter’s Notebook” on the CBS Evening News the night of the Trump settlement, anchor John Dickerson summarized the new dilemma succinctly: “Can you hold power to account when you’ve paid it millions? Can an audience trust you when it thinks you’ve traded away that trust?”

“The audience will decide that,” Dickerson continued, concluding: “Our job is to show up to honor what we witness on behalf of the people we witness it for.”

Holding power to account

There’s an adage in TV news: “You’re only as good as your last show.”

Soon, Skydance Media will assume control over the Paramount properties, and the new CBS will be on the airwaves.

When the licenses for KCBS in Los Angeles, WCBS in New York and the other CBS-owned-and-operated stations are transferred, we’ll learn the long-term legacy of corporate capitulation. But for now, it remains too early to judge tomorrow’s newscasts.

As a scholar of broadcast journalism and a former broadcast journalist, I recommend evaluating programs like “60 Minutes” and the “CBS Evening News” on the record they will compile over the next three years – and the record they compiled over the past 50. The same goes for “ABC World News Tonight” and other ABC News programs.

A major complicating factor for the Paramount-Skydance deal was the fact that “60 Minutes” has, over the past six months, broken major scoops embarrassing to the Trump administration, which led to additional scrutiny by its corporate ownership. Judged by its reporting in the first half of 2025, “60 Minutes” has upheld its record of critical and independent reporting in the public interest.

If audience members want to see ethical, independent and professional broadcast journalism that holds power to account, then it’s the audience’s responsibility to tune it in. The only way to learn the consequences of these settlements is by watching future programming rather than dismissing it beforehand.

The journalists working at ABC News and CBS News understand the legacy of their organizations, and they are also aware of how their owners have cast suspicion on the news divisions’ professionalism and credibility. As Dickerson asserted, they plan to “show up” regardless of the stain, and I’d bet they’re more motivated to redeem their reputations than we expect.

I don’t think reporters, editors and producers plan to let Donald Trump become their editor-in-chief over the next three years. But we’ll only know by watching.

Michael Socolow’s father, Sanford Socolow, worked for CBS News from 1956 to 1988.

– ref. ABC’s and CBS’s settlements with Trump are a dangerous step toward the commander in chief becoming the editor-in-chief – https://theconversation.com/abcs-and-cbss-settlements-with-trump-are-a-dangerous-step-toward-the-commander-in-chief-becoming-the-editor-in-chief-261006

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aarushi Bhandari, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Davidson College

In 2001, social theorist bell hooks warned about the dangers of a loveless zeitgeist. In “All About Love: New Visions,” she lamented “the lack of an ongoing public discussion … about the practice of love in our culture and in our lives.”

Back then, the internet was at a crossroads. The dot-com crash had bankrupted many early internet companies, and people wondered if the technology was long for this world.

The doubts were unfounded. In only a few decades, the internet has merged with our bodies as smartphones and mined our personalities via algorithms that know us more intimately than some of our closest friends. It has even constructed a secondary social world.

Yet as the internet has become more integrated in our daily lives, few would describe it as a place of love, compassion and cooperation. Study after study describe how social media platforms promote alienation and disconnection – in part because many algorithms reward behaviors like trolling, cyberbullying and outrage.

Is the internet’s place in human history cemented as a harbinger of despair? Or is there still hope for an internet that supports collective flourishing?

Algorithms and alienation

I explore these questions in my new book, “Attention and Alienation.”

In it, I explain how social media companies’ profits depend on users investing their time, creativity and emotions. Whether it’s spending hours filming content for TikTok or a few minutes crafting a thoughtful Reddit comment, participating on these platforms takes work. And it can be exhausting.

Even passive engagement – like scrolling through feeds and “lurking” in forums – consumes time. It might feel like free entertainment – until people recognize they are the product, with their data being harvested and their emotions being manipulated.

Blogger, journalist and science fiction writer Cory Doctorow coined the term “enshittification” to describe how experiences on online platforms gradually deteriorate as companies increasingly exploit users’ data and tweak their algorithms to maximize profits.

For these reasons, much of people’s time spent online involves dealing with toxic interactions or mindlessly doomscrolling, immersed in dopamine-driven feedback loops.

This cycle is neither an accident nor a novel insight. Hate and mental illness fester in this culture because love and healing seem to be incompatible with profits.

Care hiding in plain sight

In his 2009 book “Envisioning Real Utopias,” the late sociologist Erik Olin Wright discusses places in the world that prioritize cooperation, care and egalitarianism.

Wright mainly focused on offline systems like worker-owned cooperatives. But one of his examples lived on the internet: Wikipedia. He argued that Wikipedia demonstrates the ethos “from each according to ability, to each according to need” – a utopian ideal popularized by Karl Marx.

Wikipedia still thrives as a nonprofit, volunteer-ran bureaucracy. The website is a form of media that is deeply social, in the literal sense: People voluntarily curate and share knowledge, collectively and democratically, for free. Unlike social media, the rewards are only collective.

There are no visible likes, comments or rage emojis for participants to hoard and chase. Nobody loses and everyone wins, including the vast majority of people who use Wikipedia without contributing work or money to keep it operational.

Building a new digital world

Wikipedia is evidence of care, cooperation and love hiding in plain sight.

In recent years, there have been more efforts to create nonprofit apps and websites that are committed to protecting user data. Popular examples include Signal, a free and open source instant messaging service, and Proton Mail, an encrypted email service.

These are all laudable developments. But how can the internet actively promote collective flourishing?

In “Viral Justice: How We Grow the World We Want,” sociologist Ruha Benjamin points to a way forward. She tells the story of Black TikTok creators who led a successful cultural labor strike in 2021. Many viral TikTok dances had originally been created by Black artists, whose accounts, they claimed, were suppressed by a biased algorithm that favored white influencers.

TikTok responded to the viral #BlackTikTokStrike movement by formally apologizing and making commitments to better represent and compensate the work of Black creators. These creators demonstrated how social media engagement is work – and that workers have the power to demand equitable conditions and fair pay.

This landmark strike showed how anyone who uses social media companies that profit off the work, emotions and personal data of their users – whether it’s TikTok, X, Facebook, Instagram or Reddit – can become organized.

Meanwhile, there are organizations devoted to designing an internet that promotes collective flourishing. Sociologist Firuzeh Shokooh Valle provides examples of worker-owned technology cooperatives in her 2023 book, “In Defense of Solidarity and Pleasure: Feminist Technopolitics in the Global South.” She highlights the Sulá Batsú co-op in Costa Rica, which promotes policies that seek to break the stranglehold that negativity and exploitation have over internet culture.

“Digital spaces are increasingly powered by hate and discrimination,” the group writes, adding that it hopes to create an online world where “women and people of diverse sexualities and genders are able to access and enjoy a free and open internet to exercise agency and autonomy, build collective power, strengthen movements, and transform power relations.”

In Los Angeles, there’s Chani, Inc., a technology company that describes itself as “proudly” not funded by venture capitalists. The Chani app blends mindfulness practices and astrology with the goal of simply helping people. The app is not designed for compulsive user engagement, the company never sells user data, and there are no comments sections.

No comments

What would social media look like if Wikipedia were the norm instead of an exception?

To me, a big problem in internet culture is the way people’s humanity is obscured. People are free to speak their minds in text-based public discussion forums, but the words aren’t always attached to someone’s identity. Real people hide behind the anonymity of user names. It isn’t true human interaction.

In “Attention and Alienation,” I argue that the ability to meet and interact with others online as fully realized, three-dimensional human beings would go a long way toward creating a more empathetic, cooperative internet.

When I was 8 years old, my parents lived abroad for work. Sometimes we talked on the phone. Often I would cry late into the night, praying for the ability to “see them through the phone.” It felt like a miraculous possibility – like magic.

I told this story to my students in a moment of shared vulnerability. This was in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, so the class was taking place over videoconferencing. In these online classes, one person talked at a time. Others listened.

It wasn’t perfect, but I think a better internet would promote this form of discussion – people getting together from across the world to share the fullness of their humanity.

Efforts like Clubhouse have tapped into this vision by creating voice-based discussion forums. The company, however, has been criticized for predatory data privacy policies.

What if the next iteration of public social media platforms could build on Clubhouse? What if they brought people together and showcased not just their voices, but also live video feeds of their faces without harvesting their data or promoting conflict and outrage?

Raised eyebrows. Grins. Frowns. They’re what make humans distinct from increasingly sophisticated large language models and artificial intelligence chatbots like ChatGPT.

After all, is anything you can’t say while looking at another human being in the eye worth saying in the first place?

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

– ref. Is there any hope for the internet? – https://theconversation.com/is-there-any-hope-for-the-internet-259251

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

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese may be rueing what seemed a good idea at the time – the appointment of a special envoy to combat antisemitism (as well as an envoy to combat Islamophobia).

Or perhaps Jillian Segal, a former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, was the wrong choice for the position, despite her extensive legal, business and organisational background.

Her plan to Combat Antisemitism, released on Thursday, has stirred controversy. Now Segal has had to distance herself from a $50,000 donation from a trust controlled by her husband, John Roth, and his brother, made to the right-wing group Advance.

“No one would tolerate or accept my husband dictating my politics, and I certainly won’t dictate his. I have had no involvement in his donations, nor will I,” Segal said, after embarrassing revelations about the money.

When Segal presented her strategy last week, it was applauded by many in the Jewish community. But critics find it disappointing. It is simultaneously too thin – even accepting it is a plan rather than a fully fledged report – and overblown in its recommendations.

The wave of antisemitism we’ve seen in Australia since October 2023 has been both shocking and appalling. Many politicians and institutions, including some universities, have handled the situation badly. Documenting in some detail what happened is important as part of any blueprint for the future.

So it is surprising the Segal report does not provide more of a record. It would have been useful to have a list of the major attacks, rates of apprehension, prosecution and conviction, and what’s known about perpetrators and motivations (including criminals using antisemitism to get leverage for personal advantage).

On strategy, by contrast, the envoy’s report goes for broke. Among her most controversial recommendations are removing funding from universities and cultural institutions that fail to deal effectively with antisemitism. (Segal has since stressed this is a last resort.)

Segal proposes to prepare a scorecard assessing universities’ performances. She says if systematic problems remain by the start of next year, the federal government should appoint a judicial inquiry into campus antisemitism.

There is no prospect of the government adopting the tougher proposals among the Segal recommendations. Albanese and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke were at the plan’s launch (it would have looked bad for them not to be). But it was notable Albanese made no commitment on adopting the recommendations.

Burke told the ABC on Monday night “I think the objective here is not to be stripping funding, it’s not to be cancelling people, the objective is actually to never fall foul of the need to make sure that we’re combatting antisemitism”.

On university defunding, Segal’s plan is simply impractical. What exactly would be the benchmarks of failure? How much funding would be withheld?

With more egregious issues – such as encampments on campuses – having been dealt with, navigating around the issues of free speech would be tricky at best.

The challenges of arts funding would be even more problematic, given the licence in artistic expression.

One problem with Segal’s report is that she inserts herself too personally into what she believes should be done. For instance, she says in her foreword, “The pages that follow outline how the Envoy will address antisemitism across education, law, digital spaces and community life”. And later, “The Envoy will work with government to enable government funding to be withheld [from errant universities and academics].

Under Segal’s plan, she will monitor media organisations (which means the ABC and SBS), “to encourage accurate, fair, responsible reporting and assist them to meet their editorial standards and commitments to impartiality and balance and to avoid accepting false or distorted narratives”.

At first glance, that might sound reasonable. But it could risk descending into harassment. The Lattouf affair was an example of the ABC giving in to lobbying from pro-Israel complainants and ending up losing an unfair dismissal case.

When pressed about what criticisms she had of the ABC, Segal initially said she didn’t have anything in particular in mind. Later, she produced an example. She didn’t sound well-prepared.

Some “narratives” are black and white; others are grey, and the greys can come in many shades. People of goodwill, within the media and outside, will have a range of views on Middle East issues. Balance and impartiality will involve judgements, let alone the difficulties of being sure about accuracy.

Segal’s report refers to the fact that, according to research commissioned by herself, younger people – those under 35 – have different perceptions on the Middle East and the Jewish community than older people.

Segal emphasises the importance of educational effort in combating antisemitism, which comes down to issues of teaching history and promoting tolerance. Again, there are areas of absolute clarity (the details and evils of the Holocaust and the broader history of antisemitism) and contested areas (various issues in and about the Middle East).

Segal’s call for the wider adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism has brought some blowback.

This defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”, including through words or physical actions. This definition is controversial because examples that accompany it include “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”.

The government has reconfirmed its adoption of this definition, so the controversy over it arising from the Segal plan has become something of a diversion from more practical issues.

To sum up, the central flaw of the Segal document is that it lacks nuance. Some of its recommendations go beyond what is feasible or desirable. Treasurer Jim Chalmers, fielding a question on Monday about the Advance donation, described the plan as presenting “suggestions, ideas and proposals”.

Burke, reiterating the position of Albanese, said on Monday night there was “a whole lot [of the plan] where you hope that you can find pathways to avoid antisemitism where some of the recommendations never need to be considered”.

One risk is that the plan’s overreach could be counterproductive – it could trigger a counter-reaction from other groups that inhibits proper recognition of the extent of the problem of antisemitism. Its weaknesses make the plan a missed opportunity.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Segal’s antisemitism plan gives government controversy, not clarity – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-segals-antisemitism-plan-gives-government-controversy-not-clarity-259687

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guido Carim Junior, Senior Lecturer in Aviation, Griffith University

Over the weekend, the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau released a preliminary report on last month’s crash of Air India flight 171, which killed 260 people, 19 of them on the ground.

The aim of a preliminary report is to present factual information gathered so far and to inform further lines of inquiry. However, the 15-page document has also led to unfounded speculation and theories that are currently not supported by the evidence.

Here’s what the report actually says, why we don’t yet know what caused the crash, and why it’s important not to speculate.

What the preliminary report does say

What we know for certain is that the aircraft lost power in both engines just after takeoff.

According to the report, this is supported by video footage showing the deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT), and the examination of the air inlet door of the auxiliary power unit (APU).

The RAT is deployed when both engines fail, all hydraulic systems are lost, or there is a total electrical power loss. The APU air inlet door opens when the system attempts to start automatically due to dual engine failure.

The preliminary investigation suggests both engines shut down because the fuel flow stopped. Attention has now shifted to the fuel control switches, located on the throttle lever panel between the pilots.

Data from the enhanced airborne flight recorder suggests these switches may have been moved from “run” to “cutoff” three seconds after liftoff. Ten seconds later, the switches were moved back to “run”.

The report also suggests the pilots were aware the engines had shut down and attempted to restart them. Despite their effort, the engines couldn’t restart in time.

We don’t know what the pilots did

Flight data recorders don’t capture pilot actions. They record system responses and sensor data, which can sometimes lead to the belief they’re an accurate representation of the pilot’s actions in the cockpit.

While this is true most of the time, this is not always the case.

In my own work investigating safety incidents, I’ve seen cases in which automated systems misinterpreted inputs. In one case, a system recorded a pilot pressing the same button six times in two seconds, something humanly impossible. On further investigation, it turned out to be a faulty system, not a real action.

We cannot yet rule out the possibility that system damage or sensor error led to false data being recorded. We also don’t know whether the pilots unintentionally flicked the switches to “cutoff”. And we may never know.

As we also don’t have a camera in the cockpit, any interpretation of pilots’ actions will be made indirectly, usually through the data sensed by the aircraft and the conversation, sound and noise captured by the environmental microphone available in the cockpit.

We don’t have the full conversation between the pilots

Perhaps the most confusing clue in the report was an excerpt of a conversation between the pilots. It says:

In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.

This short exchange is entirely without context. First, we don’t know who says what. Second, we don’t know when the question was asked – after takeoff, or after the engine started to lose power? Third, we don’t know the exact words used, because the excerpt in the report is paraphrased.

Finally, we don’t know whether the exchange referred to the engine status or the switch position. Again, we may never know.

What’s crucial here is that the current available evidence doesn’t support any theory about intentional fuel cutoff by either of the pilots. To say otherwise is unfounded speculation.

We don’t know if there was a mechanical failure

The preliminary report indicates that, for now, there are no actions required by Boeing, General Electric or any company that operates the Boeing 787-8 and/or GEnx-1B engine.

This has led some to speculate that a mechanical failure has been ruled out. Again, it is far too early to conclude that.

What the preliminary report shows is that the investigation team has not found any evidence to suggest the aircraft suffered a catastrophic failure that requires immediate attention or suspension of operations around the world.

This could be because there was no catastrophic failure. It could also be because the physical evidence has been so badly damaged that investigators will need more time and other sources of evidence to learn what happened.

Why we must resist premature conclusions

In the aftermath of an accident, there is much at stake for many people: the manufacturer of the aircraft, the airline, the airport, civil aviation authority and others. The families of the victims understandably demand answers.

It’s also tempting to latch onto a convenient explanation. But the preliminary report is not the full story. It’s based on very limited data, analysed under immense pressure, and without access to every subsystem or mechanical trace.

The final report is still to come. Until then, the responsible position for regulators, experts and the public is to withhold judgement.

This tragedy reminds us that aviation safety depends on patient and thorough investigation – not media soundbites or unqualified expert commentary. We owe it to the victims and their families to get the facts right, not just fast.

Guido Carim Junior has received funding from Boeing R&D Australia to conduct research projects in the past five years.

– ref. Was the Air India crash caused by pilot error or technical fault? None of the theories holds up – yet – https://theconversation.com/was-the-air-india-crash-caused-by-pilot-error-or-technical-fault-none-of-the-theories-holds-up-yet-261102

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘100 years of mateship’

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

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

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

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

Goldilocks solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

No guarantees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

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

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

Strategic ambiguity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet the average Australian consumes nearly twice that.

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

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

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

Salty water is an overlooked health risk

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

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

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

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

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

What does the WHO say about water?

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

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

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

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

What our new research shows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do Australia’s guidelines say?

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

But this is still too high to protect health.

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

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

Water inequity in Walgett

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

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

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

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

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

Water inequality is health inequality

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

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

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

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

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

Safe drinking water is a human right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘100 years of mateship’

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

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

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

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

Goldilocks solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

No guarantees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

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

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

Strategic ambiguity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘100 years of mateship’

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

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

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

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

Goldilocks solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

No guarantees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why invoke AUKUS in such a way?

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

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

Strategic ambiguity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women excluded both before and after Assad’s rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limited roles for women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change is possible

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syria at a crossroads

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A wonderfully simple machine

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

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

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

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

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

Kissing the road

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

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

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

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

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

Walking sometimes wins out

But bicycles aren’t always superior.

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

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

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

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

Not just a transportation device

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unheard voices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

High cost, low reward

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

As one Asian-Australian participant stated:

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

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

An African-Australian man said:

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

No accountability

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Don’t rock the boat’

In addition, there are other psychological factors at play.

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

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

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

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

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

What can be done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mario Peucker receives funding from the Victorian Government and VicHealth.

Franka Vaughan receives funding from VicHealth

Jo Doley received funding from VicHealth.

Tom Clark receives funding from VicHealth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After one day

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

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

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

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

After one week

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

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

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

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

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

After one month

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After six months

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

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

After one year or more

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

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

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

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

Making a change

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

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

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

• pay attention to the benefits you notice from quitting

• monitor your progress with a Drink Tracker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But first, what is green hydrogen?

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

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

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

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

1. The learning curve is steep

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

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

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

2. Demand is limited

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

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

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

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

3. The chicken-and-egg problem

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

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

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

4. Green hydrogen is expensive

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

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

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

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

5. Economic and political turmoil

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

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

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

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

What next?

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

So what have we learned so far?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Divorce rates are at historic lows

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

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

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

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

Why do people choose to marry or separate?

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

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

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

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

How housing prices can affect the likelihood of divorce

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which factors explain divorce in Australia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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