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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does the plan say?

The recommendations fall into three broad areas.

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

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

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

The government has said it will consider the recommendations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where criticism ends and antisemitism begins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebuilding trust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emma Shortis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of peace is that?

Ali Mamouri

Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian Parmeter

Research Scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump isn’t there yet.

Jasmine-Kim Westendorf

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

The Nobel Peace Prize recognises outstanding contributions to peace globally.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prizes to genuine peacemakers amplify their work and impact.

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

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

Shahram Akbarzadeh

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

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

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

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

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

All under Trump’s watch.

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

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

This is not the act of a peacemaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shahram Akbarzadeh receives funding from Australia Research Council.

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

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

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nial Wheate, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

Australia’s drug approval system is under fire, with critics in the United States claiming it is too slow to approve life-saving medicines.

Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration balances speed with a rigorous assessment of safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

So does Australia really lag behind the US Food and Drug Administration? And do we need to change how we approve medicines?

The drug development pipeline

Drug development usually begins when something new is discovered about a disease. This usually involves identifying either a change in an important protein or finding a new protein involved in the disease.

When scientists know the shape of the protein, they can design a drug that can block or activate it.

Scientists will then undertake laboratory, petri dish-type, experiments to see if the drug works on the protein in the way they designed. If it passes those tests, they will then move onto animal testing and formulation.

Formulation is the step where scientists decide what form the medicine will take, such as a tablet, injection or patch. There are more than 150 different pharmaceutical dosage forms to choose from.

The final steps are human testing. This requires the completion of three types of clinical trials. Each seeks to answer different specific questions about the drug:

• Phase I trials: is the drug safe? What are its side effects?
• Phase II trials: does the drug work?
• Phase III trials: is the drug better than currently available medicines?

At the end of the trials, a company can apply to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for approval to market and sell the drug.

Getting a drug to market is time-consuming and costly. It takes around 15 years from the initial concept and design to government approval and costs more than A$3.5 billion.

But the failure rate is high: more than 90% of drugs that undergo development never gain government approval.

How are drugs approved in Australia?

The decision to approve new medicines for sale in Australia is made based on safety and efficacy evidence provided by the sponsoring company.

Once approved, the drug is added to the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.

Listing a medicine on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is a separate process from approval, and is based on financial considerations and a cost-benefit analysis, rather than safety and efficacy.

The TGA typically takes 240 to 260 working days (around a full calendar year) from receiving a new medicine application to an approval decision. This is longer than it takes the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – 180 to 300 days.

Where there is a pressing need, the approval process can be faster. The first COVID treatment was approved in Australia just two weeks after it was submitted for consideration.

Then why do Americans often get medicines first?

There can be several reasons why a drug approval can be delayed in Australia when it has already been approved overseas.

First, with a population of 27 million out of 8 billion world-wide, Australia is a relatively small market. So it is not always a high priority for companies to apply for approval here. Regions with large populations such as China, India and Europe are a bigger focus for companies. This can therefore delay when they submit to Australia.

Other reasons for delays can be that the TGA requires additional safety or efficacy evidence other regions did not request, or because new information about the drug has come to light since the drug was approved overseas.

What about delays getting drugs onto the PBS?

When a drug is listed on the PBS, Australians can access the medicine for $31.60 (or $7.70 concession) instead of the cost of a private prescription which might be hundreds or even thousands of dollars.

The time it takes for medicines to be approved on the PBS has also been a focus of criticism.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), which makes PBS listing recommendations to the Federal Minister of Health, only sits three to six times per year.

US Chamber of Commerce vice president John Murphy claims the PBAC takes, on average, 32 months to make a recommendation about listing a drug after an application has been submitted.

Once a recommendation is made, the minister usually takes a minimum of five months to make a final decision.

Read more:
Australia’s PBS means consumers pay less for expensive medicines. Here’s how this system works

To speed up the process, the TGA does allow parallel applications for drug approval and PBS listing.

The time taken to make a PBS listing decision is reasonable, given the scheme’s overall cost. In 2023–24, the total cost of the PBS to the government was $17.7 billion. So a decision to list can’t be made lightly.

So should Australia change how it approves medicines?

Criticising the time it takes to get regulatory approvals appears to be part of a wider plan of attack by the US government. It is putting pressure on Australia to open its market to higher prices for medicines made by US pharmaceutical companies.

Australia has a world-class regulatory agency in the TGA which ensures medicines that are approved are both safe and effective. And the PBS scheme is a key part of our public health care system and the envy of the world.

The Australian government should resist any changes to the regulatory approval processes that come from the US.

Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd (a medical device company) and was previously a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. He is a member of the Haleon Australia Pty Ltd Pain Advisory Board. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design and testing.

– ref. Does Australia really take too long to approve medicines, as the US says? – https://theconversation.com/does-australia-really-take-too-long-to-approve-medicines-as-the-us-says-260910

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer E. Cheng, Researcher and Lecturer in Sociology, Western Sydney University

If you watched any of the 2025 Wimbledon womens’ matches, you’ll have noticed many players donning a skort: a garment in which shorts are concealed under a skirt, or a front panel resembling a skirt.

You may even remember skorts from your schooling days, as they’re commonly offered in girls’ uniforms throughout Australia.

The skort (a portmanteau of skirt and shorts) has played a truly unique role in the history of women’s clothing. They were once a progressive item of clothing, as they afforded women the opportunity to partake in activities that would have been difficult in a skirt or dress.

Their role in contemporary society, however, is a bit more complicated.

Rebellious beginnings

The first garments resembling skorts were developed in the 1890s so women could ride bicycles without their skirt getting caught in the chains. While the puffy “bloomers” had already been invented a few decades earlier, women who wore them often faced ridicule.

Skorts were considered revolutionary at a time when men both figuratively and literally wore the pants.

Back then, they were usually a pair of loose pants under a front panel resembling a skirt. The aim was to retain the wearer’s femininity, and not offend those who thought pants were a purely masculine article of clothing.

The skort as we know it today, and as is seen across the sporting world, was popularised in the 1960s by American fashion designer Leon Levin.

This skirt was said to offer “the freedom of shorts and soft lines of a skirt”. The underlying message: even as women participate in traditionally “masculine” activities, they should be careful not to look too masculine.

Sport management academic M. Katie Flanagan argues women may be convinced that exercising in a skort achieves an acceptable gender performance. In other words, they are socialised to think they have to “perform” their gender by wearing the “correct” clothing.

Skorts in sport and school

In the sporting world, skorts are deliberately designed to be trendy and attractive, rather than purely functional.

One study on women golfers found they were more satisfied with their uniforms if they were happy with both the comfort and attractiveness, indicating women’s sportswear isn’t just about fit and practicality.

Skorts have historically also had class associations. As recently as ten years ago, sport skorts were an expensive item reserved for those from the middle and upper classes. Women from lower economic classes also tended to not have the time and/or resources to engage in the activities skorts were designed for, namely tennis and golf.

More recently, however, discount stores have made skorts accessible to those on a budget.

School skorts, a topic of my ongoing research, are particularly affordable at discount stores. A generic discount store skort may cost about A$10, compared to A$20–40 for one purchased directly from a school.

Some schools offer skorts to girls as the equivalent of sports shorts or as part of the everyday uniform. Other schools seem to prefer culottes as an alternative to a dress or skirt – shorts that are loose enough to resemble a skirt.

Many schools still don’t offer shorts to girls as part of the everyday uniform. Whether or not girls are allowed to wear the “boys’” shorts comes down to the individual school.

From rebellion to restriction

One 2019 review of school uniform policies in South Australia found 98.6% of public schools included shorts as a uniform option for girls, compared to just 26.4% of private schools.

Researchers Sarah Cohen-Woods and Rachel Laattoe found girls in private schools were often restricted in their choices, having to choose between skorts and culottes as an alternative to a skirt or dress.

Across Australia, all state and territory education policies – most of which came into effect between 2017 and 2019 – mandate public schools must offer girls the option of wearing shorts and pants.

However, the wordings of these policies differ widely. While New South Wales, Victoria and Norther Territory specifically mention shorts and pants must be offered to girls, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania specify schools must offer unisex or gender neutral items to all students.

South Australia’s and Australian Capital Territory’s policies further state uniform items should be categorised by type of clothing, or in non-gender specific terms.

However, in some states, including New South Wales, schools are free to interpret the policy as they wish, which is why some only offer culottes or skorts to girls. There is generally no oversight or enforcement of policies to force schools to offer actual shorts to girls.

A similar debate is happening in women’s sports. Ireland’s Camogie Association only ended the compulsory skorts policy in May, after years of complaints by players. Dublin captain Aisling Maher said she was “sick of being forced to wear a skort that is uncomfortable and unfit for purpose”.

“In no other facet of my life does someone dictate that I have to wear something resembling a skirt because I am a girl. Why is it happening in my sport?” Maher said.

A garment for the male gaze

In recent years, many stores have advertised skorts for fashion. Target, for instance, currently sells a tailored skort described as a “must have for any trendsetter looking to stand out in a crowd”.

There are conflicting arguments about whether skorts are progressive or regressive. On one hand, they allow women and girls to move freely during physical activities, without having to worry about their underwear being visible.

On the other, they set a precedent in regards to how women and girls ought to perform their gender, by avoiding looking too “masculine” – which makes them somewhat misogynistic.

The skort is an object of dual meanings: at once a skirt and a pair of shorts – at once progressive and regressive.

Jennifer E. Cheng 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. Skorts revolutionised how women and girls play sport. But in 2025, are they regressive? – https://theconversation.com/skorts-revolutionised-how-women-and-girls-play-sport-but-in-2025-are-they-regressive-260420

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nic Rawlence, Associate Professor in Ancient DNA, University of Otago

The announcement that New Zealand’s moa nunui (giant moa) is the next “de-extinction” target for Colossal Biosciences, in partnership with Canterbury Museum, the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre and filmmaker Peter Jackson, caused widespread alarm among scientists.

This follows the US company’s recreation of a “dire wolf”, which was essentially a genetically engineered grey wolf. But that project was probably easy compared to the latest plan to resurrect the moa.

I think it’s a pipe dream and there are several reasons why.

Firstly, birds are harder to “de-extinct” than placental mammals. One would need a surrogate egg to bring chicks to term, and for many moa species there are no eggs from living birds big enough to house a developing chick. In this case, artificial eggs would need to be developed.

Then there is evolutionary history. From my own work and the research of others, we know the moa is most closely related to the tinamou, a small flying bird in South America.

To get to the common ancestor of the moa and tinamou, you’d have to go back some 60 million years of evolution. That’s a lot of time for mutations to evolve in genes controlling how moa look, that would need to be re-engineered to bring back moa traits.

The evolutionary history of the palaeognath group is even deeper. Formerly known as ratites, this group includes the tinamou and lineages of living flightless birds (emu, kiwi, cassowary, rhea, ostrich) and extinct ones (New Zealand’s moa and Madagascar’s elephant birds).

Genetically engineering a tinamou or any other birds in this group to create a moa hybrid would be challenging given this deep evolutionary timescale – certainly much harder than genetically engineering a grey wolf. And in any case, this would not recreate a moa, but merely something that may look like a moa. As one critic put it, it would not have the mauri (life force) of a moa.

There are no living analogues of moa within the palaeongath group. We don’t know whether birds created through de-extinction methods would function like a moa in the ecosystem.

Moa are unique, even among other flightless birds, in that they had no wings – all other flightless birds still have remnant wings. As a start, any genetic engineering would need to target regions of the genome that control the expression of genes for wing formation. This could have unintended consequences.

Working with moa ethically

I’m involved in an ongoing project to sequence high-quality genomes of several species of moa in New Zealand to study their evolutionary history.

In our conversations with tangata whenua around the country, there has been no support for de-extinction. Iwi (tribes) also want moa bone samples and all DNA extracts and sequence data to stay in New Zealand.

A major question is whether Colossal has undertaken wider engagement. Ngāi Tahu is a very large iwi with lots of individual rūnanga (tribal councils) throughout the South Island.

My research team has engaged with individual rūnanga, and we know they are opposed to de-extinction. I would like Colossal, Canterbury Museum and the Ngāi Tahu Research Center to disclose how widely they consulted across Ngāi Tahu.

The numerous iwi at the top of the South Island are also against the de-extinction of the giant moa (or any moa) which also lived in their rohe (region). De-extinction of a giant moa would really need a South Island-wide or even national consensus before going ahead.

Ecological concerns with de-extinction

Māori have expressed longstanding concerns about not being involved in discussions about genetic engineering and the potential of bone samples or genetic material going offshore.

With this announcement, it’s encouraging to see the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre is driving the project and that there are discussions around the need to restore habitat that would be suitable for moa.

This is a challenge in its own right as there is little left. Parts of the eastern South Island were once covered in mosaics of open forest shrubland that were dominated by kowhai and lancewood, which have no analogue today.

Even if we were to bring back an extinct species and kept individuals in a game reserve, we would need to produce enough (at least 500) to avoid inbreeding and genetic drift (random loss or retention of genes in a population).

The birds would require sufficient funding for their ongoing conservation. This raises worries that money could be pulled from efforts to save living endangered species, pushing them closer to extinction.

It’s undeniable the genetic engineering technology Colossal is developing could have real benefits to the conservation of New Zealand’s endangered species. Let’s say we could genetically engineer a kākāpō so it becomes resistant to a disease. That’s perhaps a project worth doing if there was widespread community support.

Investing the money that goes into this project in the conservation of New Zealand’s currently endangered biodiversity would, in my view, be better than bringing back moa as an ecotourism venture.

Nic Rawlence receives funding from Te Apārangi Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund.

– ref. First the dire wolf, now NZ’s giant moa: why real ‘de-extinction’ is unlikely to fly – https://theconversation.com/first-the-dire-wolf-now-nzs-giant-moa-why-real-de-extinction-is-unlikely-to-fly-260797

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

The Greens had a poor election. They lost three of their four lower house seats including that of their leader Adam Bandt. This despite their overall vote remaining mostly steady. But they did retain all their Senate spots – though later they lost a senator through her defection to Labor – and they now effectively have the sole balance of power in the Senate.

The Greens last term played hard ball on various pieces of legislation like the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), wanting to gain more concessions from the government. They prioritised issues such as the difficulties facing renters as well as the war in Gaza.

With the government’s big win at the election, how hard will the Greens push on legislation this term, and how will the party fare under new leadership?

To answer these questions and to tell us about her plans, the greens new leader, Larissa Waters, joins the podcast.

On what drives her Waters says,

I’ve certainly spent my working life trying to empower the community, to protect the planet. And I’m a really proud feminist and I’ve been really excited by the work that I’ve been able to do on gender equality and women’s safety for the last 10 years in that portfolio. But I’m a really strong advocate for a fairer society.

On reforms she wants to get done in parliament, Waters says the focus should be on delivery,

I would like for the parliament to not just spend its time as a kind of peacocking about, talking about ourselves, and actually spend its time delivering for people. I think that’s the least people could expect is that the collective focus of the parliament be about how we can help community members and nature.

We remain willing to work on reforms that will help people and will help the planet. And I think there’s a lot of people who are waiting to see how this parliament works and who are really hoping that with such an overwhelming number of seats […] the Labor Party will use their numbers in the parliament to do good things. And I think there’ll be a lot of broken hearts if they don’t find the courage to do what’s needed.

Asked about the recent antisemitic attacks in Melbourne and the broader issue of pro-Palestine protests, Waters explains where she stands.

Well firstly, can I say that the places of worship should always be off-limits for protest activity and I think that’s not a controversial statement. But can I also say that a lot of people feel really strongly about human rights and Gaza and Palestine and the Greens are really proud that we have always stood to end the genocide. And we think that Australia should play a stronger role in terms of sanctioning [Benjamin Netanyahu’s] war cabinet and that regime and for there to be a lasting peace in that region.

On AUKUS and the US alliance more broadly Water’s isn’t shy with her criticism,

We are wasting A$370 billion on nuclear submarines that actually may never even eventuate and that the US is now reconsidering their provision to us anyway. The whole thing is speculative and a massive waste of money, importantly, that makes us less safe. I think hitching our wagon to the increasingly unstable US administration under particularly the current president, is not how we make ourselves safe. And I certainly don’t think we should be taking any lectures from Donald Trump about how much money we should spending on defence.

We remain of the view, as we have been for decades, that Australia deserves an independent foreign policy, one that shamelessly puts our own interests at heart and front and centre, and is not just when the US says jump we say how high, that doesn’t make the world safer.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Larissa Waters on why we deserve more than a government that just tinkers – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-larissa-waters-on-why-we-deserve-more-than-a-government-that-just-tinkers-260812

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

The government’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, has recommended universities that fail to properly deal with the issue should have government funding terminated.

In her Plan to Combat Antisemitism, launched Thursday, Segal says she will prepare a report card “assessing each university’s implementation of effective practices and standards”.

This would cover complaints systems and whether the campus and online environment “is conducive to Jewish students and staff participating actively and equally in university life”.

“Should significant problems remain at universities by the start of the 2026 academic year, as assessed by the Envoy’s report card, a dedicated judicial inquiry should be undertaken to address systemic issues,” the Envoy’s report says.

That should include “investigation of foreign sources of funding for antisemitic activities and academics at universities”.

“Universities must embrace cultural change to end their tolerance for anti-semitic conduct,” the Segal report says.

It says the envoy will work with government to enable funding “to be withheld, where possible, from universities, programs or individuals within universities that facilitate, enable or fail to act against antisemitism”.

The envoy also wants public grants to university centres, academics or researchers to be subject to termination if the recipient engages in antisemitic or other hateful speech or actions.

In the wake of the October 2023 Hamas attacks on Israelis, and Israel’s military response in Gaza, a number of Australian universities saw big pro-Palestinian protests, including encampments. At some universities Jewish students and staff felt unsafe going to classes or to their offices.

More generally, antisemitism has been rife since the October attacks, with most recently a spate of incidents in Melbourne in the last week. These included setting fire to the door of a synagogue and protesters rampaging through a restaurant that is part of an Israeli chain.

The envoy’s report was launched at a joint press conference attended by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, and Segal.

The ambitious plan is broad, also covering security, law enforcement, and online regulation among other areas.

But it is unclear how much of it the government will take up.

Asked whether the government was committed to the plan “in full”, Albanese was noncommittal.

“We welcome the plan, to be very clear. Some of the plan requires a long-term approach, some of it requires action by state governments, some of it requires action by society.

“What we will do is work constructively with the envoy,” he said.

“This isn’t something that is okay on the 10th of July, done, tick, and we move on. This will be a process.”

The plan includes embedding Holocaust and antisemitism education in school curricula.

Research the envoy commissioned found a substantial difference between the attitudes of Australians under 35 and those older. These reflected differences between the generations in media consumption and perceptions younger people have of the Middle East the the Jewish community.

“There also appears to be generational differences in the understanding of the Holocaust and its impacts on society,” the report says.

The envoy flags her intention, with the support of government, to “review, and where appropriate strengthen federal, state and territory legislation addressing antisemitism and other hateful or intimidatory conduct”.

Among the recommendations is the removal of tax deduction status from any charitable institution which promotes speakers or engages in conduct that promotes antisemitism.

The report says that from October 2023 to September 2024 antisemitic incidents increased by 316%, with more than 2,000 cases reported. These included threats, assaults, vandalism and intimidation.

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. Envoy’s plan to fight antisemitism would put universities on notice over funding – https://theconversation.com/envoys-plan-to-fight-antisemitism-would-put-universities-on-notice-over-funding-259685

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Andreotta, Lecturer, School of Management and Marketing, Curtin University

Last week, Australian airline Qantas announced cyber attackers had accessed personal data about some of its customers. The company later confirmed that 5.7 million customer records were involved.

The attackers targeted an offshore IT call centre, which enabled them to gain access to a third-party system.

The airline contacted affected customers shortly after the announcement, and sent a follow-up email a week later. The email apologised to customers and informed them attackers had accessed information about customers’ names as well as frequent flyer numbers and tier status.

The email may have felt familiar to Australians impacted by the 2022 Optus Breach or the 2024 Medisecure Hack — a routine apology, an assurance that immediate steps have been taken, and a statement that the company takes seriously the trust placed in it to safeguard personal information.

It’s an adequate response. But it ignores something that might genuinely make customer data safer in the future: stronger cybersecurity laws to prevent these kinds of breaches from happening in the first place.

How should we respond to data breaches?

If your data were involved in the Qantas breach, you might be wondering what to do about it.

The first sensible step might be to find out what personal information was compromised. Next, you might research the potential harm that could come from your name, Qantas Frequent Flyer number, and tier status being accessed.

You may learn about the risks of identity theft, account hijacking, and scams.

After that, you might want to figure out what actions you could take to protect yourself – that is, how to best secure your data. Plenty of websites offer advice along these lines.

If you are a Qantas customer, and received the follow-up email, you may have noticed a section titled “What steps can I take to protect myself?”. This part encourages users to stay alert, use two-factor authentication, stay informed about the latest threats, visit IDCARE’s Learning Centre, and never share passwords or sensitive information (stating that Qantas will never ask for them).

While these are helpful suggestions, they place a significant burden on the customer. They also imply that if our data becomes compromised, we may be partially to blame for not doing more to protect ourselves.

Is this fair or useful? Rather than just trying to protect ourselves after data breaches, we might be better off focusing our attention on why breaches occur and the legislators who make the rules for the companies that hold our data.

Does the law have an unhealthy obsession with data breaches?

It may seem that, to improve cybersecurity laws, we need to pay more attention to Qantas-like data breaches and impose bigger fines on companies when they occur. However, this is not necessarily the best solution.

As US privacy scholars Daniel Solove and Woodrow Hartzog point out in their 2022 book Breached!: “Data privacy law has an obsession with data breaches.”

Ironically, the authors claim, “this obsession has […] been the primary reason why the law has failed to stop the deluge of data breaches. The more obsessed with breaches the law has become, the more the law has failed to deal with them.”

Solove and Hartzog argue that focusing solely on the breaches themselves prevents us from concentrating on prevention.

How effective is Australian cyber security law?

In Australia, recent reforms to the Cyber Security Act 2024 introduced the Cyber Incident Review Board, which can:

make recommendations to government and industry about actions that could be taken to prevent, detect, respond to or minimise the impact of, cyber security incidents of a similar nature in the future.

These reforms are an important step in addressing prevention, and the Cyber Incident Review Board will undoubtedly draw many lessons from the Qantas case when it performs its post-incident review – such as identifying potential weaknesses at the offshore IT call centre.

However, we shouldn’t have to wait until an incident occurs to start thinking about how to protect against breaches. There are also concerns about whether the recommendations it offers will be put into law.

Ideally, we need legislation that focuses on prevention, not just post-incident responses. If we had laws that required companies to conduct audits, provide legally binding safety checks applicable to all relevant stakeholders, and impose penalties for non-compliance with these standards, it would genuinely improve prevention.

Revising our flight path

Our response to the Qantas breach will no doubt follow a familiar pattern: first, we panic! Then we get angry at the company. Next, we attempt to follow privacy advice – at least for a short while – changing a password or two before becoming complacent and then lowering our privacy vigilance. And then the cycle repeats the next time a breach occurs.

We don’t need to accept this eternal pattern, however. If we focus our attention on lawmakers, rather than these immediate responses we are all too familiar with, prevention becomes a possibility.

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

– ref. How can we stay safe after data breaches? Step 1 is to change the cybersecurity laws – https://theconversation.com/how-can-we-stay-safe-after-data-breaches-step-1-is-to-change-the-cybersecurity-laws-260816

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jongkil Jay Jeong, Senior Fellow, School of Computing and Information System, The University of Melbourne

It starts with a call from someone claiming to be your bank. They know your name. They know your bank. They even know your credit card number. There’s been “unusual activity” on your account, they say – and they just sent you a one-time passcode to verify your identity so they can assist.

You read out the code and feel reassured. Moments later, your funds are gone and the bank refuses reimbursement, citing a breach of terms because you voluntarily shared your passcode.

This is not a niche or isolated scam. It’s part of a growing pattern we’re seeing across Australia and beyond: cyber criminals are merging digital and real-world tactics in ways that make these frauds more convincing, harder to stop, and far more damaging.

It starts with stolen data

These scams don’t begin with a phishing email or fake app. They begin with data – your data – stolen in one of countless breaches, such as the latest Qantas incident that exposed the details of up to 5.7 million customers.

Sometimes the personal data has been sold through third-party data brokers. Names, phone numbers, emails, even card details are routinely leaked and traded online.

Once they have this information, scammers get to work. The phone call mimics a real interaction with a bank, perhaps with a spoofed caller ID. Victims are pressured in urgent language to “verify” their identity, often by reading out a one-time passcode that, unbeknownst to them, is authorising a transaction using their own card details.

We refer to this as a “convergence scam” – where online data leaks, psychological manipulation and weak enforcement come together. It’s a sophisticated hybrid of digital theft and physical-world exploitation, and it’s on the rise.

Devastating and personal

These scams are deeply personal and can be financially devastating. But what makes them even more alarming is the system-wide failure surrounding them.

For starters, many credit card fraud insurance policies contain clauses that exclude coverage when the customer “voluntarily” provides account credentials – including one-time passcodes – even if they did so under duress or deception.

One victim we spoke to lost nearly A$6,000 after a scammer posing as their bank prompted them to read out a passcode over the phone. The transaction was verified using that code, and the bank later refused to reimburse the loss.

In a formal response, the bank stated that by voluntarily sharing the one-time passcode, the customer had breached the epayments code, even though they were manipulated into doing so. As a result, the customer was held liable and ineligible for a chargeback.

Law enforcement may not help

Even when the criminals leave a physical trail, follow-up is rare. Law enforcement rarely investigates. In the cases we’ve seen, reports are acknowledged but not pursued. Officers don’t explicitly say the case is too small or not worth the effort, but their inaction suggests it, especially given how resource-intensive most cyber-crime investigations tend to be.

In many instances, particularly when the total loss isn’t deemed significant, victims are simply told to follow up with their bank, based on the assumption they’ll be reimbursed.

In one case we reviewed, stolen card details were used in-store at major Australian retailers such as Woolworths and Coles – indicating that a cloned card had been physically used. These purchases could, in theory, be tracked back to in-store CCTV footage. But no investigation was launched.

This reluctance to act, even when the evidence is tangible, sends a dangerous message: that scammers can operate with near-impunity.

Meanwhile, banks and regulators are slow to update verification systems. One-time passcodes are still widely used, even though scammers now exploit them routinely. There’s little recourse for victims, and minimal accountability for data brokers whose records fuel these scams.

What can we do to protect ourselves?

For individuals, the first line of defence is simple but vital:

• never share a one-time passcode or security code over the phone, even if the caller seems legitimate
• if in doubt, hang up and call the bank directly using the number on your card
• be cautious about where and how you share your personal information, especially online through websites or social media. Only disclose what personally identifiable information you have to.

The true answer is systemic change

Banks and other institutions need to put into place stronger identity verification systems that don’t rely solely on SMS codes. We need greater transparency and regulation of data brokers.

Read more:
70% of Australians don’t feel in control of their data as companies hide behind meaningless privacy terms

Crucially, we also need active enforcement of cyber-enabled fraud, especially when there’s physical evidence, such as in-store purchases and CCTV footage.

Banks should also reassess their policies and procedures on how they communicate with customers. If scam calls closely mimic real ones, it’s time to change the script. More proactive education, clearer warnings, and redesigned verification processes can all help prevent harm.

The real danger of these convergence scams isn’t just financial loss. It’s the erosion of trust: in our banks, in our security systems, and in the institutions meant to protect us.

Once that trust is gone, it’s not easily recovered.

Jongkil Jay Jeong has received prior research funding from the Australian Government’s Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DSRI) and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

Ashish Nanda has received funding from the Australian Government through various research grants, including the Cyber Security CRC and Australia’s Economic Accelerator.

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

– ref. Cyber crime and real-world crime are converging in a dangerous new way – here’s how to stay safe – https://theconversation.com/cyber-crime-and-real-world-crime-are-converging-in-a-dangerous-new-way-heres-how-to-stay-safe-260426

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron J. Cavosie, Senior Lecturer, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University

Ever been late because you misread a clock? Sometimes, the “clocks” geologists use to date events can also be misread. Unravelling Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history with rocks is tricky business.

Case in point: the discovery of an ancient meteorite impact crater was recently reported in the remote Pilbara region of Western Australia. The original study, by a different group, made headlines with the claim the crater formed 3.5 billion years ago. If true, it would be Earth’s oldest by far.

As it turns out, we’d also been investigating the same site. Our results are published in Science Advances today. While we agree that this is the site of an ancient meteorite impact, we have reached different conclusions about its age, size and significance.

Let’s consider the claims made about this fascinating crater.

One impact crater, two versions of events

Planetary scientists search for ancient impacts to learn about Earth’s early formation. So far, nobody has found an impact crater older than the 2.23-billion-year-old Yarrabubba structure, also in Australia. (Some of the authors from both 2025 Pilbara studies were coauthors on the 2020 Yarrabubba study.)

The new contender is located in an area called North Pole Dome. Despite the name, this isn’t where Santa lives. It’s an arid, hot, ochre-stained landscape.

The first report on the new crater claimed it formed 3.5 billion years ago, and was more than 100 kilometres in diameter. It was proposed that such a large impact might have played a role in forming continental crust in the Pilbara. More speculatively, the researchers also suggested it may have influenced early life.

Our study concludes the impact actually happened much later, sometime after 2.7 billion years ago. This is at least 800 million years younger than the earlier estimate (and we think it’s probably even younger; more on that in a moment).

We also determined the crater was much smaller – about 16km in diameter. In our view, this impact was too young and too small to have influenced continent formation or early life.

So how could two studies arrive at such different findings?

Subtle clues of an impact

The originally circular crater is deeply eroded, leaving only subtle clues on the landscape. However, among the rust-coloured basalts are unique telltale signs of meteorite impact: shatter cones.

Shatter cones are distinctive fossilised imprints of shock waves that have passed through rocks. Their unique conical shapes form under brief but immense pressure where a meteorite strikes Earth.

Both studies found shatter cones, and agree the site is an ancient impact.

This new crater also needed a name. We consulted the local Aboriginal people, the Nyamal, who shared the traditional name for this place and its people: Miralga. The “Miralga impact structure” name recognises this heritage.

Determining the timing of the impact

The impact age was estimated by field observations, as neither study found material likely to yield an impact age by radiometric dating – a method that uses measurements of radioactive isotopes.

Both studies applied a geological principle called the law of superposition. This states that rock layers get deposited one on top of another over time, so rocks on top are younger than those below.

The first group found shatter cones within and below a sedimentary layer known to have been deposited 3.47 billion years ago, but no shatter cones in younger rocks above this layer. This meant the impact occurred during deposition of the sedimentary layer.

Their observation seemed to be a “smoking gun” for an impact 3.47 billion years ago.

As it turns out, there was more to the story.

Our investigation found shatter cones in the same 3.47 billion-year-old rocks, but also in younger overlying rocks, including lavas known to have erupted 2.77 billion years ago.

The impact had to occur after the formation of the youngest rocks that contained shatter cones, meaning sometime after the 2.77-billion-year-old lavas.

At the moment, we don’t know precisely how young the crater is. We can only constrain the impact to have occurred between 2.7 billion and 400 million years ago. We’re working on dating the impact by isotopic methods, but these results aren’t yet in.

Smaller than originally thought

We made the first map showing where shatter cones are found. There are many hundreds over an area 6km across. From this map and their orientations, we calculate the original crater was about 16km in diameter.

A 16km crater is a far cry from the original estimate of more than 100km. It’s too small to have influenced the formation of continents or life. By the time of the impact, the Pilbara was already quite old.

A new connection to Mars

Science is a self-policing sport. Claims of discovery are based on data available at the time, but they often require modification based on new data or observations.

While it’s not the world’s oldest, the Miralga impact is scientifically unique, as craters formed in basalt are rare. Most basalts there formed 3.47 billion years ago, making them the oldest shocked target rocks known.

Prior to impact, these ancient basalts had been chemically altered by seawater. Sedimentary rocks nearby also contain the earliest well-established fossils on Earth. Such rocks likely covered much of early Earth and Mars.

This makes the Miralga impact structure a playground for planetary scientists studying the cratered surface (and maybe early life) of Mars. It’s an easily accessible proving ground for Mars exploration instruments and imagery, right here on Earth.

Aaron J. Cavosie receives or has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the US National Science Foundation, and NASA.

Alec Brenner 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. Earth’s ‘oldest’ impact crater is much younger than previously thought – new study – https://theconversation.com/earths-oldest-impact-crater-is-much-younger-than-previously-thought-new-study-259803

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicolas Flament, Associate Professor and ARC Future Fellow, Environmental Futures, School of Science, University of Wollongong

Volcanic eruptions at Earth’s surface have significant consequences. Smaller ones can scare tourists on Mount Etna or disrupt air traffic.

Giant, large-scale eruptions can have more serious impacts. One such event contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. Giant volcanoes also triggered events that led to the largest mass dying on Earth, the Permian–Triassic extinction 252 million years ago).

But what fuels a giant eruption, and how does it make its way to the surface from deep within the planet?

In a new study published in Communications Earth and Environment, we show that columns of hot rock, which rise some 3,000 kilometres through Earth’s mantle and cause giant eruptions, are connected to continent-sized source regions we call BLOBS.

Hidden blobs within Earth

BLOBS are hot regions at the bottom of Earth’s mantle (between about 2,000km and 3,000km in depth) which might be composed of different material compared with the surrounding mantle rocks.

Scientists have long known about these two hot regions under the Pacific Ocean and Africa. Geologist David Evans from Yale University suggested the acronym BLOBS, which stands for Big LOwer-mantle Basal Structures.

These BLOBS have possibly existed for hundreds of millions of years. It is unclear whether they’re stationary or if they move around as part of mantle motion (called convection).

Read more:
Volcanoes, diamonds, and blobs: a billion-year history of Earth’s interior shows it’s more mobile than we thought

Mantle plumes were the implicit link in previous studies relating BLOBS to giant volcanic eruptions. Their shape is a bit like a lollipop: the “stick” is the plume tail and the “candy” is the plume head.

Mantle plumes rise very slowly through the mantle because they transport hot solid rock, not melt or lava. At lower pressures in the uppermost 200km of Earth’s mantle, the solid rock melts, leading to eruptions.

A long-sought relationship

In our new study, we simulated mantle convection from 1 billion years ago and found that mantle plumes rise from moving BLOBS and can sometimes be gently tilted.

Giant volcanic eruptions can be identified by the volume of volcanic rocks preserved at Earth’s surface. The ocean floor preserves detailed fingerprints of mantle plumes for the past 120 million years or so (there is not much seafloor older than that).

Oceanic plateaus, such as the Ontong Java-Manihiki-Hikurangi plateau currently in the southwest Pacific Ocean, are linked to plume heads. In contrast, series of volcanoes such as the Hawaii-Emperor seamount chain and the Lord Howe seamount chain are linked to plume tails.

We used statistics to show that the locations of past giant volcanic eruptions are significantly related to the mantle plumes predicted by our models. This is encouraging, as it suggests that the simulations predict mantle plumes in places and at times generally consistent with the geologic record.

Are BLOBS fixed or mobile?

We showed that the considered eruption locations fall either onto or close to the moving BLOBS predicted by our models. Eruption locations slightly outside moving BLOBS could be explained by plume tilting.

We represented fixed BLOBS with 3D images of Earth’s interior, created using seismic waves from distant earthquakes (a technique called seismic tomography). One out of the four seismic tomographic models that we considered matched the locations of past giant volcanic eruptions, implying that the fixed BLOBS scenario cannot be ruled out for geologically recent times – the past 300 million years.

One of the next steps for this research is to explore the chemical nature of BLOBS and plume conduits. We can do so with simulations that track the evolution of their composition.

Our results suggest the deep Earth is dynamic. BLOBS, which are some 2,000km below Earth’s surface, move hundreds of kilometres over time, and are connected to Earth’s surface by mantle plumes that create giant eruptions.

To take a step back and keep things in perspective: while deep Earth motions are significant over tens of millions of years, they are generally in the order of 1 centimetre per year. This means BLOBS shift at roughly the rate at which human hair grows.

Read more:
Where should we look for new metals that are critical for green energy technology? Volcanoes may point the way

Nicolas Flament receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Anglo American and De Beers.

Annalise Cucchiaro receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Anglo American and De Beers.

– ref. Where do giant volcanic eruptions come from? New study finds missing link to ‘blobs’ deep within Earth – https://theconversation.com/where-do-giant-volcanic-eruptions-come-from-new-study-finds-missing-link-to-blobs-deep-within-earth-259804

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Hickson, Lecturer in Economics and Director, Business Taught Masters Programme, University of Canterbury

Defence spending is like insurance – you have to pay for it but you hope you never have to use it. And the higher the risk you face, the higher your premium will be.

New Zealand has now committed to paying those higher defence insurance premiums. The government’s 2025 Defence Capability Plan, released in April, includes NZ$9 billion in extra funding over the next four years. That’s a sizable increase on a current annual budget of just under $5 billion.

New Zealand is not alone, of course. Driven by geopolitical tensions and US President Donald Trump’s demand that other countries spend a higher proportion of their GDP on defence, global military spending rose for the tenth year in a row to US$2,718 billion in 2024, with huge increases in Europe and the Middle East.

How much “insurance” a country should buy in the form of defence spending will vary. Too little, and it cannot respond when it needs to; too much, and resources are needlessly wasted. For New Zealand, it is a matter of finding the right balance.

Economically, however, defence spending is more complicated than simply buying weapons and recruiting more personnel. There can be benefits beyond basic security considerations.

One involves what economists call “technology spillovers”. Past innovations developed for military use – such as jet engines, GPS and the internet – often found important civilian applications.

The challenge is to design defence investments to deliberately build skills and technologies with wider economic benefit: advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity or clean tech. New Zealand’s defence plan includes this kind of spending, including
between $100 million and 300 million on cybersecurity.

On the other hand, promises of new jobs from large projects are often overstated, with New Zealand’s best known example being the “Think Big” policy of the 1970s. Rather, there can be job substitution as people move from civilian roles into military ones.

Guns and butter

In the end, of course, increased defence spending must be funded – through higher taxes, more debt or reduced spending on other items. Higher GDP growth would make the expenditure more affordable, but even then we face the same tradeoffs. It’s not possible to have lower taxes and debt as well as higher government spending.

Most of the expenditure set out in the defence plan will be on equipment. But any increase in the output of the defence industry will likely crowd out other consumer and investment goods.

While clearly an extreme example, one only has to look at how defence spending rose during WWII. The increase in military output came at the expense of other goods, leading to shortages and rationing.

New Zealand doesn’t face that scale of change, but there is still likely to be some shift in production from “butter to guns”. We might also see a shift in how businesses spend their research and development money, towards military and away from civilian applications.

New Zealand does not have a large defence industry and will need to import much of the new equipment. This implies a need for higher exports to pay for those imports, meaning fewer goods for New Zealanders to consume.

Costs and benefits

Most countries are understandably reluctant to cut spending on health, education and other things voters care about in order to boost defence. Hence, governments can be tempted to label new expenditures as “defence” when it could otherwise be classified as “updated infrastructure”.

Spending on dual-purpose capital works is likely to increase, therefore, with projects earmarked for defence more likely to be funded. The New Zealand defence plan already allows for housing, airfield and port facilities that can all have multiple uses.

There are also ethical considerations. Many consumers prefer not to invest in the arms trade, but components used in weapons manufacture often have non-military uses as well.

Similarly, many consumer items, such as phones, vehicles and food, can be purchased by the military but clearly have non-military uses. We may see more of the output of companies that also produce non-military items directed into defence.

All of this can make it difficult to classify a company as a defence contractor, and may be challenging for large investors (such as superannuation funds) with ethical investment policies. At the same time, the cost of not investing in defence firms might also rise as demand for their products or services increases and they become better investments.

Like people in general, countries prefer lower insurance premiums. But when risks increase, so too does the price of insurance. Voters will disagree on how much should be spent on defence, but that is largely a political question.

What economics teaches us, however, is that if you want to reduce your insurance premium, then reduce your risk. And that is something easier said than done.

Stephen Hickson 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. Defence spending is like insurance – how will NZ pay the higher premiums? – https://theconversation.com/defence-spending-is-like-insurance-how-will-nz-pay-the-higher-premiums-260399

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenton Griffin, Casual Lecturer and Tutor in History, Indigenous Studies, and Politics, Flinders University

Reality TV series The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives follows a number of social media influencers from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who rose to prominence through social media, and particularly TikTok.

The show is based in Utah, United States, where the church has its headquarters. But it stands in stark contrast with the stereotypical perception of Mormons – and especially Mormon women – the church has promoted for more than a century.

Through its exploration of traditionally “taboo” topics such as sex, marital issues, mental illness and sexual abuse, The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives clashes against the church’s carefully curated public image.

Historical pariahs

Historically, the church’s practice of polygamy placed it at odds with the mainstream sexual and familial norms of 19th century America.

Polygamy had been practised by Mormons since at least the 1830s, and was officially announced as permissible by the church in 1852. The church now acknowledges its founder, Joseph Smith, married almost 40 women and teenage girls before his death in 1844.

When Mormon missionaries began to proselytise throughout the world, newspapers criticised the practice, and Mormons were framed as sexual deviants and racialised “pariahs”. In other words, Mormons were presented as being racially different to the rest of white American society. This claim was even supported by doctors at the time.

To Mormons, however, polygamy was a reintroduction of the correct form of marriage, and they pointed to biblical prophets to justify it.

In 1862, the US congress passed a series of laws aimed at abolishing polygamy. This resulted in the arrest of church leaders and the confiscation of church-owned funds and properties in Utah.

Then, in the 1870s, exposés written by former Mormons (particularly women) decried polygamy as evil, increasing hostility against Mormon leaders.

In 1890, church leader Wilford Woodruff announced in a revelation known as the Manifesto that polygamy would cease. The Manifesto was accepted by most Mormons as the government’s harassment increased. However, breakaway groups called “fundamentalists” continued the practice.

Today, Mormon scriptures continue to state polygamy is the correct form of marriage, and will exist in the afterlife.

The stereotypical Mormon

Since the ending of polygamy, the church has sought to establish itself as a moral equal to mainstream Christian norms, especially sexual norms. In 1995, it released a document titled Family: A Proclamation to the World which emphasised the view that heterosexual marriage and strict gender roles are divinely ordained.

As the church has grown, it has presented its members as model citizens of the nations they reside in.

In doing so, it has promoted unique doctrines and practices, such as sexual abstinence before marriage, and a particular health code called the Word of Wisdom which bars alcohol, tea, coffee and tobacco.

These doctrines, and existing stereotypes of Mormons, are examined in The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives.

Colliding perceptions

The 2024 release of the series caused waves in the Latter-day Saints community, with a number of Mormon-focused publications condemning it.

Before the show was released, the church published a general statement saying media portrayals of Mormons “often rely on sensationalism and inaccuracies that do not fairly and fully reflect the lives of our Church members”. It has yet to directly comment on the show.

Nonetheless, the representation of Mormons in The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives is problematic for the church, because it transgresses its highly curated image of Mormonism.

As the influencers put it, there is a desire to push back against stereotypes around Mormonism, and particularly Mormon women. These stereotypes have been crystallised by the church to combat perceptions of Mormons as sexually abhorrent, due to past practices of polygamy.

The women in the show wear clothing that would not cover “temple garments”, the mandatory Latter-day Saint undergarments which seek to impose sexual modesty.

There is also a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement that while the church prohibits stimulants such as tea, coffee and alcohol, Mormons within Utah and surrounds still consume other, somewhat surprising, substances. For instance, the use of ketamine in therapy is allowed when administered by a healthcare professional.

The series also engages with topics considered taboo in the church, such as marital issues, mental health struggles and consensual sex. Even if these are being played up by the cast or producers, such discussions are lacking in broader Mormon circles.

Importantly, there are admissions by some cast members, including one of the husbands, of being sexually abused as children. According to the cast members themselves, these disclosures are intended to empower viewers who may have had similar experiences.

This is a powerful critique, because the Mormon church has come under intense scrutiny for its failure to properly respond to child sexual assault, both in the US and globally.

The next steps

The show is having a marked impact on perceptions of Mormonism, despite the church’s stance it doesn’t represent the beliefs and lifestyle of Mormons more broadly.

For many viewers, it might be their introduction to the religion. This is concerning for adherents, and particularly for the church’s leadership.

There are internal tools the church could use against the show’s cast members, such as disciplinary councils or excommunication. But these would be ineffective since only about half the members consider themselves “faithful” Mormons.

It’s interesting the church has yet to condemn the show. Perhaps maintaining an image of reluctant acceptance is more important, as in recent years the church has been criticised for overreach against its own members.

In this case, the show would be an uncomfortable reality the church will just have to live with. Either way, the damage to the stereotypical Mormon image is done.

The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives is available to stream on Disney+.

Brenton Griffin was raised as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but is no longer a practising member of the church. His research is focused on the religion’s place in Australian and New Zealand popular culture, politics, and society from the 19th century to present.

– ref. The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives shatters the church’s century-long effort to curate its own image – https://theconversation.com/the-secret-lives-of-mormon-wives-shatters-the-churchs-century-long-effort-to-curate-its-own-image-260418

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Li Eriksson, Senior Lecturer, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University

We’ve long known there’s a link between alcohol and violence, but when it comes to homicide the stories behind the statistics are harder to grasp.

Our study sheds rare light on what actually happens when drinking precedes killing, because it draws not just on police or court records but on the first-hand accounts of convicted offenders.

We interviewed 205 Australian men and women across Australia aged between 15 and 65 at the time of homicide and 20 to 71 when interviewed.

Nearly half (43%) said they’d been drinking immediately before committing the act. While levels of intoxication varied, many described being heavily under the influence at the time.

One man, when asked about his alcohol consumption, stated he had drunk “shitloads” before the incident occurred, adding he intended to “write (himself) off” that night.

The study offers a disturbing but important window into the realities of alcohol-involved homicide.

What do we know about alcohol and homicide?

Most of our knowledge about homicide and alcohol comes from police reports, forensic toxicology and court proceedings. These are useful but limited. They often lack detail about how much was consumed, when and in what context.

Self-report data – what offenders themselves say about their state of mind and substance use – add depth to this picture.

While not without its flaws (memory and honesty being obvious concerns), such data helps us understand the psychological and situational dynamics of homicide better than numbers alone.

What the study found

Of the 205 homicide offenders interviewed, those who had been drinking prior to the offence shared some distinct characteristics.

Alcohol-involved homicides were more likely to occur at night, happen in public places such as pubs or parks, involve older offenders, and be committed with knives.

Interestingly, these cases weren’t necessarily the result of long-planned acts.

Rather, they had many markers of impulsivity – spontaneous, emotionally charged and often reactive violence.

Alcohol’s impact here could have played a role, as our study found drinkers and non-drinkers had similar self-control levels.

Self-control is the ability to manage impulses, emotions and actions in pursuit of long-term goals and is typically seen as a buffer against offending.

This suggests alcohol may overpower people’s behaviour even if they boast moderate impulse control.

Why chronic alcohol problems matter

The strongest predictor of alcohol-involved homicide wasn’t age, gender, or criminal history. It was whether the offender had ongoing problems with alcohol misuse.

This points to the deeply entrenched nature of alcohol dependence and its capacity to fuel extreme violence. It also has clear implications for prevention.

Tackling long-term alcohol abuse isn’t just a health issue – it’s a public safety issue.

The data suggest that had some of these people received support or intervention earlier, lives may have been saved.

More than a disinhibitor?

We often think of alcohol as a “disinhibitor” – something that lowers self-control and makes people do things they wouldn’t otherwise do.

That’s true to an extent but this study highlights the story is more complex.

Many of these homicides didn’t happen because someone simply “lost control”, they happened in a context shaped by years of alcohol misuse, patterns of violence and social disadvantage.

In some cases, alcohol didn’t cause the violence, it gave it an opportunity.

What can we do?

Understanding the characteristics of alcohol-involved homicide can help shape more effective crime prevention strategies.

Some takeaways include:

• Early intervention: addressing problem drinking before it escalates into chronic misuse is critical. This includes better screening, treatment programs and community-based support services.

• Night-time and public place policing: since these homicides are more likely to happen in public at night, there may be a role for targeted interventions in high-risk locations—especially around bars, clubs and events where alcohol flows freely.

• Knife crime prevention: the strong association with knife use suggests we also need to examine how accessible knives are in public settings and educate people about the risks of carrying them.

Looking to the future

This research doesn’t offer easy solutions but it does reinforce a vital truth: preventing homicide isn’t just about catching violent people, it’s about understanding the conditions that make violence more likely.

By listening to those who’ve committed the ultimate crime, we might just learn how to help better prevent it from happening in the first place.

Anna Hartley, science communicator at Griffith University, contributed to this article.

Li Eriksson has received research funding from the Australian Institute of Criminology, Queensland Corrective Services, and Queensland Police Service.

Paul Mazerolle received funding from the Australian Research Council to support research which informed this article..

Richard Wortley and Samara McPhedran 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. We interviewed 205 Australians convicted of murder and manslaughter. Alcohol’s role was alarming – https://theconversation.com/we-interviewed-205-australians-convicted-of-murder-and-manslaughter-alcohols-role-was-alarming-259794

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Madoc Sheehan, Adjunct Associate Professor in Chemical Engineering, James Cook University

Green hydrogen is touted by some as the future – a way for Australia to slowly replace its reliance on fossil fuel exports. The energy-dense gas has the potential to reduce emissions in sectors challenging to decarbonise, such as steelmaking and fertiliser manufacturing.

The Albanese government wants it to be a massive new export industry and has laid out a pathway through its National Hydrogen Strategy.

Unfortunately, there’s a real gap between rhetoric and reality. Despite ambitious plans, no green hydrogen project has yet succeeded in Australia. The technology’s most prominent local backer, billionaire miner Twiggy Forrest, has dialled down his ambition. Globally, just 7% of announced green hydrogen projects are up and running.

Economic viability is one problem. But there’s a much larger issue flying under the radar: water. Hitting the 2050 target of 15 million to 30 million tonnes of hydrogen a year would use 7–15% of the amount Australia’s households, farms, mines and black coal power plants use annually. That’s simply not sustainable.

Splitting water

Green hydrogen uses renewable energy to power electrolyser machines, which split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen.

On the surface, this is an appealing use of clean energy, especially during solar peak periods.

But what the government hasn’t properly accounted for is the water cost for green hydrogen. The strategy states water use is likely to be “considerable but not prohibitive”.

This is questionable. For every kilogram of hydrogen produced through electrolysis, nine litres of water are directly consumed.

That’s not all. The water needed to make hydrogen has to be extremely pure. Salt water has to be desalinated, and even fresh water needs purification. Equipment also needs cooling, which consumes even more water.

All these processes incur substantial indirect water losses, such as the water used for industrial processes and cooling. The volumes used are highly uncertain. They can be up to 20 times greater than the direct water use.

A key input value for the government’s hydrogen strategy modelling is taken from a 2015 report by the Argonne National Energy Laboratory in the United States, which assumes each kilogram of green hydrogen produced requires just over 30 litres of water.

The Australian hydrogen strategy suggests 30 litres per kilogram of hydrogen would cover “all system losses including purification processes and cooling water required”. But it’s not clear if this figure covers other uses of water in making hydrogen, such as water treatment.

How much water would this use?

According to the government’s modelling, making 15 million tonnes would require 740 billion litres of water. That would be about 7% of the 10,450 billion litres used by all of Australia’s households, farms, mines and black coal power plants.

That’s substantial. One and a half Sydney Harbours worth, every year. But it might be a major underestimate. After all, estimates on indirect water use differ widely. The government’s figures are at the very bottom of the range.

For instance, the latest research gives water consumption figures of about 66 litres per kilogram – more than twice as large. Other sources give values between 90 and 300 litres per kilogram of hydrogen – three to ten times higher.

Uncertainty in modelling is normal. But the wide research suggesting much higher water use should give rise to real concern.

If we take a middle-of-the-range figure of 95 litres per kilogram, this would mean that making 15 million tonnes of green hydrogen would use up 22% of the 10,450 billion litres used by households, farms, mines and black coal power plants annually by 2050.

If hydrogen was even thirstier at 310 litres per kilogram, that would translate to 72% of that figure.

These estimates are enormous. Even under the most optimistic scenario, the draw on Australia’s scarce freshwater resources would simply be too much. Where would this water come from? Farmers? Groundwater? Environmental flows from rivers?

As the Queensland Farmers Federation pointed out in its response to the hydrogen strategy, the figures on water use “beg the question if they are in fact sustainable”.

The Water Services Association of Australia has called for much greater attention to the water demands of green hydrogen, which it says are “often seriously underestimated”.

What about saltwater? Australia has no shortage of oceans. The problem here becomes energy and wastewater. Desalination is still very energy intensive. Converting saltwater to fresh also produces large volumes of super-salty brine, which must then be managed as waste.

Which way forward?

Does this mean green hydrogen is a non-starter? Not necessarily. Improved electrolyser technology might offer ways to slash water use, while circular economy approaches such as resource recovery from brine could also reduce losses.

But these concerns about water must be front and centre in future discussions about the shape and size of the industry in Australia.

Madoc Sheehan 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. Thirsty future: Australia’s green hydrogen targets could require vastly more water than the government hopes – https://theconversation.com/thirsty-future-australias-green-hydrogen-targets-could-require-vastly-more-water-than-the-government-hopes-252044

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz has announced a controversial plan to move up to 600,000 Palestinians in Gaza into a designated “humanitarian area” on the ruins of the southern city of Rafah.

Access to the camp would be through strict security screening to ensure entrants were not Hamas operatives. Once inside, the perimeter would be sealed off by the Israeli military. Palestinians would not be allowed to leave.

Eventually the camp would house the entire 2.1 million population of Gaza.

Camp construction would begin during the proposed 60-day ceasefire being negotiated by Israel and Hamas

‘Illegal and inhumane’

The plan is illegal, inhumane and risks worsening the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The forced displacement and containment of any civilian population in an occupied territory is a violation of international humanitarian law.

Done on this scale would constitute a war crime and a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute.

The UN Security Council, UN General Assembly and UN Commission on Human Rights have all condemned instances of forced transfer in armed conflicts.

So too, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, which have stressed the fundamental prohibition of forced displacement of a civilian population and the need for all parties to respect this prohibition.

For their own protection?

Katz is describing the camp as a “humanitarian city”. The Israeli military says Palestinians would only be contained for their own protection.

As we have seen, civilian displacement is prohibited. But there is an exception if a case can be made either for military reasons or the protection of the population.

However, this exception only exists for as long as the conditions warrant for it to exist. Anyone subject to such an evacuation must be transferred back to their homes as soon as possible.

Imperative military reasons never justify the removal of a civilian population in order to persecute it. The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement entrenches the duty of international actors to avoid creating the conditions that might lead to the displacement of people.

Aid dilemma

Katz has indicated international organisations would be responsible for managing aid and services inside the area.

But Israel has a history of defying even orders from the International Court of Justice to allow humanitarian aid to reach the Palestinians in Gaza.

If international humanitarian agencies were called upon to service the camp, they would face a dilemma.

They would need to decide whether to cooperate in managing aid under conditions that compromise their neutrality and ethical standards, deny basic human rights and are built on violations of international law.

Aid groups would risk being complicit in a process that sets up a transit camp for Palestinians before possibly expelling them from Gaza altogether.

This “humanitarian city” would essentially become an open-air prison. Palestinians would be reliant on international aid under strict Israeli military control.

Mass expulsion?

Could the Rafah camp be a precursor to mass expulsion from Gaza and what does international law say about that?

Katz has been quoted saying Israel aims to implement “the emigration plan, which will happen” – meaning Gazans will eventually be forced to leave for other countries.

Changing the demographic composition of a territory – ethnic cleansing – achieved through the displacement of the civilian population of a territory is strictly prohibited under international law.

The idea of displacing Palestinians has long been part of Israeli strategic thinking, but this announcement signals a dangerous escalation and intention to permanently alter Gaza’s demographic landscape through displacement and containment.

Voluntary exodus?

According to Katz, Gazans would have the option of “voluntary” emigration.

Indeed, speaking at the White House this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there would be no forced exodus from Gaza:

If people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave.

But the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is incomprehensible.

The population has been displaced multiple times and 90% of homes in Gaza are damaged or destroyed. The healthcare, water, sanitation and hygiene systems have collapsed.

On average 100 Palestinians are killed daily as they try to access food.

These crisis circumstances negate the voluntary nature of any person’s consent to either the transfer to the Rafah camp or ultimately, the departure from Gaza.

According to Amos Goldberg, historian of the Holocaust at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, what the defence minister laid out was clear plans for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza:

[it is] a transit camp for Palestinians before they expel them. It is neither humanitarian nor a city.

Shannon Bosch 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. Israel’s Rafah camp – ‘humanitarian city’ or crime against humanity? – https://theconversation.com/israels-rafah-camp-humanitarian-city-or-crime-against-humanity-260809

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

Walk through any trendy suburb and you might find a new “wellness” studio offering ice baths or “contrast therapy” (a sauna and ice bath combo).

Scroll social media, and you’re likely to come across influencers preaching the cold plunge gospel with cult-like zeal.

Ice baths have gone mainstream. Initially practised mainly among high-performance athletes, cold water immersion is now a booming business model: sold as recovery, discipline and therapy all in one.

But the benefits are questionable and, importantly, ice baths can have health risks – particularly for people who have limited experience using them.

From Roman times to today

Cold water immersion isn’t a new concept.

The “frigidarium” – a room with a cold plunge pool or bath – was a feature in most Roman bathhouses.

For decades, athletes have used cold water immersion, such as swims in cold water, for recovery.

But in recent years, with the proliferation of commercial cold plunge centres, there’s been an explosion in people using ice baths recreationally.

Many people are even setting up their own ice baths at home. The global cold plunge tub market was valued at close to US$338 million in 2024 and is projected to reach nearly $483 million by 2033.

Social media shows serene influencers meditating through the pain, claiming it boosts mental health, serotonin, testosterone, and their metabolism. But does the evidence stack up?

Ice baths can reduce muscle soreness after intense training, however the effect is modest and short-lived.

Some research shows cold water immersion can improve mood after a single exposure in young, healthy people, but other research doesn’t find these benefits.

Most claims about mental health, testosterone and weight loss aren’t backed by strong evidence. Rather, they’re anecdotal and amplified by influencers.

Read more:
Cold water therapy: what are the benefits and dangers of ice baths, wild swimming and freezing showers?

What does an ice bath involve?

At commercial establishments, patrons can often use the ice baths as they please during a booked session. Ice bath temperatures often range anywhere from 3°C to 15°C. There normally isn’t actual ice in the bath, but some people add blocks of ice to their ice baths at home.

Businesses offering ice baths don’t always actively supervise patrons or monitor a person’s time in the ice bath. They may leave their customers to self-regulate, assuming people will know to get out of the water before they pass their body’s limits.

So what are the risks?

Cold water immersion triggers a powerful physiological response. When you hit cold water below 15°C, your body launches into cold shock. Gasping occurs and breathing becomes rapid and uncontrollable. Heart rate spikes. Blood pressure rises.

Staying in the water for too long can lead to hypothermia, a condition where a person’s core body temperature drops dangerously low.

Shivering may begin within minutes in cold water. Confusion or fainting are more serious signs that hypothermia may be developing.

Occasionally, this “cold shock” response can lead to a heart attack or stroke – especially if you have an undiagnosed condition affecting your heart, blood vessels or brain.

As far back as 1969, researchers found even experienced swimmers could struggle after just a few minutes in cold water. Participants were immersed in water at 4.7°C while fully clothed and asked to swim as if trying to reach safety. Some developed serious respiratory distress and had to stop swimming within as little as 90 seconds, well before any measurable drop in core body temperature.

Even after you get out, your core temperature can continue to fall – a phenomenon known as afterdrop. So you can encounter problems, such as collapse, even after leaving the water.

And even young, healthy people can be caught off guard. The body isn’t designed to endure freezing water for extended periods.

Recently one of us (Sam Cornell) had to provide first aid at an ice bath venue in Sydney. A young man collapsed after staying in an ice bath for ten minutes. He was shivering uncontrollably and clearly suffering from cold shock.

Cold exposure can also cause long-term damage to nerves and blood vessels in the hands and feet, known as non-freezing cold injury. This is more likely if someone spends an extended period immersed in cold water. Symptoms such as numbness, pain and sensitivity to cold can persist for years.

6 tips for safer recreational ice bath use

The ice bath trend is part of a broader wellness movement, promoted to young men in particular, where discomfort is repackaged as discipline. Push through the pain. Master your body. If you feel terrible, you must be doing it right.

But behind the hype lies a less appealing truth. Ice baths can be dangerous.

We advise caution, but if you do choose to try an ice bath, treat it seriously and follow these tips to reduce the risk of harm.

1. Talk to your doctor: get checked out first. If you or your family have any heart, stroke or respiratory risk, skip it

2. Know your limits: being fit doesn’t protect you from cold shock

3. Start gradually: begin with short warm to cold showers before full immersion

4. Never go alone: always have someone with you, especially if you’re new to ice baths

5. Keep it short and watch the temperature: limit sessions to 3–5 minutes and remember, problems can still occur after you get out

6. Recognise the signs of danger: symptoms such as shivering, numbness and confusion can all seem like part of the experience to someone bent on pushing themselves. But these can be signs of hypothermia.

Samuel Cornell receives funding from Meta Platforms, Inc. His research is supported by a University of New South Wales Sydney, University Postgraduate Award. His research is supported by Royal Life Saving Society – Australia to aid in the prevention of drowning. Research at Royal Life Saving Society – Australia is supported by the Australian government. He has been affiliated with Surf Life Saving Australia and Surf Life Saving NSW in a paid and voluntary capacity.

Michael Tipton has previously received funding from organisations working in drowning prevention and water safety. He is Chair of the UK National Water Safety Forum, hosted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), and a member of Council of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI).

– ref. Ice baths are booming in popularity – but they come with health risks – https://theconversation.com/ice-baths-are-booming-in-popularity-but-they-come-with-health-risks-260206

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Janetzki, Lecturer in Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of South Australia

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnoses are rising across Australia.

But after finally getting a diagnosis, many people are discovering the medicine they’ve been prescribed isn’t available at the pharmacy.

Australia faces a nation-wide shortage of methylphenidate (sold as Concerta and Ritalin).

What does it mean for people with ADHD?

ADHD medication shortages have persisted since 2023, with shortages of lisdexamfetamine (Vyvanse), and are now affecting more people.

Many people with ADHD have to call multiple pharmacies to find their medication. They might be put on waiting lists to access their prescribed medications, or have to contact their doctor or their child’s doctor to get a new script for a different medication.

Some people with ADHD are switching between strengths or changing to different medicines. This can mean starting again with slow dose changes, and can result in poor symptom control and more side effects.

Some people have had to skip doses or go without medicine altogether, making it hard to concentrate, stay organised and manage emotions.

Shortages can also increase inequality. People in rural areas with fewer pharmacies, for example, have more difficulty accessing these medications.

And people with fewer financial resources are less able to access alternative medications that aren’t subsidised.

Increasing access to diagnosis and treatment

Around 8% of children and 2.5% of adults in Australia have ADHD. It makes it hard to focus, sit still, and/or control impulses. For many, medication helps manage these symptoms.

Diagnosis has often involved seeing a specialist such as psychiatrist or paediatrician.

But from September, GPs in New South Wales will be able to continue ADHD prescriptions without needing specialist approval. In 2026, GPs in South Australia and Western Australia will be able to diagnose ADHD and start treatment.

However, ongoing shortages may still stop people from getting the medicine they need.

Why are these medicines running out?

These shortages are largely due to manufacturing issues – including problems sourcing raw ingredients and production quotas in the United States.

When one brand runs out, it puts pressure on other brands. This creates a domino effect across the supply chain.

There is also increasing demand.

In 2022-2023 almost 470,000 Australians were prescribed ADHD medications. That’s four times the number from nine years earlier.

From January 2024 to May 2025, the number of prescriptions filled increased further, by 60% for dexamfetamine, 88% for methylphenidate and 140% for lisdexamfetamine.

Shortages of several strengths and brands of menthylphenidate (Concerta and Ritalin) and are expected to continue into late 2025. Both the long-acting and short-acting types are affected.

Pharmacies can’t always help

Stimulants to treat ADHD are tightly controlled. Pharmacies can only supply one-month of medicine at a time.

In some states such as NSW, paper prescriptions for tightly controlled medicines must be filled at the same pharmacy each time. So patients have not been able to get their medicine elsewhere even if it’s in stock.

In response to the methylphenidate shortages, NSW Health has allowed pharmacies to transfer paper prescriptions to other pharmacists that have stock available. This change is temporary but helpful.

This rule is different in other states such as Victoria and South Australia, where people are able to visit or call other pharmacies to see if they have stock.

However, ideally a patient will be able to build a rapport with one main pharmacy – and the pharmacy will know exactly how many regular patients they need to get stock for.

What are regulators doing about it?

The national medicines regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has set up a group called the Medicine Shortage Action Groups to respond to the methylphenidate shortage.

This group includes members from health professional groups and peak bodies. It will give advice to health professionals and are creating resources for patients, families and schools about the shortages and how to reduce disruptions to their or their child’s treatment.

The TGA has also recently approved the temporary use of some methylphenidate brands from overseas.

Some of these are now listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which means they are available at a subsidised price.

The body representing physicians, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, has called for early warnings about shortages. That way, doctors can help patients change to alternatives before it’s too late.

What can you do if you can’t get a script filled?

If you’re finding it hard to get your ADHD medicine:

• talk to your pharmacist. They may be able to order an overseas-registered alternative or suggest a different brand

• speak with your GP, psychiatrist or your child’s paediatrician. They might adjust your or your child’s dose or suggest a different medication for their ADHD. This might mean changing to another stimulant that is available in a short- or long-acting formulation or by changing to a medicine for ADHD that is not a stimulant. Ask your physician to contact the pharmacy to see what they have in stock while you’re at your appointment

• check the TGA’s Medicine Shortage Reports Database for updates on when the medicine might become available.

If you’re calling around to find stock:

• call mid-morning to see if they’ve got stock. Pharmacies are generally less busy after the morning rush

• say exactly what medicine, strength and brand you are looking for. If you don’t mind which brand be sure to tell the pharmacist

• keep a list of pharmacies so you don’t double up

• if you live in a rural area and find that a pharmacy in a nearby town has stock, ask if they can courier the medication to you.

Jack Janetzki works for Pharmaceutical Defence Limited and The Barossa Pharmacist in the Mall (Nuriootpa, South Australia). He is a member of Pharmaceutical Defence Limited, the Australasian Pharmaceutical Science Association, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia and the Observational Health Data Science Informatics network.

Lisa Kalisch Ellett is president of the Australasian Pharmaceutical Science Association and a member of the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia.

– ref. Can’t fill your ADHD script? Here’s why, and what to do while the shortage persists – https://theconversation.com/cant-fill-your-adhd-script-heres-why-and-what-to-do-while-the-shortage-persists-259911

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carmen Lim, NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow, National Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, The University of Queensland

Australia’s key regulator of health professionals has announced it’s clamping down on unsafe prescribing of medicinal cannabis in the wake of surging patient demand.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, known as Ahpra, today warned health professionals they would need to put patients’ wellbeing ahead of profits.

Among its concerns were aggressive marketing strategies by clinics prescribing medicinal cannabis, and consultations lasting between a few seconds and a few minutes, before prescribing.

Such concerns have led to eight practitioners issuing more than 10,000 scripts in a six-month window, and one who appeared to have issued more than 17,000 scripts.

Ahpra’s other concerns include reports of patients with psychosis after taking medicinal cannabis, prescribing high doses, and prescribing to family members or people under 18.

However, overservicing, inappropriate prescribing and the health issues that can arise are issues we’ve known about for years.

Our research, for example, looked at multiple websites that offered medicinal cannabis in Australia. We found widespread examples of aggressive and misleading marketing. Some clinics breached regulatory guidelines. Others bent the rules.

Yet Ahpra’s latest announcement doesn’t tighten existing prescribing or marketing rules for medicinal cannabis. It just reminds doctors, nurse practitioners and pharmacists what the rules are.

What is the regulator concerned about?

According to the 2022–23 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, 3% of Australians aged 14 or over had used cannabis for medical purposes in the previous 12 months, equating to around 700,000 people.

Australians spent more than A$400 million on medicinal cannabis products in the first half of 2024 alone.

But Ahpra is concerned too many health practitioners are prescribing medicinal cannabis when a patient requests it, rather than whether this is the right product for them.

It suggests too few practitioners are assessing patients thoroughly, formulating and implementing a management plan, facilitating coordination and continuity of care, maintaining medical records, recommending treatments only where there is an identified therapeutic need, and ensuring medicinal cannabis is not a first-line treatment.

So Ahpra says it will investigate practitioners with high rates of prescribing any scheduled medicine, including medicinal cannabis, even if it has not received a complaint.

We found lots of aggressive marketing

Medicinal cannabis has been legally available in Australia since 2016. This means doctors can prescribe it for any medical condition when other approved treatments have not worked. Now patients can be prescribed medicinal cannabis as a capsule, oil or dried flower, for example, often via a website.

But when we analysing the websites of 54 private medicinal cannabis clinics in Australia, an alarming picture emerged.

We found multiple examples of websites that breached marketing rules, or skirted around them. This included making unsubstantiated health claims about the products they offered, such as they could treat anxiety, depression, or other mental health symptoms.

Websites often allowed people to assess if medicinal cannabis was for them. This self-assessment may mislead people into believing they would benefit from it, inadvertently “coaching” them on which medical conditions might warrant a prescription.

Other marketing tactics we found included promises of same-day or after-hours delivery, no GP referrals required, discounted consultation fees, and
targeted advertisements on social media.

What we’d like to see

Ahpra’s aim of safer prescribing of medicinal cannabis is welcome. But by merely repeating the rules, rather than tightening them, this doesn’t go far enough. So Ahpra has missed out on a real opportunity to safeguard patients’ health.

For instance, we’d like to see greater emphasis on banning targeted advertisements on social media for medicinal cannabis. In a study that we’ve submitted for publication, we found this a particular concern.

We found many private clinics are using ads to reach young people, including those as young as 18. One company ran more than 170 active ads this month alone across Facebook, Instagram and Threads.

Ads we’ve seen include cryptic messaging, such as “we can’t shout about it, but our patients are smiling”, paired with bright colours and wellness-themed imagery.

One pairs an Australian sports celebrity with the tagline “move differently!” and the name of the product.

Another one promises “real doctors, real care” and “fast approvals & express delivery”, with consultations at $19.

While these ads do not mention medicinal cannabis directly, the messaging is clearly designed to spark curiosity and build brand recognition, especially among younger audiences.

We’d also like to see Ahpra:

• broaden its focus beyond prescribing patterns to include digital marketing and advertising practices that target young people

• provide clear guidelines to medicinal cannabis clinics and prescribers on acceptable promotional practices

• support stronger consequences for repeat offenders, including prescribers who continue to engage in misleading advertising after being sanctioned.

Carmen Lim receives funding from the National Medical Health Research Council (2024-2028). She has not received any funding from the alcohol, cannabis, pharmaceutical, tobacco or vaping industries.

– ref. Medicinal cannabis is big business. But the latest clampdown won’t curb unsafe prescribing – https://theconversation.com/medicinal-cannabis-is-big-business-but-the-latest-clampdown-wont-curb-unsafe-prescribing-260803

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pii-Tuulia Nikula, Associate Professor, School of Business, Eastern Institute of Technology

NZ Post committed to cutting its emissions by 32% by 2030 (based on 2018 levels), but recently announced it would abandon its climate target.

The company was part of the Science Based Target initiative (SBTi), the leading international body allowing businesses worldwide to set and validate targets which they can then promote as backed by science.

More than 10,000 businesses have joined SBTi and the database currently includes 36 New Zealand businesses with active targets or commitments.

In recent years, however, well known businesses have been abandoning SBTi. NZ Post’s decision follows Air New Zealand’s announcement to withdraw last year and Auckland Airport’s less publicised decision not to renew its SBTi target.

NZ Post was one of the early adopters of SBTi in New Zealand. Its initial commitment in 2018 included not only the company’s own direct emissions (known as scope 1) but also purchased energy (scope 2) and other indirect emissions (known as scope 3, such as emissions from air freight or waste disposal).

In the past few years, NZ Post has signalled its intention to update its target to pursue even greater reductions of 42%. In 2023, it made a commitment to align itself with a pathway to achieve net zero by 2050.

But the company has now decided to fully withdraw from SBTi. NZ Post’s website announcement states:

After careful consideration and a thorough assessment of both technical feasibility and financial implications, it has become clear that our target is no longer feasible at a technical level and, given the scale of investment required, under present economic conditions.

NZ Post seems to have found itself in the contradiction between economic objectives and climate action. Ambitious climate action seems to rarely win such a battle.

The company was already questioning its ability to meet its SBTi targets in its 2022 and 2023 climate disclosures. Its parcel volumes were growing and it struggled with emissions associated with heavy freight and aviation.

It also stated its emissions had increased due to the acquisition of Fliway Group, improved supply-chain data, and emission factor changes. This indicated it would struggle to meet even less ambitious climate targets.

Why this is a problem

One might commend NZ Post for their transparency in disclosing their decision to withdraw from SBTi. However, so far the announcement hasn’t been included in the company’s media releases and remains tucked away in the sustainability section.

The broader issue is that businesses can use SBTi to gain reputational value without following up with required decarbonisation. The current SBTi setup has some limitations that allow such behaviour.

For instance, companies can make an SBTi commitment and promote it for two years before having to submit an actual target for validation. Businesses can also promote their SBTi targets for years without making required progress. Finally, some SBTi businesses provide limited reporting, making assessment of their progress difficult.

In a 2025 consultation, SBTi acknowledged some of these problems and signalled its plan to enhance tracking and accountability.

Climate action vs profitability

There are other issues that make transparency limited. For instance, businesses such as Air New Zealand seem to be able to withdraw from the SBTi and fully disappear from the SBTi public target dashboard, making it difficult to track those that have decided to withdraw.

While most SBTi businesses are probably not joining the scheme with the intention of “carbonwashing”, the ability of many to meet their targets seems uncertain.

In business contexts, climate action remains subordinate to profitability and revenue growth objectives. Hence, not many businesses are willing to pursue all potential ways to meet their targets as this would require making difficult decisions around economic objectives.

Many companies struggle to make progress towards science-based goals or don’t have credible transition plans aligned with the goal to keep overall warming at 1.5°C.

The question remains whether the current SBTi engagement of businesses genuinely reflects ambitious climate action or whether it is merely designed to give stakeholders the impression of global progress through symbolic commitments.

In its 2024 climate disclosure NZ Post states:

The more organisations committed to the science-based reductions, the greater our collective ability to achieve decarbonisation.

The opposite is true as well. The decision of NZ Post and other companies to drop their SBTi targets may diminish the collective ability of businesses in New Zealand to achieve decarbonisation aligning with global climate goals.

SBTi’s plan to implement new monitoring and reporting mechanisms would enhance accountability. However, it will not make meeting targets any easier. Committing to and promoting ambitious but potentially unrealistic targets can cause reputational damage.

A safer pathway for many businesses wanting to do as much as they can within the boundaries of the current economic system may be a public disclosure of their support for climate action, transparency about the actions the business is taking, and providing transparent and detailed emissions reporting.

Pii-Tuulia Nikula 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. NZ Post is the latest company to drop its climate targets – another sign business is struggling to decarbonise – https://theconversation.com/nz-post-is-the-latest-company-to-drop-its-climate-targets-another-sign-business-is-struggling-to-decarbonise-260589

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tanya M. Smith, Professor in the Australian Research Centre for Human Evolution & Griffith Centre for Social and Cultural Research, Griffith University

The climate we live in affects our lives in profound ways: hot summers, cold winters, dry spells and wet weather all leave their mark.

For growing children, one way seasons and storms are recorded is in their teeth. As we have shown in new research, teeth contain a week-by-week climatic history of their owner’s childhood.

To establish this, we studied the teeth of wild chimpanzees, captive macaque monkeys, and a woman born in Brisbane in January 1990. Her infancy included distinctive weather events – but its more powerful use is to reveal the climates that shaped individual lives thousands or even millions of years ago.

How does it work?

You wouldn’t know it, but changes in rainfall and temperature cause subtle changes in drinking water. Specifically, they affect the proportions of different atomic variants of oxygen (the isotopes oxygen-18 and oxygen-16).

Under a microscope, you can see tiny lines inside teeth that correspond to daily layers of growth. Using a machine called the Sensitive High Resolution Ion MicroProbe (SHRIMP) at the Australian National University, we vaporised spots of enamel corresponding to these lines and analysed the oxygen isotopes in the vapour.

Once we know about the balance of oxygen isotopes, we can work backwards to determine changes in drinking water and the corresponding climatic conditions.

Brisbane, 1990

Our Australian tooth donor began her life during a wet summer during which a cyclone dumped enormous amounts of rain on Brisbane and surrounds, and months of high rainfall in the region persisted through to autumn.

Her tooth enamel formed during the summer of 1990 showed oxygen isotope trends that were consistent with the rainfall patterns at the time. The minimum values occurred close in time to the wettest period, and the maximum values happened towards the end of the long dry spell that began later in the year.

After she reached her first birthday, these climate markers became more challenging to interpret. This likely happened because she began to consume more cooked foods, which carry a different isotope balance from raw food and breast milk.

Diet records

Thankfully, the SHRIMP can also help us learn more about these dietary changes by measuring nitrogen isotopes in the tooth dentine (which is found under the outer layer of enamel). There is a known relationship between the balance of nitrogen-15 and nitrogen-14 and the protein in a child’s diet.

In an earlier study, we looked at these records in the same tooth. Mothers’ milk contains high levels of nitrogen-15, and our donor showed a clear signal of rising values from birth. Shortly after six months of age, her nitrogen isotope ratio began to fall, as her mother gradually began offering her fruits and vegetables to supplement her exclusive milk diet.

During our donor’s second year of life, she was fed more solid foods, including bread, cheese, eggs, and yogurt – leading to a further decline in the isotopic ratio. She continued breastfeeding at night for a few months into her third year, and finally as she ceased nursing entirely, her nitrogen values reached a minimum.

From 35 years ago to 17 million years ago

Fine-scaled isotopic studies such as these are a world first. Teeth are typically sampled with hand-held drills or small saws to measure inputs from water and food.

These coarse sampling methods are relatively common and inexpensive, but they cannot show short-term changes in the composition of teeth. This limits how well they can be used to identify important environmental or dietary changes.

Our new technique has many applications. We’ve studied Neanderthal children from the Rhône basin of southeastern France, who experienced some rough seasons 250,000 years ago. By SHRIMPing thin tooth slices, and relating this to enamel formation ages, we were even able to estimate the seasons in which one child was born and weaned 2.5 years later.

We have just begun to produce isotopic weaning curves for humans who lived several hundred to several thousand years ago, yielding new insights into ancient maternal behaviour and infant health.

This technology can also be applied to much more ancient fossils, including apes who lived in Africa 17 million years ago. In this instance, isotopic differences between fossils were consistent with other evidence that a changing climate played an important role in influencing the anatomy and development of humanity’s forebears.

Teeth hold many more tales, and technological breakthroughs such as those at the Australian National University will continue to reveal hidden details of our ancient humanity as well as the unintended consequences of our modern lifestyles.

Tanya M. Smith receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Ian Stuart Williams has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Teeth record the hidden history of your childhood climate and diet – https://theconversation.com/teeth-record-the-hidden-history-of-your-childhood-climate-and-diet-258707

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Hopkins, Senior Lecturer in Education (Curriculum and Pedagogy), University of the Sunshine Coast

In the new Netflix documentary Shark Whisperer, the great white shark gets an image makeover – from Jaws villain to misunderstood friend and admirer.

But the star of the documentary is not so much the shark, but the model and marine conservationist Ocean Ramsey (yes, that’s her real name).

The film centres on Ramsey’s self-growth journey, with the shark co-starring as a quasi-spiritual medium for finding meaning and purpose (not to mention celebrity status).

The film, and some in it, are happy to attribute Ramsey’s success as a shark conservation activist to how driven and photogenic she is. Ramsey says “People look first and listen second. I’ll use my appearance, I’ll put myself out there for a cause.”

Her husband, the photographer Juan Oliphant, enthuses she is good for sharks partly because she is so beautiful and uses all the attention she attracts in the selfless service of sharks.

The image of the long-haired, long-limbed young woman in a bikini swimming above an outsized great white shark is not a new one.

Primal fears and fantasies

Since Jaws (1975), generations have been fascinated and titillated by filmic images and promotional materials of bikini-clad young women juxtaposed with dangerous sharks.

The heroine of Deep Blue Sea (1999) is a neuroscientist – however the film and its promotional materials still require her to appear in a wet t-shirt and underwear while pursued by a massive shark monster.

The Shallows (2016) presents countless images of its bikini-clad heroine, with partially exposed bottom and long legs marked by bite marks as a kind of meat to be consumed – not least by the voyeuristic lens of the camera.

The poster for 47 Meters Down: Uncaged (2019) features a bikini-clad young woman with legs dangling precariously in front of the gaping jaws of an unnaturally large great white.

I have previously explored the psychosexual symbolism of these films and images. These films were never really about actual sharks. They are about very human fears and fantasies about being exposed and vulnerable.

Whisperer and the Ocean Ramsey website tap into the collective fascination with dangerous sharks fuelled by popular culture. Many online images show Ramsey in a bikini or touching sharks – she’s small, and vulnerable in the face of great whites. As with forms of celebrity humanitarianism, what I have dubbed “sexy conservationism” leaves itself open to criticism about its methods – even if its intentions are good.

The paradox of Shark Whisperer – and indeed the whole Ocean Ramsey empire – is it both resists and relies on Jaws mythology and iconography to surf the image economy of new media.

Saving, not stalking

Ramsey and Oliphant are on a mission not just to save individual sharks, but to change the public perception of great whites to a more positive one.

This mission is reiterated in Shark Whisperer and in the Saving Jaws documentary linked to the website, which also promotes a book, accessories and shark-diving tours.

It is reassuring to know proceeds from the bikini you buy from the official website are donated to shark conservation. But the (often sexualised) media attention which fuels the whole enterprise still depends on tapping into the legacy of popular culture representations of great whites as fearsome monsters.

In footage, Ramsey seems to spend most of her time with smaller tiger sharks, yet her website and the Shark Whisperer film foreground her rare close encounters with an “enormous” or “massive” great white as the climax and cover shot.

Shark Whisperer also includes the kind of “money shots” we have come to expect: images of a large great white tearing at flesh (here, a whale carcass) with blood in the water. Images like these arouse our collective cultural memory of the filmic great white as the ultimate bestial predator.

In its climactic scene, Whisperer strategically deploys eerie music to build the suspense and foretell the appearance of the enormous great white which rises from the depths. Again echoes of Jaws are used to stimulate viewing pleasures and sell the mixed messages of sexy shark conservation.

A story of (personal) growth

The self-growth narrative which underpins Whisperer will feel familiar to shark film fans. Jaws was always about overcoming fears and past traumas, as in the scene where Quint and Brody compare their real and metaphorical scars.

Over the past decade, a new generation of post-feminist shark films have used sharks as metaphorical stalkers to tell stories about women overcoming past trauma, grief, “inner darkness” or depression.

In The Reef: Stalked (2022) the heroine must overcome the murder of her sister. In Shark Bait (2022) the heroine must rise above a cheating partner. In The Shallows, the heroine is processing grief.

Whisperer also leans into the idea of Ramsey fighting inner demons on a journey to self-actualisation.

And while Ramsey has undoubtedly raised the profile of shark conservation, as a model-designer-conservationist-entrepreneur she has also disseminated another more dubious message: that the way to enact influence and activism is through instagrammable images of beautiful models in high risk situations.

Happy endings

The end credits of Whisperer are a montage of happy endings: Ramsey frolics with sharks and shows off her diamond ring. There is even an ocean-themed wedding scene.

Yet beneath all the glossy surface lies a sombre reality: globally at least 80 million sharks are killed every year.

The Ramsey website and the film rightly remind us of this. They also remind us that, thanks in part to the hashtag activism of Ocean Ramsey and her millions of fans and followers, Hawaii was the first state in the United States to outlaw shark fishing.

So, Ramsey may be right to argue her ends justify the means.

Susan Hopkins 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. Netflix’s Shark Whisperer wants us to think ‘sexy conservation’ is the way to save sharks – does it have a point? – https://theconversation.com/netflixs-shark-whisperer-wants-us-to-think-sexy-conservation-is-the-way-to-save-sharks-does-it-have-a-point-260290

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marc Trabsky, Associate Professor of Law, Monash University

Northern Territory Coroner Elizabeth Armitage’s inquest findings into the death of Kumanjayi Walker have sparked conversations across Australia.

The coroner found the NT police officer who shot Walker, Zachary Rolfe, was “racist”, and she couldn’t exclude the possibility that his “values […] contributed to his decision to pull the trigger”.

For many, the findings have raised questions about the history, role, purpose and limitations of coronial inquests. So what are they, and what do they do?

What is a coroners court?

The office of coroner emerged in England in 1194. Coroners were powerful officers of the realm – collecting taxes, adjudicating treasure troves and investigating deaths.

During the industrial revolution, they became known as the “Magistrates of the Poor”, holding governments and corporations to account for causing sudden, unnatural or violent deaths.

In the 21st century, each state and territory in Australia has its own coroners court. A coroners court consists of a state coroner or chief coroner, who is the equivalent of a judge, and other coroners, who hold the position of a magistrate (beneath a judge in the court hierarchy).

All coroners are legally trained. In the 19th century, all coroners in Australia were doctors. There is no longer a requirement for coroners to have medical qualifications.

Coroners investigate unexpected, unnatural, violent and accidental deaths. In Victoria, for instance, this is about 7,400 deaths each year.

Legislation requires coroners to determine the who, when, where, what and how of such “reportable” deaths.

This means they need to determine the identity of the deceased, when and where that person died, what caused their death, and the circumstances or manner in which they died. In many instances, they make recommendations for reducing preventable deaths in the future.

Police help coroners in their investigations by providing a brief of evidence, but the coroners court is separate from the police, just as other law courts are. Forensic pathologists assist coroners in finding the medical cause of death.

Read more:
What happens in an autopsy? A forensics expert explains

Since 2005, first in Victoria and then elsewhere in Australia, forensic pathologists and radiologists have used postmortem CT scans to determine cause of death. This has greatly reduced the need for invasive autopsies.

Coroners can make findings “on the papers” – which means investigations won’t proceed to an inquest – or deliver findings at the conclusion of an inquest.

So what is a coronial inquest?

A coronial inquest is a formal public hearing into why someone (or sometimes a group of people) died. It’s often held across multiple days, during which the facts can be examined, witnesses can be questioned, and the community can come together to understand how a person died.

What is unique about the Coroners Court is that it’s inquisitorial, not adversarial. This means there shouldn’t be any warring parties.

In addition, inquests have an expansive scope compared to a criminal trial. They can investigate the wider institutional, social and economic contexts of a death, examining what may have contributed to it, and comment on factors connected to the death, such as public health and safety.

Not all investigations proceed to an inquest. In fact, the number of inquests across Australia has been steadily declining since the early 2000s. In New South Wales there were 142 held in 2013 and only 103 in 2023. This is despite the number of investigations over that period increasing by 37%.

The former Deputy State Coroner of NSW, Hugh Dillon, cites a lack of funding, delays due to backlog, and structural design flaws as some reasons for the decline in holding inquests into reportable deaths.

Juries were a feature of inquests in Australia in the 19th century. They were no longer compulsory in the early 20th century, and were formally abolished in NSW in 1999.

Coroners must hold an inquest in certain circumstances. For example:

• where the deceased was in custody or care immediately before death

• where the identity of the deceased is unknown

• or where there is suspicion that the death was due to homicide (though in this situation an inquest will most likely be superseded by a criminal trial).

Coroners are prohibited from making findings of guilt or liability. The purpose of the investigation is to issue findings of facts about unnatural deaths, not to determine questions of law.

Researcher Rebecca Scott Bray points out that coronial proceedings have the potential to be positive experiences, especially for grieving families.

But these processes can fail to live up to that potential, particularly with respect to inquests into deaths in custody.

Why does all this matter?

There is little understanding of the purpose of the Coroners Court in Australian society. More research is required to ascertain why this is the case, but even law graduates have a low level of literacy about the powers and limitations of coroners. They are seldom taught about the coroner in law school.

This results in misunderstandings that coroners can find someone guilty of causing a death, or that coronial recommendations for preventing similar deaths in the future must be implemented.

It isn’t mandatory, for instance, for the NT government to implement any of Coroner Armitage’s 32 recommendations for preventing deaths in custody in the future.

Coronial investigations matter for families and friends of the bereaved: discovering the “truth” of how a person died, memorialising their life, and hoping their death prevents similar deaths from occurring in future.

It also matters for Australian society: improving health and safety for all, healing a community amid tragedy, and giving voice to the dead.

Marc Trabsky’s research for this article received funding from an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE220100064).

– ref. How do coronial inquests work? Here’s what they can and can’t do – https://theconversation.com/how-do-coronial-inquests-work-heres-what-they-can-and-cant-do-260692

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kitty Smith, PhD Candidate in Classical Greek and Roman History, University of Sydney

Could you ever be truly alone in the woods of ancient Greece or Rome? According to myth, the ancient world was filled with wild animals, terrifying monsters, and mischievous deities. Among them were nymphs: semi-divine female figures that personified elements of the natural world.

But nymphs offer us more than just stories of sexy nature spirits.

They can reveal how ancient people thought about their world and connected with their landscape through mythology.

Personifying elements of nature

Nymph was a broad category in myth. It encompassed almost every semi-divine woman and girl in myth, including a number of goddesses. The sea goddess Thetis and the underworld river Styx were both sea nymphs as well as goddesses.

Nymphs were typically portrayed as young, exceptionally beautiful women in art and literature. The word “nymph” in ancient Greek could even be used to mean “young girl” or “unmarried woman” when applied to mortal women.

Despite this etymological connection, many nymphs were married or mothers or gods. Amphitrite was the wife of Poseidon, and her sister Metis, the personification of wisdom, was Zeus’ first wife, according to Hesiod’s Theogony. Maia was the mother of Hermes, the messenger god.

What links all nymphs was their connection with the natural world. Nymphs typically personified elements of nature, like bodies of water, mountains, forests, the weather, or specific plants.

The nymph Daphne

One of the most quintessential nymphs was Daphne (or Laurel, in Latin). According to the Roman poet Ovid in his poem the Metamorphoses, Daphne was a stunningly beautiful nymph who lived in the forest.

Daphne had chosen to follow in the footsteps of Artemis (Diana), the goddess of the hunt, by being a huntress and abstaining from sex and marriage. But her beauty would be her downfall.

One day the god Apollo saw Daphne and immediately tried to pursue her. Daphne did not feel similarly and fled through the forest. Apollo chased and nearly caught her.

But Daphne’s father Peneus, a river god, saved his daughter by transforming her into the laurel tree.

Like many nymphs, Daphne’s myth was an origin story for her namesake tree and its significance to the god Apollo.

But her story also followed one of the most common tropes in nymph myths – the trope a nymph transformed into her namesake after running away from a male deity.

Different nymphs for trees, water, mountains, stars

There were even special names for different types of nymph.

Daphne was a dryad, or tree nymph. Oreads (mountain nymphs) are referenced in Homer’s Iliad. There were three different types of water nymph: the saltwater oceanids and nereids, and the freshwater naiads.

Nymphs lived in the wilderness. These untamed places could be dangerous but they also held precious natural resources that nymphs personified, such as special trees and springs.

Spring nymphs personified one of the most precious resources of all: freshwater.

It was hard to find freshwater in the ancient world, especially in places without human infrastructure. Cities were often built around springs.

The nymph Arethusa was the personification of the spring Arethusa in Sicily. Today, you can visit the Fountain of Arethusa in modern day Syracuse.

No matter where you looked in the ancient landscape, there were nymphs – even in the sky.

The Pleiades and Hyades were two sets of daughters of the god Atlas who eventually were transformed into stars.

Their myths gave an origin for two sets of constellations that were used for navigation and divination.

The Pleiades and Hyades constellations were visible to the naked eye, and can still be seen today.

The divine presence in nature

Although myths may feel like a fictional story told to kids, nymph myths show that ancient myth is inseparable from the ancient landscape and ancient people.

The natural world was imbued with a divine presence from the gods who physically made it – Gaia (Earth) was literally the soil underfoot. Nymphs were a part of this divine presence.

This divine presence brought with it a very special boon: the gift of inspiration.

Some writers (such as Plato) referred to this sort of natural inspiration as being “seized by the nymphs” (νυμφόληπτος or nympholeptus).

Being present in nature and present in places with nymphs could bring about divine inspiration for philosophers, poets and artists alike.

So, if you ever do find yourself alone in a Grecian wood, you may find yourself inspired and in good company – as long as you remain respectful.

Kitty Smith is a member of the Australian Society for Classical Studies and of Australasian Women in Ancient World Studies.

– ref. Greek and Roman nymphs weren’t just sexy nature spirits. They had other important jobs too – https://theconversation.com/greek-and-roman-nymphs-werent-just-sexy-nature-spirits-they-had-other-important-jobs-too-258287

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick Dodd, Professional Teaching Fellow, Business School, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

For a long time, universities worked off a simple idea: knowledge was scarce. You paid for tuition, showed up to lectures, completed assignments and eventually earned a credential.

That process did two things: it gave you access to knowledge that was hard to find elsewhere, and it signalled to employers you had invested time and effort to master that knowledge.

The model worked because the supply curve for high-quality information sat far to the left, meaning knowledge was scarce and the price – tuition and wage premiums – stayed high.

Now the curve has shifted right, as the graph below illustrates. When supply moves right – that is, something becomes more accessible – the new intersection with demand sits lower on the price axis. This is why tuition premiums and graduate wage advantages are now under pressure.

According to global consultancy McKinsey, generative AI could add between US$2.6 trillion and $4.4 trillion in annual global productivity. Why? Because AI drives the marginal cost of producing and organising information toward zero.

Large language models no longer just retrieve facts; they explain, translate, summarise and draft almost instantly. When supply explodes like that, basic economics says price falls. The “knowledge premium” universities have long sold is deflating as a result.

Employers have already made their move

Markets react faster than curriculums. Since ChatGPT launched, entry-level job listings in the United Kingdom have fallen by about a third. In the United States, several states are removing degree requirements from public-sector roles.

In Maryland, for instance, the share of state-government job ads requiring a degree slid from roughly 68% to 53% between 2022 and 2024.

In economic terms, employers are repricing labour because AI is now a substitute for many routine, codifiable tasks that graduates once performed. If a chatbot can complete the work at near-zero marginal cost, the wage premium paid to a junior analyst shrinks.

But the value of knowledge is not falling at the same speed everywhere. Economists such as David Autor and Daron Acemoglu point out that technology substitutes for some tasks while complementing others:

• codifiable knowledge – structured, rule-based material such as tax codes or contract templates – faces rapid substitution by AI

• tacit knowledge – contextual skills such as leading a team through conflict – acts as a complement, so its value can even rise.

Data backs this up. Labour market analytics company Lightcast notes that one-third of the skills employers want have changed between 2021 and 2024. The American Enterprise Institute warns that mid-level knowledge workers, whose jobs depend on repeatable expertise, are most at risk of wage pressure.

So yes, baseline knowledge still matters. You need it to prompt AI, judge its output and make good decisions. But the equilibrium wage premium – meaning the extra pay employers offer once supply and demand for that knowledge settle – is sliding down the demand curve fast.

What’s scarce now?

Herbert Simon, the Nobel Prize–winning economist and cognitive scientist, put it neatly decades ago: “A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention.” When facts become cheap and plentiful, our limited capacity to filter, judge and apply them turns into the real bottleneck.

That is why scarce resources shift from information itself to what machines still struggle to copy: focused attention, sound judgement, strong ethics, creativity and collaboration.

I group these human complements under what I call the C.R.E.A.T.E.R. framework:

• critical thinking – asking smart questions and spotting weak arguments

• resilience and adaptability – staying steady when everything changes

• emotional intelligence – understanding people and leading with empathy

• accountability and ethics – taking responsibility for difficult calls

• teamwork and collaboration – working well with people who think differently

• entrepreneurial creativity – seeing gaps and building new solutions

• reflection and lifelong learning – staying curious and ready to grow.

These capabilities are the genuine scarcity in today’s market. They are complements to AI, not substitutes, which is why their wage returns hold or climb.

What universities can do right now

1. Audit courses: if ChatGPT can already score highly on an exam, the marginal value of teaching that content is near zero. Pivot the assessment toward judgement and synthesis.

2. Reinvest in the learning experience: push resources into coached projects, messy real-world simulations, and ethical decision labs where AI is a tool, not the performer.

3. Credential what matters: create micro-credentials for skills such as collaboration, initiative and ethical reasoning. These signal AI complements, not substitutes, and employers notice.

4. Work with industry but keep it collaborative: invite employers to co-design assessments, not dictate them. A good partnership works like a design studio rather than a boardroom order sheet. Academics bring teaching expertise and rigour, employers supply real-world use cases, and students help test and refine the ideas.

Universities can no longer rely on scarcity setting the price for the curated and credentialed form of information that used to be hard to obtain.

The comparative advantage now lies in cultivating human skills that act as complements to AI. If universities do not adapt, the market – students and employers alike – will move on without them.

The opportunity is clear. Shift the product from content delivery to judgement formation. Teach students how to think with, not against, intelligent machines. Because the old model, the one that priced knowledge as a scarce good, is already slipping below its economic break-even point.

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

– ref. AI is driving down the price of knowledge – universities have to rethink what they offer – https://theconversation.com/ai-is-driving-down-the-price-of-knowledge-universities-have-to-rethink-what-they-offer-260493