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

Former Labor senator Doug Cameron has accused the Albanese government, and its left faction in particular, of deserting principle and abandoning Australian sovereignty to the United States.

Cameron, a New South Wales senator from 2008 to 2019, when he was a firebrand and factional leader of the left, excoriated the government over its support for AUKUS.

Delivering the Carmichael Lecture in Melbourne on Wednesday night, Cameron declared the parliamentary left had “allowed themselves to be defanged and co-opted into supporting US military aggression”.

Condemning the passivity of today’s caucus left, he contrasted the faction’s assertiveness in the 1980s when it pushed back successfully against the Hawke government over proposed US missile testing near Australia.

While the parliamentary Labor Party remains almost totally factionalised, the backbench under the Albanese government hardly ever challenges the executive. The dramatic exception was Western Australian senator Fatima Payman who last term left the party over Palestine.

Cameron said AUKUS and the Force Posture Agreement (which covers the US’s military presence in Australia) reduced Australia’s sovereignty and boosted the likelihood Australia would be dragged into a war with China over Taiwan.

“I never thought the party of Chifley, Evatt, Whitlam, Keating, Crean, Uren, Cairns, Murphy and Evans would abandon our sovereignty to the United States.”

Cameron said he was “bewildered” that Labor, with its massive majority, “would resort to word games about having undertaken a serious review of AUKUS and why so many of my former colleagues have been mute, intimidated and acquiescent”.

“Why have the ministers who once marched shoulder to shoulder with Tom Uren at Palm Sunday peace marches abandoned their principles?” Cameron asked. (The late Tom Uren, venerated in the left, was Albanese’s closest mentor.)

“Why has the left caucus failed to uphold its historic role for peace; why are they missing in action on AUKUS, Palestine and US support for Netanyahu?

“Why has the left caucus failed to support [former prime minister] Keating, [former foreign minister] Carr, [former foreign minister] Evans and even [former Liberal prime minister] Malcolm Turnbull in their opposition to AUKUS?”

Cameron accused the left of being deaf to the “ever-increasing evidence” that AUKUS and the Force Posture Agreement weren’t in Australia’s interest, and increased the potential for nuclear war.

He said caucus solidarity “must never come before opposition to war, genocide and starvation of innocent civilians in Gaza”.

The left’s parliamentary caucus once reflected the progressive rank and file’s views, and acted as the party’s conscience, Cameron said. “Those days seem to be long gone.”

Highlighting the gulf between the views of the parliamentary executive and Labor’s rank and file, Cameron said this disconnect “will continue to grow as the leadership concedes our sovereignty by deeper integration into the US war machine”.
“The Australian government should stop claiming to be a middle power trying to uphold a rules-based international order; we are acting as a sub-imperial power upholding a US-led imperial order.

“A sub-imperial power is a relationship, formal or informal, in which one state effectively controls the political sovereignty of others. Australia is an active, eager participant in the US-led order.”

Cameron said the government should “take urgent steps to identify alternatives to AUKUS and the Force Posture Agreement”, and give the US and Britain notice of Australia’s intention to leave these.

The government should also “publicly declare that it is not in Australia’s national interest to engage in a war with China over Taiwan”.

Cameron also said there should be action to ensure “genuine parliamentary oversight” of defence and the security and intelligence services. He lambasted the parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security as “toothless”, lacking “capacity for oversight of its activities, as in comparable democracies”. The powers of the committee “must be urgently and significantly enhanced”, he said.

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. Doug Cameron says Labor’s left ‘defanged’ and co-opted into supporting US aggression – https://theconversation.com/doug-cameron-says-labors-left-defanged-and-co-opted-into-supporting-us-aggression-264780

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Harper, Lecturer, School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney

The New South Wales government has proposed huge fines to crack down on childcare providers who breach safety rules.

New laws, introduced to state parliament on Wednesday, would increase the maxiumum fine to A$500,000 for large providers (who own 25 or more services) that don’t comply with safety regulations.

This is a 900% increase on previous penalties.

This follows a raft of reports of unsafe practices in the early childhood sector, including a grandparent taking the wrong child home at pickup, and a child running onto a busy road while in care. It also comes after horrific reports of abuse in centres this year.

Will the fines work? What else do we need to see in early childhood services to ensure safety?

Big new penalties

Half a million dollars is certainly a lot of money. This amount may surprise families who look at their local childcare centre and wonder “how do they have money like that?”.

The early childhood sector is made up of a mix of providers.

Just over half (54%) are run by private, for-profit providers. Some of the bigger childcare providers are listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.

The size of providers also varies. As of July 2025, 31% of all services were run by a small provider (with just one service), 32% were run by providers with between two and 24 services, and 36% were run by providers that had 25 or more services.

Will hefty fines work?

If we want to know whether the new penalties will work, we have to ask why services are breaching safety regulations in the first place.

Is it because they are not paying attention? Or because they are focusing on profits over quality? If so, perhaps big fines will motivate them be more careful and take safety more seriously.

But services may be having trouble meeting the rules for other reasons. We know there is a complex compliance regime, with both federal and state/territory components – as the national quality authority noted in a December 2023 report.

We need to support services to understand their obligations and how to meet them, by making requirements clearer and simpler to meet and resourcing services and educators appropriately.

Prevention or punishment?

This gets back to a broader point that I and other early education experts have been making about safety in the early childhood sector.

Yes, the community is understandably angry and worried about how children are cared for when they go to daycare.

But we can’t simply focus on punishments and catching problems after they have happened (through bigger fines or via CCTV). We need to set the system up so that services are both committed to and able to provide safe, quality early education and care.

One way to do this is serious investment in staff training and working conditions. This means educators have the skills, time and capacity to look out for children’s safety and spot potential problems before they occur.

At the moment, there is a persistent shortage of qualified educators, compounded by high turnover in the sector. As my research shows, educators are experiencing heavy demands that diminish quality time with children.

A word about trust

The NSW government says it wants its new laws to do two things: “prioritise the safety and wellbeing” of children and “restore parents’ trust in early childhood education and care”.

The federal governmnet has similarly spoken of the need to “rebuild” trust and confidence in the sector.

I would like to add a note of caution here.

We don’t want childcare reforms to turn into a rebranding exercise, just so people feel better about the sector. We actually need to see meaningful change, that focuses on quality for children and that supports services and educators to do their jobs well.

Erin Harper 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. NSW daycares face whopping $500k fines. Will this ensure safety? – https://theconversation.com/nsw-daycares-face-whopping-500k-fines-will-this-ensure-safety-264980

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

Israel launched a targeted airstrike on the Hamas leadership in Doha, the capital of Qatar, on Tuesday. Six people were reported killed, including the son of a senior Hamas figure.

Global condemnation was swift. The Qatari government called the strike a “clear breach of the rules and principles of international law”, a sentiment echoed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and others.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the attack “a flagrant violation of sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Qatar”. The prime ministers of both the UK and Australia also said the strike violated the sovereignty of Qatar.

Even US President Donald Trump, Israel’s strongest ally, distanced himself from the attack:

Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a Sovereign Nation and close Ally of the United States, that is working very hard and bravely taking risks with us to broker Peace, does not advance Israel or America’s goals.

So, what does the law say about this? Was Israel’s attack against Hamas on the territory of another country lawful?

Israel’s justification

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu justified the strike by saying it targeted the political leadership of Hamas in retaliation for two attacks: a shooting in Jerusalem that killed six people and an attack on an army camp in Gaza that killed four soldiers. He said:

Hamas proudly took credit for both of these actions. […] These are the same terrorist chiefs who planned, launched and celebrated the horrific massacres of October 7th.

What does international law say?

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the “territorial integrity or political independence” of another state.

Any use of force requires either the authorisation of the UN Security Council, or a justification that force is being used strictly in self-defence and in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.

So, does this mean Israel could claim self-defence against Hamas’ leadership in Qatar, if the group did indeed direct the two attacks against its citizens in Jerusalem and Gaza?

The answer is complicated.

Self-defence against groups like Hamas

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly stressed the paramount importance of territorial sovereignty in international law.

As such, it has restricted the use of self-defence to armed attacks that can be attributable to a state, not merely to non-state actors operating from a state’s territory.

After the September 11 2001 terror attacks, the United States and other countries claimed they could use force in self-defence against non-state actors (such as terrorist groups) that are sheltering and operating from another state’s territory, even if that state was not directly involved.

In response to these developments, Sir Daniel Bethlehem, an expert in international law and foreign policy advisor to the UK government, proposed several principles aimed at curtailing this justification within the intent of Article 51.

The “Bethlehem principles”, which remain contested, argue that Article 51 can cover actual or imminent attacks by terrorist groups, but only if necessity (the use of force in self-defence is truly a last resort) and proportionality are satisfied.

Moreover, as a rule, force on another state’s soil requires the consent of that state. The only narrow exceptions are when there’s a reasonable, objective belief the host state is colluding with the group or is unable or unwilling to stop it – and no other reasonable option short of force exists.

Israel argues Hamas’ leadership based abroad in countries such as Qatar, Lebanon and Iran remains part of the command structure that orchestrates hostilities against its soldiers in Gaza and citizens in Israel.

That alone, however, is not enough to justify self-defence according to the Bethlehem principles.

By Netanyahu’s own admission, the objective of the Qatar strike was retaliatory, not to prevent an ongoing or imminent attack.

Questions could also be raised about whether proportionality was observed given the diplomatic context of striking a sovereign state and the potential for disproportionate civilian harm in this part of Doha, which houses many diplomatic residences.

Targeting political leaders meeting in a third state — especially one engaged in mediation — also raises questions about whether force was the only means available to address the threat posed by Hamas in this situation.

Moreover, under these principles, Israel would need to demonstrate that Qatar is either colluding with or is unable or unwilling to stop Hamas – and that there was no other effective or reasonable way to respond to the situation.

Qatar has hosted Hamas’ political offices since 2012 and has been one of the group’s main financial backers since it came to power in Gaza.

At the same time, Qatar has played an important mediation role since the October 7 attacks.

This makes it difficult to argue Qatar is unwilling or unable to neutralise Hamas’ operations from its territory. Its mediation would also suggest there is a reasonably effective alternative to force to counter Hamas’ actions.

Final verdict

Without UN Security Council authorisation, Israel’s strikes on Qatar do appear to be a violation of territorial sovereignty and possibly an act of aggression under the UN Charter.

This is further bolstered by the narrow approach the ICJ has taken on self-defence against non-state actors in third-party states, and its stringent requirements of proportionality and necessity – neither of which appear to have been met here.

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. Can Israel use self-defence to justify its strike on Qatar under the law? – https://theconversation.com/can-israel-use-self-defence-to-justify-its-strike-on-qatar-under-the-law-264975

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jean-Pierre Scheerlinck, Honorary Professor Fellow, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, The University of Melbourne

For decades, beekeepers have fought a tiny parasite called Varroa destructor, which has devastated honey-bee colonies around the world. But an even deadlier mite, Tropilaelaps mercedesae – or “tropi” – is on the march. Beekeepers fear it will wreak even greater havoc than varroa – and the ripple effects may be felt by the billions of people around the world who rely on honey bee-pollinated plants.

From Asia to Europe

Tropi’s natural host is the giant honey-bee (Apis dorsata), common across South and Southeast Asia. At some point, the mite jumped to the western honey-bee (Apis mellifera), the species kept by beekeepers around the world. Because this host is widespread, the parasite has steadily moved westwards.

It has now been detected in Ukraine, Georgia and southern Russia, and is suspected to be in Iran and Turkey. From there, it is expected to enter eastern Europe, then spread across the continent. Australia and North America are also at risk.

Why tropi spreads so fast

Like varroa, tropi is a tiny mite that breeds inside capped brood cells, the life stages of the honey-bee when the late larvae and pupae develop inside honeycomb cells that are sealed by a layer of wax. The mite feeds on bee pupae and transmits lethal viruses, such as deformed wing virus – the deadliest of the bee viruses. But there are crucial differences.

Varroa can survive on adult bees for long periods, but tropi cannot. Outside brood cells, it lives only a few days, scurrying across the comb in search of a new larva.

Because tropi spends more time in capped cells, it reproduces quickly. A capped cell that contains a female varroa will result in one or two mated varroa offspring emerging with the adult bee. Tropi offspring develop faster inside a capped cell than varroa offspring, so a tropi “mother” may result in more offspring emerging than a varroa infested cell, more quickly overwhelming the colony.

As a result, colonies infested with tropi can collapse far faster than those plagued by varroa.

Current control methods

In parts of Asia where the parasite is already established, small-scale and commercial beekeepers often manage it by caging the queen for about five weeks.

With no eggs being laid, no brood develops, leaving the mites without a food source. This method is practical where beekeepers manage dozens of hives, but not in places like Europe where commercial operations often involve thousands.

Another option is treating the beehive with formic acid, which penetrates brood cell caps and kills the mite without necessarily harming the developing bee, provided concentrations are kept low. This treatment may offer beekeepers a practical tool.

Why varroa treatments won’t work

Many wonder whether the chemicals used against varroa could also fight tropi. The answer is, mostly no.

Varroa spends much of its life outside of a capped cell clinging to adult bees, where it comes into contact with mite-killing chemicals known as miticides spread through the colony on bee bodies. By contrast, tropi rarely attaches to adults, instead darting across comb surfaces.

Because of this, it is far less exposed to chemical residues. Treatments designed for varroa are often ineffective against the faster-breeding tropi.

Managing both mites together will be particularly difficult. Combining treatments risks harming colonies or contaminating honey. For instance, formic acid for tropi and insecticides such as amitraz for varroa might interact at even low levels, killing the bees as well as the parasites.

There is also the danger of resistance. Over-use of varroa treatments has already produced resistant strains, reducing the effectiveness of several once-reliable chemicals. Introducing more compounds to fight tropi, without careful integrated pest management, could accelerate this process and leave beekeepers with few effective tools.

The wider impact

The spread of tropi will not only devastate beekeepers but also agriculture more broadly. Honey-bees are critical pollinators of many crops. Heavier hive losses will raise costs for both honey production and pollination services, affecting food prices and availability.

Research is underway in countries such as Thailand and China to develop better management strategies. But unless effective and practical treatments are found soon, the spread of this new mite around the world could be catastrophic.

The story of varroa shows how quickly a single parasite can transform global beekeeping. Tropi has the potential to be even worse: it spreads faster, kills colonies more quickly, and is harder to control with existing methods.

The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of Robert Owen, a beekeeper who completed a PhD on the varroa mite at the University of Melbourne in 2022, to this article.

Jean-Pierre Scheerlinck does work for the CIS, drafting the Australian Pollination Security Status Report. He has received funding from the ARC and NHMRC.

– ref. Deadlier than varroa, a new honey-bee parasite is spreading around the world – https://theconversation.com/deadlier-than-varroa-a-new-honey-bee-parasite-is-spreading-around-the-world-264891

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

It’s nearly eight months since Trump’s second term as United States president began. In analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls, Trump’s net approval is currently -7.4, with 51.6% disapproving and 44.2% approving.

Trump’s net approval was initially positive, but fell to -9.7 in late April, soon after the “liberation day” tariffs were announced. His net approval recovered to -3.6 in early June, but slid to a low of -10.3 in late July. Since a slight recovery from that position, his ratings have changed little.

Silver has ratings for presidents since Harry Truman (president from 1945–53), so Trump’s ratings can be compared against other presidents at this point in their terms. Trump’s ratings are only better than his own at this point in his first term, and he’s roughly even with Gerald Ford (president from 1974–77).

On issues, Trump is at net -3.8 on immigration, -14.4 on the economy, -15.9 on trade and -27.0 on inflation. There was a second successive weak US jobs report last Friday, but the benchmark US S&P 500 stock index rose to a new record high last night.

Until and unless something goes badly wrong with either the real US economy or the stock market, Trump’s ratings are likely to be sustained at about their current level.

Midterm elections for all of the US House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will occur in November 2026. In analyst G. Elliott Morris’ aggregate of the national generic congressional ballot, Democrats lead Republicans by 44.3–41.4. Democrats have led Republicans narrowly since April.

I covered a special election in a safe Democratic federal seat that Democrats retained with a swing in their favour today for The Poll Bludger. I also wrote about Republican gerrymandering in Texas and retaliatory Democratic gerrymandering in California, and electoral events in Norway and France.

Australian Morgan poll and further Resolve and DemosAU questions

A national Australian Morgan poll, conducted July 28 to August 24 from a sample of 5,001, gave Labor a 56.5–43.5 lead by headline respondent preferences, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition since the July Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 34% Labor (down 2.5), 30% Coalition (down one), 12% Greens (steady), 9% One Nation (up two) and 15% for all Others (up 1.5). By 2025 election preference flows, Labor led by 55.5–44.5, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition since July.

Labor’s two-party vote gender gap widened to 8.5 points from five points in July, with women giving Labor a 60.5–39.5 lead, while men gave them just a 52–48 lead.

The age gap also widened, with people aged under 50 swinging to Labor from July, while those aged over 50 swung to the Coalition. The Coalition gained a 50.5–49.5 lead with those aged 50–64 and extended its lead to 56.5–43.5 with those aged 65 and over.

In further questions from the August 11–16 Resolve poll for Nine newspapers that gave federal Labor a 59–41 lead, 28% wanted to keep the current 43% emissions reduction target by 2030, 17% wanted a more ambitious target, 12% wanted the 2030 target rejected or reduced and to just concentrate on net zero by 2050, and 17% wanted to reject all current emissions targets.

In a national DemosAU poll, conducted July 31 from a sample of 1,079, 56% supported the ban on YouTube for children under 16 while 29% were opposed. Among parents of children under 16, support was 59–34. By 55–32, parents said they wouldn’t help their children circumvent the ban.

By 45–33, respondents supported the government’s proposal to increase the tax rate on superannuation earnings for balances over $3 million. By 57–22, they did not believe the changes would lead to them personally paying more tax.

Essential poll

In a national Essential poll, conducted August 20–24 from a sample of 1,034, Albanese’s net approval was down three points since July to +6, with 49% approving and 43% disapproving. Ley’s net approval was unchanged at -2.

On the economy, 43% (down nine since January) thought it would stay the same in the next six months, 35% (up six) get worse and 22% (up three) improve. Labor was trusted to manage the economy overall by 41–28 over the Coalition. Economic management is normally a strength for the Coalition.

On regulation, 29% thought there was too much, 21% not enough and 49% about the right amount. But 54% said there was not enough regulation of AI and 44–48% said the same of social media, big businesses and childcare.

By 34–30, respondents supported Australia recognising Palestine. By 50–24, they supported the introduction of a four-day working week.

In questions asked only of the Victorian sample of 518, Labor Premier Jacinta Allan had a net approval of -15, with 51% disapproving and 36% approving. Liberal leader Brad Battin had a net approval of +5.

Bradfield court challenge update

In July the Liberals challenged their 26-vote loss to Teal Nicolette Boele in Bradfield at the federal election to the High Court, acting as the Court of Disputed Returns. The High Court referred this case to the federal court.

The Guardian said that on August 22 the court had given lawyers for the Liberals and Boele three days each to examine 792 disputed ballot papers. A final list of ballot papers that are disputed by the Liberals and Boele will need to be submitted by September 25. There will be a one-day hearing on October 2.

Tasmanian EMRS poll gives Liberals big lead

A Tasmanian EMRS poll, conducted August 25–28 from a sample of 1,000, gave the Liberals 38% of the vote (down two from the July 19 election), Labor 24% (down two), the Greens 13% (down one), independents 19% (up four) and others 6% (up one). Tasmania uses a proportional system, so a two-party estimate is not applicable.

Liberal premier Jeremy Rockliff’s net favourable surged 12 points since May to +18, while new Labor leader Josh Willie recorded an initial net +4 favourable. Rockliff led Willie by 50–24 as preferred premier.

NSW Kiama byelection

A byelection for the New South Wales state seat of Kiama will occur on Saturday after the resignation of independent MP Gareth Ward, a convicted felon. ABC election analyst Antony Green said there are 13 candidates for the byelection, including Labor and Liberal candidates. Labor is the favourite to win.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Polling shows Donald Trump’s ratings are poor – but they could be worse – https://theconversation.com/polling-shows-donald-trumps-ratings-are-poor-but-they-could-be-worse-263785

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amelia Scott, Honorary Affiliate and Clinical Psychologist at the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, and Macquarie University Research Fellow, Macquarie University

Even a single night of sleep trouble can feel distressing and lonely. You toss and turn, stare at the ceiling, and wonder how you’ll cope tomorrow. No wonder many people start to worry they’ve developed insomnia.

Insomnia is one of the most talked-about sleep problems, but it’s also one of the most misunderstood.

But just because you can’t sleep, it doesn’t mean you have insomnia. You might have another sleep disorder, or none at all.

What is insomnia?

Let’s clear up some terms, and separate short-term or intermittent sleep problems from what health professionals call “insomnia disorder”.

Sleep problems can involve being awake when you want to be asleep. This could be lying in bed for ages trying to fall asleep, waking in the middle of the night for hours, or waking up too early. Having a sleep problem is a subjective experience – you don’t need to tally up lost hours to prove it’s a problem.

But insomnia disorder is the official term to describe a more problematic and persistent pattern of sleep difficulties. And this long-term or chronic sleep disorder has clear diagnostic criteria. These include at least three nights a week of poor sleep, lasting three months or more. These criteria help researchers and clinicians make sure they’re talking about the same thing, and not confusing it with another sleep problem.

So, what are some reasons why a sleep problem might not be insomnia?

1. It’s short term, or comes and goes

About a third of adults will have a bout of “acute insomnia” in a given year. This short-term problem is typically triggered by stress, illness or big life changes.

The good news is that about 72% of people with acute insomnia return to normal sleep after a few weeks.

Insomnia disorder is a longer-term, persistent problem.

2. It doesn’t affect you the next day

Some people lie awake at night but still function well during the day. More fragmented and less refreshing sleep is also a near-universal part of ageing.

So if your sleep problem doesn’t significantly affect you the next day, it usually isn’t considered to be insomnia.

For people with insomnia, the struggle with sleep spills into the day and affects their mood, energy, concentration and wellbeing. Worry and distress about not sleeping can then make the problem worse, which creates a frustrating cycle of worrying and not sleeping.

3. It’s more about work or caring

If you feel tired during the day, an important question is whether you’re giving yourself enough time to sleep. Sometimes sleep problems reflect a “sleep opportunity” that is too short or too irregular.

Work schedules, child care, or late-night commitments can cut sleep short, and sleep can slip down the priority list. In these cases, the problem is insufficient sleep, not insomnia.

You might have noisy neighbours or an annoying cat. These can also affect your sleep, and reduce your “sleep opportunity”.

The average healthy adult gets around seven hours sleep (though this varies widely). For someone who needs seven, it usually means setting aside about eight to allow for winding down, drifting off, and waking overnight.

4. It’s another sleep disorder

Other sleep disorders can look like insomnia, such as:

• obstructive sleep apnoea (when your breathing stops multiple times during sleep) can cause frequent awakenings through the night and daytime sleepiness

• restless legs syndrome creates an irresistible urge to move your legs in the evening that often interferes with falling asleep. It’s often described as jittery feelings or having “creepy crawlies”, and is often undiagnosed

• circadian rhythm problems, such as being a natural night owl in an early-bird world, can also lead to trouble falling asleep.

5. Medications and substances are interfering

Caffeine, alcohol and nicotine all create insomnia symptoms and worsen the quality of sleep.

Certain medications can also interfere with sleep, such as stimulants (for conditions such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or ADHD) and beta-blockers (for various heart conditions).

These issues need to be considered before labelling the problem as insomnia. However, it’s important to keep taking your medication as prescribed and discuss any concerns with your doctor.

Getting the right help

If your sleep is worrying you, the best first step is to see your GP. They can help rule out other causes, review your medications, or refer you for a sleep study if needed.

However, once insomnia becomes frequent, chronic (long term) and distressing, you can worry too much about your sleep, constantly check or track your sleep, or try too hard to sleep, for instance by spending too much time in bed. These psychological and behavioural mechanisms can backfire, and make good sleep even less likely.

That’s why “cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia” (or CBT-I) is recommended as the first-line treatment.

This is more effective, and longer-lasting than sleeping pills. This therapy is available via specially trained GPs, and sleep psychologists. You can take part in person or online.

In the meantime

If you’re in a rough patch of sleep:

• remind yourself that short runs of poor sleep usually settle on their own

• avoid lying in bed panicking if you wake at 3.30am. Instead, step out of bed or use the time in a way that feels restful

• keep a consistent wake-up time, even after a poor night. Try to get some morning sunlight to reset your body clock

• make sure you’re putting aside the right amount of time for sleep – not too little, not too much.

Amelia Scott is a member of the psychology education subcommittee of the Australasian Sleep Association. She receives funding from Macquarie University.

– ref. Do I have insomnia? 5 reasons why you might not – https://theconversation.com/do-i-have-insomnia-5-reasons-why-you-might-not-262701

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Graffam-O’Meara, PhD Candidate in Theatre, Monash University

The story of Troy has been told for three millennia. Capricious deities, military clashes, legendary heroes and a famous wooden horse – a gift to the city that ultimately brings about its ruination – the mythology offers timeless themes of hubris, betrayal, and the devastating cost of war.

Tom Wright structures his new play as a series of vignettes featuring the mythology’s most compelling characters: Cassandra (Elizabeth Blackmore), Iphigenia (Ciline Ajobong), Hecuba (Paula Arundell), Clytemnestra (Geraldine Hakewill), Agamemnon (Mark Leonard Winter), Achilles (Danny Ball) and his lover Patroclus (Lyndon Watts).

Between these scenes, Wright transforms Troy into a contemporary archaeological site, where figures dig for the truth behind the city’s destruction.

The play poses a fundamental question: who can truly own land?

Read more:
The legend of Troy explained

A story for our times

Wright examines how humans inscribe their identity and history onto territory, folding terrain into the foundation of their collective identity.

Themes of ownership, entitlement, colonisation and inheritance thrum across this adaptation. But Wright places these ideas within history’s grand arc: empires crumble, new peoples claim the ruins, and each generation weaves the landscape into their own story of belonging.

For Melbourne audiences who have just witnessed neo-Nazis leading anti-immigration rallies and attacking an Indigenous protest site – and news the Victorian government will embed Aboriginal truth-telling in school curricula – Wright’s interrogation of land, identity and belonging feels urgently relevant.

Director Ian Michael evokes epic imagery to rival the mythic proportions of the story itself – and the immortal (or otherwise immortalised) figures who populate it.

Staging the monumental

Michael embraces high theatricality throughout. Subtlety is not on the agenda.

The stage design by Dann Barber centres monumental, sand-covered stone steps and platforms that cascade across multiple levels. Sections of the ancient-looking construction have an organic, curved quality to suggest that, over time, they have been reshaped into hillside contours. The steeped platforms support the staging of dynamic movement and sculpted images with the actors.

The design is grand in scale and makes full use of the Merlyn Theatre’s vast stage area, yet also feels boldly minimalist.

Paul Jackson’s lighting design creates a black void above the stage area, keeping focus on the action below. Throughout the production, Jackson conjures breathtaking visual moments – a narrow spotlight of falling sand marks the passage of time, vibrant washes transform the ancient steps, and sharp focus is given to isolating moments of character revelation.

His coordination of light with Barber’s set and costume designs demonstrates a true mastery of the craft.

Costumes (also by Barber) pair flowing white and black fabrics with gold accents. Draped, toga-like tunics are enhanced by metallic body plates and large jewellery.

Sound design by Marco Cher, incorporating compositions by Rosalind Hall, amplifies the epic scale of these narratives. Moments of haunting choral singing alternate with thunderous tracks that flood the theatre.

Grand proclamation over realism

Wright structures his play as discrete vignettes rather than a continuous narrative. Those seeking a traditional, linear retelling of the Troy myth should look elsewhere – this is something more atmospheric and fragmented.

Restrained fight sequences evoke epic battles. Contemporary war sounds – helicopters, bombs, sirens – accompany a choreographed invasion of Troy, while deaths trigger dramatic blasts of air from the set.

Watts performs two songs within the show with virtuosic skill, though they bear little relevance or connection to the story. These musical interludes really function as transition moments (and remind us we have been denied a chorus in this adaptation).

The actors deliberately favour grand proclamation over realism. Their vocal talents drive home dialogue with commanding presence. Under Michael’s direction, they transform into larger-than-life beings, meeting this challenge with compelling intensity.

As Cassandra, Blackmore is given more freedom in her delivery with direct address to the audience. It affords a more subtle and nuanced performance from the actor to emerge. Her Cassandra wears a Blondie t-shirt, smokes cigarettes and carries a plastic bag. While Blackmore’s performance still prioritises style over realism, it imbues Cassandra with something more relatable and human than the other characters.

Isolating Cassandra from other mythic figures and attaching her to the current moment is particularly resonant. Cassandra, after all, is cursed with prophetic truth that no one believes, making her a vessel for contemporary anxieties about ignored warnings and unheeded voices.

Cassandra, like us, is caught within the ruination of her own society and the knowledge of its imminent collapse.

Through her eyes, Wright’s play starts to feel less like an adaptation and more like a prophecy.

Troy delivers a chilling warning that speaks directly to our current moment – recent eruptions of war, the ongoing effects of colonisation, anti-immigrant sentiment, the cyclical nature of civilisational collapse. Wright’s play doesn’t just retell an ancient story; it holds up a mirror to our own precarious present.

The production’s commitment to audacious theatricality over narrative coherence will likely alienate fans of the myth. Those who come seeking the familiar sweep of poetic storytelling may leave frustrated by Wright’s fragmented, abstract approach.

This is bold, uncompromising theatre that demands audiences meet it on its own terms. Not everyone will be willing to make that journey.

Troy is at Malthouse Theatre, Melbourne, until September 25.

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

– ref. A new Australian production of Troy is bold, uncompromising theatre for our times – https://theconversation.com/a-new-australian-production-of-troy-is-bold-uncompromising-theatre-for-our-times-264018

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Romain Fathi, Senior Lecturer, School of History, ANU / Chercheur Associé at the Centre d’Histoire de Sciences Po, Australian National University

Over the past year, French President Emmanuel Macron has emerged as one of the most influential leaders on the global stage.

His diplomatic activism has reshaped alliances, advanced European priorities and positioned France as a central player in addressing some of the world’s most pressing challenges.

In recent months alone, Macron has:

• cemented a coalition to offer Ukraine security guarantees and military support from 26 countries

• convinced many countries to follow France’s lead in recognising a state of Palestine

• secured a massive trade deal with Vietnam, strategic agreements with Indonesia, and cooperation deals with Brazil and Singapore

• pushed for a High Seas Treaty to protect the world’s oceans.

Domestically, however, his presidency is in crisis. His approval ratings have plummeted to as low as 15% as he has grappled with political paralysis, public discontent and a fragmented National Assembly.

The latest blow to Macron’s presidency occurred this week when his chosen prime minister was ousted by the assembly after serving just 270 days.

This domestic instability has raised questions about France’s – and Macron’s – political future. Some in France are calling for him to step aside before the end of his term in April 2027, triggering new elections.

Revolving door of prime ministers

Macron’s troubles began after his re-election in April 2022 against Marine Le Pen, a victory seen by many as a vote against the far right rather than an endorsement of his agenda.

Traditionally, a freshly elected president gains a strong parliamentary majority, but Macron’s coalition lost its majority in the June 2022 legislative elections.

The first prime minister of his second term, Élisabeth Borne, resigned after 19 months, amid a public and legislative backlash against Macron’s pension reforms. Her successor, Gabriel Attal, faced the same legislative deadlock and did not last six months.

In June 2024, Macron dissolved the National Assembly, hoping fresh elections would resolve the persistent political instability. It backfired. The elections produced an even more fragmented parliament, making governance nearly impossible.

It took Macron seven weeks to appoint a new prime minister, Michel Barnier, during which time France successfully hosted the 2024 Olympics under a caretaker government, a rare bright spot in the political chaos.

Barnier lasted just three months. His replacement, François Bayrou, resigned this week after a resounding no-confidence vote.

Macron has few good options

Macron wasted no time in appointing a successor this week, Sébastien Lecornu, whose key mission will be to pass the October budget.

The 39-year-old Lecornu is a Macron faithful and has been a member of every government since Macron become president in 2017. He has most recently served as a steady defence minister during the Russian war on Ukraine.

At this stage, however, the new government is not likely to last long, for the same reason the others have fallen: a politically fragmented National Assembly that has sought to oppose Macron at every opportunity. Key to Lecornu’s survival will be his ability to appoint well-known ministers from both the moderate left and moderate right, a difficult equation.

Macron has few options to address the bitter opposition he faces in the assembly. He could dissolve the body again, but this risks further empowering the far left and far right, who are pushing for new elections.

Or, he could buckle to the pressure to resign. However, there is no legal obligation for him to do so, and he remains committed to serving out his term.

Growing popular frustration

This decision risks making him even more unpopular in the short term.

Many citizens blame Macron for the current instability, dating back to his election in 2017. When he came into office, Macron revolutionised the French political landscape. The country had traditionally been ruled by either the moderate left (the Socialists) or the moderate right (the Republicans). But Macron delivered a majority at the centre, which had not been seen since 1974.

The issue, however, is that this weakened the moderate left and right. By siphoning supporters from both sides to build his coalition, he decimated the Socialists and Republicans. This in turn gave more power to the far left and far right to become a more vocal and destabilising opposition.

The public also widely views Macron’s decision to call snap elections last year as a reckless gamble that only deepened the country’s divisions.

And his pension reforms, economic policies and perceived favouritism towards the wealthy continue to fuel public anger.

In fact, Macron faces a new wave of nationwide protests on Wednesday called Bloquons Tout (Let’s Block Everything) over economic inequality, rising costs of living and his policies.

Where to from here?

Macron insists it’s his duty to uphold France’s institutions, even in turbulent times. He has signalled his intention to stay the course, using his constitutional powers to govern, despite the lack of a stable majority.

Yet, the French public is growing impatient. His optimism and resilience are being tested as never before.

The coming months will be crucial. If he can pass the budget and restore some stability, he may yet salvage his second term.

If not, France could face a prolonged period of political paralysis, with no clear resolution in sight, at least not until the next scheduled presidential election in April 2027.

Macron can’t run in 2027 – he is barred from serving for more than two consecutive terms. However, he may have ambitions to run again in 2032, despite how toxic his brand has become.

In the end, Macron’s legacy may hinge on how he navigates the current crisis. Paradoxically, although the French have lost confidence in his domestic political vision for France, the moderate majority still believes the potential alternatives (such as Le Pen) are far riskier, and Macron knows this.

Romain Fathi 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. Emmanuel Macron’s presidency is in survival mode. How did France’s political paralysis get so bad? – https://theconversation.com/emmanuel-macrons-presidency-is-in-survival-mode-how-did-frances-political-paralysis-get-so-bad-264870

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philippa Collin, Professor of Political Sociology, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

Young people are under intense scrutiny. They are subject to community, media and policy concerns about everything from technology use to public safety.

But of the more than three million young people in Australia aged between 15 and 24, most are just doing normal things, like school and work, trying to make a life.

Despite this, young people are one of the most disempowered groups in society. Their views are rarely sought, taken seriously or acted on by those with influence and power.

A new report by the national peak body for young people, the Australian Youth Affairs Coalition, hears directly from more than 1,000 young people about their thoughts on Australian society. Many feel unrepresented and excluded – but there’s things that can be done to help.

The report

Unlike other research on social cohesion in Australia, this study focused specifically on young people aged 12–25.

Online questionnaires and focus groups garnered the perspectives of 1,186 young people. While not representative, the sample broadly reflected the diversity of the Australian population including cultural background, identity and experience. This includes young people identifying as Indigenous, LGBTQIA+, living with a disability and “doing it tough”.

Young people were asked about their views on social cohesion. While not generalisable, the report provides new insights into the perspectives of some young Australians.

More fairness and equity

On the whole, young people believe a more cohesive Australia requires recognising and respecting diversity.

As has been shown in research, young people in Australia largely consider multiculturalism to be the norm.

But they recognise this doesn’t mean everyone’s treated equally.

As one young person said:

I think immigrants and refugees get it tough – even though we rely on them a lot in this country. I don’t think they get “the fair go” that everyone talks about in this country […] it’s a bit like we cling on to the idea we’re not as racist as we could be and there’s people worse than us. And it’s like that stops us improving […]

Moreover, other research shows young people identify discrimination, violence and climate change as significant issues that disproportionately affect them – especially those who are Indigenous, migrants and LGBTQIA+.

The report also supports other evidence of the acute sense of inequality and lack of economic opportunity that young people are facing.

Another participant said:

personally, I feel very sad about the gap in intergenerational wealth in Australia, and how it’s just getting worse and worse over the decades.

Expanding democracy

As the report finds, young people’s involvement in Australian democracy should not wait until they are 18. It should not be ad hoc or only for those with cultural and social capital to lead in ways that are recognised by established institutions. A participant shared:

I think [leadership programs involving advisory roles] are only for the select few. As much as there are opportunities to advocate and talk about these issues, they’re not open to everyone […]

Instead, more effort is required to define with young people what participation in democracy should look like.

This means co-designing spaces and mechanisms – with associated institutional accountability – for making these transformations in our political and civic cultures. This could be more deliberative processes and a role for broader networks and collectives of young people.

Read more:
Should Australia lower the voting age to 16 like the UK? We asked 5 experts

Practical ways forward

The research offers some practical ways to address the causes of inequality, which undermine social cohesion.

1. Embedding youth impact assessments across all government policy

This novel idea is particularly valuable for addressing growing intergenerational inequality. As identified by the not-for-profit Think Forward, young people’s needs now and into the future are insufficiently considered in relation to policy areas such as taxation, which is highly inequitable.

2. Value and support youth work

Youth workers are the frontline support for young people to learn about themselves and the world around them.

In the United Kingdom, the direct economic value of the youth work sector is estimated to be £5.7 billion (around A$11 billion).

In Australia, research has found that the sector is under-resourced. Professionals are highly committed to the work they do, but they are under severe strain. This has likely gotten worse since the onset of the COVID pandemic.

3. Implement educational policy that promotes equity and improved outcomes

The economic benefits of an education system, from childhood to university, that provides equal opportunities for all young people is backed by evidence.

System changes should include, but not be limited to, funding models. For example, it’s crucial to broaden recognition of learning so students can identify and meet their learning goals no matter where they are born, what their life experience or the capabilities that they have.

Importantly, the costs of education and daily life must not consign young people to poverty.

4. Raise the rate of income support to at least above the poverty line

One in six children live in poverty. This affects their health and learning into their late teens.

If we are to support opportunity and social cohesion, we must ensure all young people – whether they live at home or independently – can afford to rent, eat and pursue their interests, education and work.

A matter of perspective

Research shows the more culturally, economically and politically equal a society, the healthier it is.

While societal “health” and social cohesion are different phenomena, they go hand in hand.

The report argues that to achieve ongoing social cohesion, we must deal with the drivers of inequality – and young people must not be left out of the conversation. They must be allowed to contribute to the terms of the debate and identifying responses to the challenges we face.

Young people know that this is not asking much. In the words of one participant:

I would like adults to view problems from a young person’s perspective.

Philippa Collin receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Telstra Foundation, Google AU/NZ, batyr, Sydney Childrens Hospital Network and the Young and Resilient Research Centre (WSU) which she co-directs is a member of the Intergenerational Fairness Coalition.

– ref. Young people want social cohesion too. This means tackling the causes of inequality – https://theconversation.com/young-people-want-social-cohesion-too-this-means-tackling-the-causes-of-inequality-263035

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Townsley, Professor, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University

“Fortress stores” with security-tagged chicken and steaks in wire security cages. GPS-tracked jars of instant coffee. Everything from toothpaste and deodorant to face creams, locked inside display cases, with buttons to call for staff.

While those examples might sound extreme, they’ve already happened for shoppers in parts of the United Kingdom and the United States.

In Australia, we’ve only seen some of those measures, including trials of security tags on meat. But just last month, the owner of Dan Murphy’s and BWS said its bottle shops had moved expensive spirits and wine to locked displays, in conjunction with auto-lock doors and boosted staff training to deal with rising theft.

Other retailers – from Woolworths, Coles and IGA to Bunnings and Kmart – say they’re dealing with “a full-scale retail crime crisis”. Last week, new data showed 268,666 cases of theft in retail settings last year – almost half of the national thefts, even as residential thefts declined.

My research also found record levels of shoplifting, employee theft, fraud and customer aggression in the 2024 financial year, adding up to A$7.79 billion in merchandise losses, almost 2% of total turnover.

So what are retailers doing about rising thefts? And what other security or staffing measures could we see over the next decade that could change how we shop?

Tightening in-store controls

Back in 2008, when Woolworths began to phase in self-serve checkouts, its retail operations manager said:

The self-service checkout certainly doesn’t spell the death knell for manned checkouts, under no circumstances.

But over the years since then, self-checkout has become far more common, with far fewer checkout staff. That choice to save on checkout staff means retailers have also had to ramp up security.

It’s why if you’ve used supermarket self-service, you’ve likely seen your face pop up on the screen as you scan. That “public-view monitor” effect deters theft because humans tend to behave differently when we know we’re been watched.

To prevent what’s known as unpaid “push-outs” of trolleys full of goods, some supermarkets such as Coles are trialling wheel-locking technology.

If a customer tries to exit without paying, the wheels automatically lock and immobilise the trolley. Similar systems are used in the US.

For the growing number of Australian supermarkets with “smart gate” exits, the gate stays closed until cameras and computer vision systems confirm a payment has been made.

Major chains have also expanded computer-vision systems at self-checkout. For instance, Woolworths has rolled out camera-based AI in more than 250 stores across NSW, Victoria and Queensland. The system flags mis-scans by changing indicator lights (from green to red or orange) and displays an image of the unscanned item to prompt rescanning.

Similarly, some systems now recognise loose produce visually, automatically detecting, say, bananas or Roma tomatoes as they’re placed on the scale, reducing how much shoppers need to navigate the checkout menu. These computer-vision upgrades speed up honest transactions and intercept mis-scans.

More obvious security, but more aggressive thefts

The anti-theft response isn’t only digital. Retailers have made security more visible, including uniformed guards and putting body-worn cameras on staff in higher-risk locations.

This approach is usually targeted to “risky facilities”: the minority of outlets that generate a majority of incidents.

For example, analysis of a US-based retailer showed that 85% shoplifting for the entire business took place in just 20% of their stores.

So depending on where you live and shop in Australia, your experience of how visible the security is can be very different.

What’s driving the rise in retail theft, as well as aggression?

The spread of cameras, AI and merchandise protection has made theft easier to detect. But it has also pushed staff into more confrontations with suspected offenders.

As QUT researchers note, “customer aggression is growing” and frontline staff report they are bearing the brunt.

Thieves have learned that aggression can cause staff to back away, making retail theft a comparatively low-risk crime.

Retailers are also grappling with highly organised gangs.

Wesfarmers’ CEO Rob Scott recently said organised crime is a major threat, especially in Victoria, while sports retailer Rebel has said raids are “out of control”.

This week, the CEO of independent supermarket chain Ritchies IGA said violence in Victorian stores has hit a “crisis point” and they are considering closing some stores.

Earlier this year, Victoria Police’s Operation Supernova dismantled a syndicate accused of stealing $10 million in merchandise from Melbourne supermarkets in five months.

Is this how we want to shop?

Even with rising retail theft in Australia, the evidence still doesn’t support a widespread, cookie-cutter rollout of “fortress”-style security measures for all supermarkets, chemists or other big retailers.

But for some of the worst-affected stores, it is likely we will see more targeted “fortress” measures, including controlled entries and exits for individual aisles where high-risk item are located.

Trained greeters, clear sightlines and tidy, well-presented aisles can also make it easier to prevent theft.

Self-checkout was sold as convenience. But if the outcome is more tension, more hostility, and less human connection, it’s hardly an improvement.

Shoppers don’t want to see fights at the checkout, and staff shouldn’t have to manage them.

Unless retailers can get this balance right, the real question risks becoming why would anyone still bother shopping in person?

Michael Townsley’s only paid position is for his university. He is the academic lead and director of the not-for-profit Profit Protection Future Forum (Australia and New Zealand’s peak body for loss prevention) and serves as an unpaid consultant to the National Retail Association. He has received research funding from ECR Retail Loss, the Profit Protection Future Forum, and the National Retail Association. All such funding is administered by Griffith University and used for research activities; he receives no personal remuneration from these sources.

– ref. ‘Fortress stores’ can fight theft – but is it how we want to shop? – https://theconversation.com/fortress-stores-can-fight-theft-but-is-it-how-we-want-to-shop-264505

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saeed Akhlaghpour, Associate Professor of Business Information Systems, The University of Queensland

Doctors’ offices were once private. But increasingly, artificial intelligence (AI) scribes (also known as digital scribes) are listening in.

These tools can record and transcribe the conversation between doctor and patient, and draft structured clinical notes. Some also produce referral letters and admin outputs, and even update medical records – but only after clinician review and approval.

Some estimates suggest about one in four Australian GPs are already using an AI scribe. Major hospitals, including children’s hospitals, are also trialling them.

The pitch is simple: less typing for doctors, more eye contact with the patient. But what about patients’ privacy?

Until recently, the AI scribe market has been largely unregulated. But last month the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) – Australia’s medical device regulator – decided some scribes meet the legal definition of a medical device.

Here’s what this will change, and what patients should know – and ask – about AI scribes in the consult room.

What’s changing

Until now, many AI scribe vendors, from Microsoft to rising Australian startups such as Heidi and Lyrebird – and over 120 other providers – have marketed their tools as “productivity” software.

This means they have avoided the scrutiny of medical devices, which the TGA regulates.

Now, the TGA has found some AI scribes meet the definition of a medical device, especially if they go beyond transcription to suggest diagnoses or treatments.

Medical devices must be registered with the TGA, shown to be safe and do what they claim, and any safety problems or malfunctions must be reported.

The TGA has begun compliance reviews, with penalties for unregistered AI scribes.

This follows similar developments overseas. In June 2025, the United Kingdom health authorities announced tools that transcribe and summarise will be treated as medical devices.

Although still evolving, there are signs the United States will move in a similar direction, and the European Union may too.

In Australia, the TGA has only just begun reviewing AI scribes, so patients can’t assume they’ve been tested to the same standard as other medical products.

What patients should know about AI scribes

They can help – but they are not perfect.

Doctors report spending less time on keyboards, and some patients report better conversations.

But tools built on large language models can “hallucinate” – add details never said. One 2024 case study recorded casual remarks about a patient’s hands, feet and mouth as a diagnosis of hand, foot and mouth disease. The potential for errors means clinicians still need to review the note before it enters your record.

Performance varies.

Accuracy dips with accents, background noise and jargon. In a health system as multicultural as Australia’s, errors across accents and languages are a safety issue.

The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners warns poorly designed tools can shift hidden work back to clinicians, who then spend extra time correcting notes. Research has found products’ time-saving claims are often overstated once review and correction time is included, underlining the need for devices to be evaluated independently.

Privacy matters.

Health data is already a target for hackers and scammers, as the 2022 Medibank breach showed. In recent research with colleagues, we found unsecured third-party applications and lax data protection are among the leading causes of health data breaches.

Clinicians need a clear “pause” option and should avoid use in sensitive consults (for example, discussions about family violence, substance use or legal matters).

Companies must be explicit about where the audio and data are stored, who can access it, and how long it is kept. In practice, policies vary: some store recordings on overseas cloud servers while others keep transcripts short-term and onshore.

A lack of transparency means it’s often unclear whether data can be traced back to individual patients or reused to train AI.

Consent is not a tick box.

Clinicians should tell you when recording is on and explain risks and benefits. You should be able to say no without jeopardising care. One recent case in Australia saw a patient have to cancel a A$1,300 appointment, after they declined a scribe and the clinic refused to proceed.

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients, consent should reflect community norms and data sovereignty, especially if notes are used to train AI.

Five practical questions to ask your doctor

1. Is this tool approved? Is it the clinic’s standard practice to use this tool, and does it require TGA registration for this use?

2. Who can access my data? Where is the audio stored, for how long, and is it used to train the system?

3. Can we pause or opt out? Is there a clear pause button and a non-AI alternative for sensitive topics?

4. Do you review the note before it goes into my record? Is the output always treated as a draft until you sign off?

5. What happens if the AI gets it wrong? Is there an audit trail linking the note back to the original audio so errors can be traced and fixed quickly?

Safer care, not just faster notes

Right now, the burden of ensuring AI scribes are used safely rests disproportionately on individual doctors and patients. The TGA’s decision to classify some scribes as medical devices is a positive move, but it is only a first step.

We also need:

• the TGA, professional bodies and researchers to work together on clear standards for consent, data retention and training

• independent evaluations of how these tools perform in real consults

• risk-based rules and stronger enforcement, adapted to AI software rather than traditional devices.

Strong rules also weed out flimsy products: if a tool cannot show it is safe and secure, it should not be in the consult room.

Saeed Akhlaghpour 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. Can you say no to your doctor using an AI scribe? – https://theconversation.com/can-you-say-no-to-your-doctor-using-an-ai-scribe-264701

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angus Dowell, PhD Candidate, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Unveiling Amazon Web Services’ long-awaited NZ$7.5 billion “cloud region” – a cluster of local data centres – Prime Minister Christopher Luxon specifically referenced Ireland and Singapore as “two economies we often look to for inspiration on investment and technology”.

This kind of comparison has been a familiar refrain in New Zealand politics. More than a decade ago, then prime minister John Key imagined the country as the “Switzerland of the South Pacific”.

Earlier this year, Luxon described his proposed Invest New Zealand agency as being “modelled off the success of Ireland and Singapore”, pitched as a “concierge” service for large foreign investors.

But based on my research on how big-tech cloud providers expand and dominate markets across the globe, I argue such comparisons are simplistic and misleading.

Unlike Ireland, New Zealand does not sit at the junction of the European Union and the United States. And it is not a logistics-finance hub strategically perched on global shipping routes like Singapore.

Rather, New Zealand is a distant, mid-sized economy whose digital sector has largely grown by meeting domestic demand rather than exporting at scale.

The limits of comparison

The comparisons suffer in deeper ways too. Singapore’s success in capitalising on foreign investment has always rested on massive state-led investment and equity in infrastructure and firms.

Sovereign wealth funds such as Temasek and GIC own majority stakes in airlines, banks, ports and telecommunications. Government planning also underpinned the famous Changi Airport and Jurong Industrial Estate – cornerstones of Singapore’s global hub status.

This is the opposite of the current New Zealand government’s policy of shrinking the public sector and the country’s lack of long-term infrastructure planning and spending.

Ireland’s path has been different again. It became the European gateway for big tech, drawing in Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Meta through low taxes, EU membership and access to transatlantic data flows.

The so-called “Double Irish” tax loophole allowed companies to funnel profits through Ireland. But beyond enjoying a tax haven, this foreign investment also created real jobs, industry clusters and export capacity.

Amazon, Microsoft and Google did not simply book profits there; they built major European operations anchored in Dublin’s “Silicon Docks” – plots of cheap land with favourable tax status.

Amazon Web Services’ own expansion illustrates the point. Ireland and Singapore were its first cloud regions outside the US and were meant to take advantage of their unique political and economic geographies. Each was chosen because it provided a genuine hub: Dublin gave access to the EU market, Singapore to Asia.

New Zealand, by contrast, is a latecomer. For nearly 13 years, much of its public and private digital needs have been met seamlessly out of Amazon Web Services’ Sydney cloud region.

The Auckland mystery – a warning

Long before the Auckland cloud region went live, Amazon Web Services built substantial revenue from New Zealand markets, particularly the public sector. Company documents show that after its coordinated cloud region announcement with the Labour government in 2021, New Zealand revenues jumped from $93.7 million in 2021 to $364.1 million in 2022.

This near-300% increase was likely driven by pandemic-era contracts for critical infrastructure. Amazon provided cloud services for contact tracing, small business loans and Ministry of Health infrastructure, among other things.

While Amazon has undoubtedly captured significant domestic value, the promised economic multipliers – jobs, exportable digital industries, global competitiveness – remain largely hypothetical.

Meanwhile, the tax benefits to New Zealand are minimal. Amazon Web Services books most of its local revenue through its Irish subsidiary, using inter-company “service fees” to shift profits offshore and minimise tax liabilities, a longstanding practice.

The Auckland development itself has been shrouded in mystery. The original 2021 announcement promised the first data centres would go live in 2024. Instead, the project was delayed, with little clarity about construction sites or the scale of local employment.

When Amazon finally declared the region open last week, again it offered little transparency on construction progress, workforce numbers, or the scale of its footprint. For New Zealand’s largest ever digital infrastructural investment, the lack of clarity is striking.

Sovereignty, regulation and risk

The Ireland and Singapore analogies obscure more than they reveal. New Zealand is not an anchor point in global trade and data flows, and Amazon Web Services’ delays, lack of clarity and tax avoidance on domestic consumption make that plain.

The Auckland cloud region will likely cut the time it takes for data to travel between users and servers, enable some local innovation, and support jobs. But the coalition government needs to be honest about what it represents and the appropriate way to respond.

The economic advantages of Singapore and Ireland are not just hard to reproduce, they reflect very different sets of political commitments that have turned those countries into rare winners in the global race to the bottom to attract foreign capital.

Ireland has been willing to compete as a tax haven despite repeated reprimands from the EU, and Singapore’s success depends on a tightly controlled political system that prioritises stability and growth over open democratic debate.

Neither represents a path that can, or should, be easily transplanted elsewhere.

What New Zealand needs, and what is already underway in many quarters, is a sustained debate over sovereignty, regulation and the risk foreign monopolies pose to our digital landscape.

Angus Dowell 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. Politicians love comparing NZ’s economy to Singapore or Ireland – but it’s simplistic and misleading – https://theconversation.com/politicians-love-comparing-nzs-economy-to-singapore-or-ireland-but-its-simplistic-and-misleading-264679

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Chown, Director, Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future and Professor of Biological Sciences, Monash University

Our planet continues to warm because of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. The polar regions are especially vulnerable to this warming. Sea ice extent is already declining in both the Arctic and Antarctic. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting, and abrupt changes in both polar environments are underway.

These changes have significant implications for society through sea level rise, changes to ocean circulation and climate extremes. They also have substantial consequences for polar ecosystems, including polar bears and emperor penguins, which have become iconic symbols of the impacts of climate change.

The most effective way to mitigate these changes, and lower the risk of widespread impacts, is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Yet decarbonisation is slow, and current projections suggest temperature increases of roughly 3°C by 2100.

Given the expected change, and the importance of the polar regions for planetary health, some scientists and engineers have proposed technological approaches, known as geoengineering, to soften the blow to the Arctic and Antarctic.

In research published today in Frontiers in Science, my colleagues and I assessed five of the most developed geoengineering concepts being considered for the polar regions. We found none of them should be used in the coming decades. They are extremely unlikely to mitigate the effects of global warming in polar regions, and are likely to have serious adverse and unintended consequences.

What is polar geoengineering?

Geoengineering encompasses a wide range of ideas for deliberate large-scale attempts to modify Earth’s climate. The two broadest classes involve removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and increasing the amount of sunlight reflected back into space (known as “solar radiation modification”).

For the polar regions, here are the five most developed concepts.

Stratospheric aerosol injection is a solar radiation modification approach that involves introducing finer particles (such as sulphur dioxide or titanium dioxide) into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back out to space. In this case, the focus is specifically on the polar regions.

Sea curtains are flexible, buoyant structures anchored to the seafloor at 700 metres to 1,000m depth and rising 150m to 500m. The aim is to prevent warm ocean water from reaching and melting ice shelves (floating extensions of ice that slow the movement of ice from Greenland and Antarctica into the ocean) and the grounding lines of ice sheets (where the land, ice sheet and ocean meet).

Sea ice management includes two concepts. The first is the scattering of glass microbeads over fresh Arctic sea ice to make it more reflective and help it survive longer. The second is pumping seawater onto the sea ice surface, where it will freeze, with the aim of thickening the ice – or into the air to produce snow, to the same general effect, using wind-powered pumps.

Basal water removal targets the ice streams found in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. These streams are fast-moving rivers of ice that flow toward the coast, where they can enter the ocean and raise sea levels. Water at their base acts as a lubricant. This concept proposes to remove water from their base to increase friction and slow the flow. The concept is thought to be especially relevant to Antarctica, which has much less surface melting than Greenland, and therefore melt is more about the base of the ice sheet than its surface.

Ocean fertilisation involves adding nutrients such as iron to polar oceans to promote the growth of phytoplankton. These tiny creatures absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which gets stored in the deep ocean when they die and sink.

The risk of false hopes

In our research, we assessed each of these concepts against six criteria. These included: scope of implementation; feasibility; financial costs; effectiveness; environmental risks; and governance challenges.

This framework offers an objective way of assessing all such concepts for their merits.

None of the proposed polar geoengineering concepts passed scrutiny as concepts that are workable over the coming decades. The criteria we used show each of the concepts faces multiple difficulties.

For example, to cover 10% of the Arctic Ocean with pumps to deliver seawater to freeze within ten years, one million pumps per year would need to be deployed. The estimated costs of sea curtains (US$1 billion per kilometre) are underestimates of similar-scale projects in easier environments, such as the Thames Barrier near London, by six to 25 times.

One project that planned to spread glass microbeads on ice has also been shut down citing environmental risks. And at their most recent meeting, the majority of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties made clear their view that geoengineering should not be conducted in the region.

Polar geoengineering proposals raise false hopes for averting some disastrous consequences of climate change without rapidly cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

They risk encouraging complacency about the urgency of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 or may be used by powerful actors as an excuse to justify continued emissions.

The climate crisis is a crisis. Over the time available, efforts are best focused on decarbonisation. The benefits are rapidly realisable within the near term.

Steven Chown receives funding from the Australian Research Council and The Wellcome Trust. He is the lead of the Action Group on Climate for the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, a patron of the Mouse-Free Marion project, a member of the Korea Polar Research Institute’s Policy Advisory Panel, and chair of the White Desert Foundation’s Grant Advisory Panel.

– ref. High-tech plans to save polar ice will fail, new research finds – https://theconversation.com/high-tech-plans-to-save-polar-ice-will-fail-new-research-finds-264794

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Xanthe Mallett, Criminologist, CQUniversity Australia

The world has been transfixed by the case of Erin Patterson: the Australian woman convicted of mass murder, having brutally killed three members of her family using death cap mushrooms, as well as the attempted murder of a fourth.

While Australia doesn’t have a strict definition, mass murder, also referred to as “mass killing”, is defined in United States federal law as the killing of three or more people in a single incident, excluding the perpetrator.

Cases about women who commit mass murder, are rare. Very rare. This makes them all the more interesting for the public.

So why are there so few women mass murderers? How, and why, do women kill differently to men?

Just 6% of mass murders

Because there are so few female mass murderers, the majority of research has focused on men who commit mass killings.

However, a 2024 study analysed 1,715 worldwide mass killing events from 1900 to 2019, finding 105 (or just 6%) were perpetrated by women.

In fact, women rarely kill compared to men. The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) reports that for the period January 1 2004 and June 30 2014, women were responsible for 13% of murders.

In total, this equated to 302 incidents of homicide perpetrated by women.

The most common victims were the female’s intimate partner (115 cases, or 34%), 96 family homicide offenders (28%), and 86 (26%) cases of non-family murder. In a further 6% (20) of murders, the relationship was unknown.

Fascinating the public

Given it’s so rare for women to commit murder, when a woman is even accused of having committed multiple murders simultaneously, public interest skyrockets.

As a consequence, Erin Patterson is not the first female mass murderer to become a public fascination, or even the first Australian woman to do so. And poison has been a method of choice.

In 1953, Sydney-based Caroline Grills was tried on four counts of murder and one count of attempted murder after police accused her poisoning her in-laws and a friend of her mother using thallium – a key ingredient of rat poison.

Her use of thallium led to her receiving the nickname of “Aunty Thally” by her fellow inmates.

She was eventually sentenced to life in prison for the attempted murder of her sister-in-law.

Who are these female mass murderers?

While there were no significant differences in age and ancestral origin, there are other notable sex-specific factors that differentiate male and female mass murderers.

A 2024 study found around 75% of mass murders committed by women included at least one family member.

In contrast, only about 39% of mass murders committed by men included a family member as a victim.

Psychologically, men and women mass murderers vary too. Women are twice as likely to exhibit psychotic signs than male perpetrators (25.7% compared to 12.5%), and the occurrence of other psychiatric or neurological conditions was also higher among females (29.5% vs 17.1%) in this homicide group.

Notably, more than half of female perpetrators committed or attempted to commit suicide after the murder.

Why women kill

It is believed women commit fewer murders compared to men due to differences in the reasons men and women resort to violence in general.

Humans can, of course, behave in all sorts of ways. But generally speaking, for men, violence is often used to establish dominance and control. For women, violence commonly generally used as a last resort.

In essence, men’s violence is offensive, women’s violence is defensive.

As an example, the 2020 AIC study notes that for women who killed someone with whom they were in an established relationship, domestic violence was a component. Of the 15 incidents reported, the woman was either the primary victim of male abuse (eight cases or 53%) or the violence was reciprocal (seven cases, 47%).

In no case reported was the woman the sole aggressor and the male the sole victim.

There was also often a simultaneous trigger. In 14 cases (52%), the women that murdered their intimate partner did so in a single, spontaneous act following conflict with the victim. In 28% of incidents (24) the male had physically or sexually assaulted the woman immediately prior to the murder.

The method of murder also varies. Relative to males, female perpetrators are significantly less likely to employ firearms, using them in less than half of cases. Women prefer “cleaner” methods, such as poison, asphyxiation, drowning or drugs to kill their victims.

Why Erin Patterson will keep our attention

The rarity of murders committed by women, and the different rationales and methods used by women when they do, combine to create an event that captivates the public.

For these reasons, Erin Patterson and the female killers who will enter the headlines after her will intrigue us for years to come.

Adding to the intrigue is that Patterson does not fit the standard pattern of a female murderer: there is no evidence of a trigger event. There’s no suggestion of domestic or family violence by Simon Patterson (Erin’s estranged husband whose family was the target of her murderous lunch).

In fact, no motive has been offered at all as to why she murdered three people and attempted to murder a fourth.

So she is an outlier, a mystery. And that is also why she will be studied for years to come to help us understand how a woman with no known criminal or violent history could commit such an abhorrent act.

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

– ref. Just 6% of mass murders are by women. Here’s how, when and why they kill – https://theconversation.com/just-6-of-mass-murders-are-by-women-heres-how-when-and-why-they-kill-264875

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

Sussan Ley’s difficulties in dealing with the Jacinta Nampijinpa Price affair have widened, amid signs it could be weaponised by her factional enemies.

Victorian Liberal senator Sarah Henderson on Tuesday backed the embattled Price, including over her attack on Ley’s factional supporter, shadow minister Alex Hawke.

Henderson, who was in the Angus Taylor camp in the leadership contest and subsequently demoted to the backbench by Ley, said Price had not reflected adversely on Indians, when she suggested last week that Labor encouraged Indian immigrants because they voted for the ALP.

Speaking on Canberra radio, Henderson described Price as “a magnificent Australian”, and “a warrior for common sense and for the most marginalised”.

“She has incredible support right across this country,” Henderson said.

“At no stage did she ever reflect adversely on Indian Australians. And frankly, I condemn people like [Labor MP] Julian Hill, who went out on television and accused Jacinta Nampijinpa Price of racism, and that’s frankly disgraceful.”

Referring to Price’s complain that Hawke had berated her staffer, Henderson said she was “concerned about some of the workplace issues that she has raised, and I’m sure they will be duly noted and acted upon”.

Price’s comments on Indian immigration have been widely condemned within the Liberal Party but, while walking back from them, she has refused to apologise. She has also called for Ley to ask Hawke – who denies berating the staffer – to apologise to her.

The affair has become extremely damaging, primarily to the opposition and Ley, but potentially even to Australia. This is particularly so because it followed the anti immigration marches, flyers for which specifically mentioned Indian immigration.

Shadow Attorney-General Julian Leeser gave a personal apology when he attended a function at a Hindi school at the weekend.

In remarks he later posted on social media he told the audience that Price had said something “that I want to apologise unreservedly for.”

On Tuesday, when asked if it was time for Price to apologise, Ley said, “I know that the senator is listening to the Indian community and hearing their words directly in many instances, and I think that’s important because where feelings are hurt, there needs to be a two-way dialogue and there needs to be an understanding.”

Ley said that in discussions with members of the Indian community on Sunday and Monday, what they had expressed “at both those meetings [was] the hurt and the harm they felt from the remarks that were made.

“I know that they also understood from me, as leader of the Liberal Party, our very, very strong backing and support of our Indian community. Because they chose to come to this country and we value that.

“I say to them, it doesn’t matter to me how you vote, we love what you bring to our communities, what you bring to every stream of society – in volunteering, in professionalism, in small business, in the health and welfare of our local communities. And I know that message was well received.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese added his voice to those urging Price to apologise.

But, asked whether Ley should apologise on her behalf, Albanese said that was up to the opposition leader.

Ley is not inclined to take that option. It would be coming in over the top of a colleague. It might also anger her factional opponents, although others would see it as a mark of strength and willingness to deploy her authority.

With the controversy still spiralling, a direct apology by Ley to the Indian community could at least be one possible suture to the wound.

There are mixed feelings about Price in the Nationals, from which she defected in an unsuccessful bid to become a future deputy opposition leader.

While Nationals senator Matt Canavan would be glad if she sought to return, others would not.

Canavan said he wasn’t aware of any attempt to get Price back to the Nationals but told Sky: “If Jacinta came back to our team, she’d be the prodigal sister, so to speak. She’d be welcome with open arms, I’m sure, by most of us.”

Nationals leader David Littleproud sounded unenthusiastic about any such move, saying it would be a matter for the party room. Senior Nationals Bridget McKenzie said on radio, “if you’ve offended somebody and you didn’t mean to, the appropriate responsible thing to do is to apologise”.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Should Sussan Ley extend the apology to Indian community that Jacinta Price refuses to give? – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-should-sussan-ley-extend-the-apology-to-indian-community-that-jacinta-price-refuses-to-give-264777

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Dodd, Professor of Journalism, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

Rupert Murdoch has succeeded in securing his vision for the future of News Corporation, the global media empire he has always thought of as his family business.

To achieve this, he has torn apart his family. He has also ensured his media outlets, especially Fox News, remain committed to his hard right-wing views.

With hindsight, this deal was inevitable. The 94-year-old mogul had just one remaining job to do as chairman emeritus of News Corp: to ensure that when he dies, the company he built and moulded remains in his image.

This announcement says he has found a way, which may give him some comfort but is profoundly disappointing to anyone who cares about public interest journalism.

There’s no longer any prospect of his children from his first and second marriages, Prudence, Elisabeth and James, who are now known as the “departing beneficiaries”, staging a coup after his death to wrest control from Rupert’s chosen successor and elder son Lachlan, who has headed News Corporation and Fox Corporation since Murdoch stepped aside in 2023.

Lachlan has taken a lesson from Rupert’s dealmaking playbook. He has thrown money at the problem by paying his three siblings more than he had previously offered for their respective shares. According to The New York Times, the three siblings will receive US$1.1 billion (A$1.7 billion) each for all their shares in the company.

Their agreement brings an end to the bitter battle the three siblings fought with their father and brother over the latter’s infamous attempt to revoke a seemingly irrevocable trust created at the end of Murdoch’s longest marriage, of 32 years, to Anna Murdoch (now Anna Maria dePeyster).

She had hated how her husband pitted their children against one another in the battle for succession, so she negotiated an agreement that would give each of the four children from the first two marriages a vote in the family trust. It also ensured Rupert retained enough votes in the trust so he could not be outvoted by his four (voting) children.

When Rupert anointed Lachlan his successor, upsetting the others, speculation was aired that when Rupert died, and his votes with him, the three siblings might oust Lachlan as chief executive and take control of the company. Worse, in Rupert’s eyes, they might change the editorial direction of the company, in particular Fox News.

That is what has changed. The family trust has also been re-engineered with an increased lifespan from 2030 to 2050, and folds in Murdoch’s daughters from his third marriage, to Wendi Deng – Grace and Chloe. This shores up the trust so they can’t sell out and dilute Lachlan’s shareholding.

Under the deal, a new company called Holdco, owned by Lachlan, Grace and Chloe, will own all the remaining shares of News Corp and Fox Corporation that previously had been held by the Murdoch family trust. The departing beneficiaries will sell their personal holdings in News Corp and Fox so none of them has any interest in either business. What’s more, they’ve agreed to a standstill clause that prevents them or their affiliates buying back in.

In 2019 alone, the company News Corporation made a reported US$71 billion (A$107 billion) from the sale of its entertainment assets to Disney. After that sale, the children were each given US$2 billion (just over A$3 billion).

Having already been referred to in the litigation as “white, privileged, multi billionaire trust-fund babies”, the three departing siblings have been made even wealthier by this agreement.

It was announced in a company press release on September 8 with an uncharacteristically sedate headline: “News Corp announces resolution of Murdoch family trust matter”.

It appears the decision to settle was in part driven by signals emanating from the probate court in Reno, which last year ruled in favour of Prudence, Elisabeth and James. Recently, however, the presiding appellate judge, Lynne Jones, appeared supportive of Rupert and Lachlan, saying “Who knows better than Rupert Murdoch the strengths and weaknesses of his family and his children?”

This may have weakened the three children’s bargaining power and forced them to accept some sort of buyout.

James may have contributed to this by granting an interview to The Atlantic which was published in February, in which he was highly critical of his father and gave away inside information from the probate hearings. Rupert and Lachlan’s lawyers pushed for James to be punished, a move that appeared to have support from the Reno court.

Clearly it was wishful thinking to believe Prudence, Elisabeth and James would stage a takeover and restore sensible programming to the Murdoch media. But it remains an irony, in a case replete with them, that it was James’ candid comments in an insightful 13,000-word profile casting much-needed light on a notoriously secretive family, which weakened the three siblings’ bargaining position.

Those comments helped ensure Rupert, and ultimately Lachlan, will be able to continue running their media empire as they see fit. Initially, that will mean little change, which is of course the problem. If News mastheads and Fox News continue as they have, we can look forward to more coverage denying the need to urgently act on climate change, more distortion of important issues and more support for assaults on democracy by the Trump administration. This is the kind of content that prompted James, if not all of the departing beneficiaries, to protest in the first place.

At least now we know the answer to this question: What choice would three multi billionaires make if they were offered another billion dollars each or the opportunity to transform a global media business for the better?

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

– ref. Murdoch resolves succession drama – a win for Lachlan; a loss for public interest journalism – https://theconversation.com/murdoch-resolves-succession-drama-a-win-for-lachlan-a-loss-for-public-interest-journalism-264866

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Hosking, Conservation Planner/Researcher, The University of Queensland

In a historic move, the New South Wales government has announced a Great Koala National Park will be established on the state’s Mid North Coast, in a bid to protect vital koala habitat and stop the species’ sharp decline.

The reserve will combine existing national parks with newly protected state forest areas, to create 476,000 hectares of protected koala habitat. Logging will be phased out in certain areas, and a transition plan enacted for affected workers and communities.

Conservationists have welcomed the move as a win for biodiversity. However, some industry groups have raised concerns about the economic impact on the region’s timber operations.

The announcement, which follows a long campaign by koala advocates, shows the NSW government recognises the importance of protecting biodiversity. But announcing the national park is just the first step in saving this iconic species.

A worrying decline

Koalas are notoriously hard to count, because they are widely distributed and difficult to spot.

In 2016, a panel of 15 koala experts estimated a decline in koala populations of 24% over the past three generations and the next three generations.

Habitat loss and fragmentation is the number one threat to koalas. Others include climate change, bushfires, disease, vehicle strikes and dog attacks.

The decline gave momentum to calls by conservationists and scientists for the establishment of a Great Koala National Park, taking in important koala habitat on the NSW Mid North Coast.

In 2023, the NSW government pledged A$80 million to create the park. The announcement on Sunday increased the pledge to $140 million.

Announcing the development, NSW Premier Chris Minns said it was “unthinkable” that koalas were at risk of extinction in that state.

The government also proposed the park’s boundary and announced a temporary moratorium on timber harvesting within it – as well as a support package for logging workers, industries and communities.

However, the logging industry remains opposed to the plan.

Not the end of the story

The creation of the park is a welcome move. It will protect not just koalas but many other native species, large and small.

But on its own, it’s not enough to save the NSW koala population. Even within the national park, threats to koalas will remain.

For example, research shows climate change – and associated heat and less rainfall – threatens the trees koalas use for food and shelter. Climate extremes also physically stress koalas. This and other combined stresses can make koalas more prone to disease.

Bushfires, and inappropriate fire management, can degrade koala habitat and injure or kill them outright.

The NSW government says logging must immediately cease in areas to be brought into the park’s boundary. However, logging pressures can remain, even after national parks are declared. Forestry activities must cease completely, and forever, if the park is to truly protect koalas.

What’s more, recreational activities, if allowed in the national park, may negatively impact koalas. For example, cutting tracks or building tourist facilities may fragment koala habitat and disturb shy wildlife.

These threats must be managed to ensure the Great Koala National Park achieves its aims.

Prioritising nature

Of course, the creation of a new national park does not help koalas outside the park’s boundaries. Koala populations are under threat across their range in NSW, Queensland and the ACT.

That’s why the national recovery plan for the koala should be implemented urgently and in full. It includes increasing the area of protected koala habitat, restoring degraded habitat, and actively conserving populations. It also includes ending habitat destruction by embedding koala protections in land-use planning.

As I have previously written, koala protection areas should be replicated throughout the NSW and Queensland hinterlands. My research shows the future climate will remain suitable for koalas in those areas.

And logging must be curbed elsewhere in Australia, such as in Tasmania, where it jeopardises threatened species and ancient forests.

The Great National Koala Park promises be a sanctuary for koalas and other wildlife, and a special place for passive, nature-based recreation and tourism. Yes, the plan has detractors. But saving Australia’s koalas means prioritising nature’s needs over that of people.

And we must not forget: the national park is just one step on a long road to preventing koala extinctions.

Christine Hosking 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. Koalas are running out of time. Will a $140 million national park save them? – https://theconversation.com/koalas-are-running-out-of-time-will-a-140-million-national-park-save-them-264789

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jamon Couch, Lecturer, Department of Microbiology, Anatomy, Physiology & Pharmacology, and PhD Candidate, La Trobe University

It’s a quiet morning. You lace up your shoes, step outside and begin a brisk morning stroll. But as you take those first few steps, there it is, a faint grinding noise, almost like the crunch of gravel underfoot, except … the sound is coming from your knee!

Thinking back, you recall noticing a similar sound as you were walking up the stairs last week. You pause, do some quick stretches and continue walking. But the grinding sound quickly returns.

A wave of dread follows: Is there something wrong with my knee? Is that bone-on-bone? Am I getting arthritis?

This is a common experience for people of all ages. Before you hit the panic button, let’s unpack what these noisy knees – known in medical terms as “knee crepitus” – might really mean.

What is knee crepitus? How common is it?

Knee crepitus refers to the audible crackling, creaking or grinding sounds that occur when you bend or straighten your knee. You might hear it when climbing stairs, standing up from a chair, or even just as you walk.

Surprisingly, we don’t know what actually causes knee crepitus. Theories suggest these knee joint noises may be attributed to damaged knee cartilage, tendons moving over bones, or the popping of normal gas bubbles in the fluid surrounding the knee.

But current scientific evidence is insufficient to confidently determine the origin of this common symptom.

Our recent review of the 103 studies of knee crepitus (involving 36,439 people) found 41% of people in the general population had noisy knees.

There is a common perception that this crackling, creaking or grinding noise is a sign of a damaged or arthritic knee. However 36% of people who had no pain and had never injured their knee also had knee crepitus.

So, knee crepitus is common across the population, including among people with no knee problems at all.

But I heard it’s an early sign of arthritis…

Having knee crepitus can create worry, and make people fearful of exercising and using their knees. People often ask: Am I causing further damage to my knees? Does this mean I’m going to get arthritis?

Noisy knees are more common among older adults with arthritis: 81% of people with osteoarthritis have knee crepitus.

However, knee crepitus isn’t always a sign of impending knee problems and shouldn’t stop you from exercising and using your knees. In a study of 3,495 older adults (mean age 61 years), two-thirds of people who reported “always” having knee crepitus did not develop symptomatic osteoarthritis over the next four years.

If you’re a younger adult with a previous knee injury, the story is much the same: knee crepitus is still common, particularly after a knee injury, but it’s not always a sign of underlying problems.

Our recent study looked at 112 young adults (with a median age of 28) who had a previous knee injury requiring surgery. We found those with knee crepitus were twice as likely to have cartilage damage (particularly in the kneecap area) in the first year post-surgery. However, having knee crepitus did not mean worse outcomes in the future.

It seems that while those with knee crepitus may experience worse pain and symptoms in the early stages following knee injury, this does not translate to worse recovery or greater rates of osteoarthritis over the long term.

What should I do about my noisy knees?

Given noisy knees are common in those without knee pain, injury or arthritis, you generally shouldn’t be concerned. Yes, your knees might wake your baby as you step away from their cot, and perhaps a quiet yoga studio might draw focus on your knees, but generally speaking, if it’s not painful, it’s nothing to worry about.

Unfortunately, there are no effective treatments for knee crepitus. The best advice is to keep doing the things that help to improve overall knee health: getting regular exercise, both aerobic and resistance-based, and achieving and maintaining a healthy body weight.

Just be cautious about sourcing information online, as more than half of the advice available on the internet about knee clicking isn’t supported by research.

So, when should you be concerned?

Although knee crepitus is often benign, there are circumstances where you could consult your health-care provider. This includes if your noisy knees are:

• accompanied by pain, swelling, instability, or locking

• associated with other signs of arthritis, such as stiffness, redness, or reduced mobility.

In such cases, a health-care provider may recommend a physical assessment to examine structures in and around the knee joint, and evaluate the impact of your symptoms on your quality of life and participation in activities.

The clinician may recommend:

• physiotherapy and exercise to strengthen supporting muscles
• seeing a dietitian for advice about weight management
• anti-inflammatory medication.

Most importantly, creaky knees alone, without other symptoms, are not normally cause for concern. So, lace up those shoes and keep moving.

Jamon Couch receives funding from an Australian government Research Training Program scholarship.

Adam Culvenor receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council and Medibank Better Health Research Hub.

– ref. My knee is clicking. Should I be worried? Am I getting arthritis? – https://theconversation.com/my-knee-is-clicking-should-i-be-worried-am-i-getting-arthritis-264472

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eldin Milak, Lecturer, School of Media, Creative Arts and Social Inquiry, Curtin University

Attempts at communicating what generative artificial intelligence (AI) is and what it does have produced a range of metaphors and analogies.

From a “black box” to “autocomplete on steroids”, a “parrot”, and even a pair of “sneakers”, the goal is to make the understanding of a complex piece of technology accessible by grounding it in everyday experiences – even if the resulting comparison is often oversimplified or misleading.

One increasingly widespread analogy describes generative AI as a “calculator for words”. Popularised in part by the chief executive of OpenAI, Sam Altman, the calculator comparison suggests that much like the familiar plastic objects we used to crunch numbers in maths class, the purpose of generative AI tools is to help us crunch large amounts of linguistic data.

The calculator analogy has been rightly criticised, because it can obscure the more troubling aspects of generative AI. Unlike chatbots, calculators don’t have built-in biases, they don’t make mistakes, and they don’t pose fundamental ethical dilemmas.

Yet there is also danger in dismissing this analogy altogether, given that at its core, generative AI tools are word calculators.

What matters, however, is not the object itself, but the practice of calculating. And calculations in generative AI tools are designed to mimic those that underpin everyday human language use.

Languages have hidden statistics

Most language users are only indirectly aware of the extent to which their interactions are the product of statistical calculations.

Think, for example, about the discomfort of hearing someone say “pepper and salt” rather than “salt and pepper”. Or the odd look you would get if you ordered “powerful tea” rather than “strong tea” at a cafe.

The rules that govern the way we select and order words, and many other sequences in language, come from the frequency of our social encounters with them. The more often you hear something said a certain way, the less viable any alternative will sound. Or rather, the less plausible any other calculated sequence will seem.

In linguistics, the vast field dedicated to the study of language, these sequences are known as “collocations”. They’re just one of many phenomena that show how humans calculate multiword patterns based on whether they “feel right” – whether they sound appropriate, natural and human.

Why chatbot output ‘feels right’

One of the central achievements of large language models (LLMs) – and therefore chatbots – is that they have managed to formalise this “feel right” factor in ways that now successfully deceive human intuition.

In fact, they are some of the most powerful collocation systems in the world.

By calculating statistical dependencies between tokens (be they words, symbols, or dots of color) inside an abstract space that maps their meanings and relations, AI produces sequences that at this point not only pass as human in the Turing test, but perhaps more unsettlingly, can get users to fall in love with them.

Read more:
In a lonely world, widespread AI chatbots and ‘companions’ pose unique psychological risks

A major reason why these developments are possible has to do with the linguistic roots of generative AI, which are often buried in the narrative of the technology’s development. But AI tools are as much a product of computer science as they are of different branches of linguistics.

The ancestors of contemporary LLMs such as GPT-5 and Gemini are the Cold War-era machine translation tools, designed to translate Russian into English. With the development of linguistics under figures such as Noam Chomsky, however, the goal of such machines moved from simple translation to decoding the principles of natural (that is, human) language processing.

The process of LLM development happened in stages, starting from attempts to mechanise the “rules” (such as grammar) of languages, through statistical approaches that measured frequencies of word sequences based on limited data sets, and to current models that use neural networks to generate fluid language.

However, the underlying practice of calculating probabilities has remained the same. Although scale and form have immeasurably changed, contemporary AI tools are still statistical systems of pattern recognition.

They are designed to calculate how we “language” about phenomena such as knowledge, behaviour or emotions, without direct access to any of these. If you prompt a chatbot such as ChatGPT to “reveal” this fact, it will readily oblige.

AI is always just calculating

So why don’t we readily recognise this?

One major reason has to do with the way companies describe and name the practices of generative AI tools. Instead of “calculating”, generative AI tools are “thinking”, “reasoning”, “searching” or even “dreaming”.

The implication is that in cracking the equation for how humans use language patterns, generative AI has gained access to the values we transmit via language.

But at least for now, it has not.

It can calculate that “I” and “you” is most likely to collocate with “love”, but it is neither an “I” (it’s not a person), nor does it understand “love”, nor for that matter, you – the user writing the prompts.

Generative AI is always just calculating. And we should not mistake it for more.

Eldin Milak 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. Actually, AI is a ‘word calculator’ – but not in the sense you might think – https://theconversation.com/actually-ai-is-a-word-calculator-but-not-in-the-sense-you-might-think-264494

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shubham Tiwari, PhD Candidate in Civil Engineering, University of Waikato

As extreme wind events are becoming more intense across New Zealand and the Pacific, roofs are often the first point of failure. But they remain one of the most overlooked elements in discussions about resilience and safety.

Storm systems such as Cyclone Gabrielle and tropical Cyclone Tam have caused widespread damage. But it’s not only cyclones we should worry about.

Increasingly, non-cyclonic wind storms are revealing deep-rooted vulnerabilities in our built environment, particularly in our roofs.

Despite repeated damage, public awareness of roofing vulnerability and how to address it remains low.

Small mistakes, big consequences

A typical roofing system consists of cladding fixed to a supporting structure (such as battens or purlins) using fasteners, often self-piercing screws. The supporting structure is connected to the rafters, which are then attached to the walls, forming a continuous load path that transfers wind forces to the ground.

Among these components, the connection between the roof cladding and the supporting structure is particularly vulnerable because it is directly exposed to wind pressures during extreme weather events.

In New Zealand, the Metal Roofing Manufacturers Association provides industry guidelines and supports research on the performance of metal roofing and cladding.

Roof failures during wind events rarely occur at random. More often, they begin with localised connection failures, which then spread across the roof system. Typically, this manifests as roof cladding “pulling through” the fastener, where the fastener stays attached to the supporting structure but the cladding detaches.

A “pull-out” failure may occur when the fastener detaches from the supporting structure while remaining fixed to the cladding. These weaknesses in the connections can rapidly escalate, leading to partial or total roof collapse.

Such failures don’t just lead to expensive repairs. They compromise people’s safety, expose homes to rainwater damage and create high-velocity debris that poses further risks during the storm and in the aftermath.

Even partial roof failures can overwhelm infrastructure, delay disaster recovery and inflate insurance claims. This raises systemic questions about how we design, test and regulate roofing systems in storm-prone regions.

A major issue lies in the misconception that roofs can be treated as peripheral or cosmetic elements. In truth, they are structural components, and they should be treated with the same rigour as any other critical load-bearing system.

Next generation of roofs

Our research group is addressing this challenge through a combination of full-scale wind-load testing and advanced modelling simulations.

We are developing a scientifically grounded understanding of how metal roof cladding behaves under extreme wind pressures, both cyclonic and non-cyclonic, and how fastener arrangements and cladding profiles influence the resilience of roofing systems.

This work is helping to quantify what has previously been anecdotal – how minor design or installation oversights can trigger catastrophic failures. Our data will feed into improved building codes, resilient design practices and potentially new product standards for roofing systems in New Zealand and beyond.

It is time to treat roofs not just as shelters but as engineered systems with quantifiable risks and performance criteria.

We strongly recommend using only code-compliant roofing products, particularly those tested for uplift resistance under both cyclonic and non-cyclonic wind loads.

While roofing companies are required to use code-compliant materials, not all products are rigorously tested or certified for the specific wind regions where they are installed. Emphasising uplift-tested compliance ensures materials meet the minimum code requirements while offering proven safety and performance under diverse wind conditions.

Roof installers should also be trained and certified to ensure workmanship is not the weak link in an otherwise well designed system. We also encourage regular inspections and maintenance, particularly after minor wind events, which can loosen components and create vulnerabilities for the next storm.

Extreme winds are no longer rare events; they are part of our climate future. But each storm also offers an opportunity to learn, adapt and build better.

We need a shift that sees roofs not as afterthoughts but as front-line defences. Through science and smarter design we can reduce risk, protect lives and build a more resilient New Zealand.

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

– ref. As storms become more extreme, it’s time to rethink how we design roofs – https://theconversation.com/as-storms-become-more-extreme-its-time-to-rethink-how-we-design-roofs-263036

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Blaxland, Senior Research Fellow, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

Many of us have heard the saying, “it takes a village to raise a child”. The idea that families need communities of support to raise their children has long resonated.

New research explores how this applies to modern Australian families and communities. We looked at the villages helping raise children and young people and importantly, who has one and who doesn’t.

We found while many benefit from these support networks, other families go without, particularly those who could most do with the help.

Our research

The report is a collaboration between Uniting NSW.ACT and the University of New South Wales’ Social Policy Research Centre.

It expands on previous work that showed Australian families are increasingly diverse, including multi-generational, sole-parent, blended families and foster families.

Read more:
What does family look like in Australia? It’s more diverse than you think

This work goes beyond the household to look at extended family, friends, neighbours and communities who are also involved in raising children.

Our analysis of 2022 and 2023 Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) data and qualitative interviews with 28 families reveals that Australian villages provide wide-ranging support networks. They are highly dependable and care for one another.

Grandparents, extended family and friends are at the heart of modern Australian villages. About 42% of grandparents actively help care for their grandchildren, such as with child-minding and transport.

Friends are relied on too, often for emotional support through the highs and lows of parenting, with close to three quarters of all families (74%) connecting regularly.

Sole-parent families are most likely to make regular time to see friends.

Families told us a good mix of support is most helpful. While practical help and emotional support matter, parents and carers also value having other trusted adults in their children’s lives who provide cultural connections.

Extended family and community groups play a key role here in sharing language, traditions and stories. As one mother said:

my mum is like […] the big tree that we all sit under. She gives us that shade […] so, when I mean shade, is that she gives us the wisdom […] she tells us a lot of stories from her childhood […] the struggles, just everything that she’s been through. So, my kids listen to that as well.

When it comes to advice on raising children, extended family and friends who have relevant experience offer valuable advice, along with trusted professionals, such as early educators.

Importantly, families with more community connection are less likely to report that they find parenting difficult or exhausting. Only 34% of those with weekly contact with family and friends say that taking care of their children is much more work than pleasure, compared to 43% of those with only monthly contact.

Not everyone has a village

Not everyone can easily build strong social connections outside the family unit. Insecure housing, employment status or additional care responsibilities can negatively affect this.

Families who rent often feel less connected to their local community, with almost two in three (64%) reporting low participation in local social and community events.

Only 40% of families living with someone with a limiting health condition see friends or extended family weekly, compared to almost 50% of families without any care responsibilities.

Of families facing financial stress (they cannot pay for food, heating, utilities or the like), 65% say they seldom take part in community activities, compared to 59% of families with little or no stress.

These families also spend less time with relatives and friends.

Whether someone has a job or not can affect how connected they feel to their community. Our analysis shows 66% of families with no employment were less involved in community activities, and many felt less satisfied with their sense of belonging.

There are differences between family types, too, with 44% of couple-parent families maintaining medium to high levels of community connections. This is more than the 38% of foster and other kin families, 37% of families living with multiple generations, 34% of sole parent families and 31% of step-blended families.

These less connected families are also more likely to have care responsibilities and to experience financial stress.

Giving back

Families value giving back just as much as receiving help from others. They describe their village as a reciprocal network: a dynamic, participatory ecosystem of care.

Often this means supporting ageing parents with doctors’ appointments, technology or just company.

They also help friends, taking turns transporting or minding children, and many reach out to help others in the community. Helping others matters, as one mother said:

I’m not the one that’s just a taker. I always give as well […] I find that I like helping more.

Families born overseas, particularly those from non-English speaking backgrounds, are more likely to volunteer or participate in local groups.

These families also have higher levels of community participation, with 44% reporting moderate participation and 37% regularly attending places of worship.

More support for all

Our research has implications for services supporting families that have few people they can rely on. Families using services want to give something back, too.

Services can respond by attending to the contributions people are able to make, as well as addressing their needs.

But to do this, services must be funded and supported to adopt models which build the connections between families.

Then, instead of support services focusing solely on filling a gap for families, they would enable peer relationships to grow, and provide opportunities for families to share their knowledge and expertise, building more villages for everyone.

The research in this article was funded by Uniting NSW.ACT in collaboration with Uniting Vic.Tas, Uniting WA and UnitingSA.

The research in this article was funded by Uniting NSW.ACT in collaboration with Uniting Vic.Tas, Uniting WA, and UnitingSA.

– ref. It takes a village to raise a child, but not everybody gets the support – https://theconversation.com/it-takes-a-village-to-raise-a-child-but-not-everybody-gets-the-support-264358

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Langford, Executive Director, Security & Defence PLuS and Professor, UNSW Sydney

The Chinese military parade that had the world talking last week was more than just pageantry. It was a declaration that Chinese leader Xi Jinping sees himself in a race against time to secure his place in history.

For Xi, who has just turned 72, unification with Taiwan is not just a policy aim; it is the crown jewel that would elevate him above Mao Zedong and cement his reputation as the greatest leader in modern Chinese history.

The timing and staging of the parade underscored this urgency, a showcase of power before an audience of foreign leaders and cameras at a high-stakes anniversary event in Beijing.

Mao, the founder of the People’s Republic of China, unified the country under Communist rule, but left it poor and isolated.

Xi’s mission is to finish the job by formally ending the Chinese civil war that pitted the Communists against the Nationalists and annexing the island of Taiwan to lock in his place in the party pantheon.

But waiting is dangerous. Inside the Chinese Communist Party, loyalty is transactional and rivals constantly watch for weaknesses.

In 2012, for example, Bo Xilai, a rising star and once-close ally of Xi’s, suffered a dramatic and very public downfall. The scandal could easily have consumed Xi, but he turned it into an opportunity, using Bo’s downfall to cement his own rise.

That episode remains a cautionary tale in Beijing’s elite politics: power must never falter; momentum must never slip.

More than a decade later, Xi has removed or sidelined nearly every rival and manoeuvred himself into a third term. However, he still governs with the urgency of someone who knows how quickly fortunes can turn.

US catching up on hypersonic missiles

Abroad, the strategic equation is also changing.

For years, Beijing enjoyed a headstart in hypersonic weapons, anti-ship missiles and industrial production. China’s air and advanced missile defence systems have been designed to threaten US carrier strike groups and complicate allied operations across East and North Asia.

But Washington may soon close the gap. The Pentagon requested nearly US$7 billion (A$10.6 billion) in hypersonic missile program funding in the fiscal year 2024–25, while private firms are accelerating innovation in reusable missile testbeds and propulsion.

The US Navy is repurposing Zumwalt-class destroyers for its Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic system, giving the navy its first maritime platform capable of hypersonic strike. Sea-based demonstrations of the new system are planned as soon as the program matures.

Every step narrows China’s military advantage.

US shipbuilding looking for revival, too

The industrial rivalry between China and the US is a similar story.

China currently dominates global commercial shipbuilding, a dual-use foundation that also supports naval expansion.

A recent analysis found one Chinese shipbuilder alone built more ships by tonnage in 2024 than the entire US industry has produced since the second world war. Foreign ship orders are underwriting this building capacity, which can rapidly pivot to naval platforms.

This edge has continued in 2025. Xi is counting on this industrial base to give China an edge in a future conflict over Taiwan.

However, US and allied investments in shipbuilding are starting to respond.

The Trump administration has set up a White House office dedicated to fixing US shipbuilding, while the Pentagon has requested US$47 billion (A$71 billion) for Navy ship construction in its annual budget.

Japan and South Korea, both major shipbuilders, have also added significant resources to their shipbuilding capacity in an acknowledgement of the changing power structures in East and North Asia. US politicians recently visited both countries to secure greater assistance in boosting US building capacity, too.

China is also getting older

More urgent still is the demographic clock. China’s population shrank by about two million in 2023, the second straight annual decline, as births fell to nine million, half the 2017 level.

The working-age cohort is shrinking, while the number of people over 60 years old is expected to rise to roughly a third of China’s population by the mid-2030s. This will be a major drag on growth and strain on social systems.

Demography is not destiny, but it compresses timelines for leaders who want to lock in strategic gains.

America’s competitive advantage

There is a final, often overlooked problem. The most efficient political-warfare system of the modern era is capitalism – the engine of competition that rewards adaptation and punishes failure.

The US still possesses a uniquely deep capacity for “creative destruction” – it constantly churns through firms and ideas that power long-term growth and reinvention.

That dynamism is messy, decentralised and often uncomfortable. However, it remains America’s strategic ace: it can retool industries, scale breakthrough technologies and absorb shocks faster than any centrally directed system.

China can imitate many things, but it cannot easily replicate that market-driven ecosystem of risk capital, failure tolerance and rapid reallocation.

All of this explains why Xi wants the world to believe China’s rise is unstoppable and unification with Taiwan is inevitable.

But inevitability is fragile. Beijing’s “win without fighting” approach, which involves grey-zone coercion, economic leverage and an incremental, “salami-slicing” approach to territorial claims in the South China Sea, has worked because it relies on patience and subtlety. The more Xi accelerates, the more he risks miscalculation.

A forced attempt to seize Taiwan would be the most dangerous gamble of his rule. If the People’s Liberation Army falters, the consequences would be severe: strategic humiliation abroad, political turbulence at home, and a punctured narrative of inevitability that sustains party authority.

Sun Tzu’s greatest victory is the one won without fighting, but only when time favours patience. For Xi Jinping, time is not on his side.

Ian Langford 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. Xi Jinping is in a race against time to secure his legacy in China – https://theconversation.com/xi-jinping-is-in-a-race-against-time-to-secure-his-legacy-in-china-264691

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Moore, Senior Research Associate, School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, The University of Melbourne

For many plants, spring is just a really good time. They have endured a cold, dark, hard winter and in some places, winters can be murderously tough for plants.

It makes sense that when spring comes around, plants are ready to take advantage of warmer temperatures, longer days and more sunshine. They resume growth after their winter dormancies and many rapidly produce flowers.

You’ve probably been spotting the sudden springtime explosion of flowers everywhere on your neighbourhood walks, your commute or in your own garden.

But why exactly do flowers go crazy in spring, and how do they know exactly when to show up for duty? Here’s the science.

Letting loose in a big rush

For many plants, the conditions for growth in spring are close to ideal. Water, warmth and sunlight are suddenly readily available.

Plants don’t have to hold back anymore. They can resume almost unconstrained growth and have the energy and resources to invest in flowering.

Your garden (or a patch of natural bush) is, in fact, a highly competitive environment.

Plants will rush to produce masses of flowers in the hope this will give individual plants an advantage in the reproductive race that ultimately might lead to seed and reproduction. This, after all, is the universal goal of biological success.

There is another factor, however, that also influences spring flowering.

The birds and the bees (and other insects)

Flowering plants (known as angiosperms) are relatively recent arrivals on the evolutionary time line. They first became significant during the Cretaceous Period, about 100 to 120 million years ago.

By then, insects had already been on the scene and evolving for millions of years. Birds had evolved more or less at the same time as these flowering plants, becoming more common during the Cretaceous Period too, but a few million years earlier.

These creatures, the plants noticed, were excellent at dispersing pollen and seeds. Many flowering plants evolved to use their helpful services.

Before the angiosperms, ancient plants used spores for reproduction. Conifers, which had evolved hundreds of millions of years before angiosperms, used wind to disperse their pollen. Seed dispersal was often limited, unreliable and slow.

Flowering plants needed to attract pollinators and seed dispersal vectors, such as insects and birds. Many developed flashy and showy flowers: the epitome of good advertising.

So flowering in spring coincides with the return of migratory birds and the life cycles of insects (insect activity usually declines over winter).

It makes great sense that many plants flower when the insects and birds so vital to their reproductive success are also getting active (and getting busy).

It is a matter of great timing that benefits all involved.

Timing is everything

The way flowering plants time their flowering is superb biology.

Many people assume warmer temperatures trigger spring flowering. But temperature is renowned for its variability and unpredictability. Temperature is not a good indicator of season or time.

So most plants measure day length using a green pigment called phytochrome (literally plant colour). This exists in two forms, one of which is active in triggering plant metabolism.

This phytochrome system enables plants to measure, with remarkable accuracy, both day length (also known as photoperiod) and the night length.

The ratio of the two forms allows plants to measure time like a biological clock.

Photoperiod is a very accurate and reliable measure of time and season and so plants nearly always get their flowering times in spring right.

In some plants there is an extra feature that can affect flowering, where the plants produce an inhibitor (abscisic acid) before winter that keeps them dormant.

Abscisic acid is cold-sensitive. So when spring comes, the inhibitor level is low. This, combined with photoperiod, helps initiate flowering.

The two mechanisms combined are a very reliable and consistent trigger for flowering.

Advantages to being a flower in spring

Flowering in spring means plants can use insects and birds to facilitate pollination and disperse seeds.

The pollen can be spread effectively and in a targeted way to other flowers of the same species. Less valuable pollen is wasted than if you’re relying on wind dispersal.

The seed can spread over much greater distances. The seed for many species will germinate during spring when growth conditions are highly favourable.

It’s not a coincidence flowering plants with this type of reproductive biology spread around the globe very quickly after their emergence during the Cretaceous Period.

They are highly efficient and successful plants.

Not everyone can be a flower in spring

So why don’t all flowering plants bloom in spring?

It is one of the delights of biology that there is nearly always room for contrarians and exceptions.

Some plants flower in autumn or perhaps during winter and some in summer, but there is always advantage in them doing so.

Sometimes it’s to avoid the fierce competition from all those other spring flowers in attracting pollinators.

Sometimes it’s because they are focused on a particular insect or bird vector that another season suits better.

Sometimes it’s because the plants can only survive in a highly competitive environment by not flowering in spring.

In the complex web of plant biology, a one-size-fits all approach never works.

Spring flowering has a lot going for it – as the current profusion of flowers attests – but many plants have made success of being different.

Gregory Moore 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 do flowers know it’s spring? A botanist explains – https://theconversation.com/how-do-flowers-know-its-spring-a-botanist-explains-264782

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah A. Walker, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology, Durham University

You’ve probably seen the word “narcissist” thrown around online in headlines, on dating apps or in therapy-themed TikToks. But the label that people often unthinkingly slap on toxic bosses or reality TV villains hides a much more complicated psychological picture.

Psychologists have studied narcissism for many years, but over time, our understanding has evolved. One of the biggest changes is that today, narcissism is no longer seen as just grandiosity, arrogance or egotism.

Early scientific descriptions of narcissism focused on dominance, ambition and self-importance, all of which are traits associated with traditional masculine stereotypes. That meant narcissistic tendencies in women were often misread or overlooked. When those traits show up as emotional sensitivity, insecurity or relational manipulation, they sometimes still are misdiagnosed as anxiety, mood disorders or borderline personality disorder traits.

The most extreme and persistent forms of narcissism can sometimes be diagnosed as narcissistic personality disorder. This condition was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual, in 1980. But most people with narcissistic tendencies won’t meet the threshold for a diagnosis.

So what does the research actually say?

Narcissism in general is now understood as a complex set of personality characteristics that can show up in different ways.

Psychologists had long suspected that there might be different kinds of narcissism, but it wasn’t until 1991 – when researcher Paul Wink and his colleagues presented a model including grandiose and vulnerable subtypes – that they were more formally recognised. Although there are other models, this remains one of the more popular approaches to understanding narcissistic tendencies in the wider population.

A 2021 review by US psychologist Joshua Miller and his colleagues pulled together decades of research to offer one of the most authoritative summaries of how psychologists now understand narcissism. It explains that narcissism has a common foundation, which includes things such as self-importance and entitlement. It then branches into different forms of narcissism, such as grandiosity, antagonism and vulnerability.

Researchers now often use the terms grandiose and vulnerable to describe two major forms of narcissism. One person with narcissistic traits may be bold with high levels of grandiose traits, confidence and emotional resilience. Another might be defensive, anxious and hypersensitive to criticism. Both show signs of narcissistic self-focus, but they end up looking quite different in how they experience and express emotion.

In a 2022 research paper I wrote with colleagues, we carried out the first meta-analysis examining how narcissistic traits relate to the ability to control one’s emotions. The results showed that vulnerable narcissism is consistently associated with greater emotional difficulty, which means these people might find it harder to keep their emotions in check.

In particular, people with high scores on vulnerable narcissism scales are more likely to rely on suppression. Suppression is a strategy that people use to hide or inhibit their emotional expressions, and has been linked to poorer wellbeing. On the surface, suppression might sound like self-control.

In some situations, it can be. For example, keeping a lid on your emotions when your boss is yelling at you. But trying to mute emotional expression without addressing the underlying emotions increases stress when it becomes our default strategy. It can worsen mental and physical health over time.

In contrast, grandiose narcissism wasn’t linked with emotion regulation difficulties. In fact, several of the studies included in our analysis suggest that people with higher levels of grandiose traits may not experience as much emotional distress in the first place. This challenges the popular idea among researchers that people who exhibit narcissistic tendencies are also experiencing emotional instability.

Emotional intelligence and self-perception

The differences between forms of narcissism show up in emotional intelligence research as well. In a 2021 systematic review on narcissism and emotional intelligence, my colleagues and I found that people with grandiose traits often said they were good at understanding and managing emotions. For instance, how well they think they can handle anger or recognise other’s emotions.

But when their skills were tested using emotion tasks (such as recognising facial expressions or identifying the best way to respond to an emotional situation), their performance didn’t always match up with how skilled they said they were. This is consistent with a 2018 study which also found that people with grandiose tendencies rated themselves as emotionally skilled but performed worse on skill-based emotional intelligence tasks compared to other participants.

In contrast, people with vulnerable narcissistic traits tend to rate themselves lower in emotional intelligence, and seem to genuinely struggle more with managing emotions in everyday life.

So what should we make of all this?

It’s time to move beyond the pop-psych trend of labelling difficult people as narcissists. Narcissism isn’t about taking too many selfies. And no, the partner who ghosted you or the colleague who dominates meetings isn’t necessarily high in narcissistic traits either – no matter how much we might like to complain about them over coffee.

These kinds of casual diagnoses aren’t just unhelpful, they’re often wrong.

Narcissism is a complex psychological pattern that can show up in different ways and can reflect a deeper struggle with things such as self-esteem, emotion regulation and social connection. Understanding this doesn’t excuse people’s bad behaviour – not at all. But it does help us look past the stereotypes to get a clearer picture of what narcissistic traits look like in everyday life.

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

– ref. What we’ve learned about narcissism over the past 30 years – https://theconversation.com/what-weve-learned-about-narcissism-over-the-past-30-years-258505

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Givi, Assistant Professor of Marketing, West Virginia University

Say you win a radio sweepstakes giving you two tickets to a sold-out concert the upcoming weekend. You eagerly text your friend and ask if they’d like to join.

Their response? “Maybe.”

Your mood immediately turns. You feel slighted rather than joyous as you’re left in limbo: Now you need to wait for your waffling friend to make a decision before you can figure out your plans for the concert.

I’m a consumer psychologist who has studied social decision-making for over a decade. And if you’ve experienced anything like the above anecdote, I can tell you that you’re not alone. People responding “maybe” to invitations is a common yet irksome aspect of social life. Recently, my co-authors and I published a series of studies examining what goes on in people’s heads when they aren’t sure whether to accept an invitation.

Leaving your options open

Social invitations can be a delicate dance, and people often misread what someone extending an invite wants to hear.

We consistently found that people overestimate an inviter’s likelihood of preferring a “maybe” over a “no.” Moreover, they fail to realize how much more disrespected people feel when they receive a “maybe” in response to their invitation.

Another pattern emerged: The more someone incorrectly assumed that a host preferred a tentative response, the more likely they were to respond with a “maybe” themselves.

Naturally, we wanted to figure out why this awkward dynamic plays out. We found that it’s largely due to something called “motivated reasoning.” Motivated reasoning occurs when a person interprets information in a biased way to arrive at a conclusion that aligns with their own wishes.

In other words, invitees convince themselves that inviters want to hear “maybe” instead of “no,” because a “maybe” is better for the invitee, allowing them to leave their options open. Saying “no” right off the bat eliminates one’s options and opens the door for FOMO, or fear of missing out, to emerge.

Just say ‘no’

That said, there were certain situations that made people more comfortable saying “no” to an invite.

In one study, we had recipients of an invitation put themselves in the shoes of the person extending the invite. This made them more likely to realize that they’d probably prefer a definitive answer. That is, it seemed to prevent motivated reasoning from emerging.

In another study, we had participants get invited to do something they didn’t want to do. We found that motivated reasoning then became irrelevant: They had no desire to keep their options open, so they were more likely to assume that a “no” was preferable to a “maybe.”

Interestingly, while invitations are a widespread aspect of social life, social scientists have only recently started studying them. For example, a 2024 study found that people tend to overestimate the negative consequences of saying “no” to invitations. They think it will upset, anger and disappoint inviters more than is the case. This could also be part of the reason that many people fail to realize that someone extending an invitation prefers a “no” to a “maybe.” Other research has explored whether people respond better to some reasons for declining an invite over others: saying you’re too busy, not great; saying you don’t have enough money to make it work, much better.

While navigating social situations can be tricky, our work suggests that being direct and definitive is sometimes best.

It might reduce your options. But it’ll keep those who invited you from being left in limbo – and maybe they’ll still think of you when the next concert comes to town.

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

– ref. When you’re caught between ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ here’s why ‘maybe’ isn’t the way to go – https://theconversation.com/when-youre-caught-between-yes-and-no-heres-why-maybe-isnt-the-way-to-go-263407

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Mathers, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University

After a meeting hosted by the French president, Emmanuel Macron on September 4, 26 countries have pledged to create a “reassurance force” to provide security guarantees for Ukraine in the event that a peace agreement with Russia is reached. The Russian president reacted by saying that Russia would target any European troops deployed in Ukraine.

He said if they appeared in Ukraine while Russia’s “military operation” was still underway, “we proceed from the fact that these will be legitimate targets for destruction”. And if a peace deal were eventually agreed, he added: “I simply do not see any sense in their presence on the territory of Ukraine, full stop.”

Russia is maintaining its demand that any peace deal should involve Ukraine ceding the regions it has occupied or part occupied: Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

But new evidence has come to light suggesting that Putin’s territorial ambitions in Ukraine go well beyond those regions.

A map, spotted in the background during a briefing given by Russia’s chief of the general staff, Valery Gerasimov, in August, shows the two countries divided by a thick black line. On the Russian side of the line are not only the five publicly claimed regions of Ukraine but also the territories of Odesa and Mykolaiv.

These areas, which hug the coastline of the Black Sea, are of considerable geostrategic significance. Russian occupation of Odesa and Mykolaiv would go a long way towards fulfilling one of Russia’s longstanding ambitions: domination of the Black Sea region.

Control of this territory would give Russia a land corridor to Transnistria, a breakaway region in eastern Moldova with strong pro-Russian sympathies. The leaders of Transnistria declared independence from Moldova following a civil war in the early 1990s. In a 2006 referendum, 97% of respondents supported Transnistria joining Russia. Russia currently has approximately 1,500 troops stationed there, and the territory has long been discussed in the west as a possible platform for a Russian invasion of Moldova.

Like Ukraine, Moldova was formerly part of the Soviet Union but is now orienting itself more towards western Europe and is currently seeking EU membership.

In addition to putting Russia in a strong position to exert pressure on Moldova, a more significant Russian presence in the Black Sea would increase Moscow’s ability to project power in neighbouring regions. This includes the Mediterranean, the Middle East and Africa.

Black Sea strategy

The Black Sea is also a vital site for east-west transport and communications. So much so that the European Union announced a Black Sea strategy in May 2025. The strategy recognises the region’s significance for different forms of security, including its importance for the environment, access to energy and other forms of trade and economic links. The EU plans to address these security issues by developing mutually beneficial partnerships with countries in the region.

Russian control of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast would be disastrous for Ukraine. It would mean the loss of Ukraine’s naval assets, which make extensive and effective use of maritime drones to target Russian ships and targets in occupied Crimea.

Being cut off from direct access to the Black Sea would also severely restrict Ukraine’s ability to export agricultural produce, an important source of income for an economy that has been hit hard by the war. Re-establishing and expanding Ukraine’s role as a producer of food for the world also forms the centrepiece of Kyiv’s efforts to build stronger relationships with Africa and other developing regions.

Putin’s hunger for ‘Novorossiya’

In addition to its strategic importance, these regions along Ukraine’s Black Sea coast also have special historical and symbolic significance for Putin’s Russia. Putin himself has described Odesa as a “Russian city” and claimed that the entire coastal area rightfully belongs to Russia as spoils of its war with Turkey in the 18th century.

The Black Sea coast also plays an important role in Putin’s use of Russian imperial history to justify his war against Ukraine. Empress Catherine the Great significantly expanded the Russian empire into southern Ukraine and Crimea. For more than a decade, Putin has presented his own actions in Ukraine as a continuation of Catherine’s legacy in increasing the territory controlled by Russia.

An important example of this practice came in April 2014, just weeks after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, when Putin used the phrase “Novorossiya” on Russian television. This is a term dating from Catherine the Great’s reign that refers to a large part of southern Ukraine, including Crimea. By invoking this historical term, Putin was signalling his intention to follow in the footsteps of the 18th century ruler and claim these lands for Russia.

In 2014, Moscow not only made a rhetorical claim on the city of Odesa and its surrounding region – it took active steps to turn that claim into reality. In the spring of that year, Russia used disinformation to persuade local people in eastern parts of Ukraine that the government in Kyiv did not have their best interests at heart and even posed a danger to them. At the same time, Russia provided money, weapons and training to local militant groups looking to stir up trouble.

These efforts were not limited to areas of the Donbas region, where they met with some success. They were also attempted in Odesa, where they were rebuffed.

More than a decade later, a map on the walls of Russia’s ministry of defence showing Odesa region as part of Russia demonstrates that Moscow has not abandoned its ambition to gather up lands that were once part of the Russian empire. As Kyiv’s European allies debate the extent of their involvement in providing security guarantees for Ukraine, there are still plenty of unanswered questions about the precise nature of the reassurance force being planned by the “coalition of the willing”.

But there is no question about the need for Ukraine’s international supporters to provide Kyiv with the strongest possible security guarantees.

Jennifer Mathers 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. Russia has provided fresh evidence of its territorial ambitions in Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/russia-has-provided-fresh-evidence-of-its-territorial-ambitions-in-ukraine-264592

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland

Australia is now meeting the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines on sugar, which recommend keeping sugar below 10% of daily energy intake.

New data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) shows there is less sugar in our diet from food and drinks than three decades ago.

In 1995, sugar – either added to foods or drinks by manufacturers, or found naturally in honey and fruit juices – made up about 12.5% of the energy (or kilojoules) we ate each day. This dropped to 10.9% in 2011–12 and then to 8.2% in 2023, even though our energy intake from all food and drink was down by less than 5%.

Importantly, we are now drinking far fewer sugary drinks than we were in the past. This includes drinks sweetened with sugar or artificial sweeteners, or both, such as soft drinks, cordials, fruit juices and energy drinks.

In 2011–12, around 42% of us had at least one of these drinks daily. By 2023, this fell to under 29%.

In 1995, almost three in four children (72%) drank a sugary drink every day. By 2023, this had dropped to just one in four (25%).

So, what’s behind this trend? And will it continue? Let’s take a look at the data.

Why the fuss about sugar?

We have known for a long time that having a lot of sugar is not ideal for our health. Sugary drinks and foods are considered discretionary or “sometimes” foods, because they provide little nutritional benefit while contributing excess energy or “empty calories” to our diet.

Having a lot of sugar in our diet can increase our risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes and tooth decay. Sweetened drinks don’t fill us up like regular meals, making it easy to underestimate the energy being consumed.

Most soft drinks contain about 40 grams (ten teaspoons) of sugar per serve, close to the daily recommended limit. Energy drinks may contain up to double that amount, while sports drinks may contain slightly less.

Three decades of data

The ABS asked whether people had drunk sugary drinks the day before, as well as collecting data about their daily diets. Here are some key takeaways:

• between 1995 and 2023, there was a 65.28% drop in the proportion of children drinking sugary drinks

• the number of adults drinking sugary drinks fell from 40.2% in 2011–12 to 29.9% in 2023

• but adults still consume about 5% more sugary drinks than children

• on average, Australians have less sugar in their diet than they did a decade ago.

This change isn’t just about soft drinks. We’re also reducing the amount of sugar in our tea and coffee, eating fewer lollies and desserts, and reaching for fruit juice a little less often.

Some of the most significant changes have been in Australian children. In the mid-1990s, children were getting almost one-fifth of their daily energy from sugar. Today that figure is closer to only one-eighth, and our overall energy intake is quite similar.

What’s behind the change?

The new data suggests that efforts from individuals, families, communities and some food manufacturers to reduce sugar intake over the past few years may be working.

This drop in sugary drinks may reflect a growing awareness of the negative effects of sugar due to social media campaigns, as well as clearer labelling on food and beverage products, increased public messaging, and industry changes, such as more brands offering lower-sugar alternatives.

But progress is only part of the story

Even though people are consuming less sugar, obesity rates continue to climb in kids and adults.

Researchers suggest this shows sugar is just one part of the story and that overall diet quality and broader eating patterns also play a big role in our health, rather than focusing on sugar alone.

Discretionary foods – including snacks, chips, convenience meals, chocolate and other highly processed foods – still make up around a third (31.3%) of the average Australian diet.

This means many of us are still regularly having sweet drinks and highly processed foods. Overall, these foods chip away at Australia’s recent progress by offering new and different sources of added sugars and excess energy that are still considered empty calories and carry their own health risks with little nutrition.

Read more:
Fresh fruit down, junk food up: our modelling suggests Australians’ diets will get worse by 2030

What should we do next?

The new data shows signs of real improvement in tackling the amount of sugar in our diets. But we aren’t in the clear yet.

To turn these positive trends about sugar into sustained improvements, we need to consider:

• stronger government action to support all communities in tackling broader challenges in the food system, such as food insecurity and limited access to healthy food, often leading to people eating more highly processed foods

• policies such as sugary drink taxes (used abroad with success), restrictions on marketing junk food to kids, and clear front-of-pack labels

• more incentives for industry to reformulate products to lower-sugar options where possible

• education campaigns to help communities and schools where high-sugar habits remain common learn about healthy alternatives without shame and stigma

• further data collection, so we can understand where sugar in diet comes from, beyond sugary drinks.

Although Australia may be losing its historically “sweet tooth”, ensuring a lasting change will take continued effort.

Lauren Ball receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Health and Wellbeing Queensland, Heart Foundation, Gallipoli Medical Research and Mater Health, Springfield City Group. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

Emily Burch 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.

Mackenzie Derry 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. Latest data suggests Australia is overcoming its sugar addiction – https://theconversation.com/latest-data-suggests-australia-is-overcoming-its-sugar-addiction-264700

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Noel D. Preece, Adjunct Asssociate Professor, James Cook University

In Far North Queensland, one special winged mammal helps keep rainforests alive. The spectacled flying fox travels vast distances each night, pollinating flowers and spreading seeds far and wide.

But the species is in trouble. It’s now listed as endangered, yet – as my new paper shows – little has been done to protect this vital species.

The spectacled flying fox has a PR problem. It can be seen as a noisy, smelly pest — especially when it roosts in urban areas. But this doesn’t justify inaction.

Local groups and scientists are working to protect the spectacled flying fox, but government support is lacking. Without urgent action, a species that helps hold rainforests together might be gone for good.

A spectacled forest saviour

The spectacled flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus) is named for the light-coloured fur around its eyes, which resembles spectacles. It’s found in the Wet Tropics and Cape York in Far North Queensland, and plays a vital role in the region’s rainforests.

Spectacled flying-foxes can fly more than 200 kilometres in a single night – leaving their roosts to find food and returning by morning.

The animals feed on the fruit and nectar of many tree species. They pollinate flowers and move fruits in their guts and mouths. This boosts biodiversity and helps keep trees healthy by preventing inbreeding.

Recovery plans aren’t enough

Global warming and habitat loss are the two biggest threats to the survival of the spectacled flying fox. Persecution by humans is also a threat.

The spectacled flying fox population is in sharp decline. Recent numbers are hard to come by, due to a lack of monitoring. But between 2004 and 2017, the species’ numbers fell by an estimated 75%, and it is listed nationally as endangered.

Authorities draw up “recovery plans” for some endangered species. The plans outline threats to a species, and the action required to prevent its extinction. Species that receive a recovery plan are considered fortunate. Many threatened species never get one.

The federal and Queensland governments jointly published a recovery plan for the spectacled flying fox in 2010, which expired in 2020.

Even a recovery plan does not prevent a species from declining. As I outline in my new paper, most of the 25 recovery actions for the spectacled flying fox haven’t happened.

They include protecting native foraging habitat, increasing knowledge of roosting requirements, and protecting important camps.

The National Flying Fox Monitoring Program did proceed. It provided scientific evidence that the spectacled flying fox population has declined, prompting a change in its status from vulnerable to endangered. However, the program is no longer operating.

Threats are growing

My paper also provides the first update since 2011 of threats to the spectacled flying fox.

Extreme heat is now a lethal reality for the species. For example, in 2018 a major heatwave in Cairns killed 23,000 individuals over several days. This was the first mass death recorded for the species.

Habitat destruction continues, despite the species’ endangered status. Every year, more than 2,000 hectares of forest – which could serve as habitat for the spectacled flying fox – is cleared.

Invasive ants are a new challenge. They can affect roosting behaviour in flying foxes and even kill animals such as skinks.

Introduced grasses are also a threat because they change forest airflows which keep the roosts cool and increase fire risk.

Humans also pose a threat. Spectacled flying foxes have been harassed and deliberately killed. They can also become caught in nets over fruit trees and die.

Some people consider the spectacled flying fox to be a nuisance. This can lead to damaging policies that prioritise public convenience over a species’ decline.

A PR problem

Spectacled flying-foxes can congregate in large numbers and become noisy and smelly. They can also roost in urban areas and drop faeces onto properties and public places. This soils paintwork, swimming pools, roofs and clothes on washing lines.

But these impacts can be minimised – for example, by installing pool covers and shade structures.

Flying foxes carry diseases that can cause illness in people and livestock. Most can be prevented by hygiene measures and avoided by not handling bats. People who regularly handle bats are inoculated to prevent infection.

Sometimes, flying foxes are wrongly accused of carrying certain diseases, as occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Flying foxes also eat fruits in gardens and orchards and can damage fruit trees. However, netting is available to protect fruit.

Looking ahead

Positive, citizen-led action is being taken to prevent the extinction of the spectacled flying-fox. For example, the Tolga Bat Hospital rescues individuals and advocates for the species.

Researchers are monitoring spectacled flying fox colonies using drones, and investigating the species’ heat tolerance. Research and monitoring is also being conducted through federal funding.

But the continued decline in numbers of the spectacled flying fox shows much more action is needed.

Governments are not required to publicly report whether recovery plans are acted on. This must change. And long-term, dedicated funding is needed for conservation and research.

The spectacled flying fox urgently needs our help. The problems they cause can be managed, and their ecological value far outweighs the nuisance.

I am a non-executive director of Terrain NRM Ltd, which may contract with the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland for works associated with the spectacled flying fox. I have no direct association with such contracts. I am also a founding member of the spectacled flying-fox recovery team, from which I derive no financial benefit. I was contracted by the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water to report on a meeting on the spectacled flying fox in 2023, which has now terminated.

– ref. Yes, spectacled flying foxes are noisy and drop poo everywhere. But our rainforests need them – https://theconversation.com/yes-spectacled-flying-foxes-are-noisy-and-drop-poo-everywhere-but-our-rainforests-need-them-264114

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvette Grant, PhD Candidate in Dance and Dance History Tutor, The University of Melbourne

September has seen the passing of two of Australia’s ballet legends, Colin Peasley and Garth Welch. Their passing signals the end of an era – but not the end of their influence. An examination of their lives shows us how much has changed for men and ballet in Australia.

Both born in the mid 1930s, their long lives have shaped ballet dancers, ballet dancing and ballet companies across Australia and beyond. However, while both were extensively influential their paths were very different.

Colin Peasley

Peasley, born in 1934, started dancing in Sydney very late at 21 years old. He lamented that, because of this late start, he was never really a dancer. In an interview with dance historian and critic Blazenka Brysha in 2004, Peasley says he felt that it would have been impossible as a boy to ask to study dance.

He came to ballet via the more socially acceptable ballroom dancing. His first “real” dance classes were modern dance classes with Gertrud Bodenweiser in Sydney around 1957.

In 1962, Peasley became a founding member of The Australian Ballet. He spent the remainder of his career – and most of his life – working with the company in various roles.

He was renowned for his character roles more than his technical prowess, dancing in roles such as the pompous and egotistical Gamache, suitor of Kitri in Don Quixote, and the skilled doll maker and alchemist, Dr Coppelius, in Coppelia.

Peasley continued performing character roles with the company until 2018.

He said he didn’t really have a consistent approach to developing a character but stated “the best character creation is the one that you’re not acting but the one you’ve taken and put on”.

In 1975, Peasley became the company’s ballet master: training dancers, passing down choreography and coaching for character roles. He also taught at The Australian Ballet School and later took on the more general role of education manager, until he retired from the company in 2012.

His passion for education led to him establishing in 1994 what is now known as the company’s education and outreach program. This significant program encourages the public to dance and includes workshops for rural, young and senior Australians.

While most of his legacy is embedded in The Australian Ballet company, he was also involved with other dance organisations such as Cecchetti Ballet Australia.

Garth Welch

Born in 1936, Welch trained in Brisbane in his youth and, at 18 years old, joined the Borovansky Ballet company – a Melbourne-based company led by Edouard Borovansky, who settled in Australia after Adolf Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia.

Welch always remembered his days with Borovansky very fondly. He quickly became a principal dancer and, after short engagements with two European companies, continued in that role with The Australian Ballet from 1962 to 1973.

Unlike Peasley, Welch was a more technically proficient dancer. He was known for his artistry and range as well as his stage presence.

He partnered and married fellow dancer Marilyn Jones. They had two sons who also went on to have ballet careers: Damien was a dancer, and Stanton is currently company director of Houston Ballet. Jones and Welch separated in the 1970s, and he spent 50 years with his partner Jak Callick.

Welch’s career was not only as a dancer but also a choreographer with his earliest recorded work being with The Australian Ballet in 1964, Variations on a Theme. He created a number of other works with the company and for companies in New Zealand and the Philippines.

Perhaps his most enduring work was Othello, which he choreographed in 1968 for The Australian Ballet School.

In the 1970s and 1980s he progressed to directorial roles with Ballet Victoria and The West Australian Ballet. In the 1980s and 1990s, he danced again with Graeme Murphy and The Sydney Dance Company, as well as teaching extensively across Australia.

Enduring legacies

These two men have deep and enduring legacies in ballet in Australia. One might be described as a character dancer and pedagogue of The Australian Ballet company; the other as an artist, choreographer and company director across Australia and beyond.

What is clear in this examination of their lives, however, is not only the depth and breadth of their influence but also how much attitudes to men and dancing have changed in the last 90 years.

In the 1930s, Peasley reported it was strange for men in Australia to want to dance. In the 2020s, it has become more normalised: last month, The Age reported even the Brighton Grammar School for boys, known for its cultivation of Australian footballers, has been running a popular dance program for the last three years.

Yvette Grant 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. Two profound but different ballet legacies: vale Colin Peasley and Garth Welch – https://theconversation.com/two-profound-but-different-ballet-legacies-vale-colin-peasley-and-garth-welch-264682

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shaban Sulejman, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Science, The University of Melbourne

Plastic pollution is everywhere: in rivers and oceans, in the air and the mountains, even in our blood and vital organs. Most of the public attention has focused on the dangers of microplastics. These are fragments smaller than 5 millimetres.

But an even smaller class of fragments, nanoplastics, may pose a greater risk to our health and our environment. With diameters of less than a micrometre (one millionth of a metre), these tiny particles can cross important biological barriers and accumulate in the body. Because they’re so tiny, detecting nanoplastics is extremely difficult and expensive. As a result, determining the extent of their impact has been largely guesswork.

A cheap, easy and reliable way to detect nanoplastics is the first step in addressing their potential impact. In our new study published today in Nature Photonics, my colleagues and I describe a simple, low-cost method that detects, sizes and counts nanoplastics using nothing more than a standard microscope and a basic camera.

Breaking down into ever-smaller pieces

What makes plastics useful is their durability. But that is also what makes them problematic.

Plastics do not disappear. They are not broken down by the ecosystem in the same way as other materials. Instead, sunlight, heat and mechanical stress slowly split the plastic apart into ever-smaller fragments. Larger pieces become microplastics, which eventually become nanoplastics once they are less than a micrometre in size.

At such a small size, they can pass through important biological safeguards such as the blood–brain and placental barriers. They can then start to accumulate in our organs, including our lungs, liver and kidneys. They can also carry other contaminants into our bodies, such as pollutants and heavy metals.

Yet, despite these dangers, real-world data on nanoplastics are scarce.

Today, detecting and sizing particles below a micrometre often relies on complex separation and filtration methods followed by expensive processes, such as electron microscopy. These methods are powerful. But they’re also slow, costly and usually confined to advanced laboratories.

Other optical laboratory techniques, such as dynamic light scattering, work well in “clean” samples. However, they struggle in “messy” real-world samples such as lake water because they cannot easily distinguish plastic from organic material.

An optical sieve

To address these issues, our international team from the University of Melbourne and the University of Stuttgart in Germany set out to make detection simple, affordable and portable.

The result of our collaborative work is an optical sieve: an array of tiny cavities with different diameters etched into the surface of a type of semiconductor material called gallium arsenide. Essentially, a collection of tiny holes, invisible to the naked eye, in a flat piece of a suitable material.

Physicists call these cavities “Mie voids”. Depending on their size, they produce a distinct colour when light is shone on them. When a drop of liquid containing nanoplastics flows over the surface, the nanoparticles will tend to settle into cavities that closely match their size.

Then, with a chemical rinse, mismatched particles wash away while matched ones stay tightly held in place by electromagnetic forces.

That part is simple. But it wouldn’t make the process cheaper or more portable if it still required a large, expensive electron microscope to visualise the trapped particles.

But here’s the key: when a particle is captured inside a cavity, it changes the colour of that cavity. This means filled cavities are easily distinguishable from empty ones under a standard light microscope with an ordinary colour camera, often shifting from bluish to reddish hues.

By observing colour changes, we can see which cavities contain particles. Because only certain-sized particles fill certain-sized cavities, we can also infer their size.

In our experiments, using nothing but our optical sieve, a standard light microscope and a simple camera, we were able to detect individual plastic spheres down to about 200 nanometres in diameter – right in the size range that matters for nanoplastics.

Putting it to the test

To validate the concept, we first used polystyrene beads in a clean solution. We observed clear colour changes for particles with diameters between 200 nanometres and a micrometre.

We then tested a more “real-world” sample, combining unfiltered lake water (including biological material) with clean sand and plastic beads of known sizes: 350 nanometres, 550 nanometres and a micrometre.

After depositing this mixture onto the optical sieve and then giving it a rinse, we were able to see distinct bands of filled cavities with diameters that matched the beads we had added.

This confirmed the optical sieve had successfully detected the nanoplastic particles in the lake water sample and determined their sizes. Importantly, this did not require us to separate the plastics from the biological matter first.

What’s next?

Our new method is a first step in developing a cheap, easy and portable method for routine monitoring of waterways, beaches and wastewater, and for screening biological samples where pre-cleaning is difficult.

From here, we are exploring paths to a portable, commercially available testing device that can be adapted for a range of real-world samples, especially those like blood and tissue that will be crucial in monitoring the impact of nanoplastics on our health.

The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of Lukas Wesemann to this article.

Shaban Sulejman receives funding from The University of Melbourne under a Ernst & Grace Matthaei Scholarship, the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, and the Australian Research Council.

– ref. New type of ‘sieve’ detects the smallest pieces of plastic in the environment more easily than ever before – https://theconversation.com/new-type-of-sieve-detects-the-smallest-pieces-of-plastic-in-the-environment-more-easily-than-ever-before-264593

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Dillon, Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

Australian supermarket giants Woolworths and Coles now face the prospect of a combined bill exceeding A$1 billion in relation to the alleged underpayment of close to 30,000 staff over several years.

These alarming liabilities were raised in statements issued by each company to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) on Monday, with updates to their estimated costs in the wake of a key Federal Court ruling on Friday.

It’s been a long-running matter. In 2021, the Fair Work Ombudsman commenced proceedings against Coles and Woolworths in the Federal Court, alleging the supermarket giants had made a series of underpayments dating back to 2015.

Those proceedings were heard in parallel with two class action lawsuits, brought in 2019 and 2020, which also alleged underpayments for Coles and Woolworths staff as early as 2013.

On Friday, Justice Nye Perram of the Federal Court delivered a judgment dealing with a variety of issues within the dispute. One particular focus was the use of “set-off” arrangements in employment contracts – simply put, agreements to bundle certain entitlements (such as overtime pay and penalty rates) owed under awards into higher base rates of pay.

The matter remains ongoing, with a number of further rulings possibly still to come. A case management hearing will be held on October 27 to determine how the future steps in the matter will be conducted.

But this recent ruling contains lessons for other employers in ensuring their employees are paid in-full and in compliance with the applicable award.

A bundle of benefits

In Friday’s ruling, Justice Perram noted the “basic problem common to each action” to be Coles and Woolworths’ use of what are called “set-off” arrangements.

Within such arrangements, employees are paid one salaried sum intended to fulfil their various entitlements under modern awards, including overtime pay and penalty rates. An employer “sets off” such entitlements by paying employees a higher base rate than is required under the relevant award.

Set-off arrangements are commonplace throughout Australia. In theory, they permit employers to streamline payroll processes and simplify the payment of worker entitlements.

Justice Perram found the supermarkets had, in implementing the set-off arrangements, failed to:

keep track of the entitlements of these employees under the award and hence, in many cases, did not pay entitlements which the employees properly had.

Record keeping

Under the Fair Work regulations, employers are required to keep records of employees’ overtime and rates of pay.

Justice Perram held that the supermarkets could not satisfy this requirement only by relying on set-off arrangements and requiring employees to fill out timesheets. Such records fell short of proving when employees had actually arrived at work or had finished.

Perhaps the most controversial set-off clause was one used by Woolworths, which purported to satisfy, “as far as possible”, all award entitlements by reference to a set rate of annual pay, calculated over a 26-week period.

The intention of the clause was to allow Woolworths to “set-off” employees’ above-award base rate against any award entitlements they had acquired in the preceding six months. If an employee had worked overtime hours over Christmas, for example, the payment for those hours could be set-off against higher base payments provided to the employee in July.

As Justice Perram discussed, one notable issue with this is the fact the award required the supermarkets to pay employees on either a weekly or fortnightly basis.

Justice Perram ruled in relation to the Woolworths clause, as well as five other similar clauses used by Coles, that the only way for the supermarkets to meet their obligations was to make payments within the relevant two-week pay period.

Relying on above-award payments given months earlier to justify not paying penalty rates would not comply with the award.

What’s next?

As Justice Perram observed, these proceedings are deeply complicated. They involve thousands of employees, “unique procedural challenges”, a series of parties and claims for significant amounts to compensate affected employees.

A case management hearing is next. This is where the parties and the court will try to reach an agreement on the next steps for the proceedings.

We may have to wait years for a final outcome. Given the complexity of these issues and the amounts at stake, appeals may also be forthcoming.

Lessons for other employers

For now, it is clear employers should take account of any set-off arrangements they have in place and review the drafting and implementation of such arrangements.

This ruling makes clear the extent of the risks to employers whose set-off clauses are either implemented deficiently or are non-compliant with modern awards.

Employers should also avoid relying only on set-off arrangements and employees’ fulfilment of timesheets for the purpose of complying with their record-keeping obligations.

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

– ref. Why a possible $1 billion bill for Coles and Woolworths has put a common employment clause in the spotlight – https://theconversation.com/why-a-possible-1-billion-bill-for-coles-and-woolworths-has-put-a-common-employment-clause-in-the-spotlight-264774

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

In their different ways, Liberal frontbenchers Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Alex Hawke are two bare-knuckle fighters.

Price, who switched from the Nationals in the (unachieved) hope of becoming deputy leader of the opposition, has made her career on cultivating a high profile by her outspokenness, culminating in her role in the “no” case in the Voice referendum.

Hawke is a factional brawler and enforcer. He used to be a Scott Morrison numbers man; now he protects Sussan Ley’s back. On the backbench under Peter Dutton, Ley made him industry spokesman, manager of opposition business in the House of Representatives and a member of the leadership group.

Price’s inflammatory comment about Indian immigration followed by her claims about a subsequent stoush with Hawke have created major problems for Ley, most obviously with the Indian community but also by exposing (again) party disunity.

Ley may have more potential appeal to some middle ground voters than Dutton did, but she lacks one important advantage he had – the willingness of Liberal followers to unite behind the leader.

Price was part of a leadership ticket with Angus Taylor (although she did not run for deputy when Taylor lost to Ley). As a result of the failure of the ploy, her move to the Liberals, rather than promoting her career, has ended up costing her clout and a major public presence.

She is now sidelined in the junior shadow ministry of defence industry. She doesn’t sound too comfortable when speaking on portfolio issues, which provide her little opportunity anyway. But she’s willing to launch into other issues.

Hence her claim on the ABC last week that Labor promoted Indian immigration because this cohort voted for it.

(RedBridge’s Kos Samaras said on a recent podcast, The Great Australian Multiculturalism Debate, “85% of the Indian diaspora voted for the Labor Party at the last election, thereabouts. It varies across the country.”)

After Price’s comment, appalled Liberals immediately attempted to mop up. Against the background of outrage from many in the Indian community, Ley said the comment was wrong and wouldn’t be repeated. Price herself had quickly retreated – but, crucially, did not apologise.

Ley put out a video, and on Sunday visited members of the Indian community at Little India in Harris Park, Sydney. But then Price struck another blow. In a damaging social media post, she described what she said had been Hawke’s reaction.

She accused him of “cowardly and inappropriate conduct”, berating one of her staff (ahead of reaching her personally), and of making an apparent indirect threat.

“He even pressed my staff that if I did not comply with his requests, I may end up like another female member of the Coalition,” Price said. This was a reference to Jane Hume, who had made a claim in the election campaign about “Chinese spies” helping Labor. Hume was demoted to the backbench by Ley.

“If people want to talk about a so-called ‘woman problem’ in the Liberal Party, then it’s this: we don’t stand up for women when they are mistreated by our own colleagues,” Price wrote.

Hawke denied most of Price’s claims, including that he had berated her staffer.

The contact by Hawke, a former minister for immigration, citizenship, migrant services and multicultural affairs, was prompted by wanting to urge Price to apologise, as well as to express his frustration with her comment. “I was of the view an apology would fix it quickly because she didn’t mean it. I said to her, I don’t think you’re a racist person,” Hawke said when giving his version of the exchanges on Sky on Monday.

“After those flyers we saw before the anti-immigration rallies, which singled out the Indian community, this was a particularly bad week for these comments,” he said.

For Hawke, the issue has a very practical element. His Sydney seat of Mitchell has a large Indian population. The seat is now marginal. And his Labor opponent at the last election was of Indian heritage.

In her long Sunday statement, Price claimed her ABC remarks had been taken out of context by some in the media and that she had never intended to disparage the Indian community. Indeed, she said, her own children had Indian ancestry.

By refusing to deliver an immediate apology, as many Liberals wanted, and by making public her fury against Hawke, Price ensured the issue would widen and its damage deepen. Within the Liberal Party there is some concern about the possibility of future private conversations with Price being weaponised.

The question of an apology became a test of strength between Price’s determination (or stubborness) and the Liberal Party’s authority.

On Monday, Ley held a round table with Indian community representatives, as well as an earlier-arranged meeting with members of the Chinese community.

Ley will put in every effort to try to repair relations with the Indian community. But memories linger on after such incidents. The Liberals are likely to live with the consequences of Price’s intervention for a long time.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Damage done by Jacinta Price’s Indian immigration comment likely to long haunt Liberals – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-damage-done-by-jacinta-prices-indian-immigration-comment-likely-to-long-haunt-liberals-263915

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ross Hendy, Lecturer in Criminology, Monash University

New Zealand police have tonight found two children, alone at a camp site in a remote location, after their fugitive father was shot dead during a burglary early on Monday morning.

The death of Tom Phillips came after almost four years on the run, hiding out in dense bush in the North Island’s western Waikato region.

Parallels have already been drawn with the ongoing search in Victoria for alleged police killer Dezi Freeman, who remains on the run and is believed to be hiding in old gold mine shafts in the Victorian high country.

Like Phillips, Freeman is also a skilled bushman, has local knowledge and likely sympathetic support in and around the area.

Tom Phillips disappeared with his three school-age children – now nine, ten and 12 – just before Christmas 2021, following a dispute with their mother. Despite various possible sightings, police had until now been unable to find the group.

But at about 2.30am on Monday, police were called to a burglary at a rural farm supply store near where the fugitive had been seen recently. Police believed the offenders to be Tom Phillips and one of his children, and deployed additional staff and a helicopter.

They used road spikes at an intersection the pair used to escape on a quad bike, and the fugitive fired multiple shots at the first attending police officer, causing serious injuries. A second police officer shot the offender, who died at the scene.

Attempts to apprehend

Phillips was wanted by police on charges including aggravated robbery, aggravated wounding and unlawful possession of a gun. But he managed to hide out in the wilderness with his children, relying on his bush craft and likely supported by some locals.

Like Freeman, Phillips chose to shoot his way out of legitimate and lawful attempts to bring them into custody. Their willingness to use lethal force to avoid apprehension creates life-and-death situations for those who are charged with the responsibility to bring them before the courts.

Their rejection of peaceful compliance also creates operational dilemmas for police. While standard police processes call for officers to contain an armed offender and appeal for surrender, offenders on the run who actively avoid apprehension present complications. Firearms obviously add a dangerous dynamic.

Having studied many shootings involving police officers in Australia, England and New Zealand, I can say many such events now tend to involve first-response officers rather than specialist squads. This suggests such incidents are becoming increasingly unpredictable.

The fatal encounter

At the time of Phillips’ disappearance, a custody dispute in the Family Court was ongoing and police were required to balance the welfare of the children, the requirement to enforce a court order, and the risks associated with taking parties into custody.

Police have consistently appealed for Phillips to surrender and engage with authorities regarding the custody dispute of his children. He has demonstrated a long history of avoidance and offending to support his evasion and his children’s survival.

The tragic end to this, and Phillips’ propensity to use lethal violence, show the depth of his conviction and his determination to evade capture. Photographs of the officer’s patrol car show it was shot at many times, suggesting Phillips’ mindset was not to resolve the matter peacefully.

It will take time for the sequence of events to be established, and rightly so. No doubt the second officer’s priority would have been to come to the aid of the injured officer, and to incapacitate the threat Phillips posed.

Police deployed the Special Tactics Group, the Armed Offenders Squad and the Police Negotiation Team to search for the remaining children. The use of these teams indicates police were concerned others may have been aiding or hiding them, but they were found alone at a camp, well and uninjured, and have been taken for medical checks.

Ross Hendy is a policing researcher who regularly works with police agencies. He is a former New Zealand police officer and is a member of the Police Registration and Services Board, Victoria.

– ref. Tom Phillips shooting in NZ shows what police face with skilled and desperate fugitives – https://theconversation.com/tom-phillips-shooting-in-nz-shows-what-police-face-with-skilled-and-desperate-fugitives-264776

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

This month, the Australian government will release its emissions-reduction target for 2035, likely to be between 65% and 75%. A 70% cut would mean reducing Australia’s emissions from about 440 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent down to 132 million tonnes.

Ahead of its release, a split has emerged over whether achieving rapid cuts to emissions in ten years will be a net cost or benefit to Australia. Last week, Australia’s top business lobby group released a report suggesting A$500 billion of investment would be needed to cut emissions 70% by 2035.

The report, by the Business Council of Australia, calls for an “ambitious” but “achievable” 2035 target on the path to net zero. But this report seems more likely to be used as ammunition by those opposing an ambitious target, because it includes costs – but no benefits. By contrast, an earlier Business Council report suggested climate action would give GDP a boost.

Cutting emissions requires both public and private investment. It can also spur on new industries. Climate change is already costing a great deal of money and will cost far more if allowed to continue unchecked.

Is climate action a net cost or benefit? To date, the most detailed analysis in both Australia and the United Kingdom give the same answer: when the escalating damage done by climate change is accounted for, climate action has vastly more benefit than cost.

The cost of action – without the benefits

The Business Council’s $500 billion estimate has already become the headline figure used in the media as an estimate of the “cost” of ambitious climate action. This is unfortunate.

The $500 billion figure refers to the estimated capital investment required to achieve a 70% reduction in greenhouse emissions.

This figure is towards the upper limit of a wide band. And while $500 billion sounds huge, it is only around 1% of Australia’s likely total GDP over the coming decade.

The Business Council report is also based on “current costs and technologies”. But many of the technologies needed to achieve net zero, such as renewable energy, electric cars and grid-scale batteries, have steadily become more efficient and affordable. These trends are unlikely to halt.

The report also omits any benefits. It did not include any longer-term considerations, such as the costs of climate inaction and climate impacts. Neither did it attempt to measure GDP benefits associated with new investment.

Climate investment brings benefits

Iron ore magnate and green industry backer Andrew Forrest has publicly challenged the Business Council report over the missing benefits, claiming it “underplays the opportunities for our economy”.

Forrest’s company, Fortescue, has led a breakaway high-ambition group of more than 500 businesses pushing for more ambitious emissions cuts.

This group – Business for 75% – recently released modelling suggesting cutting emissions by 75% rather than 65% over the next decade would increase investment by $20 billion a year. This would lead to a net benefit. Under a 75% reduction scenario, Australia’s GDP would be $227 billion higher than under a 65% reduction. There would be more exports and more jobs.

In 2021, the Business Council released a report on achieving a net-zero economy. The more comprehensive modelling here suggested substantial net benefits. On average, each Australian would be $5,000 (in today’s dollars) better off in 2050, assuming a smooth transition to net zero. Regional Australians would be even better off.

Who should we believe?

To date, arguably the most extensive modelling of the cost of climate action in Australia is the 2008 Treasury study, led by David Gruen, who is now the Australian Statistician.

The Treasury study concluded the economic cost of climate action in Australia would reduce the growth rate of real GDP by 0.1% per year.

These costs are much less than the economic damage expected from climate change. One estimate suggests:

The cumulative loss of wealth for Australia from the impacts of climate change on agricultural and labour productivity is expected to reach $4.2 trillion by 2100.

Globally, the 2006 Stern Review in the UK remains arguably the most respected and comprehensive study.

The review found cutting emissions to limit global heating would cost around 1% of the world’s GDP a year. That’s a lot. But it’s dwarfed by the damage climate change will do if allowed to continue – an estimated 5–20% of global GDP.

Estimates of how much climate change will cost have increased since then. Slow progress in reducing emissions has made action more urgent. Fortunately, the costs of renewable energy have dropped.

What does economics tell us?

Australian economists overwhelmingly recognise action is needed to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Most believe pricing carbon emissions is the most efficient method. This is an example of a Pigouvian tax – measures aimed at discouraging activities that cause other people harm.

Unfortunately, carbon pricing has been seen as politically unviable in Australia after a pioneering scheme was axed in 2014, despite recent interest.

What Australia has instead is the Safeguard Mechanism, which is akin to a carbon price. It sets gradually declining limits on emissions from Australia’s highest-emitting industrial facilities, which collectively produce almost a third of Australia’s greenhouse emissions. The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard will cut emissions from cars.

If politically viable, an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax would be the best approach. It would raise revenue for the government, which could be used to reduce or replace the most inefficient taxes. While critics might call it a tax on everything, it would bring widespread benefits.

Action stations

Many Australians like to think of themselves as minnows on climate change. But this is wrong.

The long economic success of wealthy Australia comes in part from cheap domestic coal and gas, as well as current exports of coal and liquefied natural gas. Australians are some of the highest per-capita emitters of greenhouse gases.

But Australia also has world-beating potential in green industries, from solar power to critical minerals to green iron. As a largely arid nation, it is likely to be hit hard by climate change.

Business leaders can often be cautious about change. But climate change will bring large, escalating and unwelcome change. The best modelling we have suggests the benefits of acting fast on climate far outweigh the costs.

John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist at Treasury and secretary of the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy.

– ref. Rapid climate action will come at a cost, according to the Business Council. But experts say the benefits are far larger – https://theconversation.com/rapid-climate-action-will-come-at-a-cost-according-to-the-business-council-but-experts-say-the-benefits-are-far-larger-264694