Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hunter Bennett, Lecturer in Exercise Science, University of South Australia

Imagine you have just finished a workout. Your legs are like jelly, your lungs are burning and you just want to collapse on the couch.

But instead, you pick yourself up and go for a brisk walk.

While this might seem counterintuitive, doing some light activity after an intense workout – known as “active recovery” – has been suggested to reduce soreness and speed up recovery after exercise.

But does it work or is it just another fitness myth?

What is active recovery?

Active recovery simply describes doing some low-intensity physical activity after a strenuous bout of exercise.

This is commonly achieved through low-intensity cardio, such as walking or cycling, but can also consist of low-intensity stretching, or even bodyweight exercises such as squats and lunges.

The key thing is making sure the intensity is light or moderate, without moving into the “vigorous” range.

As a general rule, if you can maintain a conversation while you’re exercising, you are working at a light-to-moderate intensity.

Some people consider doing an easy training session on their “rest days” as a form of active recovery. However, this has not really been researched. So we will be focusing on the more traditional form of active recovery in this article, where it is performed straight after exercise.

What does active recovery do?

Active recovery helps speed up the removal of waste products, such as lactate and hydrogen, after exercise. These waste products are moved from the muscles into the blood, before being broken down and used for energy, or simply excreted.

This is thought to be one of the ways it promotes recovery.

In some instances active recovery has been shown to reduce muscle soreness in the days following exercise. This may lead to a faster return to peak performance in some physical capabilities such as jump height.

But, active recovery does not appear to reduce post-exercise inflammation. While this may sound like a bad thing, it’s not.

Post-exercise inflammation can promote increases in strength and fitness after exercise. And so when it’s reduced (say, by using ice baths after exercise) this can lead to smaller training improvements than would be seen otherwise.

This means active recovery can be used regularly after exercise without the risk of affecting the benefits of the main exercise session.

There’s evidence to the contrary too

Not all research on active recovery is positive.

Several studies indicate it’s no better than simply lying on the couch when it comes to reducing muscle soreness and improving performance after exercise.

In fact, there’s more research suggesting active recovery doesn’t have an effect than research showing it does have an effect.

While there could be several reasons for this, two stand out.

First, the way in which active recovery is applied in the research varies as lot. It’s likely there is a sweet spot in terms of how long active recovery should last to maximise its benefits (more on this later).

Second, it’s likely the benefits of active recovery are trivial to small. As such, they won’t always be considered “significant” in the scientific literature, despite offering potentially meaningful benefits at an individual level. In sport science, studies often have small sample sizes, which can make it hard to see small effects.

But there doesn’t seem to be any research suggesting active recovery is less effective than doing nothing, so at worst it certainly won’t cause any harm.

When is active recovery useful?

Active recovery appears useful if you need to perform multiple bouts of exercise within a short time frame. For example, if you were in a tournament and had 10–20 minutes between games, then a quick active recovery would be better than doing nothing.

Active recovery might also be a useful strategy if you have to perform exercise again within 24 hours after intense activity.

For example, if you are someone who plays sport and you need to play games on back-to-back days, doing some low-intensity active recovery after each game might help reduce soreness and improve performance on subsequent days.

Similarly, if you are training for an event like a marathon and you have a training session the day after a particularly long or intense run, then active recovery might get you better prepared for your next training session.

Conversely, if you have just completed a low-to-moderate intensity bout of exercise, it’s unlikely active recovery will offer the same benefits. And if you will get more than 24 hours of rest between exercise sessions, active recovery is unlikely to do much because this will probably be long enough for your body to recover naturally anyway.

How to get the most out of active recovery

The good news is you don’t have to do a lot of active recovery to see a benefit.

A systematic review looking at the effectiveness of active recovery across 26 studies found 6–10 minutes of exercise was the sweet spot when it came to enhancing recovery.

Interestingly, the intensity of exercise didn’t seem to matter. If it was within this time frame, it had a positive effect.

So it makes sense to make your active recovery easy (because why would you make it hard if you don’t have to?) by keeping it in the light-to-moderate intensity range.

However, don’t expect active recovery to be a complete game changer. The research would suggest the benefits are likely to be small at best.

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. ‘Active recovery’ after exercise is supposed to improve performance – but does it really work? – https://theconversation.com/active-recovery-after-exercise-is-supposed-to-improve-performance-but-does-it-really-work-250068

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mia Schaumberg, Associate Professor in Physiology, School of Health, University of the Sunshine Coast

You may have noticed that changes in weight are sometimes accompanied by changes in your period.

But what does one really have to do with the other?

Maintaining a healthy weight is key to regular menstruation. Here’s why – and when to talk to your doctor.

The role of hormones

The menstrual cycle – including when you bleed and ovulate – is regulated by a balance of hormones, particularly oestrogen.

The ovaries are connected to the brain through a hormonal signalling system. This acts as a kind of “chain of command” of hormones controlling the menstrual cycle.

The brain produces a key hormone, called the gonadotropin-releasing hormone, in the hypothalamus. It stimulates the release of other hormones which tell the ovaries to produce oestrogen and release a mature egg (ovulation).

But the release of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone depends on oestrogen levels and how much energy is available to the body. Both of these are closely related to body weight.

Oestrogen is primarily produced in the ovaries, but fat cells also produce oestrogen. This is why weight – and more specifically body fat – can affect menstruation.

Can being underweight affect my period?

The body prioritises conserving energy. When reserves are low it stops anything non-essential, such as reproduction.

This can happen when you are underweight, or suddenly lose weight. It can also happen to people who undertake intense exercise or have inadequate nutrition.

The stress sends the hypothalamus into survival mode. As a result, the body lowers its production of the hormones important to ovulation, including oestrogen, and stops menstruation.

Being chronically underweight means not having enough energy available to support reproduction, which can lead to menstrual irregularities including amenorrhea (no periods at all).

This results in very low oestrogen levels and can cause potentially serious health risks, including infertility and bone loss.

Missing periods is not always a cause for concern. But a chronic lack of energy availability can be, if not addressed. The two are linked, meaning understanding your period and being aware of any prolonged changes is important.

How about being overweight?

Higher body fat can elevate oestrogen levels.

When you’re overweight your body stores extra energy in fat cells, which produce oestrogen and other hormones and can cause inflammation in the body. So, if you have a lot of fat cells, your body produces an excess of these hormones. This can affect normal functioning of the uterus lining (endometrium).

Excess oestrogen and inflammation can interfere in the feedback system to the brain and stop ovulation. As a result, you may have irregular or missed periods.

It can also lead to pain (dysmenorrhea) and heavier bleeding (menorrhagia).

Being overweight can sometimes worsen premenstrual syndrome as well. One study found for every 1 kg increase in height (m²) in body mass index (BMI), the risk of premenstrual syndrome went up by 3%. Women with a BMI over 27.5 kg/m² had a much higher risk than those with a BMI under 20 kg/m².

Read more:
What is premenstrual dysphoric disorder? And how is it different to PMS?

What else might be going on?

Sometimes weight changes are linked to hormonal balances that indicate an underlying condition.

For example, people with polycystic ovary syndrome may gain weight or find it hard to lose weight because they have a hormonal imbalance, including higher levels of testosterone.

The syndrome is also associated with irregular periods and heavy bleeding. So, if you notice these symptoms, it’s a good idea to talk to your doctor.

Similarly, weight changes and irregular periods in midlife might signal the start of perimenopause, the period before menopause (when your periods stop altogether).

When should I worry?

Small changes in when your period comes or how long it lasts are usually harmless.

Similarly, slight fluctuations in weight won’t usually have a significant impact on your period – or the changes may be so subtle you don’t notice them.

But regular menstruation is an important marker of female health. Sometimes changes in flow, regularity or the pain you experience can indicate there’s something else going on.

If you notice changes and they don’t feel right to you, speak to a health care provider.

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. I lost weight and my period stopped. How are weight and menstruation linked? – https://theconversation.com/i-lost-weight-and-my-period-stopped-how-are-weight-and-menstruation-linked-244401

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna M. Kotarba-Morley, Senior Lecturer in Museum and Curatorial Studies / Research Fellow, University of Adelaide

Archaeologists in Egypt have made an exciting discovery: the tomb of Pharaoh Thutmose II, a ruler who has long been overshadowed by his famous wife and half-sister, Queen Hatshepsut.

The remarkable find is located in the Western Valley (a burial ground for queens rather than kings), near the complex of Deir el-Bahari, which houses the funerary temple of Hatshepsut. Both of us worked together as archaeologists at this spectacular site some 15 years ago.

Thutmose II’s tomb has been labelled the first, and biggest, discovery of a royal tomb since Tutankhamun’s tomb was found just over 100 years ago.

Despite being totally empty, it’s a crucial element in further understanding a transformative period in ancient Egyptian history.

Hatshepsut’s forgotten brother and husband

Thutmose II (also called Akheperenre) reigned in the first half of the 15th century BCE. This made him the fourth ruler of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, which marked the beginning of the New Kingdom period.

Thutmose II likely ruled for a little over ten years, although some scholars believe his reign may have lasted only three years.

He was the son of a great pharaoh Thutmose I and his lesser wife, Mutnofret. He married his half-sister Queen Hatshepsut according to the royal custom, to solidify the rule and bloodline. Together they had a daughter named Nefrure.

Upon his death, his wife Hatshepsut became the sixth pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty – and arguably one of the most famous and successful female rulers of all time.

Military activities

As the successor of Thutmose I, Thutmose II continued his father’s military policy in the southern regions of Egypt.

According to preserved inscriptions, he ordered the brutal suppression of a rebellion against Egyptian rule in the land of Kush (in present-day north Sudan). As a result, a significant number of prisoners were brought to Egypt – possibly as part of a campaign.

But Thutmose II’s military campaigns were minor in comparison to the grand conquests of his predecessors and successors. Most historians believe he was a weak ruler and that Hatshepsut had a major role in governing the country, even long before his death. However, others contest this.

Thutmose II’s short reign left modest traces of building activity in Karnak, one of the largest religious centres in ancient Egypt, located in present-day Luxor.

The structure, of which only fragments survive, features a unique decoration depicting Thutmose II, Hatshepsut as his royal wife before she became a ruler, and their daughter Nefrure. The origins of the monument are uncertain. It’s possible Thutmose II started it and Hatshepsut finished it.

The monument was reconstructed by French researchers and can now be admired at the Open Air Museum in Karnak.

Other monuments of Thutmose II were found in the southern regions of Egypt, such as in Elephantine, in the city of Aswan, and in northern Sudan (likely connected to his military campaigns).

The condemnation of Hatshepsut’s memory

Interestingly, the name of Thutmose II became strongly associated with many of Hatshepsut’s constructions due to the actions of Thutmose III.

Regarded as one of the greatest warriors, military commanders and military strategists of all time, Thutmose III was the nephew and stepson of Hatshepsut, and co-ruled with her as a regent.

At the end of Thutmose III’s reign, some 20 years after Hatshepsut’s death, he carried out a large-scale campaign to remove or alter Hatshepsut’s names and images. Scholars call this “damnatio memoriae”, or condemnation of the memory.

This was likely due to concerns about securing the throne for his successor, Amenhotep II, by linking him to his male ancestors.

In many cases, Hatshepsut’s name was replaced with that of Thutmose II, making him the principal celebrant in temples built by Hatshepsut, such as in Deir el-Bahari.

What does Thutmose II’s empty tomb tell us?

The newly discovered tomb reveals fresh details about the status of Thutmose II and his role in the sociopolitical structure of 15th century BCE Egypt – a period of territorial expansion, wealth and political intrigue. It also sheds light on the perception of his rule at the time.

Thutmose II has been painted as an ineffectual ruler. And the latest findings don’t contradict this.

Unlike his father Thutmose I, who expanded Egypt’s reign through military strength, or his stepson Thutmose III, who became one of the most famous Egyptian warrior-kings, his modest tomb suggests his legacy may not have been as widely celebrated as others in his dynasty.

The tomb’s location is also intriguing, as it is near the tombs of royal wives, including the cliff tomb of Hatshepsut, which was prepared for her when she was still a royal wife.

Thutmose II’s mummy was discovered in the so-called Royal Cache in Deir el-Bahari in 1881, alongside other royal mummies. Many royal mummies were relocated here for protection from flooding and during the uncertain times of the 21st Dynasty (circa 1077–950 BCE), some 400–500 years after Thutmose II’s original burial.

However, experts suspect Thutmose II’s tomb might have been emptied even earlier due to flooding from a waterfall above it.

The two of us speculate another tomb may have been built for him, and is still awaiting discovery.

Ultimately, Thutmose II’s reign remains shrouded in mystery due to the lack of available records. The search for his tomb – from Western Valley, through the Valley of the Kings, all the way to Deir el-Bahari – spanned centuries.

Despite its poorly preserved state, and its scarcity compared with Tutankhamun’s splendorous tomb, this discovery will expand our understanding of the overlooked figure of Thutmose II, and the role he played in setting up the reign of Hatshepsut – arguably the most successful of the four female pharaohs.

In fact, paving the way for the ascent of Hatshepsut may have been his greatest contribution.

Anna M. Kotarba-Morley receives funding from Australian Research Council and previously received funding from National Centre of Science in Poland.

Katarzyna Kapiec receives funding from National Science Centre in Poland

– ref. It’s the biggest Egyptian tomb discovery in a century. Who was Thutmose II? – https://theconversation.com/its-the-biggest-egyptian-tomb-discovery-in-a-century-who-was-thutmose-ii-250432

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William Partlett, Associate Professor of Public Law, The University of Melbourne

A month in, and it is clear even to conservatives that US President Donald Trump is attempting to fundamentally reshape the role of the American president.

Trump and his supporters sees the natural authority of the American president in broad terms, similar to those of the Russian president, or a king. Trump, in fact, has already likened himself to a king.

This desire to “Russify” the presidency is not an accident: Trump and many of his supporters admire the king-like power that Vladimir Putin exercises as Russian president.

Understanding how Trump is attempting to transform presidential power is key to mobilising in the most effective way to stop it.

Decrees by a ‘king’

Russia’s system of government is what I call a “crown-presidential” system, which makes the president a kind of elected king.

Two powers are central to this role.

First, like a king, the Russian “crown-president” does not rely on an elected legislature to make policy. Instead, Putin exercises policy-making authority unilaterally via decree.

Putin has used decrees to wage wars, privatise the economy and even to amend the constitution to lay claim to the parts of Ukraine occupied by Russia since 2014.

He has also used these decrees in a performative way, for example, by declaring pay raises for all Russian state employees without any ability to enforce it.

Over the last month, Trump has made similar use of decrees (what the White House now terms “presidential actions”).

He has issued scores of presidential decrees to unilaterally reshape vast swathes of American policy – far more than past presidents. Trump sees these orders as a way of both exercising and demonstrating his vast presidential power.

Control over the bureaucracy

Second, like a king, Putin does not allow the Russian legislature to use the law to organise the executive branch and create agencies independent of presidential control. Instead, he has unquestioned dominance over both the organisation and staffing of the executive branch. This has given him vast power to dominate politics by controlling information gathering and legal prosecutions.

A similar push is underway in the United States. Trump has appointed key loyalists to head the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Moreover, he is seeking to restructure the executive branch by abolishing some agencies altogether and vastly reducing the size of the workforce in others.

Can the courts stop Trump?

Trump’s attempt to Russify the American presidency undermines the American constitutional order.

Courts are the natural “first responders” in this kind of crisis. And many courts have blocked some of Trump’s early decrees.

This legal response is important. But it is not enough on it own.

First, the US Supreme Court might be more willing to accept this expansion of presidential power than lower courts. In a ruling last year, for example, the court granted the president immunity from criminal prosecution, showing itself to be sympathetic to broad understandings of executive power.

Second, presidential decrees can be easily withdrawn and modified. This can allow Trump and his legal team to recalibrate as his decrees are challenged and find the best test cases to take to the Supreme Court.

Third, parts of the conservative right have long argued for a far more powerful president. For instance, the idea of a “unitary executive” has been discussed in conservative circles for years. This essentially claims that the president should be able to direct and control the entire executive branch, from the bureaucracy to prosecutors to the FBI.

These arguments are already being made to justify Trump’s actions. As Elon Musk has said, “you could not ask for a stronger mandate from the public” to reform the executive branch. These arguments will be made to courts to justify Trump’s expansion of power.

Fourth, even if the Supreme Court does block some decrees, it is possible the White House will simply ignore these actions. We had an early glimpse of this when Trump posted that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”.

Vice President JD Vance has also said judges “aren’t allowed” to block the president’s “legitimate power”.

The importance of political mobilisation and messaging

Trump’s aggressive use of presidential power is not just a constitutional crisis, it is a political one. For those seeking to resist, this is too important to just be left to the courts; it must also involve America’s key political institutions.

The most obvious place to start is in Congress. Lawmakers must act decisively to assert the legal power granted to them in the constitution to check the power of the presidency. This would include active Congressional use of its budgeting power, as well as its oversight powers on the presidency.

This could happen now if a few Republicans were to take a principled position on important constitutional issues, though nearly all have so far preferred to fall in line. Democrats could retake both branches of Congress in the midterm elections in 2026, though, and assert this power.

The states can and should also act to resist this expansion of presidential power. This action could take many forms, including refusing to deploy their traditional police powers to enforce decrees they view to be unconstitutional or unlawful.

In mobilising to defend the constitution, these institutions could appeal to the American people with more than the narrow legal argument that Trump’s acts are unconstitutional. They could also make the broader political argument that turning the American president into a Russian-style, elected king will foster a form of inefficient, unresponsive and corrupt politics.

Or, in the words of The New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, “it’s the corruption, stupid”.

Time is of the essence. Russia shows the more time a “crown-president” is able to operate, the more entrenched this system becomes. For those hoping to preserve American democracy, the time is now for not just legal, but political resistance.

William Partlett 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. Trump is ruling like a ‘king’, following the Putin model. How can he be stopped? – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-ruling-like-a-king-following-the-putin-model-how-can-he-be-stopped-249721

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Herrington, Futures Specialist, School of Cybernetics, Australian National University

Thirty-four artworks created with artificial intelligence (AI) have gone up for sale at Christie’s in New York, in the famed auction house’s first collection dedicated to AI art.

Christie’s says the collection aims to explore “human agency in the age of AI within fine art”, prompting viewers to question the evolving role of the artist and of creativity.

Questions are not all the collection has prompted: there has also been a backlash. At the time of writing, more than 6,000 artists have signed an open letter calling on Christie’s to cancel the auction.

What’s in the collection?

The Augmented Intelligence collection, up for auction from February 20 to March 5, spans work from early AI art pioneers such as Harold Cohen through to contemporary innovators such as Refik Anadol, Vanessa Rosa and Sougwen Chung.

The showcased pieces vary widely in their use of AI. Some are physical objects, some are digital-only works – sold as non-fungible tokens or NFTs – and others are offered as both digital and physical components together.

Some have a performance aspect, such as Alexander Reben’s Untitled Robot Painting 2025 (to be titled by AI at the conclusion of the sale).

After generating an initial image tile, the work iteratively expands outwards, growing with each new bid in the auction. As the image evolves digitally, it is translated onto a physical canvas by an oil-painting robot. The price estimate for the work ranges from US$100 to US$1.7 million, and at the time of writing the bid sits at US$3,000.

Claims of exploitation

The controversy surrounding this show is not surprising. Debates over the creation of AI art have simmered ever since the technology became widely available in 2022.

The open letter calling for the auction to be cancelled argues that many works in the exhibition use “AI models that are known to be trained on copyrighted work without a license”.

The letter says:

These models, and the companies behind them, exploit human artists, using their work without permission or payment to build commercial AI products that compete with them.

The models in question include popular image generators such as Stable Diffusion, Midjourney and DALL-E.

The letter continues:

[Christie’s] support of these models, and the people who use them, rewards and further incentivizes AI companies’ mass theft of human artists’ work.

Copyright and cultural appropriation

There are several attempts by artists to bring legal proceedings against AI companies underway. As yet, the key question remains unresolved: by training AI models on existing artworks, do AI models infringe artists’ copyright, or is this a case of fair use?

Artists who are critical of AI are rightly concerned about losing their incomes, or their skills becoming irrelevant or outdated. They are also concerned about losing their creative community – their place in the creative ecosystem.

Last year, Indigenous artists withdrew from a Brisbane art prize, highlighting concerns about AI and cultural appropriation.

At the same time, many AI artists don’t use copyrighted material. Refik Anadol, for instance, has stated that his work in the Christie’s collection was made using publicly available datasets from NASA.

How the ‘work’ of art is changing

The Christie’s event occurs during a major shift in what it means to be an artist, and to be creative. Some participants in the show even question whether the label of “artist” is even necessary or required to make meaningful imagery and artefacts.

Many non-artists may wonder – if AI is used, where is the real “work” of art? The answer is that many forms of work will look different in the age of AI, and creative endeavours are no exception.

Creativity gave humans an evolutionary edge. What happens if society censors or undermines certain forms of creativity?

Clinging to traditional ideas about how things are done ignores the bigger picture. When used thoughtfully, technology can stretch our creative potential.

And AI cannot make art without human artists. Creating with new technologies requires context, direction, meaning, and an aesthetic sense.

In the case of the Christie’s auction, artists are doing much more than typing in prompts. They iterate with data, refine models, and actively shape the end result.

This evolving relationship between humans and machines reframes the creative process, with AI becoming more like a “conversational partner”.

What now?

Calling for the Christie’s auction to be cancelled may be shortsighted. It oversimplifies a complex issue and sidesteps deeper questions about how we should think about authorship, what authenticity means, and the evolving relationship between artists and the tools they use.

Whether we embrace or resist AI art, the Christie’s auction pushes us to rethink artistic labour and the creative process.

At the same time, Christie’s may need to take more care to produce collections that are sensitive to contemporary issues. Artists have real concerns about loss of work and income. A “move fast and break things” approach feels ill-suited to the thoughtfulness associated with artistic production.

Beyond protest, more education and collaboration is required overall. Artists who do not adapt to new technologies and ways of creating may be left behind.

Equally important is ensuring AI does not diminish human agency or exploit creatives. Discussions around achieving sustainable and inclusive AI could follow other sectors focusing on equally sharing benefits and having rigorous ethical standards.

Examples might come from the open source community (and organisations such as the Open Source Initiative), where licensing and frameworks allow contributors to benefit from collective development. And in the tech realm, some software companies (such as IBM) do stand out for their rigorous approach to ethics.

Rather than cancelling the Christie’s auction, perhaps this is a moment for us to reimagine how we do creativity and adapt with AI.

But are artists – and audiences – prepared for a future where the nature of being an artist, and creativity itself, is radically different?

Jessica Herrington 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. Creative progress or mass theft? Why a major AI art auction is provoking wonder – and outrage – https://theconversation.com/creative-progress-or-mass-theft-why-a-major-ai-art-auction-is-provoking-wonder-and-outrage-250157

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – Co-Authored by Graeme Austin, Chair of Private Law, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington, and Jane C Ginsburg, Morton L Janklow Professor of Literary and Artistic Property Law, Columbia University.

Not that long ago, the term “deepfake” wasn’t in most people’s vocabularies. Now, it is not only commonplace, but is also the focus of intense legal scrutiny around the world.

Known in legal documents as “digital replicas”, deepfakes are created by artificial intelligence (AI) to simulate the visual and vocal appearance of real people, living or dead.

Unregulated, they can do a lot of damage, including financial fraud (already a problem in New Zealand), political disinformation, fake news, and the creation and dissemination of AI-generated pornography and child sexual abuse material.

For professional performers and entertainers, the proliferation and increasing sophistication of deepfake technology could demolish their ability to control and derive income from their images and voices.

And deepfakes might soon take away jobs: why employ a professional actor when a digital replica will do?

One possible solution to this involves giving individuals the ability to enforce intellectual property (IP) rights to their own image and voice. The United States is currently debating such a move, and New Zealand lawmakers should be watching closely.

Owning your own likeness

Remedies already being discussed in New Zealand include extending prohibitions in the Harmful Digital Communications Act to cover digital replicas that do not depict a victim’s actual body.

Using (or amending) the Crimes Act, the Fair Trading Act and the Electoral Act would also be helpful.

At the same time, there will be political pressure to ensure regulation does not stymie investment in AI technologies – a concern raised in a 2024 cabinet paper.

Legislation introduced to the US Congress last year – the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Bill – proposes a new federal intellectual property right that individual victims can use against creators and disseminators of deepfakes.

Known informally as the “No Fakes Bill”, the legislation has bipartisan and industry support, including from leading entertainment worker unions. The US Copyright Office examined the current state of US law and concluded that enforceable rights were “urgently needed”.

From the New Zealand perspective, the No Fakes Bill contains both helpful ideas and possible pitfalls. As we discuss in a forthcoming paper, its innovations include expanding IP protections to “everyday” individuals – not just celebrities.

All individuals would have the right to seek damages and injunctions against unlicensed digital replicas, whether they’re in video games, pornographic videos, TikTok posts or remakes of movies and television shows.

But these protections may prove illusory because the threshold for protection is so high. The digital replica must be “readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual”, but it’s not clear how identifiable the individual victim of a deepfake needs to be.

Well known New Zealand actors such as Anna Paquin and Cliff Curtis would certainly qualify. But would a New Zealand version of the bill protect an everyday person, “readily identifiable” only to family, friends and workmates?

Can you license a digital replica?

Under the US bill, the new IP rights can be licensed. The bill does not ban deepfakes altogether, but gives individuals more control over the use of their likenesses. An actor could, for example, license an advertising company to make a digital replica to appear in a television commercial.

Licences must be in writing and signed, and the permitted uses must be specified. For living individuals, this can last only ten years.

So far, so good. But New Zealand policy analysts should look carefully at the scope of any licensing provisions. The proposed IP right is “licensable in whole or in part”. Depending on courts’ interpretation of “in whole”, individuals could unknowingly sign away all uses of their images and voice.

The No Fakes Bill is also silent on the reputational interests of individuals who license others to use their digital replicas.

Suppose a performing artist licensed their digital replica for use in AI-generated musical performances. They should not, for example, have to put up with being depicted singing a white supremacist anthem, or other unsanctioned uses that would impugn their dignity and standing.

Protectng parody and satire

On the other side of the ledger, the No Fakes Bill contains freedom of expression safeguards for good faith commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire and parody.

The bill also protects internet service providers (ISPs) from liability if they quickly remove “all instances” of infringing material once notified about it.

This is useful language that might be adopted in any New Zealand legislation. Also, the parody and satire defence would be an advance on New Zealand’s copyright law, which currently contains no equivalent exception.

But the US bill contains no measures empowering victims to require ISPs to block local subscribers’ access to online locations that peddle in deepfakes. Known as “site-blocking orders”, these injunctions are available in at least 50 countries, including Australia. But New Zealand and the US remain holdouts.

For individual victims of deepfakes circulating on foreign websites that are accessible in New Zealand, site-blocking orders could offer the only practical relief.

The No Fakes Bill is by no means a perfect or comprehensive solution to the deepfakes problem. Many different weapons will be needed in the legal and policy armoury – including obligations to disclose when digital replicas are used.

Even so, creating an IP right could be a useful addition to a suite of measures aimed at reducing the economic, reputational and emotional harms deepfakes can inflict.

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. Deepfakes can ruin lives and livelihoods – would owning the ‘rights’ to our own faces and voices help? – https://theconversation.com/deepfakes-can-ruin-lives-and-livelihoods-would-owning-the-rights-to-our-own-faces-and-voices-help-249929

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Soltani, Mid-Career Researcher, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University

In the past 12 months, more than 1,300 people have died on Australia’s roads. In January alone, there were 114 road deaths in Australia – roughly 20% more than the average for that month over the previous five years.

Our new study projects these tragedies are set to continue over the next 25 years, despite a commitment by Australian governments to achieving zero deaths on the nation’s roads by 2050.

Published in the journal Injury, our study uses a modelling tool to forecast the number of road fatalities in 2030, 2040 and 2050. Importantly, it also identifies the people and regions at higher risks, which provides an opportunity for taking a more nuanced and targeted approach to road safety.

Clear trends

Improved vehicle safety technology, stricter traffic laws and public awareness campaigns have led to a significant drop in the number of road deaths over the past several decades in Australia. But tragically, the number of people dying on Australia’s roads is still high.

The data reveal some clear trends. For example, weekdays see fewer fatalities, likely due to routine commuting and lower-risk behaviours. On the other hand, weekends, particularly Saturdays, experience spikes linked to alcohol consumption and more social travel.

December emerges as the deadliest month. This is likely driven by holiday travel surges, with secondary peaks in March and October tied to school holidays and seasonal weather changes that affect road conditions.

Geographic disparities further complicate the picture. Urban centres in New South Wales and Victoria such as Sydney and Melbourne account for 35% to 40% of fatalities, in part because of dense traffic volumes, complex intersections and pedestrian-heavy zones.

In contrast, rural and remote areas, though less congested, have more severe road accidents because of inadequate road infrastructure and higher speed limits. For example, the Northern Territory, with vast stretches of high-speed highways, records the highest fatality rate, while the Australian Capital Territory, with its urban planning emphasis on safety, reports the lowest.

Speed zones of 51–80 km/h are particularly lethal for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. This underscores the crucial role of speed management in urban and rural areas alike.

Demographic risks also remain entrenched. For example, men constitute more than 70% of fatalities – in part because they are more likely to engage in risky behaviour such as speeding and drunk driving. Young drivers (17–25 years) and middle-aged adults (40–64 years) are also over-represented due to a combination of inexperience, overconfidence and high mileage.

In good news, child fatalities (0–16 years) have sharply declined. This reflects the success of targeted measures like child seat laws and school zone safety campaigns.

35 years of data

To forecast these trends over the next 25 years, our new study used a modelling tool called Prophet developed by tech company Meta.

We fed 35 years of road data – from 1989 to 2024 – into the model. This data came from Australia’s Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics. It incorporated variables such as road user type, age, gender, speed limits and geographic location.

To refine predictions, we also incorporated public holidays such as Christmas and Easter.

Prophet outperformed other models we tested, including SARIMA and ETS. It did a better job at modelling past changes in road safety. And it especially excelled at handling non-linear trends, multiple seasonal patterns (daily, weekly, yearly) and the effects of holiday periods.

An unmet target

The findings of the study are cause for some cautious optimism.

Overall, by 2050 fatalities are expected to decline. But Australia’s ambitious zero fatality target by the middle of the century will remain unmet.

The modelling indicates annual male fatalities will drop from 855 in 2030 to 798 in 2050, while female fatalities will plummet from 229 to 92.

There will also be a drop in the number of child fatalities – from 37 in 2030 to just two in 2050. But the model shows a troubling rise of the number of older drivers (over 65) dying on Australia’s roads – from 273 in 2030 to 301 in 2050. This reflects Australia’s ageing population, with more people expected to have both reduced mobility and reduced reflexes.

Motorcyclist fatalities buck the overall trend, rising from 229 in 2030 to 253 in 2050. This signals urgent needs for dedicated lanes and better rider education.

Regionally, Queensland and the Northern Territory lag due to rural road risks. Urban areas with speed limits lower than 80 km/h show steadier declines.

A shared priority

Based on these findings, our study provides several recommendations to mitigate the risk of death on Australia’s roads.

Speed management: enforce dynamic speed limits in high-risk zones such as school areas and holiday corridors, and expand 80 km/h zones on rural highways.

Targeted campaigns: launch gender-specific safety initiatives for men (for example, anti-speeding programs) and age-focused interventions, such as mandatory refresher courses for drivers over 65.

Infrastructure upgrades: invest in rural road safety such as median barriers and better signage, as well as dedicated cyclist pathways.

Technology integration: accelerate the adoption of autonomous vehicles to reduce crashes caused by human error and risky behaviours, and pilot artificial intelligence-driven traffic systems for real-time hazard detection.

Expand public transport: subsidise off-peak travel and rural transit networks to reduce how much people – particularly high-risk groups – depend on car travel.

Better enforcement: strengthen weekend and nighttime policing of roads and deploy more mobile speed cameras during peak holiday periods.

By following these recommendations, Australia can move closer to its vision of safer roads. Our findings underscore that sustained progress demands not only rigorous policy, but also community engagement.

Ali Soltani has received funding from the Flinders Foundation, the National Road Safety Action Grant (NRSAGP), and the Lifetime Support Authority Grant in 2024. He is also a FIAS (French Institute of Advanced Studies) Fellow, Le Studium, under the Marie Curie Actions of the European Commission (2024–25). Additionally, he has affiliations with the Planning Institute of Australia, SA Branch, and has received multiple research and travel grants.

– ref. Australia wants zero road deaths by 2050 – but there’s a major hurdle – https://theconversation.com/australia-wants-zero-road-deaths-by-2050-but-theres-a-major-hurdle-250371

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Garrow, Editorial Web Developer

As we head towards a federal election, the Labor government recently announced a funding package worth A$573 million for women’s health.

The funding includes $100 million to support two national trials for pharmacies to provide the oral contraceptive pill and treatments for uncomplicated urinary tract infections over the counter.

The question of whether or not pharmacists should be able to provide the oral contraceptive pill without a prescription from a GP has long been a topic of debate.

We asked five experts for their thoughts. Should pharmacists be able to provide the pill over the counter without a script?

Four out of five said yes. Here are their detailed responses.

– ref. 5 experts: should pharmacists be able to provide the pill over the counter without a script? – https://theconversation.com/5-experts-should-pharmacists-be-able-to-provide-the-pill-over-the-counter-without-a-script-249840

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Renee Desmarchelier, Associate Professor, Critical Pedagogies, University of Southern Queensland

In 1987, UK researchers lamented how schools were organised “around the assumption that the nuclear family is the norm”. Families who did not fit this model were “either ignored (tactfully) or categorised as abnormal”.

Several generations have passed through schools since then. And as we know, it remains very common for parents to be separated or divorced. In Australia, about 28% of children under 14 have parents who are separated.

But in our new research, interviewees report surprisingly little has changed in schools’ interactions with separated parents in the past 40 years.

They say schools still treat the nuclear family as the default and assume students have a mum and dad who are together.

Schools are preoccupied with the ‘primary parent’

We interviewed 11 separated parents about their experiences with their children’s schools. These parents were a subgroup from our previous study, which found more than half of separated parents surveyed had negative experiences with their children’s teachers, principals and school administrators.

Our interviewees repeatedly talked about how school information systems (regardless of whether they were for private or public schools) required families to identify a “primary parent”.

This was the parent who the school contacted if the child was unwell or to discuss a school-related issue. This parent also received all school-related communications: newsletters, excursion notes, medical updates, report cards and invoices for school fees.

There seemed to be no way for school systems to accommodate diverse families for whom identifying a “primary parent” was more complicated.

A number of separated parents said they needed to “combat” the school to receive the same updates and information as the nominated primary parent. One father’s contact details had to be entered into the system’s allergy advice section to flag he should be contacted if his child became unwell.

Another father told us his child’s school insisted the primary parent “needs to be the mother”, even though he had majority care.

Read more:
‘The teacher returned the call to my ex’: how separated parents struggle to get information from their child’s school

Parents can be kept in the dark

The type, amount and timing of information non-primary parents received primarily depended on their relationship with their ex-partner. For amicably separated parents, the situation was difficult but workable. As Amanda told us:

[One of the biggest challenges] is trying to work out ‘Did you get this email?’, ‘Did you get that one?’, ‘What’s happened with this note?’, and then kind of working out amongst ourselves how to best manage that if only one of us is receiving information.

But parents in high-conflict situations sometimes found themselves shut out by the other parent or the school itself.

Even though there were no court orders in place, Michael reported his children’s mother excluded him from school communications and withheld information, which made it impossible for him to be actively involved in his children’s schooling.

When I contacted the school and said, you know, that I either wasn’t receiving any information or that all the notices suddenly weren’t coming to me, they said, ‘Oh, we’re not going to get involved’. And so, I was left completely out of it.

Situations can be manipulated

Parents also reported the primary parent can manipulate school interactions. In high-conflict relationships, school information can be used to elevate one parent into a position of power.

Again, Michael explained how his children’s mother kept from him important information about school fees and homework. His ex-partner’s legal team then used his non-payment of fees and lack of signatures in a homework book to demonstrate Michael’s purported lack of engagement in his child’s schooling and to imply his negligence as a parent.

This is an extreme example. However, Michael’s situation speaks to the complex politics of parent–school engagement.

While some parents found teachers open and receptive to involving both parents, others reported some teachers “take sides” and can be unresponsive to parent requests for basic school-related information.

What about step-parents?

Some parents in our study had become step-parents after re-partnering. These parents explained they were heavily involved in the day-to-day lives of their step-children but the school did not recognise them as parental figures.

Step-parents didn’t have access to parent–teacher interviews and school reports, or even basic information about school activities. While acknowledging the primacy of the biological parent, step-parents wondered why the school could not include all parent figures in a child’s education.

As Michelle explained:

I guess it takes a while to be fully recognised as a parent or carer […] It’s just that it would have been nice if there was a little bit more of a conscious effort from the school.

The nuclear family is still seen as ‘normal’

While working with separated parents is not a new phenomenon for schools, it seems to be an area in which schools have made little progress.

Our research demonstrates schools need more effective policies and procedures so all parents can be included and involved. Schools also need improved support and education for staff in how to manage high-conflict co-parenting relationships.

Finally, school systems, including data infrastructures and software, must be able to accommodate and properly acknowledge diverse families.

As the 1987 study noted:

Until each school defines its philosophy of the family in a realistic way, teachers, parents, and pupils have no option other than to collude in maintaining the fiction that the nuclear family is normal.

Names have been changed.

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. Schools still assume students have a mum and dad who are together. This can leave separated parents ‘completely out of it’ – https://theconversation.com/schools-still-assume-students-have-a-mum-and-dad-who-are-together-this-can-leave-separated-parents-completely-out-of-it-248772

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily Baulch, Research Assistant, Discipline of Media and Communications, University of Sydney

Australian subscribers to the print edition of The New Yorker will know the feeling: it arrives once a week, or sometimes, as buses do, in pairs.

You may briefly regret the environmental impact of all that paper, but once it’s unwrapped it’s a source of anticipation. You check out the cover, read Shouts and Murmurs, and flip through the cartoons.

You might even tackle the book reviews or dive into an article. But most of all, you inhale the history of a century of brilliantly edited and stainlessly written essays.

100 years, thousands of issues, countless stories

The New Yorker has evolved alongside a century of monumental change. From the roaring 20s to the age unfolding, it has been a steadfast investigator of history, covering wars, political upheavals, cultural shifts and social revolutions.

The magazine has published some of the most influential writers of the 20th and 21st centuries, including Truman Capote, Ernest Hemingway, Jamaica Kincaid, Fiona McFarlane and Hiromi Kawakami – offering a platform for literary giants and fresh voices alike.

It has also fostered the growth of renowned editors such as William Shawn, Robert Gottlieb and Tina Brown, all of whom helped shape it into an institution.

When The New Yorker was founded in 1925 by Harold Ross, it was a lighthearted, satirical magazine designed for the city’s social elite. Early issues leaned into what articles editor Susan Morrison called a “fizziness and café society […] vibe.”

Originally focused on humour and satire, the magazine gradually developed into a serious publication known for long-form journalism, in-depth political analysis and high-calibre fiction.

World War II marked a turning point. The war demanded serious, in-depth reporting, and The New Yorker rose to the challenge.

As Morrison observes:

It was the war which really helped The New Yorker find its feet in terms of important non-fiction reporting […] with many more substantial writers on staff able to cover subjects at length and in detail and with authority.

The shift towards serious investigative journalism was evident in the groundbreaking 1946 publication of John Hersey’s Hiroshima, which took up an entire issue. The approach of dedicating extensive space to a single subject was repeated at key historical moments, such as the death of Princess Diana and the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

Compelling readers to slow down and engage

With some 47 issues delivered annually, The New Yorker demands readers carve out time to engage deeply with a range of hard-hitting topics. Its style of slow investigative journalism can’t be consumed in a few seconds while scrolling through social media.

Alongside its seriousness, it retains some of its effervescence through comics and extraordinary breadth, drawing readers into unexpected topics – neuroscience, fountains, squirrels – through meticulously crafted narratives.

The magazine continues in this dual function tradition, reflecting the nuance of the wider world within its covers. The tension between the immense depth and breadth of content and the finite time of readers adds to its allure. It’s a challenge for those willing to invest the time to peruse and digest its pages.

David Remnick, editor since 1998, has guided the magazine with a vision that blends tradition and innovation. In his own words, the goal is to

persist in our commitment to the joys of what Ross first envisaged as a comic weekly. But we are particularly committed to the far richer publication that emerged over time: a journal of record and imagination, reportage and poetry, words and art, commentary on the moment and reflections on the age.

The elegant trappings of a storied past

While the approach to content has evolved, some aspects of The New Yorker have remained consistent. Its visual identity, for instance, has been remarkably stable: famously done in an illustrative style, and unadorned by headlines or teasers.

The vintage aesthetic of the illustrative covers traces its origins back to 1925. The magazine employs a mix of in-house artists and freelance illustrators, with a history of collaboration with notable artists including Saul Steinberg and Art Spiegelman.

Over time, the cover art has maintained a focus on bold, thought-provoking imagery that addresses timely issues. Many covers have become cultural history, such as the black-on-black 9/11 cover.

Today, the New Yorker’s pared-back style conveys a quiet authority. It’s not swayed by fleeting trends, but remains steadfast in its dedication to art and culture, and its origins.

More than a magazine

Subscribing to The New Yorker isn’t just a matter of interest; it’s an act of intellectual self-definition. Our media choices are powerful tools in our process of self-creation.

Popular cultural and media theorists, such as John Fiske and John Hartley, to name a few, have explored how media shapes and reflects our sense of self.

The New Yorker has built an enviable devotion among its readers. Their homes are filled with stacks of old issues, unopened, standing as testament to their ongoing relationship with the publication.

Owning the magazine also signals an affiliation with a specific reading class, regardless of whether the content is ever read. The very act of displaying The New Yorker fashions an image of sophistication, intellectualism and cultural awareness.

But the stacks come with a distinct kind of guilt, too. What does it say about you that you haven’t made time to stay up to date with one of the world’s most famous outlets for investigative journalism and cutting-edge fiction?

This tension speaks to the dual nature of The New Yorker experience: holding onto a subscription signals a commitment to personal growth, yet unread magazines reflect the complexity of modern life – where time for deep, reflective reading competes with daily obligations and the instant gratification offered by digital media.

The New Yorker’s significance isn’t just about the quality of its investigative journalism or the breadth of its storytelling; it’s about identity. To subscribe is to participate in a cultural shorthand – an aspiration toward intellectual engagement.

And who knows, if you hold onto your copies long enough, perhaps they’ll become valuable relics commanding prices in the thousands, much like the first issue does today.

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. From satire to serious journalism – how The New Yorker has shaped a century of thought – https://theconversation.com/from-satire-to-serious-journalism-how-the-new-yorker-has-shaped-a-century-of-thought-249376

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Rennie Short, Professor Emeritus of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Five years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many U.S. cities are still adjusting to a new normal, with more people working remotely and less economic activity in city centers. Other factors, such as underfunded pension plans for municipal employees, are pushing many city budgets into the red.

Urban fiscal struggles are not new, but historically they have mainly affected U.S. cities that are small, poor or saddled with incompetent managers. Today, however, even large cities, including Chicago, Houston and San Francisco, are under serious financial stress.

This is a looming nationwide threat, driven by factors that include climate change, declining downtown activity, loss of federal funds and large pension and retirement commitments.

Why cities struggle

Many U.S. cities have faced fiscal crises over the past century, for diverse reasons. Most commonly, stress occurs after an economic downturn or sharp fall in tax revenues.

Florida municipalities began to default in 1926 after the collapse of a land boom. Municipal defaults were common across the nation in the 1930s during the Great Depression: As unemployment rose, relief burdens swelled and tax collections dwindled.

In 1934 Congress amended the U.S. bankruptcy code to allow municipalities to file formally for bankruptcy. Subsequently, 27 states enacted laws that authorized cities to become debtors and seek bankruptcy protection.

Declaring bankruptcy was not a cure-all. It allowed cities to refinance debt or stretch out payment schedules, but it also could lead to higher taxes and fees for residents, and lower pay and benefits for city employees. And it could stigmatize a city for many years afterward.

In the 1960s and 1970s, many urban residents and businesses left cities for adjoining suburbs. Many cities, including New York, Cleveland and Philadelphia, found it difficult to repay debts as their tax bases shrank.

In the wake of the 2008-2009 housing market collapse, cities including Detroit, San Bernardino, California, and Stockton, California, filed for bankruptcy. Other cities faced similar difficulties but were located in states that did not allow municipalities to declare bankruptcy.

Even large, affluent jurisdictions could go off the financial rails. For example, Orange County, California, went bankrupt in 2002 after its treasurer, Robert Citron, pursued a risky investment strategy of complex leveraging deals, losing some $1.65 billion in taxpayer funds.

Today, cities face a convergence of rising costs and decreasing revenues in many places. As I see it, the urban fiscal crisis is now a pervasive national challenge.

Climate-driven disasters

Climate change and its attendant increase in major disasters are putting financial pressure on municipalities across the country.

Events like wildfires and flooding have twofold effects on city finances. First, money has to be spent on rebuilding damaged infrastructure, such as roads, water lines and public buildings. Second, after the disaster, cities may either act on their own or be required under state or federal law to make expensive investments in preparation for the next storm or wildfire.

In Houston, for example, court rulings after multiple years of severe flooding are forcing the city to spend $100 million on street repairs and drainage by mid-2025. This requirement will expand the deficit in Houston’s annual budget to $330 million.

In Massachusetts, towns on Cape Cod are spending millions of dollars to switch from septic systems to public sewer lines and upgrade wastewater treatment plants. Population growth has sharply increased water pollution on the Cape, and climate change is promoting blooms of toxic algae that feed on nutrients in wastewater.

Increasing uncertainty about the total costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change will inevitably lead rating agencies to downgrade municipal credit ratings. This raises cities’ costs to borrow money for climate-related projects like protecting shorelines and improving wastewater treatment.

Underfunded pensions

Cities also spend a lot of money on employees, and many large cities are struggling to fund pensions and health benefits for their workforces. As municipal retirees live longer and require more health care, the costs are mounting.

For example, Chicago currently faces a budget deficit of nearly $1 billion, which stems partly from underfunded retirement benefits for nearly 30,000 public employees. The city has $35 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and almost $2 billion in unfunded retiree health benefits. Chicago’s teachers are owed $14 billion in unfunded benefits.

Policy studies have shown for years that politicians tend to underfund retirement and pension benefits for public employees. This approach offloads the real cost of providing police, fire protection and education onto future taxpayers.

Struggling downtowns and less federal support

Cities aren’t just facing rising costs – they’re also losing revenues. In many U.S. cities, retail and commercial office economies are declining. Developers have overbuilt commercial properties, creating an excess supply. More unleased properties will mean lower tax revenues.

At the same time, pandemic-related federal aid that cushioned municipal finances from 2020 through 2024 is dwindling.

State and local governments received $150 billion through the 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and an additional $130 billion through the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act. Now, however, this federal largesse – which some cities used to fill mounting fiscal cracks – is at an end.

In my view, President Donald Trump’s administration is highly unlikely to bail out urban areas – especially more liberal cities like Detroit, Philadelphia and San Francisco. Trump has portrayed large cities governed by Democrats in the darkest terms – for example, calling Baltimore a “rodent-infested mess” and Washington, D.C., a “dirty, crime-ridden death trap.” I expect that Trump’s animus against big cities, which was a staple of his 2024 campaign, could become a hallmark of his second term.

Resistance to new taxes

Cities can generate revenue from taxes on sales, businesses, property and utilities. However, increasing municipal taxes – particularly property taxes – can be very difficult.

In 1978, California adopted Proposition 13 – a ballot measure that limited property tax increases to the rate of inflation or 2% per year, whichever is lower. This high-profile campaign created a widespread narrative that property taxes were out of control and made it very hard for local officials to support property tax increases.

Thanks to caps like Prop 13, a persistent public view that taxes are too high and political resistance, property taxes have tended to lag behind inflation in many parts of the country.

The crunch

Taking these factors together, I see a fiscal crunch coming for U.S. cities. Small cities with low budgets are particularly vulnerable. But so are larger, more affluent cities, such as San Francisco with its collapsing downtown office market, or Houston, New York and Miami, which face growing costs from climate change.

One city manager who runs an affluent municipality in the Pacific Northwest told me that in these difficult circumstances, politicians need to be more frank and open with their constituents and explain convincingly and compellingly how and why taxpayer money is being spent.

Efforts to balance city budgets are opportunities to build consensus with the public about what municipalities can do, and at what cost. The coming months will show whether politicians and city residents are ready for these hard conversations.

John Rennie Short 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. A fiscal crisis is looming for many US cities – https://theconversation.com/a-fiscal-crisis-is-looming-for-many-us-cities-249436

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

Treasurer Jim Chalmers will not be organising a bucks’ night ahead of the coming nuptials of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Jodie Haydon.

How do we know this morsel of trivia? The treasurer, appearing on Wednesday breakfast TV to talk up Tuesday’s interest rate cut, was asked about being in charge of arranging the PM’s bucks’ party.

“I’m more of a cup of tea and an early night kind of guy these days. And so I’m sure you can find someone more appropriate to plan the bucks,” Chalmers said, laughing off whatever impatience he may have felt at being taken down this path.

To the dismay of more than a few in Labor circles, a Women’s Weekly interview with the PM and his fiancee dropped into the news cycle just as the government needed all attention on the rate cut.

Given the army of prime ministerial spinners, there was some wonder at this publicity collision.

All leaders do these soft photogenic sessions. But, leaving aside the unfortunate clash, it might be argued this is not the time for the prime ministerial couple to be inviting attention to their post-election marriage. Albanese is not thinking of retiring, but some voters might see a subtle hint of that. As they did when he bought his clifftop house on the central NSW coast.

Chalmers, when asked about the Women’s Weekly piece, was anxious to get across the message that, wedding or not, “I can assure all of your viewers, whether it’s the prime minister or the rest of his government, the main focus is on the cost of living”.

More disappointing for the government than the Women’s Weekly blip was the mixed reception the long-anticipated rate cut received in much of the media.

Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock indicated the bank’s decision to cut was a close call. She hosed down expectations of further cuts, which effectively rules out a pre-election move on April Fools’ Day.

It wasn’t an entirely happy week for Bullock, with critics of the cut suggesting she had responded to political pressure. Out in mortgage land, people will be relieved at the slight help, but it only takes away a fraction of their repayment pain.

Meanwhile the work of the cabinet expenditure review committee and the treasury continues apace on what could be a “ghost” March 25 budget – if Albanese aborts it with an April election.

The government insists there is nothing strange about this. If the budget doesn’t eventuate, the measures will be rolled out as election policy, it says. The argument is unconvincing. Preparing a budget and putting together election policy may have some things in common, but they are not the same. A budget is a close-woven tapestry; election policy is open-stitch cloth.

The uncertainty about the election date, while full campaigning is underway, is disruptive for business and the economy (even if, as Chalmers says, it’s now only a matter of weeks either way). It reinforces the argument for fixed federal terms, which work well in the states. But the obstacles are such that that’s not even worth talking about, unfortunately.

In a “no show without Punch” moment this week, Clive Palmer entered the election race with his Trumpet of Patriots party and a promise to spend “whatever is required to be spent”. There’s talk of $90 million being splashed on a “Make Australia Great Again” platform.

It’s hard to get a fix on what impact Palmer will have. He’s competing with Pauline Hanson for votes on the right. Labor fears his advertising on the cost of living will crowd out its messages. He is also targeting Opposition Leader Peter Dutton for not being Trumpian enough. He told Nine media, “As Dutton said, he’s no Donald Trump. I say, what’s wrong with being Donald Trump?”

The answer is, a very great deal. As Trump’s presidency unfolds, its dangers are becoming more obvious than even his harshest critics feared.

Inevitably, the shadow of Trump is hanging increasingly over our election.

With Trump’s win, the Liberals would have thought the latest manifestation of a widespread international swing to the right would put wind in their sails. But the counter-argument has grown – an erratic and autocratic Trump is making some Australian voters feel more unsettled and inclined to stick with the status quo.

Dutton is not a mini-me Trump but shares some of his views on issues such as government spending, bureaucracy and identity politics. Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison told the Australian Financial Review this week that Dutton would sympathise with some of Trump’s objectives but the opposition leader was “not trying to ape” what was going on in the United States.

Trump’s push to end the Russia-Ukraine war has taken Trumpism to a fresh, alarming level, and could inject strains into the Australia-US relationship.

Trump has sidelined Ukraine and is clearly favouring Russia in pursuing a settlement. Now he has launched an extraordinary personal attack on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

On his social media platform Trump lashed Zelensky as a “modestly successful comedian” who had gone “into a war that couldn’t be won, that never had to start”. Zelensky was a “dictator” who refused to have elections, had done “a terrible job” and was very low in the opinion polls, Trump said.

Ukraine’s cause has been bipartisan in Australia, which has given the country more than $1.5 billion in assistance and now has (belatedly) reopened its embassy there.

To his credit, Dutton immediately condemned Trump’s stand in very forthright terms.

“President Trump has got it wrong in relation to some of the public commentary that I’ve seen him make in relation to President Zelensky and the situation in Ukraine,” he told Sydney radio.

“I think very, very careful thought needs to be given about the steps because if we make Europe less safe, or we provide some sort of support to [Russian president] Putin, deliberately or inadvertently, that is a terrible, terrible outcome.”

Albanese’s initial response was to repeat firmly Australia backing for Ukraine, condemning Russia. He did not comment directly on Trump’s attack. He repeated he was not going to give “ongoing commentary on everything that Donald Trump says”.

The government finds itself caught between the need to strongly reject Trump’s handling of Ukraine, and a desire to tread softly with an administration from whom it desperately wants to win a concession on tariffs.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Dutton doesn’t pull his punches on Trump while Albanese plays it safe – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-dutton-doesnt-pull-his-punches-on-trump-while-albanese-plays-it-safe-250386

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Hunter, Senior Lecturer in Art and Performance, Deakin University

Truth, the new play from writer-director pair Patricia Cornelius and Susie Dee, dives headfirst into the contentious world of Julian Assange. It offers us a nuanced portrait of the WikiLeaks founder who transformed from hacker wunderkind to global lightning rod.

An apt celebration of the significant body of work from the acclaimed duo, Truth opens nearly 40 years after the pair created and performed their first collaboration, Lilly and May.

Assange rose to global prominence by publishing classified documents that exposed government secrets and surveillance programs. He became both a celebrated whistleblower and a controversial figure in debates about transparency and national security.

Truth unravels the threads of his story.

A complex legacy

The work is set in a spare, black-box space, characterised by Matilda Woodroofe’s bureaucratic brutalist design.

A backdrop of hard mesh enclosures and scaffolded structures evokes a monotonous line of outdoor exercise yards or prison cells. This is flanked by colourless filing cabinets, 80s-style laminated brown desks and office chairs on wheels. A giant LED screen crowns the structure.

The ensemble (Emily Havea, Tomàš Kantor, James O’Connell, Eva Rees and Eva Seymour) weaves together key moments in Assange’s life, revealing the complex legacy of a man whose actions have both championed and challenged modern democracy.

Speaking in chorus at times, the actors perform multiple versions of Assange and other characters. They are journalists, whistleblowers, narrators, and include the key figures of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning.

Characterised by Cornelius’ trademark rapid-fire dialogue, the text is tightly calibrated with smart, sparse, dry comments that, at times, comically undercut our Australian sensibilities. As one character says, “the worst thing to be in this country is too smart”.

The ensemble is physically dynamic and vocally strong. They have a particular choreographic fluidity. A spaciousness and attention to timing allows each performance to land. This is a testament both to Dee’s sharp, contained direction, and a terrific and youthful ensemble cast who deliver sensitive and energised performances.

From geek to advocate

The play moves chronologically through Assange’s life. We begin with the rocky early years marked by the dissonance between his sharp intelligence and reputation as computer nerd. We witness his arrests for hacking. We follow his evolution from awkward geek to outspoken advocate for free speech.

The play is grounded in comprehensive research, and solo moments featuring Snowden and Manning serve as poignant interludes to the fast-paced narrative of Assange’s life events.

I am struck by the way the work unsettles my preconceptions. The small, stark image of a naked Private Manning in her isolated cell is particularly raw and affecting – but is juxtaposed on stage against Assange’s dubious behaviour towards two young women in Sweden.

The show clips along, all the while unfolding a nuanced consideration of the complexities of reported narratives and the myriad ways in which journalistic narratives are influenced – and controlled.

The delivery to the audience is largely direct-address. This risks becoming tedious, but Cornelius’ intelligent style and the ensemble’s strong performance carries through.

The LED screen is used to great effect. The video design (Meri Blazevski) shifts through rainstorms of binary digits, to list of early Assange manifestos or leaked stories, to pixellated images of actors’ faces as teenage gamers.

In a long and shocking sequence, we witness drone footage from the Afghanistan war logs accompanied by the chillingly dispassionate commentary of the operators.

Often, the screen becomes a surface for live video feeds which work to personalise or disembody characters, functioning variously as narrator, witness, and surveillance device. Transitions between closeups, documentation and stark data both drive and complicate the storytelling.

Kelly Ryall’s composition and sound design – often paired with the pulsing or flashing giant texts on the screen – is a retro-electronic tapestry of victory chimes, synthetic bleeps and Pac Man pings. It is all underscored by deep digital tones and rapid analogue tapping of keyboards.

A long artistic relationship

This is an intelligent and thoughtful show that manages to be both complex and entertaining. The play is particularly salient given current global events, challenging us to consider the scale of what we’re up against, how long we should remain silent, and what power – if any – we have to effect change.

In an era of heated debate about transparency and fake news, Truth emerges as a vital and edgy work in the capable hands of two highly respected theatre makers.

The work is testament to the longevity of an artistic relationship between two older women that carries decades of embodied knowledge.

Despite the persistent ageism in Australian theatre that often equates “urgency” exclusively with youth, this work reminds us older artists can and do challenge and disrupt – and bring a special and necessary currency to our cultural life.

Truth is at Malthouse Theatre, Melbourne, until March 8.

Kate Hunter 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 play about Julian Assange, Truth is an intelligent, thoughtful and unsettling work – https://theconversation.com/a-new-play-about-julian-assange-truth-is-an-intelligent-thoughtful-and-unsettling-work-247909

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Wallis, Professor of International Security, University of Adelaide

Today, Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles began negotiations with his Papua New Guinean counterpart, Billy Joseph, on a defence treaty. This builds on the bilateral security agreement signed between the countries in 2023.

Analysts have been quick to link the new defence treaty with Australia’s anxiety about China’s increasingly visible presence in the Pacific region.

This reflects Australia’s longstanding anxiety about powers with potentially hostile interests establishing a foothold here.

Because it’s only three kilometres from Australian territory, PNG has always been a particular concern. TB Millar, one of the architects of modern Australian strategic policy, went so far as to observe in 1965 that:

if the whole island [of Papua New Guinea] were to sink under the sea, the net result for Australia in terms of military strategy would be a gain. It is an exposed and vulnerable front door.

So, the possibility of a defence treaty seems like a “win” for an Australian government keen to bolster its security credentials in the frantic months before the federal election.

But the government needs to have good answers to four questions before it signs on the dotted line.

1. How will Australia enforce the treaty?

Although treaties are theoretically legally binding, there are very few practical enforcement mechanisms.

The constant agonising in Australia about whether the United States will meet its obligations under the Australia, New Zealand and United States Security Treaty (ANZUS) exemplifies this.

The Trump administration’s actions also illustrate how quickly a change of government can switch foreign and strategic policy directions, including obligations under longstanding treaties. Like ANZUS, the risk of unenforceability of the PNG treaty is higher for Australia. Australia’s anxieties about China mean that it needs the treaty more than PNG does.

Sanctions are the most likely way Australia could try to enforce the treaty if, say, PNG breached it by striking a security deal with China. But sanctions can be ineffective.

Alternatively, Australia could threaten to withdraw its support if PNG breached the treaty. But this is also unlikely because Australia knows China is likely to step into any gap.

This has been demonstrated in Solomon Islands. Even though Australia has a security treaty with Solomon Islands and invested A$3 billion in the 2003–17 Regional Assistance Mission, Solomon Islands still signed a security agreement with China in 2022.

2. Has Australia mitigated any risks?

No previous Australian government has offered PNG a binding security guarantee.

In 1977, Australia and PNG adopted a formal defence relationship. Australia, however, was cautious about instability in PNG and the risk of being drawn into a conflict along its land border with Indonesia. As such, it didn’t provide a commitment to defend PNG.

In the mid-1980s, PNG requested a defence commitment from Australia. Again, Australia was reluctant. As then-Defence Minister Kim Beazley recalled, PNG was “right in the frame of our relationship with Indonesia”, due to the shared border with Indonesia and the challenge of West Papuan independence activists crossing it.

As a compromise, the two countries made a Joint Declaration of Principles in 1987 that only provided the two governments “will consult … about matters affecting their common security interests”.

As the self-determination struggle in West Papua continues, PNG currently has defence units posted on its border with Indonesia.

Under what circumstances, if any, would Australia provide military support to PNG if violence on the border worsened? And what impact would this have on our relationship with Indonesia?

Not responding to a call for support from PNG could damage Australia’s reputation in the region. But if Australia did become involved in a conflict, it may be criticised for supporting activities that breach human rights.

The risk of Australia being unable to respond to a PNG request for military assistance is high because Australia does not have the defence (or policing) capacity to defend or stabilise a sprawling country like PNG.

Australia’s reliance on US assistance to stabilise Timor-Leste after its 1999 independence referendum illustrates the logistical challenges it faces when making large deployments, even in the region.

While Australia’s defence capabilities have improved since then, it would still likely only have the capacity to secure key cities in PNG and evacuate Australian citizens if there was serious unrest.

3. Can Australia justify the cost at home?

Australian taxpayers – already experiencing cost-of-living pressures – need to be told what funding commitments the government is willing to make to facilitate the treaty negotiations.

Australia’s promise of A$600 million to fund a PNG team in the National Rugby League is already attracting opposition at home.

4. What are the long-term defence plans?

PNG’s strategic location means Australia and the US have long had designs on establishing a permanent military base there.

Manus Island, for example, has been identified as an ideal submarine base. With Australia developing nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS partnership, are there plans to eventually base – or at least resupply – Australian submarines there?

This could have an impact on Australia’s relationships in the broader Pacific Islands region. There are already concerns in the region about whether the nuclear-powered submarines will comply with Australia’s obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.

Australia has legitimate strategic interests in PNG. As such, it’s understandable why a defence treaty is tempting.

But for 50 years, Australian governments have resisted this temptation because they decided that the risks outweighed the rewards. The current government will need to provide a good justification for its change of course.

Joanne Wallis receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Defence. She is a Nonresident Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organisation.

– ref. A defence treaty with PNG might seem like a ‘win’ for Australia. But there are 4 crucial questions to answer – https://theconversation.com/a-defence-treaty-with-png-might-seem-like-a-win-for-australia-but-there-are-4-crucial-questions-to-answer-250396

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephan Rachel, Professor, School of Physics, The University of Melbourne

Researchers at Microsoft have announced the creation of the first “topological qubits” in a device that stores information in an exotic state of matter, in what may be a significant breakthrough for quantum computing.

At the same time, the researchers also published a paper in Nature and a “roadmap” for further work. The design of the Majorana 1 processor is supposed to fit up to a million qubits, which may be enough to realise many significant goals of quantum computing – such as cracking cryptographic codes and designing new drugs and materials faster.

If Microsoft’s claims pan out, the company may have leapfrogged competitors such as IBM and Google, who currently appear to be leading the race to build a quantum computer.

However, the peer-reviewed Nature paper only shows part of what the researchers have claimed, and the roadmap still includes many hurdles to be overcome. While the Microsoft press release shows off something that is supposed to be quantum computing hardware, we don’t have any independent confirmation of what it can do. Nevertheless, the news from Microsoft is very promising.

By now you probably have some questions. What’s a topological qubit? What’s a qubit at all, for that matter? And why do people want quantum computers in the first place?

Quantum bits are hard to build

Quantum computers were first dreamed up in the 1980s. Where an ordinary computer stores information in bits, a quantum computer stores information in quantum bits – or qubits.

An ordinary bit can have a value of 0 or 1, but a quantum bit (thanks to the laws of quantum mechanics, which govern very small particles) can have a combination of both. If you imagine an ordinary bit as an arrow that can point either up or down, a qubit is an arrow that can point in any direction (or what is called a “superposition” of up and down).

This means a quantum computer would be much faster than an ordinary computer for certain kinds of calculations – particularly some to do with unpicking codes and simulating natural systems.

So far, so good. But it turns out that building real qubits and getting information in and out of them is extremely difficult, because interactions with the outside world can destroy the delicate quantum states inside.

Researchers have tried a lot of different technologies to make qubits, using things like atoms trapped in electric fields or eddies of current swirling in superconductors.

Tiny wires and exotic particles

Microsoft has taken a very different approach to build its “topological qubits”. They have used what are called Majorana particles, first theorised in 1937 by Italian physicist Ettore Majorana.

Majoranas are not naturally occurring particles like electrons or protons. Instead, they only exist inside a rare kind of material called a topological superconductor (which requires advanced material design and must be cooled down to extremely low temperatures).

Indeed, Majorana particles are so exotic they are usually only studied in universities – not used in practical applications.

The Microsoft team say they have used a pair of tiny wires, each with a Majorana particle trapped at either end, to act as a qubit. They measure the value of the qubit – expressed by means of whether an electron is in one wire or the other – using microwaves.

Braided bits

Why has Microsoft put in all this effort? Because by swapping the positions of Majorana particles (or measuring them in a certain way), they can be “braided” so they can be measured without error and are resistant to outside interference. (This is the “topological” part of “topological qubits”.)

In theory, a quantum computer made using Majorana particles can be completely free of the qubit errors that plague other designs.

This is why Microsoft has chosen such a seemingly laborious approach. Other technologies are more prone to errors, and hundreds of physical qubits may need to be combined together to produce a single reliable “logical qubit”.

Microsoft has instead put its time and resources into developing Majorana-based qubits. While they are late to the big quantum party, they hope they will be able to catch up quickly.

There’s always a catch

As always, if something sounds too good to be true, there is a catch. Even for a Majorana-based quantum computer, such as the one announced by Microsoft, one operation – known as T-gate – won’t be achievable without errors.

So the Majorana-based quantum chip is only “almost error-free”. However, correcting for T-gate errors is much simpler than the general error correction of other quantum platforms.

What now? Microsoft will try to move ahead with its roadmap, steadily building larger and larger collections of qubits.

The scientific community will closely watch how Microsoft’s quantum computing processors operate, and how they perform in comparison to the other already established quantum computing processors.

At the same time, research into the exotic and obscure behaviour of Majorana particles will continue at universities around the globe.

Stephan Rachel receives funding from Australian Research Council (ARC).

– ref. Microsoft just claimed a quantum breakthrough. A quantum physicist explains what it means – https://theconversation.com/microsoft-just-claimed-a-quantum-breakthrough-a-quantum-physicist-explains-what-it-means-250388

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Kendall, Adjunct Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

This week, ASIO chief Mike Burgess delivered his sixth Annual Threat Assessment.

His approach this time was unprecedented. Instead of focusing on past and present threats, Burgess declassified parts of ASIO’s assessment for the future, warning us about Australia’s security outlook to 2030.

Over the next five years, ASIO is expecting “an unprecedented number of challenges, and an unprecedented cumulative level of potential harm”, Burgess warned. At the same time, the threat environment will become more diverse.

Espionage and foreign interference are already at extreme levels, but are anticipated to intensify. Sabotage is expected to pose an increasing threat. Politically motivated violence and communal violence will also remain an elevated concern.

What does this mean for our criminal laws? Are they robust enough to protect us from the growing and diversifying threat of espionage, sabotage and foreign interference? Or will they need bolstering?

What are the threats?

Espionage, or spying, involves the theft of information. Burgess has warned that both our enemies and our friends will seek to steal information from us.

This includes information about our military capabilities and alliances, such as AUKUS.

Instead of using traditional spies to gather this information, Burgess expects greater use of proxies.

These proxies could be unwittingly involved in the espionage efforts of a foreign country – such as private investigators. Or they could know exactly what they’re doing.

Foreign interference involves covertly shaping decision-making to the advantage of a foreign power. Burgess has warned that foreign governments are monitoring, intimidating and coercing Australians and diaspora communities, including engaging in coerced repatriations.

He also expects that foreign interference may be used to undermine community support for AUKUS.

Concerningly, ASIO has disrupted plots by foreign countries to physically harm (or even kill) people living in Australia. This includes activists, journalists and ordinary citizens – all critics of certain foreign governments.

Both espionage and foreign interference will be enabled by advances in technology, including artificial intelligence (AI), deep fakes and large online pools of personal data.

Sabotage involves deliberately destroying or damaging infrastructure.

Russia has been engaging in diverse acts of sabotage in Europe, aiming to erode support for Ukraine and damage cohesion. These attacks include arson against various types of infrastructure (including defence and munitions facilities), jamming civil aviation GPS systems, and disrupting railways.

While Burgess warned that the risk of similar attacks against Australia is increasing (including attacks against infrastructure arising out of AUKUS), cyber-enabled sabotage will be of more concern. At the moment, foreign governments are exploring and exploiting Australia’s critical infrastructure networks to map systems and maintain access in the future.

As with espionage, Burgess expects criminal proxies to be used more frequently to engage in sabotage. This includes state-sponsored or state-supported terrorist groups.

Are our laws ready to deal with this?

With the espionage, sabotage and foreign interference threat growing and diversifying over the next five years, you’d be right to ask whether our criminal laws are robust enough to stand up to the challenge.

For the most part, they are.

All the laws apply to conduct that occurs “in the real world” and online. The laws also apply to any foreign country, including our friends, as well as terrorist organisations.

In addition to foreign countries, the laws apply to conduct on behalf of a foreign country, including where the conduct is directed, funded or supervised by the foreign country or a person acting on its behalf. This means the laws would apply to proxies hired to engage in espionage or sabotage.

Our sabotage laws are broad enough to cover the explorations of critical infrastructure networks currently being undertaken. An act of sabotage does not have to be committed to be an offence under these laws.

Our foreign interference laws would cover coerced repatriations. While plots to harm Australians may also fall within these offences, a number of other offences also exist for harming or killing Australian citizens or residents.

Room for improvement

Our espionage, sabotage and foreign interference laws certainly are “world-leading”. However, there are some drawbacks.

For example, the laws are yet to grapple with the rise of AI and its use to gather information for espionage or generate mis- or disinformation for foreign interference.

While the laws have broad extraterritorial reach – they apply to conduct that occurs within or outside Australia – the practicalities of enforcing the laws when offenders are located overseas is a big barrier.

But in today’s digital age where espionage, sabotage and foreign interference can be conducted online from the safety of a foreign country and therefore beyond the reach of Australia’s criminal law, we need more than a robust legal response.

As Burgess stressed, these issues “require whole of government, whole of community, whole of society responses […] national security is truly national security: everybody’s business”.

We all need to be aware of the risks and what we – as individuals, employees, researchers and business owners – can do to mitigate them.

This article was written in Sarah Kendall’s personal capacity as an Adjunct Research Fellow at the University of Queensland School of Law. It does not reflect the views of the Queensland Law Reform Commission or the Queensland Government.

– ref. The ASIO threat assessment is a dark outlook for Australia’s security. Are our laws up to the task? – https://theconversation.com/the-asio-threat-assessment-is-a-dark-outlook-for-australias-security-are-our-laws-up-to-the-task-250372

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

The tennis world is still reeling after news the number one ranked men’s player, Jannik Sinner, agreed to a three-month suspension issued by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to be served between the Australian and French Opens.

Sinner, a three-time Grand Slam winner, received the ban after twice testing positive for clostebol, a steroid banned by the World-Anti Doping Code, in March 2024.

Read more:
Tennis is facing an existential crisis over doping. How will it respond?

The fallout

“Unintentional doping offences” – as in Sinner’s case – can attract a maximum two-year ban even if the athlete shows no fault or negligence.

Sinner’s three-month ban was immediately criticised by many in the media and within tennis circles due to its leniency and convenient timing. It also did not result from a hearing before an anti-doping tribunal or the Court of Arbitration for Sport, as has been the case with other tennis players who have received bans in the past.

The suspension was the product of a “case resolution agreement” (a negotiated settlement) between WADA and Sinner.

WADA initially appealed the International Tennis Integrity Agency’s decision not to suspend Sinner on the basis of demonstrating no significant fault or negligence, but withdrew its case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Sinner argued the banned substance entered his system after a massage by a physiotherapist in his entourage who had used a cream with clostebol to treat a cut on his finger.

Both WADA and the International Tennis Integrity Agency accepted this version of events.

In the eyes of most, WADA’s actions failed to pass the “pub test” and many high-profile tennis players voiced their concerns.

Novak Djokovic flagged issues over the treatment of high-ranked athletes such as Sinner compared to lower-ranked players.

For example, Chilean Nicolas Jarry was suspended for 11 months in 2020 after testing positive to ligandrol and stanozolol that he alleged were in a supplement he took.

In 2023 Sweden’s Mikael Ymer was suspended for 18 months by the Court of Arbitration for Sport for failing to submit to three out-of-competition tests in a 12-month period.

Great Britain’s Tara Moore took nearly two years to clear her name before an anti-doping tribunal in 2023 revealed contaminated meat had led to her positive tests for nandrolone and boldenone. Despite this decision, Moore served a 19-month ban.

Djokovic’s view suggested favouritism for higher-ranked players, who can access top lawyers. He also criticised a lack of transparency in the Sinner agreement with WADA.

However, high-ranked players such as Simona Halep and Maria Sharapova have received lengthy suspensions for doping violations.

Nick Kyrgios was similarly critical, stating it was a sad day for the sport and that fairness in tennis did not exist.

Former Spanish player Feliciano Lopez was among those who supported Sinner. He said he believed in clean sport and that Sinner had not enhanced his performance and took responsibility for the actions of his physiotherapist.

Intentional and unintentional doping

The criticisms appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the anti-doping provisions in the World Anti-Doping Code and the failure by WADA to clearly communicate its rationale for Sinner’s suspension.

Rather than favouritism for a high-ranked player, WADA’s decision to suspend Sinner for three months was based on the distinction in the World Anti-Doping Code between intentional and unintentional doping. It found that Sinner:

• had not intended to cheat using clostebol
• received no performance-enhancing benefit from the substance
• had no knowledge of the administration of the substance.

But WADA argued that under the code, Sinner was responsible for the negligence of his entourage and issued the suspension.

WADA confirmed its rationale for the three-month suspension after Spanish media pointed out that figure skater Laura Barquero had received a six-year ban for a positive test of clostebol.

WADA differentiated the two cases based on intention. It was not convinced by Barquero’s explanation of how clostebol entered her system, while it said the evidence supported Sinner’s version of events.

Lessons from the Sinner case

So what can be learned from Sinner’s case?

One of the most important legal issues arising from the Sinner case is the distinction in the anti-doping rules between intentional and unintentional doping.

This distinction explains the difference in penalties between Sinner and other athletes.

Also, the facts of a doping case are relevant in determining circumstances that may reduce the severity of a penalty in matters resolved by negotiated case resolution agreements.

An important lesson for WADA is ensuring transparency in proceedings and the clear communication of the rationale used to arrive at a penalty.

Finally, a Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing may not have been needed for Sinner as the parties agreed on the facts leading to the doping rule violation.

Matt Nichol 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. Playing favourites, inconsistency or a fair decision? Unpacking Jannik Sinner’s doping case – https://theconversation.com/playing-favourites-inconsistency-or-a-fair-decision-unpacking-jannik-sinners-doping-case-250143

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

ASIO chief Mike Burgess has warned that over the next five years Australia’s security environment will become more dynamic, diverse and degraded, with “more security surprises” in the second half of the decade than in the first.

In his Annual Threat Assessment delivered on Wednesday night, Burgess predicted more communal violence attacks and foreshadowed Australia’s defence system would face greater threats from espionage, foreign interference and potentially sabotage.

The situation had prompted him to take the unusual step of declassifying details of the security outlook covering the coming five years.

With an “unprecedented number of challenges, and an unprecedented cumulative level of potential harm, Australia has never faced so many different threats at scale at once,” he said.

“Many of the foundations that have underpinned Australia’s security, prosperity and democracy are being tested: social cohesion is eroding, trust in institutions is declining, intolerance is growing, even truth itself is being undermined by conspiracy, mis-and disinformation.

“Similar trends are playing out across the Western world.

“Australia is facing multifaceted, merging, intersecting, concurrent and cascading threats. Major geopolitical, economic, social and security challenges of the 1930s,
70s and 90s have converged. As one of my analysts put it with an uncharacteristic nod to popular culture: everything, everywhere all at once”.

Burgess said ASIO was empowered to investigate seven heads of security:

• espionage
• foreign interference
• politically motivated violence (which includes terrorism)
• the promotion of communal violence
• sabotage
• attacks on Australia’s defence system, and
• serious threats to border integrity.

“Three of our heads of security are already flashing red: espionage, foreign interference and politically motivated violence,” Burgess said.

ASIO expected in the next five years the promotion of communal violence, sabotage and attacks on the defence system could join them.

Burgess did not envisage any immediate raising of the national threat level, which puts an act of terrorism at “probable”.

But he said “politically motivated violence is raising the temperature of the security environment and making acts of terrorism more likely”.

At the same time, he stressed that none of last year’s incidents in Australia came from an offshore group and “our greatest threat remains a lone actor using an easily obtained weapon”.

“Of all the potential terrorist matters investigated last year, fewer than half were religiously motivated. The majority involved mixed ideologies or nationalist and racist ideologies.

“Almost all the matters involved minors. All were lone actors or small groups. Almost all the individuals were unknown to ASIO or the police and it is fair to say they allegedly moved towards violence more quickly than we have seen before.

“Importantly, none of the attacks or plots appear to be directly inspired by the conflict in the Middle East or directed by offshore extremists”.

On the promotion of communal violence, Burgess said “I am concerned these attacks have not yet plateaued”.

Promoting communal violence refers to “activities that are directed to incite violence between different groups in Australia, so as to endanger the peace”.

Burgess anticipated “nationalist and racist violent extremists to continue their efforts to ‘mainstream’ and expand their movement.

“They will undertake provocative, offensive and increasingly high-profile acts to generate publicity and recruit. While these activities will test legal boundaries, the greatest threat of violence comes from individuals on the periphery of these organised groups.

“I remain concerned about young Australians being caught up in webs of hate, both religiously and ideologically motivated.

“In the polarised, grievance-rich environment I’m describing, social cohesion will remain strained and we can expect spikes in communal violence.”

Burgess said the Middle East war “has not yet directly inspired terrorism in Australia, but it is prompting protest, exacerbating division, undermining social cohesion and elevating intolerance. This, in turn, is making acts of politically motivated violence more likely.”

The normalisation of violent protests lowered the threshold for potentially violent acts.

“Narratives originally centred on ‘freeing Palestine’ expanded to include incitements to ‘kill the Jews’. Threats transitioned from harassment and intimidation to specific targeting of Jewish communities, places of worship and prominent figures.

“Looking forward, targets of community violence are likely to be broad, depending on the perceived grievance, and will not be limited to nationality, race, culture, religion or gender.

“A hyper-connected world will allow political tensions or conflicts overseas to resonate quickly in Australia, spread by social media and online echo chambers, inflamed by mis- or disinformation”.

Burgess said more traditional distinctions between extremist motivations were breaking down.

Individuals were cherry-picking ideologies to create hybrid beliefs. For example, ASIO had found one person who was apparently motivated by Islamic State propaganda and neo-Nazi propaganda. Another described himself as a left-wing environmentalist aligned with Adolf Hitler.

Burgess said while he was troubled by the breadth of security threats, he was more concerned about their depth.

“More specifically, the depths some regimes are willing to plumb in pursuit of their strategic interests. This is why we assess the security environment is becoming more degraded.”

“A small number of authoritarian regimes are behaving more aggressively, more recklessly, more dangerously. More willing to engage in what we call ‘high harm’ activities.

“Russia’s brazen acts of sabotage in Europe show authoritarian regimes are willing to use a wider range of tools and tactics to coerce, intimidate and damage
perceived adversaries. As a supporter of and supplier to Ukraine, it is conceivable Russia could also target Australia for sabotage.”

Australia was not immune to hostile states such as Iran undertaking “acts of security concern” in Australia or the near region.

“Whether such acts serve an internal interest, or a form of retaliation against Israel or our allies, we need to remain alert and responsive to these evolution.”

ASIO had identified at least three different countries plotting to harm people living in Australia.

In one case, a foreign intelligence service wanted to silence an Australia-based
human rights activist and tried to trick them into visiting a third country where they would encounter an “accident”. ASIO foiled the plot.

In another case, a different hostile foreign intelligence service wanted to harm and possibly kill one or more
individuals on Australian soil. This too was foiled.

“Beyond those egregious examples, multiple foreign regimes continually attempt to monitor, harass, intimidate and coerce cooperation from Australians and those who call Australia home. This includes trying to strong-arm people to report on
other members of their diaspora community, threatening perceived dissidents and their family members with violence, and coercing people in Australia to return to
the country of their birth to face questioning or charges – or possibly worse.”

On threats to Australia’s defence system, Burgess said multiple countries relentlessly sought information on our military capabilities.

“AUKUS will remain a priority target for intelligence collection, including by countries we consider friendly.

“ASIO has identified foreign services seeking to target AUKUS to position themselves to collect on the capabilities, how Australia intends to use them, and to undermine the confidence of our allies.

“By 2030, as the submarine project matures, intelligence services are more likely to focus on foreign interference to undermine community support for the enterprise and potentially sabotage if regional tensions escalate.”

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. ASIO boss expects more communal violence in worsening security environment in Australia – https://theconversation.com/asio-boss-expects-more-communal-violence-in-worsening-security-environment-in-australia-250276

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank den Hartog, Professor of Information Systems, Research Chair in Critical Infrastructure, University of Canberra

A few weeks ago, word started to come out that the newly minted United States Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had acquired unprecedented access to multiple US government computer systems.

DOGE employees – tech billionaire Elon Musk and his affiliates – have been granted access to sensitive personal and financial data, as well as other data critical for national security. This has created a national and international outcry, and serious concerns have been raised about data security, privacy and potential influence.

A group of 14 state attorneys-general attempted to have DOGE’s access to certain federal systems restricted, but a judge has denied the request.

Questions of trust

What are the deeper reasons behind this outcry? After all, Musk is far from the first businessman to gain political power.

There is, of course, US President Donald Trump himself, alongside many more on both sides of politics. Most of them kept running their businesses at arm’s length and went back to them after a stint in Washington.

So why are so many people alarmed now, but not before? The key word here is trust. Surveys suggest many people don’t trust Musk with this kind of access.

Does that mean we trusted the others? The foundation of modern cyber security is not to trust anything or anybody in the first place.

So while a lack of trust in Musk is one reason for disquiet, another is a lack of trust in the current state of cyber security in US government systems and procedures. And for good reason.

An insider threat

The situation in the US raises the spectre of what cyber experts call an “insider threat”. These concern cyber security incidents caused by people who have authorised access to systems and data.

Cyber security relies on controlling the so-called “CIA triad” of confidentiality, integrity and availability. Insider threats can compromise all three.

Authentication and subsequent authorisation of access has traditionally been an important measure to prevent cyber incidents from occurring. But apparently, that is not sufficient any more.

Perhaps the most famous insider incident in history is Edward Snowden’s leak of classified documents from the US National Security Agency in 2013. Australia too has had its share of insider breaches – the 2000 Maroochy Shire attack is still a textbook example.

Musk and his DOGE colleagues have now become insiders.

How to reduce the risk of insider threat

There are plenty of strategies organisations can follow to reduce the risk of insider threats:

• more rigorous vetting of employees

• giving users only the bare minimum access and privileges they need

• continuously auditing who has access to what, and restricting access immediately when needed

• authenticating and authorising users every time they access a different system or file (this is part of what is called a “zero trust architecture”)

• monitoring for unusual behaviour regarding insiders accessing systems and files

• developing and nurturing a cyber-aware culture in the organisation.

In government systems, the public should be able to trust these procedures are being rigorously applied. However, when it comes to Musk and DOGE, it seems they are not. And that’s where the core of the problem lies.

Clearances and a lack of care

DOGE employees without security clearance reportedly have access to classified systems which would normally be considered quite sensitive.

However, even security clearances offer no iron-clad guarantees.

Security clearances assume someone can be trusted based on their past. But past performance can never guarantee the future.

In the US, obtaining and holding a security clearance has become a status symbol. A clearance may also be a golden ticket to high-paying jobs and power, and hence subject to politics rather than independent judgement.

And it seems little care has been taken to keep users’ access and privileges to a minimum.

You might think DOGE’s employees, tasked with seeking out inefficiency, would only need read-only access to the US government IT systems. However, at least one of them temporarily had “write” access to the systems of the treasury, according to reports, enabling him to alter code controlling trillions in federal spending.

It all comes down to trust

Even if all possible access control and vetting procedures are in place and working perfectly, there will always be the problem of how to declassify information.

Or to put it another way: how do you make somebody forget everything they knew when their clearance or access is revoked or downgraded?

What Musk has seen, he can never unsee. And there is only so much that can be done to prevent this knowledge from leaking.

Even if all procedures to protect against insider threats are followed perfectly (and they aren’t), nothing is 100% secure.

We would still need a certain level of public trust that the obtained data and information would be dealt with responsibly. Has trust in Musk and his affiliates reached that level?

According to recent polling, public opinion is still divided.

Frank den Hartog is the Cisco Research Chair in Critical Infrastructure at the University of Canberra. He is an Adjunct Fellow at the University of New South Wales.

Abu Barkat Ullah is a steering committee member for the Canberra Cyber Hub and has received several research grants from Australian government and private organisations.

– ref. Insider threat: cyber security experts on giving Elon Musk and DOGE the keys to US government IT systems – https://theconversation.com/insider-threat-cyber-security-experts-on-giving-elon-musk-and-doge-the-keys-to-us-government-it-systems-250046