Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Theresa Larkin, Associate Professor of Medical Sciences, University of Wollongong

Most of us can hold our breath for between 30 and 90 seconds.

A few minutes without oxygen can be fatal, so we have an involuntary reflex to breathe.

But freediver Vitomir Maričić recently held his breath for a new world record of 29 minutes and three seconds, lying on the bottom of a 3-metre-deep pool in Croatia.

This is about five minutes longer than the previous world record set in 2021 by another Croatian freediver, Budimir Šobat.

Interestingly, all world records for breath holds are by freedivers, who are essentially professional breath-holders.
They do extensive physical and mental training to hold their breath under water for long periods of time.

So how do freedivers delay a basic human survival response and how was Maričić able to hold his breath about 60 times longer than most people?

Increased lung volumes and oxygen storage

Freedivers do cardiovascular training – physical activity that increases your heart rate, breathing and overall blood flow for a sustained period – and breathwork to increase how much air (and therefore oxygen) they can store in their lungs.

This includes exercise such as swimming, jogging or cycling, and training their diaphragm, the main muscle of breathing.

Diaphragmatic breathing and cardiovascular exercise train the lungs to expand to a larger volume and hold more air.

This means the lungs can store more oxygen and sustain a longer breath hold.

Freedivers can also control their diaphragm and throat muscles to move the stored oxygen from their lungs to their airways. This maximises oxygen uptake into the blood to travel to other parts of the body.

To increase the oxygen in his lungs even more before his world record breath-hold, Maričić inhaled pure (100%) oxygen for ten minutes.

This gave Maričić a larger store of oxygen than if he breathed normal air, which is only about 21% oxygen.

This is classified as an oxygen-assisted breath-hold in the Guiness Book of World Records.

Even without extra pure oxygen, Maričić can hold his breath for 10 minutes and 8 seconds.

Resisting the reflex to take another breath

Oxygen is essential for all our cells to function and survive. But it is high carbon dioxide, not low oxygen that causes the involuntary reflex to breathe.

When cells use oxygen, they produce carbon dioxide, a damaging waste product.

Carbon dioxide can only be removed from our body by breathing it out.

When we hold our breath, the brain senses the build-up in carbon dioxide and triggers us to breathe again.

Freedivers practice holding their breath to desensitise their brains to high carbon dioxide and eventually low oxygen. This delays the involuntary reflex to breathe again.

When someone holds their breath beyond this, they reach a “physiological break-point”. This is when their diaphragm involuntarily contracts to force a breath.

This is physically challenging and only elite freedivers who have learnt to control their diaphragm can continue to hold their breath past this point.

Indeed, Maričić said that holding his breath longer:

got worse and worse physically, especially for my diaphragm, because of the contractions. But mentally I knew I wasn’t going to give up.

Mental focus and control is essential

Those who freedive believe it is not only physical but also a mental discipline.

Freedivers train to manage fear and anxiety and maintain a calm mental state. They practice relaxation techniques such as meditation, breath awareness and mindfulness.

Interestingly, Maričić said:

after the 20-minute mark, everything became easier, at least mentally.

Reduced mental and physical activity, reflected in a very low heart rate, reduces how much oxygen is needed. This makes the stored oxygen last longer.

That is why Maričić achieved this record lying still on the bottom of a pool.

Don’t try this at home

Beyond competitive breath-hold sports, many other people train to hold their breath for recreational hunting and gathering.

For example, ama divers who collect pearls in Japan, and Haenyeo divers from South Korea who harvest seafood.

But there are risks of breath holding.

Maričić described his world record as:

a very advanced stunt done after years of professional training and should not be attempted without proper guidance and safety.

Indeed, both high carbon dioxide and a lack of oxygen can quickly lead to loss of consciousness.

Breathing in pure oxygen can cause acute oxygen toxicity due to free radicals, which are highly reactive chemicals that can damage cells.

Unless you’re trained in breath holding, it’s best to leave this to the professionals.

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. The science behind a freediver’s 29-minute breath hold world record – https://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-a-freedivers-29-minute-breath-hold-world-record-264020

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chennupati Jagadish, President of the Australian Academy of Science and Emeritus Professor of Physics and Electronic Materials Engineering, Australian National University

Since 1945, three-quarters of all global economic growth has been driven by technological advances. Since 1990, 90% of that advance has been rooted in fundamental science, according to Michael M. Crow, president of Arizona State University.

Corporate leaders in the United States understood this decades ago when they urged Congress to back “patient capital” for research – because this type of investment creates openings for breakthrough applications.

Think of the building blocks of our modern economy – wifi, smartphones, advanced cancer therapies, drought-tolerant crops and satellite navigation. These began as basic research, often with no obvious immediate application. Then they became the platforms for whole new industries.

But in Australia, we still treat research funding as a discretionary extra, subject to the ebb and flow of political expediency and annual budgets. Despite decades of speeches, reviews and strategic papers, our investment in knowledge creation and its application has nose-dived.

Today, the Australian Academy of Science released a landmark report that systematically measures our science capability against future needs for the first time.

The findings are blunt. We have gaps – in workforce, infrastructure and coordination – that will cripple our ability to secure a bright future for the next generation, unless we act now.

What did the report find?

The new report maps Australia’s scientific capability and shortfalls across three major areas.

Over the next decade, Australia is facing a demographic change with an ageing population, a decreasing fertility rate, and increasing growth in urban and regional cities.

The second national challenge is technological transformation. In most areas of life, we’re experiencing rapid technological changes. This includes advances in artificial intelligence (AI) that are already changing the shape of the workforce.

The third challenge is climate change, decarbonisation and environment. It’s imperative for Australia to transition to a net-zero economy and become resilient against the impacts of climate change.

What do we need to have in place for Australia to meet these challenges by 2035? Two key factors are science literacy and education, and national resilience. In a world of fractured geopolitics and technological competition, the countries that will thrive are those that can generate and apply knowledge for their own needs, in their own context.

The report has found eight key science areas that will be most in demand by 2035: agricultural science, AI, biotechnology, climate science, data science, epidemiology, geoscience and materials science.

For each of these, the report contains a full dashboard that shows gaps in capabilities – from education to workforce needs, research and development spending, publications and more.

Still not innovative enough

Since 2008, Australia’s spending on research and development as a proportion of gross domestic product has fallen so far behind the OECD average, it would take an extra A$28 billion a year just to reach parity.

In his election speech in 1990, then Prime Minister Bob Hawke issued a warning: being the lucky country was not enough, we had to become a clever country, too.

Today, 35 years on, Hawke’s vision of the clever country remains just that – a vision. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull tried to rekindle the impetus in 2015 with “the innovation nation”. However, this year Treasurer Jim Chalmers conceded our economy is still “not dynamic or innovative enough”.

The vast majority of global climate and earth system models have been developed in the northern hemisphere, and we need more work to understand Australian conditions as well as the Southern Ocean.

Our AI capacity is hostage to developments offshore. We import more than we invent in biotechnology, advanced manufacturing and clean energy.

These are not merely academic concerns – they are constraints on our sovereignty, resilience and competitiveness.

We need a ‘reservoir of talent’

But scientific capability is not something you can simply conjure up on a whim. You need a “reservoir of talent”, infrastructure and knowledge that takes decades to build.

Developing a climate scientist, a quantum physicist, or a vaccine researcher takes long-term investment in education, facilities and research programs. Abandoning or under-funding these pipelines for even a few years creates gaps. Knowledge can’t just flow when the tap is turned on if the reservoir is dry.

Today’s report shows the current pipeline and study choices of students don’t match the needs of Australia’s future workforce.

For example, in 2023 only 25.2% of students with a Year 12 qualification studied mathematics to at least intermediate level. Yet it’s a fundamental science discipline for AI.

Similarly, our economy relies heavily on resources and critical minerals, yet Australia isn’t training enough geoscientists.

It’s time for a whole-of-government science strategy, embedded in economic, education, defence and industry policy. The government should use the evidence in this report to address capability gaps and direct resources strategically to better position Australia for the next ten years and beyond.

Thirty-five years after Hawke’s challenge, it’s never been clearer: if we don’t act now, our luck will run out.

Chennupati Jagadish has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Dementia Research Australia Foundation and Yulgilbar Foundation. He is on the Board of Directors of Australian National Fabrication Facility.

– ref. New report reveals glaring gaps between Australia’s future needs and science capabilities – https://theconversation.com/new-report-reveals-glaring-gaps-between-australias-future-needs-and-science-capabilities-264355

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aruna Sathanapally, Chief Executive, Grattan Institute

When last month’s economic reform roundtable was announced, there was both hope and cynicism about the potential for progressing policy reforms in Australia that have been long understood to be necessary – tax reform being a leading example – but have languished in the “too hard” basket across both Coalition and Labor governments.

The roundtable, broadly considered a success, is now over, leaving the government with a list of tasks. Some of these can be done immediately, while other, more ambitious ideas will take longer to see through.

But while there’s no shortage of ideas, Australia’s recent track record on implementing large-scale policy reform has been patchy.

In 2021, in the midst of the pandemic, the Grattan Institute published a report, Gridlock, which explored the idea that Australia had lost its ability to do major policy reform.

Australia’s prosperity since the 1990s was underscored by a suite of major reforms enacted from the 1970s onwards. These reforms – liberalising our economy, while setting up supports and services across welfare, healthcare, and education – produced much of the social compact we still have today.

But in the decades since, fewer major reforms have progressed.

Some were proposed then abandoned. Emissions trading by Labor and the Coalition policies to cut the company tax rate and increase the pension age spring to mind.

And some major reforms were enacted but haven’t lasted. Australian governments this century have been more prone to unwinding policy changes of their predecessors.

More than the sum of the parts

One possibility to consider is whether this drop-off in policy reform simply reflects less opportunity for major reform. As many economists will tell you, you can only float the dollar once.

It is true that some of the sweeping reforms to open up Australia’s economy are not easy to replicate. Today’s hunt for productivity-enhancing economic reforms requires looking at a broad range of smaller measures: better regulation, harmonising rules and standards across Australia and reducing barriers across the workforce.

To paraphrase Productivity Commission Chair Danielle Wood, governments should reform in inches rather than miles.

But it would wrong to assume any of these reforms are easy. Rather, they are the opportunities left precisely because they have been harder to realise.

This is often because they involve different levels of government, or social and business practices that take a suite of measures to shift.

They cannot be delivered in one big bang. They require sustained attention. Perhaps we should be more willing to recognise that major policy reform may actually constitute a series of incremental steps.

The handbrake of public opinion

At the same time, it’s not correct that there are no opportunities for bigger economic reform.

Reforms to the tax mix, to tax in better ways than we do today, remain vital to boosting economic growth and making Australia fairer.

And there are broader opportunities, as we at the Grattan Institute outlined in the 2025 Orange Book, published in the lead-up to the May federal election. It sets out several suggestions across energy and climate change, health, retirement incomes, to name a few. Previous Orange Books have done the same.

In the Gridlock report, the inaugural chief executive of the Grattan Institute, John Daley, analysed the period to 2020. He offered a range of explanations for why policy reform had proved difficult. They included, among others:

• the role of ideology

• campaigns by vested interests

• and the federal division of responsibilities across different levels of government.

These remain potential roadblocks to many sensible reforms. But Daley concluded the most prominent blocker was simply that a reform was unpopular, and politicians were less prepared to take on that challenge.

It might seem self-evident that elected governments have not enthusiastically adopted reforms that do not have public favour.

Yet, it isn’t the role of governments in a democracy to blindly reflect public sentiment. It is their job to respond to the facts and the evidence, to make the case for changes that may not be comfortable – and may indeed leave some people worse off – but will make us better off as a country over the long term.

Indeed, many of the reforms of 1980s and 1990s were unpopular at the time.

But the ability of ministers to do this crucial job may well have become harder. There’s a more punishing, short-term media cycle than during the “golden age” of reform. This has been accompanied by an increasing reliance on more fragmented, non-traditional media and shorter audience attention spans.

Progress without crisis

To their credit, state and federal politicians have taken on the much-needed task of increasing housing density in our biggest cities despite strong opposition.

But such action only happened once housing affordability reached dire levels.

And as the pandemic illustrated, where there is a genuine crisis, Australian governments are able to communicate and effect policies that inflict short-term pain for long-term benefit.

The question now is whether policy reform can progress without a crisis on foot.

The exercise the federal government kicked off over July and August – that of canvassing ideas, even if many are not surprising – can be seen through this lens of building public acceptance.

Bringing people along for the journey is crucial because many of Australia’s public policy challenges are not considered urgent, at least not in the same way as the pandemic or similar events.

There’s little sense of emergency around shaping a health system that meets our growing needs, or the transition to net zero.

Lagging educational performance continues and gender inequality remains sticky, but neither issue dominates headlines.

But perhaps, a deliberate and methodical case for reforms to meet these challenges, built up in stages, is the way to get the best kind of policy reform: the kind that actually happens, and sticks.

The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.

– ref. Why major policy reform in Australia has stalled for decades – and how to change it – https://theconversation.com/why-major-policy-reform-in-australia-has-stalled-for-decades-and-how-to-change-it-263818

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Blake Bennett, Senior Lecturer in Sport Coaching and Pedagogy, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Every weekend, thousands of New Zealand children pull on team jerseys, play on well-kept fields, and benefit from the quiet dedication of volunteers. Few stop to think about where the money comes from for uniforms, buses or tournament fees.

For decades, a large slice of that funding has been drawn from gaming machine (“pokie”) revenue, redistributed into communities through grants. That pipeline is now in danger of being broken.

The government’s proposed Online Casino Gambling Bill – due for its second reading in parliament soon – would regulate and license up to 15 offshore casino operators in New Zealand. On the surface, this looks like common sense: rein in an unregulated online market, protect consumers and tax the industry.

But buried in the detail is a potentially serious unintended consequence: there is no requirement for licensed online casinos to return a share of their revenue to community funding.

For grassroots sports, already struggling with a volunteer crisis, this could be another blow.

Each year, around NZ$170 million flows from gaming machine profits back into communities. These grants are lifelines for sports clubs (as well as arts groups, community health initiatives and local charities). They don’t just buy jerseys, they keep clubs alive.

If online casinos are legalised without community return requirements, the fear is that gambling dollars will shift away from local pokie venues and into the pockets of offshore operators. Community organisations would then suffer.

Sports leaders have spoken out already. Chair of Cycling NZ Martin Snedden has called the proposal a “crazy move” that poses a “massive risk” to grassroots sport. Without those grants, he says, thousands of small volunteer-run organisations will struggle to survive.

Volunteers under pressure

The timing could hardly be worse for a volunteer sector that’s been under strain for years. Once thriving clubs are now struggling to recruit and retain people.

My research with volunteer coaches and administrators shows compliance demands are growing, from child safeguarding checks to health and safety paperwork, meaning fewer people are willing to take on such roles.

The rising cost of living means fewer families can afford club fees or take unpaid time to help. Reduced community funding will only exacerbate the problem.

Supporters of the Online Casino Gambling Bill point to its intended benefits: a safer, regulated gambling market that protects consumers, generates tax revenue and imposes strong rules on age limits and advertising, with hefty fines for non‑compliance.

They also highlight the government’s promise of $81 million to address gambling harm through treatment and prevention.

For generations, however, New Zealand has operated on a social contract: gambling is permitted on the condition that profits are partially reinvested in communities.

This isn’t to say the pokie system is ideal. A 2021 report released by Hāpai Te Hauora-Māori Public Health and others, “Ending community sector dependence on pokie funding”, described pokies as a harmful model that makes community organisations dependent on losses from the very people they’re trying to support.

Written in the wake of COVID’s disruption to gambling revenues, the report argued it was the ideal moment to shift to a fairer system, calling for the government to directly fund community and sport grant recipients.

The new bill, however, doesn’t resolve the bigger picture. It may reduce some consumer harms by bringing offshore casinos under regulation, but it does nothing to replace the community funding that will be lost.

Instead, it simply cuts community organisations out of the loop. The consequences will likely be felt widely:

• clubs will fold or be forced to cut programs, and participation will shrink, especially in low-income areas where grants have been most crucial

• wealthier communities may survive on fees and private sponsorships while poorer ones won’t, deepening inequality

• with fewer resources, volunteers will face even greater pressure as they are expected to do more with less

• and the social cohesion enhanced by community groups is undermined.

A consistent approach

The solution could be relatively simple, if politically inconvenient: apply the same community return principle to online casinos that already exists for pokies. That could mean:

• requiring licensed online operators to contribute a fixed percentage of gross gambling revenue to a community trust

• ring-fencing a portion of tax revenue for community funding (beyond gambling harm services)

• establishing a transparent framework so communities can see and trust where the money goes.

Another option, raised in the Hāpai Te Hauora report, is for the government to move away from gambling reliance altogether and directly fund community and sports groups. The $170 million a year is hardly unmanageable, and it would signal a commitment to sustaining the volunteers and organisations that underpin community life.

These approaches would be consistent with New Zealand’s longstanding gambling policy principle: if governments allow gambling to expand, they must also support the communities that feel the downstream impact.

For parents watching their children play on Saturday mornings, for volunteers balancing spreadsheets late at night, and for already stretched communities, this is more than just another abstract policy debate.

Blake Bennett 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. New online gambling laws could deal a bad hand to NZ’s grassroots sports clubs – https://theconversation.com/new-online-gambling-laws-could-deal-a-bad-hand-to-nzs-grassroots-sports-clubs-264181

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and Clinical Academic Gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University

Many of us are guilty of scrolling our smartphones on the toilet. But a new study from the United States, published today, has found this habit may increase your risk of developing haemorrhoids by up to 46%.

So, what’s the link? How can time on your phone lead to these painful lumps in and around your anus? Here’s what we know.

What are haemorrhoids?

Every healthy person has haemorrhoids, sometimes called piles. They are columns of cushioned tissue and blood vessels found close to the opening of the anus.

Haemorrhoids have a really important role in maintaining bowel continence or, to put it simply, keeping your poo in.

When all is well, we don’t notice them. But haemorrhoids can get swollen and this can lead to symptoms such as pain, bleeding or feeling a lump just inside your anus (internal haemorrhoids) or protruding outside (external haemorrhoids).

So when someone “has haemorrhoids”, it means they have become inflamed or symptomatic.

This is extremely common: more than one in two of us will experience symptomatic haemorrhoids at some point in our lives.

You are more likely to get haemorrhoids if you:

• are older (over 45)
• are pregnant
• are overweight
• have persistent constipation or diarrhoea
• regularly lift heavy objects
• spend a lot of time on the toilet.

The link between toilet time and haemorrhoids

Prolonged sitting in general has not been linked to developing haemorrhoids.

However, a standard toilet seat – unlike a chair or couch – has a large internal opening that provides no support for the pelvic floor (the group of muscles and ligaments that support the bladder, bowel and uterus).

Prolonged sitting on a toilet seat is believed to increase pressure inside the pelvic floor and lead to blood pooling in the vascular cushions of the anus. This makes haemorrhoids more likely to develop.

What the new study looked at

The new US study recruited 125 adults, aged 45 and older, who were undergoing a colonoscopy at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical centre.

Researchers surveyed them about their smartphone habits while using the toilet, including how often they checked their phone and for how long. Participants also reported on other behaviours such as straining, their fibre intake, and how much physical activity they did.

The researchers recorded whether they had haemorrhoids. Since the participants were all having a colonoscopy, the presence of internal haemorrhoids could be directly confirmed visually.

What did the study show?

Two-thirds (66%) of all participants used smartphones while on the toilet. The most common activity was reading news (54.3%), followed by social media (44.4%).

Those who used their smartphones spent longer on the toilet than those who didn’t. More than one in three (37.3%) toilet smartphone users spent over five minutes on the toilet, compared to just over one in 20 (7%) of those who didn’t use their smartphones.

The smartphone users had a 46% higher risk of haemorrhoids, compared to those who didn’t use their smartphone. To calculate this, researchers took into account other known risk factors for haemorrhoids such as gender, age, body mass index, exercise activity, straining and fibre intake.

However, unlike some other research, this study did not find a link between straining and haemorrhoids.

As a result, the researchers concluded that time spent on the toilet poses a more significant risk for haemorrhoids than straining. However, we can’t rule out straining as a risk factor, based on one study.

Some other limitations to consider

The study relied on participants remembering whether or not they strained, and how long they spent on the toilet.

This kind of recall is subjective, and may also be influenced by taking part in the study. For example, if the participants thought they had haemorrhoids, they may be more likely to report straining.

The study’s small sample size and the participants’ age (all over 45) also mean it is unlikely to be representative of the broader population.

Toilet sitting time

The new study is not the first to study the link between time spent on the toilet and developing haemorrhoids. In 2020, a Turkish study found spending more than five minutes on the toilet was associated with haemorrhoids.

Another 2020 study from Italy of 52 people with diagnosed internal or external haemorrhoids noted the longer they spent on the toilet, the more severe their haemorrhoids.

Read more:
Do men really take longer to poo?

So, what are we doing on the toilet?

Defaecation itself usually doesn’t take long. One study found it took healthy adults an average two minutes when sitting, but only 51 seconds when squatting.

The majority of “toilet sitting time” usually means just that – sitting on the toilet, doing other activities aside from pooing (or weeing).

One 2008 study from Israel surveyed 500 adults and found more than half (52.7%) read books or newspapers while on the toilet. It also found toilet readers spent significantly more time on the toilet.

How to avoid haemorrhoids

The usual advice is to increase the amount of fibre in your diet (eating more fruit, vegetables and wholegrains) and ensure you drink enough water. This makes it easier to pass a stool and reduces straining – which you should also try to avoid.

However, the new research confirms previous evidence that cutting down toilet sitting time may also help. So, avoiding distractions by leaving your smartphone outside the bathroom is a good idea (and as a bonus, will expose your device to fewer germs).

Read more:
Your phone is covered in germs: a tech expert explains how to clean it without doing damage

If you have any concerning symptoms, such as blood in your stool, a new lump in the anal region, or pain when passing a bowel motion then you should see your local doctor for further investigations and treatment.

Vincent Ho 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. Scrolling on the toilet increases your risk of haemorrhoids, new study shows – https://theconversation.com/scrolling-on-the-toilet-increases-your-risk-of-haemorrhoids-new-study-shows-264107

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Zeunert, Scientia Associate Professor in Environmental Design, UNSW Sydney

For much of Sydney’s history, the city supported its population with crops, orchards, dairies, abattoirs, oyster beds, wineries and market gardens scattered across the basin.

In 1951, New South Wales’ soon-to-be premier Joseph Cahill saw the development pressures building on the city’s food bowl. In parliament, he promised Sydney’s rural areas would be preserved “for vital food production […] soil conservation, irrigation, afforestation”.

Cahill’s promise was in vain. Farms continued to be paved over or turned into housing as the suburban expansion gathered pace. Smaller urban farms disappeared in the face of pressures from developers and larger rural producers. Urban development has now severely weakened Sydney’s local food economy.

Sydney still has room to grow food, which would boost resilience in the face of climate threats and extreme weather. But the city has long been geared towards converting farmland into houses, shops or industries. Today, the city’s five million residents rely almost entirely on food transported into the city’s topographic basin.

We have unearthed the diversity of what was lost in our new book, Sydney’s Food Landscapes and in our Google Maps database of the city’s former wealth of food production sites.

Botany: Sydney’s backyard vegetable garden

In 1770, the naturalist Joseph Banks recorded the botanical abundance of Kamay (Botany Bay). He later convinced the British House of Commons this would quickly lead to a self-sustaining colony. Following reconnaissance, Governor Arthur Phillip moved the settlement north to Port Jackson, but European crops didn’t grow well in the sandstone soils.

The colony almost collapsed in the “hungry years” of 1788–92. Soil fertility is usually blamed for this, but we argue poor agricultural planning and social factors were also central causes.

In the mid-19th century, Botany became a prolific food district. Chinese market gardeners transformed sandy wetlands through highly productive cooperatives, ingenuity, irrigation and liberal application of night soil as fertiliser. At their peak, market gardeners supplied up to half the city’s vegetables, hawking vegetables such as cabbages and turnips door to door.

Prejudice and industrialisation intervened. In 1901, the Immigration Restriction Act came into effect – laws aimed at limiting Chinese migration. Market garden leases were withdrawn amid persistent racism.

By the 1970s, most had been displaced by factories, ports and airports, with a few gardens remaining today at Matraville, La Perouse, Arncliffe and Kyeemagh – fragile traces of an industry once vital to Sydney’s food security.

Hawkesbury: Sydney’s engine room

From Botany, the story moved inland. Wheat and maize fields in Parramatta proved the colony’s first real agricultural success, but slash-and-burn practices soon exhausted soils. Farmers switched to citrus orchards, planting as widely as Pittwater.

Dyarubbin (the Hawkesbury River) was the true catalyst making the colony viable. In the 1790s, these rich floodplains became the “granary of the colony”. The Darug had cultivated the yam daisy, murnong, on these flats for millennia. The bloody dispossession known as the Sydney Wars lasted decades.

Convicts, ex-convict emancipists and opportunistic officials planted wheat, maize, fruit and vegetables. By 1810, Governor Lachlan Macquarie had proclaimed five farming towns to secure food supply.

Sadly, even Sydney’s most fertile soils for agriculture would succumb to suburbanisation after World War II. Large land parcels continue to be lost. Turf-growing, ornamental plants and cut flowers further typically prove more lucrative than food.

Lost landscapes

Botany and the Hawkesbury are only part of a kaleidoscopic legacy.

Histories range from the troubling use of child labour to produce 40,000 cabbages a year on Cockatoo Island, to local triumphs such as the Granny Smith apple and Narrabeen Plum varieties.

Six cows brought by the First Fleet escaped and made their way to rich grasslands. When rediscovered in what is now Camden, their numbers had multiplied. The rich “Cowpastures” catalysed a pastoral industry which would eventually dominate half the continent.

Dairies proliferated, with 517 registered in 1932. The gaols at Parramatta and Long Bay produced convict-grown crops. Liverpool became home to Australia’s first irrigation district in 1856, before giving way to industrial-scale poultry farming and billion-dollar empires.

Oyster leases producing what were praised as “the world’s finest oysters” dotted the Georges River. Warriewood’s “glass city” of greenhouses foreshadowed Spain’s plastic megafarms.

Vineyards expanded before the Phylloxera mite devastated much of the industry in 1888. One of the oldest wineries was paved over in 2015 for the construction of the Western Sydney International Airport. In the early 20th century, the St George region became Sydney’s “salad bowl”.

Could it have been different?

England gives its farmland greater protection through green belts, while Oregon in the United States relies on urban growth boundaries. Japan uses “productive green zones” to protect millions of farms ringing large cities and the European Union has policy settings to help small and medium producers near cities.

By contrast, Sydney has historically treated farming as a mere transition stage before urban development. Mid 20th century plans for a green belt collapsed under developer pressure, as agriculture was written out of official metropolitan plans.

Eating the future

As development squeezed out local food production, more and more food had to be brought in. Sydney now relies on trucks, ships and planes importing food from farms hundreds or thousands of kilometres away. The energy required for transport is greater than the calorific energy in the food. The city’s food system is exposed to natural disasters, global supply shocks and climate volatility.

Over the last 70 years, Sydney has engulfed most of its local food producers. It wasn’t due to poor soils, floods or disappointing harvests. It was a deliberate choice to privilege capital gains above all else.

It’s a slow process to re-centre a city around local food production. But it can be done, if planners and decision makers protect farms and food producers the same way they protect heritage buildings, parks and water catchments. Like clean water, food production has to be treated as vital civic infrastructure – not expendable land. Not all has been lost. Western Sydney still has available farmland.

Sydney may have eaten itself. But it need not starve. Its spectral metropolitan food landscapes offer both warning and inspiration for more resilient, equitable and sustainable futures.

Joshua Zeunert receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Alys Daroy 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. Sydney once produced its own food – but urban development has devoured the city’s food bowl – https://theconversation.com/sydney-once-produced-its-own-food-but-urban-development-has-devoured-the-citys-food-bowl-263105

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jia White, Lecturer in Education, Curtin University

An increasing number of young Australians are autistic. About 4.4% of children aged to 10 to 14 years and 3.4% of older teens have an autism diagnosis.

While research shows including autistic students in mainstream education benefits all students, autistic learners still face academic and social challenges.

Too often, efforts aimed at improving their school outcomes have largely excluded the voices of autistic students and have focused on their challenges.

But what if we listened to autistic students and focused on their strengths?

We did just that in our recent study published in the journal Autism. We interviewed 16 autistic adolescents about their experiences at school, focusing on what helped them thrive.

Our study

We invited young people from Western Australia to take part in our research through community groups, autism events and university programs.

Interviewees were either still in high school or had just left, they ranged in age from 13 to 20. The majority were male.

Students spoke candidly about friendships, learning and future goals, offering reflections and practical insights into what makes school feel meaningful, engaging and empowering.

Students want teachers to understand them

Students told us what mattered most to them was feeling understood by teachers. They wanted their teachers to see them as a whole person, with strengths and interests, rather than focusing on their diagnosis or challenges. Chris* explained:

They just sort of know me and they understand me.

Sometimes shared interests were the bridge. Isabelle appreciated that her teachers liked Harry Potter, which was also her passion. This made her feel more connected and respected. For others, time built understanding. Ben reflected his science teacher “knows me more than most of my new teachers” after three years together.

But not every experience was positive. Jaxton told us:

Teachers are less helpful to me because there’s something wrong with me in their eyes.

Students want to use their strengths

Individual strengths and interests also helped students connect with their classmates. Some found themselves helping their peers, boosting confidence and belonging. Aaron said:

If my friends were having trouble doing the question […] I would help them.

Even less social students said it was easier to connect with peers when talking about something they loved.

Students were also most engaged with school when their learning aligned with their interests. Jack, who loved programming, said:

It’s fun, it’s cool to learn, and it reliably makes sense […] if you write the code correctly, it’ll do what it’s supposed to do.

Rex liked science and maths for the problem-solving, and Aaron enjoyed subjects that involved “doing questions” over memorising content.

Students want clarity

Students told us they needed teachers’ expectations around the classroom and learning tasks to be clear – this helped them self-regulate and feel more secure. As Teo explained:

There needs to be clarity […] stress can come from when there are unexpected things.

Students told us helpful adjustments in the classroom include:

• working through an example with the class or teacher before working on their own

• step-by-step tasks

• being able to use noise-cancelling headphones when they want and need.

Students want support to follow their dreams

For many students, they thrived when school experiences aligned with their goals. Taylor, who wants to be a Manga artist, described her whole school experience as “gravitating towards my dream”.

Her passion began in the library and grew through creative activities. Rex dreams of being an “IT person or a pilot,” and Teo, drawn to logic and justice, hopes to become a barrister for autistic people.

Students wanted more help connecting their current learning with future pathways, and they wanted this well before they finished school. Taylor (who was 14 and in Year 9) explained:

They should have more stuff on what we want to be […] Everyone should be able to choose their own path […] Not from the end of Year 12 […] I’m talking about now, when we actually have the imagination and freedom.

So what do autistic students want? The young people in our study were not asking for special treatment. They just ask to be seen, heard and supported. Their insights offer clear direction for building inclusive and strengths-based schools, and remind us why student voice matters in shaping education that works for all.

*Names have been changed.

Jia White receives funding from Autism CRC.

Melissa H. Black 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. Autistic students say they want schools to focus on their strengths – not their diagnosis – https://theconversation.com/autistic-students-say-they-want-schools-to-focus-on-their-strengths-not-their-diagnosis-264026

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Crosby, Professor of Economics, Monash University

The Australian sharemarket has had a remarkably strong run since December 2023, when the S&P/ASX 200 index was around 7,000. In recent weeks the index topped 9,000 for the first time, a rise of about 16% on an annualised basis over this 21-month period.

This strong performance comes despite the economy and many companies facing difficult times. Recent earnings performance of companies has been mixed, and doesn’t seem to warrant such strong stockmarket growth. This raises the question of whether the market is due for a fall.

On Wednesday, the market posted its biggest one-day decline since April, losing 1.8%, for its fourth straight down day.

How to think about fair value

The best way to think about the “right” value for the stockmarket is to remember that when you are buying a share in a company, you are buying a share of their future dividends, which will in turn be related to the company’s earnings.

Economists and finance professionals use the “price-to-earnings ratio” as a way of assessing whether a company’s shares are high or low. This “PE ratio” compares a company’s share price with its earnings per share, and it can be used for comparisons with history, with competitors in the market, or with the stockmarket as a whole.

Take the Commonwealth Bank for example, which is held by all the superannuation funds. The bank has recently been trading at around A$170 a share, and its last 12 months’ earnings per share were about $6. So the price-to-earnings ratio is about 28.3.

For the stockmarket as a whole (more than 2,300 companies), the current PE ratio is about 25, which is well above the average PE ratio historically of around 16 in Australia.

Both the Commonwealth Bank, and the market as a whole, are “expensive” compared with historical valuations using this measurement. So are they going to fall?

The important point to note is that price-to-earnings ratios are based on past earnings. When you buy a share, it is not past earnings but future earnings that will determine future dividends and the value of the company. High PE ratios tell us that investors in the sharemarket see a rosy future, with rising profits and dividends.

Interest rates are a big factor

Price-to-earnings ratios might also be high because interest rates are still low by historical standards.

Low interest rates support businesses and future earnings. Low rates also lead investors to switch from low-return bonds and term deposits to higher yielding shares. This interest rate effect has been very strong in recent years, and explains part of the current market strength.

Another factor leading to strong sharemarket growth has been the surge in prices of artificial intelligence (AI) and related tech stocks. As with the internet boom in the late 1990s, there are hopes we are headed for a “new economy,” and many companies with good exposure to AI and technology might see earnings surge in future years.

Of course, the internet boom of the 1990s ended with the dotcom crash of 2000, when the high-tech Nasdaq index of stocks in the United States lost more than 60% of its market capitalisation in two years, to a low of around 1,300.

Yet the Nasdaq index today stands at more than 21,000. Many internet companies were wiped out during 2000 to 2002 – but those that survived are some of today’s titans.

For example, Amazon’s total market value has surged from a low of US$7 billion in 2002 to US$2.4 trillion now, with a PE ratio of 35.

This AI-related boom is a key consideration of many investors. Sure, some companies might not make it – but if you can hold on to the right ones you could make a very tidy return.

The new economy doesn’t apply to Australia

The new economy argument is not as strong a driver of Australia’s equity market, with our banks and miners dominating the market rather than tech companies.

Australian companies are seen as either safe and having solid profit growth due to low competition and scale (the banks), or exposure to a rapidly growing China (the miners).

So where will the market go? Yes, the market is expensive. But
as economist Burton Malkiel argued in his influential analysis of the US stockmarket in 1973, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, nothing can predict movements in stocks.

He said that on average, the market should rise by about 6% or 7% a year – a return above interest rates to compensate for the higher risk. (The Australian stockmarket has returned about 6% per year over its history.) But nothing can predict whether the market will have a better or a worse year than this normal return.

Importantly, a recent run of good returns does not predict the market will do worse in the coming year – and nor does it predict the market will do better.

Malkiel’s point is that the market might be in “bubble” territory and about to fall – but predicting when and how far is a mug’s game.

Mark Crosby 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. Is the Australian sharemarket headed for a correction? Here’s one way to judge – https://theconversation.com/is-the-australian-sharemarket-headed-for-a-correction-heres-one-way-to-judge-264044

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Darian-Smith, Professorial Fellow in History, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne

The introduction of television in Australia in 1956 coincided with mass post-war immigration, initially from Britain and Europe, and later from Asia, the Americas and Africa. Both played a significant role in forming modern society.

Our new book, Migrants, Television and Australian Stories, explores this intertwined history across seven decades, through dozens of interviews with screen creatives, technical staff and migrant viewers.

We provide fresh insight into the ways television introduced migrant audiences to the “Australian way of life”, as well as how the screen industry responded to a need for cultural diversity and inclusion.

Migrants were active audiences

Migrants arriving in Australia after the second world war were keen television viewers, despite the relatively high cost of owning a set.

Vietnamese refugee Cuc Lam told us she purchased a bulky secondhand television from a charity shop soon after arriving in Melbourne in 1978. She watched shows such as Play School (1966–) with her young children, picking up English phrases in the process.

The arrival of SBS television in 1980 (a service dedicated to migrant communities) is often heralded as a landmark initiative in Australian multiculturalism.

However, several earlier music and variety program aimed to showcase migrant groups and “exotic” international entertainers. Some examples included ABC’s Café Continental (1958–61) and Latin Holiday (1961).

One 1957 episode of the childrens’ show Romper Room (1953–94) featured insights into Chinese culture (pictured in the header image). This was unfamiliar viewing for most Australians at the time.

From the late 1960s, canny entrepreneurs with links to international diasporas produced shows such as the long-running Variety Italian Style (1972–87).

This commercial program featured music, cooking, travel, sport and documentary segments. It was sold to stations in North America and Europe, where it was broadcast to other Italian migrant populations.

Another such show was the Greek Variety Show (1977–84) produced by Greek Cypriot actor Harry Michaels, who also made the internationally successful Aerobics Oz Style (1982–2005). Michaels told us:

I was selling Greece to Australians, and then I ended up selling Australia to the world.

Representation on- and off-screen

Historically, many Australian-made dramas, comedies and other programs have reduced immigrants and other cultures to crude stereotypes.

In the gritty crime dramas Homicide (1964–77) and Division 4 (1969–75), migrant characters were often portrayed as criminals or victims of crime.

This trend started to change in the 1980s and 1990s. Children of migrants began making their own successful shows that asserted their cultural identities. For example, Acropolis Now (1989–92) centred on the multicultural staff working at a Greek cafe in Melbourne.

Pauline Chan, a refugee of Vietnamese and Chinese backgrounds, worked on the landmark 1986 miniseries Vietnam, which explored the impact of the Vietnam War on a white Australian family.

Despite having worked in Hong Kong’s fast-paced film industry, she struggled to find work after arriving in Australia in 1982. Initially employed on Vietnam as a researcher, the production team quickly realised the value of Chan’s personal expertise. She ended up consulting, acting and working with Vietnamese extras. She said the project “was like going back into the past […] it was a very emotional experience for me”.

Viewing as a family ritual

Jasmina Pandevski, a Macedonian Australian from Wollongong, told us watching Hey Hey It’s Saturday (1971–99) in the early 1980s was a “bit of an event” for her family. Her father would make rice pudding as a special dessert to eat during the show.

World Championship Wrestling (1964–78) was also popular with viewers during its run on Channel 9. It routinely pitted overseas wrestlers against local stars.

Libnan Ayoub, the son of Lebanese migrant wrestler “Sheik” Wadi Ayoub, went as far as to describe it as Australia’s “first multicultural sport”.

Family viewing changed with the arrival of the video recorder. Tala Jovanovski said her parents would source Macedonian videos of dance concerts and films from a neighbourhood shop. While they watched these videos in one room, she and her siblings were more likely watching Home and Away or Neighbours in another, eager to engage with Australian customs and teen culture.

Three siblings of Malaysian–Chinese background told us their conventional Australian children’s television diet was widened by their parents ownership of a video rental store in Brisbane. This meant they would also watch Jackie Chan’s kung-fu films. Now, they enjoy a new ritual of watching Eurovision with their own families.

We found today’s children and young adults of migrant backgrounds prefer the diversity of streaming platforms over commercial television. This corresponds with a wider trend of a preference for streaming.

Inclusion is an ongoing issue

Since the 1980s, a plethora of studies, surveys, forums and reports by media bodies, academics and advocates have suggested Australian broadcast media has been hesitant at best, and racist at worst, in representing cultural difference across scripted and unscripted television.

One 1990 report for the Office of Multicultural Affairs found “mainstream Australian media are neither competent in nor capable of accurately reflecting the diversity of Australian society”.

The situation has improved with gradual gains in access and opportunity for people from diverse backgrounds, along with significant policy changes – but only somewhat.

Actions to ensure diversity in Australian television remain ongoing. Some media creators use humour to critique the process of these well-meaning yet tokenistic efforts for inclusion.

Pearl Tan’s award-winning 2023 podcast Diversity Work, for instance, explores a fictional television writers’ room trying to tick off all its diversity “boxes”.

Tai Hara’s 2020 web series Colour Blind focuses on a hapless white casting agent navigating cultural sensitivities in the modern Australian screen industry.

Our research demonstrates migrants have always been important in producing and watching television. It also traces the continuing complexities of the question: what makes an Australian story?

Kate Darian-Smith receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Sue Turnbull receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Sukhmani Khorana receives funding from the Australia Research Council, and has previously undertaken commissioned research for Diversity Arts Australia.

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

– ref. How migrant stories and contributions have shaped Australian TV since the 1950s – https://theconversation.com/how-migrant-stories-and-contributions-have-shaped-australian-tv-since-the-1950s-262949

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katie Turlington, PhD Candidate, Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University

Scientists have long used sound to study wildlife. Bird calls, bat echolocation and whale songs, for example, have provided valuable insights for decades. But listening to entire ecosystems is a much newer frontier.

Listening to rivers is especially tricky. Beneath the water is a soundscape of clicks, pops and hums that most of us never hear. Many of these sounds are a mystery. What produces them – an insect? A fish? The water itself?

A new tool developed by my colleagues and I aims to help scientists decode what underwater river sounds really mean. We hope it will help monitor river health and tell the untold stories of these fascinating underwater places.

Sonic sleuthing

Rivers around the world face growing threats, including pollution, water extraction and climate change. So scientists are always looking for better ways to keep an eye on river health.

Sometimes river animals make sounds to attract a mate or ward off rivals. Other times the noise may simply be incidental, made when the animal moves or feeds.

These sounds can reveal a lot. Changes in the pattern or abundance of a sound can be a sign that a species is in decline or the ecosystem is under stress. They might reveal that a species we thought was silent actually makes sounds. Or we might discover a whole new species!

That’s why scientists use sound to monitor ecosystems. It essentially involves lowering waterproof microphones into the water and recording what’s picked up.

Recorders can run continuously, day and night, without disturbing wildlife. Unlike cameras, the recorders work in murky waters. And scientists can leave a recorder running and leave, allowing them to capture far more information with far less effort than traditional surveys.

Every recording is a time capsule. And as new technology develops, these sound files can be re-analysed, offering fresh insights into the state of our rivers.

But there’s a catch. Analysing the hours of recordings can be very time-consuming. Unlike for land-based recordings, no automatic tools have existed to help scientists identify or document what they’ve recorded underwater.

The best method available has been painfully old-fashioned: listening to recordings in real time. But a single recorder can capture tens of thousands of sounds each day. Manually analysing them can take a trained professional up to four times longer than the recording itself.

Our new, publicly available tool sought to address that problem.

A smarter way to listen to rivers

Our tool uses R, a free program for analysing data. The author of this article wrote a code instructing the program to analyse sound from underwater recordings.

We then uploaded sound recordings from Warrill Creek in Southeast Queensland. The program scanned the recordings and pulled out each individual sound.

Using the frequency, loudness and duration of every sound, it compared them all — a mammoth task if done by hand. Finally, it grouped similar sounds together — for example, clicks with clicks or hums with hums — turning them into simple clusters of data.

This process allows researchers to study the sounds more easily. Instead of spending hours listening to a recording and trying to distinguish the clicks of waterbugs from the grunts of a fish, the tool sorts the sounds into groups so researchers can jump straight to analysing patterns in the data.

For example, they might analyse which sounds are present in which rivers, or how the sounds change over time or between regions.

In yet-to-be published research, we tested the tool on a further 22 streams and found it successfully processed the sound data into groupings.

Our study found the tool is accurate. It correctly identified almost 90% of distinct sounds – faster and with far less effort than manual listening.

Listen to life beneath the surface

Listen to this recording of waterbugs from the order Hempitera. You’ll hear a chorus of sharp clicks, like marbles rattling in a glass. The recording is filled with hundreds of near-identical calls — a task that would take hours to label by hand.

After we uploaded the sound file, the tool grouped these repetitive calls automatically, saving huge amounts of listening time.

Below is an underwater recording of aquatic macroinvertebrates. The calls of these tiny river creatures, from the orders Hemiptera and Coleoptera, hum like cicadas. The sound is interspersed with the grunts of a fish (order Terapontidae), all set against the quiet backdrop of flowing water.

The tool can handle these layers, grouping sounds to show the community beneath the surface.

In this next clip, the sound of flowing water is prominent. This is one of the biggest challenges in listening to rivers. But our tool can separate out sounds masked by the constant background noise, so scientists can analyse them.

Below, a chorus of clicking macroinvertebrates fills the recording, until a vehicle sound cuts across from above the water’s surface. It shows how easily human noise crosses the boundary between air and water.

Helping protect our rivers

The tool allows underwater recordings to be processed at scale. It moves beyond hours of manual listening towards truly exploring what rivers are telling us.

It’s also flexible, able to handle data sets of any size, and adaptable to different ecosystems.

We hope the tool will help protect rivers and other water resources, such as oceans. It opens up new ways to monitor these environments and find strategies to protect them.

Scientists have only just begun exploring freshwater sound. By making this tool free, easy to use and publicly available, we hope more people can join in, ask questions and make discoveries of their own.

Katie Turlington 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. Australia’s rivers play secret symphonies. Click to hear what this underwater world is telling us – https://theconversation.com/australias-rivers-play-secret-symphonies-click-to-hear-what-this-underwater-world-is-telling-us-264262

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Lindsey, Malcolm Smith Professor of Asian Law and Director of the Centre for Indonesian Law, Islam and Society, The University of Melbourne

For many Indonesians, the violent riots currently wracking Jakarta and other cities across the archipelago are eerily reminiscent of the riots of 1998 that accompanied the fall of former dictator Soeharto and his New Order regime after three decades in power.

As in 1998, demonstrators have targeted the legislative complex and “fat cat” politicians they see as neglecting and even impoverishing them. Rioters are also vandalising the homes of politicians and stripping them of luxury goods.

Also striking is the behaviour of the security forces. While there are widespread reports of violence by police, some members of the military are said to have been standing by and not stopping the looting. In one case, they even handed out drinks and cash to rioters.

Again, this reminds many of the involvement of the military in the 1998 riots, when soldiers harshly cracked down on protesters, but were also accused of facilitating rioting and looting. Current President Prabowo Subianto, then a senior army general, was dismissed after being allegedly implicated in these events, particularly in the forced disappearances of democracy activists.

The situation in Jakarta is not yet as serious as it was in 1998, but the presence of thousands of violent rioters targeting the rich and powerful is still a nightmare for Indonesia’s oligarchic elite. Mass protests are one of the few things that give them pause – and sometimes even force them to back down.

This is why those protests can also be vulnerable to manipulation by members of that same elite: they hope to weaponise public fury against each other.

But there is much more to these events than just elite rivalry.

Political perks and public pain

In recent years, huge protests calling on legislators to abandon plans to pass a repressive new criminal code or gut the once-respected Anti-Corruption Commission have failed. But this has only added to a backlog of grievances against politicians. On Independence Day on August 17, some protesters even flew pirate flags below the national flag. Officials called this act “treason”.

The current street protests began spontaneously a week later on August 25, with people calling for the dissolution of the national legislature (known by the acronym DPR). Protesters were enraged that legislators had granted themselves lavish new monthly housing allowances of approximately A$4,700, which the deputy speaker claimed was still not enough, even though many politicians already earn more than $9,000 per month (and some more than $21,000), tax free.

The angry public response was understandable, given the minimum wage in Jakarta is just $500 per month. There is deep resentment in Indonesia of politicians, who are seen as corrupt, lazy and out of touch.

The growing budget hole created by Prabowo’s costly signature projects means many basic social services have been slashed since he was sworn in last October, including health, education and local government funding. The ranks of the poor are growing and the middle class is shrinking. Both segments of society are hurting.

Unsurprisingly, the demonstrators demanded the legislators’ new housing allowances be cancelled, along with other perks such as overseas junkets. Lawmakers responded arrogantly, with one even calling the protesters “the dumbest people in the world”.

The demonstrations were relatively calm at first. Then, on August 28, a 21-year-old motorcycle taxi driver, Affan Kurniawan, who happened to be making a delivery near the protests, was run over and killed by a police vehicle.

The symbolism could hardly be starker. A precarious gig economy worker struggling to support his parents on a pittance crushed by an armoured vehicle driven by the police, popularly seen as corrupt and oppressive agents of the political elite. It seemed to encapsulate the issue at the heart of the demonstrations – elite greed and lack of concern for the “little people”.

Motorbike taxi associations and many other community groups quickly organised, demanding police be held accountable. The protests then grew outside Jakarta police headquarters and spread rapidly across Indonesia. Rioters targeted police stations, government buildings, and bus and train stations.

Looting and even arson attacks followed, resulting in numerous regional legislatures being destroyed. There have been at least seven deaths so far.

Prabowo now says he is listening to protesters’ grievances and the DPR will cancel the legislator allowances. It remains to be seen if that ever happens and whether it will last, given it’s in Prabowo’s interests to keep lawmakers’ pockets full.

Reflecting his military past and “strongman” self-image, the president has also said the protesters are committing treason and terrorism. He has called on police to act against them with “determination”.

Conspiracy theories running wild

These events are clearly a threat to some members of the elite, but there is no doubt they offer opportunities to others.

Some protesters believe the different responses of the police and the army – longstanding rivals for status, funds and influence – reflect their competing political allegiances.

Prabowo, a former Special Forces commander, is said to be backed by the army, while the police chief, Listyo Sigit Prabowo (no relation), is loyal to former president Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, who appointed him. Jokowi also presided over huge growth in police budgets and numbers while in office.

While Prabowo won last year’s presidential election thanks to an alliance he formed with Jokowi, the two now seem locked in a struggle for power.

Some critics suggest it would suit Prabowo for the police to be the villains in the current protests, as that would weaken Jokowi. Army inaction (or even provocation or support for the rioting) helps achieve that. The ultimate aim, they suggest, might even be to disband the national police and make it a subordinate branch of the military, as it was under Soeharto.

In 1998, Prabowo was allegedly involved in manipulating the rioting in Jakarta in a failed effort to win power. Many Indonesians believe a similar high-stakes scheme today is not beyond him.

Whether or not this is true, conspiracy theories are running wild. It’s certainly possible the elite would try to meddle in events in the streets, even if details are likely to remain murky.

But it’s equally apparent the protests are a genuine outburst of long-simmering grievances against the political elite, guided by grassroots civil society organisations. Unfortunately, these groups have not yet been able to articulate the clear set of political demands that could create a more unified movement out of the street protests, as happened in 1998.

How will Prabowo respond?

Will the elite back down? They did in 1998. Then, the rioting forced the New Order elite to purge themselves of their more toxic members (such as Soeharto and, for a while, his then son-in-law, Prabowo) and reconfigure as nominal Reformasi democrats.

But that does not look likely this time – at least not yet. Although Indonesia has been a constitutional democracy since 1999, real political authority is still firmly in the hands of a relatively small, entrenched, oligarchic elite.

They have learned to win elections and control the political process so effectively there is no meaningful political party opposition at all. This has created an increasingly undemocratic ruling coalition that has its own savage internal fights (such as those between Jokowi and Prabowo), but has proved extraordinarily resilient and resistant to external pressure.

While many rich and powerful oligarchs fear Prabowo’s innate authoritarianism, the current crisis is probably not enough to force a split with him.

Indeed, Prabowo may even be able to use his response to the riots to further consolidate his power. Some suggest he may even impose martial law if they continue.

And this means that once the current unrest dies down (and that may take a while), and Prabowo and his inner circle feel sufficiently in control again, a harsh crackdown on civil society critics and protest leaders is a very real possibility.

Tim Lindsey receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. What’s behind the rioting in Indonesia? And will the much-loathed political elite back down? – https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-the-rioting-in-indonesia-and-will-the-much-loathed-political-elite-back-down-264470

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

Immigration has once again become a hot button issue, from weekend protests featuring neo-Nazis to a new A$408 million deal with Nauru to accept former immigration detainees Australia cannot legally deport back to their own countries.

The federal government has also just belatedly announced the permanent migration figure for this financial year. At 185,000, it’s unchanged from the previous year.

On this podcast we’re joined by Abul Rizvi, a former deputy secretary of the Department of Immigration under the Howard government turned media commentator. He says it was “very, very unusual” that it took the Albanese government so long to announce the latest migration figures.

The delay was unprecedented. I cannot remember a year in which the government did not announce the programme for the relevant year before that year started.

But Rizvi says both major political parties should take responsibility for fuelling public concerns about immigration, after two decades of stalling on hard decisions and avoiding difficult conversations.

At least since Kevin Rudd unleashed on us the big Australia debate […] both major parties have been reluctant to talk about immigration policy […] They have lacked a will to explain our long-term directions in terms of population and net overseas migration. And as a result, I think they have left a vacuum.

And that vacuum is now being filled […] by extremists such as neo-Nazis and others. But I think they are a small portion of the people that the government needs to be talking to. They need to be talking to middle Australia, who just wants to know that immigration is being managed in the national interest.

Rizvi says successive federal governments have failed to properly manage or explain how they’re dealing with migrant numbers. That’s having unintended consequences, both for families and businesses trying to bring workers or loved ones to Australia.

The big pressure is under employer-sponsored migration, where I suspect what [the government will] do is simply slow processing. And that will just make employers angry. It will make the applicants angry. It’s just really poor practice.

But more importantly, they’re confronted with a massive backlog of partner visa applications, which on my estimates […] the backlog is around 100,000 […] They come under the Permanent Migration Programme, so they’ve got to be fit within that programme. We’re getting about 60,000 to 65,000 applications per annum, and the government has allocated 40,000 places for partner visas.

In other words, it’s saying, yet again for another year, they’re just going to let the backlog grow. The law, the Migration Act, says the government must manage these visas on a demand-driven basis. And the government proudly puts that on the website, that it does that. But when you’re constantly letting the backlog grow and grow and grow, you’re not really managing it on a demand-driven basis.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Abul Rizvi on how silence and stalling stoke anti-migrant fears – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-abul-rizvi-on-how-silence-and-stalling-stoke-anti-migrant-fears-264351

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ger Post, Lecturer Neuroscience, PhD student collaborative reasoning, The University of Melbourne

With the AFL finals approaching, discussions about the league’s clutch players – those who excel under pressure – will soon appear in the media and be debated among fans.

Last year, Gold Coast captain Noah Anderson was ranked highest in a list of AFL clutch players, followed by more established names including the Western Bulldogs’ Tom Liberatore and Geelong’s Patrick Dangerfield.

But what does clutch really mean and is it possible for athletes to be “clutch”?

The power of labels and narratives

While most people struggle when the pressure rises – they may even “choke”, where they lose the ability to perform a skill in front of an audience – clutch players seem to excel in these circumstances.

They thrive when the heat is on and seem to save something special for these moments.

The label of being a clutch player is often shaped by stereotypical narratives of, as some media commentary has put it, “hardened, stubborn men” who will “take themselves to the next level through sheer guts and an iron will”.

In 2018, former Port Adelaide great and outspoken media pundit Kane Cornes earmarked Bulldogs champion Marcus Bontempelli as a clutch player:

The one player who I want with the ball in their hands, when the game is on the line is “The Bont”. For me, Marcus Bontempelli, is right now the best clutch performer in the competition.

More recently, Carlton’s Blake Acres was described as “intense, desperate and completely unwilling to give an inch” in the finals:

Acres was the big moment player, full of desperation, intensity and a relentless attack on the ball.

But are these players really clutch?

Blindspots and biases

These character sketches and rankings of clutch players mask many blind spots and biases in how the data are compiled and interpreted.

For example, the data tend to favour players who generate impact with eye-catching and easily measurable actions (such as Bontempelli, who often brilliantly takes marks and kicks goals) while undervaluing those who do the less glamorous grunt work that helps the rest of the team (such as Liberatore, who plays a more selfless role).

More importantly, the data don’t reflect whether a player actually improves under pressure (the definition of clutch).

In the case of Anderson, is he indeed performing better than others in the final quarters of tight games? Or is he just more talented than others and ranks higher in all quarters of games?

Or maybe he is better in the first three quarters of the game and then declines in the fourth quarter – yet he is he still better than the rest?

We don’t know solely from assessing his performances in final quarters.

Studies from other team sports including basketball, soccer and baseball cannot definitely prove players excel under pressure.

No one saves something special for when it’s needed most.

It seems more likely that clutch performances simply stick in our memories: game-deciding moments are more memorable than efforts that fail to seal victory.

There could be other reasons, too.

The power of opportunity

Statistics from many sports show even if athletes are involved in more goals or baskets when the game is on the line, it doesn’t necessarily mean they excel in these moments.

When late-game performances by basketball legends including LeBron James and Kobe Bryant were analysed, another option surfaced: clutch performers seem to be doing more instead of better in the last minutes of tight games.

Their scoring accuracy doesn’t improve in these moments (they miss, on average, just as much as most players) but they do get more scoring opportunities.

These opportunities are created by many involved, not in the least the teammates who pass the ball to the clutch player.

These teammates often follow the instructions from their coaches to get the clutch player in scoring position in the dying seconds.

Opponents can, unintentionally, assist by making more fouls on clutch players when the heat is on, giving them more free throws to seal the victory.

Finally, there are fans and pundits who label these players as the ones who should decide the game.

So to get more opportunities to decide a match, an athlete needs to build a reputation that they will take themselves “to the next level” when it matters most. Tattooing “CHOSEN1” on your back might help build these reputations, as LeBron James did.

Even better is when others talk about your confidence, hunger for victories, or hardened, stubborn competitiveness. This signals to fans, teammates and coaches that you are the one who should be getting the ball to decide the game.

More opportunities means more game-winning shots, which reinforces the idea you are a clutch player.

Being listed as one of the most clutch players of the competition might be the best assist an athlete can get to decide a final.

Ger Post 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. So-called ‘clutch’ athletes might be more hype than nerveless match-winners – https://theconversation.com/so-called-clutch-athletes-might-be-more-hype-than-nerveless-match-winners-263111

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clare Collins, Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle

If you follow wellness content on social media or in the news, you’ve probably heard that processed food is not just unhealthy, but can cause serious harm.

Eating a diet dominated by highly processed foods means you’re likely to consume more kilojoules than you need, and greater amounts of salt, sugar – as well as food additives.

But not all processed foods are equal, nor bad for you. Here’s what to look out for on food labels if you want to buy processed, but convenient, foods.

What do the processing categories mean?

Researchers use the Nova processed food classification system to group foods into four processing levels.

Group 1: Unprocessed or minimally processed foods are either in their natural state or have minimal processing. They’re basic foods you could eat straight away, such as vegetables and fruit, or foods that only need minimal processing to make them safe and palatable, such as eggs, meat, poultry, fish, oats, other grains, plain pasta, legumes, milk, plain yoghurt, ground herbs and spices, or nuts with shells.

Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients are derived from group 1. These are used in cooking to enhance flavour and texture, and include oils, sugar and honey.

Group 3: Processed foods are treated using traditional processing methods such as canning, bottling, fermenting, or salting to extend shelf life. These include canned fruits, tomato paste, cheese, salted fish, and breads with minimal ingredients. You could make these foods in a home kitchen.

Group 4: Ultra-processed foods are industrially produced with ingredients and additives not normally found in home kitchens, and have little, if any, group 1 items left intact. These foods are engineered to be hyper-palatable, meaning you can’t stop eating them, and have long shelf lives. Products include factory-made biscuits, snack foods, instant meals, frozen desserts, preserved meats, instant noodles, margarine, some breakfast cereals and sugar-sweetened drinks.

However, group 4 products vary greatly in their nutritional quality and the number and type of food additives used to manufacture them.

What’s the concern about eating lots of ultra-processed foods?

About 42% of Australians’ total energy intake comes from ultra-processed foods. These are relatively cheap and are energy-dense, but nutrient-poor. This means they can contain a lot of kilojules, salt and added sugars but are poor sources of nutrients the body needs such as vitamins, minerals and dietary fibre.

Studies have linked higher intakes of ultra-processed foods with poorer diet quality and worse health outcomes. A review of 122 observational studies found people with the highest intakes (compared with the lowest) were about 25% more likely to have had a decline in kidney function. They were 20% more likely to be overweight, or have obesity or diabetes, and were 40% more likely to have common mental health conditions such as depression.

However, a recent review highlighted that the health impact of these foods and drinks varies depending on their category. Products such as sugar-sweetened drinks can negatively affect health, while others – such as cereals with added vitamins and minerals and some dairy products – can be neutral or even protective.

Some level of food processing can improve food safety, extend shelf life and reduce food waste. This is likely to include the use of additives, such as emulsifiers, flavour enhancers, preservatives, food acids, colours and raising agents. Additives need to be approved by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) after a safety assessment, with the lowest amount added to achieve the specific purpose in the food product.

However, some adults and children eat a lot of ultra-processed foods. This means they have high intakes of food additives, in terms of total amount and different types.

Researchers have raised concerns about a potential link between high intakes and increased risks of some health conditions, ranging from mental health disorders to heart disease and metabolic disorders such as diabetes. The researchers called for transparent use of evidence to ensure public health messaging is kept up to date.

An observational study in more than 100,000 French adults also raised concerns about potential “cocktail” effects of food additive combinations. Although more research is needed, they found some additive combinations were associated with a higher risk for developing type 2 diabetes.

Finally, a recent review highlighted the potential for additives, particularly emulsifiers, to damage the gut lining and alter the balance of healthy versus unhealthy gut microbes. This could potentially increase the risk of developing inflammatory bowel conditions.

What processed foods should you choose?

It depends on how they’re made, the additives used, how often you eat them, and how much you have.

When choosing processed foods:

1. Read the ingredient list on the food label. It tells you a lot about the level of processing and additives used. Look for products that contain minimal to no additives, and ingredients that could be found in a home kitchen. Note that additives could be listed by name or number.

2. If there are a number of products in the same category, choose the one with more Health Stars as it will contain less salt, saturated fat and added sugars, compared to products with fewer Health Stars.

3. Think about how often you eat the product. If you do eat it weekly or more often, spend more time comparing products before making a final choice.

While you might expect all Nova 3 processed foods to be healthier than Nova group 4 (ultra-processed), this isn’t always the case. Nova group 3 items don’t necessarily meet the nutrient criteria that deems them “healthy”. They could still contain excessive amounts of added salt, saturated fat or sugars.

For help to review the level of processing alongside the nutrient criteria, consider using an app such as Open Food Facts. This assigns food products a Nova group score, a nutrition score, and another to rate its impact on the environment.

Read more:
Ultra-processed foods might not be the real villain in our diets – here’s what our research found

Clare Collins AO is a Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics at the University of Newcastle, NSW and a Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI) affiliated researcher. She is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Leadership Fellow and has received research grants from NHMRC, ARC, MRFF, HMRI, Diabetes Australia, Heart Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, nib foundation, Rijk Zwaan Australia, WA Dept. Health, Meat and Livestock Australia, and Greater Charitable Foundation. She has consulted to SHINE Australia, Novo Nordisk, Quality Bakers, the Sax Institute, Dietitians Australia and the ABC. She was a team member conducting systematic reviews to inform the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines update, the Heart Foundation evidence reviews on meat and dietary patterns and was Co-Chair of the Guidelines Development Advisory Committee for Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treatment of Obesity 2025.

– ref. Not all processed foods are bad for you. Here’s what you can tell from reading the label – https://theconversation.com/not-all-processed-foods-are-bad-for-you-heres-what-you-can-tell-from-reading-the-label-260818

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

The hype around protein intake doesn’t seem to be going away.

Social media is full of people urging you to eat more protein, including via supplements such as protein shakes. Food companies have also started highlighting protein content on food packages to promote sales.

But is all the extra protein giving us any benefit – and can you have too much protein?

Protein’s important – but many eat more than they need

Eating enough protein is important. It helps form muscle tissue, enzymes and hormones and it plays a role in immune function. It can also give you energy.

Australia’s healthy eating guidelines, penned by experts and backed by government, recommend we get 15–25% of our daily energy needs from protein.

The recommended daily intake of protein for adults is 0.84 grams per kilogram of body weight for men and 0.75 grams per kilogram of body weight for women

This is about 76 grams per day for a 90 kilogram man or 53 grams per day for a 70 kilogram woman. (It’s a bit more if you’re over 70 or a child, though).

Most Australian adults are already eating plenty of protein.

Even so, many people still go out of their way to add even more protein to their diet.

For people working to increase muscle mass through resistance training, such as lifting weights, a protein intake up to 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day (that’s 144 grams a day for a 90 kilogram person) can help with increasing muscle strength and size.

But research shows there is no additional muscle gain benefit from eating any more than that.

For most of us, there’s no benefit in consuming protein above the recommended level.

In fact, having too much protein can cause problems.

What happens when I eat too much protein?

Excess protein is not all simply excreted from the body in urine or faeces. It stays in the body and has various effects.

Protein is a source of energy, so eating more protein means taking in more energy.

When we consume more energy than we need, our body converts any excess into fatty tissue for storage.

There are some health conditions where excess protein intake should be avoided. For example, people with chronic kidney disease should closely monitor their protein intake, under the supervision of a dietitian, to avoid damage to the kidneys.

There is also a condition called protein poisoning, which is where you eat too many proteins without getting enough fats, carbohydrates and other nutrients.

It’s also known as “rabbit starvation”, a term often linked to early 20th century explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson, in reference to the fact that those who subsisted on a diet of mainly rabbits (which are famously lean) quickly fell dangerously ill.

Where you get your protein from matters

We can get protein in our diets from plant sources (such as beans, lentils, wholegrains) and animal sources (such as eggs, dairy, meat or fish).

A high intake of protein from animal sources has been associated with an increased risk of premature death among older Australians (especially death from cancer).

High animal protein intake is also associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

On the other hand, consuming more plant sources of protein is associated with:

• a lower risk of dying from cancer
• a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and
• improved blood cholesterol levels.

Many animal sources of protein are also relatively high in fat, particularly saturated fat.

A high intake of saturated fat contributes to increased risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease. Many Australians already eat more saturated fat than we need.

Many plant sources of protein, however, are also sources of dietary fibre, which most Australians don’t get enough of.

Having more dietary fibre helps reduce the risk of chronic diseases (such as heart disease) and supports gut health.

Striking a balance

Overall, where you get protein from – and having a balance between animal and plant sources – is more important than simply just trying to add ever more protein to your diet.

Protein, fats and carbohydrates all work together to keep your body healthy and the engine running smoothly.

We need all of these macro nutrients, along with vitamins and minerals, in the right proportions to support our health.

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

– ref. What happens if I eat too much protein? – https://theconversation.com/what-happens-if-i-eat-too-much-protein-261849

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sanné Mestrom, Senior Lecturer, DECRA Fellow, Sydney College of the Arts, University of Sydney

Walk into most art galleries with children, and you’ll hear the familiar refrain “look but don’t touch”. This instruction reveals something troubling about how cultural institutions understand learning. Museums have become temples to visual consumption, where knowledge is received through eyes rather than constructed through bodies.

This fundamentally misunderstands how humans learn – and what we deny young people when we privilege looking over all other forms of engagement.

At my exhibition The Whole is Greater Than the Sum of Her Parts, I have watched visitors consistently spend significantly longer with touchable elements compared to visual-only displays. Visitors engaging tactilely ask fundamentally different questions, too, moving from “what is this?” to “how was this made?” and “what if I tried…?”

So what happens when we design cultural spaces honouring the full range of human learning capacities?

Touch reveals what eyes miss

My exhibition includes bronze reliefs visitors can touch while viewing corresponding paintings. This simple addition reveals artistic knowledge that visual observation alone cannot provide.

Take a moment I witnessed with the work The Weight of Connection, where a child placed her hands on reliefs while looking at paintings.

These bronze sculptures translate semi-abstract paintings into three-dimensional form, but with a twist. What appears to recede in the painting might actually protrude in the bronze relief.

“This looks like the background, but it feels raised,” she said, as her fingers traced raised areas that appeared sunken in the painting. Suddenly she had to work harder to understand what was actually happening, comparing what her eyes told her with what her hands discovered.

This is spatial reasoning in action: understanding emerging not from a single sense, but from reconciling conflicting information.

The exhibition’s large playable sculpture, Ludic Folly, transforms semi-abstract figurative forms into an interactive adventure. Visitors climb, rest and navigate space. I repeatedly observe children and adults having “aha moments” as physical position fundamentally changes their understanding of sculptural forms.

My research has shown children naturally learn by building foam compositions on this interactive sculpture, stacking geometric shapes while balancing on curved surfaces.

I’ve watched them discover triangular forms won’t balance the same way rectangular ones do, and weight distribution changes everything. Their whole body becomes part of the learning process.

When children build these compositions together, they don’t just absorb information, they negotiate what works. I’ve seen two kids argue about whether a foam cube should go “on top or underneath”, then test both options, their hands and bodies providing immediate feedback about balance and stability.

When foam structures topple over in Ludic Folly, children don’t see catastrophe, they see information. “Oh, it needs more support here,” one child told me after her tower collapsed, immediately rebuilding with a wider base.

Embracing risk

My research explores a concerning pattern: students from highly supervised, risk-averse childhoods often struggle with creative risk-taking in young adulthood. Physical risks in early childhood build resilience, enabling later intellectual and creative risks.

Museums maintaining “look but don’t touch” policies aren’t just being conservative. They’re reinforcing educational approaches that produce passive, risk-averse learners precisely when society increasingly needs creative problem-solvers.

When children in Ludic Folly climb, balance and build structures that might fall, they’re developing both physical confidence and intellectual courage.

In the real world, we never rely on just our eyes. When you’re cooking, you’re listening to the sizzle, feeling the heat, smelling when something’s ready, tasting as you go. When you’re fixing something, your hands tell you as much as your eyes do.

Yet, somehow, we’ve convinced ourselves that in museums learning should happen only through looking.

A path forward

Cultural institutions can implement embodied learning approaches without major infrastructure changes. They can:

• allow visitors to explore exhibitions with their hands, providing various textures, weights and temperatures for visitors to manipulate while studying artworks

• design exhibitions requiring physical navigation and multiple viewpoints, rather than static observation

• create spaces where visitors build, arrange and problem-solve together using loose parts or modular elements

• allow visitors to handle tools, materials or work-in-progress pieces revealing artistic processes typically hidden behind finished works.

Throughout my exhibition, these bronze reliefs and the large playable sculpture contain “embodied knowledge” – understanding existing only through physical creation and accessible only through physical engagement. This isn’t secondary information; it’s primary artistic knowledge completely inaccessible through visual observation alone.

Just like artists, children build knowledge in their bodies. The acquisition of tacit knowledge is a deeply immersive process.

Over time, the artist’s body becomes a repository of knowledge, with each movement and gesture informed by years of practice. This allows the artist to work with a level of precision and artistry often described as second nature. For children, this process happens through play and exploration.

Museums embracing all of our senses aren’t just being more inclusive; they’re being more effective educators, spaces where learning becomes collaborative rather than passive.

To accompany the exhibition, I developed a comprehensive learning resource with essays, activities, and inquiry questions that help educators and families understand how children learn through embodied knowledge. It’s time our cultural institutions caught up with what children have always known: real learning engages the whole person, not just the eyes.

The Whole is Greater Than the Sum of Her Parts is at the National Gallery of Australia, Canberra, until September 21.

Sanné Mestrom receives funding from the Australian Research Council. The work discussed here was commissioned by the National Gallery of Australia.

– ref. Touch reveals what eyes can’t see – so museums should embrace interactivity – https://theconversation.com/touch-reveals-what-eyes-cant-see-so-museums-should-embrace-interactivity-257325

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karin Hammarberg, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Global and Women’s Health, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University

Australia’s fertility sector has been rocked by yet more reports of serious errors, this time involving sperm donors from overseas.

On Monday, an ABC investigation revealed a Brisbane couple had signed a non-disclosure agreement after discovering that sperm from the wrong overseas donor had been used to conceive their child, who was born in 2014.

The same fertility clinic had keep secret an audit that found there was a “high risk” that sperm frozen before 2020 did not match the donor on the label. This included sperm from two overseas banks.

It’ well known that informal sperm donation, where people find a sperm donor online, is risky. But now formal sperm donation is in the spotlight. So how is it regulated and what do we know about donors? And how safe is it?

How does sperm donation work in Australia?

Formal fertility treatment, including sperm donation, is almost exclusively provided by private clinics. Medicare subsidises this treatment but patients still pay significant out-of-pocket costs.

Sperm donation is mainly used by single women and same-sex female couples. Couples who want to avoid passing on a known genetic condition, and some men who have had cancer treatment, may also choose to use a sperm donor.

Clinics provide those who need donor sperm with non-identifying details about several donors, and allow them to choose. Characteristics include the donors’ ethnicity, eye and hair colour, height and blood group, and whether they are a domestic or overseas donor.

Women with no known fertility problems may use a simple procedure called intrauterine insemination (IUI), where a small amount of the donor’s sperm is placed in the woman’s uterus when she is ovulating.

Women with fertility problems and those who have tried IUI without success need IVF to conceive. This involves fertilising eggs with donor sperm in the laboratory to form embryos, and then placing one in the woman’s uterus.

Who are the sperm donors?

Donors may be known – for example, a relative, friend or someone the recipient has connected with online.

De-identified donors, the most commonly used donors, are recruited by fertility clinics and aren’t known to the recipient.

Clinics have to record all donors’ identifying details so their offspring can access them when they reach adulthood.

International research shows most sperm donors are motivated by altruism and want to help people have children.

In Australia, donors can’t be paid for providing sperm. They must also agree to release their identity to any child born from their donation.

Potential donors undergo rigorous medical and psychological screening, which means only a small proportion of men who offer to donate sperm are accepted.

A study of more than 11,000 men who applied to become a sperm donor in Denmark and the United States found fewer than 5% were accepted and had samples frozen. Some men withdrew or didn’t respond; others had disqualifying health conditions or low sperm count.

As demand for donor sperm in Australia far outstrips supply, clinics import sperm from international sperm banks, mostly in the US or Denmark.

There are no national data on the proportions of sperm donation treatments that involve overseas or domestic donors. However, in 2024 clinics in Victoria stored sperm from 578 donors patients recruited, 1,001 donors clinics recruited, and only 46 donors recruited overseas.

Choosing a clinic and an overseas donor can be difficult. It also comes with added risks, such as the donor having donated to many clinics and people discovering their children have dozens or hundreds of half-siblings.

And, as demonstrated by the recent sperm mix-up report, the double witnessing procedures that are required in Australia may not have occurred for some imported sperm.

The rules for imported sperm vary slightly by state. But they are essentially the same as those for domestic donors.

What are the rules for donors?

Sperm donation is regulated through state and territory laws, the National Health and Medical Research Council Ethical Guidelines and the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee Code of Practice.

Although there are some differences between states, certain rules apply across all states and territories:

• a donor can’t receive any payment or inducement (apart from expenses incurred as a result of the donation, such as travel costs)

• potential donors and recipients must be counselled about the medical, special, psychological and legal implications of sperm donation

• potential donors must be screened for infectious and genetic diseases

• recipients are entitled to access information about the donor’s medical history, physical characteristics, and the number and sex of children born from that donor

• children born from sperm donation have the right to access information about the donor as adults. This includes identifying information such as their full name and date of birth

• clinics must maintain detailed records – including identifying and non-identifying information – of donors, recipients and offspring

• a donor has no legal responsibility for a child born from his donation

• a maximum number of families can be created with one donor’s sperm (five to ten, depending on state).

Clinics are required to report serious adverse events to the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee, but the committee doesn’t make this information public. So there is no way of knowing whether there has been other mixups, beyond what has been reported.

Is sperm donation safe?

In broad terms, fertility treatment – including sperm donation – is practised responsibly in Australia.

However, the reports of serious errors of the past few months, including reports of sperm and embryo mixups, as well as the use of non-disclosure agreements, raise questions about transparency within the industry.

As a result, in June, state and federal government ministers announced a rapid review of the fertility sector, and are currently awaiting its recommendations.

The review will consider whether the current patchwork of regulation should be replaced with national regulation, the merits of a national register of donors, recipients and offspring, and whether the current industry sponsored clinic accrediting body should be replaced by an independent body.

Based on the reported errors, it’s clear the sector needs an independent overseeing body to restore trust and confidence in the system.

Karin Hammarberg 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. Here’s what we know – and don’t know – about using IVF sperm donors from overseas – https://theconversation.com/heres-what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-using-ivf-sperm-donors-from-overseas-264276

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Callum Jones, Associate research fellow, Deakin University

Over the weekend, rallies were staged across various Australian cities under the branding “March for Australia”. The rallies, which were attended by avowed neo-Nazis and elected politicians alike, called for an end to mass migration.

These protests are not unique to Australia. Recently, the United Kingdom has seen its own wave of anti-migrant demonstrations in cities such as London, Bristol and Birmingham.

Despite claims by some that the Australian rallies were “hijacked” by the neo-Nazi National Socialist Network (NSN), they were deeply rooted in the far-right, white nationalist ideas of “remigration” and the Great Replacement theory.

An ABC investigation in the lead-up to the rallies found that “remigration” was listed on the organisers’ website as a key reason for marching, before later being deleted.

Significantly, the March for Australia rallies also received high-profile, online support from far-right figures overseas, including Alex Jones, Tommy Robinson, Jack Posobiec and Elon Musk.

Musk retweeted a post erroneously claiming 150,000 people took part in the rallies, while Jones retweeted a post claiming a crowd size of half a million.

For the rally organisers, public support from figures such as these greatly expands the reach of their message, and repositions them from isolated fringe events to vital parts of a global anti-immigration movement.

This is not the first time Musk has inserted himself in the domestic politics of a foreign country to bolster the far right. The tech billionaire notably gave his support to Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany party in recent elections, describing it as the “best hope”“ for the country.

In recent days, he also posted the phrase ”remigration is the only way“ in response to a post about foreigners in the UK.

Remigration refers to the mass deportation of non-white immigrants to their so-called countries of origin.

It is an ideological cornerstone of ”identitarianism“, a European far-right movement centred on preserving white European identities. These are perceived to be under attack by immigration, globalisation and multiculturalism.

Global growth of the far right

This online support for March for Australia underscores the growing transnational links among far-right movements.

These movements increasingly see themselves as united by shared concerns over the defence of so-called “Western Civilisation”, opposition to mass immigration, the preservation of white identity, and beliefs in conspiratorial narratives such as the Great Replacement theory.

And this transnational growth wouldn’t be possible without the proliferation of social media in recent years.

In Australia, for example, research shows how “indispensable” mainstream social media platforms have been in the development of anti-Islamic far-right movements such as the United Patriots Front, going back to the 2010s.

The far right also capitalises on virality and humour to extend the dissemination of their ideology online. In particular, this is done through memes.

Research has found, for example, that one particularly prominent transnational far-right meme, Pepe the Frog, has been localised for an Australian audience through the addition of a Ned Kelly mask.

Research also shows how international slogans travel across borders. US President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” mantra, for instance, has been adapted into a distinctly local form for Australians: “Make Australia Grouse Again”.

The online space makes it easier for extreme views and rhetoric to permeate into mainstream political discourse, as well.

When elements of the far right get removed from mainstream social media platforms— a process known as “deplatforming” — they often find a new home on alternative platforms such as Telegram. Research shows they now host a range of Australian neo-Nazi groups.

It’s noteworthy that many of the key figures lending support for March for Australia, including Robinson and Jones, were previously deplatformed from Twitter before Musk acquired the company and reinstated them.

Social media has also allowed neo-Nazis such as Tom Sewell, who is essentially persona non grata in Australian mainstream media, to build a large and highly influential profile among international far-right audiences.

With Musk’s vows to defend “free speech” on X, and Mark Zuckerberg’s dramatic shift in Meta’s approach to content moderation, the mainstream social media environment is becoming even more hospitable to far-right movements. This is a worrying trend.

For the Australian far right, the support of figures such as Musk and Robinson signals an opportunity to increase their mobilising potential. It could also lead to the transnational exchange of information, resources and tactical support.

As the far right becomes increasingly emboldened, mainstreamed and normalised, we should expect to see more public and increasingly violent demonstrations across Australian cities – and support for these among a global audience online.

Kurt Sengul has received funding from the NSW Government’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) and Social Cohesion Research Program.

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

– ref. How Australia’s anti-immigration rallies were amplified online by the global far right – https://theconversation.com/how-australias-anti-immigration-rallies-were-amplified-online-by-the-global-far-right-264269

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucia McCallum, Senior Scientist in Geodesy, University of Tasmania

On Sunday, a plane carrying European Union chief Ursula von der Leyen was reportedly forced to land in Bulgaria using paper maps after its GPS navigation systems were jammed. Bulgarian authorities claim the jamming was deliberate Russian interference, though a Kremlin spokesperson told the Financial Times this was “incorrect”.

GPS interference is on the rise, so you might be wondering how it works. And can anything be done about it? And – perhaps most importantly – do you need to worry?

How does GPS jamming work?

The Global Positioning System (GPS) and other satellite navigation systems use radio signals from satellites to calculate position. To determine position, a GPS needs a direct line of sight to at least four satellites.

There are two ways to disrupt satellite navigation.

The first is jamming. This works by simply broadcasting high-intensity radio noise in the same frequency band used by the navigation satellites.

Jamming drowns out the satellite signal, like a person shouting loudly in your ear stops you hearing what someone is saying on the other side of the room. This appears to be what happened in Bulgaria.

The second way to interfere with satellite navigation is called spoofing, and it’s a little more elegant. Spoofing involves sending radio signals that pretend to be coming from the navigation satellites.

Where jamming stops the satellite navigation system from producing any location, spoofing tricks it into giving a false location – with potentially catastrophic results.

Are jamming and spoofing becoming more common?

Jamming and spoofing do appear to be growing more common, especially in conflict zones in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

A clandestine Russian base near the Polish border is reportedly responsible for satnav interference in the Baltic region.

Ships in the Red Sea report frequent interference, likely from Houthi rebels in Yemen.

These increasingly common incidents highlight how vulnerable our reliance on satellite navigation makes us.

What can be done about interference?

The best response to interference is to have backup navigation options in place. The US-run GPS is the best known and most commonly used satellite navigation system, but there are others.

The EU runs a parallel system called Galileo, while Russia has one called GLONASS and China operates its own BeiDou satellites.

Each of these systems operates using slightly different radio frequencies. Some navigation systems can tune in to more than one set of satellites – so even if one is jammed, others may be available.

Galileo also has a “safety of life” feature, which allows users to detect spoofing. Australia’s in-development SouthPAN system will also offer a similar feature.

Another common feature of navigation systems is inertial sensing. This relies on sensors such as gyroscopes and barometers to directly detect movement and calculate position.

Most car navigation systems use inertial sensors to track location in cities or tunnels where there is no direct line of sight to satellites. Inertial sensing works well for short periods of time, but quickly becomes inaccurate and needs to be recalibrated by checking in with satellite systems.

Many researchers around the world are trying to develop new alternatives to satellite navigation using extremely precise sensors. One recent development uses tiny fluctuations in Earth’s magnetic field to detect position, for example.

Read more:
Quantum navigation could transform how we travel. So what is it, and how does it work?

Should you be worried about flying?

Everyday air passengers have no need to worry about jamming or spoofing. For one thing, it’s very rare – especially outside conflict zones.

For another, the aviation industry is highly regulated and extremely safe. Even where satellite navigation doesn’t work, there are backup options.

What all of us can take away from this latest incident is how dependent we have become on satellite navigation. What matters is that we have a diverse range of systems so we are not dependent on just one.

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

– ref. Russia’s GPS interference: do I need to worry when flying? – https://theconversation.com/russias-gps-interference-do-i-need-to-worry-when-flying-264334

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

The government will keep the permanent migration level for 2025-26 at 185,000, the same level as the previous financial year.

Immigration Minister Tony Burke announced the figure amid a fresh divisive debate about immigration, intensified by the weekend marches calling for lower numbers.

Neo-Nazis were prominent, especially in Melbourne, while on Tuesday self-identifying Neo-Nazi Thomas Sewell interrupted a news conference by Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan.

Burke said the announcement followed consultation with the states and territories which “recommended maintaining the size and composition of the program, with a focus on skilled migration”.

This figure is distinct from Net Overseas Migration (NOM), the overall measure that includes students and temporary workers. The NOM jumped dramatically after the end of COVID, and the government has been actively reducing it, including by limits on overseas students.

The NOM peaked at 538,000 in 2022-23. For the 12 months to December 31 2024, the NOM was 341,000. That was 37% down compared to the peak.

For the December quarter 2024, the NOM was 68,000. This was the lowest December quarter since December 2021 when border restrictions were lifted.

Student NOM arrivals in the December quarter 2024 (22,000) were 10,000 fewer than the December quarter 2023 (32,000) and have fallen below pre-pandemic levels.

In caucus the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he was shocked to see people at the rallies openly in uniform.

But he made it clear that not all who turned up at the marches were extremists.

“We need to make sure we give people space to move away and not push them further down that rabbit hole,” he said.

“A lot of these fears are being reinforced online, and we have challenges with polarisation.”

He said he would be meeting during the day with leaders within the Islamic community, and stressed how important it was for everybody to be reaching out to different communities.

The government is about to release the report from the envoy to combat Islamopbobia, Aftab Malik An earlier report came from the envoy to fight antisemitism, Jillian Segal; it received a mixed reception and the government is yet to give its response to her recommendations.

Meanwhile. the opposition has decided to press for a very brief Senate inquiry into the government’s agreement with Nauru to send the large cohort of former immigration detainees there.

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. Albanese government sets unchanged 185,000 intake under permanent migration program – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-sets-unchanged-185-000-intake-under-permanent-migration-program-263910

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Haswell, Professor of Health, Safety and Environment, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology

Environment groups have called for federal intervention following revelations an LNG export hub in Darwin has emitted large volumes of methane from an LNG storage tank since 2006.

The ABC on Monday revealed years of failures to address the leak. State and federal authorities reportedly approved Santos’ controversial 25-year Barossa offshore gas project without requiring the leak to be repaired or replaced.

The incident adds to serious doubts about whether Australia can meet its commitment to reduce emissions of methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas.

The vital pledge will only be met if governments and industry prioritise climate action and human health over profits.

What happened in Darwin?

The Darwin case demonstrates dangers of relying on industry to assess and manage risks to the climate and human health.

The leak involved an enormous above-ground tank which contained highly processed methane derived from LNG (liquified natural gas).

According to the ABC, the leak was caused by a design flaw. The reports said the tank’s original owner, ConocoPhillips, discovered the leak in 2006 and reported it to the Northern Territory’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), describing the emissions as “minute”. The tank held gas for the next 18 years.

Two measurements using drone technology, in 2019 and 2020, reportedly indicated the leak was bigger than initially thought – up to 184 kilograms of methane was leaking per hour. This was not reported to the EPA until months later, according to the ABC.

Gas giant Santos now operates the tank, which is now reportedly empty. But it’s set to be filled again, as part of Santos’ Barossa gas project.

The ABC says state and federal regulators have not forced Santos to repair or replace the tank, adding:

They and the company say the leak is stable, and poses a moderate climate risk but no immediate threat to the public or the environment.

Santos told the ABC regulatory approvals and an ongoing monitoring program were in place, and the company reports its greenhouse gas emissions annually.

Methane: a major climate culprit

Methane is a dangerous greenhouse gas which drives about 30% of global warming. While it does not last in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide, its ability to trap heat is potent. In fact, methane is about 86 times more harmful than carbon dioxide (CO₂) in global warming terms, when measured over two decades.

Aside from the harms caused by escaped methane, the leak also represents an enormous waste of a substance produced at a very high cost to the climate. Natural gas extracted from the ground is transported to processing plants and liquified for export, by cooling it to about -160°C. This is an extremely energy-intensive process which itself is powered by natural gas and creates substantial greenhouse gas emissions.

Methane reduction is considered a crucial step towards averting a climate disaster. The International Energy Agency says methane abatement from oil and gas operations offers some of the world’s best opportunities to cut emissions – was also likely to give companies a commercial advantage.

In 2022, Australia signed the Global Methane Pledge, a non-binding commitment to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030. Australia’s energy producers also claim they are committed to reducing methane emissions in Australia.

The Darwin methane leak reveals a host of problems with gas regulation in Australia – including a lack of public transparency issues with the methods used to quantify leaks. These problems undermine industry and government pledges to reduce emissions.

A health time bomb

Bushfires and backburning already pollute the air around Darwin.

What’s more, the neighbouring Inpex LNG plant in Darwin has also consistently released huge amounts of highly toxic substances including hydrogen sulphide, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds.

Methane adds to the problem. It reacts with other chemicals in the atmosphere to form a dangerous air pollutant known as “ground-level ozone”.

Research has found each year, ground-level ozone contributes to up to 1.4 million deaths globally, from respiratory and cardiovascular disease.

Tropical areas immediately adjacent to cities, such as Darwin’s outer suburbs, are most at risk from such pollution.

Environment Centre NT has also expressed fears the leaking methane presents an explosion risk.

A challenge exposed

The problem of methane emissions is not confined to gas projects. For example, research earlier this year showed methane emissions from an open-cut coal mine in Queensland were up to eight times higher than reported annually by the operator.

And the problem is not confined to Darwin. Methane-emitting fossil fuel projects are proliferating across Australia. Recent approvals include expansion of Woodside’s Northwest Shelf gas project and numerous coal mines.

What’s more, Australia does a poor job of measuring and reporting methane emissions.

Australian governments and their agencies must get serious about acting on climate change. This includes efforts to rapidly curb methane emissions – while also dramatically cutting CO₂ emissions.

No industry in the world carries more power to secure the planet’s future than the fossil fuel operators. Together, industry and governments must stop fuelling our demise.

Melissa Haswell has received grant funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, National Suicide Prevention Strategy, Australian Health Ministers Priority Driven Research, Department of Families, Communities and Indigenous Affairs, CRC for Aboriginal Health and Queensland Department of Environment and Science and Queensland Health.

She is affiliated with Doctors for the Environment Australia (Honorary Member), the Climate and Health Alliance, the Public Health Association Australia, Psychology for a Safe Climate and the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology. Melissa also supports Northside Community Voices and Land for Wildlife in her local region.

– ref. Long-hidden methane leak in Darwin raises fresh doubts over Australia’s climate action – https://theconversation.com/long-hidden-methane-leak-in-darwin-raises-fresh-doubts-over-australias-climate-action-264260

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Hall, Professor of International Relations, Griffith University

Just months into President Donald Trump’s second term in office, one of the United States’ most important strategic partnerships is in crisis.

Relations between the US and India are at their lowest ebb in a quarter of a century. Things are so bad that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has reportedly refused to accept calls from Trump for more than two months.

In recent days, Trump labelled trade ties with India a “totally one-sided disaster” and a report emerged that he is no longer planning to visit India later this year for a summit of the Quad partners (India, the US, Australia and Japan).

So bad, so quickly

Things were not meant to happen this way. Many in New Delhi were delighted when Trump won the election last year. Modi congratulated his “friend” on X, along with pictures of the two embracing and holding hands.

India’s foreign minister, S. Jaishankar, told journalists that while other countries might be “nervous” about Trump’s return, India was not.

Feeling confident, Modi went to Washington to meet Trump days after his return to office. The encounter did not go well.

On the eve of the meeting, Modi was embarrassed by distressing images of Indian nationals, handcuffed and shackled, being deported from the US on a military aircraft.

In the Oval Office, he promised to buy more US arms, oil and gas, and asked that Trump not impose punitive tariffs on India. Modi failed to get that commitment.

A few weeks later, Trump announced India would be hit with a 27% tariff – far higher than the 10% imposed on China – unless it could negotiate something better.

Crisis in Kashmir

Begrudgingly, New Delhi began to talk trade. US Vice President JD Vance visited India in late April and both sides made positive noises about a deal. But while Vance was in town, India was engulfed in a new crisis.

On April 22, terrorists killed 26 people – mostly Hindu tourists – in Kashmir, long the site of simmering conflict between India and Pakistan. The Modi government pledged to respond with force, as it had done in the past after similar incidents.

On May 7, India bombed what it claimed were militant camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. A rapidly escalating, unpredictable conflict followed, as both sides used drones and missiles to attack one another.

Alarmed, governments around the world urged the two nuclear-armed states to end hostilities before matters got out of control. Early in the morning on May 10, they did, and agreed to a ceasefire.

Trump anoints himself peacemaker

Before either the Indian or Pakistani governments had a chance to say anything, Trump stepped in to take credit.

On social media, he announced both sides had agreed a deal. The next day he claimed they would soon sit down with him as mediator and find a solution to the Kashmir conflict.

Islamabad was jubilant at this outcome. New Delhi, meanwhile, was furious.

India’s longstanding view is that the Kashmir dispute must be settled bilaterally, without third-party involvement. The US has accepted this position for more than 20 years. Now it appeared Trump was taking a different view.

This put Modi in a bind. Keen to maintain a mutually beneficial partnership and avoid punitive tariffs, he did not wish to upset Trump.

But he could not acknowledge Trump’s claims without setting aside a fundamental principle of Indian policy. So, Modi called Washington and explained he would not accept mediation over Kashmir.

The final straw

Meanwhile, Pakistan saw an opportunity to win favour in Washington and drive a wedge between the US and India.

Recognising that Trump covets a Nobel Peace Prize, Islamabad nominated him for his supposed role in ending the conflict.

Enthused, Trump called Modi on June 17 and asked him to do the same. Worse still, Trump requested Modi stop in Washington on the way back from the G7 summit in Canada, and meet with Pakistan’s military chief, Asim Munir.

According to a recent report, that was the final straw for Modi. He flatly refused both requests. The two men reportedly haven’t spoken since.

Piqued, Trump responded by punishing India for continuing to buy Russian oil by lifting its tariff rate to 50% and postponing trade talks.

New Delhi’s dilemma

Trump’s actions have ordinary Indians seething and demanding action, but the Modi government does not have good options.

Giving in to coercion would make Modi – dubbed by political opponents “Narender Surrender” – look weak. Yet, no other major power can offer India what it needs in terms of markets, investment, technology, weapons and diplomatic support.

With US-India relations strained, New Delhi has been working hard to stabilise its relationship with China, which has been tense since bloody border clashes between the two in 2020.

Modi went to China for the first time in seven years on August 31 to further that aim, shaking hands with President Xi Jinping. But although Xi emphasised the need for amicable ties – he said the “elephant and dragon should dance together” – there is little trust between India and China at present.

Modi has more faith in Russia. In China, Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly spoke for nearly an hour in Putin’s limousine. And Modi will host the Russian leader for more talks in India later this year. However, Russia remains a pariah in Europe, with limited means to help.

Other countries, like Japan, where Modi stopped off on his way to China, could also help India navigate the current crisis. But they do not have the clout to resolve it.

Unless Modi can find a way to win Trump back, India’s next few years could be very difficult.

Ian Hall has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Department of Defence, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. He is an honorary Academic Fellow of the Australia India Institute.

– ref. Donald Trump was once India’s best friend. How did it all go wrong? – https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-was-once-indias-best-friend-how-did-it-all-go-wrong-264272

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

If there was any doubt about neo-Nazi leader Thomas Sewell’s racist and anti-democratic attitudes, they were dispelled on the morning of September 2 when he gatecrashed a press conference by Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan and Treasurer Jaclyn Symes. In disrupting the conference, Sewell yelled that Australians did not have the right to protest and made the false claim that 50,000 protesters attended the “March for Australia” rally in Melbourne over the weekend.

The press conference was abandoned and Allan subsequently put out a statement saying she was unharmed and undeterred. She added:

But this isn’t about me. It’s about all the other people in the community who Nazis target – like multicultural people, LGBTIQA+ people, First Peoples, and Jews.

The symbolism of Sewell’s actions went well beyond the disruption of a press conference. It was an attempt to insert a neo-Nazi presence into the democratic process, and served to underline what was really behind the weekend’s events.

Media misjudgments

There were omissions and misjudgments in the media’s coverage of last weekend’s so-called anti-immigration rallies in eight Australian capital cities, leaving an unintentionally sanitised account of what occurred.

The main misjudgment was to persist in using the organisers’ description of the rallies as “March for Australia” and “anti-immigration” after it had become obvious the emotional dynamo behind them was racism.

It is true that they were in part anti-immigration, and it was clear from the coverage that some, perhaps most, people joined in because they were genuinely opposed to immigration for reasons not connected with race, but to do with issues such as housing.

But the fact is that the leadership of the Melbourne rally was provided by the National Socialist Network, a neo-Nazi organisation, and it became clear as events unfolded, especially in Melbourne and Sydney, that the terms “anti-immigration” and “March for Australia” were merely a smokescreen.

It became even clearer when a phalanx of neo-Nazis attacked an Indigenous protest site called Camp Sovereignty in Kings Domain, Melbourne. That had nothing to do with immigration: it was all about racism.

It also became clear when the main speaker at the Melbourne rally was Sewell. As The Age and Sydney Morning Herald’s Michael Bachelard reported:

[…] to the extent there was any sign of organisation among the grab-bag of grievances ranging over the streets of Melbourne’s CBD, it was the National Socialist Network that provided it.

It was a similar story in Sydney, where Joel Davis, a leader in the National Socialist Network who has openly praised Adolf Hitler, addressed the rally there.

However, by adopting the ambiguous title “March for Australia” and claiming a focus on immigration, the organisers masked the racist impulse driving them. Racism is a defining characteristic of Nazism. The neo-Nazis took a leading role. It follows that these were primarily racist rallies.

There were sound reasons for the media to suspect their true nature, reasons grounded in good reporting prior to the event.

On August 29, the Sydney Morning Herald published a story seeking to establish who was behind them. A Facebook group had popped up on August 9, but when the Herald
asked who was behind it, a spokesperson who would not be identified said there was no “overall organiser” but “a number of people” providing logistical and social media support.

Evasive, yes, but the racist nature of the enterprise was clear.

The Herald also reported that “Bec Freedom”, the online pseudonym for a woman who claimed to have lodged the protest application form with NSW Police, was heard on a livestream on August 11 instructing march promoters to use messaging about protecting Australian heritage, which she said meant “white heritage”.

That is racist by definition. The organisers, whose unwillingness to be identified should have added to the suspicion, disclaimed connections with the National Socialist Network. So they now have to explain how it was that the neo-Nazis took over the Melbourne rally and provided principal speakers both there and in Sydney.

Moreover, the organisers drew on the rhetoric of the “great replacement theory” in a flyer that singled out Indian immigrants, claiming that the reason for increased Indian migration to Australia is “replacement, plain and simple”.

This theory asserts that some Western elites are conspiring to replace white Americans and Europeans with people of non-European descent, particularly Asians and Africans.

It was invoked by the Australian white-supremacist terrorist Brenton Harrison Tarrant, who massacred 51 Muslims at prayer in Christchurch in 2019, and by Anders Breivik, who massacred 69 young people in Norway in 2011.

The failure to draw attention to this connection was another omission in the coverage of the weekend’s violence.

And a third was the failure to point out the contrast between the scale and orderliness of the huge pro-Palestine marches of August 3 2025, which attracted largely peaceful crowds estimated at 100,000 in Sydney and 25,000 in Melbourne, compared with the disorder generated by crowds estimated 15,000 in Sydney and 9,000, including 3,000 counter-protesters, in Melbourne last weekend.

Calling the rallies for what they are

Having said that, the focus of last weekend’s news coverage was rightly on what happened on the streets, and in that respect the coverage was comprehensive and, so far as it was possible to tell, accurate and impartial. The language used was proportional to the events and properly focused on the violence, which was a clear and present danger to public safety.

However, the way the media name things matters, and in this respect there was enough evidence to call the rallies for what they were, rather than what the evasive and shadowy organisers said they were.

Denis Muller 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. Neo-Nazis and racist rallies: why it’s important the Australian media call them for what they are – https://theconversation.com/neo-nazis-and-racist-rallies-why-its-important-the-australian-media-call-them-for-what-they-are-264329

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Webb, Clinical Associate Professor, School of Medical Science & Sydney Infectious Diseases Institute; Principal Hospital Scientist, University of Sydney

Mosquito bites are annoying. They can also have deadly consequences. So what diseases do mosquitoes in Australia carry?

And with warmer weather on its way and rain expected to continue, how can you prepare for the coming mosquito season?

Mosquitoes are deadliest animal

Mosquitoes kill more people than any other animal. Worldwide, more than half a million people die each year from mosquito bites that transmit malaria parasites.

Australia is fortunate to be free of major outbreaks of malaria, though occasional cases do occur.

The most common mosquito-borne disease in Australia is caused by Ross River virus. Around 5,000 cases are reported each year and, while never fatal, the illness can be severely debilitating. Symptoms include fever, rash, joint pain and fatigue.

Murray Valley encephalitis virus is responsible for very rare but potentially fatal disease. It’s detected most years in northern Australia.

There has been a resurgence of the virus in southeastern parts of Australia following flooding in recent years. Mosquitoes pick up the virus from waterbirds throughout the Murray Darling Basin before they pass on the pathogen to people. Mosquito and waterbird populations both boom after flooding.

Mosquitoes in some coastal areas of Victoria can also pass on the flesh-eating bacteria that can cause Buruli ulcer.

What about Japanese encephalitis?

Japanese encephalitis virus can cause fever, headaches, vomiting and, in rare cases, death.

Over the summer of 2021-22, there were 45 cases of Japanese encephalitis in southeastern Australia. This virus was never expected to spread so widely. In some parts of Australia, people died due to mosquito bites for the first time in around 50 years.

Scientists and health authorities thought Japanese encephalitis virus would transmit in a similar way to the closely related Murray Valley encephalitis virus, with outbreaks typically occurring after flooding that provided ideal conditions for both mosquitoes and the waterbirds carrying the virus.

But we now know pigs – especially feral pigs – are in the mix too, along with a range of other animals.

With gaps in our understanding of what drives local transmission, predictions of Japanese encephalitis activity are now proving to be less reliable. This makes it hard to work out the threat it may pose this summer.

Last summer, despite the lack of any substantial rainfall, the virus turned up even though mosquito (and waterbird) populations were generally low.

The virus also wasn’t limited to those areas where we’d expect to see it. There is growing evidence it’s made its way to the east coast, with the virus detected in the suburbs of Brisbane.

How will the weather impact mosquitoes this season?

Like all insects, mosquitoes thrive in warmer weather. But they also need water.

It doesn’t really matter if it’s a “wet” or “dry” summer, mosquitoes are always active. But sometimes there are more – lots more.

In most parts of Australia, there is currently no shortage of water. Some regions have had record rainfall this winter, with more on the way.

The Bureau of Meteorology is predicting above-average rainfall through to the end of the year. Once the weather warms up, it could be a “buzzy” start to mosquito season.

This doesn’t mean outbreaks of mosquito-borne disease are inevitable. But we need to be alert to the risks and how best to protect ourselves and family.

Monitoring mozzies

More rain means a greater risk of mosquito-borne disease. But outbreaks aren’t easy to predict, so surveillance is critical.

Australian state and territory health authorities undertake monitoring of mosquitoes and the pathogens they carry each year. The objective is to provide an early warning of elevated risk of mosquito-borne diseases. This may be due to increased mosquito activity or the detection of mosquito-borne pathogens.

Given the uncertainty around Japanese encephalitis, it’s also important to monitor locations where the virus has not yet been detected.

How to stay safe this spring and summer

There’s a lot you can do to protect yourself and family from mosquito bites and mosquito-borne disease.

A vaccine is available for those at risk of Japanese encephalitis. See your local health professional for advice on accessing the vaccine.

But there aren’t vaccines for the other local mosquito-borne diseases. Nor are there any specific treatments for these diseases. So preventing mosquito bites is the best way to protect yourself.

If you’re outdoors when mosquitoes are active, cover up with long pants, a long-sleeved shirt and covered shoes. Apply an insect repellent containing diethyltoluamide, picaridin, or oil of lemon eucalyptus to all exposed skin.

Skip the stickers, patches and wristbands, as the evidence shows they aren’t a reliable way to prevent bites.

Keep your property free of mosquito breeding grounds, too. Mosquitoes can lay eggs in any container that fills with water: a plant saucer, a bird bath, discarded plastic buckets, bottles or tins. Tip them out each week, cover them up or throw them away.

Cameron Webb and the Department of Medical Entomology, NSW Health Pathology and University of Sydney, have been engaged by a wide range of insect repellent and insecticide manufacturers to provide testing of products and provide expert advice on medically important arthropods, including mosquitoes. Cameron has also received funding from local, state and federal agencies to undertake research into various aspects of mosquito and mosquito-borne disease management.

– ref. A warm, wet spring means more mozzies. How to protect yourself from the diseases they spread – https://theconversation.com/a-warm-wet-spring-means-more-mozzies-how-to-protect-yourself-from-the-diseases-they-spread-263340

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Hurley, Lecturer in Criminology, police and policing, Dept of Security Studies & Criminology, Macquarie University, Macquarie University

From the time accused police killer Dezi Freeman escaped into bushland heavily armed, Victoria’s Special Operations Group and the Negotiation Unit would have drawn up surrender plan scenarios if he decided to give himself up.

I was a former police hostage negotiator for eight years – this is how and why surrender plans are used in these situations.

What is a surrender plan?

Surrender plans are a very simple set of instructions given to the person wanted by police. They are easily understandable and remembered and can be carried out with minimal thinking.

While surrender plans are drawn up immediately in a hostage or a wanted search like this, they are rarely made public.

Making a surrender plan public too soon may alert criminals and those who support them what police are thinking.

Police will have Freeman’s mobile phone number and will have been trying to contact him since he fled into bushland.

While mobile signals may be patchy, or his phone may have run out of battery, there’s still a chance Freeman is online and following the news.

The aim of the surrender plan is to ensure the alleged offender knows what to expect so they and police negotiators are not surprised during this process.

Negotiators want an alleged offender fully compliant during their surrender, to control their every movement.

To get this control, negotiators will say:

You will come out with your hands raised. Do not drop them. You will take five steps forward and stop. Do you understand that?

Once the alleged offender says “yes”, the negotiator knows several things about them immediately:

• they can hear what police are saying, so their audio functioning is good
• they can see if the offender has any physical injuries that might prevent them following some instructions
• they can gauge through the wanted person’s speech and body coordination if they have the mental capacity to understand what is being said and carry out the instructions.

The negotiator will then ask them to repeat the instructions back so everyone involved is fully aware of what is expected.

The negotiator will then tell the alleged offender if they stray outside of the instructions, it may be considered a threat and police might take alternative actions.

Again, the negotiator will ask the wanted person if they understand this and have this repeated to them.

The negotiator will tell the wanted person to take five steps and on the fifth step to stop.

The negotiator will then issue another set of simple instructions and again ask the offender if they understand and to repeat them back.

This will be repeated until the alleged offender is laying face down and handcuffed.

Read more:
Treacherous terrain: the search for alleged police killer Dezi Freeman

Why keeping things simple is crucial

This repetitive, simple, two-way conversation is important to reduce any misunderstanding](https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001528) between the wanted person and the negotiator about what is expected.

It also helps negotiators constantly assess the mental and physical condition of the alleged offender.

The surrender will not be rushed because the wanted person will be nervous and physically and mentally exhausted.

In the case of Freeman, his exposure to challenging weather, mountainous terrain and likely lack of food and water will have fatigued him.

He may also be fatigued mentally as he realises the ordeal has come to an end.

All these physical and psychological factors may affect his judgement.

The aim of a surrender plan

The purpose of a surrender plan is to ensure the safety of the wanted person. Police want to get them before a court to hold them to account, and also allow the victims’ families to seek explanations and possibly some form of closure.

During a surrender, police will be following the letter of the law and their training to ensure they cannot be criticised in court, opening a possible opportunity for an appeal based on the arrest.

The Victorian police commissioner’s appeal to surrender, echoed by Freeman’s wife, are intentional.

It is to send a message to Freeman that despite what he has allegedly done, he has options open to him to bring this to peaceful end.

Police do not want him to believe the only option is to fight his way out.

The appeal is also to send a message to others who might be considering assisting him with food or shelter.

This is to reduce possible lines of inquiries in trying to find Freeman. It can save time and resources and prevent police from being unnecessarily distracted by false or misleading sightings.

What happened at Porepunkah is uncommon in Australia, with only two similar events occurring in the past 13 years.

In 2012, convicted killer Malcolm Naden – who also shot a police officer – was arrested after one of the biggest manhunts in New South Wales history. He is now serving a life sentence.

Ten years later in Wieambilla, Queensland, Stacey, Gareth and Nathaniel Train ambushed and killed two police officers and a neighbour before being gunned down by Queensland police.

The surrender plan is an attempt from police to reassure Freeman they are not seeking revenge and there may be a way to bring this search to a close without further violence.

Vincent Hurley 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. I’m a former hostage negotiator. Here’s why police offered a surrender plan to fugitive Dezi Freeman – https://theconversation.com/im-a-former-hostage-negotiator-heres-why-police-offered-a-surrender-plan-to-fugitive-dezi-freeman-264270