Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Meehan, Director, NZ Policy Research Institute, Auckland University of Technology

Pay equity is back in the spotlight in New Zealand, with an unofficial “people’s select committee” about to report on last year’s legislative changes that overhauled the process and cancelled existing claims.

As we await its findings, it’s a timely moment to ask what problem pay equity settlements are actually meant to solve.

Over the past 50 years, women in Aotearoa have changed where they work in big ways. They have moved in significant numbers into occupations once dominated by men, including law, medicine and management.

In many professions that were overwhelmingly male a generation ago, women are now well represented. But the change has been largely one-way. Men have not moved in comparable numbers into jobs traditionally done by women.

These occupations, such as teaching, nursing, and care and support roles, remain heavily female dominated. That enduring imbalance is important, because it raises the question at the heart of pay equity: have roles historically performed by women been systematically undervalued?

Our research, drawing on five decades of Census data, tracks occupational segregation patterns in New Zealand over time.

While the overall picture has shifted, the persistence of female-dominated occupations tells us why pay equity – and robust settlement processes – still matter.

Progress, but mostly in one direction

Overall, New Zealand’s labour market is less segregated by gender than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Women now work across a much wider range of occupations, and many barriers that once limited their choices have fallen.

This represents real progress. Across the economy, much of this change reflects women moving into jobs once dominated by men. Health provides a clear illustration.

The share of female doctors has risen sharply, from just 12% of GPs in 1976 to 57% in 2023. The reverse shift has been far weaker: men have moved into nursing only marginally and the occupation remains overwhelmingly female, with 89% of registered nurses women in 2023.

This imbalance helps explain why pay equity exists at all – and why it is often misunderstood. Pay equity is often confused with equal pay, but they address different problems.

Equal pay is about paying people the same for doing the same job. By contrast, pay equity, is about equal pay for work of equal value. It is a fundamental human right. It addresses whether different jobs – often in different industries – are being paid fairly relative to each other, given the skill, responsibility, effort and conditions involved.

When women are concentrated in undervalued occupations, equal pay within these jobs does not close the overall gender pay gap across the economy. If an entire occupation is underpaid relative to comparable work, equal pay within it simply preserves that imbalance.

Addressing this requires pay equity processes that allow comparisons across occupations, both within and outside the industry, so that female-dominated roles can be properly assessed against comparable work elsewhere in the labour market.

A problem of structure, not just productivity

Last year, changes to New Zealand’s pay equity legislation were passed under urgency, raising the bar for bringing and progressing claims and making it harder for workers in female-dominated occupations to have potential inequities assessed.

The subsequent “people’s select committee” inquiry, launched by ten former women MPs to allow for public submissions and closer scrutiny of those changes, has created an opportunity to revisit how pay equity operates and what it is meant to achieve.

Our research helps explain why these processes exist at all. Even after decades of change, the gendered structure of work remains.

There is often an assumption that wages simply reflect productivity – that workers are paid according to their “marginal product”, or what an extra worker adds to output. In practice, pay is shaped by more than productivity alone.

Bargaining power, pay-setting institutions and long-standing norms all matter, especially in occupations where output is difficult to measure or price. This is particularly true in care, teaching and support roles, where the value of work is real but not easily captured in market prices.

Pay equity is designed to deal with that reality. It recognises that if wages reflect institutional history as well as productivity, then undervaluation can persist even in a well-functioning labour market.

Over five decades, progress toward gender equality at work has been real – but uneven. Women have moved into many new roles. Men have not followed in the same way.

That imbalance continues to shape pay outcomes across the economy, and pay equity settlement processes were designed in response to that structural reality. As debates about pay equity continue, it is worth keeping that original purpose in view.

Pay equity is not about special treatment. It is about ensuring that work is valued fairly in a labour market where the division of jobs by gender has narrowed, but not disappeared.

– ref. The work women do has changed. The case for pay equity in NZ hasn’t – https://theconversation.com/the-work-women-do-has-changed-the-case-for-pay-equity-in-nz-hasnt-274962

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vaughan Cruickshank, Senior Lecturer in Health and Physical Education, University of Tasmania

Milan Cortina 2026 was Australia’s most successful Winter Olympics.

From 1936-2022, Australia won 19 medals, including six golds.

This year, Australia has added another six medals, including three golds.

How has this happened and what may this success mean for the future of winter sports in Australia?

A medal rush in Italy

Jakara Anthony became our first two-time Winter Olympic gold medallist in the women’s dual moguls.

Cooper Woods (men’s individual moguls) and Josie Blaff (women’s snowboard cross) also won gold.

Scotty James became the first Australian to win three Winter Olympic medals with a silver in the men’s half-pipe, and Matt Graham added to his 2018 medal with a bronze in the men’s dual moguls.

Danielle Scott also won silver in the women’s aerials.

Other young members of the 53-strong team such as Valentino Guseli (snowboard half-pipe), Tess Coady (snowboard big air), Jackson Harvey (moguls) and Indra Brown (freeski half-pipe) also made finals and recorded top-ten results, indicating Australia should continue to be competitive in the future.

What are the reasons for this success?

Increased investment from the federal government has certainly helped.

In July 2024, the federal government announced A$489 million of funding for elite Olympic and Paralympic athletes, coaches and support staff for 2025-2026. This was 50% more than the previous government’s 2021- 2022 high performance funding.

This funding is focused on better support for training, wellbeing, event preparation and access to high-level international competitions.

In 2023 the federal government announced a specific winter sport funding boost of $1.1 million, while in November 2024, a $385 million package was announced for winter and summer sports, with the aim of ensuring Australians have world class pathways and support at all levels.

Investment in facilities has also been critical.

The Olympic Winter Institute of Australia was formed in 1998 to support the development of elite winter athletes.

It contributed to a world class moguls course at Perisher in New South Wales, where three of Australia’s 2026 medallists have trained.

Aerials and moguls skiers can now practise their jumps on the southern hemisphere’s first year-round ski jumping facility near Brisbane: the Geoff Henke Olympic Winter Training Centre which was completed in 2020.

It greatly reduces the need for these athletes to travel overseas to train.

Four of our 2026 medallists have trained here.

Read more: How do Winter Olympians train compared to summer games athletes?

The National Snowsport Training Centre in Jindabyne, NSW, is also world class.

Winter athletes have benefited from Australia’s European Training Centre in northern Italy. This “home away from home” for Australian athletes greatly reduces the travel required to compete in many elite events.

So what happens now?

Australia’s success at these Olympics has pushed winter sport into the mainstream. The big question is what happens next – will more people try them, and will more funding follow?

Possibly – we have seen a similar pattern in Australia before.

After the 2003 Rugby World Cup, there was a spike in junior registrations.

Similarly, women’s and girls’ soccer registrations significantly increased following the Matildas’ performance in the 2023 Women’s World Cup.

However, this is not always the case.

For example, the 2000 Sydney Olympics did not significantly increase physical activity levels in Australia, despite our successful games.

Read more: Does sports participation boom during (or before, or after) the Olympics?

Additionally, winter sport has tougher barriers than rugby and soccer because many are expensive, seasonal and coaches and facilities are often located far from where people live.

The Australian ski season doesn’t begin until June, meaning any surge in enthusiasm from the Winter Olympics must persist for months before people can access domestic snow fields.

The Australian Sports Commission estimates about 184,500 Australians (aged 15+) skied or snowboarded at least once in 2024.

So, there is real interest but those numbers are small compared to other popular sports.

Continued funding for athletes and facilities will help ensure greater opportunities for Australians to engage in snow sports.

Currently, non-elite athletes in Australia have limited access to year-round facilities, although some developments are being proposed in major cities.

While recent funding has contributed to our success in Milan Cortina, there are concerns about this funding continuing.

There are calls for further investment in winter sports, while Australian’s chef de mission Alisa Camplin-Warner hopes the winter games won’t be forgotten as Australia increases its focus on the Summer Olympics in Brisbane in 2032.

Australia’s success at the Winter Olympics could inspire other Australians to pursue snow sports. But if Australia wants a “Matildas effect” for winter sports, they must become easier to access for the general population.

This can happen through continued facility development, cheaper learn-to-ski/ride programs, more school links and more pathways through Snow Australia.

– ref. After the Milan Cortina medals, what comes next for Australian winter sports? – https://theconversation.com/after-the-milan-cortina-medals-what-comes-next-for-australian-winter-sports-276060

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Manenti, Experimental particle physicist, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney

When most people hear the word radiation, their mind jumps straight to nuclear disasters, such as at Chernobyl or Fukushima.

But radiation is everywhere. In fact, right now, as you read this, you are being exposed to radiation from the ground beneath your feet, the air around you, and even your own body. Radiation is not inherently bad: what matters is how much you are exposed to.

To this end, my team and I have built the first radiation map of our home town, Sydney. This map provides a new perspective of the city, showing that the ground beneath the city is constantly emitting a small amount of natural radiation. Spoiler: it’s nothing to worry about.

What is radiation?

At its most basic level, radiation is energy travelling through space.

In nature, it is often produced by radioactive elements – atoms that are unstable and so prefer to convert into other elements by releasing energy, ending up in a more stable state. This process is called radioactive decay.

When Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago, it contained radioactive elements, such as uranium, thorium and potassium. Some radioactive elements decay in a fraction of a second; others decay so slowly they are still present today.

For example, natural uranium has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. That means it takes 4.5 billion years for half of a given amount of uranium to decay, eventually turning into lead, which is stable.

Uranium, thorium and potassium dominate natural background radiation because they combine two key features: they were abundant when Earth formed, and they have half-lives comparable to, or even longer than, the age of Earth. Many other radioactive elements either decayed away long ago or were never present in significant amounts.

Because of this, these elements are everywhere. They are found in rocks and soil, taken up by plants, eaten by animals, and ultimately end up in our bodies. That is why we are, in a very literal sense, mildly radioactive.

We said that radiation is energy. But if you zoom in far enough, that energy starts to look like it’s being carried around by tiny particles: alpha particles (helium nuclei), beta particles (electrons or positrons), and gamma rays – photons, just like light, but far more energetic.

The key difference between the types of particle is how far they manage to travel. Alpha and beta particles don’t get very far before they run out of steam. A bit of air, clothing, or skin is usually enough to stop them. For that reason, they are mostly a concern when the radioactive material ends up inside the body – for example if it is inhaled, as can happen with radon gas.

Gamma rays, on the other hand, travel easily through air and out of the ground.

That makes them more relevant for external exposure, but also extremely useful: they escape from rocks and soil and reach our detectors. This is why gamma radiation is the type we can use to map what is happening beneath our feet.

Measuring Sydney’s radiation

When I moved from Abu Dhabi to Sydney in 2024, I observed something unexpected. The natural radioactivity I was measuring around the city with a small handheld gamma-ray detector was about five times higher than what I had been used to in the United Arab Emirates.

That raised two questions: why was natural radiation higher in Sydney than in Abu Dhabi? And was it safe?

Australia does have national radiation maps. But these are mostly based on surveys carried out from aircraft flying tens of kilometres apart. They are excellent for understanding broad geological patterns, but far too coarse to tell you how radiation varies from one neighbourhood, park or suburb to the next.

My students Tengiz Ibrayev and Matilda Lawtong and I set out to build the first high-resolution, ground-based map of natural gamma radiation for metropolitan Sydney. We carried out a radiation survey across a 10 by 10 kilometre region of the city, dividing the area into a grid and visiting almost every square on foot.

At each location – usually in public parks or open green spaces – we placed a gamma-ray detector on the ground and let it measure radiation for several minutes.

This gave us reliable averages rather than quick snapshots.

We also took measurements over open water in Sydney Harbour on a ferry. Water blocks radiation coming from the ground, so this let us measure cosmic radiation from space – high-energy charged particles originating from the Sun and deep space that constantly hit Earth). We then subtracted this background radiation, so we could focus on the radiation coming from the ground.

To understand why radiation levels changed from place to place, we also collected soil samples at selected locations and analysed them in the laboratory using very sensitive gamma detectors. This allowed us to measure how much uranium, thorium and potassium were present in the soil – the elements responsible for most natural radiation.

The pattern follows geology

Radiation levels across the city do vary, but not randomly. Areas built on sandstone and shale tend to show higher natural radiation than areas dominated by younger sediments.

In other words, the pattern follows geology, not human activity.

Radiation exposure is usually measured in units called millisieverts (mSv). Your own body contributes about 0.03mSv each year, mainly from potassium naturally present in your tissues.

Across the part of Sydney we mapped, the average terrestrial gamma radiation from the ground is about 0.24mSv per year. Even the highest values we measured are well within the range of natural background radiation seen worldwide.

We are hoping to expand this work to other cities around Australia through citizen science in schools. Doing so helps us turns something abstract and invisible into something we can measure, compare and understand.

Measuring radiation replaces fear with context. It doesn’t make the world more dangerous – it makes it clearer.

– ref. The ground beneath Sydney emits radiation. But it’s nothing to worry about – https://theconversation.com/the-ground-beneath-sydney-emits-radiation-but-its-nothing-to-worry-about-274109

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Isakhan, Professor of International Politics, Deakin University

Since October 2023, Israel’s war in Gaza has caused mass human suffering. But it has also brought devastation to the cultural heritage of the Palestinian people.

In our recent article in the International Journal of Heritage Studies, we documented the extent of heritage destruction in Gaza and analysed the strikingly limited response by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

We argue that UNESCO’s failures have consequences beyond Gaza, as they weaken deterrence of attacks on heritage sites globally and risk normalising impunity for these types of crimes in conflict.

Heritage destruction in Gaza

Gaza has a rich and layered heritage, with archaeological traces dating to at least 1300 BCE. It has long sat at the crossroads of many cultures, and has been controlled by the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.

Gaza is also home to historical sites important to the three main faiths of the region – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Much of this cultural heritage now lies in ruin. UNESCO’s Gaza damage assessment list includes 150 sites that have been damaged or destroyed since the war began.

Some of these are globally significant sites. Two are on UNESCO’s World Heritage Tentative List:

Other damaged or destroyed sites include:

• the Greek Orthodox Saint Porphyrios Church, which dates to 425 CE and is sometimes referred to as the third-oldest church in the world

• the seventh-century Great Omari Mosque, thought to be the first mosque in Gaza, along with its 13th-century library containing rare Islamic manuscripts

• the Qasr al-Basha, a fortress also known as Pasha Palace, which was built in the mid-13th century by the Mamluk sultanate and had been turned into an archaeological museum

• a Roman cemetery (Ard-al-Moharbeen), thought to have at least 134 tombs dating back to 200 BCE.

UNESCO’s failures

Apart from creating this list, UNESCO has been relatively muted in its response, compared with the role the agency has played in other conflicts.

This doesn’t mean it’s been completely silent. It has issued several statements condemning the destruction in Gaza and calling on “all involved parties to strictly adhere to international law”.

It has also elevated one heritage site to its List of World Heritage in Danger – the Saint Hilarion Monastery. Taking this step strengthens the protections around the site, with potential penalties for intentional damage.

Yet, despite these efforts, we question whether UNESCO has truly met the moment. Our analysis identifies a pattern of omission and understatement that is difficult to reconcile with UNESCO’s own mandate and the legal architecture that exists to protect cultural property in armed conflict.

For example, UNESCO has failed to publicly invoke the 1954 Hague Convention in relation to Gaza, which aims to protect cultural sites during conflict. The agency has cited it in virtually every major conflict since its ratification.

It also didn’t seek urgent action from the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly to protect cultural sites. The agency did this in response to the Islamic State’s acts in Syria and Iraq (including the desecration of the World Heritage site of Palmyra). In 2017, for instance, the security council passed a resolution backed by UNESCO that laid out a number of steps to help protect cultural heritage in conflict.

Similarly, UNESCO has not worked with the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice to initiate proceedings against Israel or Israeli officials for the destruction of heritage in Gaza. The agency did this after conflicts in the Balkans and Mali. These trials established the intentional destruction of cultural property during conflict as a war crime.

Finally, UNESCO has not taken its usual approach of explicitly naming Israel as the perpetrator of cultural destruction in Gaza. It has taken this step in many recent conflicts. This includes Ukraine, where is has frequently named and condemned Russia as the perpetrator.

Why has UNESCO been so cautious?

One explanation offered by critics is geopolitical constraint. UNESCO has increasingly been criticised for an overdependence on voluntary state contributions. This can make the agency reluctant to confront powerful countries for fear of alienating supporters.

This dynamic is certainly evident in UNESCO’s long and strained relationship with Israel and the US. Both formally withdrew from UNESCO in 2019 because the agency had described Israel as an occupying power in Gaza and the West Bank, and condemned its destruction of Palestinian heritage.

But we argue there’s something more troubling occurring – the erosion of UNESCO’s willingness and capacity to activate the legal and normative tools it helped build.

Once a mighty advocate for the protection of culture worldwide, UNESCO has slowly withered into a largely ineffective and technocratic agency that sidesteps complex issues and is hamstrung by internal division.

UNESCO’s response

In response to the arguments raised here, UNESCO sent a detailed email explaining its actions on heritage protection in Gaza. These are some of the points raised by a UNESCO spokesperson:

On citing the 1954 Hague Convention:

Across different conflicts, UNESCO sometimes explicitly cites the 1954 Hague Convention […] and in other instances use the broader formulation “international law”.

UNESCO also communicates with the concerned Member States bilaterally […] This has been done on several occasions through correspondence addressed to the authorities of Israel, for example to remind Israel of its obligations under the 1954 Hague Convention.

On explicitly naming Israel as a perpetrator:

UNESCO is not a judiciary body, therefore its role is not to assign responsibility. In specific case of Ukraine, there are several Security Council and/or UNESCO governing bodies decisions that may explain specific statements.

On the lack of willpower to use its tools and resources on Gaza:

UNESCO activates its legal, normative and programmatic tools within the remits of its mandate and available funds. The needs are enormous, and we take this opportunity to renew UNESCO’s call in support of the people of Gaza.

Why Gaza matters

UNESCO’s limited response to the destruction in Gaza matters. Heritage protection is not only about salvaging damaged sites and trying to rebuild them. It’s also vital for defining unacceptable conduct and deterring future violations.

When the world’s foremost body on the protection of cultural heritage limits itself to cautious generalities, it fosters a permissive environment. It allows this destruction to be treated as regrettable collateral damage of war, rather than an actionable crime. This undermines UNESCO’s credibility.

It can also set a dangerous precedent. If the large-scale destruction of heritage occurs in full view of the world, with no repercussions, future belligerents may believe the costs of heritage crimes will be tolerated.

– ref. Gaza’s cultural sites have been decimated. UNESCO’s muted response sets a dangerous precedent – https://theconversation.com/gazas-cultural-sites-have-been-decimated-unescos-muted-response-sets-a-dangerous-precedent-275091

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toni Pikoos, Adjunct Research Fellow, Swinburne University of Technology; Federation University Australia

If you walk into a cosmetic surgeon’s office, you probably wouldn’t expect to be asked about your recent break-up or how you cope with stress.

But in Australia, that has been standard practice for nearly three years.

That’s after the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency introduced mandatory mental health screening before cosmetic procedures. This includes cosmetic surgery, like a facelift, and non-surgical procedures including cosmetic injections and laser treatments.

This decision was part of a series of reforms designed to help keep patients safe. But it has also made the Australian cosmetic industry one of the most tightly regulated in the world.

So how effective have these reforms been, almost three years on? And are patients any better off?

Cosmetic medicine is booming in Australia

Each year, Australians spend more than A$1 billion on more than 500,000 cosmetic procedures. That means we spend more money on cosmetic medicine per capita than the United States.

In 2023, more than a third of Australians were considering having cosmetic surgery in the next decade. Interest is particularly strong among young women, with 54% of young Australian women considering cosmetic surgery at some point in their lives. Most people seeking surgery hope these elective procedures will improve their appearance or self-esteem.

After having cosmetic surgery, about 80–90% of patients are satisfied with the results. Many also report feeling better about their appearance up to five years after the procedure. Some studies also show cosmetic surgery improves patients’ mood and quality of life.

However, some patients may regret a cosmetic procedure or feel worse afterwards. This is why identifying vulnerable patients, especially those considering irreversible procedures, is crucial.

So, what’s the link between cosmetic surgery and mental health?

Research shows examining patients’ mental health before any cosmetic procedure affects how they feel after an operation. People with heightened symptoms of psychological distress, such as anxiety and depression, are more likely to be dissatisfied with the results of a cosmetic procedure. They are also more likely to find their recovery challenging and even experience more physical complications after surgery.

Certain psychological conditions have a greater impact on patients’ mental health after surgery. One example is body dysmorphic disorder, where people often obsess over perceived flaws in their appearance. These so-called flaws can be subtle or not apparent to others. As a result, these patients may look to cosmetic surgery as a way to fix their perceived flaws.

A 2022 review of related studies found up to 20% of patients requesting cosmetic procedures had body dysmorphic disorder. And our 2025 study shows about 12% of Australian cosmetic patients either have unrealistic expectations of cosmetic surgery or show symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder or psychological distress.

Many patients with body dysmorphic disorder still feel dissatisfied with their appearance after cosmetic treatment. This is because they often focus on the same perceived flaw or a completely different one. This can negatively impact their mental health and, in some cases, may lead patients to take legal action against surgeons for not delivering the desired result.

The reason for screening

Nearly three years ago, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency changed its guidelines about cosmetic procedures.

As a result, doctors who perform cosmetic procedures must screen patients for psychological conditions, such as body dysmorphic disorder. They can do this by conducting interviews or using tools such as a written questionnaire.

If doctors identify any concerns, they must refer patients to a psychologist, psychiatrist or GP before proceeding with treatment.

However, a recent national survey suggests the cosmetic industry is not embracing these reforms. This research shows 84% of plastic surgeons referred fewer than 5% of patients. This is far less than our research would indicate have body dysmorphic disorder. About 70% of plastic surgeons interviewed say they would not continue screening if it were not mandatory.

Some surgeons have made their concerns public. In 2024, one group of surgeons even took the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency to court. They sought to overturn the new guidelines or establish other protections for patients.

From a patient’s perspective, mandatory screening may mean they can’t undergo cosmetic surgery. In our 2025 study involving more than 8,000 Australian cosmetic patients, we found people were much more hesitant to report mental health symptoms in a cosmetic clinic, compared to when completing the same questionnaire anonymously for research. This is likely because they felt they needed to “pass” psychological screening tests to receive cosmetic surgery. So, the self-reporting element of current questionnaires is a major limitation.

So, is psychological screening necessary?

The purpose of screening was never to exclude people from cosmetic treatment. Rather, it was designed to help practitioners and patients make informed decisions.

Almost half of people considering cosmetic procedures report mental health concerns. For most, this does not make them unsuitable candidates. But in certain cases, they may benefit from delaying a cosmetic procedure. This would give them time to seek additional psychological support or talk to a practitioner about what they should expect from cosmetic surgery.

Importantly, screening tools should not be used alone. Instead, they should be part of a broader assessment of a patient’s motivations, goals and overall wellbeing. This includes a discussion of how cosmetic surgery may positively or negatively affect their mental health.

But researchers, like ourselves, are working on new screening questionnaires to help surgeons more accurately assess a patient’s mindset and identify any psychological concerns before they have a cosmetic procedure. But we need more research to know if these will improve outcomes for patients and practitioners.

Yes, talking about your mental health with a cosmetic surgeon may feel uncomfortable. But it helps ensure any decision to change how you look comes from a place of stability, not distress.

– ref. Planning a face lift? Why asking about your mental health doesn’t always hit the mark – https://theconversation.com/planning-a-face-lift-why-asking-about-your-mental-health-doesnt-always-hit-the-mark-276051

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Moffitt, Associate Professor in Microbiology, Western Sydney University

What do coffee, sugar, wheat, soy, eucalypts and paperbarks all have in common?

They are all susceptible to parasitic rust diseases caused by fungi. Plant rust disease can easily be spotted by the characteristic orange or yellow spores that cover plant leaves, making them look rusty.

The spores are easily transferred to your skin by touch or carried by the wind to other host plants.

Despite their symptomatic similarities, each species of rust fungus is restricted to a single type of plant host.

Farmers and nursery managers often use fungicide to tackle plant rust disease, but we need to find ways to decrease our reliance on fungicide treatment. Otherwise, we risk fuelling fungicide resistance.

Could treating with natural beneficial fungi be a viable alternative?

What we did and what we found

To find out, we grew 143 species of fungi that were living in association with the leaves of the Australian native scrub turpentine tree, a species now considered critically endangered due to the effects of myrtle rust disease.

Myrtle rust disease, cause by the exotic fungus Austropuccinia psidii is a type of plant rust disease, and it’s a huge problem. At least 380 Australian native plants are susceptible to it.

Myrtle rust threatens trees and shrubs in the Myrtaceae family of plants. This is Australia’s largest plant family in Australia, and includes tea tree and eucalypts. It also threatens several rainforest tree species.

The recent arrival of this disease into Australia, in 2010, means little is known about how we may feasibly control it within natural ecosystems.

Our research found that of the 143 species of fungi we grew, nine of them naturally stopped the germination of the myrtle rust spores in the lab.

This suggests native plants may already harbour beneficial fungi that could protect them from this deadly disease.

How? Our research shows one way beneficial fungi can protect the plant from the rust disease is by producing chemicals that attack the disease and prevent it from infecting the plant.

It’s like a biological machine, producing microscopic amounts of fungicide directly onto the rust as it grows.

Other ways these fungi can protect the plant are through competition for nutrients or by stimulating the plant’s immune system to protect itself.

One advantage over fungicides may be that if the fungi establishes a symbiotic relationship with the plant, repeated applications may not be necessary.

So far, we’ve only shown this in the lab. More research is clearly needed.

Now, we need to make sure the fungi can effectively do their job in the environment on our most susceptible plants. We may even one day be able to incorporate these fungi into our plant conservation breeding programs.

A growing body of research

A similar study of myrtle rust disease in Hawaii found that adding multiple beneficial fungi to the leaves of the native Hawaiian Koʻolau eugenia or nioi plant increased the effectiveness of the beneficial fungi over using a single strain alone.

This highlights that we have a lot to learn about how beneficial fungi can protect plants.

Our previous research also identified that fungi can protect crop plants such as wheat, barley and oats from rust disease.

Similar studies around the world have found fungi can also protect against coffee rust and soybean rust, among others.

Despite many successful lab studies, there remains a gap between lab studies and field applications. And even if it could be proven to work in the field, then we’d need to find efficient ways to get the beneficial fungi onto the plants that need it.

That said, it’s worth persevering. If we want strategies to reduce fungicide usage on farms and in the environment we must continue to learn more about beneficial fungi and how we can best use them to our advantage.

– ref. Good fungus may one day help save plants from bad fungus like deadly myrtle rust disease – https://theconversation.com/good-fungus-may-one-day-help-save-plants-from-bad-fungus-like-deadly-myrtle-rust-disease-269819

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Marie Brennan, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Waikato

The extreme weather events and resulting destruction that have hit New Zealand this summer are not only signs of a changing climate. They also highlight the now indispensable role of remote sensing satellite technology.

Broadly, remote sensing involves gathering information about Earth from a distance – most often from satellites equipped with sensors that measure different forms of electromagnetic energy.

Operating across multiple wavelengths, these instruments can function at night and capture conditions over large areas in a single pass. Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellites detect ground movement and flood extent even during heavy rain and thick cloud.

Optical sensors capture detailed imagery showing building damage, blocked roads, sediment plumes and coastal change. Thermal sensors identify heat patterns and temperature anomalies that signal hotspots or stressed environments.

Together, these systems provide a reliable, real-time picture of ground conditions, especially when severe weather renders traditional monitoring impossible.

But despite this technological progress, the framework that controls access to satellite data is alarmingly fragile, leaving a disaster-prone country like New Zealand vulnerable.

Better emergency response and risk mapping

For affected communities, satellite sensing technologies can be transformative. When rivers overflow, bridges collapse and extreme weather prevents response teams from entering affected areas, satellites continue operating uninterrupted.

Authorities can use the information to rapidly determine which communities are at risk, where landslides have destabilised slopes, and which roads or bridges have failed. It sharply reduces the time between impact and emergency response.

Instead of relying on scattered reports, responders can prioritise resources, guide evacuations, plan helicopter drops and coordinate rescue operations using a shared, high-resolution map of evolving hazards.

Remote sensing remains equally valuable long after the immediate crisis. Satellite data supports damage assessments for insurance and government relief, informs the reconstruction of roads, river systems and stormwater infrastructure, and helps refine hazard models for future storms and floods.

In remote areas such as the West Coast, East Coast and alpine South Island – where monitoring networks are sparse and terrain is difficult – satellite imagery is often the only wide-area information source.

Over months and years, repeated imagery helps scientists and planners understand how landscapes are changing: whether slopes are weakening, rivers are shifting course, or coastlines are retreating under rising seas and intensifying storms.

Stronger global agreements needed

Rapid access to satellite data is supported by the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters, which coordinates satellites from different agencies and companies to provide free imagery and disaster maps when activated.

New Zealand is not a member but the National Emergency Management Agency secured “user status” in 2024.

Since participation is voluntary, some experts worry there is no guarantee satellites will be tasked appropriately, no assured access to archives, and no obligation for members to respond to every request.

The legal framework around remote sensing remains sparse. Outer space law states that space activities should benefit all countries but offers little detail.

The United Nations Remote Sensing Principles encourage cooperation and “reasonable” access, but lack enforcement and set no minimum standards for timely data sharing.

As well, many high-value satellites are privately owned. Outside voluntary emergency arrangements, access depends on commercial licences, pricing and national security restrictions. These constraints can delay critical information when it is needed most.

Commercial operators refusing to provide imagery can be a major challenge. With no binding international obligations on private companies, New Zealand cannot compel access during emergencies without pre-existing contracts.

Refusals can delay situational awareness, reduce mapping accuracy and leave dangerous gaps in response planning. So it is heartening that the New Zealand Space Agency is taking steps to address the gaps in international arrangements, and ensure more reliable access to commercial satellite data.

AI complicates the picture

The growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in satellite-based disaster analysis adds capability but also complexity.

AI can rapidly detect floods, classify landslides, and evaluate building and road damage. But when errors occur, accountability becomes unclear. Does it lie with the data providers, the analytics companies that process the imagery, or the public agencies relying on the outputs?

Ensuring reliability requires transparent documentation of models, inputs, thresholds and uncertainties. Robust cybersecurity safeguards are also needed to prevent deliberate attempts to alter data streams or mislead machine‑learning models (which could distort analysis during a disaster).

But no binding rules require human oversight of AI-derived remote-sensing products, leaving governments to determine how much human review is necessary for safety-critical decisions.

To strengthen national resilience, New Zealand needs to advocate for clearer international data-sharing rules, and embed privacy, transparency and human oversight in public sector workflows.

It must also treat the satellite-to-ground data chain as critical infrastructure, with built in redundancy, security and rapid incident reporting. Remote sensing is now core national infrastructure.

The extreme weather of the past months emphasises why. When storms intensify too quickly for traditional systems to cope, satellites and AI-enabled analytics help provide a rapid, scalable view of unfolding risk.

Strong agreements, responsible AI governance and resilient data pipelines ensure New Zealand gets the right data – fast – when communities need it most.

– ref. Satellite imaging is now vital for disaster management. But there are dangerous gaps in our systems – https://theconversation.com/satellite-imaging-is-now-vital-for-disaster-management-but-there-are-dangerous-gaps-in-our-systems-276274