Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janet Fanslow, Associate Professor in Violence Prevention and Mental Health Promotion, University of Auckland

More than half (54.7%) of women in New Zealand have experienced violence or abuse by an intimate partner in their lifetime. As we show in our new research, this increases their risk of developing a mental health disorder almost three times (2.8 times) and a chronic physical illness almost twice (1.5 times).

More than 1,400 women from a nationally representative sample from the 2019 New Zealand family violence study He Koiora Matapopore told us about their experiences of intimate partner violence and their health. We asked them about chronic health problems (heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and asthma) as well as mental health conditions (depression, anxiety or substance abuse).

We also asked women about their lifetime experiences of physical violence, sexual violence, psychological abuse, controlling behaviour and economic abuse by any partner. We used questions from the World Health Organization multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women – the international gold standard for measuring the prevalence of violence against women.

In addition to the physical and mental health problems described above, women who had experienced any of these types of intimate partner violence had increased risk of poor general health (2 times more likely), recent pain or discomfort (1.8 times more likely) and recent healthcare consultations (1.3 times more likely).

Physical and sexual violence hurts people, but it wasn’t just this type of violence that was associated with increased health problems. Women who experienced psychological abuse, controlling behaviours and economic abuse also had greater risk of adverse health outcomes.

Read more:
Domestic violence isn’t about just physical violence – and state laws are beginning to recognize that

Partner violence increases health risks

It is common for women to experience multiple types of intimate partner violence. One in five women reported experiencing three or more types of partner abuse, and these women had a much higher risk of poor health.

More than one in ten (11%) had experienced four or more types of abuse and these women were over four times more likely to have a mental health condition and double the risk of chronic health problems, compared with women who had not experienced violence by a partner.

Our study reports on lifetime rates of intimate partner violence, but new and recurring violence keeps happening. There were 175,573 family harm investigations recorded by police in the year to June 2022. People who require police intervention may have even worse health than the women we talked to.

Our findings provide an even stronger rationale for supporting and strengthening strategies to counter the national scourge of intimate partner violence.

Read more:
The COVID-19 pandemic has made the impacts of gender-based violence worse

Our recommendations

The Manatū Hauora/Ministry of Health’s violence intervention programme needs to receive more attention and funding, and Te Whatu Ora/Health New Zealand needs to prioritise implementation.

The programme has developed an infrastructure to provide evidence-based strategies for family violence assessments and intervention. However, it is not well embedded in the health system and needs strong policy, leadership and resourcing to achieve its potential. It also needs to be supported by the health infrastructure to put it into practice.

Fundamentally, healthcare professionals need to recognise violence experience as a health issue. Effective, regular training about the prevalence and health consequences of intimate partner violence is essential to enable healthcare professionals to help women who have experienced abuse.

This education needs to be embedded in core practitioner training. Universities need to step up to ensure healthcare professionals have the knowledge and skills they need to address the issue.

Read more:
A new national plan aims to end violence against women and children ‘in one generation’. Can it succeed?

Healing and prevention

We also need to expand our suite of responses. These must include referral options to help women in times of acute danger and crisis, but also to support long-term recovery and healing from abuse.

Increasing capacity to support healing is one of the key shifts recommended by Te Aorerekura, the national strategy to eliminate family and sexual violence.

We need to invest in evidence-based prevention strategies and ensure they have comprehensive and equitable coverage across the nation. Prevention is one of the recommendations from Te Aorerekura, but the effectiveness of local efforts could get a significant boost if they tapped into international evidence-based prevention strategies.

Prevention initiatives need to be brave enough to address unhealthy forms of masculinity and discrimination against women and girls. Targeting men’s and boys’ understanding of power and control in relationships and engaging them in violence prevention is both essential and possible.

Developing and sustaining evidence-based prevention and response programmes to address intimate partner violence will require long-term investment and implementation. However, we are already paying for the health and social costs of intimate partner violence. This money could instead be spent fixing it.

Funding work that leads to healthy, respectful relationships could be the “win” we are all looking for. It would yield multiple benefits, including a healthier population, fewer incarcerations and criminal justice problems, better educational outcomes and a more economically productive society.

Our study also looked at men’s experiences of intimate partner violence. It
showed that while the experience can affect men’s health, it did not consistently contribute to men’s poor health at the population level. However, men who experience partner abuse still need care and support options.

Janet Fanslow has authored the Ministry of Health Family Violence Assessment and Intervention Guideline for Child Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence, and the Ministry of Health Intervention Guideline for Elder Abuse and Neglect.
The research described in this article was funded by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

– ref. Family violence is literally making us sicker — new study finds abuse increases risk of chronic illness – https://theconversation.com/family-violence-is-literally-making-us-sicker-new-study-finds-abuse-increases-risk-of-chronic-illness-199669

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Warburton, Honorary Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne

The federal government is currently contemplating the biggest overhaul of higher education in a generation. A discussion paper for the Universities Accord, released last week, is asking for suggestions about “what the system should look like in 30 years’ time”.

One issue crying out for more attention as part of the accord process is student loans. My new paper looks at how unfair student loans – the largest of which are HECS-HELP loans – have become for women. And how for some, repayment arrangements are unreasonable.

Read more:
The Universities Accord will plan for the next 30 years: what big issues must it address?

What are student loans?

HECS was introduced in 1989 to fund the expansion of higher education in a fair and equitable way. Students who benefited from their education by earning average or higher incomes were expected to contribute to the cost, primarily by making repayments after finishing their studies.

Since then full fee-paying courses, along with student loans to pay these fees, have been introduced. There are also loans for some vocational education and training courses and to help students with other living and study costs.

For courses with government subsidies, the expected contribution has increased from around 20% to 48% of costs. The federal government now lends A$7.5 billion to tertiary students each year, with over $6.5 billion going to higher education institutions. In 2021-22, the government recouped more than $5 billion in repayments.

My paper

Since HECS was introduced, there has never been a thorough evaluation of Australia’s student loan schemes to see how well they are meeting the objective of providing revenue for tertiary education in a fair and equitable way.

My paper shows the growth in higher education over the last three decades, combined with the expansion of student loan schemes and the tightening of repayment arrangements, has resulted in a system that produces negative impacts.

The arrangements are contributing to women’s economic disadvantage and are inequitable.

A huge growth in Australians going to uni

When HECS came in, only 12% of Australians aged 25–34 years had a bachelor degree or higher. By 2021, this figure had grown to 39%. A further 32% had vocational qualifications. This means wage levels for university graduates today are more typical of the general workforce than they were in 1989.

Women are now more likely to obtain a higher education qualification than a vocational qualification. Many occupations traditionally held by women have moved to require professional education and training in the higher education sector, including nursing and other caring professions.

Men’s education and training is more evenly distributed between the higher education and vocational education systems (which includes TAFEs). And men earn more, regardless of the sector from which they get their qualification.

The 2021 Census shows 54% of men aged 25–40 years with a Certificate III to advanced diploma have an income of $65,000 or more. Only 51% of women aged 25–40 years with a bachelor degree or above have an income above this level.

Read more:
University fees are poised to change – a new system needs to consider how much courses cost and what graduates can earn

A huge growth in uni fees

At the same time, it costs a lot more to study at university. Students now finish their degrees with average debts between $50,000 and $60,000.

Former students are taking around 12 years to repay their debts and repayment times are trending upward.

This means former students are repaying debts well into their 30s. By this time, many are having children and trying to buy a house. It is no longer reasonable to think student loans can be repaid before these major life events occur.

Women and debt

Many female-dominated occupations like teaching and nursing employ large numbers of people. Some have high salaries, but a substantial proportion are on modest incomes – particularly women working part-time and balancing family responsibilities. This means many women in these fields end up taking a long time to repay their HECS-HELP debt, or do not pay it at all.

In 2019–20, the greatest amounts of student loan repayments were from female registered nurses ($168 million), followed by female infant and primary school teachers ($130 million).

While there is a large level of debt held by people in these occupations, this is not the case for the many occupations traditionally held by men which require vocational training with comparable levels of income.

In 2019–20, the average taxable incomes of electricians, machinists, and air conditioning and refrigeration mechanics were all over $80,000. This compares to the average taxable incomes of child carers, nurses and primary school teachers which ranged from $38,000 to $70,000. Secondary teachers had average taxable incomes of $78,000.

Women and repayment thresholds

People only begin repaying their student loan debt once they earn more than a certain amount of income.

From 2019–20, the first threshold was lowered and repayment rates were changed. This required those with incomes between around $46,000 and $60,000 to make repayments.

The changes had most impact on women. Just under two thirds of those who now had to make a repayment were women (239,000 of 371,000 in 2019–20). Women then paid more than two thirds of the additional revenue from the threshold reduction ($288 million of $429 million in 2019–20).

The new HELP repayment arrangements also reduce the incentive to work and can create poverty traps for some families. For example, for incomes between $48,000 and $100,000, a single parent with two children will lose on average 70 cents of every extra earned dollar due to reduced family benefits and increased tax, medicare and student loan payments.

In these cases, the HELP repayment arrangements are punitive and undesirable. They are more likely to adversely affect women as they do more caring within families.

These problems can be fixed

The option of reducing student contributions and increasing government subsidies is not likely to occur in the current economic environment. Making tertiary education free or extra cheap for some people makes it more expensive and less equitable for others. This is because the overall objective is to raise revenue to fund the tertiary education system, including universities and vocational education and training.

Instead, the government should make sure that everyone who benefits significantly from the system is a potential contributor and that repayment arrangements are designed to take people’s different circumstances into account.

Repayment arrangements should complement other social programs and taxation arrangements. It doesn’t make much sense for the government to be providing a low income family with income support while at the same time asserting that one of the adults in that family is so well off, they should be paying for their past education.

HECS-HELP repayments are currently calculated as a percentage of a person’s total income, with 18 different thresholds and repayment rates. A single rate of repayment applied to income above a threshold would be simpler and more rational than current arrangements.

It would allow the threshold to be varied according to a person’s family circumstances, ensuring former students only make repayments when they really have the capacity to do so.

Read more:
‘Why would you go to uni?’ A new study looks at what young Australians do after school

Mark Warburton is a member of the Australian Labor Party.

– ref. HECS-HELP loans have become unfair for women but there is a way to fix this – https://theconversation.com/hecs-help-loans-have-become-unfair-for-women-but-there-is-a-way-to-fix-this-200546

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lesley Alton, Research Fellow, Monash University

All animals need energy to live. They use it to breathe, circulate blood, digest food and move. Young animals use energy to grow, and later in life, to reproduce.

Increased body temperature increases the rate at which an animal uses energy. Because cold-blooded animals rely on the thermal conditions of their environment to regulate their body temperature, they’re expected to need more energy as the planet warms.

However, our new research, published today in Nature Climate Change, suggests temperature is not the only environmental factor affecting the future energy needs of cold-blooded animals. How they interact with other species will also play a role.

Our findings suggest cold-blooded animals will need even more energy in a warmer world than previously thought. This may increase their extinction risk.

What we already know

The amount of energy animals use in a given amount of time is called their metabolic rate.

Metabolic rate is influenced by a variety of factors, including body size and activity levels. Larger animals have higher metabolic rates than smaller animals, and active animals have higher metabolic rates than inactive animals.

Metabolic rate also depends on body temperature. This is because temperature affects the rate at which the biochemical reactions involved in energy metabolism proceed. Generally, if an animal’s body temperature increases, its metabolic rate will accelerate exponentially.

Most animals alive today are cold-blooded, or “ectotherms”. Insects, worms, fish, crustaceans, amphibians and reptiles – basically all creatures except mammals and birds – are ectotherms.

As human-induced climate change raises global temperatures, the body temperatures of cold-blooded animals are also expected to rise.

Researchers say the metabolic rate of some land-based ectotherms may have already increased by between 3.5% and 12% due to climate warming that’s already occurred. But this prediction doesn’t account for the animals’ capacity to physiologically “acclimate” to warmer temperatures.

Acclimation refers to an animal’s ability to remodel its physiology to cope with a change in its environment.

But rarely can acclimation fully negate the effect of temperature on metabolic processes. For this reason, by the end of the century land-based ectotherms are still predicted to have metabolic rates about 20% to 30% higher than they are now.

Having a higher metabolic rate means that animals will need more food. This means they might starve if more food is not available, and leaves them less energy to find a mate and reproduce.

Read more:
Why are bigger animals more energy-efficient? A new answer to a centuries-old biological puzzle

Our research

Previous research attempts to understand the energetic costs of climate warming for ectotherms were limited in one important respect. They predominantly used animals studied in relatively simple laboratory environments where the only challenge they faced was a change in temperature.

However, animals face many other challenges in nature. This includes interacting with other species, such as competing for food and predator-prey relationships.

Even though species interact all the time in nature, we rarely study how this affects metabolic rates.

We wanted to examine how species interactions might alter predictions about the energetic costs of climate warming for cold-blooded animals. To do this, we turned to the fruit fly (from the genus Drosophila).

Fruit fly species lay their eggs in rotting plant material. The larvae that hatch from these eggs interact and compete for food.

Our study involved rearing fruit fly species alone or together at different temperatures. We found when two species of fruit fly larvae compete for food at warmer temperatures, they were more active as adults than adults that didn’t compete with other species as larvae. This means they also used more energy.

From this, we used modelling to deduce that species interactions at warmer global temperatures increase the future energy needs of fruit flies by between 3% and 16%.

These findings suggest previous studies have underestimated the energetic cost of climate warming for ectotherms. That means purely physiological approaches to understanding the consequences of climate change for cold-blooded animals are likely to be insufficient.

Read more:
Young cold-blooded animals are suffering the most as Earth heats up, research finds

Let’s get real

Understanding the energy needs of animals is important for understanding how they’ll survive, reproduce and evolve in challenging environments.

In a warmer world, hotter ectotherms will need more energy to survive and reproduce. If there is not enough food to meet their bodies’ energy demands, their extinction risk may increase.

Clearly, we must more accurately predict how climate warming will threaten biodiversity. This means studying the responses of animals to temperature change under more realistic conditions.

Read more:
Move over, honeybees: Aussie native bees steal the show with unique social and foraging behaviours

Lesley Alton receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Vanessa Kellermann receives funding from Australian Research Council.

– ref. ‘Let’s get real’: scientists discover a new way climate change threatens cold-blooded animals – https://theconversation.com/lets-get-real-scientists-discover-a-new-way-climate-change-threatens-cold-blooded-animals-201076

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate, UNSW Beach Safety Research Group, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

Selfies have been called everything from an artform to narcissistic and a sign of a dysfunctional society.

They can also kill.

When people go to extreme lengths to take an image to share on social media – perhaps in remote or picturesque locations – they can risk their lives.

So we need to move beyond describing selfies as a social phenomenon, fuelled by the rise of smartphones and social media.

We need to treat dangerous selfies as the public health hazard they really are.

More deaths, year after year

Certain picturesque locations have been linked to selfie deaths. This includes Yosemite National Park in California. In Australia, we’ve seen people die at places including cliffs, natural pools and waterfalls.

These are not isolated incidents.

One study found 379 people worldwide were killed due to selfies between 2008 and 2021, with even more injured. Incidents are more likely in young adults, particularly males.

Many are travellers or tourists (particularly in Australia and the United States). In Australia and the US, selfie takers tend to be injured or killed while solo, and commonly in locations very difficult for emergency services to access. In countries such as India and Pakistan, selfie takers are more likely to die, tragically, as a group, especially near bodies of water, such as lakes.

Researchers have called for the introduction of “no selfie zones” around hotspots, such as tall buildings. Russian and Indian authorities have introduced these. Russia has launched a “safe selfie” guide.

But it’s not clear how effective these strategies have been. If anything, selfie incidents seem to be increasing globally.

Read more:
Is that selfie really worth it? Why face time with wild animals is a bad idea

Media calls these foolish, selfish

The media often portrays people involved in selfie incidents as foolish or selfish.

This seems to confirm our research showing media reports often blame the victim. Reports almost never provide safety information.

But taking selfies is a normal part of everyday life for millions of people. We need to stop judging people who are taking risky selfies, and instead see risky selfies as a public health issue.

Why is this a public health issue?

We’ve had similar problems with other activities we now see as
public health hazards. These include driving without a seatbelt, riding a bicycle without a helmet, smoking cigarettes or excessive alcohol consumption. These are all examples people once considered “normal”, which we now see as risky. Taking dangerous selfies needs to be added to that list.

By thinking of these selfies as a public health issue, we move away from victim blaming and instead need to effectively communicate risk to selfie-takers.

One example relates to the popular selfie hotspot, Figure Eight Pools in the Royal National Park, New South Wales, where people can be overwhelmed by big, “freak” waves. Authorities have produced a colour-coded risk rating that takes into account ocean and weather conditions. People can go online to see if the risk of going to the pools is “very low” to “extreme”.

If we think of these risky selfies as a public health issue we also move towards education and prevention.

Signs at selfie hotspots are one thing. But we know signs are often ignored, or simply not seen.

So we need to better communicate safety messages to selfie takers when and how they will actually take notice.

Our research with Instagram aims to do this by communicating directly to selfie takers through the Instagram app. The aim is to tailor safety messaging to Instagram users by geolocating them with known risky selfie spots – sending users a safety alert in real time.

With the right communication strategy, we know we can reduce the number of these entirely avoidable tragedies.

Read more:
#travelgram: live tourist snaps have turned solo adventures into social occasions

5 tips to stay safe when taking selfies in nature

1. Think about weather and water conditions

Weather and coastal conditions can change rapidly. Just because the weather and waves don’t appear dangerous when you start your selfie journey, they might be when you get there. Check before you go, avoid bad weather, and keep a close eye on tidal and wave conditions.

2. Don’t walk past safety signs and physical barriers

Warning signs are there to provide life-saving information. Pay attention to signs and heed their advice. Don’t jump or go around any physical barriers blocking access. They are likely there for a good reason.

3. Stay on the designated path

Staying on paths and trails is safest and also does fragile ecosystems a big favour.

4. Don’t get too close to the edge. Be aware of crumbling edges

Don’t trust cliff edges and be aware of unstable ground. Cliff edges are naturally eroding and your extra weight doesn’t help. People have died from cliff edges crumbling away while standing on them.

5. No amount of ‘likes’ is worth your life

Consider your motivations for taking selfies and using social media. Studies show spending time in nature is good for our health. But the world looks better when not viewed through a screen.

Samuel Cornell receives funding from Meta Platforms, Inc. His research is also supported by a UNSW University Postgraduate Award, as well as project funding from the Royal Life Saving Society – Australia. He is affiliated with Surf Life Saving Australia and Surf Life Saving NSW.

Amy Peden receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and project funding from Meta Platforms Inc, Royal Life Saving Society – Australia and Surf Life Saving Australia. She is affiliated with the Royal Life Saving Society – Australia.

Rob Brander receives funding from Meta Platforms Inc, Surf Life Saving Australia, Surfing NSW, Randwick City Council and Waverley Council.

– ref. Dangerous selfies aren’t just foolish. We need to treat them like the public health hazard they really are – https://theconversation.com/dangerous-selfies-arent-just-foolish-we-need-to-treat-them-like-the-public-health-hazard-they-really-are-200645

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sara Webb, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology

We have long been fascinated with the idea of alien life. The earliest written record presenting the idea of “aliens” is seen in the satiric work of Assyrian writer Lucian of Samosata dated to 200 AD.

In one novel, Lucian writes of a journey to the Moon and the bizarre life he imagines living there – everything from three-headed vultures to fleas the size of elephants.

Now, 2,000 years later, we still write stories of epic adventures beyond Earth to meet otherworldly beings (Hitchhiker’s Guide, anyone?). Stories like these entertain and inspire, and we are forever trying to find out if science fiction will become science fact.

Not all alien life is the same

When looking for life beyond Earth, we are faced with two possibilities. We might find basic microbial life hiding somewhere in our Solar System; or we will identify signals from intelligent life somewhere far away.

Unlike in Star Wars, we’re not talking far, far away in another galaxy, but rather around other nearby stars. It is this second possibility which really excites me, and should excite you too. A detection of intelligent life would fundamentally change how we see ourselves in the Universe.

In the last 80 years, programs dedicated to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) have worked tirelessly searching for cosmic “hellos” in the form of radio signals.

The reason we think any intelligent life would communicate via radio waves is due to the waves’ ability to travel vast distances through space, rarely interacting with the dust and gas in between stars. If anything out there is trying to communicate, it’s a pretty fair bet they would do it through radio waves.

Listening to the stars

One of the most exciting searches to date is Breakthrough Listen, the largest scientific research program dedicated to looking for evidence of intelligent life beyond Earth.

This is one of many projects funded by Russian entrepreneurs Julia and Yuri Milner, with some serious dollars attached. Over a ten-year period a total amount of US$100 million will be invested in this effort, and they have a mighty big task at hand.

Breakthrough Listen is currently targeting the closest one million stars in the hope of identifying any unnatural, alien-made radio signals. Using telescopes around the globe, from the 64-metre Murriyang Dish (Parkes) here in Australia, to the 64-antenna MeerKAT array in South Africa, the search is one of epic proportions. But it isn’t the only one.

Hiding away in the Cascade Mountains north of San Francisco sits the Allen Telescope Array, the first radio telescope built from the ground up specifically for SETI use.

This unique facility is another exciting project, able to search for signals every day of the year. This project is currently upgrading the hardware and software on the original dish, including the ability to target several stars at once. This is a part of the non-profit research organisation, the SETI Institute.

Space lasers!

The SETI Institute is also looking for signals that would be best explained as “space lasers”.

Some astronomers hypothesise that intelligent beings might use massive lasers to communicate or even to propel spacecraft. This is because even here on Earth we’re investigating laser communication and laser-propelled light sails.

To search for these mysterious flashes in the night sky, we need speciality instruments in locations around the globe, which are currently being developed and deployed. This is a research area I’m excited to watch progress and eagerly await results.

As of writing this article, sadly no alien laser signals have been found yet.

Read more:
Do aliens exist? We asked five experts

Out there, somewhere

It’s always interesting to ponder who or what might be living out in the Universe, but there is one problem we must overcome to meet or communicate with aliens. It’s the speed of light.

Everything we rely on to communicate via space requires light, and it can only travel so fast. This is where my optimism for finding intelligent life begins to fade. The Universe is big – really big.

To put it in perspective, humans started using radio waves to communicate across large distances in 1901. That first transatlantic signal has only travelled 122 light years, reaching just 0.0000015% of the stars in our Milky Way.

Did your optimism just fade too? That is okay, because here is the wonderful thing… we don’t have to find life to know it is out there, somewhere.

When we consider the trillions of galaxies, septillion of stars, and likely many more planets just in the observable Universe, it feels near impossible that we are alone.

We can’t fully constrain the parameters we need to estimate how many other lifeforms might be out there, as famously proposed by Frank Drake, but using our best estimates and simulations the current best answer to this is tens of thousands of possible civilisations out there.

Read more:
Frank Drake has passed away but his equation for alien intelligence is more important than ever

The Universe might even be infinite, but that is too much for my brain to comprehend on a weekday.

Don’t forget the tiny aliens

So, despite keenly listening for signals, we might not find intelligent life in our lifetimes. But there is hope for aliens yet.

The ones hiding in plain sight, on the planetary bodies of our Solar System. In the coming decades we’ll explore the moons of Jupiter and Saturn like never before, with missions hunting to find traces of basic life.

Mars will continue to be explored – eventually by humans – which could allow us to uncover and retrieve samples from new and unexplored regions.

Even if our future aliens are only tiny microbes, it would still be nice to know we have company in this Universe.

Sara Webb 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. Humans are still hunting for aliens. Here’s how astronomers are looking for life beyond Earth – https://theconversation.com/humans-are-still-hunting-for-aliens-heres-how-astronomers-are-looking-for-life-beyond-earth-197621

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Garrick, University Fellow in Law, Charles Darwin University

There are several challenges making Australia’s national security strategy more complicated these days – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the impacts of climate change, our green energy transition and economic uncertainty.

But at the top of this list is the increasing influence of China in the region and intensifying competition between China and the United States.

In this context, the nine-month-old Albanese government is soon to release a defence strategic review. It is unclear if this review will be followed by a more holistic examination of Australia’s national security interests, such as the integrated review conducted in the United Kingdom two years ago, or the regular national security strategy in the US.

But it does not take a formal document like this for Australia to further invest in the kind of grand strategic thinking demanded by contemporary challenges. Grand strategy can capture, as the UK scholars Andrew Ehrhardt and Maeve Ryan argue,

a conscious attempt to look beyond the confines of short-term requirements of national defence or day-to-day, immediate foreign policy, and to the pursuit of national interests in a more systematic and synchronised way.

Developing this type of thinking requires a focus on the long-term place of our key alliances – such as the new AUKUS partnership with the US and UK – as well as regional partners. But it must also consider the domestic context of our security, such as the role of important regional centres around Australia.

One such priority for longer-term strategic thinking: the opportunities and costs of our growing defence investment and partnerships in the Northern Territory.

Growing defence investment in the Northern Territory

The NT is already the focus of significant defence investment – and a sizeable US military presence.

Over the past 11 years, the NT has hosted annual rotations of the US Marine Rotational Force–Darwin (MRF-D) during the dry season. Last year, 2,200 US personnel also conducted combined training with the Australian Defence Force in the NT, including crisis response exercises and engagement with regional partners.

And for the first time, US Army personnel were deployed to work alongside and support their marine counterparts.

Given geopolitical priorities in the region, Australia’s north will continue to be seen as strategically important.

The US and Australian governments have committed to sharing more than US$1.52 billion (A$2 billion) in infrastructure investments and upgrading military assets across the Top End, including the construction of 11 giant jet fuel storage tanks in Darwin.

The Tindal air base expansion, which will include a permanent parking apron for up to six US Air Force bombers, is forecast to cost up to A$149 million alone.

Other US aircraft, such as the B-52, B-1 and B-2 bombers, already visit northern Australia. But the RAAF’s ability to host the aircraft and train alongside them will mark an important milestone toward the integration of the two air forces.

The possible rotation of other US aircraft in the NT under the AUKUS partnership, including the upcoming sixth-generation B-21 bomber, may even offer an alternative to Australia developing its own costly long-range strike capability.

These ties with the US military may help create a meaningful deterrent against a potential attack from an adversary in the region. But beyond this, the NT is becoming increasingly important for other reasons.

For example, it has the potential to serve as a crossroads for future cooperation between the Quad security grouping, which brings together the US, Australia, Japan and India.

The proximity to Australia’s important Southeast Asian partners in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Timor-Leste and Papua New Guinea is also significant. This provides opportunities to further develop military, diplomatic and economic links.

These links are crucial in a region already becoming the focus of strategic competition and facing the impacts of climate change.

Read more:
Australia and the US are firm friends on defence – now let’s turn that into world-beating climate action

Domestic implications of a more militarised Top End

All of this drives home why Australia’s north is such a vital consideration in any grand strategy for the nation’s security. And yet, there are important domestic implications that must be addressed, as well.

With the Top End having direct experience as a military target in the past, it’s natural that concerns have been heightened by the widening footprint of the US military.

Environmental concerns have also been expressed for some time and are not confined to military activity.

The establishment of any new training areas and expansion of existing facilities – combined with an influx of troops, vehicles and equipment – can lead to serious issues like soil erosion, water contamination and habitat loss.

These legitimate concerns may be partly offset by the direct and indirect employment opportunities created by the ongoing investments.

The communities in the Top End also have deep historical connections to Australia’s defence and there has been a general level of acceptance of the US Marine rotations.

But national leaders will still need to present a compelling narrative to justify why this significant defence investment and our deepening ties with the US make us collectively more secure.

Crafting such a narrative won’t come easy, as leading strategist Lesley Seebeck argues, given Australians tend to be “pragmatists, uncomfortable with soaring statements of aspirations and values”.

Read more:
Australia and US take realist approach to regional influence

The NT in our grand strategy

A challenging national security environment demands more robust ideas about how Australia can develop and coordinate its national power.

Regardless of whether these ideas are captured through a formal document like a national security strategy, there is benefit in fostering a larger community of strategic thinkers who can share and debate them.

A grand strategic vision for Australia’s security will naturally focus on the place of the US alliance and the role of China in shaping our regional order. But a compelling and practical narrative for Australia’s future must incorporate key regional centres such as the NT. And, importantly, this narrative must speak to them, not just about them.

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

– ref. As Australia’s military ties with the US deepen, the Top End becomes even more vital to our security – https://theconversation.com/as-australias-military-ties-with-the-us-deepen-the-top-end-becomes-even-more-vital-to-our-security-199783

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tristan Salles, Senior Lecturer, University of Sydney

Earth’s surface is the “living skin” of our planet – it connects the physical, chemical, and biological systems. Over geological time, landscapes change as this surface evolves, regulating the carbon cycle and nutrient circulation as rivers carry sediment into the oceans.

All these interactions have far-reaching effects on ecosystems and biodiversity – the many living things inhabiting our planet.

As such, reconstructing how Earth’s landscapes have evolved over millions of years is a fundamental step towards understanding the changing shape of our planet, and the interaction of things like the climate and tectonics. It can also give us clues on the evolution of biodiversity.

Working with scientists in France (French National Centre for Scientific Research, ENS Paris university, University of Grenoble and University of Lyon), our team at the University of Sydney has now published a detailed geological model of Earth’s surface changes in the prestigious journal Science.

Ours is the first dynamic model – a computer simulation – of the past 100 million years at a high resolution down to ten kilometres. In unprecedented detail, it reveals how Earth’s surface has changed over time, and how that has affected the way sediment moves around and settles.

Broken into frames of a million years, our model is based on a framework that incorporates plate tectonic and climatic forces with surface processes such as earthquakes, weathering, changing rivers and more.

Three years in the making

The project started about three years ago when we began the development of a new global-scale landscape evolution model, capable of simulating millions of years of change. We also found ways to automatically add other information into our framework, such as palaeogeography – the history of Earth’s landscapes.

For this new study, our framework used state-of-the-art plate tectonic reconstructions and simulations of past climates on a global scale.

Our advanced computer simulations used Australia’s National Computational Infrastructure, running on hundreds of computer processors. Each simulation took several days, building a complete picture to reconstruct the past 100 million years of Earth’s surface evolution.

All this computing power has resulted in global high-resolution maps that show the highs and lows of Earth’s landscapes (elevation), as well as the flows of water and sediment.

All of these fit well with existing geological observations. For instance, we combined data from present-day river sediment and water flows, drainage basin areas, seismic surveys, and long-term local and global erosion trends.

Our main outputs are available as time-based global maps at five-million-year intervals from the Open Science Framework.

Water and sediment flux through space and time

One of Earth’s fundamental surface processes is erosion, a slow process in which materials like soil and rock are worn and carried away by wind or water. This results in sediment flows.

Erosion plays an important role in Earth’s carbon cycle – the never-ending global circulation of one of life’s essential building blocks, carbon. Investigating the way sediment flows have changed through space and time is crucial for our understanding of how Earth’s climates have varied in the past.

We found that our model reproduces the key elements of Earth’s sediment transport, from catchment dynamics depicting river networks over time to the slow changes of large-scale sedimentary basins.

From our results, we also found several inconsistencies between existing observations of rock layers (strata), and predictions of such layers. This shows our model could be useful for testing and refining reconstructions of past landscapes.

Our simulated past landscapes are fully integrated with the various processes at play, especially the hydrological system – the movement of water – providing a more robust and detailed view of Earth’s surface.

Our study reveals more detail on the role that the constantly evolving Earth’s surface has played in the movement of sediments from mountaintops to ocean basins, ultimately regulating the carbon cycle and Earth’s climate fluctuations through deep time.

As we explore these results in tandem with the geological record, we will be able to answer long-standing questions about various crucial features of the Earth system – including the way our planet cycles nutrients, and has given rise to life as we know it.

This research was undertaken with resources from the National Computational Infrastructure supported by the Australian Government and from Artemis HPC supported by the University of Sydney. This work was supported by the following: Australian Research Council grant IC190100031 and Australian Research Council grant DE210100084.

– ref. Scientists just revealed the most detailed geological model of Earth’s past 100 million years – https://theconversation.com/scientists-just-revealed-the-most-detailed-geological-model-of-earths-past-100-million-years-200898

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bain Munro Attwood, Professor of History, Monash University

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names and images of deceased people.

Ninety years ago, Yorta Yorta leader William Cooper dreamed of Aboriginal people being represented in the Commonwealth parliament. In August 1933, he set about petitioning the British king, George V. The key demand was for:

a member of parliament, of our own blood or white men known to have studied our needs and to be in sympathy with our race, to represent us in the Federal Parliament.

As the referendum for a First Nations Voice to parliament draws near, it’s worth looking back on this important part of Australia’s history.

‘Thinking Black’

What Cooper was asking for was a means by which Australia’s lawmakers could be informed of the views of Aboriginal people. He believed this fundamentally important to his people’s wellbeing, because he knew those who governed their lives acted without any consideration of their views.

He also knew those views differed from the ones held by white Australians. This was because, he asserted, only Aboriginal people could “think Black”.

“You may read the views […] of sympathetic white men. But they are not our views”, Cooper told a white journalist in September 1937. “We are the sufferers; the white men are the aggressors.”

Blackfellas, Cooper was saying, had different views to whitefellas because of their historical experience of dispossession, death, decimation, displacement, deprivation and discrimination.

This was a matter of what Cooper once called “racial memory”. It was something “in the blood […] which recalls the terrible things done to them in years gone by”.

A ‘moral duty’

Petitions tend to be couched in deferential terms – Cooper characterised the plea in his petition as “humble”, sought to “respectfully sheweth” the matters it presented, and “humbly pray[ed]” the king would intervene.

But they usually suggest a government has an obligation to respond – Cooper argued the British Crown had a “moral duty” to do so because he believed it had issued a commission in 1788 stating “the [country’s] original inhabitants and their heirs and successors should be adequately cared for”.

Petitioners also tend to assume there is a higher form of authority than a local one to whom they can appeal. British responsibility for Australian affairs had ceased with the founding of the Australian nation in 1901. Despite this, Cooper believed the British monarch continued to have a special right to intervene in those affairs, and that Aboriginal people had a right of appeal to him or her on the grounds they had reserved certain powers in this respect.

Getting signatures for what Cooper called “this great work” was very difficult, not least because he had limited means.

Several frustrating months passed before government authorities reluctantly agreed to grant him permission to circulate his petition among Aboriginal people who lived under so-called Protection Acts. But Cooper was tenacious. He believed it was the duty of every Aboriginal man and woman in the country to sign and hoped to get the signatures of all of them or at least those living on missions and reserves.

Read more:
William Cooper: the Indigenous leader who petitioned the king, demanding a Voice to Parliament in the 1930s

Dismissed but not deterred

By 1935, the petition was ready to be submitted. But Cooper decided to hold it back in the hope a major meeting of all the administrators of Aboriginal affairs would see the federal government adopt its recommendation of a new policy to “uplift” his people. Yet this came to nothing.

“We did look to this [meeting] as marking an epoch in our history”, Cooper told a federal minister.

“We have got nothing definite except the refusal of our claim for representation in the federal parliament”, he exclaimed; “no result but … 80,000 aborigines [sic] in Australia […] refused one representative in parliament. Yet in New Zealand the same number of natives have four members and one minister for Native Affairs”.

Soon after, Cooper sent the petition to Prime Minister Joseph Lyons and asked him to forward it to the king. Lyon sought the advice of the relevant government department.

The permanent head of the department of the interior was dismissive of Cooper’s plea for parliamentary representation. Lyon was more sympathetic, something a well-informed political observer attributed to the fact he remembered the wholesale slaughter of Aboriginal people in his own state, Tasmania.

Lyon called for legal advice and directed his office to tell Cooper he had “the fullest sympathy” with Cooper’s wish that the interests of the Aboriginal people be “adequately safeguarded”.

In the end, Lyons’ cabinet accepted a recommendation from the department of the interior that no action be taken. This was on the grounds its own minister could represent Aboriginal people and there was nothing to be gained from forwarding the petition to King George VI (who, by then, had succeeded King George V). With that, it seems the petition roll was consigned to a dust bin.

Yet Cooper never gave hope. In 1939 and 1940, he repeatedly asked Prime Minister Robert Menzies to grant his plea.

He died shortly afterwards, but his dream of parliamentary representation for his people did not, living on in the hearts and minds of another generation of Aboriginal campaigners.

Bain Munro Attwood received funding from the Gandel Foundation.

– ref. 90 years ago, Yorta Yorta leader William Cooper petitioned the king for Aboriginal representation in parliament – https://theconversation.com/90-years-ago-yorta-yorta-leader-william-cooper-petitioned-the-king-for-aboriginal-representation-in-parliament-198396

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ulrich Speidel, Senior Lecturer in Computer Science, University of Auckland

Modern communication systems need two main things: power, and what engineers call “backhaul”, the connections that link cell towers and exchanges to the national network. When Cyclone Gabrielle struck, both were badly compromised.

Many sites lost power not long after the mains went down. They were only designed to run on battery for a few hours (or days at most) – enough for routine faults, not for disasters.

Much of the backhaul – usually fibre optic cables running along main roads, often parallel to power lines – was also knocked out by landslips and flooding. Because of this, even where cell sites still had power, they couldn’t connect anyone to anywhere.

This disconnected large numbers of cell sites, including those run by the Rural Connectivity Group (RCG) – the government appointed provider of broadband and mobile services in sparsely populated areas.

New Zealand’s three big telecommunications operators (Spark, Vodafone and 2degrees) use the RCG service in rural regions, causing all three (along with wireless internet) to lose coverage in affected areas.

Emergency services have also increasingly abandoned their own radio-based communication networks for cheaper cell phones, which offer more privacy and coverage. Imagine calling 111 after the cyclone – if you could – only to find the emergency services themselves were incommunicado.

Read more:
Flood warning: NZ’s critical infrastructure is too important to fail – greater resilience is urgently needed

Furthermore, disaster responses by citizens and emergency services alike require fuel for vehicles, as well as food and other supplies. But electronic payment systems like eftpos and fuel cards need an internet connection.

Clearly it’s time to ask whether systems so vulnerable to single points of failure are fit for purpose, given our exposure to natural disasters and increasing risk from more severe and frequent climate change events.

Power and connection

About 80% of cell site outages after Cyclone Gabrielle were related to power loss, and around 20% to loss of backhaul connectivity (the responsibility of telecommunications infrastructure provider Chorus).

Failed operator-owned urban cell sites can often be covered by nearby neighbouring cells. If mains power stays off, they are generally easily reached and supplied with generators. After the cyclone, much of the initial reconnection progress was made in this way.

To be economically viable and cover enough customers, however, rural sites are often on hard-to-reach hills with precarious power supplies. Without power and road access, helicopters need to fly in generators and fuel – a task Vodafone described as “challenging” in the aftermath of Gabrielle.

Backhaul internet service provider Kordia fared much better. Its core sites (mostly on hilltops) were inherited from the former Broadcasting Corporation and were designed for resiliency. Big battery banks and significant on-site generation let them operate autonomously for weeks. After the cyclone, Kordia provided microwave backhaul links, replacing broken fibres.

Read more:
Massive outages caused by Cyclone Gabrielle strengthen the case for burying power lines

Resilience and diversity

Cyclones and storms are not the only risk. Tairāwhiti and Hawke’s Bay, for example, are vulnerable to earthquakes from the offshore Hikurangi subduction zone, which could cause tsunami inundations and slips.

So, what kind of communication system does New Zealand need to cope with potential disasters of all types? To answer that, we need to look at two key technical concepts: site resilience and diversity.

Read more:
Why a temporary flood levy on higher earners would be the fairest way to help pay for Cyclone Gabrielle

Resilience could mean equipping cell sites with solar or wind generation, larger batteries and “redundant” equipment for operation over long periods without any need for external power or access.

It could mean requiring cell sites to have an independent, alternative backhaul path: a second cable along a different route, a microwave or satellite link. It could mean trying to connect a cable to the wider internet at both ends, rather than just at one. This would mean both sides of a break could be supplied from one end or the other.

Diversity could mean having more sites, and making more use of alternative cable corridors such as railway lines and overhead high-voltage power line pylons. It could mean more interconnections between these corridors for use in emergencies.

No cheap options

International connectivity also matters. New Zealand currently connects to the world via five undersea fibre-optic cables. A significant volcanic eruption on Auckland’s North Shore, for instance, could cut the country off from three or possibly four of these.

A satellite internet service such as Starlink definitely has a role to play. It helped Wairoa reconnect with the world after hours of complete blackout, and has since brought numerous banks and retailers back online. It is easy to deploy, doesn’t depend on local infrastructure, and only needs a small generator for power.

Read more:
‘Build back better’ sounds great in theory, but does the government really know what it means in practice?

Starlink and other satellite backup can’t provide the amount of international capacity needed in a major disaster. But they are still a valuable option. The terminals aren’t expensive, so kitting out every Civil Defence post with one shouldn’t break the bank.

And in coastal communities, marine VHF radios are also abundant – something that could also be used onshore when other systems fail. It’s ironic that boaties are told to have two different means of communication, but emergency services are expected to make do with one.

Disaster risk assessment and mitigation must now be a vital component of all communication projects. Affordability can no longer be the only question. Sometimes, you just can’t afford cheap.

Ulrich Speidel receives funding from networking-related organisations such as the APNIC Foundation and Internet NZ (and normally spells Internet in uppercase).

– ref. Cyclone Gabrielle broke vital communication links when people needed them most – what happened and how do we fix it? – https://theconversation.com/cyclone-gabrielle-broke-vital-communication-links-when-people-needed-them-most-what-happened-and-how-do-we-fix-it-200711

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Prictor, Senior Lecturer in Law, The University of Melbourne

Australia’s My Health Record is a national, integrated electronic record, intended to overcome the problem of having personal health information “siloed” in different systems.

People can access their own My Health Record via MyGov or an app. Any of their treating health professionals can access it, too.

My Health Record can hold various past information, including a shared health summary, records of health conditions, allergies and medications, summaries of cancer treatment, test and scan results, hospital discharge notes, vaccination records, organ donation choices, and notes entered by patients themselves.

But is the system actually being used? Why is it, when people access their My Health Record, they often find little helpful information? Earlier this year, Health Minister Mark Butler promised an overhaul as part of the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce. But what needs to happen for it to be finally fit for purpose?

Read more:
Medicare reform is off to a promising start. Now comes the hard part

How many My Health Records are there?

More than 90% of Australians – over 23.5 million people – have a My Health Record. The rate of uptake has not changed much since the opt-out period ended.

My Health Record has operated for more than ten years, undergoing a controversial change to an opt-out system in 2018–19. The federal government has invested heavily in My Health Record and given financial incentives to general practices to use it. Large-scale communication campaigns have tried to inform and educate people about it too.

Read more:
Vaccination status – when your medical information is private and when it’s not

What’s in them?

The Digital Health Agency, which manages the My Health Record system, reports a vast number of documents have been uploaded to it: some 4 billion documents by June 2022.

Over 98% of My Health Record profiles have something in them.

The Digital Health Agency’s monthly reports reveal that in January there were 355 million clinical documents in the My Health Record system – mainly pathology reports, but also diagnostic imaging reports, hospital discharge summaries, shared health summaries and other things. There were 494 million prescription and dispense records that had been uploaded by providers such as pharmacists and GPs.

This seems promising. But two things are important.

First, these numbers are only a small fraction of the health reports and summaries that are being generated in Australia. For instance, the health minister recently said that only 20% of diagnostic imaging reports are uploaded to My Health Record. Images themselves cannot be not uploaded.

Second, the large majority of what’s in My Health Record is simply Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) data – some 2 billion and 1 billion documents, respectively (as of July 2022).

Read more:
Using My Health Record data for research could save lives, but we must ensure it’s ethical

How handy is this information?

The usefulness of this information to patients and clinicians is limited. Medicare data contains virtually no clinically relevant information. It only provides the date of a clinic visit or a test, a brief description (such as “consultation at consulting rooms” or “iron studies”), and the provider name. This information might help a patient remember – or a provider to track – the timing of certain health events, but little else.

PBS prescription information in My Health Record is a little more useful – providing medicines names and doses, dates of prescription and supply, and the number of tablets and repeats. This could assist in the often-touted situation of patients attending a new doctor or the emergency department without a list of their medications.

Information from the Australian Immunisation Register and the Organ Donor Register is also automatically deposited in the My Health Record. Still, this type of information is fairly basic, and available elsewhere. It might not meet consumers’ expectations of their “health record”.

Who is using the My Health Record?

Nearly all GPs, pharmacies and public hospitals in Australia are connected and “have used My Health Record”, according to the Digital Health Agency. But again, the devil is in the detail.

Use by specialists is still very low, with only 32% registered to access the system. Allied health is virtually absent.

Fewer than one in four people viewed their My Health Record in 2022. Less than 10% of the pathology reports in the system were viewed by consumers.

While usage in some health sectors is rising, even public hospitals tapped little of the system’s potential, viewing fewer than 2.8 million documents uploaded by another organisation, in the 12 months to January 2023. This is a tiny proportion of the My Health Record’s contents. The vast majority of documents have probably never been viewed (and even less, used), by health-care professionals or patients.

One of the most common arguments in favour of an integrated electronic health record is in the context of patients presenting to emergency departments. There, the ability to quickly understand a patient’s health problems, medications and recent test results could be vital. So, recent research on the use of My Health Record in emergency departments is especially telling.

The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care analysed use of My Health Record by more than 1,000 emergency department staff for 130,000 patients across four sites nationwide, in 2019. The Commission found low staff awareness of the system. My Health Record was viewed in less than 1% of emergency department presentations. And in one-third of the presentations studied, the person had an empty My Health Record.

A 2021 survey of a major Melbourne hospital found My Health Record “has not been adopted as routine practice in the emergency department” by most clinicians.

Read more:
I’ve given out my Medicare number. How worried should I be about the latest Optus data breach?

So, is it worth saving?

Consumer advocates hoped the arrival of My Health Record would empower consumers.

But a frustrating lack of useful content, not enough usable consumer resources, low understanding of the system, and privacy and security concerns have all contributed to a sense of missed opportunity.

The Strengthening Medicare Taskforce recommendations to modernise the platform could increase the information the system holds and make it easier to use.

But it will need investment and technical improvements to develop it beyond the “outdated, clunky, pdf format” described by the health minister last month.

Megan Prictor 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. My Health Record is meant to empower patients – but with little useful information stored, is it worth saving? – https://theconversation.com/my-health-record-is-meant-to-empower-patients-but-with-little-useful-information-stored-is-it-worth-saving-199508

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Stanbury, PhD Candidate, Monash University

Do you want to have a baby? But, on a planet rocked by the climate crisis, ecosystem collapse, famine and poverty, is having one just adding to the problem – and therefore unethical?

I am a PhD Candidate at Monash Bioethics Centre, and I research the ethics of procreation in a time of climate change. I’ve found there’s no simple “yes” or “no” answer to whether we should produce more children when Earth is in such dire straits.

People who want to have children are faced with a dilemma. Creating a child who will be responsible for high emissions over their lifetime requires others to stay in poverty (if the planet is to operate within its physical limits). This, it can easily be argued, furthers injustice and inequality.

But many of us want to have children – doing so can be one of the most meaningful things we do with our life.

What should we do? Ethics can provide an answer. It shows there is a moral obligation to consider the effects of child-bearing without obliging people to not have children as a result.

What is overpopulation?

Many people argue the world has an overpopulation problem. Overpopulation has been defined as the state where there are more people than can live on Earth in comfort, happiness, and health and still leave the world a fit place for future generations.

But this definition is open to interpretation. Overpopulation is not just about numbers, but also values. If people in affluent countries value their lifestyles – and the opportunity for others to have the same lifestyle – then the world is overpopulated.

I live in inner-city Melbourne. When I calculate my ecological footprint, it’s confronting to discover we would need about four Earths for everyone to live like me. If everyone lived like the average American, we would need more than five Earths.

Indeed, estimates by ecologists and philosophers show a person born in the developed world can enjoy their lifestyle only if there are no more than two or three billion people on the planet. There are now more than eight billion.

Read more:
Why we should be wary of blaming ‘overpopulation’ for the climate crisis

So what do we do?

We could address the dilemma by decreasing per capita emissions of greenhouse gases. However, this on its own won’t be sufficient.

Why? First, it’s difficult to reduce emissions at the speed required to mitigate catastrophic climate change. The goal of the Paris Agreement is to prevent the world from warming by 2℃ from pre-industrial levels. To achieve this goal, we must halve emissions by 2030, halve them again by 2040, and again by 2050.

Unfortunately, we are not on track to achieve the Paris goals. This failure will cause significant suffering and millions of deaths. And the most disadvantaged people will be affected first and most severely. This is unjust.

Second, developing countries must be allowed to increase their emissions to escape poverty. People in poverty consume very few resources. To stay at this low-level of consumption is dehumanising. We should be advocating for many people to consume more.

Third, having fewer children helps solve the injustices caused by climate damage. If global fertility rates dropped by only 0.5 births per woman, about 5.1 billion tonnes of carbon would be saved each year by the end of the century. This would contribute to between 16% and 29% of the emissions savings needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Fourth, even if the world’s average per capita emissions decrease, a growing population multiplies emissions.

Emissions tend to grow on a one-to-one ratio with rising populations. Between 1975 and 2009, for example, both population and emissions rose by 43% in the United States. Not addressing population growth means we may undo good work achieved by reducing per capita emissions.

And finally, we cannot address per capita emissions without addressing reproduction. The decision to not bring someone into the world is about 20 times more effective at reducing individual emissions than the sum total of many other “green” acts we can do, such as recycling and driving less.

For instance, in a developed nation, having one fewer children saves about 58 tonnes of emissions per year. The next best decision someone can make to limit their emissions is to live car-free. But, this will only save about 2.4 tonnes of emissions per year.

As ethicists have recently pointed out, if there is any duty to reduce our per capita emissions, there is a duty to limit the amount of children we have.

Read more:
Bob Brown is right – it’s time environmentalists talked about the population problem

Resolving the dilemma

I should acknowledge here that I don’t have the lived experience of being a woman or person who can carry a child, nor do I have children yet.

However, I do believe the world must address overpopulation. I say this knowing it is not an easy or comfortable topic to broach. It involves sexuality and contraception, personal rights and religion.

And I realise there is no way forward that can solve all injustices.

If people in affluent nations keep bringing children into the world, there will not be enough resources for many current and future people to live and flourish.

But it would also be unjust to demand an individual give up reproducing. The freedom to decide whether to bring someone into the world is central to many people’s dignity and life’s meaning.

And the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights recognises that every man and woman has the fight to found a family.

So the most appropriate answer is not one that seeks to eliminate injustices altogether. Rather, it should minimise injustice as much as possible.

Telling people not to have children, or to have fewer children, is too strong. The solution must tread a finer line. But how? By placing a moral obligation on people to consider the environmental and justice issues of bringing someone into the world.

For a person wanting children, this means it’s no longer enough to only ask questions such as: can I be a good parent? Do I have the means to support a child?

Anyone with the means to control their fertility now has an obligation to also ask themselves the following five questions:

1. Will my child have a high-emissions lifestyle and will this mean others must live in poverty? If so, is this justifiable?

2. Do I have biological parenting desires – that is, the desire to parent someone who has my genes? Or do I simply have parenting desires – that is, the desire to raise someone in a loving environment according to my values, regardless of their genes?

3. Even if I might discover a strong biological connection once I have a child, could I be fulfilled in my life if I raised someone who is not biologically connected to me?

4. If I have only parenting desires, can this be satisfied in other ways such as through fostering, teaching, mentoring or, if possible, adopting?

5. Does satisfying my parenting desires in other ways particularly apply to me if I already have one biological child?

Often people who choose not to have children feel the need to explain the decision to others. The above approach would mean the reverse: requiring that people who wish to ethically bring someone into the world must themselves address difficult questions.

A just society values everyone being able to pursue having a child if they wish to. Yet, it also demands that everyone consider the ramifications of doing so.

Craig Stanbury 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. Thinking of having a baby as the planet collapses? First, ask yourself 5 big ethical questions – https://theconversation.com/thinking-of-having-a-baby-as-the-planet-collapses-first-ask-yourself-5-big-ethical-questions-196388

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Breunig, Professor of Economics and Director, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Treasurer Jim Chalmers promised a Tax Expenditures Statement by the end of February – and he delivered this week, just in time, on Tuesday February 28.

The statement contains many headline-grabbing figures about the cost of various tax breaks, including claims made against income from rental properties (A$24.4 billion), the concessional or zero tax on employer superannuation contributions ($23.3 billion), concessional or zero tax on super earnings ($21.5 billion), and the tax-free treatment of the family home ($22 billion).

For some years under the Coalition, the statement was given the less-attractive title of Tax Benchmarks and Variations Statement, which was surprising given the statement was mandated in 1998 by Treasurer Peter Costello as part of the Charter of Budget Honesty.

The refurbished 200-page document has its old name back, plus a bit more. It is now called the Tax Expenditures and Insights Statement. The “insights” in the title relate to who the expenditures go to.

As to whether these additional insights are really that insightful, the answer is yes in some areas – but we need to be careful about others.

Spending by another name

The idea of the statement is to record those government expenditures delivered via tax breaks, so their costs can be compared with the cost of direct expenditures.

As an example, support for Australians who take out private health insurance can either be delivered via a tax rebate or a cash payment.

A tax rebate, effectively paid out of government funds but delivered through the tax system, might be called a “tax expenditure”, while a cash payment might be called a direct expenditure.

Either way, the cost to the government, and the amount paid to the recipient, is the same. Only the method of delivery, and how it’s recorded, is different.

Tax expenditures are usually invisible, because there’s no line item for them in the budget papers.

That’s why Costello initiated the publication of tax expenditures.

It’s also why the institute I run at the Australian National University is called the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute – because considering direct payments, but not payments made through the tax system, would be to consider only half the issue.

Support for high earners

The “insights” now included in the statement, along with the totals for each tax expenditure, are about who gets them, usually broken down by income and gender.

These are interesting, but not that insightful.

Guess who gets the biggest tax expenditures. Yes, you got it on one! The highest earners in the highest tax brackets.

Because they pay higher marginal tax rates, tax breaks benefit them the most.

And guess whether men or women get the biggest tax expenditures.

Again, you got it! There are more men in the highest tax brackets than women, so men get the lion’s share of tax expenditures.

All of which points to three dangers in interpreting the tax expenditures statement.

Big expenditures needn’t mean unfairness

The first danger is to conclude the large tax expenditures show “the rich do not pay enough tax”.

The statement says nothing about how much tax people actually pay.

In fact, Australia has one of the world’s most progressive tax systems. The top 10% pay roughly half of all the income tax collected.

The second (related) danger is assuming an uneven distribution of tax expenditures means an uneven distribution of government support.

Read more:
How to camouflage $150 billion in spending: call it ‘tax expenditure’

Tax expenditures tell us nothing about other forms of government support.

Australia also does pretty well in fairness. Most government spending goes to those at the bottom of the income distribution. This is true if you look at cash transfers, and also for in-kind benefits such as education and health care.

Using data from the World Inequality Database, I calculate Australia’s after-tax Gini coefficient – the standard a measure of inequality – is about 30% fairer than its before-tax coefficient. This suggests the Australian system moves money from the more well-off to the less well-off.

It may not do it enough for some and it may do it too much for others, but there is no evidence of gross unfairness.

Abolition might raise less than imagined

The third danger is assuming that abolishing a tax expenditure would raise as much as it notionally costs.

In many cases it won’t, because people will change their behaviour and look for tax breaks elsewhere.

Even where this is not the case, abolishing two tax expenditures together might raise much less than the cost of the two added together. How? Removing one tax expenditure can mean less money for the other expenditure to give away.

The best example of this is in superannuation. If the $23.3 billion tax discount on super contributions was abolished, there would be less super in the funds to apply the discount on earnings. The earnings discount would be less than quoted.

The total of the tax expenditures set out in the statement exceeds $250 billion. Previous statements have warned about adding them together. This one does not.

Expenditures compared to what?

Each tax expenditure needs to be calculated against a benchmark – a standard tax rate that would otherwise be imposed. It isn’t always clear what the benchmark should be.

For income tax, it is assumed to be the standard set of income tax rates. But they may not be the right rates to apply to the taxation of income from savings.

A respectable case can be made for a dual-income tax system, with a progressive income-tax scale (as now) alongside a flat 10% rate on earnings from savings.

Read more:
Yes, some millionaires pay no tax, but crimping deductions mightn’t help

The 2017 tax expenditure statement took this idea up and produced an alternative estimate of superannuation tax expenditures using a different benchmark. The cost of the superannuation tax expenditures fell 80%!

One more thing. The use of trusts to avoid taxes isn’t really captured in the tax expenditures statement, in part because it is hard to work out how much tax minimisation takes place through trusts.

Often we do not know who the ultimate owners are. Loans made within trusts are not well-documented or regulated. Nor are property transfers and usage. There’s a case for a Trusts Investment and Insights Statement.

So bravo for the new Tax Expenditure (and Insights) Statement. And bravo for the new information on distributions. But please, use with care.

Robert Breunig 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. Tax breaks cost a reported $250 billion, but handle these new figures with care – https://theconversation.com/tax-breaks-cost-a-reported-250-billion-but-handle-these-new-figures-with-care-200819

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

If you were being really cynical, you might say the government should have hacked into those stage 3 tax cuts, while leaving super alone. That would have received much the same political angst, but saved a heap more revenue.

If we shed the cloak of cynicism, where has this week’s “tweak” of one of the superannuation tax breaks left policy and politics?

As a policy change, the government’s decision is well-based but has been poorly executed. It is fair – people with very large balances certainly don’t need the level of taxpayer generosity they receive. It is also a (very modest) move to address the budget challenge.

But the haste in announcing it – the government had little choice because the debate was becoming a firestorm – meant details are still being worked out, for example for people in defined benefit schemes.

So the government hasn’t been able to say how those politicians, including the prime minister, who are entitled to very large amounts (under now-scrapped arrangements) would be affected.

Nor is there official modelling on how many people in future years will be drawn into the higher super tax rate, given the $3 million threshold is not indexed.

In superannuation, the detail matters, although Treasurer Jim Chalmers would argue there are always points to be nailed down with such changes.

It’s premature to say confidently how the politics of this decision will fall out. Many people will see it as reasonable and/or not affecting them. Others will be nervous it could be the first step in changes that might hit their own retirement nest eggs. Some will condemn it as a “broken promise”, because Anthony Albanese said before the election he intended to make no changes.

Albanese is sensitive about promises. Hence he plans to legislate the change but not have it take effect until after the 2025 election.

That makes it an issue in the next campaign, just as the legislated stage 3 tax plan was one for the last.

Peter Dutton has already loaded himself with a promise to repeal the measure. Just as Albanese loaded himself with a promise to keep stage 3.

Much has been said recently about the evils of “rule-in-rule-out” politics and journalism, and indeed this brand of formulaic questioning often makes for vacuous campaign news conferences.

Read more:
Word from The Hill: Chalmers learns hard lesson in ‘rule-in-rule-out’ game

On the other hand, it is not clear how it can be avoided. If we want to know what a party intends to do on superannuation, surely journalists have to ask its plans and try to get some precision about what is, and is not, on the table.

And on other issues too. If the Voice referendum is carried, do we not want a question asking Dutton to rule out making big changes to the implementation legislation that would probably have already passed parliament?

The alternative is for election campaigns to avoid specific undertakings, with parties running on broad intentions. Such as: “The taxation system/superannuation arrangements are unsatisfactory – we will examine them and decide in office what needs to be done.”

That approach would have many advantages, but it is hard to see any leader being in a strong enough position to risk it.

It’s understandable Chalmers wants to avoid the rule-in-rule-out trap, but on Wednesday he took his aversion to extremes when he refused to rule out a capital gains tax on the family home. Some things have to be killed instantly (as Albanese did) or a non-story blows into a damaging one.

The super issue has raised speculation about relations between Chalmers and Albanese. The evidence suggests these are developing along familiar lines.

Treasurers (John Howard, Paul Keating, Peter Costello, Scott Morrison) want to expand boundaries. Their prime ministers at times apply the brakes, as Albanese did last year to Chalmers’ desire to alter the stage 3 tax cuts.

More interesting than how the Chalmers-Albanese relationship is now – Chalmers pushes back against a report of tension – is how it will develop. Often the ambitious treasurer becomes increasingly impatient with the leader.

One factor that might encourage Chalmers’ patience is that he is 15 years younger than Albanese (Chalmers is 45, Albanese is 60 – they both had birthdays on Thursday). But treasurers come to worry about a government’s time running out.

Read more:
Albanese government to hike tax on earnings from big super balances – but not until 2025-26

The super row is a gift for the opposition – especially for next week in parliament. Nevertheless, it is risky for Dutton.

Apart from being on what many experts see as the wrong side of the policy debate, Dutton won’t know for a while whether he is on the wrong side of the political argument, seen as just standing up for the rich.

Polling will provide some indication, but the byelection in the Liberal seat of Aston will be the sharper test for Dutton. Given how hard the Liberals will campaign on super, he needs to obtain a substantial swing (not just to retain the seat by a whisker).

Arguably, the super decision would have been easier for the government to handle if it had been part of the May budget, placed in a wider context with more of its details finalised.

Now it is out there, it raises questions about its implications for that budget. Will the government be more cautious as a result of this fight?

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: Defining superannuation’s ‘objective’ should leave room for debate about its use for housing

The government has a dilemma. This is the budget in which to do difficult things (although we do know there won’t be further changes to super tax breaks). But even with solid electoral standing and a weak opposition, political capital quickly erodes. Tony Abbott had plenty of capital in the bank after the 2013 election, did tough things in the 2014 Hockey budget (involving some broken promises) and never recovered.

Context is important too. The budget is being put together as the economy is deteriorating and rising interest rates are putting more people under financial stress.

Whether Chalmers and the PM will be in accord about just where to pitch the budget will emerge over the next few weeks. The reception to that budget will colour how the Albanese government is judged on its first anniversary, later in May.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Trimming the tail of the superannuation tax tiger is no easy task – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-trimming-the-tail-of-the-superannuation-tax-tiger-is-no-easy-task-200996

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ritesh Shah, Senior Lecturer in Education, University of Auckland

With the war in Ukraine now in its second year, nearly a third of the country’s population has been displaced, including 8 million people who have sought refuge beyond its borders.

International support for the plight of these refugees has been heartening. Nearly 4.5 million Ukrainians having been granted temporary protection status across the European Union (EU).

But we also need to ask: how does this response compare to the countless other humanitarian crises around the world right now?

Last year, the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) reported there were ten “forgotten crises” in the world, all in Africa. The suffering of people in these countries or regions rarely makes international headlines. And there is seemingly little political interest or will from the international community to address the situation.

Furthermore, the war in Ukraine has redirected humanitarian assistance and resources away from these other crises. While children in Ukraine have been supported, millions of young people in countries like Sudan and Yemen have lost access to vital food aid. They are now at heightened risk of malnutrition and starvation.

NRC Secretary-General Jan Egeland put it like this:

The war in Ukraine has demonstrated the immense gap between what is possible when the international community rallies behind a crisis, and the daily reality for millions of people suffering in silence [from crises] that the world has chosen to ignore. [This is] not only unjust […] but comes with a tremendous cost.

A recent report from Save the Children compared the EU’s response to Ukrainians seeking temporary protection and asylum to those from elsewhere. Syrian refugees, for example, described being detained in inhumane or substandard conditions until their asylum claims were considered.

They certainly weren’t granted the temporary protection status afforded Ukrainian refugees. The report called this “dysfunctional at best and cruel at worst”, part of a policy designed to “contain those who arrived and deter others from coming”.

Us and them

As Oxford University researcher Hugo Slim has argued, humanitarian principles are “ethically simplistic and routinely fall victim to bias”. Decisions on allocations of humanitarian funding are increasingly politicised and driven by the interests of the “powerful West”.

This was particularly apparent in 2016, when the EU committed €6 billion to supporting Turkey’s response to the Syrian crisis, in return for Turkey stopping irregular migration of those refugees into Europe. Why the open-door policy to Ukrainian refugees as opposed to a containment approach for others?

Read more:
Why has New Zealand welcomed Ukrainians fleeing war and not others trying to do the same?

Some argue it is because of the economic and geopolitical implications of Russia’s invasion, not only for Europe, but the entire world. But the idea that some crises have bigger implications for the West than for others (and hence “we” should respond differently) signals an inability to impartially identify and address the most acute needs.

For example, only months after starting construction of a steel wall along its border with Belarus to keep out asylum seekers from the Middle East and Africa, Poland opened its borders to Ukrainian refugees. There have also been numerous accounts of people of colour fleeing Ukraine but being turned around at the border by Polish nationalists or border officials.

Media reporting has sometimes played into such prejudice, referring to Ukrainian refugees as “civilised” and “so much like us”.

White saviour complex

As has been argued elsewhere, the global humanitarian apparatus is underpinned by often unspoken racial distinctions and hierarchies based on notions of expertise and competency. The majority of those in high-paid, decision-making positions are from developed nations and mostly white. Field workers tend to come from the developing world and are often brown or black.

The Nigerian-American writer Teju Cole has called this the “white-saviour industrial complex”, not unlike the attitudes of missionaries and early colonisers. The American-Iranian scholar Reza Aslan defined this as the “all-too-familiar pattern of white people of privilege seeking personal catharsis by attempting to liberate, rescue or otherwise uplift underprivileged people of colour.”

Read more:
Ukraine: survey shows British people, and especially Tory voters, feel very differently about some refugees than others

Cynical perhaps, but most humanitarian organisations make very little mention of race. The “commitments to action” from the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit are notably silent on the topic. Humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality, which erase race as a concern and shut off dissent, perpetuate “global white ignorance”, as philosopher Charles Mills labels it.

Perhaps we should not be surprised. Acknowledging structural racism within humanitarianism would require ceding power and authority to those who have been marginalised.

Read more:
Ukraine refugee crisis exposes racism and contradictions in the definition of human

What can be done?

The first step towards changing this would be an acknowledgement by the UN, other agencies, media and politicians that racial and cultural bias within humanitarian structures exists. Much greater care needs to be taken with the language used to describe and depict those living through crises.

Practically, there needs to be a greater representation, in all decision making within large humanitarian organisations, of voices and perspectives from the Global South, especially those directly affected by crisis.

Humanitarian aid would also need to be depoliticised. Money should be channelled through pooled funds like the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund, which directly responds to the most acute and underfunded humanitarian needs globally.

These are not quick fixes. But to do nothing will leave millions largely invisible. As one Palestinian refugee described their feelings to me recently: “The entire world has forgotten about us and has left us to fight our struggles alone.”

Ritesh Shah 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. Race and erasure: why the world’s other humanitarian crises don’t see the same response as Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/race-and-erasure-why-the-worlds-other-humanitarian-crises-dont-see-the-same-response-as-ukraine-200987

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cathy Hope, Associate Professor, Faculty of Arts and Design; Coordinator, Play, Creativity and Wellbeing Project, Centre for Creative and Cultural Research, University of Canberra

Why don’t grown ups play like us kids do? Annie, aged 7, Canberra

Hi Annie, this is such a clever question.

What led you to ask this? Did you notice this at a playground, where kids seem to do all the playing – the climbing, swinging and sliding, while grown-ups just hang around, pushing swings or texting on their phones?

In fact most grown-ups don’t play in playgrounds, which is weird because playgrounds are so much fun.

Read more:
Curious Kids: why do people get old?

Play is so important, but why?

Most kids are experts at play. This is because play is one of the best ways to learn about yourself and the world around you.

Play helps you move better, think better, imagine, solve problems and play with others.

This leads back to your great question. If play is so good for us and so fun, why don’t grown-ups play like kids?

There are lots of answers, but I will share two of the big ones.

Read more:
Curious Kids: if our bodies are happy at 37℃, why do we feel so unhappy when it’s too hot outside?

Grown-ups have a lot to take care of

First, grown-ups have to pay for lots of things, like food, transport and somewhere to live. This means they have to go to work to earn money. And if they have kids, they have to look after them.

So grown-up life can be stressful and busy. And one thing about play is they have to feel like playing to have fun. If grown-ups are tired or have too much serious stuff on their minds, it makes it hard to feel like playing.

Yet, grown-ups need to play too, and for many of the same reasons as kids. But grown-ups also need to play to let go of stress and worry.

Read more:
Curious Kids: Why do tears come out of our eyes when we cry?

Grown-ups play too

So – and this is the second answer to your awesome question – adults have found grown-up ways to play. This gets them moving, thinking and problem solving, while also hanging out with others.

Once they can no longer squeeze onto the slide or swing at the park, grown-ups may take up a hobby like sewing or skydiving. They might also like playing games with friends, like sport or board games. They can even play with their friends online with a computer or phone.

In fact, grown-ups like playing so much they have games and parties where they dress up and play with lots of other grown-ups. Older grown-ups also have their own playgrounds.

So the answer to your question is adults don’t always play like kids do because they can be busy and have lots of other things to do. But they do actually play, even if that’s sometimes in a different way.

Keep playing and being curious Annie.

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

Cathy Hope has received research funding from government and industry to identify community aspirations for play and playful spaces, and to design and deliver playful activations in public spaces.

– ref. Curious Kids: why don’t grown-ups play like kids? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-dont-grown-ups-play-like-kids-199176

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ran Porat, Affiliate Researcher, The Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, Monash University

Israel is facing one of the most serious crises in its history. And it could be the biggest test yet for Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, just months after he resurrected his political career by returning to the prime minister’s office.

Netanyahu, the country’s longest-serving prime minister, had been ousted from power in 2021, but launched a political comeback last year and scraped together enough support to form a coalition government following November elections. The coalition is made up of Netanyahu’s center-right Likud party, along with a group of far-right and ultra-orthodox religious parties.

It is considered the most right-wing government in Israel’s history. Moreover, these politicians are highly motivated to use their time in power to make swift and dramatic changes within Israel and to its policy on the Palestinians.

Initially, Netanyahu successfully rebranded himself as the “responsible adult” who would keep the radicals in his government in check. But his government is now exacerbating deep divisions in Israeli society and threatening the very essence of Israel as a liberal democracy.

At the same time, the conflict with the Palestinians may be heading towards an eruption.

Stripping the judiciary of power

One of the main issues driving public anger is the government’s proposed overhaul of the judicial system.

At the heart of this plan is a recalibration of the power balance between the judiciary (with the Supreme Court as its flagship) and the executive and legislature.

Key aspects of the reform include:

• giving politicians almost complete power over the selection process for judges

• dramatically reducing judicial review powers over laws and administrative decisions

• allowing the Knesset (parliament) to overrule court decisions with a simple majority

• turning the attorney-general and other government legal advisers into powerless consultants.

A massive backlash erupted immediately. For weeks now, hundreds of thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets to protest against what they view as a constitutional revolution that would diminish Israel’s democracy.

Absent a basic document protecting human rights (Israel has no written Constitution), the Supreme Court is considered by many as the last bastion protecting the civil rights of citizens (and non-citizens, including Palestinians) against government actions and laws.

In addition, Netanyahu’s rivals see the proposed reforms as a tool the prime minister is using to try to undermine his upcoming corruption trial on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust.

Read more:
Israel enters a dangerous period – public protests swell over Netanyahu’s plan to limit the power of the Israeli Supreme Court

The domestic crisis is hurting Israel’s economy. The Israeli shekel is weakening as investors and leading high-tech entrepreneurs pull their funds out of Israel, fearing a compromised court system and rule of law.

Top US officials have expressed deep reservations about the scope and speed of the reform proposals.

Meanwhile, a divided, demoralised opposition has been reinvigorated by the huge wave of protests. Calls for civil disobedience and clashes with the police have been met with stark warnings from both sides, urging the government to compromise before public anger leads to more serious unrest.

Protesters and the police clashed this week on what the demonstrators called a “day of disruption”. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, leader of the far-right, extremist Jewish Power Party, has told police there should be “zero tolerance towards anarchists”.

Violence in the West Bank

In the West Bank, increasing lawlessness is causing explosive instability and terror.

On the Palestinian side, the weak and corrupt Palestinian Authority is increasingly unable to govern, especially in the northern Shomron area, from Jenin to Nablus.

The vacuum is being filled by armed local militant groups (such as the notorious “Lion’s den”) backed by the Gaza-based militant organisations Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

These groups and other militants are supported by the local population, fuelled by hateful incitement against Jews, especially on social media, and by Palestinian Authority payments to prisoners and families of “martyrs” that critics say reward attacks on Israelis.

Facing a rise in terror attacks and the failure of the Palestinian Authority to stop it, the Israeli army has been increasingly entering West Bank cities itself.

The tally is gloomy for both sides – 30 Israelis and 146 Palestinians (most of them militants, according to the army) died in terror attacks, military raids and clashes between the sides in 2022. Two months into 2023, more than 60 Palestinians and 14 Israelis have lost their lives.

On the Israeli side, a small number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank are increasingly wreaking havoc.

The ideologically charged “hilltop youth” – a fringe group of violent vigilantes among the estimated 700,000 total settlers – are attacking Palestinians, vandalising Palestinian property and destroying crops.

These rampages have been going on for years, but Israel has not made a serious attempt to stop them.

The violence has surged again in recent days in response to the killings of three Israelis by Palestinian gunmen. Right-wing politicians stood idly by and some even cheered on the violent vigilantes.

Illegal outposts in the West Bank are often, though not always, retroactively approved by right-wing governments. And the current tensions have certainly been exacerbated by the current government, with the hilltop youth potentially feeling more emboldened by its ideological makeup.

Can Netanyahu return Israel to stability?

Despair and anger are rife, yet compromise looks like a non-starter on both fronts.

Setting the tone are Ben Gvir and his ally, Treasurer Bezalel Smotrich. Both advocate for tougher measures against the anti-reform protesters and Palestinian militants, including the passage of a new bill that would allow courts to impose the death penalty for terror attacks against Israeli citizens.

Netanyahu is currently facing his most serious leadership challenge ever. It is unclear if he is able, or even willing, to find a way to return Israel to the stability that was once a hallmark of his previous terms in office.

After another day of protests, he tried to appeal for calm this week, calling on Israelis to “stop the violence.” But even this was met with outrage from his opponents, after he of drew parallels between the protest movement and settler violence.

At this stage, Netanyahu is committed to keeping his government alive more than standing up to Ben Gvir or Smotrich. However, the peaking violence in recent days may finally be starting to bring new initiatives to reach a compromise within the government.

Israeli democracy is strong, but this is a big test for its vitality.

Read more:
Israel’s new hard-line government has made headlines – the bigger demographic changes that caused it, not so much

Ran Porat is a Research Associate for the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) and receives funding from this organisation.

– ref. Israel is facing twin existential crises – what is Benjamin Netanyahu doing to solve them? – https://theconversation.com/israel-is-facing-twin-existential-crises-what-is-benjamin-netanyahu-doing-to-solve-them-200820

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eleanor K. Sansom, Research Associate, Curtin University

What would we do if we spotted a hazardous asteroid on a collision course with Earth? Could we deflect it safely to prevent the impact?

Last year, NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission tried to find out whether a “kinetic impactor” could do the job: smashing a 600kg spacecraft the size of a fridge into an asteroid the size of an Aussie Rules football field.

Early results from this first real-world test of our potential planetary defence systems looked promising. However, it’s only now that the first scientific results are being published: five papers in Nature have recreated the impact, and analysed how it changed the asteroid’s momentum and orbit, while two studies investigate the debris knocked off by the impact.

The conclusion: “kinetic impactor technology is a viable technique to potentially defend Earth if necessary”.

Small asteroids could be dangerous, but hard to spot

Our Solar System is full of debris, left over from the early days of planet formation. Today, some 31,360 asteroids are known to loiter around Earth’s neighbourhood.

Although we have tabs on most of the big, kilometre-sized ones that could wipe out humanity if they hit Earth, most of the smaller ones go undetected.

Just over ten years ago, an 18-metre asteroid exploded in our atmosphere over Chelyabinsk, Russia. The shockwave smashed thousands of windows, wreaking havoc and injuring some 1,500 people.

A 150-metre asteroid like Dimorphos wouldn’t wipe out civilisation, but it could cause mass casualties and regional devastation. However, these smaller space rocks are harder to find: we think we have only spotted around 40% of them so far.

The DART mission

Suppose we did spy an asteroid of this scale on a collision course with Earth. Could we nudge it in a different direction, steering it away from disaster?

Hitting an asteroid with enough force to change its orbit is theoretically possible, but can it actually be done? That’s what the DART mission set out to determine.

Specifically, it tested the “kinetic impactor” technique, which is a fancy way of saying “hitting the asteroid with a fast-moving object”.

Read more:
NASA’s asteroid deflection mission was more successful than expected. An expert explains how

The asteroid Dimorphos was a perfect target. It was in orbit around its larger cousin, Didymos, in a loop that took just under 12 hours to complete.

The impact from the DART spacecraft was designed to slightly change this orbit, slowing it down just a little so that the loop would shrink, shaving an estimated seven minutes off its round trip.

A self-steering spacecraft

For DART to show the kinetic impactor technique is a possible tool for planetary defence, it needed to demonstrate two things:

• that its navigation system could autonomously manoeuvre and target an asteroid during a high-speed encounter

• that such an impact could change the asteroid’s orbit.

In the words of Cristina Thomas of Northern Arizona University and colleagues, who analysed the changes to Dimorphos’ orbit as a result of the impact, “DART has successfully done both”.

Read more:
An asteroid impact could wipe out an entire city – a space security expert explains NASA’s plans to prevent a potential catastrophe

The DART spacecraft steered itself into the path of Dimorphos with a new system called Small-body Manoeuvring Autonomous Real Time Navigation (SMART Nav), which used the onboard camera to get into a position for maximum impact.

More advanced versions of this system could enable future missions to choose their own landing sites on distant asteroids where we can’t image the rubble-pile terrain well from Earth. This would save the trouble of a scouting trip first!

Dimorphos itself was one such asteroid before DART. A team led by Terik Daly of Johns Hopkins University has used high-resolution images from the mission to make a detailed shape model. This gives a better estimate of its mass, improving our understanding of how these types of asteroids will react to impacts.

Dangerous debris

The impact itself produced an incredible plume of material. Jian-Yang Li of the Planetary Science Institute and colleagues have described in detail how the ejected material was kicked up by the impact and streamed out into a 1,500km tail of debris that could be seen for almost a month.

Streams of material from comets are well known and documented. They are mainly dust and ice, and are seen as harmless meteor showers if they cross paths with Earth.

Asteroids are made of rockier, stronger stuff, so their streams could pose a greater hazard if we encounter them. Recording a real example of the creation and evolution of debris trails in the wake of an asteroid is very exciting. Identifying and monitoring such asteroid streams is a key objective of planetary defence efforts such as the Desert Fireball Network we operate from Curtin University.

Read more:
Where do meteorites come from? We tracked hundreds of fireballs streaking through the sky to find out

A bigger than expected result

So how much did the impact change Dimorphous’ orbit? By much more than the expected amount. Rather than changing by seven minutes, it had become 33 minutes shorter!

This larger-than-expected result shows the change in Dimorphos’ orbit was not just from the impact of the DART spacecraft. The larger part of the change was due to a recoil effect from all the ejected material flying off into space, which Ariel Graykowski of the SETI Institute and colleagues estimated as between 0.3% and 0.5% of the asteroid’s total mass.

A first success

The success of NASA’s DART mission is the first demonstration of our ability to protect Earth from the threat of hazardous asteroids.

At this stage, we still need quite a bit of warning to use this kinetic impactor technique. The earlier we intervene in an asteroid’s orbit, the smaller the change we need to make to push it away from hitting Earth. (To see how it all works, you can have a play with NASA’s NEO Deflection app.)

But should we? This is a question that will need answering if we ever do have to redirect a hazardous asteroid. In changing the orbit, we’d have to be sure we weren’t going to push it in a direction that would hit us in future too.

Read more:
How satellites, radar and drones are tracking meteorites and aiding Earth’s asteroid defence

However, we are getting better at detecting asteroids before they reach us. We have seen two in the past few months alone: 2022WJ1, which impacted over Canada in November, and Sar2667, which came in over France in February.

We can expect to detect a lot more in future, with the opening of the Vera Rubin Observatory in Chile at the end of this year.

Eleanor K. Sansom receives funding from the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research while the Desert Fireball Network receives institutional support through the Space Science and Technology Centre at Curtin University and the Australian Research Council as part of the Australian Discovery Project scheme (DP230100301).

– ref. New results from NASA’s DART planetary defence mission confirm we could deflect deadly asteroids – https://theconversation.com/new-results-from-nasas-dart-planetary-defence-mission-confirm-we-could-deflect-deadly-asteroids-200835

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam "Ben" Rohrlach, Mathematics Lecturer and Archaeogeneticist, University of Adelaide

Hunter-gatherers took shelter from the ice age in Southwestern Europe, but were replaced on the Italian Peninsula according to two new studies, published in Nature and Nature Ecology & Evolution today.

Modern humans first began to spread across Eurasia approximately 45,000 years ago, arriving from the near east. Previous research claimed these people disappeared when massive ice sheets covered much of Europe around 25,000–19,000 years ago. By comparing the DNA of various ancient humans, we show this was not the case for all hunter-gatherer groups.

Our new results show the hunter-gatherers of Central and Southern Europe did disappear during the last ice age. However, their cousins in what is now France and Spain survived, leaving genetic traces still visible in the DNA of Western European peoples nearly 30,000 years later.

Two studies with one intertwining story

In our first study in Nature, we analysed the genomes – the complete set of DNA a person carries – of 356 prehistoric hunter-gatherers. In fact, our study compared every available ancient hunter-gatherer genome.

In our second study in Nature Ecology & Evolution, we analysed the oldest hunter-gatherer genome recovered from the southern tip of Spain, belonging to someone who lived approximately 23,000 years ago. We also analysed three early farmers who lived roughly 6,000 years ago in southern Spain. This allowed us to fill an important sampling gap for this region.

By combining results from these two studies, we can now describe the most complete story of human history in Europe to date. This story includes migration events, human retreat from the effects of the ice age, long-lasting genetic lineages and lost populations.

Post-ice-age genetic replacement

Between 32,000 and 24,000 years ago, hunter-gatherer individuals (associated with what’s known as Gravettian culture) were widespread across the European continent. This critical time period ends at the Last Glacial Maximum. This was the coldest period of the last ice age in Europe, and took place 24,000 to 19,000 years ago.

Our data show that populations from Southwestern Europe (today’s France and Iberia), and Central and Southern Europe (today’s Italy and Czechia), were not closely genetically related. These two distinct groups were instead linked by similar weapons and art.

We could see that Central and Southern European Gravettian populations left no genetic signal after the Last Glacial Maximum – in other words, they simply disappeared. The individuals associated with a later culture (known as the Epigravettian) were not descendants of the Gravettian. According to one of my Nature co-authors, He Yu, they were

genetically distinct from the area’s previous inhabitants. Presumably, these people came from the Balkans, arrived first in northern Italy around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, and spread all the way south to Sicily.

In Central and Southern Europe, our data indicate people associated with the Epigravettian populations of the Italian peninsula later spread across Europe. This occurred approximately 14,000 years ago, following the end of the ice age.

Climate refuge

While the Gravettian populations of Central and Southern Europe disappeared, the fate of the Southwestern populations was not the same.

We detected the genetic profile of Southwestern Gravettian populations again and again for the next 20,000 years in Western Europe. We saw this first in their direct descendants (known as Solutrean and Magdalenian cultures). These were the people who took refuge and flourished in Southwestern Europe during the ice age. Once the ice age ended, the Magdalenians spread northeastward, back into Europe.

Remarkably, the 23,000-year-old remains of a Solutrean individual from Cueva de Malalmuerzo in Spain allowed us to make a direct link to the first modern humans that settled Europe. We could connect them to a 35,000-year-old individual from Belgium, and then to hunter-gatherers who lived in Western Europe long after the Last Glacial Maximum.

Sea levels during the ice age were lower, making it only 13 kilometres from the tip of Spain to Northern Africa. However, we observed no genetic links between individuals in southern Spain and northern Morocco from 14,000 years ago. This showed that while European populations retreated south during the ice age, they surprisingly stopped before reaching Northern Africa.

Our results show the special role the Iberian peninsula played as a safe haven for humans during the ice age. The genetic legacy of hunter-gatherers would survive in the region after more than 30,000 years, unlike their distant relatives further east.

Post ice-age interaction

Some 2,000 years after the end of the ice age, there were again two genetically distinct hunter-gatherer groups. There was the “old” group in Western and Central Europe, and the “more recent” group in Eastern Europe.

These groups showed no evidence of genetic exchange with southwestern hunter-gatherer populations for approximately 6,000 years, until roughly 8,000 years ago.

At this time, agriculture and a sedentary lifestyle had begun to spread with new peoples from Anatolia into Europe, forcing hunter-gatherers to retreat to the northern fringes of Europe.

Adam “Ben” Rohrlach was a postdoctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology until January 2023, and still holds an affiliation there.

– ref. We thought the first hunter-gatherers in Europe went missing during the last ice age. Now, ancient DNA analysis says otherwise – https://theconversation.com/we-thought-the-first-hunter-gatherers-in-europe-went-missing-during-the-last-ice-age-now-ancient-dna-analysis-says-otherwise-200899

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Ware, Associate Professor in International & Community Development, Deakin University

Nearly one million stateless Rohingya people who fled brutal ethnic cleansing in Myanmar have been languishing in extremely congested refugee camps in Bangladesh for the past five and a half years.

While the United States recently announced a resettlement program for Rohingya refugees and the UK resettled around 300 Rohingya from the camps prior to 2020 under a now-defunct scheme, this hasn’t caused even a dent in the number of people living in the world’s largest refugee camp.

No other countries have accepted refugee applications from the camps, but the Bangladeshi Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen has expressed optimism that a good number of Rohingya may eventually be resettled by the US and others.

Since 2008, Australia has granted visas to just 470 Rohingya under its special humanitarian program – a very small number considering the extreme need.

All of these refugees were accepted into the program from Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries in the region. This creates a perverse incentive for Rohingya from the Bangladesh camps to get on rickety boats and make the dangerous sea journey to those countries.

UN figures show a more than 360% surge in the number of Rohingya who boarded boats to try to get to Malaysia and Indonesia last year, with 3,500 making the journey, compared to just 700 in 2021.

In early February, Momen called on Australia to do more to resettle the Rohingya stranded in his country.

Australia is relatively more resourceful, so I think it’s high time Australia come forward and resettle some more of those distressed people. […] Australia has the capacity, it has the resources — there’s only a need for a political mindset.

According to our new research, there is public support for this to happen. In surveys conducted last year, a majority of Australians and New Zealanders said they have positive views about the Rohingya and support the resettlement of more Rohingya refugees in their countries.

Increasingly dire conditions

The UN high commissioner for human rights has called the violence the Rohingya suffered at the hands of the Myanmar military a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing”. And a major UN investigation confirmed the mass killings and rapes were committed with “genocidal intent”.

There is clearly no hope of the Rohingya returning to their homes for the foreseeable future. A military coup in Myanmar two years ago brought to power the very army that perpetrated the crimes against the Rohingya.

Read more:
Explainer: why the UN has found Myanmar’s military committed genocide against the Rohingya

And they have a very limited future in Bangladesh, where the authorities have recently been restricting their livelihoods, movement and access to education.

A UN humanitarian appeal to support the Rohingya refugees received only half the funding required in 2022, leaving many needs unmet and Bangladesh to shoulder much of the burden.

The situation became so dire last November, the UN Central Emergency Response Fund had to release US$9 million (A$13.4 million) in emergency funding just to make sure the refugees had enough food, water and sanitation items.

So, in the absence of a repatriation plan, can the world be persuaded to accept more refugees?

What our research found

Our research shows a majority of the public would support this in Australia and New Zealand.

We recently reviewed data from a large-scale online survey as part of the Sinophone Borderlands project investigating global attitudes towards China and other issues. The survey collected responses from over 1,200 people in 56 different countries between 2020 and 2022 – more than 80,000 altogether. Several questions asked about the Rohingya people specifically.

When asked how positively or negatively respondents felt about the Rohingya people on a scale of zero to 100, the average Australian response was 53.6, while in New Zealand it was 60.8.

There was minimal variation by gender or when comparing urban versus rural, but we saw more positive responses among those who were educated, younger and satisfied with their country’s political situation and/or their own economic wellbeing.

When asked specifically about their level of support for the resettlement of displaced Rohingya in their country, responses were actually more positive.

Asked to represent their support on a scale of one (definitely no) to seven (definitely yes), the average (mean) response in Australia was 4.20 and in New Zealand it was 4.54. Again, there was minimal variation by gender, but more highly educated respondents were more positive.

Interestingly, we didn’t notice much variation when it came to political party, either. Unsurprisingly, those on the left responded with higher levels of support for Rohingya resettlement in both countries. However, the average level of support was still more positive than negative for voters of all main parties.

What Australia and New Zealand are doing

Australia’s response to the Rohingya crisis has been to provide humanitarian aid, but it has resisted calls to resettle any of the Rohingya from the camps.

When we contacted the Home Affairs department about this, a spokesperson responded by saying the government is “committed to generous and flexible humanitarian and settlement programs that meets Australia’s international protection obligations”.

The UNHCR and the international community continue to work on creating conditions for a safe return of Rohingya people to Myanmar. Australia’s response continues to focus on humanitarian aid to Bangladesh and Myanmar.

Any persons, including Rohingya, who believe they meet the requirements for a humanitarian visa and wish to seek Australia’s assistance can make an application.

Indeed, Australia has been generous in its humanitarian response to the Rohingya. It was the second-largest country donor in 2022, giving about $A20.4 million (plus another $A16.7 million from private donors in Australia).

New Zealand’s response has been largely the same, committing about NZ$1 million (A$918,000) last year, but offering no refugee resettlement places specifically from the camps.

Our research suggests there is solid support for policy changes in both Australia and New Zealand, including among even conservative voters in both countries.

On the basis of this data, we strongly urge the Australian and New Zealand governments to reconsider their refugee intake policies and create a special Rohingya category to resettle refugees from Bangladesh.

Read more:
Generous aid to Ukraine is diverting resources away from other refugee crises around the world

Kristina Kironska’s research was supported by the European Regional Development Fund – Project “Sinophone Borderlands – Interaction at the Edges” CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000791. Besides the Palacky University Olomouc she is affiliated with the Central European Institute of Asian Studies (CEIAS) and with Amnesty International Slovakia.

Anthony Ware 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. Amid a worsening refugee crisis, public support is high in both Australia and NZ to accept more Rohingya – https://theconversation.com/amid-a-worsening-refugee-crisis-public-support-is-high-in-both-australia-and-nz-to-accept-more-rohingya-199504

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniella McCahey, Assistant Professor of History, Texas Tech University

When the Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition ended on March 2, 1958, it marked what many called the last great adventure possible on Earth: an overland crossing of the Antarctic continent.

Sixty-five years later, it’s remembered in New Zealand chiefly for Sir Edmund Hillary’s unplanned and controversial “dash” to the South Pole in a convoy of modified Massey Ferguson tractors.

But as a historian of Antarctic science, I believe the expedition tells us about more than just Kiwi ingenuity and attitude. It was also about national competition and prestige, disputed sovereignty, and competing versions of masculinity.

Perhaps most significantly, an exercise designed to showcase Commonwealth unity ended up demonstrating the opposite. And it helped cement New Zealand’s independent relationship with Antarctica, specifically the Ross Dependency and Scott Base, as quite separate from its ties to Britain.

Science and nationalism

The expedition’s origins go back to 1953, when Vivian Fuchs, a geologist with the Falkland Islands Dependency Survey, began circulating a proposal for the Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition (TAE). This would be the first overland crossing of the frozen continent.

Although Fuchs later stressed the scientific potential of his plan – which he said took initial shape as he sheltered from a blizzard, huddled in a tent on Antarctica’s Stonington Island – the proposal also had geopolitical motivations.

Read more:
200 years of exploring Antarctica – the world’s coldest, most forbidding and most peaceful continent

At the time, the United Kingdom’s claims in Antarctica were under increasing threat from Argentina and Chile. Even the American expedition to the Weddell Sea in 1947-48 did not acknowledge British sovereignty. In Fuchs’ words:

A trans-continental journey made wholly within territory claimed by the British Commonwealth […] would gain prestige and at the same time contribute to the solidarity of Commonwealth interests.

Fuchs tied the Trans-Antarctic Expedition to the scientific programme of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957-1958. This was an international collaborative scientific project that focused on gathering new observations on the oceans, weather systems, outer space and the poles.

Even though the expedition remained officially separate, it could be seen as supporting the IGY’s wide-ranging scientific research efforts. While Fuchs soon won the support of many in the Commonwealth polar and scientific communities, some derided what appeared to be a geopolitical exercise using the supposedly apolitical, science-focused IGY.

The Hillary factor

For Fuchs to succeed in journeying from the Weddell Sea to the Ross Sea via the South Pole, his plan – like that of Ernest Shackleton’s ill-fated attempt 40 years earlier – depended on a supporting party from New Zealand.

Led by Edmund Hillary, an international celebrity since his 1953 ascent of Mt Everest, this party would lay depots of food and fuel to support the second part of Fuchs’ journey, from the South Pole to the Ross Sea.

Read more:
The wreck of Endurance is a bridge to a bygone age, and a reminder of Antarctica’s uncertain future

Hillary’s expedition, intended to be largely privately funded, initially lacked widespread support from New Zealanders, many of whom believed their government should cover the entire cost.

But the Ross Sea Committee, which organised the expedition, worked to imbue the public with a sense that their country had a stake in the Antarctic territory they claimed: the New Zealand Antarctic Expedition, as it was often called domestically, would be a triumph for their nation.

At the head of a major public relations campaign, Hillary’s attachment to the expedition was a big factor in growing support for the expedition. In the end, New Zealanders donated more to the TAE per capita than the British public did. Nonetheless, the New Zealand government still had to heavily subsidise the enterprise.

To the Pole by tractor

The newly established Scott Base was intended to serve the interests of both New Zealand’s IGY and TAE parties, and was placed under Hillary’s command. In fact, it was Hillary who selected, in a last-minute change, the base’s location on Ross Island, as it was more convenient for the TAE’s priority of travelling over the Polar Plateau.

This was to the chagrin of many scientists in both parties, including the IGY scientific leader Trevor Hatherton, who decried the site’s poor conditions for geologic, geomagnetic and seismic research.

Read more:
Fighting boredom with banjos and Russian grammar – tips from polar explorers for surviving months of isolation

Hillary began his depot-laying journey on October 14, 1957. To reduce costs and reflect New Zealand’s agricultural strengths, he travelled with three TE20 Massey Ferguson tractors, modified with a full tracking system for use in the snowy conditions. His team made good time and established Depot 700, the last one scheduled, in late December.

In the meantime, Fuchs’ team had encountered rough conditions and crossed the continent much more slowly than expected. Deviating from the expedition’s initial plans and disobeying orders from the Ross Sea Committee, Hillary continued to the South Pole and arrived at the US Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station on January 3, 1958, becoming the first to make this journey using overland vehicles.

Between 1992 and 2015, an image of a modified Massey Ferguson tractor graced the New Zealand $5 note, commemorating the achievement.

End of empire

Shortly after his arrival at the Pole, Hillary sent a message to Fuchs suggesting he abandon his plans for completing a crossing, given the difficult conditions. This telegram was accidentally released to the New Zealand press.

By the time Fuchs arrived at the Pole on January 19, a media firestorm had exploded. The expedition was now characterised as a “race to the Pole” by two national parties headed by the “adventurer” Hillary and the “scientist” Fuchs. Like the first race to the Pole between Roald Amundsen and Robert Falcon Scott in 1911-12, this one was framed as yet another loss by Britain.

Read more:
Finding Shackleton’s ship: why our fascination with Antarctica endures

The remainder of the expedition was an exercise in damage control, with the organising committees in New Zealand and the UK stressing there was indeed only one expedition, and there had been no race to the Pole. Fuchs’ party arrived, rather anticlimactically, at Scott Base on March 2, 1958, completing the historic 3,473 kilometre journey.

Yet the drama was still not over. Three years after Fuchs and Hillary’s official account of the expedition was published, Hillary published his own tell-all version which played up the masculinity and daring of the New Zealand party in opposition to the British.

What had begun as a show of Commonwealth unity with Britain at the head became an international incident, reinforcing perceptions of a fracturing British Empire. Hillary’s dash to the Pole was far more memorable than the actual crossing.

Moreover, it marked the beginning of modern New Zealand’s close identification with Antarctica and its own Scott Base, and the end of old colonial hierarchies on the ice. Indeed, by the end of the Trans-Antarctic Expedition, New Zealand’s biggest partner in Antarctic science was not the United Kingdom, but the United States.

Daniella McCahey has received funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand and the National Science Foundation

– ref. Empires of ice: how Edmund Hillary’s Antarctic adventure 65 years ago helped loosen NZ’s colonial ties to Britain – https://theconversation.com/empires-of-ice-how-edmund-hillarys-antarctic-adventure-65-years-ago-helped-loosen-nzs-colonial-ties-to-britain-199597

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathryn Shine, Associate professor, Curtin University

Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust, and betraying them without remorse.

So begins Janet Malcolm’s renowned book, The Journalist and the Murderer. It was written more than 30 years ago, yet this negative notion has endured.

Journalists are still frequently condemned for how they interact with the people they interview. Indeed, with the advent of televised press conferences, journalists are facing more scrutiny and criticism than ever about their interviewing techniques.

It’s a perception that’s rarely challenged, even by journalists. But our new research suggests giving news interviews is generally a positive experience.

What we found

With colleagues from the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at ANU, we surveyed 220 Australian adults who had given news interviews or who have the potential to do so.

Some were subject experts. Others were spokespeople for organisations or communities. We asked them about their willingness to speak to the news media and what may influence that decision. We also asked open-ended questions about what makes for a positive or negative interview.

More than 80% of participants reported their overall experience of giving news interviews was positive. Only 6% reported an overall negative experience. A female university expert said

I’ve had a really positive experience with news media, which is not something I would have expected as someone who is actually quite shy and introverted.

And a male community spokesperson said

99% of my media experiences have been very positive and rewarding.

While most people also reported some issues such as rude journalists or rushed interviews, these tended to be the exception rather than the norm.

There’s little research about the attitudes of “sources” or “talents” who are approached by journalists to provide news interviews. Most of it has focused on people who frequently engage with the media, such as politicians.

The limited other research that considers subject experts and “ordinary people” who engage with the news media aligns with our findings. Even though they may have found inaccuracies in the reporting, the sources considered the overall experience to be positive and beneficial.

Read more:
Albanese wants to change the way politics is done. This means the way politics is reported will have to change too

Women are just as willing

When I interviewed 30 female academics about their attitudes towards engaging with the media a few years ago, 90% described their overall experience as positive. All but one said they were willing to give news interviews.

This finding was replicated in our new research. More than 80% of people surveyed were willing to give news interviews. Women were just as willing as men.

This is significant because numerous studies from around the world have found news coverage is dominated by the voices of men. Around 75% of people quoted, heard or seen in the news are men, according to research by the Global Media Monitoring Project.

Some argue this is because women are less willing to do media interviews. Our research refutes this argument, but it does highlight some notable gender differences in experiences and attitudes.

Women reported significantly lower confidence than men. Only 5% were “very confident”, compared to 20% of men. Women were more likely to refuse an interview request due to concerns about their appearance, a perceived lack of expertise, and fear of online harassment.

Concerns about online harassment were legitimate, with 38% of participants saying they had experienced trolling in response to giving a media interview. Men and women were both targeted, but women were more likely to receive sexist abuse.

Generally a valuable experience

Despite these issues and reservations, the participants were generally willing to speak to the media, which makes sense – people usually welcome the opportunity to talk about their area of expertise or share their experience. Inclusion in the news signals credibility and authority. Yes, there are risks to speaking out, but there are significant benefits too.

And there are certain ways journalists can approach a prospective source and carry out interviews to make them feel more comfortable and confident. Our research outlines some of these strategies and techniques, based on feedback from our participants. For example, when you approach a source for an interview:

• be clear about what you are seeking from the source and why you want to speak to them

• demonstrate that you’ve done your research

• provide a quick run-through of what to expect

• be courteous and flexible regarding timing

• and provide a few questions beforehand.

Read more:
Is it ever okay for journalists to lie to get a story?

I’m looking forward to sharing these findings with my journalism students, who tend to believe that asking someone to give an interview is always a major imposition. This research is good news for established journalists too, who rarely get direct feedback about the interview experience.

But perhaps more importantly, it’s encouraging for people who engage with the media or have the potential to do so. The way journalists interact with politicians (who, they would argue, typically avoid answering questions) during press conferences is not reflective of the usual interview experience.

It might be intimidating to speak to the news media but our research suggests it’s generally a good and valuable experience.

Kathryn Shine 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. Interviews with journalists can seem daunting – but new research shows 80% of subjects report a positive experience – https://theconversation.com/interviews-with-journalists-can-seem-daunting-but-new-research-shows-80-of-subjects-report-a-positive-experience-200821

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Singh, Research fellow, University of South Australia

The world is currently grappling with a mental health crisis, with millions of people reporting depression, anxiety, and other mental health conditions. According to recent estimates, nearly half of all Australians will experience a mental health disorder at some point in their lifetime.

Mental health disorders come at great cost to both the individual and society, with depression and anxiety being among the leading causes of health-related disease burden. The COVID pandemic is exacerbating the situation, with a significant rise in rates of psychological distress affecting one third of people.

While traditional treatments such as therapy and medication can be effective, our new research highlights the importance of exercise in managing these conditions.

Our recent study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine reviewed more than 1,000 research trials examining the effects of physical activity on depression, anxiety, and psychological distress. It showed exercise is an effective way to treat mental health issues – and can be even more effective than medication or counselling.

Read more:
Considering going off antidepressants? Here’s what to think about first

Harder, faster, stronger

We reviewed 97 review papers, which involved 1,039 trials and 128,119 participants. We found doing 150 minutes each week of various types of physical activity (such as brisk walking, lifting weights and yoga) significantly reduces depression, anxiety, and psychological distress, compared to usual care (such as medications).

The largest improvements (as self-reported by the participants) were seen in people with depression, HIV, kidney disease, in pregnant and postpartum women, and in healthy individuals, though clear benefits were seen for all populations.

We found the higher the intensity of exercise, the more beneficial it is. For example, walking at a brisk pace, instead of walking at usual pace. And exercising for six to 12 weeks has the greatest benefits, rather than shorter periods. Longer-term exercise is important for maintaining mental health improvements.

Read more:
When it’s easier to get meds than therapy: how poverty makes it hard to escape mental illness

How much more effective?

When comparing the size of the benefits of exercise to other common treatments for mental health conditions from previous systematic reviews, our findings suggest exercise is around 1.5 times more effective than either medication or cognitive behaviour therapy.

Furthermore, exercise has additional benefits compared to medications, such as reduced cost, fewer side effects and offering bonus gains for physical health, such as healthier body weight, improved cardiovascular and bone health, and cognitive benefits.

Why it works

Exercise is believed to impact mental health through multiple pathways, and with short and long-term effects. Immediately after exercise, endorphins and dopamine are released in the brain.

In the short term, this helps boost mood and buffer stress. Long term, the release of neurotransmitters in response to exercise promotes changes in the brain that help with mood and cognition, decrease inflammation, and boost immune function, which all influence our brain function and mental health.

Regular exercise can lead to improved sleep, which plays a critical role in depression and anxiety. It also has psychological benefits, such as increased self-esteem and a sense of accomplishment, all of which are beneficial for people struggling with depression.

Read more:
Let’s dance! How dance classes can lift your mood and help boost your social life

Not such an ‘alternative’ treatment

The findings underscore the crucial role of exercise for managing depression, anxiety and psychological distress.

Some clinical guidelines already acknowledge the role of exercise – for example, the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Guidelines, suggest medication, psychotherapy and lifestyle changes such as exercise.

However, other leading bodies, such as the American Psychological Association Clinical Practice Guidelines, emphasise medication and psychotherapy alone, and list exercise as an “alternative” treatment – in the same category as treatments such as acupuncture.
While the label “alternative” can mean many things when it comes to treatment, it tends to suggest it sits outside conventional medicine, or does not have a clear evidence base. Neither of these things are true in the case of exercise for mental health.

Even in Australia, medication and psychotherapy tend to be more commonly prescribed than exercise. This may be because exercise is hard to prescribe and monitor in clinical settings. And patients may be resistant because they feel low in energy or motivation.

Read more:
Netflix psychiatrist Phil Stutz says 85% of early therapy gains are down to lifestyle changes. Is he right?

But don’t ‘go it alone’

It is important to note that while exercise can be an effective tool for managing mental health conditions, people with a mental health condition should work with a health professional to develop a comprehensive treatment plan – rather than going it alone with a new exercise regime.

A treatment plan may include a combination of lifestyle approaches, such as exercising regularly, eating a balanced diet, and socialising, alongside treatments such as psychotherapy and medication.

But exercise shouldn’t be viewed as a “nice to have” option. It is a powerful and accessible tool for managing mental health conditions – and the best part is, it’s free and comes with plenty of additional health benefits.

Ben Singh receives funding from the International Society of Behaviour Nutrition and Physical Activity.

Carol Maher receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the National Heart Foundation, the SA Department for Education, the SA Department for Innovation and Skills, Healthway, Hunter New England Local Health District, the Central Adelaide Local Health Network, and LeapForward.

Jacinta Brinsley 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. Exercise is even more effective than counselling or medication for depression. But how much do you need? – https://theconversation.com/exercise-is-even-more-effective-than-counselling-or-medication-for-depression-but-how-much-do-you-need-200717

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Murray Shearer, Professor of Hydrogen and Alternative Energy, CQUniversity Australia

Think about oil and gas companies and climate change and chances are you’ll think dark thoughts. It’s true Exxon Mobil had remarkably detailed knowledge of global warming in the 1970s. Some seeded doubt by funding climate denier organisations and scientists and invented greenwashing. The current energy crisis has handed them windfall profits. In fact, BP hit profits of A$40 billion last year, while scaling back its green ambitions.

But these companies are not just going to disappear. Even after we stop burning oil in engines, we will need oil and gas as raw materials for plastics, glues, solvents, industrial chemicals and fertilisers. Eventually, we’ll find greener alternatives. But that will take decades.

Are they the enemy? They’ve certainly done a lot to slow down the shift to clean energy. But this will – and is – changing. Inside some of these companies, people know change will have to come. The companies which embrace their role as broader energy and chemical companies will make the transition first.

We’ll also need their expertise and ability to handle uncertainty, risk and large projects to make green hydrogen and green chemicals a reality.

Oil and gas over coal?

If you’ve been following climate change discussion, you’ll have noticed plans to phase out coal crop up a lot more often than plans to phase out oil and gas.

That’s because – for now – we’re much more reliant on these hydrocarbons. Firmed solar and wind can now take up the slack as ageing coal plants retire. But we’re still a way off being able to avoid burning oil or gas for transport or in industrial processes.

That means these companies will be with us for decades yet. But over time, they will think of themselves less as fossil fuel extractors and more as energy and chemical conglomerates, where oil and gas is a smaller part of what they do.

You’re right to be sceptical. But there are legitimate signs of change.

Shell just bought into a green hydrogen megaproject in Oman, for instance, where it will be the lead operator. Late last year, BP bought a controlling stake in Australia’s largest renewable project, the Asian Renewable Energy Hub. If built in its entirety, this project would generate the equivalent of a third of Australia’s 2020 electricity production.

Oil and gas majors are well placed to make green hydrogen and green chemicals

Hydrogen is tricky. The lightest element can diffuse through many materials and escape. That makes storage and transport difficult.

But oil and gas companies are experienced in handling hydrogen. That’s because it’s widely used in oil refineries to scrub sulphur out of oil and to help crack heavy oil into lighter grades. In fact, it’s so useful that most of the world’s hydrogen is used in oil production. At present, hydrogen is usually made by breaking up natural gas, which means it contributes to global heating.

But if we can figure out how to cheaply extract hydrogen from seawater, this green hydrogen could sub in for fossil gas. For this to happen, we’ll need oil and gas majors on board. The realities of green hydrogen would be daunting for most companies. Pipelines to transport it. Ways of storing it. Tankers to ship it across the sea. Heavy engineering projects with a high capital expenditure.

Oil and gas companies have had to pioneer a great deal of new technology to keep the fuel coming, given how much oil and gas has already been tapped, shipped and burned. Take fracking, which was invented out of necessity. Or the ability to drill for oil underneath kilometres of seawater in places like the North Sea.

To have a chance of getting to net zero by 2050, we’ll need scale. If green hydrogen or ammonia is to actually be useful, we need lots of it.

How could oil and gas companies reinvent themselves?

Not all oil companies are the same. Some will keep drilling for oil as long as there is demand. And state-owned oil companies such as Saudi Arabia’s Aramco are the main source of their country’s wealth. It’s hard to see them changing.

But some will move to grasp the future. Many people inside these companies can see very clearly where the world is going – and the risk of going extinct if they do not reinvent themselves. The first movers are likely to benefit the most, if they use their advantages to help the transition.

At present, oil and gas companies make money by drilling, processing and selling oil and gas to burn in engines. But as the clean energy transition gathers pace, there will be new opportunities.

If one major oil company figures out how to do green hydrogen at scale, they could take advantage of their integrated corporate network, from production to transport to service stations or other consumer points. Others might move into synthetic aviation fuel, or specialise in swapping LNG tankers for hydrogen vessels.

Even after you displace dirty fuels from transport and power sectors, there are many areas left over, such as chemical manufacturing.

Without fertilisers, we would have much lower yields from our farms. It’s estimated the equivalent of half the world’s population relies on food made possible by synthetic fertilisers. These come from natural (fossil) gas.

Similarly, paints, varnishes, glues and plastics currently need hydrocarbons as a feedstock. To replace these means changing the whole chain.

Oil and gas don’t exist in a vacuum

Just last week, the European Union hit the symbolic target of EU€100 (A$157) per tonne of carbon.

As carbon prices rise, it makes fossil fuel projects less attractive – and will make the economics of many marginal projects in renewables, green chemicals and hydrogen work.

You and I and most people alive have benefited from the intense energy stored in fossil fuels. They’ve underpinned the huge advances in our economies and technologies for over a century. But now the costs are plain. So let’s use all the tools we have available – even those wielded by climate villains like oil and gas companies.

Murray Shearer spent 20 years at BP, working in both hydrogen projects and oil

– ref. Oil and gas companies are seen as climate villains. Truth is, we’ll need their expertise to make green hydrogen a reality – https://theconversation.com/oil-and-gas-companies-are-seen-as-climate-villains-truth-is-well-need-their-expertise-to-make-green-hydrogen-a-reality-188598